From: "mjames_laurel" Subject: Re: [AML] BYU Children's Writing Conference Date: 31 Jul 2000 19:58:31 -0600 > 2) What things did gail Carson Levine say about a writer improving > * Keep your eye on the ball. Keep your eye on the overall concept of the > book at all times. > * Exercise writing in detail-write a scene just focusing on detail. > * Listen to others and become sensitive to what works and what doesn't. Take > advice. > *Trust yourself. > *Interview characters on paper. Do a character description. What is in > their room? What's in their pockets? I found this very interesting. I did not hear Gail Carson Levine, but I was curious what she would say. I've never met her, and haven't even read much of her work (had a dreadful time getting through Ella Enchanted), but I am always curious about her since she and I have the same editor. A lot of what you've noted here sounds so much like what the editor says. But sometimes her constant prodding for more detail makes me crazy, since I like to write in a very spare manner. When I get in one of those moods, though, I find myself trying to balance "Take Advice" and "Trust Yourself" very carefully. Thanks for your summary. Laurel S. Brady - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Payne Family" Subject: [AML] Aquabats (was: Eric D. Snider and Pokemon) Date: 31 Jul 2000 22:05:07 -0600 I think I can confirm that many of the Aquabats (its a big band) are LDS. I had a student who followed them around on tour, and knows their names, favorite desserts, shoe sizes, guitar string brand preferences, etc. -Sam Payne - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeff.needle@general.com Subject: [AML] HOLZAPFEL & SHUPE, _My Servant Brigham_ (Review) Date: 31 Jul 2000 18:54:00 -0700 Review ====== Richard Neitzel Holzapfel & R.Q. Shupe, "My Servant Brigham - Portrait of a Prophet" 1997, Bookcraft Hardback, 155 p. + index, $19.95 Review by Jeffrey Needle "My Servant Brigham" is a very brief look at the life of the second President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is presented in two parts -- an initial, theme-based look at the life of a very complex man, followed by a cradle to grave look at his life and service. The book contains a wealth of rare photographs and drawings from the period. The authors want us to see Brigham as the people of his day saw him. Reproductions of editorial cartoons and newspaper stories provide a rich look at Brigham's contemporaries. Here's a scene that I would have loved to witness: Brigham's power to move people through his sermons is discovered in comments found in hundreds of diaries. For the collective body of the Saints, many situations demonstrate Brigham's ability to rally the people. One such time was in October 1856 when news arrived of the late-starting handcart companies' troubles. After listening to Brigham, Lucy Meserve Smith recalled: "Just at the session of our October Conference, news came where [the] hand card companies were. President Young and others were so excited and anxious for fear those companies would be caught in the snow in the mountains, they would not go on with Conference. The President called for men, teams, clothing and provisions, and they were soon on the way to meet the companies with President Young himself till he got into the Canyon. There he took sick and was obliged to turn back. The sisters stripped off their petticoats, stockings, and everything they could spare, right there in the Tabernacle and piled into the wagons to send to the Saints in the mountains..." (p. 25-26) Throughout this small book, the reader can gain a nice view of everyday life for the Prophet. His energy and zeal for the cause were remarkable. And in the end, even his detractors had to admit that he shouldered an enormous burden in his quest for the building of the kingdom. The authors are careful to maintain a balance between the expected laudatory comments, and the sometimes-spicy criticisms of the contemporary press and others. All in all, it makes for a lovely read, and a very good introduction to Young's interesting life. I continue, however, to balk at the high price of such a book. Twenty dollars seems a bit steep for such a small book. However, it is currently remaindered at Deseret Book, and will make a nice addition to your library. ... Jeff Needle/jeff.needle@general.com ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 31 Jul 2000 22:31:32 -0700 > Anime is not everyone's cup of tea, but there's much to be appreciated (and defended), and I think it's far from the universal evil Eric suggests. Read it again. I didn't say ALL anime was evil. I said ALL anime was badly animated (a blanket statement, sure, but sometimes we have to do that in satire), and that "Pokemon," specifically, was evil. I have no opinions as to the evilness of other forms of anime besides "Pokemon." Eric D. Snider -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News: San Jose CA Date: 31 Jul 2000 22:44:17 EDT Mercury News (AP) 30Jul00 A2 [From Mormon-News] "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Covenant Communications reports that its book "Between Husband and Wife: Gospel Perspectives on Marital Intimacy" is flying off the shelves, and even breifly beat out LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley's book "Standing for Something," at Church-owned Deseret Book stores. Covenant has had to go back to press twice, and has a total of 46,000 copies in print, just four months after the book was introduced. The book is unique because it addresses intimacy without the elements that sometimes turn-off a conservative audience. Author Dr. Stephen Lamb, a Salt Lake City gynecologist, says, "In the past, when I had patients with problems and they said, 'Where should I turn?' I would suggest the local bookstore. But for those with fairly conservative values, as most Latter-day Saints have, those kinds of texts are often offensive. Where does one draw the line between a sex manual and pornography?" The book was written by BYU professor Douglas E. Brinley and Lamb and covers physical intimacy in a frank, upfront way. The book contains no pictures, but does clear-up issues of sex by confronting sexual intimacy act for act. Both authors have written on the topic before, Brinley, who is a professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU, has recorded talk tapes on the subject, including "after the Honeymoon ... and Forever" and "Marital Relationships Seminar." Lamb has authored a book on sexual purity and is a popular speaker on the subject. Now the sales have attracted the attention of the Associated Press' Hannah Wolfson, and the story about the book has appeared in newspapers nationwide. The AP article tells about LDS Church member Krystal Pease and her husband who had success using the book to resolve most of the problems they faced in their marriage. "We were able to resolve about 90 percent of problems we were having in about a month's period," Pease said. "In fact the counselor we were seeing saw our progress and told us we didn't need any more help. Then he bought a copy of the book." Source: Mormon sex issues explored San Jose CA Mercury News (AP) 30Jul00 A2 http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/mormons30.htm By Hannah Wolfson: Associated Press Marital-intimacy book flying off shelves around the West See also: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1577346092/mormonnews More about "Between Husband and Wife: Gospel Perspectives on Marital Intimacy" at Amazon.com >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Cowbows and Angels_ (Free Screening) Date: 01 Aug 2000 01:37:01 -0600 Pup7777@aol.com wrote: > For the passed two years my husband has been producing the film COWBOYS AND > ANGELS. He's trying to get it into the movie theaters. Right now he's at > the point he needs fresh critical eyes on the movie. He's putting on a free > screening of the film Monday July 31st at 7:00 Dakota 380 W Suite 200 S in > Salt Lake City. We would love to see anyone who is interested and can make > it on Monday night. Would love to have been there if I'd received more than a few hours notice. As it is, I read this hours after the event happened. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com [MOD: Apologies for this. Due to family and work responsibilities, I chose not to run AML-List on Saturday, and didn't get to the List messages until nearly midday on Monday. Something to keep in mind if you send in messages that are time-sensitive is that (a) turnaround is sometimes longer than at other times, and (b) even if you include a "time-sensitive" or "priority" comment in your subject line, I won't see it, because when the messages come into my in-box, they don't show the original subject lines.] ================================== 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography (was: DUTCHER, _God's Army_) Date: 01 Aug 2000 08:59:33 -0600 Rex wrote: > As restrictions have > relaxed over the years, and we find now that what used to be an R-rated > movie is now a PG-13 Case in point: "The Nutty Professor: The Klumps." We thought it was a kid flick and took the kids last night. We didn't walk out but I wish we had. Total sleaze, absolutely disrespectful in every way. I hope nobody falls into the same trap and goes to see it, with or without kids. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] MN Pillar of Fire Brings Book of Mormon to Life: Covenant=20Communications Press Release Date: 01 Aug 2000 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT) I wonder if people are going to be as righteously indignant about this particular "epic series based on The Book of Mormon" as they were of O. S. Card's Homecoming series. Methinks probably not. What's the difference? Because Card had the effrontery to take the general themes and put them into a science fiction context (blasphemy!) Whereas this book purports to be "as historically accurate as possible." It has gotten me thinking about truth. Does it lie in setting and plot? Or themes? I don't think of Card's work as scripture, but I felt it was an interesting experiment with true themes enmeshed in a good story. Thus it did not offend me at all. Many people thought he was "stealing ideas from the Book of Mormon and then profitting thereby." Will they think the same of this new work? Or will they excuse it because it uses the same setting and some of the same plot as the Book of Mormon (thus it is less "sneaky")? Or do they believe that because of the setting and plot it is more True and thus more praiseworthy? Personally, I hope that Woolley has simply written a darn good yarn that happens to take place during the same historical period as the Book of Mormon--and that people will recognize it as such. What I fear, though, is that people will believe it to be Truth (with a capital T) and revere it as if it were scripture (as many have revered that other series that this one has been compared to, "The Work and the Glory"). ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography Date: 01 Aug 2000 13:48:57 EDT Cathy, I think you have every right to feel cheated. I was walking through my living room the other day and some show like a "The Making of 'The Nutty Professor 2 - The Klumps'" was showing. What I heard Eddie Murphy say as I passed by was that it was a family show, something you could take your kids to. That didn't jive much with the previews I saw and I figured it was par for the course. What a Hollywood star like Mr. Murphy thinks is acceptable family fare only shows that he is out of touch with what responsible parents want their children to see. The man is undeniably talented, but his talent and success tends to insulate too much from the mainstream of American life. One wonders, though, if maybe he's not smarter than I give him credit for. At one time, I believed that these celebrities, writers, and producers actually know what the rest of us think of as "family entertainment" but are determined to disabuse of our antiquated notions and bring us forward into the impending 21st century. Part of me still holds them in suspicion for such cultural engineering. If getting us to lower our standards is their aim, they're doing a great job. On the other hand, perhaps we only have ourselves to blame. As a matter of responsibility, I believe the latter. Rex Goode ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Meredith Subject: Re: [AML] SALINGER, _Catcher_ Date: 01 Aug 2000 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT) When I moved into Deseret Towers as a > freshman and caught sight of "F & Z" on my unknown > room-mate's bookshelf I knew she would be a kindred > spirit. And she was. But isn't that sort of the point? Don't we all seek those in complicity to our reading tastes? It allows some understanding of how another views the world by which books he/she has read and loved. -a short-hand knowledege of another's perspective. It is why we can sometimes take it very personally when someone, whose opinion is respected, feels a certain work or an author's entire oeuvre is hogwash. We are somewhat legitimized by the authors we read and revere. However, not every personally enjoyable book adds to the great conversation. And yet, I suspect that certain people tend to tote around some pretty esoteric if not pretentious lists of "favorites" to either be veiwed as or to view themselves as something other than what they truly are. -Kathleen Meredith - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: [AML] Righteous Indignation (was: MN Pillar of Fire...) Date: 01 Aug 2000 14:48:09 EDT Darlene writes: << I wonder if people are going to be as righteously indignant about this particular "epic series based on The Book of Mormon" as they were of O. S. Card's Homecoming series. Methinks probably not. What's the difference? Because Card had the effrontery to take the general themes and put them into a science fiction context (blasphemy!) Whereas this book purports to be "as historically accurate as possible." >> These questions and the human behavior they reveal always fascinate me, and I look forward to hearing opinions following up Darlene's well-stated question. I think people who want to be offended will accept just about any offer to be offended. Here's a current experience of my own, which hinges on a literary device: I'm reading a paper this weekend (no, not at Sunstone but at the Western History Association conference, if that matters) centered on the polygamy-related experiences of a figure in Mormon history. Although this man became a noisy apostate who condemned the doctrine and practice of plural marriage, he remained tender and sympathetic toward plural wives, especially those who had to make their way as lone women or single mothers following the Manifesto. He frequently refers to them as "Mormon Hagars" cast out into the wilderness, depending upon the protection of heaven for their survival because their husbands will no longer care for them. I asked several readers to comment because I was concerned about the ending. (I mean only to recognize that if modern polygamy is stamped out, there are living women who will face the same consequences as Mormon women after the Manifesto; I do NOT mean to condone modern polygamy -- due to the brevity of the paper, I'm concerned about just where my sympathy appears to lie.) Most of the comments were very helpful, but I got an earful from one woman who took great offense to the Hagar metaphore. She quoted scripture to me to show that Hagar was unrighteous, that she had to be cast out to preserve the birthright to the proper son, that she deserved all she had coming to her, yada yada yada. In short, it was a gross insult to Mormon women to be labeled "Hagars". Never mind what my subject felt about Hagar or about castoff Mormon wives, never mind what most people will bring to mind when they hear the name Hagar, never mind my concerns about whether I appeared to support modern-day polygamy. All that mattered was that Hagar was unrighteous. (Well, that and the fact that my subject apostatized, which means that I should show no sympathy for him or his views in any way for fear of apostatizing myself.) You can't always win. I hope my paper goes over better at AHA than it did with this particular reader! Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography (was: DUTCHER, _God's Army_) Date: 01 Aug 2000 13:13:43 -0600 Cathy Wilson wrote: > > Rex wrote: > > > As restrictions have > > relaxed over the years, and we find now that what used to be an R-rated > > movie is now a PG-13 > > Case in point: "The Nutty Professor: The Klumps." We thought it was a kid > flick and took the kids last night. How could you have come to that conclusion if you'd seen the previews? It is obviously a vulgar, sex- and fart-based comedy. I have not seen the movie and, though I like the first Nutty Professor, I have no desire to see the sequel. You prove the point I've made ad nauseum on this forum. Ignore the ratings. They mean nothing. Instead, read reviews and watch the previews. Your mental health depends on it. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography Date: 01 Aug 2000 13:23:27 -0600 Rex Goode wrote: > > If getting us to lower our standards is their aim, they're doing a great > job. On the other hand, perhaps we only have ourselves to blame. As a matter > of responsibility, I believe the latter. Truer words were never spoken. For instance, I have seen the reviews for the Klumps and wild horses cannot drag me there. I would be fascinated in a "Making of..." kind of thing because I think Eddy Murphy has done some incredible cinematic magic with this film. But that's all. Imagine how soon Hollywood would get the message if enough people practiced similarly intelligent movie going techniques: 1. Don't see any movie before you've read at least one review. 2. Read several reviews. 3. If the majority of the reviews say the movie stinks, don't go see it. 4. Even if the reviews say the movie is good, look for things like, "contains nudity, fart jokes," or things like that. 3. Don't attend any movie of which you haven't seen the trailers. Rest assured that the best parts of the film are shown in the trailer. If what you see in the trailers is gross or disgusting or otherwise offensive to you, you can probably bank on the fact that the rest of the movie will probably be in worst taste. 4. Don't go see (nor let your children see) any movie you suspect on its first night. Instead wait a week, and ask people you trust who may've seen it. 5. If, for some reason, you must see the movie, but you know it stinks (like, Batman and Robin forever--which all true fans of the Dark Knight must seen just to round out the series) then wait until it's on video and you won't be out seven bucks. 6. Ask me. Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: [AML] Be a Reporter for AML-List! Date: 01 Aug 2000 12:39:40 -0700 On Wednesday, Aug. 2, (tomorrow!), the annual Sunstone Symposium will be commence in Salt Lake City. Sessions of interest to fans & practitioners of Mormon literature will include discussions of the movie "God's Army", the works of Orson Scott Card, a tribute to Arthur Henry King, and presentations by Levi Peterson, Carol Lynn Pearson, Eugene England, and Phyllis Barber. But I won't be to witness any of these fascinating sessions. I live in California, and I can't get to Salt Lake this week. Every month, the Utah Writers Guild meets in Provo to listen to a different writer or editor, many of whom are connected to LDS literature. I'd like to hear some of those speakers too. But I can't, because I don't live in Utah. Over the past two years, the Association for Mormon Letters has put on fund-raising lectures by folks such as Terry Tempest Williams and Richard Bushman. They've also held annual symposiums with a panoply of fascinating sessions on writing, literature, and the arts. But I've missed all of these, because I don't live in Utah. Some of the rest of you -- Jonathan, Linda, Rex, Andrew, and no doubt many others -- are in the same predicament. There are all these great events going on, but no way for us to attend! Can anything be done about this? Why don't we have AML-List "reporters"? A "reporter" could be anyone on this list who attends an event of interest to others on this list. All they'd have to do is take notes on what happens, and then write up their notes, and post it to the list. Personally, I feel that the more detailed and copious notes that are posted, the better. Your report on the event may be the only record ever made of that event, and might even be of interest to future generations of writers and historians. (Though you probably don't need to save a backup copy on metal plates.) I think such "news-stories" would be just as interesting and informative as the book reviews that are currently done here. Maybe someone could even be appointed by the moderator to coordinate news coverage of LDS literary events. In addition to the events I mentioned earlier, reporters could be sent to the Mormon Studies conferences at Utah Valley State College, the Mormon Arts Festival in St. George, the science fiction conference at BYU, author's readings at local bookstores, lectures by authors at local colleges, etc. What do you think? Who wants to be an AML-List reporter? Can we start with the Sunstone symposium this week? If you're going to attend, can you write up notes for any literary or artistic session you go to, and then post them to the list? What do you think, moderator? Frank Maxwell Gilroy, California [MOD: I like the idea very much--all except the "coordinated by the moderator" part. Please, everyone who's thinking of going to events like these, feel encouraged to report here, as several did on the recent BYU children's writing conference. Multiple reports are okay, too!] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography (was: DUTCHER, _God's Army_) Date: 01 Aug 2000 14:12:52 -0500 > > As restrictions have > > relaxed over the years, and we find now that what used to be an R-rated > > movie is now a PG-13 > >Case in point: "The Nutty Professor: The Klumps." We thought it was a kid >flick and took the kids last night. We didn't walk out but I wish we had. >Total sleaze, absolutely disrespectful in every way. I hope nobody falls >into the same trap and goes to see it, with or without kids. > >Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson A-ha. Obviously you didn't see the first one, either, or you'd never have made this mistake! (We saw the first on video at a relatives' house this summer, and were glad the kids were asleep.) I highly recommend using screenit.com for checking out any movie you may think is questionable. We nearly always check it for PG-13s and frequently PGs. It contains a basic at-a-glance content overview, a *thorough* content review (someone actually goes thru and counts the #of each swear word), and a quality review. It is, in fact, so thorough that if you read through everything listed on the site you may not need to see the movie afterward. But you will know exactly what's in the movie, and it's a good guideline for whether or not you'd want to see it, or take your children. I've found their content evaluations to be highly accurate. I've learned to make no assumptions, especially where the PG-13 rating is concerned. It could mean anything. My oldest child is 10, though, so we're not at the stage where they're begging to see many of these yet. (We still screen most of their PGs, too. Sometimes when we haven't, I've been very disappointed.) I think (to bring this back to the AML discussion) we need to take responsibility for what we're seeing. There are websites such as Screenit that can help, and provide a useful tool. If a person knows they are susceptible to pornography, for instance, then pre-screening a movie for whether it contains nudity and then making the conscious choice to avoid those that do, can only help that person avoid the temptation. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com Writing Page: http://members.xoom.com/adamszoo Little Ones Lost: http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo My new book, _Prodigal Journey,_ is now available online! Go to: http://deseretbook.com/products/4066899/index.html - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 01 Aug 2000 14:49:00 -0600 Out again for a week (this DOGGONE foot!), but back, with a response for = Jason, going back and forth, probably agreeing more than not. >This is what I meant by calling the realm of the ideal "divine"-->that = Plato privileges it over all others, and that it is characterized >by an = eternal, spiritual nature as opposed to a mortal, material >one. When = Plato names the divine as the source of art, I don't >think that's his = reason for calling it suspect. I think most of the >time he feels art is = NOT divine in origin--THAT=20 >is why it is suspect. He simply argues for the potential of art to be=20 >divinely inspired--and I think that he would say that when it IS so=20 >inspired, it is good, but that it is rarely so, therefore suspect. Well, maybe . . . but that's not what he says. He really does suggest = that divinely inspired knowledge--the knowledge of poets--is inferior to = the knowledge of philosophers, because artists can't articulate where = their knowledge came from, and philosophers can. At any rate, I consider = it a meaningless distinction. I think both creative writers and philosophi= c writers draw, in their work, from so many sources--divine, personal, = cultural--that to figure out where any particular sentence came from is = hopeless. =20 At the same time, I would say that, in my experience, philosophy is = inherently suspect. I say this as someone who majored in philosophy in = college, and as a pretty voracious reader of philosophy. And there's = surely some value in the works of any philosopher. But the genius of = Derrida has been to point out the ways in which all philosophic systems = deconstruct, implode, contradict themselves in all sorts of amazing ways. = (And the weakness of Derrida is his retreat into blind alleys, his = essential nihilism.) And I can't think of any philosopher who's works = aren't an amazing melange of extraordinary insight and astonishing = silliness. (This includes Levinas, in my opinion, particularly Levinas on = the arts.) I adore Kierkegaard--but his nifty division of all people = into three categories--Aesthetic, Ethical, Religious-- is simply prepostero= us. (Human beings are far more complex than that). I love Sartre, but = find his dismissal of God far too glib. I can't think of a major philosophe= r who I don't enjoy reading, and I can't think of one whose ideas I would = fit into the realm of Knowledge, upper-case K. =20 Good literature, however, is pretty much always True, upper-case T. It's = true, because it's a single testimony, a description, and so the specific = cultural milieu from which literature arises simultanously sloughs off. I = have never been captured by a sexually voracious witch with magical = powers--but I know Odysseus. I have never seen the ghost of my father = tell me my uncle killed him--but I know Hamlet. And the lessons of = Odysseus are lessons about loneliness and exile and longing for home. And = the lessons of Hamlet are about irresolution and procrastination and the = hollow emptiness of uncertainty. =20 Literature describes mortality, unmistakably and truly. Philosophy seeks = to encompass the mortal experience, fit it into a system. And it's = therefore inherently untrue. =20 >I agree with this: in this mortal life, as I was saying before, art = >provides a way of knowing that philosophy cannot. But I don't >think we = should privilege it over all other ways of knowing.=20 I do, for the reasons described above. >Knowledge is a sacred thing--the one thing we should be after-->and we = should be after it _by any means possible_.=20 Of course. But also warily. >It never ceases to amaze me that artists can be so wary and=20 >disdainful of science and philosophy. The reverse is not true with = >anything approaching the same frequency (in other words, most >scientists = pursue, simultaneously, the study of art or literature or >music, while = very VERY few artists pursue the study of, say, >physics).=20 I don't know that this is true. That is, I have known relatively few = scientists in my life, and they all, without exception, have been art = lovers. But I have known many many artists, and most of them, the vast = majority, have been tremendously interested in both science and philosophy.= I actually read very little fiction. 80% of my reading is in either = philosophy or science. And looking at this amazing century that's just = concluding, I see a remarkable connection between art and science. Most = of the great artists who gathered in Paris and Vienna and London and New = York in the teens and twenties and thirties also hung out with scientists = and read Einstein and Bohr voraciously and incorporated it into their work = (Picasso, for example, is impossible to understand without also understandi= ng relativity), and many of the most influential artists of this century = have also been scientists--August Strindberg comes immediately to mind. = =20 >To me, EVERY way of knowing=20 >ranks "just slightly below and to the right hand of revelation." = >Revelation is the ONLY way of knowing that deserves >privileging. Well, I do disagree here, I think. Epistemologically, I do put art over = philosophy, by a good margin. Science . . . the problem is that physical = science is so far ahead of social science. We know a lot more about how = the universe works than we know about how to get along. Art is far more = valuable than psychology, I would say. =20 I wrote: >>I prefer conjecture to knowledge. I don't think the realms of = knowledge=20 >>are very large at all. Conjecture is what passes for knowledge for most = of=20 >>us most of the time. And as long as we acknowledge that what we think = we=20 >>know we only think we know (conjecture), we're on much safer ground, as = it=20 >>engenders the pleasing sort of humility necessary to salvation. I = know=20 >>precious little, and what I do know is mostly tentative. And that's a = good=20 >>thing. Jason responded: >I'm not sure I agree with this, though perhaps you're not saying >what = you=20 >mean, or meaning what you say. We are commanded to seek >knowledge, to = be=20 >like God (and God relies on knowledge, not conjecture).=20 Well, yes, but we do a pretty poor job of obeying any of God's commandments= , do we not? Especially this one. What we think we know, we cling to, = but good old Plato's cave still rules mortality--we see all things dimly, = and in shadows. >True, the realms of=20 >knowledge may not be large (by that I suppose you mean that >we don't=20 >actually KNOW a whole lot)--but that doesn't mean we should >favor NOT=20 >knowing over knowing.=20 No, but I do think we should favor not knowing over thinking we know. =20 >If you simply mean to suggest that we shouldn't prefer=20 >knowledge to conjecture because it can lead to pride, or >because our=20 >"knowledge" may turn out to be false, etc., then that's fine. I >agree. = But=20 >any true seeker of knowledge will readily abandon a previously >held = "truth"=20 >if a "truer" truth is uncovered. I do agree that we ought to be willing and ready to do this. But we = don't. People are extremely reluctant to abandon even fully disproven = 'truths.' I can't think of many examples in all of human history where = anyone has 'readily abandoned' a 'truth', a paradigm, simply because = better evidence was discovered. =20 >I think the root of the problem here is that you're shifting what >was = meant=20 >by conjecture. You seem to privilege it as a more humble claim >than = the=20 >claim to knowledge--but I would simply call this humility, yet a >claim = to=20 >knowledge nevertheless (i.e. I believe I know this, but recognize >that = I=20 >could be wrong).=20 Well, you're describing what I think of as humility. I think that = abadoning claims to knowledge that turn out to be spurious is a very = difficult thing for most people to do. I think we should generally claim = that what we think we know is in fact conjecture, an opinion. =20 >what I think Plato meant by conjecture is that the claim to=20 >lnowledge is SO unreliable through art as to make it worthless >(i.e. = >=20 >I really have no way of saying that I know this, I'm just guessing). Right. While this is what I think is the problem with philosophy. >One thing to remember is that, in defending the greatness of art >as a = way of=20 >knowing, we are of course defending GOOD art. And good art >(even = according=20 >to Plato) can be divinely inspired, and thus can offer knowledge >far = beyond=20 >and superior to conjecture.=20 Sure. And Good Art is, by my definition, anything I like. And we've come = again full circle. =20 >It is the vast majority of "art" (BAD art) that=20 >Plato mistrusts, and that can offer little more than conjecture. And >in = a=20 >decree similar to the Word of Wisdom (forgive the analogy), Plato = >dismisses=20 >all art because so much of it can be bad in so many ways for so >many = people. While I would say that all art should be embraced, because all art is = good, all art is valuable, all art improves people. There is no such = thing as Bad Art, I would argue. My evidence? Every work of art ever made has had its defenders, people = who say: 'this work of art inspired me, helped me, made me a better = person.' And we cannot, I maintain, discount those testimonies. We = cannot simply declare certain people's genuine experiences with art = invalid. =20 Does art cause people to sin? All art is created by sinnners. All art is = experienced by sinners. Everyone everywhere sins, and everyone everywhere = declares that this or that work of art has helped him or her not sin, as = he or she defines sin. And our criticism of art which we think does lead = to sin (which must be our working definition of 'bad art,' mustn't it), = must include an awareness of the arguments AND ESPECIALLY THE TESTIMONIES = of those who defend it. Which is why I am so wary of morally based = criticism, so concerned about judging improperly. I certainly recognize = that art has a moral function. But to place a judgment about the potential = for sin at the heart of one's criticism seems to me a very dangerous = enterprise, which is, again, why I am so reluctant to embrace Platonic = criticism. >So, again, I'm not sure you should=20 >privilege art so highly over philosophy. Both are indispensible. Well, I disagree. I think philosophy is dispensible. Jason: >> >I think art is the attempt at some form of knowledge, and the >>quest = for=20 >>knowledge is always necessary and valuable; thus art >is necessary = and=20 >>valuable, especially as a right-brained, mythical >alternative to = left-brained analysis. My response: >As long as the quest remains a quest, sure. As long as certainty = continues=20 >to elude us, sure. =20 I would now rephrase this: As long as we recognize that certainty will = probably always elude us. >I don't know what the right brain/left brain stuff has=20 >to do with this (I tend to find those studies pretty suspect). I do = trust=20 >a half-understood, half-remembered myth far more than the most soundly=20 >grounded scientific fact, and infinitely more than the most exquisitely=20= >reasoned syllogism. Jason >Again, this kind of privileging is limiting, in my opinion. Why can't=20 >science or philosophy offer you anything? We're supposed to >learn of = all=20 >things pertaining to the kingdom of God--don't physics, >anthropology,=20 >philosophy, biology, mathematics, as well as aesthetics and art, >pertain = to that kingdom? Absolutely. At a less valuable level than art does. >This is, it occurs to me, very similar to the genre debate. How >can any = of=20 >us privilege one genre over another? None is inherently superior >to=20 >another--each is merely a different way or mode of writing (or >knowing).= =20 >Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I tend to read more of >one genre = than=20 >another because it suits me--I understand it better. But wouldn't I = >be=20 >edified by the study of others? Should I dismiss them or mistrust = >them=20 >because they aren't "my" genre? >No. Nor should we mistrust science and philosophy because >they aren't = art=20 >(or vice versa). We can be edified by them all, in different ways. Not at all the same thing. All the genres belong to the realm of knowing = we call 'art' or 'literature'. And all are, therefore, inherently = superior to philosophy. =20 >According to the D&C, there will=20 >be those who are consigned to a fairly static eternity--they will = >progress only so far, and there remain. This is the Mormon form of = >damnation, and it=20 >exists at every level save the highest degree of the celestial = >kingdom.=20 >Can't we say that, for those who fail to achieve this highest (and = >ideal)=20 >state, they will be in hell, unable to "create"--their only available=20 >expression being to serve and praise God? Sounds like Plato's >poets to = me. Telestial harp players. What a horrifying vision. Far worse than burning = in hell forever,which would at least be varied and sort of interesting. I = have a hard time imagining God being so cruel. But maybe so. >Those who do achieve the highest state will be able to continue >to = create,=20 >but here I think you're shifting the meaning of "art." Yes, we talk >of = the=20 >world and God's creations as His "art"--but this is metaphorical, >no?=20 Not at all. =20 >Isn't=20 >art, _by definition_, an imitation of a reality (and this is not just=20 >Plato's definition)?=20 A 'lie truer than true?' Maybe. Isn't our earth-life an 'imitation' in = precisely the same sense? An artificial testing ground, a space for the = playing out of moral choices?=20 >When I suggested the possibility (and that's all I'm=20 >doing--I'm just speculating here) that art might be unnecessary in >the = next=20 >life, specifically in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, it = >was because I cannot conceive of a need for artistic creation >when = ACTUAL creation is possible.=20 I think artistic creation is actual creation, is it not? >The artist is a god-wannabe; to aspire to art is to=20 >aspire to godhood, to aspire to creation. But no ACTUAL world is = >created, only an artistic (i.e. imitative) one. Not a god-wannabe, a god in miniature. And I don't think any work of art = is un-actual. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography (was: DUTCHER, _God's Army_) Date: 01 Aug 2000 14:57:58 -0700 On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:14:06 Jason Steed questioned Rex Goode's assertion: >> Media just sits there. It is inanimate. Why some people pick >> up certain kinds and consume it is found in the individual, >> not in the media itself. > > Jason questions: > I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think this is just a tad > extreme. You're suggesting a certain stance goes too far in > escaping personal responsibility; but doesn't your stance go a bit > too far in removing responsibility from those who produce the > material in question? One problem with asking rhetorical questions is that they invite a response, even though their purpose is to state the obvious. I've heard that question in many forms and it usually assumes the artist has some purpose or ability to influence people. Indeed, Jason states that assumption as follows: > We don't want to say that the writing of a rape scene > _causes_ rape. But I'm not sure we want to say that it has no effect > whatsoever, either. After all, if we say that, the reverse must be > true-- I often hear this assumption that the moral world is perfectly symmetrical, and almost never hear it challenged, though Flannery O'Connor did point out in _Mystery and Manners_ that Christians who claim that the portrayal of evil has undue ability to influence us are a lot more Manichean than they would care to admit. Manicheans believed God and Satan are equally strong and whoever gets the most followers will win. Oddly enough, the most Manichean genre I know is what one reviewer also called "that most [politically] conservative of genres, the thriller." Thrillers ranging from Walker, Texas Ranger, to some of Lynn Gardner's novels, usually (almost always?) create implacable villains who are so evil that the only recourse against them is to kill them, people with no conscience, no humanity, no ability to be reached by the hero. It occurred to me years ago that while this archetype of the relentless villain is supposed to show us that even though evil is powerful good is more powerful, it actually does the opposite and glorifies evil by making it seem more powerful than it is. Many thrillers follow Dostoievski's lead in creating an amoral villain who acts without conscience, but very few follow the lead further and then show how the conscience he says he does not have or need then destroys him. Instead, the thriller shows the hero destroying the villain with his (usually) arm of flesh. And few thriller heros show the remorse Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone does at using that arm of flesh to kill. Indeed, it haunts Milhone so much that _A is for Alibi_ (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1982) begins and ends with almost the same words: >>>>> My name is Kinsey Milhone. I'm a private investigator, licensed by the state of California. I'm thirty-two years old, twice divorced, no kids. The day before yesterday I killed someone and the fact weighs heavily on my mind. I'm a nice person and I have a lot of friends....Killing someone feels odd to me and I haven't quite sorted it through. I've already given a statement to the police, which I initialed page by page and signed. I filled out a similar report for the office files. The language in both documents is oblique, and neither says quite enough (1). The shooting disturbs me still. It has moved me into the same camp with soldiers and maniacs.... I'll recover, of course. I'll be ready for business again in a week or two, but I'll never be the same. You try to keep your life simple but it never works, and in the end all you have left is yourself (274). <<<<< Surely it is morally and intellectually defensible to say that good is more powerful and attractive than evil (by a 2 to 1 margin if we use the war in heaven as a statistical base :)), and that the moral premises of a work of art are more powerful in attracting people to do good, than the evil it so often portrayed is in encouraging them to sin. Perhaps we could invite ourselves to reconsider the question of an artist's responsibility, so that the question starts from the assumption that good is powerful and attractive rather than from the assumption that people are weak and sinful. I am not denying the latter assumption, but I often wonder how sinners like myself (or unlike myself) could respond to grace and goodness, love and kindness, if we were predisposed toward evil. Surely our criticism and thinking about literature and responsibility could proceed from assumptions about peoples' ability to respond righteously to moral stories, even if those stories are about hideous immoral events, like a man being tortured to death with nails driven though his hands, writsts and feet, and thorns driven through his skull. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography Date: 01 Aug 2000 18:47:09 EDT Thom Duncan wrote: >6. Ask me. Thom, I like your list and your point of view. The ratings really are a hoax. I would also add another rule of thumb: If it's a sequel, double your skepticism. Raise your skepticism by an order of magnitude for each succeeding sequel. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Movie Viewing (was: Pornography) Date: 01 Aug 2000 15:52:16 PDT THOM DUNCAN: >Imagine how soon Hollywood would get the message if enough people >practiced similarly intelligent movie going techniques: > >1. Don't see any movie before you've read at least one review. >2. Read several reviews. >3. If the majority of the reviews say the movie stinks, don't go see it. >4. Even if the reviews say the movie is good, look for things like, >"contains nudity, fart jokes," or things like that. >3. Don't attend any movie of which you haven't seen the trailers. Rest >assured that the best parts of the film are shown in the trailer. If >what you see in the trailers is gross or disgusting or otherwise >offensive to you, you can probably bank on the fact that the rest of the >movie will probably be in worst taste. >4. Don't go see (nor let your children see) any movie you suspect on its >first night. Instead wait a week, and ask people you trust who may've >seen it. >5. If, for some reason, you must see the movie, but you know it stinks >(like, Batman and Robin forever--which all true fans of the Dark Knight >must seen just to round out the series) then wait until it's on video >and you won't be out seven bucks. >6. Ask me. > I couldn't agree more. I have zero sympathy for people who see movies and come out complaining about how "it was so filthy" or "I thought it would be a family film." (Didn't someone think "Nutty Professor II" would be a "family movie," despite its PG-13 rating, which already means it's probably not suitable for members of the "family" under 13?) There are abundant resources to tell us what a movie's content is. www.screenit.com lists everything exhaustively, and most movie reviews at least mention the basic reasons a movie got the rating it has. Most critics also mention, within the review itself, if a film uses "gross-out" humor, or another other "noteworthy" style. The Daily Herald recently received a complaint from a woman who was appalled at "Scary Movie" because it was so offensive and crass. I thought, "Gee, and all the reviews said it was highbrow and intelligent, as though Kenneth Branagh had produced it!" EVERY review in the country said it was gross. Many said it was funny; many said it wasn't. But whatever critics thought of the film's artistic merit, they ALL said it was crass. Many even said it should have been rated NC-17. Somehow this woman saw only The Daily Herald's B-grade review of the film, yet missed the rather lengthy list of all the offensive things in it, plus the three references in the review itself to the offensiveness. I'm convinced people go see "offensive" R-rated movies just so they can practice their righteous indignation by walking out of them. And I think I'm only half-way kidding about that. Eric D. Snider ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Movie Viewing (was: Pornography) Date: 01 Aug 2000 22:55:53 GMT >Cathy Wilson wrote: > > > > Rex wrote: > > > > > As restrictions have > > > relaxed over the years, and we find now that what used to be an >R-rated > > > movie is now a PG-13 > > > > Case in point: "The Nutty Professor: The Klumps." We thought it was a >kid > > flick and took the kids last night. > >How could you have come to that conclusion if you'd seen the previews? > How could you come to that conclusion if it's rated PG-13?! That means "some material may not be suitable for children under 13." And we all know that if anything, the ratings board is too lenient, not too harsh, on movies when rating them. It's a safe bet that if they say it's not suitable for the under-13 crowd, there's a good chance it's also not suitable for the under-18 crowd (or the under-100 crowd, in some cases). I agree that people should read the reviews, check the resources, etc. But in this case, all you had to do was look at what the film was rated to know not to take anyone very young! Eric D. Snider ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 01 Aug 2000 19:31:02 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: Pokemon in particular is certainly no more cynical than those fine American efforts of media exploitation such as X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends. I beg to differ. From what I've seen of the Saturday cartoon and the first movie (which isn't that much, I must admit; I can't stomach the stuff), I can boil Pokemon down to one simple idea--cock fighting. Think about it: the show is based on a bunch of people who train their pets to fight each other. Not something I'd like my kids to be enthralled with, thank you very much. The morals seemed to be inserted for the sake of including a moral, and they end up thin and pathetic. The first movie had some redeeming qualities in the first twenty minutes or so, but it flopped and didn't fulfill its potential. At least the characters in X-men and Star Wars are fighting for a noble cause against a formidable villain (Just try to compare a mutant cat with Darth Vader. Don't think so.) Thanks again to Eric for his column on the issue; I gave him a mental ovation when I read it. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) Date: 01 Aug 2000 21:24:12 EDT We have a water color painted by Jos F. Everett in 1937 that belonged to J. Golden Kimball. It is sentimental value and not a painting I would hang otherwise. Anyone out there ever heard of this painter? Was he considered a good artist? I'm really curious and would appreciate any info. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 01 Aug 2000 21:43:01 -0600 Eric D. Snider wrote, quoting me: >"Anime is not everyone's cup of tea, but there's much to be >appreciated (and defended), and I think it's far from the universal >evil Eric suggests." > >Read it again. I didn't say ALL anime was evil. I said ALL anime was >badly animated (a blanket statement, sure, but sometimes we have to >do that in satire), and that "Pokemon," specifically, was evil. I >have no opinions as to the evilness of other forms of anime besides >"Pokemon." Whatever makes you happy, Eric. I did read it again, and I still disagree with both of the points you raise above. But thanks for clarifying the discussion. ALL anime is not badly animated. Just as ALL Mormon literature is not Gerald Lund or Jack Weyland, not ALL anime is Pokemon, Speed Racer, or Dragonball Z. There is some stunningly well done stuff out there that pushes both art and storytelling in directions that American animation just hasn't touched...yet. I know you were overstating. Isn't half the point of using that particular device to get a rise out of the fans? You succeeded, so be mellow. And remember that satire can happen on both sides of a conversation. It's not your sole province. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 01 Aug 2000 19:49:57 PDT Just a few short responses to particular points: Eric writes: >While I would say that all art should be embraced, because all art is good, >all art is valuable, all art improves people. There is no such thing as >Bad Art, I would argue. This leads into debates over absolutism and relativity, and I think I understand your tendency to label Plato a 'fascist', now. Plato doesn't want the headache of trying to decide which art is divine and which is tripe, so he banishes all of it. Admittedly, this is a somewhat 'fascist' move, for lack of a better term. But your claim that all art is good and/or valuable runs (IMO) counter to my Mormon sensibility, which is fraught with notions of absolute truth (as opposed to the relativism you proclaim here). Granted, it is difficult--VERY VERY difficult--to discern that truth, and to make judgements, but nevertheless we are commanded to do so (it's "judge not _unrighteously_", not "judge not"). IOW, I think it's our responsibility to judge what is good art and what is bad art. Art is action, it is thought, it is attitude and world view--and as Mormons we know that it is not just possible, but _necessary_ that there be both good and bad actions, thoughts, attitudes, and world views. And it is part of our existence/experience to learn to judge between the good and the bad. I understand (and even, to some extent, applaud) the reluctance to judge wrongly, the hesitency to dismiss what might in fact be of value. But I don't think turning to "anything goes" is the answer. Just because one person finds value in a work of art, it does not follow that that work of art is of value. (IOW, many people find extra-marital sex, drugs, pornography, etc., of value--that doesn't mean those things actually _are_ of value.) Playing the censorship game is tricky and dangerous, yes. Believe me, I'm very wary of it (and I'm actually a little uncomfortable arguing from this side of the fence--the unfamiliar side)--but still, I think it's necessary. Half the Gospel is the censoring of our lives (filtering out the bad and turning it away, not allowing it to be a part of us)... Eric also writes: >Absolutely. At a less valuable level than art does. [This is in reference to all other modes of knowing, other than art, pertaining to the kingdom of God.] If you can distinguish between art and philosophy so readily, and rank one as superior to another, why can't you do the same within the realm of art itself? A curious thought: how, exactly, does art differ from philosophy? Doesn't each attempt to create a world, to understand it and interpret it? Isn't the artist a philosopher and the philosopher (or scientist, etc.) an artist? And if so (and I believe it is so), then under your theory of all art being of value, we can't dismiss philosophy/science as you dismiss them. And ranking them in levels of worth is the same as dismissal--after all, that's all Plato did, and he's accused of being 'fascist' for doing so. Jason wrote: > >This is, it occurs to me, very similar to the genre debate. How >can any >of > >us privilege one genre over another? None is inherently superior >to > >another--each is merely a different way or mode of writing (or >knowing). > >Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I tend to read more of >one genre >than > >another because it suits me--I understand it better. But wouldn't I >be > >edified by the study of others? Should I dismiss them or mistrust >them > >because they aren't "my" genre? > > >No. Nor should we mistrust science and philosophy because >they aren't >art > >(or vice versa). We can be edified by them all, in different ways. Eric responded: >Not at all the same thing. All the genres belong to the realm of knowing >we call 'art' or 'literature'. And all are, therefore, inherently superior >to philosophy. This is the point I make above: I disagree with you here. Nonfiction is a 'genre' and a part of 'literature' and 'art.' To my knowledge, all of the other disciplines (physics, philosophy, history, etc.) attempt to convey their "knowledge" through writing. Thus, they are 'genres' of writing, no? Again, I tend to be pretty holistic in my thinking--all these modes of knowing are just that: different modes of knowing, each with its strengths and weaknesses, etc. If you can't distinguish a bad novel from a good one (because someone might find value in either), then how do you distinguish between a good mode of knowing and a bad one (if many, many people find value in the ones that you find no value in)? I think our tendencies to categorize have hurt us. We separate art from philosophy, et al, and I don't think we should. It's all an attempt to understand, to know, to cope, to create. And I DO think we should try to distinguish the good from the bad, but not categorically (i.e. there isn't an entire discipline that is inherently of less value than another). Eric wrote: >Isn't our earth-life an 'imitation' in precisely the same sense? An >artificial testing ground, a space for the playing out of moral choices? >I think artistic creation is actual creation, is it not? I wrote: > >The artist is a god-wannabe; to aspire to art is to > >aspire to godhood, to aspire to creation. But no ACTUAL world is > >created, only an artistic (i.e. imitative) one. Eric responded: >Not a god-wannabe, a god in miniature. And I don't think any work of art >is un-actual. My final response (at least for now): But our moral choices are different from the ones created in a novel. They have actual, eternal consequence--God's creation (this world, and us) is ontologically different from "art." 'God in miniature' is not quite right. It suggests we already have God's power, etc., just on a smaller scale. But we don't--we are _developing_ a power, etc., that might some day approach and/or equal God's. Art is not God's creation on a smaller scale; it is, shall we say, humanity's attempt to 'practice' at a creative power it does not yet posess. (And I think science and philosophy, et al, are similar attempts, and no less valuable.) Yes, art is "actual"--is exists ontologically. But its ontological nature differs from yours and mine, and this world's (as opposed to the artist's). A simple example: you and I have free will; the protagonist in a novel does not--in fact, she does not exist in the same sense that I exist at all. This is what I meant by 'actual' creation. I was supposing that, perhaps, with the ability and opportunity to create this way (like God), that 'artistic' creation may not be desirable or necessary... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] Nurturing Young Artists Date: 01 Aug 2000 21:45:37 -0600 Having recently survived the experience of acting as chief taxi driver for my daughter as she wrote, polished, revised, composed, recorded, rehearsed, and performed in her own full-length musical play at the Villa Playhouse Theatre in Springville, I am left with feelings of deep gratitude and admiration for Marilyn and Bill Brown. It is truly a wonderful thing they are doing with their VIP Arts Program. We speak often on this list of our desire to create a Zion community--a network of mutual support wherein we as artists can lift, inspire, embolden, and encourage each other. The Browns are doing just that. Whether it is through their various theater programs, the newly established Marilyn Brown AML award, or numerous private "cheerleading" sessions, they are working tirelessly and generously to nurture and promote the arts. The process of getting "Dancing Shoes" on the stage has been incredible journey for Erica. Someone recently observed that she should be able to get a least a year's worth of college credit for the experience. It truly has been a life-altering opportunity. It thrills me that her greatest desire is to give back. Isn't that what it's all about? Passing it on? I've posed this question before, but I keep wondering how we can duplicate for young writers what youth theater programs are doing for young people interested in the performing arts. Any ideas? Thanks to those of you who attended "Dancing Shoes." It was fun to see you there! Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana bouck remy" Subject: [AML] Congrats! Date: 01 Aug 2000 22:00:07 -0700 Hats off to Susan Barnson-Hayward (Irreantum photographer and sometimes AML-Lister). Her article, "Between a Cultural Past and a Personal Present," won Exponent II's Helen Candland Stark Essay contest. Jana Remy - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pup7777@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Cowbows and Angels_ (Free Screening) Date: 02 Aug 2000 01:34:28 EDT In a message dated 00-08-01 13:18:36 EDT, you write: << Would love to have been there if I'd received more than a few hours notice. As it is, I read this hours after the event happened. -- >> Sorry. My husband decided to throw it together last minute, just after he finished editing the film. He has a deadline he's trying to meet. He did manage to get a full house. If anyone of the list was there, thanks. I hear you gave helpful advice. (I stayed home to play with the kids.) Lisa Peck - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Nudity (was: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News: San Jose CA) Date: 01 Aug 2000 23:57:27 -0600 > [From Mormon-News] > Author Dr. Stephen Lamb, a Salt > Lake City gynecologist, says, "In the past, when I had patients with > problems and they said, 'Where should I turn?' I would suggest the local > bookstore. But for those with fairly conservative values, as most > Latter-day Saints have, those kinds of texts are often offensive. > Where does one draw the line between a sex manual and pornography?" Hmmmm, let's see. A sex manual helps you understand sex, and pornography tries to arouse you in unhealthy ways. Now why didn't that seem so hard to me? > The book was written by BYU professor Douglas E. Brinley and Lamb and > covers physical intimacy in a frank, upfront way. The book contains > no pictures... Oh, I get it. It's the pictures! Some of those sex manuals have pictures. You see, if there's a nude body, it's pornographic. Everybody knows that. Got to hide those bodies that God created after his own image because there's something shameful about them. Now all I want to know is, where does this appalling ignorance come from among LDS people about their own bodies that makes a book like this so popular? > The AP article tells about LDS Church member Krystal Pease and her > husband who had success using the book to resolve most of the > problems they faced in their marriage. "We were able to resolve > about 90 percent of problems we were having in about a month's > period," Pease said. In case you think "appalling ignorance" is overstating things, then how can getting some information out of a book help this couple solve 90% of their problems, just like that? To keep this topic grounded in a literary connection, I would like to steer it in this direction: Nudity is considered by many LDS members to be one of those things that automatically make a film, a photograph, and other art, evil. Just what attitude toward nudity is appropriate for LDS people? Is nudity inherently evil, or does it depend? Does our theology preach against all forms of nudity, or is that a cultural heritage? -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Righteous Indignation (was: MN Pillar of Fire...) Date: 02 Aug 2000 00:34:09 -0600 Darlene wrote: > I wonder if people are going to be as righteously > indignant about this particular "epic series based on > The Book of Mormon" as they were of O. S. Card's > Homecoming series. Ardis Parshall wrote: > Never mind what my subject felt about Hagar or about castoff Mormon wives, > never mind what most people will bring to mind when they hear the name Hagar, > never mind my concerns about whether I appeared to support modern-day > polygamy. All that mattered was that Hagar was unrighteous. Something's wrong. The older I get, the more improvement I'm supposed to have made in my character, right? So why am I becoming more and more impatient with intolerant people? (I'm intolerant of intolerance. Is that a contradiction?) I know there will always be small minds that see things in simplistic ways and think it's their God-given duty to force everyone else to their point of view. What bothers me is when reasonable people take such minds seriously. If someone's poking away at the mote in my eye, I can't see standing still and letting him do it out of some misguided feeling that I'm out of line because someone else thinks so. He's getting his hand slapped: "Get your finger out of my eye, fella!" Does that make me a poor Christian? -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) Date: 02 Aug 2000 07:05:45 -0700 [MOD: I note that at the current rate, none of us has a prayer of catching up with Jeff on the review numbers...] Review ====== H. Donl Peterson, "Moroni - Ancient Prophet, Modern Messenger" 2000, Deseret Book Paperback, 187 pp + Appendices and Index, $13.95 Reviewed by Jeff Needle The author of this fine book died in 1994. Before his death, he had expressed a wish that "Moroni," first published in 1983, be republished, incorporating new ideas and information. This book fulfills this wish. Visitors to LDS temples often comment on the remarkable figure that stands atop these sacred buildings. An angel -- blowing a trumpet -- heralding a message that is to fill the world with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. When asked, faithful members tell the story of Moroni's visit to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It's a remarkable story indeed. But there is so much more to Moroni's story. Peterson has done a remarkable job of researching and compiling the vast corpus of information and opinion on the life and work of Moroni. In his preface, Peterson sets out his thesis: The impact of Moroni's efforts and faithfulness is impossible to comprehend. He loved the Savior and emulated His divine example in his personal life. He demonstrated that it really is possible to be Christlike. He fought a good fight and kept the faith. He now reigns with the immortal prophets who still care for those of us who are involved in the struggle toward eternal life. (iii) Beginning with this thought, Peterson takes us through a guided tour of the accounts of Mormon and Moroni in the Book of Mormon, through his appearances to Joseph Smith (and others) in the early 19th century, and finally to his role in future events. Moroni played a large part in the early Mormon worldview. Chapter 11 regales us with accounts of Moroni appearing to others in the early years of the Restoration, while Appendix B gives us the lyrics to the many LDS hymns based on the life and ministry of Moroni. Of particular interest to me was Chapter 12, "Moroni and the Future." Drawing largely on the Journal of Discourses and other extra-scriptural sources, Peterson offers a comprehensive view of Moroni's place in end-time events. The book contained some new ideas for me. For example, in a chapter titled "Moroni, Joseph's Teacher," Peterson documents 22 appearances of Moroni to Joseph Smith. I hadn't understood there were than many appearances. This book was something of a surprise for me. Early on in my studies of Mormonism, I began to understand that there existed a tradition of belief fashioned around unique characters. In particular, the Three Nephite stories were both inspiring and entertaining. Prior to reading this book, I hadn't realized the prominence of Moroni in the wide span of Mormon history. I enjoyed this book, not just because I learned a great deal from it, but because it offered a wider view of a man who played so vital a part in the Restoration. I pass the San Diego Temple regularly. His image now looms larger than ever. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:02:09 -0700 >Scott Parkin wrote: >Pokemon in particular is certainly no more cynical than those fine American >efforts of media exploitation such >as X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends. > I say there's an important difference: "Pokemon's" exploitation is geared toward extremely young children, whereas "X-Men" and "Star Wars" are geared toward teens and adults (and "Friends" was exploited by the media, who loved the show, more than by the people behind the show). Plus, "Pokemon" is an inferior product, and its makers seem to know that, and they don't care. Aiming a mediocre product at a group just to get their money is bad enough; the fact that they're aiming it at an age group that can't tell mediocre from good and is so impressionable is pert near evil. If "X-Men" and "Star Wars" were lousy, the target audience would catch on, and there wouldn't be a problem. But with children's shows, they can get away with it. That's why I feel so negatively toward "Pokemon" (that, and, as the letters I get have informed me, I have a cold soul of blackness that can feel no love). Eric D. Snider -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing (was: Pornography) Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:07:41 -0600 (MDT) > I agree that people should read the reviews, check the resources, etc. But > in this case, all you had to do was look at what the film was rated to know > not to take anyone very young! > > Eric D. Snider > I agree - the ratings board may be a little wacky in it's application (from all accounts "Scary Movie" should have been NC-17) but the constant moan of "The ratings are always wrong" belies the truth. There may be crossover between related ratings (NC-17 and R or PG-13 and R), as indicated by the "I've seen PG-13's worse than R's" comments always given - yet I have yet to see an example of movie getting a PG that should have been NC-17 or a probably G movie getting a PG-13. No one has ever pointed out a movie that was worthy of an R geting a G rating. The ratings provide a rough, general guideline. Not enough to make a final decision on, but it's hardly the lottery that some claim it is. And the American public does consider ratings. That's why PG and PG-13 movies are more likely to make money than an R. --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Julie and _The Real World_ Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:08:50 -0700 If anyone's interested in what a Daily Herald columnist (OK, me) has to say about Julie getting kicked out of BYU for her appearance on "The Real World," you can read it at http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/snide119julie.php3 . Plugging shamelessly, Eric D. Snider -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing (was: Pornography) Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:15:33 -0600 "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > > I agree that people should read the reviews, check the resources, etc. But > in this case, all you had to do was look at what the film was rated to know > not to take anyone very young! > Only one time in my life have I ever seen a film about which I knew nothing other than it's title before I saw it. I regretted it so much (the film was so bad) that I made a vow then and there to never darken a theatre without knowing as much about a film as I could. And you know what. I've never since been disappointed. BTW, the movie that was my touchstone of conversion? _Heart Beeps_ with Andy Kaufman and Bernadette Peters. Caveat Emptor, especially with films. Life is too short to sit through celluloid drivel like Heart Beeps. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:26:04 -0600 We went to Provo yesterday and to an LDS bookstore. I skimmed through this book. I was totally unimpressed. The authors write from a very archaic viewpoint. True, I didn't seriously read the whole thing, but some of the points that galled me were: 1. The outworn assumption that men always want sex and women don't so much, so husbands need to curb themselves. This actually perpetuates the myth and makes it harder for women to grow into their sexuality because they're not "supposed" to be "that way." 2. The dangerous claim that women feel better about the marriage when there's reliable income, so supplying that can ease problems in the sex life. 3. The outrageous notion that women like hugging more (most men I know also like hugging a LOT and it can happen easily that a woman might want sex when a man wants comfort hugging). 4. I won't get into the specifics here (not appropriate for AML probably), but the authors offer a terrible solution to a man coming to orgasm before the woman is ready. Modern sex books (BTW not pornographic, such as _The Art of Sexual Ecstasy_ and _The Multi-orgasmic Man_ ) give much gentler and humane advice on this. 5. The authors avoid discussing much specific on how a husband can help a wife learn to respond sexually. I believe this could have been done modestly and be very helpful. 6. The discussions for older people--about Viagra, hormone replacement therapy, herbal helps and so on, are extremely shallow and poorly presented. Each of those things has serious benefits AND drawbacks, but we get a standard newspaper approach to them that doesn't address the issues, IMHO. 7. The authors mention that sex has a spiritual dimension but totally miss discussing it in a meaningful way. Again, other sex books on the market address this beautifully and clearly. Certainly that's the meaning of sex in marriage, the spiritual communion. We can be glad, I guess, that there's an LDS sex book on the market and that people are looking for help. However, my take is that it sounds more like a rehash of 1950's or 60's POV's on sex. Too bad. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:37:56 -0700 Remember the old Donny & Marie variety show? I have a character in a novel-in-progress who, when she was a child, thought every celebrity who appeared on the show must have joined the Church. I wanted to rattle off some names, but all I could think of was Don Knotts and Paul Lynde. Anyone remember any other celebs who appeared? Regular or one-time. For that matter, I also mention which celebs the JWs have got and the Christian Scientists. The only JW I could think of was Michael Jackson, and CS would be Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole Kidman(?). Anyone confirm these or add to my list? Thanks, Chris Bigelow - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Cracroft Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) Date: 02 Aug 2000 10:25:15 -0600 Violet Kimball: Joseph A. F. Everett is an important Utah artist. There have been several shows of his work over the years. Elder Pinnock knows a great deal about Everett and other Utah painters and has some Everetts hanging in his home. I have an Everett snowscape hanging in my living room. I like it. It hung in my parents' home, since "Joe Everett" was a neighbor of the Cracrofts and lived at about 258 South 11th East until his death in the 1950s (?) I remember him very well. There are some biographical write-ups on him in histories of Utah paintings. He was Ward Clerk of the 11th Ward. His daughter, Josephine (?), who died about a month ago, married Freed of Freed Motor and Lagoon (and who was baptized by Pres. Hinckley three or four years ago). Freed was a member of the U of U tennis team, along with Wallace Stegner. As my son Jeff used to write at the end of every report, paper, book review (in jr. high school): And that's all I have to say about that! Richard H. Cracroft ViKimball@aol.com wrote: > We have a water color painted by Jos F. Everett in 1937 that belonged to J. > Golden Kimball. It is sentimental value and not a painting I would hang > otherwise. Anyone out there ever heard of this painter? Was he considered a > good artist? I'm really curious and would appreciate any info. > Violet Kimball > > - > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 02 Aug 2000 11:58:47 -0500 I find myself in the extremely weird position of defending a television program (I haven't seen the movie, and can't speak to it) for which I don't particularly care. But I don't feel that I can let Scott take all the heat on this. When I compare the Pokemon television program to other shows, past and current, that are geared toward the age group in question, I think it holds up pretty well. It does have a plot. It does have characterization, and even some rudimentary character development--simplistic, to be sure, but light years above such revered offerings of my youth as "Scooby Doo" and "Josie and the Pussycats." (In the interests of taste, I won't get into my opinion of Scrappy Doo, the Brady Kids, and Rug Rats.) I disagree with Annette's suggestion (as I read it) that the morals are simply tacked on, not an integral part of the show. I'd agree that they're heavy-handed, but I think the moral is generally pretty clear, and is integral to the story--my five-year-old can usually grasp it without any trouble. Which hardly makes this sophisticated art, but then, as Eric notes, it's geared toward a pretty young audience, and subtlety is not one of this audience's characteristics. And it's generally a moral of which I can approve. I also have to say that I enjoyed Eric's rant on the Pokemon movie. But I don't think it qualifies as satire. Holman's _A Handbook to Literature_ (fourth edition) makes the point well: "Satire: A literary manner which blends a critical attitude with humor and wit for the purpose of improving human institutions or humanity. True satirists are conscious of the frailty of institutions of human devising and attempt through laughter not so much to tear them down as to inspire a remodeling. If critics simply abuse, they are writing invective." I think this last sentence probably describes more clearly what I see in this column of Eric's. I don't read it as particularly mean-spirited--but I see no charity in it either. It's a diatribe--humorous, to be sure, and exaggerated, but showing no real interest in reaching anyone other than those who already share Eric's dislike. Rather than inviting the readers to laugh at themselves, it invites them to laugh at someone else. And isn't there always just a bit of cruelty in that? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 02 Aug 2000 12:32:19 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: "Nudity is considered by many LDS members to be one of those things that automatically make a film, a photograph, and other art, evil. Just what attitude toward nudity is appropriate for LDS people? Is nudity inherently evil, or does it depend? Does our theology preach against all forms of nudity, or is that a cultural heritage?" Funny, my wife and I were having this conversation last night as we passed by a street vendor selling cheap replications of the David and Venus de Milo. Like most moral definitions, there are no clear lines of what is appropriate or inappropriate. I've come to the conclusion that the attitude toward the human body of both the artist and the consumer determine whether nudity is appropriate. My grandfather taught some art-history, and used to describe to me that there was a difference between "nudes" which glorified the human body, and "naked" images which tend to demean or belittle the body. While unquestionably nudity can be used to arouse a person's sexual desires, I also find that some of the greatest artistic expressions are found in depictions of the human body without clothing. So, I don't think there's anything inherently evil about nudity - in fact, if the human body is the greatest of God's creation, shouldn't nudity be an essential part of Mormon artistic creation? However, my wife (though far from average! :)) I believe represents the majority LDS views on this subject. While she agreed that the attitude of the artist and viewer was extremely critical, she also believed that the medium in which it was expressed is critical as well. She is perfectly willing and able to view nude paintings and sculpture without feeling threatened, but theater or movies with nudity are, by and large, out of bounds. This makes me believe that most opposition to nudity is cultural rather than doctrinal. I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity would be appropriate. Any suggestions? [David Hansen] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] _Pioneer_ Magazine Needs Writer Date: 02 Aug 2000 13:38:52 -0600 More pioneer history about Dr. Bernhisel: He was present when Jane Manning and her family arrived after thair 800 mile walk from Wilton, Connecticut to Nauvoo. In _I Am Jane_ I gave Emma Smith the lines Dr. Bernhisel actually spoke after the Mannings had told about their journey and Joseph Smith had said to Dr. B, "What do you think of that? Is that faith?" Dr. Bernhisel responded, "I rather think it is. I think it it had been me, I'd have turned around and gone back to my home." (I have the exact quote elsewhere--I'm paraphrasing.) Dr. Bernhisel specialized in stroke prevention--apoplexy or some other fancy word. He did NOT want Utah to be a slave territory, but his will was not followed and Utah was indeed a slave territory. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Quinn Warnick" Subject: [AML] Tooting My Own Horn / A New Website Date: 02 Aug 2000 13:25:20 -0400 Fellow Listers: I am mostly a lurker around here, but I thought I would take advantage of the list to toot my own horn and the horn of several other young LDS writers. Last Wednesday (July 26, 2000) marked the launch of a new web site known as The White Shoe Irregular. I have spent the last few months putting this venture together, and we are finally up and running. The site is dedicated to non-traditional creative writing (with a big emphasis on NON) and to cataloging the world around us. That description being quite broad, let me just say that seeing the site will explain what it is much better than anything I could write about it. So, go to www.whiteshoe.org and see for yourself what I'm talking about. The site will be updated every morning (M-F at least) with a little something new. Hopefully, the constantly changing nature of the site will help create somewhat of a community of readers and writers who return every so often to see what's new and submit their own work. The connection to Mormon literature? Although the site does not address Mormon themes or topics (it strives not to, in fact), almost all of the writers currently featured on the site are LDS---mostly former BYU students who are now scattered across the country (I'm in Maryland at this point). As the site's official "redactor" (look it up), I am soliciting manuscripts for web-based publication. The site is intentionally minimalist in its design (black and white, very few graphics), instead putting the focus entirely on content. A lot of what we do is funny or satirical or at least tries to be. I hope all of you (young AND old) will visit and visit often. If you're interested in helping out, be sure to check out the "about" and "submit" pages listed at the bottom of the main page. Best to all... Quinn Warnick Redactor The White Shoe Irregular www.whiteshoe.org The White Shoe Irregular will make you whole. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] Margaret YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Review) Date: 02 Aug 2000 13:52:46 -0600 I am always so touched by Harlow's reviews of ANYTHING, and certainly= of my own work. Harlow has such a deep mind. Thank you for this. For the= list: _One More River to Cross_, the first novel of the trilogy, is availab= le now. I don't know for sure that it'll be on the bookstore shelves outside = the Wasatch front for another three weeks, but the initial copies should = be in bookstores. My co-writer had a hard time seeing his name on the cove= r, and told me he felt embarrassed. Not by the book--we're very proud of th= at--but just by having his name there so prominently. I said I understood-es= pecially when the book was something so dear to us. I told him that when we h= ave our names under the two titles and the beautiful picture Tim Robinson sel= ected =66rom archives somewhere, that it feels somewhat like a neon sign. = Since I've published before, it doesn't hit me that hard, but I'm wondering if o= thers of you have had that reaction to seeing your name as an author--that sen= se of embarrassment or of "attention getting." Oh, by the way, I just retu= rned yesterday from the _Jane_ show (+ three firesides) in Chicago. All w= ent beautifully, but my eyes were again opened to the great NEED of unity= in the Church. The stories I heard from members of color were sometimes heartwrenching. We have so much to do before we can be "one." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eedh Subject: [AML] Re: _Real World_ Actress Suspended From BYU Date: 02 Aug 2000 12:40:08 -0700 [compilation of two posts from yesterday] In today's online BYU DAILY UNIVERSE, Julie Stoffer's parents discuss their reaction to her suspension. (They're disappointed, but they support the university.) You can read the story at -Beth Hatch New information. I just saw a Letter to the Editor, written by Julie Stoffer's parents, "in behalf of. . .Julie" and in this letter, they say they "regret the decision by BYU to suspend her, as we feel that a warning or probation would have been a more appropriate disciplinary response." They also discuss the wording in the suspension letter that was sent to Julie. This letter can be found at: http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=10515&year=current -Beth Hatch - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Another Onion Mormon reference Date: 02 Aug 2000 14:18:28 -0700 [MOD: Another post from yesterday...] Yeah, it's Onion day again. In a piece called Man Who Thought He'd Lost All Hope Loses Last Additional Bit Of Hope He Didn't Even Know He Still Had the following Mormon reference appears in a paragraph rehearsing his past losses of hope: "And one can safely assume that his rejection as 'unsuitable for conversion' by a pair of Mormon missionaries he attempted to befriend after they randomly knocked on his door must have cost him a significant amount of what precious little hope he had left." Pretty funny stuff. Chris Bigelow http://theonion.com/onion3626/man_lost_all_hope.html * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=EB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 02 Aug 2000 16:58:08 -0400 Cheryl Ladd was a guest star on the show. There is a news list devoted to the Osmonds and I know for a fact that they can reel off every guest star that ever appeared. Its alt.music.osmonds everyone there (for the most part) is nice and very helpful. I just lurk on the thing whenever I need a giggle. These women are a hoot. Debbie Brown - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 02 Aug 2000 15:11:54 -0700 >Only one time in my life have I ever seen a film about which I knew >nothing other than it's title before I saw it. I regretted it so much >(the film was so bad) that I made a vow then and there to never darken a >theatre without knowing as much about a film as I could. And you know >what. I've never since been disappointed. The one that taught me that lesson was "Mosquito Coast." I thought that since it had Harrison Ford in it, it would be good. But no! It had me rooting for his character to die so I could go home! The man he played was one taco short of a combo plate, and I was appalled at how his wife dragged their children after him, endangering their lives. "Stand By Your Man" only goes so far! barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 03 Aug 2000 11:15:23 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation of several people's reply on one particular point from an earlier post in this thread.] Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole > Kidman(?). ... are Church of Scientology members, not Christian Scientists. Richard Gere is Buddhist. -- Thom Duncan Cruise, Kidman, and Travolta being to the Church of Scientology--isn't that different from the Christian Scientists? John Perry John Travolta is a Scientologist, not a Christian Scientist, but I don't know about Tom and Nicole Anyone confirm these or add to my list? > [Laura Summerhays] You're mixing Christian Scientists up with Scientologists. Not the same thing at all. For one thing, Christian Science was started by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866. Scientology was started by L Ron Hubbard in this century. Their tenets are way different, too. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com You have Christian Scientists (founded by Mary Baker Eddy) and Scientologists (founded by L. Ron Hubbard) mixed up. The three listed above are Scientologists (not a Christian religion). --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 02 Aug 2000 17:34:57 -0600 Eric D. Snider wrote: >>Scott Parkin wrote: >>Pokemon in particular is certainly no more cynical than those fine American >>efforts of media exploitation such >>as X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends. >> >I say there's an important difference: "Pokemon's" exploitation is >geared toward extremely young children, whereas "X-Men" and "Star >Wars" are geared toward teens and adults (and "Friends" was >exploited by the media, who loved the show, more than by the people >behind the show). (To some degree, that was intended as humor. Nevertheless...) Here we simply disagree. Every single property on television is an exploitation of some market or another. Change it to Blue's Clues, Barney, Rugrats, Magic Schoolbus, and Teletubbies, and my premise still stands. Take it back a few years to Mickey Mouse Club, Howdy Doody, and the Lone Ranger, and you lose little or nothing. None of those shows represent the height of artistic possibility (or achievement), but all of those shows exploit a very young consumer market with breakfast cereals, clothing lines, board games, video series, lunch boxes, school products, and more. All have justified themselves under the rubric of teaching moral lessons and/or illustrating good behavior. Each has succeeded at that goal to a different degree. I don't see how Pokemon is any better or worse at it than any of the others. With the exception of its massive popularity (with attendant monetary success) and its seemingly ubiquitous presence, it's of a kind with with pretty much every other show aimed at kids--or teens, or adults. (I would argue that a whole series of shows on The Cartoon Network, such as Cow and Chicken, Courage the Dog, I.M. Weasel, and Space Ghost Coast to Coast, don't even have the excuse of trying to teach moral lessons. Then again, none of then is even remotely as popular as Pokemon--though each has its own merchandising franchise.) I won't argue with you about whether Pokemon is good art, because taste is subjective and I generally agree with you about the artistic quality of the Pokemon franchise. At best it's passable animation, the characters are flat, and the situation doesn't bear up well under scrutiny (then again, neither do X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends). I don't care if anyone likes Pokemon or not. I just don't think it deserves special condemnation because it happened to become massively popular. That is, after all, at least part of the intent of every show produced for TV or film. >That's why I feel so negatively toward "Pokemon" (that, and, as the >letters I get have informed me, I have a cold soul of blackness that >can feel no love). (And I thought I was the only one who got letters like that...) We always come up with reasons why what we like is good, and what we dislike is bad. If these are your reasons for disliking Pokemon, great. As long as you're convinced by those arguments, they serve their purpose and bind you with others of like mind. I disagree and offer my own reasoning as to why it is, if not good, at least no worse than the vast majority of what's out there. Whether my opinion is popular or not is irrelevant to me; I've considered assorted arguments and come to my own conclusions. Diversity. Ain't it grand! Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Eric D. Snider and Pokemon Date: 02 Aug 2000 17:34:57 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: >Scott Parkin wrote: >Pokemon in particular is certainly no more cynical than those fine American >efforts of media exploitation such >as X-Men, Star Wars, or Friends. > > >I beg to differ. From what I've seen of the Saturday cartoon and the first >movie (which isn't that much, I must admit; I can't stomach the stuff), I >can boil Pokemon down to one simple idea--cock fighting. Think about it: the >show is based on a bunch of people who train their pets to fight each other. That premise bothers me, too (but for very different reasons). I think Pokemon stops well short of cock fighting, though, since: * No Pokemon is ever killed or seriously injured (not unlike Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner) * Pokemon naturally want to battle each other (not unlike Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny, or Tom and Jerry, or Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, or Bugs Bunny and...) * The whole league/training concept is intended to protect the Pokemon from abuse by individual trainers (though it sometimes happens, and those occasions are treated as great tragedies) * There is a complex network of Pokemon medical centers and health spas to help them recover from their battles (not unlike those offered for players in the NBA, NFL, MLB, WNBA, NHL, MLS, etc.) * And the point is relentlessly hammered home throughout the franchise that trainers must love their Pokemon as dearest friends. (There's a cynical comment to be made here about encouraging kids to love their franchise materials, such as posters, books, videos, game cards, etc., but I'm not quite that cynical.) ===== I don't really see any more connection between Pokemon and cock fighting than I see between opposing soccer teams and cock fighting, or between two football teams and the institution of war. Or equestrian events, or dog shows, or skeet shooting (a clay pigeon is, after all, representative of the real bird the shooters will target later--without the benefit of clay pigeon centers where the shot targets can recuperate). All competitive sport involves training, some form of direct confrontation (even chess and gymnastics), and a victor (with the implied loser). But Pokemon does successfully dramatize the question of how moral it is to force another living creature into the competition with you. Is it moral to train a horse to race? Is it moral train a dog to do tricks? What about training a whale or a dolphin to leap for Sea World? Pokemon at least have near human intelligence (unless we're using the Disney Hierarchy of animal >> child >> machine >> adult) and can choose not to compete (as they sometimes do in the series). In fact, Pokemon calls the whole institution of keeping domesticated animals--including pets--into question. >The morals seemed to be inserted for the sake of including a moral, and they >end up thin and pathetic. The first movie had some redeeming qualities in >the first twenty minutes or so, but it flopped and didn't fulfill its >potential. My mileage varied. I thought the first twenty minutes of the movie (the opening short) to be interminable. Sure, it had the moral foundation of showing the Pokemon working together to rescue someone who had acted the bully from his own folly, but it didn't really entertain me. But in the main feature, I found the fact that Ash was willing to sacrifice his own life (and did, though redeemed by animation magic) for his friends (mere Pokemon) to be at least vaguely reminiscent of another noted sacrifice often alluded to in Mormon literature. Arguably, that's the most important story that can ever be told. >At least the characters in X-men and Star Wars are fighting for a noble >cause against a formidable villain (Just try to compare a mutant cat with >Darth Vader. Don't think so.) I'll give it a shot, because I don't think the comparison is nearly as ludicrous as you seem to. And keep in mind that Pokemon is intended for an audience that maxes out at around 10 years old, so the levels of complexity are inherently reduced. MewTwo was a genetically engineered creature enslaved by humans for their own entertainment and in support of their own acquisition of power. He was created as a weapon against other humans. His bitterness at his enslavement leads him to lash out at all humans. He eventually attempts to destroy humans under the banner of freeing Pokemon from their exploitative captivity, but stops (he was never defeated; he chose to stop of his own will) when a human (our hero Ash) shows him that some humans know compassion and love Pokemon as friends, not pets. Darth Vader was a genetically advanced human enslaved by other humans for their own entertainment and the power it brought. When his power was recognized, different factions competed over him not out of altruistic concern for his personal welfare, but because they wanted to control the power he represented. He eventually lashes out at all creatures everywhere, at least partially out of bitterness for his own captivity and fear of being taken captive again. He is eventually defeated (and destroyed) because he refused to rethink his immoral position until faced with his own death. Magneto (of X-Men fame) discovered that he had a genetic mutation that gave him unusual power while his parents were being enslaved (and later murdered) by other humans. Because of his power to harm humans, he is enslaved. His bitterness against that captivity leads him to lash out at all humans. He eventually attempts to destroy humans under the banner of freeing Mutants from their exploitative captivity. He is stopped (but not defeated) by other mutants, and vows to continue his bitter war despite seeing that some humans are noble, and that many noble mutants violently disagree with his beliefs. Other than the fact that Darth and Magneto never learned from their immorality (or learned too late to actually live morally beyond a single moment/decision), the differences in the characters are not all that significant. To paraphrase Jessica Rabbit, MewTwo isn't a trivial character--he's just drawn that way. >Thanks again to Eric for his column on the issue; I gave him a >mental ovation when I read it. In this one thing, as least, we can fully agree. I appreciated Eric's column even while disagreeing with the entire fundamental premise. It was entertaining and thought provoking--in other words, a clear success for a columnist. But I'll also argue that by publishing his column in a public forum, he invites (and, I hope, welcomes) opposing viewpoints. I offer such a viewpoint with no particular animosity, and without claiming moral corruption on Eric's part (or on the parts of those who agree with him). To abuse Eric Samuelsen's comments in another thread, we each have our own testimonies of the truth or falsehood of the Pokemon franchise. We have come to our respective beliefs through personal research and introspection, and can speak truthfully from our own experience. Whether you like Pokemon or not doesn't change the fact that I think there's much to be appreciated in it. The inverse is equally true. In the end, though, neither one of us is qualified to make an absolute statement on its real value, or the impact (for good or ill) that it may have on other viewers. The best any of us can do is try to do the best we can, and to produce the best work we can. Then we set it loose, and let each reader (or viewer) draw their own conclusions. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Randall Larsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 02 Aug 2000 18:53:32 -1000 Chris, My old friend the late Orson Welles was on the Donny & Marie show at least once. He was not a member of the church although he did have two wives [just kidding]. Of course if Orson had been a member then his friends Kermit the frog and David Carradine would have been members too-- not to mention Gilda [Rita Hayworth]. I am hopeful the work will be done for Orson and his family someday. kind regards, Randall Larsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard R Hopkins Subject: Re: [AML] Julie and _The Real World_ Date: 02 Aug 2000 18:32:07 -0600 On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 10:08:50 -0700 "Eric D. Snider" writes: > If anyone's interested in what a Daily Herald columnist (OK, me) has > to say about Julie getting kicked out of BYU for her appearance on > "The Real World," you can read it at > http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/snide119julie.php3 . > > Plugging shamelessly, > Eric D. Snider I read the column and I've heard the arguments. So here's one more, for those not totally bored with this already. Here we have a young lady who is attractive and willing to put herself before the world, who actually projects a good image for the Church, firmly holding to her standards. What a great example. So what does the Church's university do? It slaps her down publicly, humiliating her as though she was lying about maintaining her standards. Why? For violating a rule that really is totally unrelated to what Julie did. (Seriously, is the rule against cohabiting, or is it against cohabiting with 24-hr a day chaperones in the form of TV cameramen who are continually filming your every move?) I know Clinton made this very unpopular, but one thing I learned to do as a lawyer was to take a close look at different fact situations and determine how to differentiate them for purposes of applying just principles of law. It seems that most people who are not lawyers are very bad at this particular exercise. Let me give you an example from tort law so you can see what I mean. Suppose I'm driving along and I run into the person in front of me. Is that my fault? Yes, you say. Always? Suppose the person in front of me stopped suddenly for no apparent reason? Too easy. Well, suppose the person in front of me stopped for a good reason and I ran into them because someone behind me was coming up very fast and I was trying to avoid a rear-end collision of my own. In my panic, I got too close to the person in front of me and hit them. My fault? (Actually, that really happened to me. It went to trial and I was found NOT liable.) What if the person in front of me saw the situation and could have moved forward a little bit to avoid my running into them? That is actually called "the last clear chance" doctrine. Whoever has the last clear chance to avoid an accident and doesn't, is liable. So, believe it or not, in that situation not only would I not be liable, but the person in front of me WOULD be liable! The point is that every real life situation is filled with nuances of fact. The Julie situation on Real World was clearly not even remotely in the minds of those who made up the "no cohabiting" rule. What I'm saying is that here, as in all of life, there's cohabiting and there's "cohabiting." It seems to me that such obvious differences should not be ignored. Now, on the other hand, there's an old saying that a bad example is always over-followed and a good example is always under-followed. So what does the Honor Code Office do when someone is to be sanctioned for "cohabiting" and they cite Julie as an example. Sure, the Honor Code Office could say, "Are you crazy? Can't you see that Julie's situation was totally different from yours? I mean, are you telling us, 'No really. I have MTV camermen filming me 24-hours a day while I'm cohabiting with my boy friend down in Springville'? 'Cause if you are, we'd like to see the film!" Well, that's probably what they should say, but let's admit that there are a few stupid people attending BYU who can't understand that difference. So what should the Honor Code Office do? Well, here's a suggestion. Why didn't they make a big public statement congratulating Julie on her and praising her as a fine example to the youth of the world, then say, "But we have this rule that you technically violated, and because we have some stupid people attending BYU who can't understand the difference and might use your situation as an excuse for their own cohabitation, we need to follow the letter of the law and suspend you for one semester (or whatever). We know you didn't do anything wrong. Heck, we have the film to prove it! But we really have no choice. We hope you'll understand and come back at the end of that time. We do want you to make a big announcement when you return that you will NOT be cohabiting with any members of the opposite sex.and that you have NOT cohabited since the Real World thing. Again we commend you on your fine example to the nation's youth and look forward to having you as a student at BYU once again." It's a thought. (Okay, this post has a very tenuous connection to Mormon literature, but I think it relate to the consequences of following a particular artistic vision . . . well, maybe. Whatta ya think, Jonathan?) [MOD: Iffy, but I'll let it through...] Richard Hopkins - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) Date: 02 Aug 2000 20:55:59 -0700 At 07:05 AM 8/2/2000 -0700, you wrote: >[MOD: I note that at the current rate, none of us has a prayer of catching >up with Jeff on the review numbers...] > A few words of comfort: 1. I'm off work right now, on disability. This gives me a great deal more time to read and post. 2. Most of the reviews I'm posting are things I've had on file but just never had the time to finish them up and send them. 3. As some here know, I regularly volunteer at Deseret Industries in Chula Vista, Ca, where good LDS books come in regularly, at very reasonable prices. And so I humbly repent of the number of reviews I post . (N.B. My opinion -- the number of reviews isn't nearly as important as the quality of the reviews. As a non-member, I'm always working at a disadvantage, lacking the knowledge and familiarity needed to really work up a good review of many of the books I've read. You all are a great help to me as I work my way through this religion.) --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com [MOD: No repentance needed on Jeff's part. What we need is for the rest of us to get off our duffs. For myself, I have at least four reviews I've been "planning" to do for about two years now...] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News Date: 03 Aug 2000 00:17:16 -0600 Cathy Wilson wrote: > 5. The authors avoid discussing much specific on how a husband can help a > wife learn to respond sexually. I believe this could have been done > modestly and be very helpful. I appreciate Cathy's insightful critique into this book which has been intriguing me. I'm not so intrigued about getting hold of the book anymore. In particular, I'm fascinated by her wording above: "I believe this could have been done modestly and be very helpful." Not to criticize her wording, because I think she describes exactly the attitude toward discussions about sex that LDS members look for. But I'm trying to figure out what a "modest" approach to helping a wife learn to respond sexually would be. Beating around the bush? Using euphemisms for sexual acts and body parts instead of concise clinical terms? Only including techniques that are mild without regard to effectiveness so as not to offend? If a couple needs instruction on how to help one or both respond sexually, I seriously doubt a "modest" approach is going to help. Rather I suspect such an approach would perpetuate the problem, which is likely to be a combination of ignorance and/or unhealthy attitudes about sex. Being "modest" in describing solutions sounds to me like an approach which will neither alleviate ignorance nor heal attitudes. Never in any of the millions of Sunday School, Primary, Priesthood Meeting, Sacrament Meeting, Home Teaching, Seminary, Institute, or Fireside sermons I've been subjected to have I ever heard that living the law of chastity requires that we be ashamed or terrified of our bodies or of sex. We are taught that sex is a sacred power given to us by God, so why do we treat it like the filthy thing pornographers try to make us think it is? I understand this attitude is a cultural heritage that may not be easy for people to shake off, but how does it become so thoroughly misidentified as a Gospel requirement that few members of the church even think to question that categorization? For people hungering for information about a vital, intimate part of their eternal marriage relationship to receive nothing less than accurate and comprehensive imformation is a tragedy. To make "modesty" the concern that trumps all others in such a situation is a scandal. "Sorry, Mrs. Jones, I'd like to operate on you and remove your cancer, but I'd see your nude body if I did, and that would be immodest." I consider the hyper-repressed attitudes our society--especially our LDS society--have over sex and our bodies to be as destructive to our emotional health as cancer is to our physical health. What is so bad about talking or writing openly about sex? -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News Date: 03 Aug 2000 08:54:01 -0600 (MDT) > We went to Provo yesterday and to an LDS bookstore. I skimmed through this > book. I was totally unimpressed. The authors write from a very archaic > viewpoint. True, I didn't seriously read the whole thing, > "supposed" to be "that way." > Obviously you only skimmed it. Most of your concerns could be answered by a careful reading of the text. Not that I thought it was great book - I much prefer the Christan version - "The Act of Marriage" By Tim and Beverly LaHaye. Unfortunately, many of the other manuals you reccomended were onew I would not suggest to anyone because I feel they offer unrealistic advice and make anyone who is not having ecstatic experience after ecstatic experience feel like a loser. Both the "Act of Marriage" and "Between H&W" at least don't give that false impression, though I prefer the way "The Act" handles it. --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) Date: 03 Aug 2000 11:22:27 EDT In a message dated 8/2/00 3:55:24 PM Central Daylight Time, richard_cracroft@byu.edu writes: [snip] As my son Jeff used to write at the end of every report, paper, book review (in jr. high school): And that's all I have to say about that! Richard H. Cracroft >> Wow, you have said a lot. Thanks, Richard. We will keep this painting, but it does nothing for me aesthetically. It is a big bunch of flowers, I think they are purple mums.BTW, if any old book collectors are out there you might be interested in an experience Stan and I had in Nauvoo last night to see City of Joseph. We went to the only book store in town--it reminds me of Sam Wellers place--and in the main case they had the Deseret Alphabet, pub. in 1868. We asked them what they were asking because we had two. They said maybe we should sit down. The price was $350. Stan picked up two in the church office building about 45 years ago for 50 cents. They wanted to get rid of a box full which they had out with a note saying "take what you want and leave 50 cents." We have made a good $1 investment. The temple in Nauvoo has a long way to go and it looks much smaller than I thought it would. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Grumpy Moderator Note Date: 03 Aug 2000 11:33:38 -0500 Folks, I'm concerned that the discussion at present is wandering in a lot of directions not too closely connected with Mormon literature. I see this in both the _Real World_ thread and the _Between Husband and Wife_ thread, and to a lesser degree in the Pokemon and Nudity threads. Let's remember that our purpose here is to talk about Mormon letters. Certainly each of these topics has an appropriate connection with Mormon letters; but we need to be careful not to wander too far from that connection. And I'm concerned that these "peripheral" topics seem to be generating most of the List traffic right now, with little real discussion of Mormon art and artists. This isn't meant to point a finger at anyone. I for one enjoy pursuing tangential paths--on the theory that everything winds up connecting to art, and especially literature, in one way or another. But I also don't want us to lose track of the fact that Mormon letters is our central subject matter. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eileen Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 03 Aug 2000 09:52:56 -0600 > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > > [David Hansen] "A Room With A View" I believe would be an example, in my opinion, for nudity as art. A very well done scene in that film - men having an innocent "bathe at the sacred lake." Eileen Stringer eileens99@bigplanet.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 03 Aug 2000 10:27:22 -0600 David Hansen wrote: > > > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Anyone remember _The Bible_ back in the 60's? Adam and Eve were seen naked from behind. My Seminary teacher took his students to see it. _Schindler's List_, the shower scene. Very powerful and appropriatly displayed, imo. Any attempt to NOT show the hundreds of naked Jews running around confused and scared would have lessened the reality of the Holocaust by several factors. _The Graduate_. The quick cuts between Mrs. Robinson standing nude at the door and Dustin Hoffman's shocked expression accomplish its purpose of showing nudity while not titillating. _Waking Ned Devine_. Zefferelli's _Romeo and Juliet_. Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 03 Aug 2000 11:36:46 -0500 David Hansen wrote: > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where > nudity would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > >[David Hansen] _Schindler's List_. Interestingly enough, this film was shown almost unedited on KSL channel 5, the Church-owned TV channel. One scene with possibly gratuitous nudity was edited, but for the most part the show was shown as Spielberg had intended, with considerable nudity -- none of which do I think conjured up much arousal in anybody. (Who would dare?) Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] _Mosquito Coast_ (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 03 Aug 2000 10:36:04 -0600 "Barbara R. Hume" wrote: > > >Only one time in my life have I ever seen a film about which I knew > >nothing other than it's title before I saw it. I regretted it so much > >(the film was so bad) that I made a vow then and there to never darken a > >theatre without knowing as much about a film as I could. And you know > >what. I've never since been disappointed. > > The one that taught me that lesson was "Mosquito Coast." May I be so bold as to suggest that you missed the ENTIRE meaning of Mosquito Coast if you considered it worthless. MC exists as a film to teach us about the dangers of fanatacism. It shows that a too-faithful devotion to any ideal can lead to severe problems within one's own family and one's relationship with the rest of the world. I find its message particularly resonant among Mormons, who, in our zeal to "Follow the Brethren," can sometimes run the particular risk of embracing close-mindedness. MC shows there is a difference between believing in a cause and using devotion to that cause to inflict pain and agony on others. I saw MC as a cautionary tale against blind devotion to a cause, even a good cause. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) Date: 03 Aug 2000 10:29:02 -0700 >And so I humbly repent of the number of reviews I post . > >(N.B. My opinion -- the number of reviews isn't nearly as important as the >quality of the reviews. As a non-member, I'm always working at a >disadvantage, lacking the knowledge and familiarity needed to really work >up a good review of many of the books I've read. You all are a great help >to me as I work my way through this religion.) Your reviews are excellent, Jeff, so don't repent--write more! barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] _Mosquito Coast_ (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 03 Aug 2000 10:50:51 -0700 >May I be so bold as to suggest that you missed the ENTIRE meaning of >Mosquito Coast if you considered it worthless. MC exists as a film to teach us about the dangers of fanatacism. Yes, I understood that that was the point. I just hated watching it. barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 03 Aug 2000 12:19:14 -0500 Is the new Donny and Marie show still on? I thought it had been canceled. But last nite I saw an interesting promo spot for the Donny and Marie show. They were doing a parody of the _Blair With Project_. This tiny little spot brings out in the open what we have been talking about for a couple of months concerning LDS literature. I certainly hope they weren't implying approval of this show. My guess is that they've never seen it. On a business trip last October to Australia, I found this movie on the list of films shown during the 13 hour trip. (We had small LCD TV's for each seat and could select which movies we wanted to watch.) I watched parts of Blair Witch and I was so appalled at the language that I couldn't continue watching it. Otherwise I might have been interested in it. Now Donny and Marie are doing a parody of it, hence the conflict of LDS ideals and the "evils of the world." This is a big problem with LDS literature, because it's hard to accurately portray life sometimes and at the same time attract LDS publishers and readers. How do you achieve an appropriate balance? Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 03 Aug 2000 11:59:18 -0600 "Hollywood will get the message" that . . . A few points that I think might be worth making: First of all, there is no such entity as "Hollywood" responsible for = movie-making, just as there is no such entity as "Detroit" responsible for = automobile manufacturing. "Hollywood" is simply short-hand we use to = describe the literally hundreds of studios, stars, production companies, = independent producers and super-agents who have the power and resources to = green-light a picture. As William Goldman points out in his new book = (which rocks), you too can be a Hollywood producer. If you can raise = $50,000 by taking out a second mortgage, you can buy enough film stock and = rent the equipment needed to make a movie. We all know this, of course; = we all know that saying "they" should make more movies like God's Army is = silly. Richard Dutcher made God's Army, not some fictitious entity called = 'Hollywood.' But we do say this all the time in relation to films we = don't like; "why do 'they' make crass, tasteless films like this? Why = don't 'they' make more decent family entertainment." I have no idea who = was the muscle behind Nutty Prof II, but I assume Eddie Murphy was a large = part of it. And he made it because he thought it would be successful, = that it would make money. And he was right. To the extent, however, that the ad hominem usage of "Hollywood" perfected = by Michael Medved has any meaning at all, however, it would go something = like this: the main people in power in Hollywood share certain attitudes = and beliefs which are not widely shared by the mainstream American public. = They in general do not attend church or believe in God, and they = generally hold social and cultural beliefs that are unique to a few = neighborhoods in SoCal. And their sexual lives are quite shocking, and = casual drug use is rampant, and so on and so forth. So they tend to make = depraved movies, being depraved people. =20 I've been contributing to the list long enough for y'all to know that I = reject basically all the above premises. So let me add my own list to = Thom's excellent one. I think films get made for lots of reasons, and = that the people who make movies are as individual and idiosyncratic as the = people in any business. I also think that making movies is very difficult,= and that nobody knows what's going to be successful. Anyway, here's my = own subjective take on what Hollywood really believes: 1) Brand name loyalty. If we liked Mel Gibson in one movie, we'll like = him in any movie. If we paid to see Eddie Murphy clown around once, we'll = do it again. If we enjoyed The Bevely Hillbillies on television in the = sixties, we'll enjoy a remake on the big screen. If we liked one film = titled Lethal Weapon, we'll enjoy four more. And a new Star Wars flick = will gross 200 million even if it sucks. This is why the worst script in = the world becomes the best script in the world the second Tom Cruise = decides he likes the story. Remember, making movies is very difficult, = and nobody knows where magic will strike next. Brand name loyalty is one = way of bringing order to chaos. 2) Both men and women like movies that present a fantasy world; women a = fantasy world dealing with relationships, and men, a fantasy world dealing = with action and adventure. Men tend to make the decisions about which = movies couples see, but it's best if any movie has something for both men = and women. Thus Anna and the King, essentially a relationship movie, = concludes with some action sequences, while most adventure flicks also = feature a love story. (Remember, I don't agree with any of this. But = this is what I think 'Hollywood' thinks.) 3) The rating system is an essential part of marketing a film, and = carries no moral implications whatsoever. I can't emphasize this enough. = No one in Hollywood thinks he or she is making an immoral picture. Every = film made (with the possible exception of porn), is made by people who are = convinced they are doing good in the world, as they define it. Ratings = decisions are made solely on the basis of what the green-light folks think = will sell. Thus G-rated films are kiddie flicks, and they'll always do = well in the box office eventually, even if they tank on first release. = This is because parents, looking for a film to rent for the kids, go = straight to the children's section of New Releases, and pick something = they've heard of. If Iron Giant is in, great. Otherwise, let's grab = Inspector Gadget. How bad can it be? And since there are relatively few = G-rated films that get made annually, they all do well. (This is also why = The Straight Story bombed--it's rated G and it's not a children's film. = Bad marketing.) (This is also why people draw all the wrong conclusions = from these studies that show R rated movies doing poorly in the box = office.) R-rated means a seriously intended picture for grown-ups, with = lots of violent action and/or sexual material, which, remember, is = intended by the filmmakers to discourage violence or illicit sexual = behavior. A PG-13 rating means a film that is intended for teenagers, who = tend to have more discretionary income than grown-ups, and also less = discretion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The rating system = is without value in determining the possible or probable quality of a = movie, or the potential moral impact of it. Nor does any responsible = filmmaker pretend for a second that the rating system is anything but what = it is; a marketing tool.=20 4. Filmmaking is an art form, and scripts for tough, edgy, dark films that = explore difficult moral ambiguities in an intelligent, non-didactic way = are very rare. So when a green-light guy (and that could be a star, a = studio head, an indie producer, an agent, a big-name director) gets hold = of one, that film is probably going to get made even if it's unlikely to = make a lot of money. Money isn't the only motivating factor. Remember, a = lot of films get made because someone felt passionately about making it. = Period. =20 Let me take just a second and try, without the benefit of any actual = information, to decipher the process by which the last few films I've seen = got made: Anna and the King: there's a story that's been told several times before, = and really doesn't need to get told again, except that Jodie Foster wanted = to. And that meant, I'm guessing, that that script got moved to the top = of the pile. A lot of strange things happened in that film. Two = screenwriters are listed in the credits, which often means one guy wrote a = great screenplay, and then another guy got hired to Hollywoodize it. Thus = the silly action sequence at the end of the film, and the emphasis on the = love relationship between Anna and the King, which is a real yawner. = What's really interesting in that story is this king who has this amazing = tightrope to walk, wanted to 'modernize' without turning his country into = a colonial vassal. Without much help from the writers, the brilliant = actor Chow Yun Fat managed to capture all that in his characterization,whic= h means he stole the picture from its star, and darn near made it work = despite itself. =20 High Fidelity: An excellent Nick Hornsby novel that a lot of people = loved, especially John Cusack. He's not a big star, but he clearly got = behind the film, co-produced it, and got people like Catherine Zeta-Jones = and Tim Robbins to be in it for nickels. A labor-of-love picture, which = didn't do well financially, and realistically they probably knew it = wouldn't. R-rated, and a kind of sordid story, with an exceedingly = unattractive leading character. I loved it, BTW, but it does typify why = R-rated movies don't do well. Topsy Turvy--Gilbert and Sullivan and the making of the Mikado. I guess = it was R (I usually don't both knowing); this was a Mike Leigh film. = Major indie director doing his thing. A truly great, eccentric film, and = not a film that was going to make anyone rich. Why make an R-rated film = about Gilbert and Sullivan? What's the box office appeal? Why would = Hollywood make this film? It doesn't matter; Mike Leigh wanted to make = it, and did.=20 Cradle Will Rock: About the Federal Theatre project and censorship in the = arts in the thirties, and about Orson Welles directing Marc Blitzstein's = musical The Cradle Will Rock in 1936. A mess of a film, written and = directed by Tim Robbins. It's preachy, it's convoluted and confusing, = it's all over the map stylistically, it's uneven. I loved it, but don't = recommend it. But why make an R-rated film about the Federal Theatre = Project? Why does Hollywood make films like this? Answer: Hollywood = didn't. Tim Robbins did. He got people like Bill Murray and Susan = Sarandon and Vanessa Redgrave to be in it, again probably working for = peanuts. And the result is . . . what it is. =20 You see my point? Hollywood doesn't make films. People make films, each = for their own reasons. And then the marketing people take over, and work = with the director to trim or add material as needed to get the rating they = think they can sell. =20 Having said all that, let me echo what Thom said. Read, think, watch, = consider. And ignore the rating system. It is without value. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Margaret YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Review) Date: 03 Aug 2000 13:30:12 -0600 On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:52:46 -0600, Margaret Young wrote: >My co-writer had a hard time seeing his name on the cover, and >told me he felt embarrassed. Not by the book--we're very proud of = that--but >just by having his name there so prominently. I said I = understood-especially >when the book was something so dear to us. I told him that when we have= our >names under the two titles and the beautiful picture Tim Robinson = selected >from archives somewhere, that it feels somewhat like a neon sign. Since= I've >published before, it doesn't hit me that hard, but I'm wondering if = others of >you have had that reaction to seeing your name as an author--that sense = of >embarrassment or of "attention getting." I always do--and I have had very little published, and certainly nothing major like a book. I don't know why, since I've never published anything I'm ashamed of. I suppose it feels as though everyone is looking at me = when what they should be looking at is what I've written. I felt most comfortable when I was writing for Gnusweek, the honors newsletter at = BYU, and my name was hidden away in the back somewhere and not attached to any= of the articles. This is probably an irrational feeling that will go away = when I actually write something good. :) I thought I was alone in this, = though. I'm so glad _One More River to Cross_ is out now! I've been eager to = read it. Time to go spend money at the bookstore again.... Melissa Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 03 Aug 2000 17:19:14 -0600 [MOD: Kudos to Marny for providing this list. I guess it really is true that you can find anything on the Internet!] >For that matter, I also mention which celebs the JWs have got and >the Christian Scientists. The >only JW I could think of was Michael Jackson, and CS would be Tom >Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole >Kidman(?). Anyone confirm these or add to my list? If you really want famous Christian Scientists, go to http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_chrsci.html The list includes Marilyn Monroe, Jim Henson, Val Kilmer, Alan Shepard, Tommy Vardell, and others. The Adherents.com site does not have a list of JW's but does have a page with links to other famous people of specific religions, including LDS (http://www.adherents.com/adh_fam.html). It also has a list of specific religions mentioned in sf books (http://www.adherents.com/lit/index_adherents.html) including references to Mormons (http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_lds.html), and the religious affiliation of many sf authors (http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html) including a list of Mormons and people who live(d) in Utah or wrote about Mormons (http://www.adherents.com/lit/sf_other.html#LDS). Marny Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] re: MN "Between Husband and Wife" Makes National News Date: 03 Aug 2000 10:48:08 -0600 Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > > Unfortunately, many of the other manuals you reccomended were onew I would not > suggest to anyone because I feel they offer unrealistic advice and make anyone > who is not having ecstatic experience after ecstatic experience feel like a > loser. Both the "Act of Marriage" and "Between H&W" at least don't give that > false impression, though I prefer the way "The Act" handles it. > --Ivan Wolfe > IMO, the 80's book, _The Joy of Sex_ is still the best sex book around. Unfortunately, for some Mormons who may mistrust their own ability to choose between right and wrong, the book takes a neutral stance on all sex acts. One has to decide for oneself, for instance, if the information on foreplay is appropriate to one's taste. This may require that LDS couples actually discuss sex among themselves -- what they like and don't like -- rather than expecting some BYU professor to decide that for them. It is has pictures -- well, drawings at least -- of rather normal-looking people, so the arousal level is rather low, unless you're French. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:09:37 -0600 Date: 04 Aug 2000 12:44:07 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "Does our theology preach against all forms of nudity, or is that a cultural heritage?" To a great degree, I believe many Mormons' attitudes toward shunning any and all nudity is cultural. Two examples: I lived in Finland for three years, and while there viewed movies according to their rating system. As I was pretty young, we rented only the equivalents of G and PG movies. Upon returning to the States, I discovered I had seen several movies rated R in the US, which had gotten the rating because of nudity. Ironically, one of the movies--I am not kidding--was rated the equivalent of G over there. To Finns, the body is simply not the big deal it is here. The other experience was, for me a bit disappointing and showed how drastic the cultural side of this is. A friend and I went to see Kenneth Brannagh's "Much Ado about Nothing" in the theater and loved it. For those who don't know, there is a bathing scene near the start of the movie--lots of skin, no body parts. To me, it was perfectly innocent, and not in the least erotic or sensual. The entire tone is pure excitement and fun as a group of women and a group of men (separately) get ready to see each other. When my friend told her mother about the scene, her mother, horrified, made her promise to close her eyes during that part if she ever saw it again. My friend was an *adult* at the time. Since it's one of her favorite shows, she has seen it several times since, each time closing her eyes so she won't see Kenneth Brannagh's behind. Sheesh. I am the first to admit that the body is sacred, and it should be protected. But at the same time we don't need to be prudes who pretend we aren't naked under our clothes. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] PETERSON, _Moroni--Ancient Prophet_ (Review) Date: 03 Aug 2000 13:09:52 -0700 At 10:29 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >>And so I humbly repent of the number of reviews I post . >> >>(N.B. My opinion -- the number of reviews isn't nearly as important as the >>quality of the reviews. As a non-member, I'm always working at a >>disadvantage, lacking the knowledge and familiarity needed to really work >>up a good review of many of the books I've read. You all are a great help >>to me as I work my way through this religion.) > >Your reviews are excellent, Jeff, so don't repent--write more! > >barbara hume > Muchas gracias, my friend. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Devin Thorpe" Subject: RE: [AML] Nudity Date: 03 Aug 2000 19:59:05 -0600 Is a test of "appropriate" nudity whether or not it is intended to arouse erotic emotions? Is it possible that someone could create art that is not intended to arouse, but that does arouse someone? I think so. If so, then who bears the responsibility to avoid arousing, erotic images, the artist or the viewer? I think the viewer. Devin Thorpe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Neal Kramer Subject: Re: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 03 Aug 2000 20:54:31 -0600 Marny Parkin wrote: >>For that matter, I also mention which celebs the JWs have got and >>the Christian Scientists. The >>only JW I could think of was Michael Jackson, and CS would be Tom >>Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole >>Kidman(?). Anyone confirm these or add to my list? Travolta, Cruise, and Kidman belong to the Church of Scientology. Neal Kramer - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Margaret YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Review) Date: 03 Aug 2000 19:58:42 -0700 >I'm so glad _One More River to Cross_ is out now! I've been eager to read >it. Time to go spend money at the bookstore again.... > >Melissa Proffitt How very true! I'm really pleased this will be available. I'm really looking forward to this read. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 03 Aug 2000 22:08:47 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 12:32 PM > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > > [David Hansen] Schindler's List. The stark vulnerability and intimidation of the Jews under Nazis could be shown in no other way. Jesus was stripped naked on the cross as was every criminal executed in that way. That nudity is appropriate IMO. ********************************************* Richard C. Russell, SLC UTAH www.leaderlore.com, www.keyscouter.com "There is never the last word, only the latest." ********************************************* - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) Date: 04 Aug 2000 00:10:26 -0600 >>> ViKimball@aol.com 08/01/00 07:24PM >>> >We have a water color painted by Jos F. Everett in 1937 that belonged to = J.=20 >Golden Kimball. It is sentimental value and not a painting I would = hang=20 >otherwise. Anyone out there ever heard of this painter? Was he considered = a=20 >good artist? I'm really curious and would appreciate any info. >From _Artists of Utah_, by Robert S. Olpin, William C. Seifrit, and Vern = G.=20 Swanson, Gibbs Smith, 1999: Everett, Joseph Alma Freestone (1883-1945), was a Salt Laker whose=20 parents had emigrated from England as LDS converts. He studied with=20 John Hafen, J.T. Harwood, L.G. Richards, and L.A. Ramsey; he went=20 on to study watercolor with E.A. Smith at the Kensington School of Art,=20 then under no particular master in Paris, and finally with the muralist=20 Kenyon Cox in New York. After this, Everett went to work for the Oregon Short Line Railroad in its Salt Lake engineering department as a draftsman.= =20 Nevertheless, he pursued the more supple and portable medium of=20 watercolor in his off hours to quickly apprehend chance occurrences in=20 nature. In time, Everett gave up his job with the railroad when his=20 department was transferred to Omaha, and made the attempt to support=20 his family via the opening of a school. It was tough, but he managed=20 by teaching at the Lion House and also giving private lessons to the=20 children of such notables as President Heber J. Grant. He finally=20 became successful enough that a Joseph Everet Art Society was=20 founded by devoted students who wished to retain, through fellowship=20 with former classmates, at least a small degree of what had existed=20 in painting sessions conducted by the master. >>> ViKimball@aol.com 08/03/00 09:22AM >>> > >BTW, if any old book collectors are out there you might be=20 >interested in an experience Stan and I had in Nauvoo last night to see = City=20 >of Joseph. We went to the only book store in town--it reminds me of = Sam=20 >Wellers place--and in the main case they had the Deseret Alphabet, pub. = in=20 >1868. We asked them what they were asking because we had two. They said = maybe=20 >we should sit down. The price was $350. Stan picked up two in the = church=20 >office building about 45 years ago for 50 cents. They wanted to get rid = of a=20 >box full which they had out with a note saying "take what you want and = leave=20 >50 cents." We have made a good $1 investment. The temple in Nauvoo has = a=20 >long way to go and it looks much smaller than I thought it would. There were 4 books published in the Deseret Alphabet: 2 "readers" = (written=20 for young students of the Alphabet, 1st Nephi, and the complete Book of=20 Mormon. The first 3 are not too hard to find, and usually are in remarkably= =20 good condition for their age (they didn't get used much). They typically = sell=20 for $200-250, depending on condition. The primers command a slightly = higher=20 price if they have an errata sheet "tipped" in near the back. The $350 = price=20 is a little steep, but may be justified if the copy was in particularly = good=20 condition. More likely, the dealer probably thought the higher price = was=20 justified because copies are hard to come by in the Midwest (but show = up=20 on Ebay every couple months). The full Deseret Alphabet Book of Mormon is scarce. A copy sold at=20 auction in Salt Lake about a year ago for $6000. MBA - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 03 Aug 2000 15:43:05 -0600 I sense that Jason and I could go back and forth on these issues for quite = some time. And I also sense that we probably agree more than we disagree. = I do want to respond, very briefly, to a couple of points. I took the admittedly extreme position of arguing that all art is Good. I = still think this is a defensible position, but what I would prefer to say = is that almost all art works can be defended on moral grounds. If they = can be so defended, they oughta be. And to label a certain work of art = 'good' or 'bad' is to judge, perhaps unrighteously. =20 Let me illustrate. A friend of mine is a seminary teacher, and he asked = students to bring in the works of art that, to them, were the most = spiritual, the most inviting to the Holy Ghost. This was to be an oral = presentation to the class, and the first girl brought in a tape recorder, = and played Billy Joel singing Uptown Girl. Uptown Girl is a fun, bouncy = little rock number. I don't personally think it's one of Billy Joel's best = songs, and would hardly consider it 'spiritual.' Then the girl explained: = her father had loved that song, and he used to sing it to her when they = rode in a car together, and he'd sing it to her as a bedtime lullaby. And = then her father died, and she was terribly distraught, and then, at the = funeral, she prayed for peace and for an assurance that she would see her = father again. And then, in her ear, she heard him again singing Uptown = Girl. And so, for her, that song was associated in an immediate and = direct way with the plan of salvation. Now, in Jason's last post, he talked about absolute vs. relative values = and truths. But I do not consider Uptown Girl a song that invites the = spirit, or that speaks of eternal principles. When it comes on my radio, I = turn it off, because I don't like the song. And yet, for this teenager, = Uptown Girl spoke of spiritual matters more clearly and directly than any = other work of art in the world. So what is it? Good art or bad art? Now, as it happens, I teach creative writing. I teach playwriting at BYU. = I have the professional responsibility of telling students that this = scene or that scene doesn't work, and that the play, as a result, is less = effective than it might be. And I have to grade the plays that students = turn in to my classes. I have awards I give to the 'best play' in a given = year; actual cash awards. I judge contests. Professionally, I spend my = day make judgments about works of art, saying, in effect, this work is = 'better' than that work. And I also think that I can, in fact, make such = judgments. I couldn't define my criteria, but I can say that this play is = effective that that play is less effective, and I can usually tell both = writers why. So my relativism, as Jason calls it, isn't absolute. =20 But I am very very very reluctant to question anyone's testimony. If = someone tells me that a certain work of art has done them good, or caused = them to do good, I think it would be the height of presumption to say = they're wrong. =20 >But your claim that all art is good and/or valuable=20 >runs (IMO) counter to my Mormon sensibility, which is fraught with = >notions=20 >of absolute truth (as opposed to the relativism you proclaim here). Absolute truths, in a gospel context, are very very rare. And are, = without exception, reflected in almost all works of art, IMHO. One can = make a case for any work of art reflecting the profoundest truths of the = gospel. And if such a case can be made, sincerely, by someone, then that = is that someone's testimony.=20 >Granted,=20 >it is difficult--VERY VERY difficult--to discern that truth, and to = >make=20 >judgements, but nevertheless we are commanded to do so (it's >"judge = not=20 >_unrighteously_", not "judge not"). IOW, I think it's our >responsibility = to=20 >judge what is good art and what is bad art.=20 I would argue instead that it is our responsibility to look for the good. = Always. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, OF GOOD REPORT, or = praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I think it is always our = obligation to look for the good, to seek the face of our brother or sister = in the work of art he/she has created, to understand his/her testimony and = respond to it. (I do make an exception for pornography, but it is an = exceedingly uninformed exception, because I don't know enough about = pornography to know what it is I'm talking about.) =20 Having said that, I suppose I'm also convicting myself of hypocrisy, since = my job involves telling people 'your work of art isn't working very well.' = But I strive never ever ever to tell a student that his/her work is = morally degrading, or anything like that. I prefer the word 'effective.' = I say 'this is what I perceive you trying to do. I don't think you're = succeeding. Here's how to make it better.' I think that's a responsible = way to react. >Art is action, it is thought, it=20 >is attitude and world view--and as Mormons we know that it is not >just = possible, but _necessary_ that there be both good and bad >actions, = thoughts, attitudes, and world views. And it is part of our >existence/expe= rience to learn to judge between the good and >the bad. I agree. And, yes, there are works of art that reflect a world view that = might and should be condemned. I'm mostly speaking from my own experience,= understand, and have never actually read any pro-Nazi art (to use an = extreme example.) If there are works of art that are directly didactic in = their approach,and which preach evil, those works should be condemned. I = agree. I don't know any works like that (well, one does seem them = periodically on MST3K), but am willing to admit to the theoretical = possibility that they exist. But I do think that the nature of art is = such that these sorts of works are likely to be pretty rare. =20 >I understand (and even, to some extent, applaud) the reluctance >to judge = wrongly, the hesitency to dismiss what might in fact be of value.=20 Good. This is a common ground on which we can build. >But I don't think turning to "anything goes" is the answer.=20 I'm not quite saying anything goes. I just want to defend works of art = that aren't often defended. I don't know that I've often seen an immoral = movie. I suppose I have seen a few that I thought were pretty questionable= . Mostly forties and fifties musicals. I think I do think there's something qualitatively different between an = attempt to encompass the human experience into a philosophic system, and = an attempt to explore the world creatively in a novel or play, but that's = probably not an area where we're going to agree. =20 Eric Samuelsen =20 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 04 Aug 2000 00:41:29 -0600 David Hansen wrote: > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater where nudity > would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Off the top of my head: _The Abyss_. A woman has drowned, but still has a chance of being resuscitated. They rip her shirt open so they can put the paddles on her bare chest. Her breasts are exposed, but at no time is any big deal made of them. No shot ever emphasizes the breasts--they appear only incidentally. And there is absolutely nothing sexual about the whole scene. In fact, it's a powerful and moving scene. _War of the Buttons_. The children of two towns in Ireland are feuding with each other. They have a "war" where victory is measured by how many buttons you can cut from your enemy's clothes. The leader of one of the groups gets a bright idea: attack nude, and they _can't_ cut off any buttons. So a bunch of nude boys ambush the other group in a series of long to medium shots--no close-ups. No sexual implications are present. _The Mission_. The Catholic Church is threatening the existence of a rainforest tribe in Brazil. Lots of religion bashing, but the nudity is the natural, "National Geographic" state of the natives, including complete front and rear nudity of a prepubescent girl. Nothing sexual about any of the scenes. _Schindler's List_. Situations where Jews were forced into nudity at the hands of the Germans. These scenes are historical and without sexual content. On the other hand, there are scenes of immoral sex where nudity also appears. An interesting contrast in appropriate and nonappropriate nudity within a single film. _Braveheart_. Wedding night of newly married couple. The woman's breasts are exposed. Even though this is an obvious prelude to sex, the scene does not evoke sexual emotions, but rather feelings of tenderness and love. And certainly the sex depicted is moral. _Romeo and Juliet_, the one with Olivia Hussey. The young couple are shown waking up after their wedding night, he from the rear, and she a quick view of her breasts. Nothing sexual about the scene itself, and the nudity in the story is completely appropriate to the situation. _The Bible_. Adam and Eve. Need I say more? I suppose it's debatable how "appropriate" the nudity in any of these cases is, depending on one's point of view. But the obvious distinction in these scenes is that the nudity is not intended to be sexually arousing. Even those scenes associated with sex (_Braveheart_ and _Romeo and Juliet_) were done tastefully and did not include actual acts of sex, and the sex involved was moral. On the other hand, I've witnessed scenes of nonsexual nudity (shower scenes particularly) which the filmmaker deliberately made sexually titillating. As with so many things in life, it's all in the intent. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] _Blair Witch Project_ (was: Query on Donny & Marie Show) Date: 04 Aug 2000 09:17:23 -0700 I thought the Blair Witch Project was a FANTASTIC movie, one that stayed = with me and really made me feel empathy for the characters. I found it = very convincing and moving (in more ways than one, considering the camera = style). I don't remember much about the bad language. We're right to = protect the name of diety, of course, but other than that I think we make = too big a fuss about language and give it negative power that it needn't = have. Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 03 Aug 2000 20:26:29 -0400 I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon characters portrayed? I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it Clint Eastwood sings, beautifully. Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 02 Aug 2000 13:12:16 PDT D. Michael Martindale writes: Nudity is considered by many LDS members to be one of those things that automatically make a film, a photograph, and other art, evil. Just what attitude toward nudity is appropriate for LDS people? Is nudity inherently evil, or does it depend? Does our theology preach against all forms of nudity, or is that a cultural heritage? I think this is an excellent question. My two cents (not necessarily an answer, but at least a contribution to the discussion): I'm not sure our theology has much to say about nudity, per se. But certainly our belief system and the ways in which we interpret doctrines and scriptures (as well as a long cultural heritage, especially in America, with that Puritan background) may contribute to an aversion to nudity. After all, Adam and Eve were given skins to cover their nakedness, with at least some implication that nakedness was something that ought to be covered. And one of the explicit functions of garments is to cover nakedness and to maintain a level of modesty. And, since our culture (presently, at least, if not historically) tends to present nudity in an atmosphere of sex (usually not within the relationship of marriage), sensuality, lust, etc.--well, it's easy to see why Mormons might develop a knee-jerk reaction to it. Is nudity ontologically evil? I don't think so. But let's face it--what percentage of the nudity that's 'out there' can we honestly claim is presented with respect, admiration (of a pure sort), and (yes, I'll say it) reverence? I'd venture to say the percentage is miniscule, if it exists at all. Again, I'm not trying to answer any questions here--just asking more, maybe. I truly marvel at the human form (Hamlet says it best in his "What a piece of work is a man!" speech). But I wonder if the Word of Wisdom approach isn't maybe the best, considering the contemporary climate. By the WofW approach, I mean: maybe it IS a good idea to abstain (or at least avoid as much as possible) from nudity, seeing as most of it probably isn't reverent in nature, and may simply be too much for most people to handle. (This is the rationale behind the WofW to some extent--alcohol, etc. may be okay in moderation, for many; but because it can lead to so many bad things for so many others, it is "banned" outright.) Now, as for a scene of nudity making a film "evil"--that may be a bit extreme. Certainly there are excellent (and decidedly "good"--i.e. not evil) films that may contain a scene or scenes of nudity. But, again, how many of those scenes of nudity are CRUCIAL to the artistic integrity of the film? Some are. Many--probably most--are not; and arguably they may detract from the "goodness" (in the sense of "not evil," not in the sense of "good movie") of the work. I really don't think nudity is inherently evil; but I do think that the vast majority of the situations/contexts in which it is presented are forms of temptation, at least, if they're not themselves inherently evil (it's an interesting philosophical question, whether or not temptation is itself inherently evil, or if it is only the giving in to it that is evil). At any rate, because most of these presentations are temptations--then whether or not they're "evil" is on some level irrelevent. We're to avoid temptation, no? So, perhaps in most cases, the knee-jerk tendency of Mormons to avoid presentations of nudity is not such a bad thing... I don't know. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Jos. F. EVERETT (Painter) Date: 04 Aug 2000 16:03:31 EDT In a message dated 8/4/00 1:50:55 PM Central Daylight Time, MADAIR@novell.com writes: << Everett, Joseph Alma Freestone (1883-1945), was a Salt Laker whose parents had emigrated from England as LDS converts. He studied with John Hafen, J.T. Harwood, L.G. Richards, and L.A. Ramsey; he went on to study watercolor with E.A. Smith at the Kensington School of Art, then under no particular master in Paris, and finally with the muralist Kenyon Cox in New York. After this, Everett went to work for the Oregon Short Line Railroad in its Salt Lake engineering department as a draftsman. Nevertheless, he pursued the more supple and portable medium of watercolor in his off hours to quickly apprehend chance occurrences in nature. In time, Everett gave up his job with the railroad when his department was transferred to Omaha, and made the attempt to support his family via the opening of a school. It was tough, but he managed by teaching at the Lion House and also giving private lessons to the children of such notables as President Heber J. Grant. He finally became successful enough that a Joseph Everet Art Society was founded by devoted students who wished to retain, through fellowship with former classmates, at least a small degree of what had existed in painting sessions conducted by the master. >> This is great. I now have more respect my painting than before. I'll put this info on the back of the painting. I appreciate the information you sent, and maybe we'll sell our books on ebay. The book store owner in Nauvoo is RLDS and has a big collection of old books and memorabilia. He said one of the worst book dealers he works with is Deseret, and the best was Bookcraft. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 04 Aug 2000 14:14:52 -0600 Devin Thorpe wrote: > Is a test of "appropriate" nudity whether or not it is intended to arou= se > erotic emotions? > > Is it possible that someone could create art that is not intended to ar= ouse, > but that does arouse someone? I think so. > > If so, then who bears the responsibility to avoid arousing, erotic imag= es, > the artist or the viewer? I think the viewer. It has to be both the artist and the viewer. You can't tell me that a wr= iter or director who creates a sexually explicit scene specifically designed to a= rouse the audience can abnegate responsibility by saying, "If the audience gets aroused it's their own fault. I didn't do anything." The opposite extreme are those who are easily offended, in which bare sho= ulders are a local scandal. Unfortunately, we ususally, as LDS people, end up a= t this extreme. As I've thought about why we do so, I think many members interp= ret the strong statements against pornography as a bar to nudity. For example, (love the new Ensign database!) President Hinckley in April = 1999 conference said, "You may expect that the adversary will work on you. You, of all men, must exercise self-discipline, standing far apart from sin and evil of any kind in your own life. You must shun pornography, shut off the television set when it carries salacious entertainment, be pure in thought and deed." Putting pornography and TV watching in the same sentence seems to indicat= e that TV is where you find porn. Pres. Hinckley in April 1998 said, "You must not fool around with the Internet to find pornographic material. You must not dial a long-distance telephone number to listen to filth. You must not rent videos with pornography of any kind. This salacious stuff simply is not for you. Stay away from pornography as you would avoid a serious disease. It is as destructive. It can become habitual, and those who indulge in it get so they cannot leave it alone. It is addictive. "It is a five-billion-dollar business for those who produce it. They make it as titillating and attractive as they know how. It seduces and destroys its victims. It is everywhere. It is all about us. I plead with you young men not to get involved in its use. You simply cannot afford to." Granted this was a talk to the young men, but the charge certainly applie= s to all members. The question then becomes what is pornography "of any kind?= " Course there have been some church leaders who have spoken outright again= st nudity as well. Elder Ballard in October 1992 conference lumped nudity in with pornograph= y when he said, "Political unrest, warfare, and economic chaos prevail in many parts of the world, and the plagues of pornography, drug misuse, immorality, AIDS, and child abuse become more oppressive with each passing day. The media busily satisfies an apparently insatiable appetite of audiences to witness murder, violence, nudity, sex, and profanity. Is not this the day of which Moroni spoke when he recorded: =93Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.=94 (Morm. 8:35.) And then he prophesied of conditions of the world as they are today." I'm not trying to define "pornography" or to get close to the line - but = I can see how some members interpret these statements as shunning nudity in all forms. I'm sure this is the idea that led to BYU banning Rodin. Perhaps= these members are mistaken in their interpretation. (I know a few LDS painters= who swear that you can't teach drawing or painting without learning the human= form - and it is impossible without viewing nudity.) However, I agree with Jaso= n Steed that in the majority of art today, nudity is used in sexual situations in= which the producer/writer intends to arouse the audience. This makes it extrem= enly difficult to justify watching nudity because there are so few examples of= nudity being used to glorify God and show the true beauty of the human form. Still, I'm not offended if I read a story about someone nude or a tastefu= lly done sex scene. However, I would get increasingly more offended if that a= ct is painted, sculpted, directed in a movie or finally acted out on stage? Do= es the medium matter here, or am I just nuts? Dave Hansen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 04 Aug 2000 14:29:42 -0700 I remember a nude sex scene in "Wings of the Dove," the adaptation of the = Henry James novel starring Helena Bonham Carter. It's toward the end, when = the main character's machinations to achieve a marriage have failed, so = she turns to sex to bind the couple together. It shows them getting the = act underway, but then the act fails. I thought it was a powerful = statement that sex does not solve problems, and that without emotional = rightness and engagement sex can fail. It would have been ridiculous to = try to do the scene without the characters naked, and the scene was = powerful and moral. I also remember a scene from "The Ice Storm," the excellent movie directed = by Ang Lee. It shows a nude adulterous liaison that seems almost comically = perfunctory and empty, and it highlights the emotional and moral bankruptcy= of the characters. I also remember some powerful sexual-context nudity in = "Election," a great film that I thought was MUCH better than Oscar-winning = "American Beauty" last year--this film's sex/nudity was far from titillatin= g and instead highlighted the absurdities of the character's situation and = indeed of the human condition.=20 The kind of fiction, film, and drama that speaks most to me tends to be = contemporary in setting and shows human (meaning good/bad) characters in = all facets and spheres of their lives, including the nude and sexual. How = can an author/director set up a full, realistic account of human characters= and not include nudity and sex? That would be like a scientist trying to = make up a compound but refusing to include carbon (I don't know my = science, so maybe that example's weird--but I hope my point comes across). = My own fiction tends to contain too much sexual frankness, but I'm = experimenting to find the right mix (my idol is John Updike, who includes = much graphic extramarital sex, and while he doesn't outright glorify it, = he tends to make it seem acceptable and inevitable and low in consequences)= . By the way, my other two favorite movies of recent memory have been = "High Fidelity" and "Wonder Boys," both of which affirmed family morality = via a circuitous route that probably brought along more people than a = straight-ahead moral approach would have (if either of those R-rated = movies had nude scenes, I don't recall them). "Wonder Boys," which had a = poor theatrical run, is to be rereleased this fall, and I highly recommend = it--and I'm currently reading the novel it's based on by Michael Chabon, = which is also superb, and the movie seems to follow it quite closely so = far and is coming back to me unexpectedly vividly as I read. It's one of = those rare novel/film synergy treats. And while I'm on the subject of movies, I wanted to elaborate a stitch = more about "The Blair Witch Project" (which contained no sex). The movie = made a powerful enough impact on me that a couple of days later, I = actually started tearing up in a restaurant with a large group of people = after I zoned off and started thinking again about the characters and = their experiences. It's rare I tear up IN a movie, and tearing up days = afterward is unprecedented in my experience. And the movie came back to me = forcefully just last month as I camped with my wife and young kids in a = remote mountain location--"Blair Witch" did for camping what "Jaws" did = for the beach. You should have seen me sweeping the weeds and trees with = my flashlight stuck out the barely-unzipped tent flap. Chris Bigelow =20 * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 04 Aug 2000 15:04:13 -0600 David Hansen wrote, of his wife: >She is perfectly willing and able >to view nude paintings and sculpture without feeling threatened, >but = theater >or movies with nudity are, by and large, out of bounds. This >makes me = believe >that most opposition to nudity is cultural rather than doctrinal. Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. =20 >I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater >where = nudity >would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Let me give some specific examples from the most recent London season: 1. David Edgar's new play Albert Speer, begins as Speer and his fellow = Nuremberg co-defendents arriving at Spandau prison. The prison officials, = force them to strip, and then to put on the clothes worn by Jewish = prisoners in Auschwitz. So we had a brief moment of nudity, in which = these convicted war criminals are treated in a humiliating and degrading = fashion, including nudity. It was a very powerful theatrical moment, and = you were, as an audience member torn, between sympathy for these men and a = general feeling of 'hey, they deserve it.' Not even remotely offensive, = not to me anyway, and not to the forty BYU students I had with me. Would = I, as an LDS actor, perform nude in that scene? Absolutely, without a = moment's hesitation. 2) The Mysteries, at the National. In this production, we saw Adam and = Eve in the Garden of Eden. A huge tub of dirt was rolled onto the stage. = (The audience and cast mingled on-stage throughout the production, so that = the action took place among the spectators; they'd just clear a little = space in the middle of the crowd and do a scene. Fabulous piece of = theatre). Anyway, God (who was up on a fork lift) summoned them, and Adam = and Eve rose up from out of the dirt, starkers, and completely innocent. = I was close enough, I could have touched them both. It was a wonderful = moment, not remotely offensive, and our students, again, thought it was = great, in a production that was a spiritual feast. Would I, as an LDS = actor, be willing to play Adam in such a production? Without a moment's = hesitation. (Not that there's much demand for an Adam of my age, weight, = and dimensions!) =20 3. Wit, on the West End. Terrific new play, about an American Lit = professor who is stricken by, and eventually dies of, cancer. She's a = John Donne specialist, and her own readings of Donne poems form a lovely, = deeply tragic counterpoint to her discussions with her oncologists. At = the end of the play, as she dies, she stands before the audience, and = drops her hospital gown, and is revealed there, her body ravaged by = disease (major makeup job) in the nude. Kathleen Chalfont played the = prof, and she's a woman in her mid-fifties, I'd say. It was a stunning = theatrical moment, again not at all offensive. I loved it. Three examples of inoffensive nudity. I could name a dozen more. Nudity = is a legitimate artistic tool, for both theatrical and cinematic artists. = I'm absolutely convinced of it. We do have a cultural bias against it, = and that's not something we should ignore; cultural forces are powerful. = =20 Eric Samuelsen=20 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 04 Aug 2000 15:03:25 PDT Eric wrote: >I sense that Jason and I could go back and forth on these issues for quite >some time. And I also sense that we probably agree more than we disagree. I write: I think so, too. Eric wrote: >I took the admittedly extreme position of arguing that all art is Good. I >still think this is a defensible position, but what I would prefer to say >is that almost all art works can be defended on moral grounds. If they can >be so defended, they oughta be. And to label a certain work of art 'good' >or 'bad' is to judge, perhaps unrighteously. > I write: Perhaps the difference, fundamentally, is in our definitions of "art." I tend to have a somewhat 'postmodern' view that breaks down barriers between what is traditionally labeled "art" and other forms/modes of expression, etc. that traditionally have not been so labeled. In other words, these days it is possible (and theoretically/philosophically legitimate) to claim comic books, pornography, epic poems, soap operas, novels (of all kinds), advertisements, films (of all kinds), Sat morning cartoons, sitcoms, historical documents, plays, and so on, as falling under the somewhat all-encompassing label of "art"--though the more proper (accepted) term would be "text", as "art" still carries those hierarchical connotations that are being broken down. Because I tend to define art this way, while maintaining a belief that much of what I've listed above is (or at least can be) immoral, "bad," or "evil," it is not hard for me to claim the necessity of judging between the good and the bad, nor is it unreasonable in my mind to disagree with the notion that "almost all art" can be defended on moral grounds. A great deal of it, perhaps--but I would not say "almost all." The "Uptown Girl" example is a good one. And I don't want to be misunderstood: in no way would I advocate "judging against" that song. But not because someone can defend it on moral grounds. On the contrary, I'm not advocating the censorship of any/all art that isn't directly linked to the Gospel and its proclamation, etc. (That WOULD be verging on fascism!) Rather, I'm in favor of attempts to censor that which is decidedly "bad" or immoral. As I see it, "Uptown Girl" may not be Gospel-oriented, but neither is it promoting sin and wickedness. I wouldn't censor it in any way, not because a girl 'connects' with it, but because it's basically harmless. On the other hand, music that can convincingly be argued as being "evil," or promoting those things which some may call "sin," or which (at least) promotes or encourages thoughts and actions that may be harmful to people/communities/families/society--say, for example, Marilyn Manson--this sort of art, though some may defend it on their own relativistic moral grounds, is (by my Mormon standards) "bad." [And I don't mean "bad" as in I don't like it; I mean "bad" as in "evil."] Thus, I am in favor of forms of censorship with regard to this sort of thing. That doesn't necessarily mean banishment (I do believe in freedom of speech and choice)--but certainly I would favor a more strict rating system. (I favor the same with regard to movies, though the rating system as it stands is far too relativistic, IMO.) Your example with the writing class is also good. And again I wouldn't want to be misunderstood as claiming that judgements made regarding "good" writing (as in "effective" or "artful", etc.) are the same as judgements regarding "good" writing (as in "moral", or at least "not immoral"). Obviously we make the sorts of judgements you're talking about--between "good" and "bad" writing, or art--but here you're talking about taste, not morality. Taste is ABSOLUTELY relative. I can have a thorough taste for Marilyn Manson's music, for pornography, for movies that glorify violence and make criminals into heroes; these things might exhilirate me, move me, etc. I might say they're "good." But in terms of morality, and not taste, it seems to me fairly clear that these things are NOT "good." Eric wrote: >But I am very very very reluctant to question anyone's testimony. If >someone tells me that a certain work of art has done them good, or caused >them to do good, I think it would be the height of presumption to say >they're wrong. I write: I'm not sure I was suggesting we question anyone's testimony. And yes, someone may be moved to do good by a work of art that is "bad." But again I think the WofW rule applies. Though "bad" (morality-wise, not taste-wise) art, like alcohol, may cause or inspire good in a few, the potential it has for "evil" is enough for me to be in favor of censoring it. Eric wrote: >Absolute truths, in a gospel context, are very very rare. And are, without >exception, reflected in almost all works of art, IMHO. One can make a case >for any work of art reflecting the profoundest truths of the gospel. And >if such a case can be made, sincerely, by someone, then that is that >someone's testimony. I write: You might have to explain this further. What do you mean by absolute truths being rare in a gospel context? And how do "almost all works of art" reflect these absolute truths? Of course, if you're defining "art" more narrowly than I am, than this might be easier for me to conceive; but still, how is, for example, the absolute moral truth that sex is sacred and should only be enacted within the bounds of marriage reflected in, say, "almost all" of the movies and novels these days? (Assuming your narrower definition of art, I won't even ask about advertising, pornography, etc.) I wrote: > >Granted, > >it is difficult--VERY VERY difficult--to discern that truth, and to >make > >judgements, but nevertheless we are commanded to do so (it's >"judge not > >_unrighteously_", not "judge not"). IOW, I think it's our >responsibility >to > >judge what is good art and what is bad art. Eric wrote: >I would argue instead that it is our responsibility to look for the good. >Always. "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, OF GOOD REPORT, or >praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I think it is always our >obligation to look for the good, to seek the face of our brother or sister >in the work of art he/she has created, to understand his/her testimony and >respond to it. (I do make an exception for pornography, but it is an >exceedingly uninformed exception, because I don't know enough about >pornography to know what it is I'm talking about.) I write: I agree that we should look for the good. That's why I would NOT censor something like "Uptown Girl"--or much of the art out there. But along with looking for the good goes recognizing the bad, and when the bad is recognized, I think something should be done about it. Your exception for pornography, by the way, is what prompted my assumption that your definition of "art" might be narrower than mine. Eric wrote: >Having said that, I suppose I'm also convicting myself of hypocrisy, since >my job involves telling people 'your work of art isn't working very well.' >But I strive never ever ever to tell a student that his/her work is morally >degrading, or anything like that. I prefer the word 'effective.' I say >'this is what I perceive you trying to do. I don't think you're >succeeding. Here's how to make it better.' I think that's a responsible >way to react. I write: I agree. Again, good/effective and good/moral are two different things. I also teach writing, and when something isn't working (according to tastes and conventions, which are relative), I don't censor that in any way, though I try to help the writer to improve it. However, if a student is using language or conveying views that might be considered sexist or racist, I DO make sure to point these out in an effort to educate and enlighten (and, essentially, censor). As a writing teacher, I should be engaged in helping my students to be better writers--but not in helping them to be better Nazis (to use your example). I wrote: > >Art is action, it is thought, it > >is attitude and world view--and as Mormons we know that it is not >just >possible, but _necessary_ that there be both good and bad >actions, >thoughts, attitudes, and world views. And it is part of our > >existence/experience to learn to judge between the good and >the bad. Eric wrote: >I agree. And, yes, there are works of art that reflect a world view that >might and should be condemned. I'm mostly speaking from my own experience, >understand, and have never actually read any pro-Nazi art (to use an >extreme example.) If there are works of art that are directly didactic in >their approach,and which preach evil, those works should be condemned. I >agree. I don't know any works like that (well, one does seem them >periodically on MST3K), but am willing to admit to the theoretical >possibility that they exist. But I do think that the nature of art is such >that these sorts of works are likely to be pretty rare. I write: Why does it need to be "directly didactic" for you to condemn it? Can't a work be immoral/bad without being directly didactic? In fact, I believe art is potentially MORE powerful, the less directly didactic it is--thus, shouldn't we be wary of that which is immoral/bad in a more subtle but potentially more destructive manner? I wrote: > >I understand (and even, to some extent, applaud) the reluctance >to judge >wrongly, the hesitency to dismiss what might in fact be of value. Eric wrote: >Good. This is a common ground on which we can build. I write: Yes. Again, I'm not advocating rash waves of censorship here. I think we need to be willing to closely analyze all forms of art and to be humble and careful in our judgements. But I also think that close analysis will reveal a much higher level of immorality (in both frequency and intensity of occurrence) in "art" (the broad definition) than is perhaps presently recognized by the average "reader." Two examples (and I won't choose easy ones, like pornography): 1. Advertising: Watch it. Closely. Watch the ways in which men and women are portrayed--especially women. Rampant sexism--and by this I don't mean inequality, I mean disrespect, objectification, irreverence, etc.--exists in advertising. Also racism, class prejudice, and the promotion of irresponsible and (by our standards, which I believe are absolute and not relative) immoral sexual activity. One example in particular: A magazine ad portraying a well-dressed (business suit and pearls), obviously wealthy and attractive woman (thirtyish). In the woman's lap is a man's foot wearing a hulking boot. We don't see the man, just his leg propped on the woman's lap, and the woman is making as though to take off the boot. From the man's pantleg and boot, we judge him to be not-so-wealthy or well-dressed as the woman. The advertisement is for the boots. But what is the 'text' _saying_? That a woman, no matter how much she has achieved (successful executive perhaps?), no matter how classy or stylish or attractive or wealthy she may be, is still there only as the "object" of the ad, good for displaying a product, and, more pointedly, good for taking off the man's boots. I think this is at least disrespectful and distasteful, if not immoral. (Is sexism immoral? Is this absolute or relative? Good questions.) 2. Sitcoms: Again, watch them. Closely. They promote all of the above, maybe more. Watch, for example, a week's worth of sitcoms and try to come up with one honest, respectable, admirable father-figure. Usually, father's are portrayed as saps, dunces, deadbeats, idiots who don't know what's going on around them, or who verbally abuse their wife or children, etc, etc, etc. Is this moral/immoral? And what about sexual relationships? Honesty and integrity? (So much sitcom humor is derived from a lie or a deception, if you pay attention--and though some may have a 'moral' that advocates telling the truth, often the playful, inconsequential results of the otherwise very serious deception outweigh any attempt at didacticism in the end.) Find a sitcom that reflects/promotes any absolute moral truths that we believe in. Now, again, I'm not suggesting these should all be condemned/censored publicly. But I do think, at the least, we need to be careful readers/viewers--aware of what's being hurled at us. Then, at the least, we can personally censor things. And the same kind of careful reading needs to take place in the "narrower" realm of art--meaning (in literature) poetry, plays, and novels. The "anti-hero" is so prevalent in American literature that we hardly use the term anymore--it used to refer to a hero who did not possess the traits traditionally viewed as heroic. But now this is almost commonplace. We just say "hero," even when we're referring to a protagonist who is, say, a jewel thief who lies, steals, and sleeps with four women in one novel/movie, and whose 'triumph' is over the antagonist (the "bad guy") who is a police detective trying to catch him--and we cheer when people are killed, things are destroyed, we get mushy when he realizes he's in love with the first woman he had sex with, despite his flings with the other three... Isn't this in some way a subtle reflection/promotion of immorality? Eric wrote: >I'm not quite saying anything goes. I just want to defend works of art >that aren't often defended. I don't know that I've often seen an immoral >movie. I suppose I have seen a few that I thought were pretty >questionable. Mostly forties and fifties musicals. I write: You're not sure you've seen an immoral movie? Are you differentiating between "an immoral movie" and "a movie that portrays/promotes immorality"? I can see how one might do so. THere are, admittedly, many works of art that portray or USE immorality, as a contrast perhaps to the moral--and these can be distinguished from works that reflect/promote immorality. But I'm a HUGE movie fan, and I have studied film and film theory as a grad student (as well as literature)--and I wouldn't hesitate a moment in saying there are ALL KINDS of immoral films (and works of literature) out there. TONS of 'em. Eric wrote: >I think I do think there's something qualitatively different between an >attempt to encompass the human experience into a philosophic system, and an >attempt to explore the world creatively in a novel or play, but that's >probably not an area where we're going to agree. I write: This is in reference to my suggestion that art and philosophy (and science, etc) are not so different from each other, I take it. I agree, there IS something qualitatively different about these things, that's why I called them different _ways_ or _modes_ of knowing--if there wasn't anything qualitatively different about them, they'd be the same. I don't think they're the same, but I also don't think they're as separate as you suggest. The artist and the philosopher (and the scientist, the historian, etc) both attempt to explore and explain, they just do it in different ways. This is all very interesting stuff. And I DO think we probably agree more than not--I sense we both have a tendency to play devil's advocate in taking somewhat more extreme stances than we might truly adhere to. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dean FH Macy Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 04 Aug 2000 18:24:44 -0400 Shawn and Melinda Ambrose wrote: > I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon > characters portrayed? > > I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it Clint > Eastwood sings, beautifully. Not Clint Eastwood. It was Lee Marvin who sang beautifully. Actually I discovered when I worked with him for the movie he enjoyed singing, albeit gravelly. 'Paint Your Wagon' was his singing debut. And he was 'born under a wandering star.' -- Dean FH Macy, Lit.D./Mus.D. "Specializing in Management of exceptionally talented youth in Music" EPI Records - NetWork Films "Making children do something they don't want to do is the job of the parents. If that doesn't work, there are always juvenile detention centers." - Mike R. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 04 Aug 2000 21:59:50 MDT >From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" > >Anna and the King: there's a story that's been told several times before, >and really doesn't need to get told again, except that Jodie Foster wanted >to. Agreed. For those of us who live in the Kingdom of Thailand, the movie is a sad mockery of the monarchy. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the facts knows that Anna created a fictional past when she arrived in Bangkok since she was running away from some ugly truths. Then long after the she left Bangkok she created a fictional account of her dealings in Siam: She was one of several teachers, not a governess; it would have been highly unlikely for her get as close to the king as she implies; it would have been impossible for her to show the disrespect to the king that is portrayed in the film, and she would have had very few direct dealings with him (she dealt primarily with his children); her influence on his thinking was grossly exaggerated since most of his forward-looking ideas were formed long before she arrived; her portrayals of life in the royal household are at odds with all contemporary accounts by dispassionate western observers, etc., etc. Ah, but now much of the the world has a distorted view of an enlightened man. Yul Brynner dancing around would be like Jefferson dancing the Can-Can while crafting early American documents. And now we have some fool being smitten and then set straight by Jodie Foster. (Some balance came back when Time magazine considered King Chulalangkorn the most important Asian of the 20th century). I guess Jodie Foster wanted to advance her agenda of the foolishness of men? Okay Thom, tell us once more that art does not have to deal with historical facts. regards, Bob Hughes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Nudity Date: 05 Aug 2000 00:46:00 -0400 I don't know if this has been mentioned yet (I'm a month behind in reading these posts-sorry), but men are generally more visually oriented than women. I went through all our old Relief Society and Priesthood manuals to dispose of them. It interested me to discover that while the Relief Society manuals had only one picture (on the front), the Priesthood manuals had at least one full page (5" x 8") picture with every lesson. Now, I think this fits with the evidence in our larger society and in our literature: men tend to have more pictures of scantily dressed women around, whereas women tend to read romance novels. Women generally are more hearing oriented and can focus on many things at one time (i.e., mothers). Men generally can focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else, which means they get a lot done on that one thing (i.e., career). I don't want to debate the fairness or unfairness of it; men and women are different and you'll have to work with what you've got. It is possible to write about sex and not be embarrassing or offensive to your own self. Anyone else, it's Russian roulette. Everyone brings their own baggage to the issue. (My luggage, fortunately, is lightweight and occasionally uplifting.) I love being a woman and I'm thankful not to have to deal with the responsibility of the priesthood on top of all this home making! Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "mjames_laurel" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 04 Aug 2000 22:55:08 -0600 > I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon > characters portrayed? My husband tells me there's some reference to Mormons in "Fletch." And he remembers there's some movie (who knows which one--can't remember the name) about a fellow in the army taking a train somewhere who runs into a guy in a bar who said he was from Orem, Utah. He saw this one when he was a senior at Provo High, and remembers it because the audience cracked up. As for my contribution, there's a truly awful, early 80's movie starring Meatloaf and Alice Cooper (I think the name was Roadie, but I'm not sure...) there were a couple of very crude, falling-down drunk young men of missionary age sitting on the hood of a car, holding beers and yelling insults to passers by. They were only visible for seconds, but were very clearly and blatantly wearing BYU t-shirts. My BYU roommates and I thought this was hysterical. (Years later, I convinced my husband that was the funniest movie ever made, so he went to a great deal of trouble to find and rent the video. On this second viewing I saw it is actually not funny at all, and a really bad movie to boot.) Laurel Brady - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 04 Aug 2000 23:18:33 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > Let me illustrate. A friend of mine is a seminary teacher, and he asked students to bring in the works of art that, to them, were the most spiritual, the most inviting to the Holy Ghost. This was to be an oral presentation to the class, and the first girl brought in a tape recorder, and played Billy Joel singing Uptown Girl. Uptown Girl is a fun, bouncy little rock number. I don't personally think it's one of Billy Joel's best songs, and would hardly consider it 'spiritual.' Then the girl explained: her father had loved that song, and he used to sing it to her when they rode in a car together, and he'd sing it to her as a bedtime lullaby. And then her father died, and she was terribly distraught, and then, at the funeral, she prayed for peace and for an assurance that she would see her father again. And then, in her ear, she heard him again singing Uptown Girl. And so, for her, that song was associated in an immediate and direct way with the plan of salvation. This absolutely intrigues me. I think it would be a fascinating experiment to try over and over again, and particularly with members of the church who feel strongly that there is a decisive line between good and bad art. Even among "traditional," "orthodox," "hard-nosed," "prudish" (whatever adjective you want to use) members, I think it would be an eye-opener to see what a variety of art is perceived as inspiring. I think it would end up humbling a great many hearts to see the variety (assuming the heart in question isn't too hardened to humble). I think it would end up humbling a great many of us on the list if we witnessed that experiment. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 04 Aug 2000 23:28:10 -0600 Devin Thorpe wrote: > Is it possible that someone could create art that is not intended to arouse, > but that does arouse someone? I think so. > > If so, then who bears the responsibility to avoid arousing, erotic images, > the artist or the viewer? I think the viewer. I'm beginning to wonder (which is why I started the topic in the first place) if our extreme aversion to nudity isn't actually causing many of the sexual problems we've adopted that attitude to avoid. Let's face it, growing children are going to be curious about sex. As they reach puberty, they are going to be driven by a strong biological imperative to be curious about sex. If we desperately hide all information about sex and our bodies from them, they _will_ search for it in other ways. What chance is there those ways will be positive? By being shameful and secretive about sex and nudity, are we creating the sexual deviants we are trying to protect ourselves from? I'm beginning to believe we are. Which puts me in the interesting position of doing a complete 180 on my attitude toward nudity in art. Not long ago I basically considered nudity in art immoral--in film at least--with a handful of rare exceptions. Now I'm beginning to wonder if wholesome depictions of nonsexual nudity and moral sex in nontitillating ways in our art wouldn't actually be a good thing to do for our increasingly polarized society: polarized at the extremes of excessive prudishness or vile prurience. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Good Writing Date: 05 Aug 2000 11:45:57 -0400 Part of the reason I've never made a serious effort to support myself financially solely by writing is because I have a pragmatic streak a mile wide (inherited from my father, who, while very intelligent and creative, said of literary work, "You can't eat it."). Society in the United States has become wealthy enough and technologically advanced enough to financially support many, many artists, entertainers, writers, and philosophers. But in many other societies, if you want to write full time you'll have to starve. Your physical and mental labor in those societies is more needed to support life directly, not to just encourage life. With this in mind, I have difficulty justifying spending full time writing, though I would love to do so. It seems an intangible way to work, yet I love to read and to watch movies and listen to music. Have you ever met this difficulty? How do you answer it? Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] CARD, _Stone Tables_ (Review) Date: 05 Aug 2000 03:20:23 -0600 STONE TABLES by Orson Scott Card January 2000, Shadow Mountain Press (Deseret Book Company) Trade paperback, 432 pages Hardback edition 1997 Reviewed by D. Michael Martindale Move Over, Charlton Heston; Card's Moses is John Wayne Everyone who's read Exodus knows that Moses was slow of speech. That detail was completely ignored in Cecil B. DeMille's classic _Ten Commandments_, because when you've got the magnificent Charlton Heston to work with, who wants to leave all that speaking to Aaron? But Orson Scott Card in his book _Stone Tables_ didn't ignore that detail at all. His Moses was...slow in...speech to a...fault. Card serves up an excellent justification for Moses' speech impediment: he was bilingual (Hebrew and Egyptian), but speaking Hebrew would brand him as a slave. So Moses had to constantly be on guard to speak the politically correct language. Speech impediment, here we come. The only problem is, Card continually depicts the slow speech of Moses. A constant barrage of ellipses interrupt his dialog, as if the Duke himself were playing the role. "Now don't be...beating that Hebrew slave, Pilgrim." The reader is constantly feeling a need to catch his breath. Fortunately Moses develops enough confidence in his post-Egyptian life to lose the speech impediment for the most part, and it's irritating literary representation disappears for the rest of the book. The reader can breathe easy again, and once more picture Charlton Heston in the role. I had to say that because it was too clever to resist, but the truth is there is nothing Hestonesque about Card's Moses. Rather he comes across as another Orson Scott Card character, right along with the adult Ender Wiggin and Alvin Maker. This book has the feel of Card all over it. Considering the novel is not only historical fiction, but _scriptural_ historical fiction, that might not be such a good thing. Where's the majesty, the reverence, the epic feel of the saga? It's not there, because these are the writings of Card. Instead you are given a down-to-earth, realistic, sometimes even casual representation of Moses, with Card using all the historical information and educated guessing he can get his hands on. This is not a book to read if you want to feel the majesty of a prophet of God, this is a book to read if you want to see a prophet in common, day-to-day activity as a human being as much as a prophet. Nope, no Charlton Heston grandeur in this book. But that's what makes it enjoyable to read. You get Card's guess of what the life of Moses was really like, and whether you agree with his interpretation or not, it's fun to see what he has to say. In particular, Card serves up a fresh interpretation of why Aaron fashioned the golden calf, that perplexing mystery that has every scripture reader baffled. But he doesn't stop there. He presents a series of conjectures that help make plausible all the major events in Moses' life. And if the likelihood of any of them being true is small, it doesn't matter, because the fun is in seeing what another person thinks and comparing it to your own ideas. Card gives the reader lots of ideas to digest, and does so in an engrossing story that is fun to read. But would you have expected anything less from him? -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Pornography Date: 05 Aug 2000 11:56:08 -0400 Rex Goode wrote: One wonders, though, if maybe he's not smarter than I give him credit for. At one time, I believed that these celebrities, writers, and producers actually know what the rest of us think of as "family entertainment" but are determined to disabuse of our antiquated notions and bring us forward into the impending 21st century. Part of me still holds them in suspicion for such cultural engineering. If getting us to lower our standards is their aim, they're doing a great job. On the other hand, perhaps we only have ourselves to blame. As a matter of responsibility, I believe the latter. ________________________________________________________________________ Are any of you following the adventures of Obviousman in the Sunday comics? He was recently captured by the villain who tells him that he (the villain) is in charge of keeping the people in mindless mobs, for their own safety and at the people's request. For this reason he can't allow Obviousman to go around waking people and making them think. Mindless mobs are easily led down the primrose path. In this case (movies) we've reached the point where the path is strewn with broken glass and lined with thorns. Presently we'll come to the point where it drops off into the ocean of filth and the only things fit to watch will be those we produce and distribute ourselves, along with the (relatively) few others who recognize the danger and have the guts to do something about it. My feeling is that some of us (particularly those of us with children in public schools, where peer pressure is fierce) are unwilling to recognize this trend for what it is. Some recognize the trend but temporize, "It's really not that bad." My own children are often left out or disappointed to discover they aren't allowed to watch this or that with their friends and their "friends" make fun of them for it. We've had a lot of teaching moments on these subjects and I can see more coming. Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Good Writing Date: 05 Aug 2000 12:22:49 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BFFED7.DEA14D40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.lds.net id KAA20515 Pardon, I snipped this all to pieces: Science . . . the problem is that physical science is so far ahead of soc= ial science. We know a lot more about how the universe works than we know ab= out how to get along. Art is far more valuable than psychology, I would say. My two cents: We do know how to get along, peacefully, too. But the Gol= den Rule is too easy to comprehend and too comprehensive for our small minds = and imperfect souls. Social science as practiced in the United States has improved vastly since the days of yore, but still is cluttered with traditions and humanism and this philosophy and that philosophy and the debate over environment vs. physical inheritance vs. what we brought with= us from the pre-earth life. Physical science is comparatively basic, simple= , and easy to understand. Art is valuable in all ways: I have to say my greatest work of art to date has been the cluttered and overloaded home environment, setting for my Father=92s jewels, his children. Humbling. Snip snip snip Jason or Eric said: >Can=92t we say that, for those who fail to achieve this highest (and >id= eal) >state, they will be in hell, unable to =93create=94=97their only availab= le >expression being to serve and praise God? Sounds like Plato=92s >poets t= o me. Telestial harp players. What a horrifying vision. Far worse than burnin= g in hell forever,which would at least be varied and sort of interesting. = I have a hard time imagining God being so cruel. But maybe so. >Those who do achieve the highest state will be able to continue >to crea= te, I think artistic creation is actual creation, is it not? Eric Samuelsen and Jason Steed (I think) Okay, back to me (Melinda) We are trying to do our best ( I hope) and if= we choose not to create in the next life by our choices here, our Father wil= l abide by our choice. Sure it pains him. Just like it pains my parents that I have faults and failings. Art in general is great but not, as a separate subject, vital. The real = art is the way we live every day. Melinda L. Ambrose ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BFFED7.DEA14D40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pardon, I snipped this all to = pieces:

 

Science . . . the problem is that physical science is = so far ahead of social science.  = We know a lot more about how the universe works than we know about how to get = along.  Art is far more valuable than = psychology, I would say.  =

 

My = two cents:  We do know how to = get along, peacefully, too.  = But the Golden Rule is too easy to comprehend and too comprehensive for our small minds = and imperfect souls.  Social = science as practiced in the United States has improved vastly since the days of = yore, but still is cluttered with traditions and humanism and this philosophy and = that philosophy and the debate over environment vs. physical inheritance vs. = what we brought with us from the pre-earth life.  Physical science is comparatively basic, simple, and easy to understand.  Art is = valuable in all ways:  I have to say my = greatest work of art to date has been the cluttered and overloaded home = environment, setting for my Father’s jewels, his children.  Humbling.

 

Snip  snip snip =

 

Jason or Eric said:

 

>Can’t we say that, for those who fail to = achieve this highest (and >ideal)

>state, they will be in hell, unable to = “create”—their only available

>expression being to serve and praise God? = Sounds like Plato’s >poets to me.

 

Telestial harp players.  What a horrifying vision.  Far worse than burning in hell forever,which would at = least be varied and sort of interesting.  I have a hard time imagining God being so cruel.  But maybe = so.

>Those who do achieve the highest state will be = able to continue >to create,

I think artistic creation is actual creation, is it = not?

Eric Samuelsen and Jason Steed (I think)

 

Ok= ay, back to me (Melinda)  We are = trying to do our best ( I hope) and if we choose not to create in the next life by = our choices here, our Father will abide by our choice.   Sure it pains him.  Just like it pains my parents that I have faults and failings.  =

 

Ar= t in general is great but not, as a separate subject, vital.  The real art is the way we = live every day.

 

Me= linda L. Ambrose

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BFFED7.DEA14D40-- - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nelwyn Thurman" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 11:38:37 -0500 Clint Eastwood sang 'Moriah' - beautifully. Nelwyn ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 5:24 PM > Shawn and Melinda Ambrose wrote: > > > I have an idea: how about telling us the funniest movies that have Mormon > > characters portrayed? > > > > I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it Clint > > Eastwood sings, beautifully. > > Not Clint Eastwood. It was Lee Marvin who sang beautifully. Actually I > discovered when I worked with him for the movie he enjoyed singing, albeit > gravelly. 'Paint Your Wagon' was his singing debut. > > And he was 'born under a wandering star.' > > -- > Dean FH Macy, Lit.D./Mus.D. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Benson Parkinson Subject: [AML] PERRY/HOFFMAN/PAYNE, _Scripture Scouts_ (Articles of Faith) (Review) Date: 06 Aug 2000 16:37:07 -0700 (MST) Scripture Scouts: Musical Adventures with the Articles of Faith By Janice Kapp Perry, Steven Kapp Perry, Melanie Hoffman, Roger Hoffman, and Marvin Payne Deseret Book, 3 audio cassette tapes, $7.95 each reviewed by Robin Parkinson When I was growing up on a ranch in New Mexico, I had a cousin who loved to pretend to be Moses. He would dress up in a bathrobe, take a stick, and lead the children of Israel across the arroyo to the promise land. He couldn't get any of us to play along, so he would gather the dogs and lead them instead. My cousin would have loved the scripture scout tapes. My own children do a lot of role-playing games, but except for Joseph and Jonah, they've never role-played from the scriptures. When I heard about the Scripture Scout tapes on the list, I wondered how my children would like them. The scripture scouts are a brother, two sisters, and their dog, a puppet named Boo. In an effort to understand the scriptures, they play games and sing songs. My tapes had to do with the Articles of Faith, so one adventure had them learning about Adam and how we are punished for our own sins and not Adams transgressions. The dog takes on an almost adult role, helping the children to discover the meanings of words like _transgression_ and helping all the children to find a role that they can play. The youngest sister is kind of a tag-along, and she keeps being assigned a minor role. This reminded me of my own kids, because of how Eden, my youngest, always would up playing the cat (a non-speaking role) in her older brother and sister's role-plays. On the tapes, the children also sing songs to help them understand the scriptures. The songs have catchy, lively tunes and also serve as memory devices to help children memorize the scriptures. I liked the music and found the children's type of play believable but found that the tapes didn't appeal to my ten- and eight-year-old. I loaned the tapes to a friend, and she found that her preeschoolers liked them best, though her eight-year-old was willing to listen. I also had trouble sorting out the characters. Eden thought the dog was Cookie Monster and wanted to know why I'd never told her Cookie Monster was a Mormon. I think if the tapes came with a story song book that introduced the characters, children would be able to identify them and get into the story sooner. The Scripture Scout tapes do their job, and I would recomend them for parents, especially of small children, to help them get through Sundays and other quiet times. Eden sometimes listens to them during the week, usually when I am trying to take a nap. If I ask her to turn it off, she asks me, "Don't you want me to listen to the scriptures?" What better recommendation could you have than that. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Covell, Jason" Subject: RE: [AML] Query on Donny & Marie Show Date: 07 Aug 2000 12:12:36 +1000 > Marny Parkin wrote: > > >>For that matter, I also mention which celebs the JWs have got and > >>the Christian Scientists. The > >>only JW I could think of was Michael Jackson, and CS would be Tom > >>Cruise, John Travolta, and Nicole > >>Kidman(?). Anyone confirm these or add to my list? > > Travolta, Cruise, and Kidman belong to the Church of Scientology. > > Neal Kramer Nicole Kidman is not, to the best of my knowledge, directly involved with Scientology. I don't think her family here in Sydney would let her! (Hey, I knew her way back in school.) Her connection is mostly through her husband, Tom. As well as Cruise and Travolta, other notable Scientologists include Lisa-Marie Presley, Kirstie Alley and Juliette Lewis. Michael Jackson was introduced to Scientology through his ex-wife, so although he has had involvement with it and the JWs, I don't believe he has a strong current affiliation. BTW, on the topic of religious satire generally (which pops up from time to time), did anyone see that delicious take on Scientology on an episode of Millenium a couple of years back? Very sly, I thought. If anyone did see it, do they know if the LDS Church has ever received a similar send-up treatment (in disguise, or otherwise)? Jason Covell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 07 Aug 2000 10:12:42 -0600 To me, the public's or critic's immediate reaction to a work of art means nothing. Only time and history will tell us what is good art. I'm currently working on a play about Moli=E8re, the French comic playwright.= His play _Tartuffe_ offended a lot of stuffy religionists of his day, and was even banned for a short period of time. Another play, _Don Juan_, seemed to lionize atheism, and also bothering the clerical crowd. Horrible things were said about Moliere. Old friends turned away from him, condeming him to hell in their writings, and theatre in general as a toold of the devil. Today, Moli=E8re is universally honored as France's greatest playwright. = Tartuff is considered Moli=E8re's masterpiece. = In the short run, all the talk about is nudity appropriate, what language should or should not be used, may give us all a lot to think about. We may be offended by this or that, or not at all. But long after we're gone, I venture to say that some of the works of art that a substantial majority of our culture currently condemns may turn out to entertain ages yet unborn, and they will wonder, like we do when we view Tartuffe, what all the fuss was about. -- = Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 07 Aug 2000 10:21:46 -0600 bob/bernice hughes wrote: > > I guess Jodie Foster wanted to advance her agenda of the foolishness of men? > > Okay Thom, tell us once more that art does not have to deal with historical > facts. It doesn't. That's for historians. ultimately, the role of the artist is to entertain. If, in order to do so, that artist feels it is necessary to twist the facts, then so be it. Shakespeare did it, and few people today fault him for that. Had Jody Foster been trying to do a documentary on the King of Siam, she would deserve being called to task. But as a film maker, she did a marvelous job, imo. I learned this bit of artistic wisdom from the late great Max Golightly, of BYU. While writing my first version of _Prophet_, I wrestled with historical realities in the play. Max told me, "If you want to write about what happened, write a history book. If you want to write a play, tell us something we don't know." So, I stopped worrying about being historically accurate, and went for "aesthetically" accurate. Hence, I have a villain involved in Joseph's assassination who never lived in Nauvoo. Joseph and Hyrum are in jail without Taylor and Richards. No one sings "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." And I told a story that, at that time, had never been told in Mormon theatre: the story of Joseph and Emma's undying love for each other. -- Thom - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CDoug91957@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] MERRILL, "God's Purpose for the Artist in the Gospel Plan" Date: 06 Aug 2000 18:26:40 EDT In a message dated 00-07-28 18:51:38 EDT, you write: << Hi Listers, Love to know what you think about Keith Merrill's article, "God's Purpose for the Artist in the Gospel Plan." http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/000629artists.html Steve P. >> I just returned late last night from a nine-day vacation trip to find the posting about Keith Merrill's article, and so I am a little slow coming in on this, but I do have some thoughts. As so often in following threads on the List, I think the problem needs to be redefined. In my (never-to- be-humble, I fear) opinion, Keith is basing much of his statement on two definitions of art: art as imitation (and idea at least as old as Aristotle), and art as expression (a much later, essentially Romantic, notion). The two definitions are incompatible, and both are wrong. "Art as expression" is inadequate, because shaking one's fist in the air is expression but doesn't merit the name of art; and "art as imitation" is inadequate because the work of art gives us something new, something that is not in the raw experience that is supposedly imitated. Either definition muddles thinking about art, and the simultaneous holding of both muddles it hopelessly. I much prefer the semiotic definition of the role of the artist (developed by Kant, Cassirer, and Vivas) as constituting experience through the mediation of symbols. The artist's work is to discover possibilities of order in inchoate experience. It is as much a process of discovery as it is of creation. Through his discoveries of possibilities of order, the artist gives us metaphors through which to comprehend our experience, to find meanings in it, and he gives concrete shape to values that were theretofore merely inchoate in his community. The "artist" who merely tells us how he feels about something does no more than any member of a sensitivity-training group does; and the one who merely communicates what he or the community he represents already accept as truth is a propagandist, perhaps serving a useful function, but falling short of the higher calling of creation and discovery. The community of the Saints is as much in need of creators and discoverers as any other community. The problem with artists, however, is that by the very nature of their work they challenge us to see things in unfamiliar ways, to question fondly-held values and perceptions, and it is the nature of men and institutions in this fallen world to resist such challenges, even when-- maybe especially when--they call us to higher wisdom and virtue. In any highly structured community of faith, the pressure to conform to conventional ways of perceiving, thinking, feeling, and speaking is extreme, and individuals who push the envelope are seldom rewarded. The artist is therefore called upon to exercise considerable courage. The believing artist in the Mormon community has some special challenges, because he feels the duty to marry, bring up a family, and serve in the institutional Church. All that requires time and money. So far as time is concerned, the artist need feel no more guilty about devoting time to his art than a Mormon insurance salesman about devoting time to selling insurance. Money is a bigger problem, because selling insurance tends to make money, and creating art tends not to. The solutions to the problems will differ from person to person, but I think the advice I once heard Douglas Thayer give to aspiring writers is good: treat your writing as a profession, as seriously as you would treat law or medicine or insurance, preparing for it, planning for it, working at it, as you would at any other profession. And, after all else, the Lord requires a sacrifice. Colin Douglas cdoug91957@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 12:36:38 -0500 mjames_laurel (ames_laurel@email.msn.com) wrote: >My husband tells me there's some reference to Mormons in "Fletch." >Laurel Brady Chevy Chase as "Fletch" investigates a guy who wants to pay him (Fletch) money to kill him for the insurance because he has a fatal disease. He discovers that the man has two wives, and tells his first wife about it. The second wife lives in Provo, Utah. He tells the first wife that bigamy is illegal, "even in Utah." At one point he is showing snapshots of his trip to Utah to her and one of them is a picture of the organ pipes in the Tabernacle. Very funny stuff (and a very funny movie -- a classic). Then there's _Contact_, where the guy who plants the bomb in the machine is a religious fanatic from Panguitch, Utah. They never say he's Mormon, and his long shoulder-length, bleached hair doesn't make him look Mormon, but just being from Utah makes you think that they want to portray him _as_ Mormon, without really saying it. Darvell Hunt _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cratkinson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT) <> There are several. The bad guy's parents are from Provo, and his flights back and forth from where he lives to Utah are mentioned regularly. Fletch even goes to Provo to investigate. And let's not forget the great line at the end of _Raising Arizona_, after H.I. has been dreaming about his future with his happy, loving family. "Maybe it was Utah." And then in _Peggy Sue Got Married_, the beat poet she goes to school with tells her he's going to move to a commune in Utah. Near Provo, if I recall correctly. There were a couple of thinly disguised misssionaries (who looked like they were in their mid-thirties) in the opening of an episode of _The X-Files_ several months ago. A pretty funny scene, since they proceeded to beat each other to a pulp on the front lawn of the house they were tracting. There's a really (terrible!) funny movie made in the late 70s sometime, set in Provo. It's called _Knocking On Heaven's Door_. The main character works at the Star Palace, drives through Wendy's in his TransAm and generally shows us some local scenery. I think it was a local production and might be hard to find, but it *was* available on video at one point. That's all I can come up with off the top of my head. I'll keep thinking. -Christine Atkinson _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] Singles in Mormon Lit. Date: 07 Aug 2000 12:45:35 -0700 (PDT) [MOD: I'd like to preemptively suggest that responses to this post should focus on Darlene's question about whether this type of character has been depicted in Mormon fiction--or possibly on the impact of this issue on the aspiring Mormon artist--and not on the theological/doctrinal aspects, except as they affect how we write and read literature.] I just finished Eric Samuelson's "Singled Out." Great job, Eric! It was a very enjoyable read. I imagine the play was fantastic too. One of the characters in the book, April, is an extremely attractive single woman who chooses an amazing career opportunity over marriage. I must say here that the marriage opportunity was definitely not the best for her and she wasn't even really in love with the guy, and so her decision was easy and inevitable. But it started me thinking back to our conversation about the barriers gifted Mormon women encounter--barriers that keep them from great artistic (or other) achievements. Here was a woman who was absolutely perfect for the job she took, and it was an important job. She will do great good in that job. So I ask, was it a GOOD thing that she wasn't truly in love with the guy and tempted to choose marriage over the career? Some friends and I were talking about another gifted single woman, this one a real person, Sheri Dew. I honestly don't know a single intelligent woman who doesn't put Sister Dew at the top of her list of speakers she loves to listen to. This is a woman who has done immeasurable good for the church, I think, if only in terms of giving women a different kind of role model than the other fluffy-haired, soft-spoken female leaders we are used to. But her writings and speeches have enriched my life and those of many others. My friends and I were discussing whether Sister Dew could have achieved all of the good that she has if she had gotten married at age 25 or so, like most of us did, and dutifully chosen to give up a career to raise children. Well, of course the answer is "probably not." Now, I know that Sister Dew has indicated that she would like to have married. But what I want to know is: is it logical to conclude that it may be RIGHT for some women to choose not to marry or not to have children? Is it possible that greater good can be done in some circumstances if women choose something other than the role prescribed for them? "Oh," you say, "But there are many women who raise families AND make a great difference. Look at . . ." and then we have the list. OK, I'll grant you that. But I'm just wondering about the possibility of a woman being told by God not to marry or bear children because she has another work to do. Can you think of any instances in LDS literature in which a woman makes such a choice (besides "Singled Out")? By the way, I just don't think the men's whine of "But I can't work on my great literary masterpiece because I'm stuck having to bring in the paycheck" applies here. I'm talking about a person who is gifted in an area and wants to make it her/his life's work to excell in it and help the world that way. Men always have the option of structuring a career that uses their gifts. Women (at least women who take the prophets seriously) do not have that option. ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 07 Aug 2000 12:45:18 PDT >I'm beginning to wonder (which is why I started the topic in the first >place) if our extreme aversion to nudity isn't actually causing many of >the sexual problems we've adopted that attitude to avoid. Let's face it, >growing children are going to be curious about sex. As they reach >puberty, they are going to be driven by a strong biological imperative >to be curious about sex. If we desperately hide all information about >sex and our bodies from them, they _will_ search for it in other ways. >What chance is there those ways will be positive? By being shameful and >secretive about sex and nudity, are we creating the sexual deviants we >are trying to protect ourselves from? > >I'm beginning to believe we are. Which puts me in the interesting >position of doing a complete 180 on my attitude toward nudity in art. >Not long ago I basically considered nudity in art immoral--in film at >least--with a handful of rare exceptions. Now I'm beginning to wonder if >wholesome depictions of nonsexual nudity and moral sex in nontitillating >ways in our art wouldn't actually be a good thing to do for our >increasingly polarized society: polarized at the extremes of excessive >prudishness or vile prurience. I don't think deliberate attempts to incorporate "neutral" nudity is the answer. Open discussions with our children, trying to follow the spirit in handling individual situations--these seem more appropriate to me. I don't believe that nudity is inherently evil, but I do believe the body is a sacred thing and ought to be treated as such. If the body is, indeed, a "temple", then I think any "casual" exposure of it--even if it isn't explicitly sexual or "evil" in nature--is going to run the risk of inappropriateness. It's a difficult situation, dealing with cultural baggage (both Mormon and American in general), but we need to have some respect for the fact that the baggage exists, not just make attempts to cut ourselves loose from it. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Pornography Date: 07 Aug 2000 13:54:39 -0600 Shawn and Melinda Ambrose wrote: > Presently we'll come to the point where it drops off into the > ocean of filth and the only things fit to watch will be those we produc= e and > distribute ourselves, along with the (relatively) few others who recogn= ize > the danger and have the guts to do something about it. > An ocean of filth? I prefer to view the state of art in America not as a trend but a temporary spike in an overall upward climb which will level out, go too far the other way, and then come back to some acceptable level. Already, we see the Stallone / Swarteneggar brand of exploitation films falling by the wayside. The Freddy Kreuger slasher movies are pass=E9 now. As an audition, we no longer welcome those excesses. The current excesses are gross out films aimed at teenage audiences. As those teens mature, those movies will lose their allure. I recently saw Gladiator which, by all accounts, was supposedly a very bloody movie. It was mild in comparison to _Blue Velvet_ or _Reservoir Dogs_. = Yes, people who make movies want to make money but there is a certain amount of creativity still holding forth. And the essence of creativity is originality -- find a way to show violence different from the norm. = This is why you have _An American Psycho_ amazingly bereft of gross-out violence given the explicit blow-by-blow descriptions of same in the novel which predates the film. The script for _American History X_ is far more graphic than the film turned out to be. = > My feeling is that some of us (particularly those of us with children i= n > public schools, where peer pressure is fierce) are unwilling to recogni= ze > this trend for what it is. = I guess I am one of those who don't see the trend. As I said, I don't see a trend, just a temporary spike on a generally upward climb. = > Some recognize the trend but temporize, "It's > really not that bad." = At the same time that we decry violence in films and literature, we should not go extreme in the other direction, illustrated by a member of my former ward who, while reading the BofM to her children, would gloss over the violent parts, deeming violence of all kinds as inappropriate for her family. It never seemed to occur to her that, in a book believed to be divine, that maybe there is a reason God wants those scenes where they are. = -- = Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 07 Aug 2000 11:50:04 -0700 This is the third of Plato's compelling reasons, as stated by Tony Markham, on 6/30/00: > 3) Weak-minded people and children will be deceived by the copy > and will mistake the illusion of the artist for the reality of life. Danger is always the reason censors give, no matter what their real reason. Indeed, making the weaker argument appear to be the stronger and deceiving the weak-minded children of Athens are the very arguments the Athenians used against Socrates. Danger is also the argument Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha used when he hanged six of his critics, including playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. But there are other reasons I don't take this argument seriously. First, it can easily be applied to scripture. Soren Kierkegaard's _Fear and Trembling_ explores how a weak-minded individual might be misled into thinking scripture is the same as reality. The weak-minded individual who inspired him to write the book was a young man named Soren Kierkegaard who was engaged to a young woman named Marianne, who began to think seriously about the story of Abraham, and how it teaches that to be acceptable before God we must sacrifice even that which is dearest to us. So he broke off the engagement. Thom Duncan has mentioned several times his (screen)play about the Lafferty brothers, who used the Book of Mormon as a license to murder, and about their mother who sat calmly reading her scriptures as they planned the murder of her daughter-in-law and granddaughter. Another reason I don't take this argument seriously is practical. I have to assume I'm writing to an audience of intelligent, reasonable people. I don't know enough about A. B. Normal (or his psychology) to predict how he'll react to something I write. I don't even know enough about AML-List to predict how people are going to react. A few months ago I wrote something so outrageously exaggerated I didn't think I would need a smiley for people to realize I was making fun of myself (See my posts to "Feature Films for Families" March 2 & 3), but as Jana Pawlowski said when I explained that I hadn't thought I needed a smiley, "No smilies, no irony, I'm serious" (March 4). But I started writing this for a different reason than pointing out that people censor in the name of protection, and sometimes do evil things, claiming they're just trying to protect the weak-minded, or that an artist can't know before hand how an audience will respond, can't respond for them. In October I'll be presenting a paper at the RMMLA convention in Boise, where I will be suggesting that the value of literature is its very unreality. Because it is unreal literature can allow me to do things I would not otherwise be able to do. I can feel through a story what it feels like after half a century to have killed a defenseless winebibber as a young man, or what post-partum depression feels like. (My high school girlfriend told me her mother used to sing, "My poor mother died in post-partum depression," a waltz, I think.) I can go to hell, and then find redemption. I can find what it means to give away my kingdom, whether for a horse or in a vain search for my daughter's love. I can experience these things without having to live through them, and I can also offer other people the experiences. I can show you the tragedy of divorce by taking you into the minds of two people whose marriage is crumbling, two people struggling to hold their lives and emotions intact. Or I can take you into the mind of an autistic teenager who breaks into the school to sit on the floor in front of the furnace and watch the dancing flames. And I can give you this gift without having to go through it myself. I don't have to be autistic to show you the life of an autistic person. I only have to observe (research) and imagine and report honestly. Through your art you can give me a gift--whether that gift is to run away with my brothers and sisters and live in a boxcar, or live with my sister in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or hollow out a tree on my side of the mountain, or be a returning Mormon missionary thrown together with a young Lakota woman running from ruthless evil--of experiencing things without actually having to live them. But not only can we take each other into danger, we can bring each other back to safety, precisely because art is not the real world. This is a very powerful gift we can give each other, but also fragile. If you don't receive the gift it has no power for you. Or over you. It puzzles me deeply, and pains me, that in a culture that so profoundly emphasizes personal accountability, personal responsibility, as does ours, there are so many who adopt a deterministic model of reading. If we fear story we are essentially abrogating our response-ability to choose what influences us and to reject or dismiss things we don't want to be influenced by. Well, this keeps getting longer and longer. I can see I'll have to break it here and try and finish it off in another post, but it may be two or three. I woke up the other morning, too early to get up, but I had a good idea I wanted to include in this, so I wrote it down. Had to fight sleepiness at work, though. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Neal Kramer Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 14:22:07 -0600 Nelwyn wrote: >Clint Eastwood sang 'Moriah' - beautifully. > Not quite. Clint Eastwood sang "I Talk to the Trees." Harve Presnell sang "Moriah" beautifully. Neal Kramer - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Sunstone Symposium Newspaper Article Date: 07 Aug 2000 21:50:19 -0500 The following story appeared on deseretnews.com on August 05, 2000, 12:00 AM MDT ======== Headline: 10 Commandments of Mormon Humor Author: By Alan EdwardsDeseret News staff writer Despite evidence to the contrary, "Mormon humor" is not an oxymoron. Nevertheless, anyone who wants to get past hackneyed sacrament meeting jokes and overused J. Golden Kimball stories must understand that church-related chuckles are governed by certain immutable principles. We refer, of course, to the Ten Commandments of Mormon Humor. Atlanta attorney Edgar Snow, their discoverer, spoke at Friday's Sunstone Symposium via videotape, and we begin with his journey of self-discovery when he was a freshman at Brigham Young University. In 1978, Snow relates, he hiked up the "Y" mountain seeking enlightenment. Well, not all the way up -- in fact, he didn't even get to the "Y," contenting himself instead with a big rock much lower down. It wasn't an ideal spot, being bombarded as it was by a garage band repeatedly blaring the opening bars of "You Really Got Me" from a nearby house. "I was beginning to think I had been called to this mountain to pray, not for me, but for them," Snow said. But we digress. As a result of his meditations, the young seeker realized something. If you strive for canonical comedy . . . No. 1: Thou shalt be a Mormon. If you're not a Mormon, follow this easy guide: Go to an LDS meetinghouse the first Sunday of the month around 9 a.m. Go into the big room -- the one without the basketball hoop. When the white-haired gentleman invites testimonies, make your way to the rostrum vigorously but without undue physicality. Once at the microphone, say you don't know much about the church but would like to know more. The rest will take care of itself. No. 2: Thou shalt stay awake in church. That, after all, is where you'll get 95 percent of your material. No. 3: Thou shalt read a lot of Mormon humor books. They won't help you get to heaven, but you'll have good company on your trip to the other place. No. 4: Thou shalt have the gift of humor discernment. Much in Mormon history is not couched in proper terms -- that is to say, it isn't translated correctly. Take, for example, the seagulls, who in reality were doing nothing more than binging and purging. "I am convinced that if the seagulls did this today, LDS Social Services would be on hand to cure their eating disorder," Snow said. No. 5: Thou shalt practice Mormon humor often. Be careful, however, of repeating the more dubious jokes in Sacrament meeting. They are better reserved for priesthood meeting. No. 6: Thou shalt be slightly irreverent -- no more, no less. George Burns playing the part of God in a series of movies crossed the line. "Mormons did not like that because 'God' had a Word of Wisdom problem, he was short and he dressed in gaudy '70s fashions," Snow said. No. 7: Thou shalt not curse unless quoting scripture or a general authority. Suitable alternatives include "exaltation impaired," as in "Frankly my dear, I don't give an exaltation impaired," and "outer darkness," as in "Let's get the outer darkness out of here." No. 8: Thou shalt not laugh at other people. "If you must laugh at someone, at least, out of respect, do it behind their back," Snow said. No. 9: Thou shalt laugh at thyself. "You are allowed to take your own name in vain." No. 10: Thou shalt be funny. Snow himself has reached the pinnacle, proudly proclaiming his status as "Elder McConkie's former joke writer." And you can, too. If you obey the other nine commandments, Snow promises, you'll be funny as outer darkness. E-mail: alan@desnews.com ---------- Copyright 2000, Deseret News Publishing Co. ===== Among best sellers, Barnes & Noble ranks _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ in its top 100 (thousand, that is). Available now at 20% off http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD&mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 04 Aug 2000 23:54:31 -0600 Jason Steed wrote: > After all, Adam and Eve > were given skins to cover their nakedness, with at least some implication > that nakedness was something that ought to be covered. I can't find _any_ implication on the purpose of covering their nakedness in this scripture. Was it because we should never be naked? Was it because Satan had instilled the concept of shame at nakedness into Adam and Eve (much like parents do to children), so God covered them out of consideration for their feelings? Or was it simply because, since they were leaving the comfortable Garden of Eden and entering the harsh telestial world, they would need protection from the elements? I have heard all these interpretations put forth. I don't think anything said in that particular scripture favors one over the other. On the other hand, the fact that Satan was the one who first made a big deal about their nakedness and put the notion in their minds to cover it up is very provocative. My personal judgment is that I can't draw a meaningful conclusion about the morality of nudity from the events following the fall of Adam and Eve. > And one of the > explicit functions of garments is to cover nakedness and to > maintain a level of modesty. Garments certainly bring a new dimension into this discussion for the endowed LDS member. They make it clear that a purist lifestyle of nudism--never wearing clothes unless necessary--is unworkable for such an individual. But we are all aware that times exist when it is appropriate to remove garments. The most common example of that is swimming. Would it be appropriate to skinnydip when swimming? The rules for wearing garments are completely inconclusive about that situation. We would have to look elsewhere for an answer to that question. In case this seems to be veering too far off topic, let me emphasize that I'm exploring this issue in the context of the acceptability of nudity in art--all forms of art, not just Michelangelo's David type art--even if I don't explicitly say so in a particular message. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 07 Aug 2000 17:11:16 -0600 Shawn and Melinda Ambrose wrote: > With this in mind, I have difficulty justifying spending full time writing, > though I would love to do so. It seems an intangible way to work, yet I > love to read and to watch movies and listen to music. > Have you ever met this difficulty? How do you answer it? I appreciate the policy of Erasmus (though I don't follow it to the letter), who wrote: "Whenever I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." Although food and clothing are essential, the elusive "abundant life" is not worth too much without the things that make it abundant - including the arts. Dave [Hansen] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 20:40:37 -0700 >Then there's _Contact_, where the guy who plants the bomb in the machine is >a religious fanatic from Panguitch, Utah. They never say he's Mormon, and >his long shoulder-length, bleached hair doesn't make him look Mormon, but >just being from Utah makes you think that they want to portray him _as_ >Mormon, without really saying it. ... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). Eric D. Snider -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 07 Aug 2000 16:17:01 EDT I have been meaning to respond regarding this Nudity thread, but have been busy. I do believe that Michael's speculation that we are creating our own cultural sexual problems by our shame-based view of nudity. Almost all sexual deviancy manifests itself in compulsive behavior, and compulsive behavior is born out of shame. Returning to my former comments about Jennifer Lopez at some music award show, her skimpy dress did not cause anyone to become a pornography addict. According to Dr. Patrick J. Carnes, the pioneer in sex addiction research and treatment, sex addiction is born out of shame-based parenting and cultural attitudes about the shamefulness of sexuality. Those who struggle with sex-related addictions, like pornography addiction, are raised in homes where love is perceived by the child as being conditional, and where the parenting style produces a shame-based adult. Just as with alcohol, being a casual and occasional drinker does not an alcoholic make, so with nudity, see the human body on occasion does not make a pornography addict. By definition, compulsion is a matter of powerlessness and unmanageability. This leads to the oversimplified, but true-enough idea, that if it is something you don't want to do or have a compelling reason not to do, but do it anyway, it is a compulsion. If it is something you do and enjoy it, it's just a hobby. Powerlessness is the idea that despite all efforts to quit doing a certain thing, coupled with some pretty important reasons not to do it, you keep doing it, you have become powerless over that thing. Unmanageability is a matter of what this powerlessness has cost you and your family, in tandem with the idea that this cost becomes one of those compelling reasons to quit, yet you can't. As it relates to pornography addiction, regardless of what the rest of the world may think of nudity, Mormons get a heavy dose of teachings that should lead them to shun anything that appears to be evil, including those things that approach being pornographic. Take away all other factors of powerlessness and unmanageability, and our Mormon culture still stands as a major factor in our attitudes about nudity. In other words, if I dropped all other reasons to avoid nudity in films, I would still have cause to feel shame viewing it, because of the Mormon cultural bias. If powerless and unmanageability are the evidence of addiction, shame is the driving force. This includes body shame as well as what I would call spirit shame. Dr. Carnes says that the first core belief of a sex addict is, "I am basically a bad and unworthy person." Spirit shame, by my definition, is being ashamed of who I am, of what I think, and of what I fear God probably thinks of me. His other core beliefs are: "No one would love me if they really knew me;" "I can't count on anyone to meet my needs;" "Sex is my most important need;" "Because sex is my most important need, I am basically a bad and unworthy person." The shame cycle of pornography addiction goes something like this: 1. Preoccupation. The mind of the addict becomes preoccupied with things sexual. 2. Ritualization. Despite having mentally disallowed himself from indulging, his split off compulsive self begins to set up a situation so he can look at pornography. 3. Acting Out. Here, he actually gets his fix and often binges. 4. Self-hatred. The feelings of guilt and shame for having once again failed to control himself reaffirms the core beliefs he holds about himself. It is this fourth step that drives the compulsive engine. These feelings of shame and self-hatred are so intense and painful, that relief must be sought. Rather than seeking that relief in productive ways, he seeks them in the solace of the preoccupation stage, thus beginning the cycle again. The preoccupation stage, or thinking about things sexual, provides a dose of chemicals to the brain that tranquilize the feelings of shame and self-hatred. The factors in this cycle become progressively worse each time through it. It is in the core beliefs of an addict that the key to recovery lies. In dispelling the false parts of these core beliefs and bringing the light of truth to them, addicts learn to deal with the issues that they turn to pornography to medicate. Surely part of the problem is the wide gulf between what is truly pornographic and what is merely perceived by our culture to be pornographic. Whenever we over-react to something, we run the risk of producing shame in those who are trying to please us by teaching them to feel more shame for a thing than it deserves. Shame has been a natural tendency since Adam and Eve made themselves aprons from fig leaves. Shame has its proper place, as long as it is shame over something I have done as opposed to shame over something that I am. Here, then, is the connection to shame-based parenting and conditional love. It is something that the Mormon culture has yet to learn, although our doctrine states it explicity--that I am not what I do. Some actions are sins, and we ought to feel shame for what we do, but we should never make the connection that what we have done makes a statement about who we are, and more importantly, what God thinks of us. I think that this model of who we are versus what we do is entirely relevant to the questioin of what is pornographic. To summarily pass judgment on all nudity as evil crosses the line from condemning what we do to condemning who we are. I, in my "natural state," am not an evil thing, though I won't be getting any offers to pose in the near future. That's not because I am evil, but because I wouldn't sell. To sell flesh and pictures of flesh take a model beyond what he or she is into the realm of what he or she does. The human creation is not evil, but man has the agency, if he chooses, to do evil things. My own circumstances provide me with a point of view regarding nudity that many don't have. I am American, Mormon, male, married, and gay, or if you prefer, same-sex attracted. Being American, I live in a country where decency laws usually require women to wear something on top, but not men. Being Mormon, I was raised to believe that men shouldn't see women topless. Being male, it would be expected of me to like the idea of seeing women topless, even if I were to never be allowed to see a woman topless. Being married to a woman, I do have occasion to see at least one topless woman. Being gay, I don't particularly like the idea of seeing women topless. I have a friend in similar circumstances who just came back from two weeks in Italy, where women go topless on the beaches as a matter of course. My friend said he felt out of place in his longish swim trunks, because the men wear skimpy Speedos, even if they don't have the bodies to make them look good. We thought that there should be some kind of law that some people should be required to wear more clothes than others. I'm afraid I'd fit into that category. Being who I am, in the summer, I see men dressed in ways that are for me, the equivalent of women going topless in front of heterosexual men. No big deal. They're just men. Add to that the fact that I work out at the gym about three times a week, and I shower and change in the locker room with all of the other naked men. Also no big deal. If I'm working out as hard as I should, I'm way too exhausted to get a thrill out of it. The main thing I came to realize when I allowed myself to go to the gym and use the locker room like every other man there, was that my fantasies about the male body were far more interesting than the reality. If there were a cure for homosexuality, it would be in the men's locker room. I behave myself, despite the nature of my feelings for men. I am faithful to my wife of twenty-three years. Our relationship is good. I am one thing. I choose to do another. If we went only by what I am, I'd have to stay out of the locker room, and the whole gym for that matter. In the summer, I'd have to stay in my home and not even go to work. As someone who has accepted himself for being this way, with no plans of seeking a cure, I find the lure of gay pornography to be as uninteresting as the thought of ogling on an Italian beach. I believe it has everything to do with the fact that I'm not ashamed of who I am. I know plenty of same-sex attracted men who are addicted to pornography, and the common thread in all is the shame they feel for being who they are, which shame has the most powerful influence over what they do. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches me that I am not a bad and unworthy person, but a child of God, loved enough by him that he gave his Only Begotten Son as a sacrifice for my sins. That's who I am. That knowledge keeps me out of trouble. If we engender shame in our children regarding who they are and what their bodies are, what they do with their lives, especially sexually, will forever be guided by that image. Rex Goode ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Nudity Date: 07 Aug 2000 23:38:42 -0400 Someone, I think it was Chris Bigelow, mentioned some very powerful (to him) depictions of non-sexual nudity, scenes in movies or theater that had a definite point to make that was furthered by the actors' nakedness. I give it as my opinion that that is okay. But in our society, anything that can be used as a marketing tool or a powerful symbol or a hot button issue will be used and reused and abused ad infinitem. That's what's happening to sex and the beautiful forms God gave our bodies. They are visible everywhere, present in everything. I'm thinking of an ad for some hair product that had a female movie star's picture. In her hair the advertisers had airbrushed the word, sex. Totally unnecessary, but they must have felt it would increase their appeal. In consequence, our tendency as parents is to shun all mention of sex, to keep our bodies covered religiously (pun intended), to hide our intimate relations from our children so they will not associate it with the wild gyrations implied in popular music and movies. We need to be frank, however; he who has the information rules the world. I don't know yet in what detail I would write a love scene; probably not a lot. I'm not a fan of steamy scenes, though I like to know that happily married couples do do that sort of thing. Our children are not around children their own age much, except their brothers and sisters. A friend of ours who also homeschools told me that he finds it refreshing, after teaching college students at a public university, to spend time with homeschooled students who, by and large, have not been exposed to much of the sordidness of life, and who therefore are not tempted to seek it out. Ignorance can be (temporary) bliss. He has taught his son the attitudes he would like him to have. So have we, and we will continue to teach. I have noticed that PDAs (public displays of affection) are frowned on at church and in other places, even when it's a kiss and hug between two happily married (to each other) people. Appropriate hugs and kisses are my duty to my husband and, I feel, a good example to other saints and non-members alike. It has the added benefit of teaching by example that people who love each other are affectionate. Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 19:32:01 -0600 >Nelwyn wrote: > >>Clint Eastwood sang 'Moriah' - beautifully. > >Not quite. > >Clint Eastwood sang "I Talk to the Trees." Harve Presnell sang "Moriah" >beautifully. > >Neal Kramer Still not quite. Presnell sang "Mariah" beautifully. Alan Mitchell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] MERRILL, "God's Purpose for the Artist in the Gospel Plan" Date: 07 Aug 2000 19:54:03 -0600 At the risk of appearing hypersentative... Merrill's essay seemed a little like tooting his own horn, but not at a crass commercial level like those of us on the AML list, but on a higher plane: Quoting Kieth Merrill I could write an entire volume about the making of Legacy and Testaments as they are in a unique way, "works of art" conceived, designed and executed in an attempt to achieve the purpose of God. They were commissioned by a prophet, conceived in accordance with his instruction, directed in accordance with his vision as we were able to understand it. End quote. All I have to say is it must be nice. Too bad all of us can't get that stamp of approval. Merrill again: The artist speaks in a language, unconstrained. The artist does not utter idioms delimited by cultural boundaries. End quote. What does he mean? If someone says "a few tacos short of a combo plate," he is speaking an idiom, right? Isn't all of our language idiom? Most of our jokes wordplays? And quoting Merrill quoting Maxwell: For instance, since Church members now constitute about .001% of the world's population, it is not statistically likely that we will have any Michelangelos or Beethovens -- let alone several...." That is a gross insult to statisticians everywhere. And I have heard this argument on the list. But do any of us really believe that numbers themselves will improve the statistically likelyhood of a Wolfgang, Ludwig, or Mikey? What a cop out. No, I didn't get a lot out of the essay. I can learn more from three random letters on this list. Alan Mitchell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 08 Aug 2000 00:35:06 -0400 Speaking of _Anna and the King of Siam_: her portrayals of life in the royal household are at odds with all contemporary accounts by dispassionate western observers, etc., etc. Bob Hughes ________________________________________________________________________ Is there such a thing as a dispassionate observer? In considering the great musical, _The King and I_, I feel it is great art. It uplifts and strengthens me. It is not historically accurate and, political sin that this is, it reflects the attitudes of its authors and their times. I love to read the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, especially about the Warlord of Mars, John Carter. I have tried several times to write a story extending his adventures, but have found that my internal assumptions are all different than his, including his belief that an honorable woman would suicide before being ravished. The first book, _A Princess of Mars_, was written in 1911. At that time the British Empire was "great". They did a lot of good and a lot of bad all over the world. The assumption was that this was their duty to do. They had to bring civilization, the rule of law, and industrialism to everyone. In return they assumed the role of guardians of peace, justice, equity (within social class, of course); the greatest empire on earth. They had their fingers in as many pies as they could get men or women into. Edgar Rice Burroughs has his hero bring these ideals to Mars. The Martians, or Barsoomians, accept his leadership over the course of years in which he fights in wars all over the red planet. I love the stories, the plots, the characters. They are noble and idealistic. But I cannot write them in the same way because I am no longer convinced that their ideals are the best. Every author brings his or her own experiences to bear on the subject at hand. This is necessary in order to write anything. It is also good, because it teaches. Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana bouck remy" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 07 Aug 2000 21:44:43 -0700 There are some LDS missionaries in a scene from "George of the Jungle." They don't say anything, but seem to be right at home milling around the village marketplace with the natives. Jana Remy - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 07 Aug 2000 23:40:15 -0600 David Hansen wrote: Going by the quotes you provided alone, I think President Hinckley used the much wiser approach, when he preached against pornography. To some, all nudity _is_ pornography because all nudity arouses them. But that's not true of everyone. My personal opinion is that Elder Ballard, when mentioning nudity specifically, was interjecting his personal definition of pornography. Not that it's such an unreasonable interpretation, since as has been pointed out (see quote below), most displays of nudity these days are intended to sexually stimulate. But I don't think it's an accurate definition. > However, I agree with Jason Steed > that in the majority of art today, nudity is used in sexual situations in which > the producer/writer intends to arouse the audience. This makes it extremenly > difficult to justify watching nudity because there are so few examples of nudity > being used to glorify God and show the true beauty of the human form. I think with the choice of one word in the quote above, this statement contributes to the excessive aversion we members have toward the human body. That word is "justify." If there are few examples of positive nudity, that means there will be _few times_ we can justify viewing it, not that it is difficult to justify _ever_ viewing it. > Still, I'm not offended if I read a story about someone nude or a tastefully > done sex scene. However, I would get increasingly more offended if that act is > painted, sculpted, directed in a movie or finally acted out on stage? Does the > medium matter here, or am I just nuts? The medium does seem to matter to people, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. If I read a nude scene described in words, I am crafting an image of the nudity in my mind--I still see nudity. Ultimately what happens in the mind is what matters. What difference does it make if a sculpture, a photograph, or written words place an image of nudity in my mind? The only thing that matters is my reaction to the nudity. The printed word can be just as pornographic as a photograph, and a photograph can be just as uplifting as the printed word. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 08 Aug 2000 01:01:28 -0600 Jason Steed wrote: > I don't think deliberate attempts to incorporate "neutral" nudity is the > answer. Open discussions with our children, trying to follow the spirit in > handling individual situations--these seem more appropriate to me. Maybe I'm on the perverted end of the bell curve, but all the frank discussions on earth wouldn't have satisfied my curiosity about the human body. Nor do I see how frankly discussing something, but continually acting ashamed of letting anyone see it, is going to change prevailing attitudes much. By the way, I don't think deliberately incorporating nudity is the answer, although I may have sounded like I did. Rather, I think the answer is not to fear nudity, and be willing to use it at appropriate times. > I don't believe that nudity is inherently evil, but I do believe the body is a > sacred thing and ought to be treated as such. If the body is, indeed, a > "temple", then I think any "casual" exposure of it--even if it isn't > explicitly sexual or "evil" in nature--is going to run the risk of > inappropriateness. My feelings are that the above statement is not an argument, but an expression of the prevailing cultural attitude. Just how seriously are we supposed to take the metaphor that our body is a temple? What does it mean to say a body is sacred? Maybe we shouldn't scratch our itches, because that's an awfully casual thing to do with a sacred instrument. Sorry to sound flippant here--I really don't intend to be. I'm serious about the question. I can think of a lot of things I do with my body that I wouldn't do to something I consider sacred. Furthermore I can't think of any scripture that says our bodies are sacred. Christ used the metaphor of the body as a temple once, but that's about it as far as I can recall. (I'm sure if I'm wrong, I'll be quickly corrected in this forum.) All the rest seems to be interpretation placed on that isolated literary conceit. Not that I think we should profane our bodies. They are patterned after God's body; they are an important tool for us to further our eternal progression. But don't you think we sometimes take this concept of "sacred bodies" to an extreme? Perhaps slapstick comedy is a terrible sin, because it uses this sacred instrument for cheap laughs. Maybe Jim Carrey is going to hell, because look how he contorts his sacred temple in the service of something as trivial as comedy. We need to call animators and cartoonists to repentance: their representations of the sacred human body are grossly distorted. Everyone who is not in peak physical condition is desecrating something sacred--why aren't we all following Arnold Schwarzeneggar's example and building our bodies up to as much perfection as we are capable? I consider the scriptures sacred. But I don't hide the book under a piece of cloth. I don't preserve it in a state of museum-piece preservation. I read it and mark it up and wear it out using it as a tool. I wouldn't paint a swastika on the cover--that would certainly be desecrating it. I also wouldn't pose nude for pornographic magazines--that would certainly be desecrating my body. But I'll use the scriptures and drop them on the floor and on occasion get a drop or two of food on them. If someone happens to see me nude, I won't freak out and scramble to hide myself like there's something shameful about my body. If my story requires nudity, as with those plays Eric Samuelsen mentioned, each one of which was an excellent example, I'll put it in. If it doesn't, I won't. Why is keeping the body permanently covered "appropriate"? Why is that the form in which we should respect the sacredness of the body? Where did that rule come from? As far as I can tell from Victorian England, when they used to dress piano legs for reasons of modesty. Is such cultural baggage truly of any value? > It's a difficult situation, dealing with cultural baggage (both Mormon and > American in general), but we need to have some respect for the fact that the > baggage exists, not just make attempts to cut ourselves loose from it. Why? I have little respect for baggage, which to me by definition means beliefs that have lost touch with their original purpose, but are preserved whether the result is positive or destructive. I think a large part of personal growth is cutting ourselves away from baggage and adopting more truth. I think I do a great disservice to let people nurture their baggage, although I recognize that great wisdom needs to be followed in helping people come to recognize baggage as such. Not everyone is ready to receive all truth. That's why we learn line upon line. But I don't think the answer is to succumb to the status quo. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 08 Aug 2000 00:27:42 PDT >To me, the public's or critic's immediate reaction to a work of art >means nothing. Only time and history will tell us what is good art. I'm >currently working on a play about Moli=E8re, the French comic playwright. >His play _Tartuffe_ offended a lot of stuffy religionists of his day, >and was even banned for a short period of time. Another play, _Don >Juan_, seemed to lionize atheism, and also bothering the clerical crowd. >Horrible things were said about Moliere. Old friends turned away from >him, condeming him to hell in their writings, and theatre in general as >a toold of the devil. > >Today, Moli=E8re is universally honored as France's greatest playwright. >Tartuff is considered Moli=E8re's masterpiece. > >In the short run, all the talk about is nudity appropriate, what >language should or should not be used, may give us all a lot to think >about. We may be offended by this or that, or not at all. But long >after we're gone, I venture to say that some of the works of art that a >substantial majority of our culture currently condemns may turn out to >entertain ages yet unborn, and they will wonder, like we do when we view >Tartuffe, what all the fuss was about. I think the problem here--and it's a problem that can only be addressed,=20 really, on a listserv made up of people who (presumably) share basically the= =20 same general belief that there is a Truth out there, absolutely, and that we= =20 have some idea of what it basically consists of--the problem here is that=20 you're using works produced by the world, initially rejected by the world,= =20 and later acclaimed by the world, as a basis for dismissing a discussion of= =20 how to judge--and whether or not, or how, to avoid--worldliness=20 (inappropriate representations of nudity). In other words, so what if the world lauds Moliere now? The fact that=20 Moliere is a "classic," now (or Shakespeare, or Faulkner, or 100 yrs from=20 now, say, for laughs, Stephen King), according to the world, really has=20 nothing whatever to do with the morality of nudity (or anything else=20 portrayed/revealed/reflected/promoted) in art. What the world finds=20 acceptable or rejectable changes yearly, if not weekly; but what is moral or= =20 immoral, generally, is unchanging. The world's standards are absolutely=20 relative, and we, as Mormons, shouldn't trust them. I should mention that we, as artists, shouldn't trust them either. It is=20 perfectly conceivable that the world could have done other than it has done,= =20 and that a culture could have been produced that lauded Moliere in his time,= =20 only to see him fade away into oblivion twenty years later, never to return.= =20 What is or isn't a "classic" is a matter of culture and ideology, not Truth.= =20 As Mormons and artists, we should be after the T-word, unafraid to go=20 against culture and ideologies should it prove necessary. That means being= =20 willing to abandon a "classic" because it is immoral according to that Truth= =20 that we make claims to knowing and following. It also means that discussions about the morality or immorality of a thing= =20 are essential to our (Mormon) art--we cannot, as many other artists have=20 done and continue to do, abandon morality as merely cultural (or=20 deliberately fight against it as such), thereby making it relative, because= =20 to do so would be tantamount to abandoning our Mormonism. And years from=20 now, while the world may be wondering what all the fuss was about over a=20 given novel or play, hopefully the Mormons will understand, and not be=20 bullied by the world into accepting the new "classics" simply because the=20 world has affixed the label to them. Wow, I feel as though a soapbox has forced itself under my heels here. I'm= =20 kicking it away now... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 08 Aug 2000 01:28:38 PDT Harlow wrote: This is a very powerful gift we can give each other, but also fragile. If you don't receive the gift it has no power for you. Or over you. It puzzles me deeply, and pains me, that in a culture that so profoundly emphasizes personal accountability, personal responsibility, as does ours, there are so many who adopt a deterministic model of reading. If we fear story we are essentially abrogating our response-ability to choose what influences us and to reject or dismiss things we don't want to be influenced by. I agree with this wholeheartedly, and with much of what Harlow said. And I'm feeling the need to back off from the somewhat extreme position I was displaying in a counter-argument directed primarily at Eric (to some degree simply for the sake of argument--because it makes me think and forces me to articulate things). I too believe art to be much of what Harlow claims it to be. And I'm not a Censor (uppercase 'C') in the sense that I'm in favor of any form of blanket or institutionalized censorship (though certainly some of the thoughts I was articulating may have hinted in that direction). What I am most in favor of is censorship on a personal level--and, indeed, this sort of thing is difficult to accomplish without a healthy sense of "response-ability". I do not believe in a deterministic model of reading, but I also do not believe that my personal response-ability is so wholly autonomous as to be capable of remaining unaffected or un-influenced by art, if I simply choose to be so. I do not believe in the strict binary of Self and Other, where my Self can cast out the Other (in this case, "bad" art), so that my Self retains its pre-Other integrity. The bottom line: I think that as Mormon Artists, there is a tendency to fight against the conservativism of our Mormonness and to overplay the liberalism of our Artistness. Let's face it: we all enjoy lambasting those prudes who can't handle the flash of buttocks or the four-letter words in a PG-13 film, or the bloody wars in the scriptures (for Pete's sake!). But we need to be careful that we're not too resistent to that adjective that distinguishes us from Artists in general. We discuss and deliberate endlessly over what is and is not appropriate/acceptable in what we write--and I don't think anyone will argue that, generally speaking, the literature we produce is more conservative in its presentations of things like sex and violence than literatures produced by 'other' writers--and I believe that's as it should be. Likewise (and this may seem redundant, though I don't think it is), our literature often is, and should be, more 'moral'. So why shouldn't we do the same with what we read (or watch)? Besides being Mormon Artists, we're also Mormon Readers. Right? And I think that the censorship of some things (be it personal, familial, or societal) can be just as much an assertion/affirmation of personal response-ability as anything. (And that doesn't mean 'fearing' story, or rejecting it blindly. Just as those who advocate a form of censorship often claim danger exists in that which should be censored, so those who rebel against censorship often claim fear in those who advocate it.) The fact is, the sort of censorship I'm advocating is informed and responsible (thus, response-able). If it's raining, we can exercise our response-ability by allowing the rain to affect us (hunching our shoulders, grimacing against the wetness at our back), or by not allowing it (standing tall, smiling through the droplets on our eyebrows); or, we can exercise our response-ability by choosing not to go outside...In the first two instances, despite our responses, we're still wet. All three choices are made with some knowledge of the rain and its effects, and of the fact that it is raining. So, while I sit in awe of the wonders of art, and (I might add) in awe of the fact that somehow I've posited myself on the fascist/reactionary side of the fence--which is normally so foreign to me--I don't mind being here (temporarily), gently re-minding myself (if no one else) of a few things I believe in as a Mormon Artist/Reader. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 08 Aug 2000 09:46:00 -0500 Thom, Could you explain the following: > To me, the public's or critic's immediate reaction to a work of art > means nothing. Only time and history will tell us what is good art. It occurs to me that the public and critics are the vehicles which place a work of art into the stream of history and allow it to endure over time. Contrarily, the negative public and/or critical response to a work of art can contribute to its being kept out of the stream of history. Clearly it's more complicated than this, but I'm interested to know what distinctions you make. Todd Robert Petersen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] DKA Magazine Announcement Date: 08 Aug 2000 16:37:28 -0500 Forwarded Announcement: Volume III of "Dragon's, Knights, and Angels: The Magazine of Christian Fantasy and Science Fiction" is now online at www.dkamagazine.net DKA Magazine is a family friendly magazine of Christian fantasy and science fiction including stories, art, poetry, and reader interaction. The magazine is in need of submissions from authors of strong moral background and a love of science fiction and fantasy. See the site for more information. Rebecca Shelley Editor DKA Magazine - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell" Subject: [AML] _Contact_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) Date: 08 Aug 2000 16:35:45 -0500 Eric D. Snider (eric@ericdsnider.com) >... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's >anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the >opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth >that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a >polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). > >Eric D. Snider I hope this is not drifting too far from the purpose of this list, but it does show how spiritual things are portrayed in movies, so... I feel the movie _Contact_ had very strong views of religion from both sides -- and that's because the movie was made by someone other than the man who wrote the original book. The original book by Carl Sagan (which I read ten years before the movie) does not have the realization of faith that Ellie (Jodie Foster) does at the end of the movie. That was added by the movie makers. This part is favorable to religion because it shows that in the end, all Ellie had was her faith of what happened. Carl Sagan didn't do that in the book. But I liked the movie ending better. Without that ending, it was a good story, but with it, it was a GREAT story. I absolutely loved it. It's a great portrayal of faith in an entertainment medium. I heard the director giving an interview about the finished movie and he expressed his hope that Carl Sagan would have enjoyed it (as he died during the filming). I personally think he'd be turning over in his grave about the ending, as that's NOT the message he had intended (or at least not the main message). Darvell Hunt _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 08 Aug 2000 15:34:47 -0600 "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > > >Then there's _Contact_, where the guy who plants the bomb in the machine is > >a religious fanatic from Panguitch, Utah. They never say he's Mormon, and > >his long shoulder-length, bleached hair doesn't make him look Mormon, but > >just being from Utah makes you think that they want to portray him _as_ > >Mormon, without really saying it. > > ... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's > anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the > opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth > that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a > polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). You were not impressed, as I was, by the senator asking Jodie Foster for proof of her experience, for which she could give none, her answer was basically: "If I hand't have experienced this for myself, I wouldn't believe it either." Who does that sound like? Cosmos is an intensely religious movie. More spiritual in nature than many so-called religious films. It deals with the ineffable reality of the mysteries of the Universe by summing up everything in these words: "Because that's the way it's always been done." IOW, the reality of the Universe can not be understood by human reason alone, only by faith. It takes a poet (or a prophet) to adequately describe that reality, and you can bear your testimony all you want to to unbelievers, but you can't describe it. Cosmos, imo, is the greatest combination of religion and science fiction ever made. The second is Matrix. As a life-long fan of science fiction and religion, I feel privileged and humbled that I lived in the same decade when both of these films were made and thus could see them in first release. (Similarly, seeing Star Wars in its inital release was a religious experience that no video or DVD can ever re-produce.) Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 08 Aug 2000 15:38:42 -0600 Melinda wrote: >I'd vote for the old movie, "Paint Your Wagon". Besides, in it >Clint >Eastwood sings, beautifully. "I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me." From Dirty Harry, no = less. One of the funniest moments in the history of film. =20 How about the Mormon preacher in Little Big Man? Or am I not remembering = that right? Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 08 Aug 2000 15:58:05 -0600 Rex, I was stunned by your fankness and I applaud your determination. As far as going topless I have always wondered why that rule didn't apply to both men and women. Personally I have found only one man that I can look at topless without being repulsed. Yes, I married him. And you are right, there should be a law against certain people wearing not quite there clothes. Don't worry, I would definatly be one of those too. Alot of what you said made sence, about shame that is. My personal opinion about nudity is to avoid it (exept with my husband) but that is my own opinion and what works for me. It has nothing to do with what is or is not appropriate in the arts. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) Date: 08 Aug 2000 21:21:59 -0400 Not having read the book, I don't know one ending from the other. But, having seen the movie four times now (we own it) I have to say that I didn't get the sense that it changed ellie's view on God. I could be wrong, and it could be time to watch it again. Debbie Brown - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Good Writing Date: 09 Aug 2000 00:04:39 -0400 And years from now, while the world may be wondering what all the fuss was about over a given novel or play, hopefully the Mormons will understand, and not be bullied by the world into accepting the new "classics" simply because the world has affixed the label to them. Wow, I feel as though a soapbox has forced itself under my heels here. I'm kicking it away now... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Well said, Jason. I find that many of the more contemporary "classics" and also some of the newer Newbery Award winners are not what I consider classics. Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 09 Aug 2000 02:15:16 -0600 Rex Goode wrote: [a whole lot of good stuff about society's attitude toward sex and nudity and the sexual problems people have] These were excellent comments you made. You expressed things that, if I had tried, would have come out greatly inferior to what you wrote. Probably because you're an expert on the subject, and I'm not. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ (was: Mormon Depictions in Movies) Date: 09 Aug 2000 00:39:12 -0700 >Eric D. Snider (eric@ericdsnider.com) >>... which, in my opinion, is just another example of that film's >>anti-religion message. I know there are those who got quite the >>opposite idea from "Contact," and as soon as one of them puts forth >>that idea, I'll go into detail as to why I feel the way I do (in a > >polite, friendly debate sort of way, of course :-) ). >> > > >I hope this is not drifting too far from the purpose of this list, but it >does show how spiritual things are portrayed in movies, so... > >I feel the movie _Contact_ had very strong views of religion from both >sides -- and that's because the movie was made by someone other than the >man who wrote the original book. The original book by Carl Sagan (which I >read ten years before the movie) does not have the realization of faith >that Ellie (Jodie Foster) does at the end of the movie. That was added by >the movie makers. This part is favorable to religion because it >shows thatin the end, all Ellie had was her faith of what happened. > >Carl Sagan didn't do that in the book. But I liked the movie ending >better. Without that ending, it was a good story, but with it, it was a >GREAT story. I absolutely loved it. It's a great portrayal of faith in an >entertainment medium. > >I heard the director giving an interview about the finished movie and he >expressed his hope that Carl Sagan would have enjoyed it (as he died during >the filming). I personally think he'd be turning over in his grave about >the ending, as that's NOT the message he had intended (or at least not the >main message). That's very interesting to me, that the movie was changed significantly from the book. That lends more credence to what I thought: that the ending was sort of a tacked-on afterthought. So here's my diatribe about the movie, which I realize is approximately three years too late: Through the whole movie, religion is criticized. Every religious character is shown to be either old-fashioned and naive (the guy who says, "We don't even know if these aliens are moral" is clearly not well-respected by the movie's other characters), or out-and-out insane (the religious zealot who blows stuff up, who of course is from Utah, stereotypical home of religious nuts). The only religious character portrayed as being a normal, non-crazy person, is Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) -- and he sleeps with Arroway on their first date! I'd rather be one of the "zealots" they make fun of than an immoral pseudo-spiritual backslider like Joss. (Is it OK to be judgmental about fictional characters?) Furthermore, Arroway, while speaking to Joss, gives two possibilities: Either God exists and refuses to make his presence known, or -- clearly the more "reasonable" possibility -- there is no God, and science is the answer to life's questions. A third scenario, the one that happens to be true, is not even mentioned as being possible: That God exists and gives abundant evidence of that fact to those who are willing to see it. When people raise concerns about sending an atheist like Arroway as a representative of Earth, when an overwhelming majority of Earthlings believe in God, we are supposed to be on Arroway's side. But I agreed with everyone else! Arroway SHOULDN'T have been sent! But that's not how the movie wants us to feel. We're supposed to roll our eyes at how silly it is that the issue of belief in God should even be brought up in a situation that clearly has nothing to do with it. "Look at how obsessive these religious people are!" is what the movie is saying, and we're supposed to agree with it. So the movie goes along in this vein for two hours -- belittling religion, showing religious people to be pitiable, misguided souls -- and then suddenly changes. In the final 10 minutes, we get this twist: That believing in science requires the same sort of blind faith that has been mocked by everyone for 120 minutes! Ho-ho, imagine the wackiness! If it had been better executed, this would have been a marvelous ending, giving scientific credence, or at least respectability, to belief in God. As it is, though, it is too little too late. It's hard to accept that the ideas presented so vividly and one-sidedly for two hours weren't what the filmmakers were really intending to say -- that it was merely a set-up for a grand, ironic finale. Again, the IDEA of it is great. But the execution winds up celebrating the anti-religious sentiment, rather than making a skeptical audience reconsider it. Eric D. Snider -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 09 Aug 2000 06:55:02 -0700 (PDT) I can't say much about the INTENDED religious message of the movie/book (sorry, I saw and read them so long ago that I can't remember the differences). But I did enjoy thinking about applications the movie/book had to my own relition. Specifically, I found it fascinating to think of the concept of a more advanced species leaving us a message. What would an advanced species tell us if they could? Or a society that has gone before? (A message from the inhabitants of the City of Enoch?) I know a person who made his wife promise that she would return to him after her death of cancer and give him a message. If she could only tell him one thing, what would it be? What message would you leave a younger and less-evolved version of yourself? Anyway, then I thought(brace yourself): is Sagan's idea of a message left behind by an advanced species so far from what we believe? In fact, isn't that our definition of God? An advanced species? (Or, if you prefer, a progressed version of us?) And we DO believe that He left us a message, made contact. In the form of an actual visitation to Joseph Smith. And the message? That we can repent. That the authority to act in God's name is again on the earth. And what more important message is there? ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 09 Aug 2000 00:34:45 -0600 Jason Steed wrote: > In other words, so what if the world lauds Moliere now? The fact that > Moliere is a "classic," now (or Shakespeare, or Faulkner, or 100 yrs from > now, say, for laughs, Stephen King), according to the world, really has > nothing whatever to do with the morality of nudity (or anything else > portrayed/revealed/reflected/promoted) in art. What the world finds > acceptable or rejectable changes yearly, if not weekly; but what is moral or > immoral, generally, is unchanging. The world's standards are absolutely > relative, and we, as Mormons, shouldn't trust them. You bring up an interesting issue that I've wondered about before. It seems like one of the best ways to make a work of art morally acceptable to people, including Mormons, is to wait a while. The older a work of art becomes, assuming it's still remembered at all, the more of an aura of "classic" grows around it. A classic is often revered even if it presents material that would be considered immoral if it were first published to the world today. Shakespeare is a great example. Lots of immoral things happen in Shakespeare plays, yet when is the last time you heard in any LDS venue that we shouldn't be reading or viewing Shakespeare plays because they're immoral? Why does this happen? Is it just a matter of getting used to a thing and not seeing the vile aspect of it anymore? Or is there more to it? My conjecture is that we become distanced from a work of art the older it gets, and are able to look at it more objectively. The stuff that Hollywood or the publishing industry puts out now is immediate, personal, because our contemporaries are trying to influence _us_. So we take any questionable material in them personally and react emotionally to what we perceive of as immoral. But older art was created by artists back _then_ to affect those _other_ people, so we don't take it so personally. Thus we are able to look at it more objectively, to see the possibly immoral content and analyze it from a distance. We don't feel so threatened by it. [Sudden shift in gears.] Does God ever think immoral thoughts? The knee-jerk answer is bound to be no, or at most, maybe they enter his head, but he immediately tosses them out, not letting them dwell there for more than an instant. But I question whether that's true--I question whether that's possible. Of a surety, he doesn't dwell on immoral thoughts, letting them fester in his mind and start affecting his behavior. But I can't see how he could continue to be God if he doesn't consider immorality in all it's ugly aspects. He had to contemplate the sins of his children as he put together the plan of salvation and include a Savior in the mix. He has to prepare for the destructive actions of wicked men so he can combat their influence and keep his plan on track down here in mortal life. He has to know how to comfort us and bless us and help us deal with the consequences of our sins. God has to understand sin completely and intimately. Isn't that in fact one of the strengths we claim for Christ, who by suffering for our sins understands our shortcomings intimately and therefore is someone we can turn to for help? Now to tie the two concepts together. Somewhere along in our eternal progression I believe we need to learn how to face sin, look it in the eye, know and understand it intimately, and still resist succumbing to it. At what point in our progression we accomplish that is probably a very personal thing, different for each individual. I think it's clear that until we reach a certain level of spiritual strength, we are _not_ ready to learn that lesson, because we _would_ succumb. Therefore there is an appropriate time for "blissful ignorance" and protecting the innocent from the realities of life. But I don't think blissful ignorance is a permanent solution to perfection. Otherwise it might be a charitable thing to practice widespread infanticide so all those babies can go directly to the celestial kingdom and bypass the spiritual dangers of mortal life. I think the example of dealing with classic works of art with a dispassion, where we can analyze and understand the evil depicted within them without succumbing to any immoral influence that may be there, is a model for how we need--sooner or later--to deal with wickedness. After all, a man who was protected during his entire maturation process, who is naive about life, who doesn't understand much about sin, wouldn't last one week as a bishop. It's a very personal, and possibly risky, decision to decide when you're ready to start facing evil head-on and coming to grips with it's reality. But I think it's a thing that needs to be done. Evil in literature can help us do that in a very safe environment, much safer than diving headlong into evil ourselves. And because it's a personal decision, once again we have to be very wary of judging the choices of others, and expecting a one-size-fits-all model of spiritual progression to be workable. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 09 Aug 2000 09:54:17 -0600 (MDT) > I hope this is not drifting too far from the purpose of this list,but it does show how spiritual things are portrayed in movies, so... > I feel the movie _Contact_ had very strong views of religion from both sides -- and that's because the movie was made by someone other than the man who wrote the original book. The original book by Carl Sagan (which I read ten years before the movie) does not have the realization of faith that Ellie (Jodie Foster) does at the end of the movie. That was added by the movie makers. This part is favorable to religion because it shows that in the end, all Ellie had was her faith of what happened. > Carl Sagan didn't do that in the book. But I liked the movie ending > better. Without that ending, it was a good story, but with it, it was a GREAT story. I absolutely loved it. It's a great portrayal of faith in an entertainment medium. > Darvell Hunt I hate to burst your bubble - But Carl Sagan wrote the script for Contact, and when he was unable to sell it, he wrote the novel. Plus, the last half of the book deals with the main character finding a hidden message from God in the numeral Pi. That sounds a bit religous to me. But while the director may have a added a few things, the original movie script was written by Carl Sagan (and it included the "faith" ending in the movie) --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hamilton Fred Subject: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 09 Aug 2000 11:30:23 -0600 (MDT) The movie, CONTACT, raises an interesting concept about religion, and thus, the literary depiction of it. As Eric Snider indicates, there is an "anti-religion" sentiment in the movie, but "anti" sentiment is focused more on the organized communitarian type of faith which leads to fanatical beliefs. The Gary Bussy character was advocating an evangelical style of faith thus separating it directly from the Mormonism of Utah. However, by indicating that his Church was based in Panguitch, the movie's creators allowed one to give credence to his fanatical adherence because, even in Utah folklore, Southern Utah is where the stereotypical Mormon fanatics and sects are frequently placed by literary and dramatic artists. I, perhaps unfortunately, accepted that character's reality because it fit a national and regional literary cultural stereotype which I had already accepted. (Even Levi Peterson uses that stereotype of Place in his works, particularly in The Backslider.) I find "Contact" to be quite a study of Fanaticism versus Personal "Faith" commitment. Jody Foster's character's dedication at the first of the movie is quite different from that exhibited at the end of the movie. At the first there is the almost religious "fanaticism" in which she is pursuing her search, while at the end there is a peaceful personal commitment, almost monkish, in which she now pursues her quest. The faith - religion - she has come to accept is the depiction of a faith which Hollywood and many other literary people wish to privilege. It is a faith which is deeply personal, a faith that goes to the extremes to not judge the beliefs or actions of others - particularly in moral areas, a faith that though founded in an organization the character's practice has chosen to separate itself from the organizational dictates, and that faith is expressed in terms of absolute humility but velveted steel commitment to only personal principles. This Hollywood or literary religion is a religion that will always reject the evils, be they doctrinal or structural, of the organization. It is a religion which elevates the "loving of one's neighbor as one's self" as the great commandment. And, in the end, Jody Foster's character has come to love herself and so has come to accept/love her opponents, her world, the objects of her search within the context of her own, now known, personal acceptance. So, in this manner, I also disagree with Eric's typification that the movie is an "anti-religious" movie. I find it intriguing that we also struggle with this organizational vs personal conflict in our literature and discussions. The depiction of the strictly accepting or rejecting doctrinaire Church member is one literary or dramatic character, which almost everyone who writes on this list is attempting to deny in their work. In fact, this is almost always the one dominant factor of Mormon Literature - to show that these are individuals who have come to their commitments through "personal" means whether the results be for literary good or evil. And, it also seems, that the critical judgements on such literary works are generally based on how successfully the writer has made that "personal" real. Yet there is always a tension that will be present. Our faith is strongly "organizational" and "community based." In one way we struggle with a local concept of a religious icon in opposition to national cultural religious icon which we have accepted through much of the literature - in all its forms - to which we have been exposed. With which icon do we feel more comfortable as individual, or group, Mormon Readers? Which religious icon do Mormon Writer's find it easier, or perhaps more artistically acceptable, to depict? I am sorry I cannot provide definitive answers to either question. I just wished to point out, in my own fallible way, that such a tension exists in our reading - in all of its forms, in our criticism, in our writing. Thank you for allowing me to share these observations with you. Skip Hamilton - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard R Hopkins Subject: [AML] Cornerstone Purchases Horizon Date: 09 Aug 2000 12:29:26 -0600 It's official! Cornerstone Publishing has purchased Horizon Publishers. Look for a complete press release in Mormon News as soon as I can get it to Kent. We're so busy making the transition, I'll be pretty much lurking for a little while, but we believe this will prove to be a pretty significant development in the LDS publishing community. Richard Hopkins [MOD: Ha! Kent, did we manage to beat you to the punch (for once) with this one?] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 08 Aug 2000 18:02:33 PDT >Maybe I'm on the perverted end of the bell curve, but all the frank >discussions on earth wouldn't have satisfied my curiosity about the >human body. Nor do I see how frankly discussing something, but >continually acting ashamed of letting anyone see it, is going to change >prevailing attitudes much. When I said "open discussions" I was assuming that "open" meant not only frank, but comfortable--in other words, meaning without shame. I agree with you that the shame that is fostered in many by the American and Mormon cultures is something we should try to counter and overcome. >By the way, I don't think deliberately incorporating nudity is the >answer, although I may have sounded like I did. Rather, I think the >answer is not to fear nudity, and be willing to use it at appropriate >times. I also was not advocating the fear of nudity--and I am in favor of using it appropriately. I just happen to believe that situations in which nudity is appropriate are relatively few (relative, that is, to situations in which it is inappropriate). I wrote: > > I don't believe that nudity is inherently evil, but I do believe the >body is a > > sacred thing and ought to be treated as such. If the body is, indeed, a > > "temple", then I think any "casual" exposure of it--even if it isn't > > explicitly sexual or "evil" in nature--is going to run the risk of > > inappropriateness. D. Michael Martindale responded: >My feelings are that the above statement is not an argument, but an >expression of the prevailing cultural attitude. Just how seriously are >we supposed to take the metaphor that our body is a temple? How seriously, then, should we take ANY of the metaphors/similes/allegories used in the scriptures? Why not toss them all out the window, rationalize them all away? >What does it >mean to say a body is sacred? Maybe we shouldn't scratch our itches, >because that's an awfully casual thing to do with a sacred instrument. >Sorry to sound flippant here--I really don't intend to be. I'm serious >about the question. I can think of a lot of things I do with my body >that I wouldn't do to something I consider sacred. Furthermore I can't >think of any scripture that says our bodies are sacred. Christ used the >metaphor of the body as a temple once, but that's about it as far as I >can recall. (I'm sure if I'm wrong, I'll be quickly corrected in this >forum.) All the rest seems to be interpretation placed on that isolated >literary conceit. The doctrine that one of the primary reasons for our coming to earth is to receive a body seems to me to elevate the body to a level of regard that approaches, if not achieves, reverence for something sacred. Those actual scriptures and statements made by prophets and apostles seem to substantiate this belief, IMHO. You're dismissing an awful lot here--not just one metaphor. But even if it was only the one use of the one metaphor, I would respect it. After all, look who used it. Because our bodies are mortal, though, they are subject(ed) to many things that may be undesirable for something we consider sacred--that's precisely why we should strive to protect against such things. > >Not that I think we should profane our bodies. They are patterned after >God's body; they are an important tool for us to further our eternal >progression. How can you reduce the worth of the body to mere literary conceit and dismiss its sacredness in one sentence, then admit to its being patterned after God's in the next? This fact alone--that our bodies are patterned after God's body--ought to be enough to cause us to hold the body in the highest esteem, and to avoid at all costs its vulgarization. >But don't you think we sometimes take this concept of >"sacred bodies" to an extreme? Perhaps slapstick comedy is a terrible >sin, because it uses this sacred instrument for cheap laughs. Maybe Jim >Carrey is going to hell, because look how he contorts his sacred temple >in the service of something as trivial as comedy. What is immoral or "evil" about slapstick comedy? Most often, slapstick takes as its source the basic ineptitudes of humanity, and amplifies them. It is an attempt to laugh at our own human, and thus imperfect and failing, condition. Your attempt, here, to dismiss serious reasons for revering the human body, by carrying that reasoning out ad absurdum, is too easily recognized as absurd. No one is advocating what you're suggesting. On the other hand, if slapstick becomes (as it often will in contemporary 'gross-out' comedies) obscene and/or irreverent toward the body (I'm referring primarily here to the sacred powers of procreation, not to gags aimed at bodily functions like flatulation), then perhaps it SHOULD be condemned. >We need to call animators and cartoonists to repentance: their >representations of the sacred human body are grossly distorted. Cartoons are artistic representations. Do you really think anyone is advocating the "calling to repentence" of any and all artists who do not represent reality with the strictest efforts at replication? No one's calling SF writers to repentence just because their worlds aren't exact duplicates of this one. >Everyone >who is not in peak physical condition is desecrating something >sacred--why aren't we all following Arnold Schwarzeneggar's example and >building our bodies up to as much perfection as we are capable? Again, you carry things way too far. Who's to say what "peak physical condition" is? Our bodies are mortal, imperfect by nature. Not taking care of my body to the best of my ability IS, I believe, a sin; that's what the WofW is all about; my body is a part of my stewardship. But that doesn't mean "be like Arnold." In fact, I'm tempted to think Arnold's condition is further from perfection than other's--after all, there should be moderation in all things, right? :) > >I consider the scriptures sacred. But I don't hide the book under a >piece of cloth. I don't preserve it in a state of museum-piece >preservation. I read it and mark it up and wear it out using it as a >tool. I wouldn't paint a swastika on the cover--that would certainly be >desecrating it. I also wouldn't pose nude for pornographic >magazines--that would certainly be desecrating my body. But I'll use the >scriptures and drop them on the floor and on occasion get a drop or two >of food on them. Considering the scriptures to be sacred, and treating the actual paper they're printed on and the fake leather binding that contains them as sacred, are two different things. But perhaps this isn't a bad time to define, exactly, what is meant by sacred. The root of the word means "dedicated to God." So, when we say the temple is sacred, that doesn't mean you can't go in it, or that you can't cough or fart or be in any other way less than perfect while you're in it; it simply means that the temple and all that is done there is dedicated to God, and we should act appropriately. The scriptures are sacred, yes; obviously that doesn't mean you can't use them--use the living tar out of them, by all means! But use them appropriately, as something that is dedicated to God. When we talk about our bodies being sacred, again, that doesn't mean there can't be imperfections--that we can't scratch an itch, to use your example. It simply means our bodies are (or OUGHT to be) dedicated to God. And we should use them appropriately. I, personally, interpret this to EXCLUDE 'casual,' 'gratuitous,' 'unnecessary,' as well as graphically sexual, manifestations of nudity. Unless nudity is being used in such a way as to adhere to or promote, or underscore, some Truth (which, by nature, would be adhering to or promoting God and His will), then IMO it isn't appropriate use of something (the body) that is dedicated to God. >If someone happens to see me nude, I won't freak out >and scramble to hide myself like there's something shameful about my >body. There's a big difference between shame and modesty. If someone walks in on me when I'm naked, I won't "freak out" with shame, either. But I will, with some haste, make an effort to preserve my modesty. Again, I agree with you that shame is a bad thing. But so is immodesty. >If my story requires nudity, as with those plays Eric Samuelsen >mentioned, each one of which was an excellent example, I'll put it in. >If it doesn't, I won't. Very good. I feel the same way. I just think there is some discrepency in what constitutes a "requirement." All I'm advocating is a strict, high standard for what can be considered "required" nudity (and therefore, presumably, "appropriate" nudity). Many might argue that nudity is "required" for a sex scene, even when the sex scene is not "required" for moving the plot forward, or developing character, or most importantly, for underscoring that/those truth/truths that are at the heart of the work... >Why is keeping the body permanently covered "appropriate"? Why is that >the form in which we should respect the sacredness of the body? Where >did that rule come from? As far as I can tell from Victorian England, >when they used to dress piano legs for reasons of modesty. Is such >cultural baggage truly of any value? Are you suggesting that clothing originated with Victorian England? That was only a hundred years ago. People have considered a clothed body "appropriate" for much longer than 100 years...Even those supposedly "sexually liberated" Greeks wore clothing. And Biblically, as mentioned previously, there was the Garden of Eden, where God presented Adam and Eve with clothing. And, in fact, it is arguable that Puritan America was more prudish than Victorian England--and predated it by a couple hundred years. I wrote: > > It's a difficult situation, dealing with cultural baggage (both Mormon >and > > American in general), but we need to have some respect for the fact that >the > > baggage exists, not just make attempts to cut ourselves loose from it. D. Michael Martindale responds: >Why? I have little respect for baggage, which to me by definition means >beliefs that have lost touch with their original purpose, but are >preserved whether the result is positive or destructive. I think a large >part of personal growth is cutting ourselves away from baggage and >adopting more truth. I think I do a great disservice to let people >nurture their baggage, although I recognize that great wisdom needs to >be followed in helping people come to recognize baggage as such. Not >everyone is ready to receive all truth. That's why we learn line upon >line. > >But I don't think the answer is to succumb to the status quo. Status quo???? I look around me at what's "out there" in the world, and I have to say that advocating higher standards in the use of nudity, etc., is FAR from advocating the status quo--about as far as you can get, in fact!!! What "status quo," exactly, is being succumbed to? Perhaps you are referring to the status quo of being ashamed of our bodies. If so, I have already acknowledged that we should strive to overcome shame. But in no way, no how, do I think the stance I've taken regarding immorality in art is a stance in favor of the status quo. For that matter, the stance taken by the Church toward these things, though it may be "status quo" for the Church itself, is far from the status quo of the world. It's quite revolutionary, in fact. As for baggage: perhaps the word itself is problematic. I simply meant to suggest that we can't simply cut ourselves off from history and culture. Concerning shame, there is A LOT of history underlying the American (and Mormon) culture that may be guilty of producing feelings of shame about the human body in an individual. I don't think that history can simply be ignored and abandoned. In trying to overcome those aspects of our culture that are undesirable, we need to be respectful of the history that has formed them. By respect, I didn't mean we should "preserve" cultural attitudes, just because they're part of our culture; I just meant, well, _respect_ them, for what they are. We can't get rid of things like shame (or racism, or sexism, etc.) with a wave of some magic wand that detaches us from all that used to be. Instead, we have to acknowledge and accept our past (respect it), while struggling to change the present and future. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 09 Aug 2000 14:14:19 -0600 "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > Through the whole movie, religion is criticized. Every religious > character is shown to be either old-fashioned and naive (the guy who > says, "We don't even know if these aliens are moral" is clearly not > well-respected by the movie's other characters), or out-and-out > insane (the religious zealot who blows stuff up, who of course is > from Utah, stereotypical home of religious nuts). You must have been sitting in the cheap seats. Religion per se is not criticized in this film, religious nut cases are. All nut cases, for that matter. Let's not forget the fringe folks who show up in their vans, etc. The substance of religion -- faith -- is ultimately shown to be the only real reality. > When people raise concerns about sending an atheist like Arroway as a > representative of Earth, when an overwhelming majority of Earthlings > believe in God, we are supposed to be on Arroway's side. But I agreed > with everyone else! Arroway SHOULDN'T have been sent! But that's not > how the movie wants us to feel. And Arroway is forever changed in a scene that amounts to a science fictional version of being born again -- when she meets her "father" again. We are shown what real religion is, in the view of the filmmakers: not a particular organization, a proscribed creed, but man's communion with the ineffable. Scott Card does the same thing in his Alvin Maker books. Seemingly making fun of structured religion and lionizing witchcraft, he is actually doing exactly the opposite by showing the man of god as a hypocrite and the people who believe in withcraft as simple, believing people. The message in both the film and Card's book is clear: religion is more than just a set of rules that we blindly follow, but, as it says in the New Testament, we should have the commandments written on "the fleshly tablets of our heart." -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 09 Aug 2000 15:23:32 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Lots of immoral things happen in Shakespeare plays, yet when is the last time > you heard in any LDS venue that we shouldn't be reading or viewing > Shakespeare plays because they're immoral? About 10 years ago I went to see Kenneth Branagh's version of _Henry V_ in the BYU Varsity Theater. At several points throughout the film, the sound dipped whenever an expletive was used. My understanding is that the film used only Shakespeare's text, so someone in charge felt that Shakespeare's language was a bit strong for those of us in attendance. In my opinion, lowering the sound only served to highlight the "offending" words rather than having what I assume was the desired affect: to simply make them vanish. --Mike South - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 09 Aug 2000 17:25:05 -0500 I'm going to respond to three messages with this one post to save bandwidth. [MOD: Always a good idea!] Eric D. Snider wrote: >But I agreed with everyone else! Arroway SHOULDN'T have been >sent! Ah, but in the book she wasn't the only one who went. There were three or four picked to represent all of earth, and Arroway was sent to represent "her" kind. This difference between the book and the movie also really bothered me. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses..." Ellie was only one witness in the movie. Debbie Brown wrote: >Not having read the book, I don't know one ending from the other. But, >having seen the movie four times now (we own it) I have to say that I >didn't get the sense that it changed ellie's view on God. I could be >wrong, and it could be time to watch it again. I would highly recommend the book, but the first third is difficult to read. I don't really think that Ellie changed much either -- that's the source of much of the conflict and what makes the story so compelling. Ellie is forced to admit that she doesn't have any evidence of her experience and must rely on "faith" when she tells the people back home "what happened." This is VERY difficult for her because she doesn't have faith. Ivan Wolfe wrote: >Plus, the last half of the book deals with the main character finding a >hidden message from God in the numeral Pi. That sounds a bit >religous to me. Yes, and that's a very cool way of Sagan expressing this thought. I expand on this point in my LDS novella "The Fingerprints of God," and even imply that "the fingerprints of God" may also be found in the Mandelbrot set, which is a two dimensional imaginary number equation that produces fractal art. >But while the director may have a added a few things, >he original movie script was written by Carl Sagan (and it included >the "faith" ending in the movie) I did not know that. That really surprises me. I think that Carl Sagan wanted so badly to believe in God, but being a scientist, he couldn't find any evidence to do so. (Hence his theorizing about messages left in the irrational number pi.) If the script was first, I really wonder why he didn't put the "faith twist" at the end of the novel. Very strange. As a little addition to another thread going about Mormon references, in the book, Carl Sagan says that the Mormon Church announced that the alien message from outer space was a second revelation of the Angel Moroni! That was GREAT! It shows he really didn't understand Mormonism, but the humor still works (I THINK he meant it as humor!). Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Singles in Mormon Lit. Date: 09 Aug 2000 16:30:08 -0600 On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Darlene Young wrote: >One of the characters in the book [Eric Samuelsen's _Singled Out_], = April, is an >extremely attractive single woman who chooses an >amazing career opportunity over marriage. I must say >here that the marriage opportunity was definitely not >the best for her and she wasn't even really in love >with the guy, and so her decision was easy and >inevitable. But it started me thinking back to our >conversation about the barriers gifted Mormon women >encounter--barriers that keep them from great artistic >(or other) achievements. Here was a woman who was >absolutely perfect for the job she took, and it was an >important job. She will do great good in that job.=20 >So I ask, was it a GOOD thing that she wasn't truly in >love with the guy and tempted to choose marriage over >the career? I don't know what differences there are between the book and the play = ("The Way We're Wired") but I'm going to assume for the moment that they're essentially the same. I loved April in the play. And I really admired = the conclusion to her story: the job she was offered sounded so great that = for a moment I wished I were taking it! Unfortunately I'd have to go back to school for as long as she did.... But Darlene's question is a good one. = It was easy to accept the choice of career over marriage when it was clear, = as it was in the play, that there was only deep friendship between April and Andy and that Andy's proposal was, if not completely mercenary, its near kin. I wonder how my reaction might have been different if she and Andy = had been deeply in love and she'd chosen this career instead of marriage. (Don't change the play, Eric--it was perfect the way it was.) I'm currently reading F. Carolyn Graglia's book _Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism_, and I'm astonished at how much of what she says might have come straight from my own mouth. The part that's relevant to this post is what she writes about the choice to be a housewife. = Graglia, who practiced law before becoming a full-time mother and housewife (she = uses this despised word frequently), says at one point that women who see = "market work" as peripheral to the reality of home and family life won't think a career is an adequate substitution for that. Since I am admittedly one = of those women, if April had really loved Andy I might have felt = disappointed at her choosing the career--BUT ONLY insofar as I was identifying with = April myself. If I can see elements of myself in a character, I react to her choices as if I were making them. Objectively, however, the way April was portrayed indicated that she = would never be happy with anything other than a great career--or at least would not have been content to settle down to marriage until she'd exhausted = the possibilities of her career first. She might have a few regrets about = not marrying, but she valued the work she was doing more. Contrast April with Sandra, the bossy Type A organizer. She was also a career woman, but she always seemed discontent with her role; she was the one who argued most loudly about how Mormon culture thinks a single woman= is some kind of failure, but her behavior showed that she bought into that = idea herself. She was the only one I felt sorry for at the end of the = play--the only one of the five women whose fate was unsatisfactory to her. She had= a great career, but clearly would have preferred marriage if she could have= it on her own terms; as things stood, she felt safer and more in control = with market work than with the slippery fractal nature of human relationships. >But what I want to know >is: is it logical to conclude that it may be RIGHT for >some women to choose not to marry or not to have >children? Is it possible that greater good can be >done in some circumstances if women choose something >other than the role prescribed for them? > >"Oh," you say, "But there are many women who raise >families AND make a great difference. Look at . . ."=20 >and then we have the list. OK, I'll grant you that.=20 >But I'm just wondering about the possibility of a >woman being told by God not to marry or bear children >because she has another work to do. Can you think of >any instances in LDS literature in which a woman makes >such a choice (besides "Singled Out")? I can't think of any others, but I do think Eric has explored the possibility beautifully in his play (and book). I think God makes all = sorts of things possible that we would like to dismiss as impossible. So yes, = I think I would believe in a female character who had essentially received revelation that she should not marry (with the usual caveat that the character should be REALISTIC in general). If I could write mysteries, I would like to write a series in which the protagonist is a Mormon woman in her late twenties or early thirties who = has never married because she's never felt that any of the proposals she's received were right for her. I would like her to have an older sister, Mycroft to her Holmes, to whom she goes when she needs inspiration or = advice or just comfort. (This is why I think it should be a mystery--and a = series, because when I find characters I like I want to read many of their adventures.) The older sister would be long-married, with several = children (i.e. more than two) and extraordinarily intelligent and widely read, but have never had a career. In short, a housewife. (This is going to be my word for the week. I think it needs to be redeemed from the slag pit = where "Puritan" and "virgin" were consigned years ago.) I like this = combination not just because each character type interests me, but also because the possibility for interaction seems tremendous--each sister has a lot of = room to envy the other. Since I'm a very slow writer and completely = unselfish, I'm offering this idea to anyone who wants it and can make it work. Melissa Proffitt, Experienced Housewife - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies Date: 09 Aug 2000 17:39:07 -0600 In Space Jam when all the NBA players lose their basketball abilities, they joke a bit about Shawn Bradley and his mission. (You know they guy--the freakishly tall player who attended BYU for one season before his mission, then went straight to pros?) There's a pretty funny scene with him in therapy, wondering if he should go back on his mission. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 09 Aug 2000 17:32:58 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: The medium does seem to matter to people, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. What difference does it make if a sculpture, a photograph, or written words place an image of nudity in my mind? The only thing that matters is my reaction to the nudity. I disagree, for one reason: with a sculpture, a painting, or a novel, there are no "real" individuals involved: it's bronze, or oils, or words on a page. But in a movie or a play, there really are naked people touching each other, actors who may well be married to other people, and even if they're not should probably not be doing those things with another person, even "pretend." For me, that fact alone makes the medium of nudity significant. I'm reminded of Michael Douglas's kid's concern about "Basic Instinct" and all the graphic sex scenes in it. (If I remember the story correctly). Apparently Michael Douglas assured his kid that it was just a movie, that he was just acting, but the kid came back with, "Yea, but you were really naked with her." Not that I'm against all nudity in film, but I'm far more sensitive to it, and in a sense, more picky about what I find acceptable than I would than, in say, a sculpture. Annette Lyon ' ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Blank _BYU Studies_ Date: 09 Aug 2000 16:48:15 -0700 Well, I made another trip to buy books at DI today. Lots of interesting, arcane stuff. Also the Autumn 1974 issue of BYU Studies. When I got it home, I looked inside. The pages were all blank! I've never seen anything like it before. Anyone know the history of this obvious printer's error? [MOD: Aha! The famous blank edition! No, I just made that up. But it sounds like a great item for one of Ed Snow's columns...] --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night: Deseret Book Date: 09 Aug 2000 22:58:39 EDT Press Release 7Aug00 A3 [From Mormon-News] Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Utahns will have the unprecedented opportunity to enjoy three favorite performers in residence during one concert event when MICHAEL MCLEAN, LEX DE AZEVEDO and KURT BESTOR share the Kingsbury Hall stage during the Shadow Mountain Showcase 2000 concert scheduled for August 22. Also scheduled to perform is violinist JENNY OAKS BAKER. Earlier this summer, 25-year-old Baker, a Salt Lake City native, won a coveted chair in the violin section of the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington, DC. Her most recent Utah performance was at "An Evening of Celebration" in honor of LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley's ninetieth birthday. The concert is an activity of the LDS Booksellers Association Convention, held annually in Salt Lake City, but a generous number of tickets are being made available to the general public. Says Laurel Christensen of Shadow Mountain, "Our customers are the reason we and our booksellers remain in business. We would never consider producing such a great show without providing them the chance to enjoy it with us." Guests will also be treated to performances from Pearl Award winners Hilary Weeks and Brett Raymond, tenor George Dyer, classical guitarists The Small/Torres Guitar Duo and newcomers soprano Christina England and singer-songwriter Doug Walker. MICHAEL McLEAN is perhaps best known for his Christmas story, The Forgotten Carols, and its accompanying soundtrack, so much so that attending a McLean performance of The Forgotten Carols has become a Christmas tradition for thousands of McLean's fans. He has released 19 other musical albums, while his commercial work has been honored with the advertising industry's prestigious Cleo Award and the Cannes Film Festival's Bronze Lion. While KURT BESTOR is also best known for a series of popular Christmas concerts and for his innovative interpretation of seasonal carols on the albums Kurt Bestor Christmas, Volumes One and Two, his credits include more than 30 film scores and over 40 themes for national TV programs and commercials. Bestor's music has introduced Good Morning America, NFL Monday Night Football, and ABC's Sunday Night Movie. Contemporary classical composer LEX DE AZEVEDO made history in 1999 with the world debut performance of his epic oratorio The Life of Christ: Gloria at the Citadel, Tower of David Museum, within the Old City of Jerusalem. The concert was later televised on Hallmark's cable station, the Odyssey Channel, and Utah's KSL-TV. The soundtrack recordings he has composed for the popular Saturday's Warrior and My Turn on Earth have both been certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America, indicating sales in excess of 500,000 copies each. All three headliners will release albums through Shadow Mountain within the next 12 months: Michael Sings McLean, by Michael McLean; The Life of Christ: Hosanna, by Lex de Azevedo; and Lamb of God, Motion Picture Soundtrack, by Kurt Bestor. Shadow Mountain Showcase 2000 begins at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 22 at Kingsbury Hall on the University of Utah campus. Tickets are $15 and $12, and may be purchased at the Kingsbury Hall box office and at all Art Tix outlets (801-355-ARTS). For more information, please call 801-517-3300. ### Source: Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night Deseret Book Press Release 7Aug00 A3 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 10 Aug 2000 00:46:51 -0600 "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > So the movie goes along in this vein for two hours -- belittling > religion, showing religious people to be pitiable, misguided souls -- > and then suddenly changes. In the final 10 minutes, we get this > twist: That believing in science requires the same sort of blind > faith that has been mocked by everyone for 120 minutes! Ho-ho, > imagine the wackiness! I see it differently. Ellie is our point of view character, so the movie presents religion to us filtered through her. _She_ sees religious people as whacky. _She_ sees only two possibilities for the universe: a God who is invisible, or no God. _She_ thinks the question of belief in God is irrelevant in choosing Earth's representative. Then she experiences an epiphany that makes her understand what religious people have been talking about all along when they talk about faith. Whether she ever becomes converted to a belief in God or not, she at least now understands the religious mindset and respects it more. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Cornerstone Purchases Horizon Date: 10 Aug 2000 01:06:33 -0600 Richard R Hopkins wrote: > It's official! Cornerstone Publishing has purchased Horizon Publishers. That is fantastic. Congratulations, Richard. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 10 Aug 2000 02:53:47 -0600 I don't know if much more remains to be said about this subject. I think we've all more or less covered our bases. (On the other hand, I may open up a new can of worms with this message.) I'd like to illustrate where my current attitude toward nudity is with the following questions: If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how interesting would pornography be to people anymore? Especially young people who haven't been exposed to it yet. Without the intense curiosity about the human body that is fueled by our fervent efforts to hide it, would very many kids even bother to check pornography out? If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how self-conscious would kids be about their bodies? How many girls would develop eating disorders in an impossible effort to look like the models in air-brushed photographs? How many would get breast enhancement surgery after seeing what most breasts look like? How many boys would be neurotic about the size of their penis? If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how much less anxious would people be about the natural life cycle of the human body? After seeing a lot of middle-aged and old bodies, what would be the big deal? If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how many kids would play doctor, or teenagers play, "I'll show you mine of you show me yours," to get the information they need about human bodies but are denied? If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how much lust would seeing a nude body evoke? Is it better to see an attractive woman, feel lust starting to form, then look away like you're supposed to, but still feel the lust and feel guilty about feeling the lust? Or to be able to look at an attractive woman--even a nude woman--and not feel lust? If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how many of us would be more at peace with who we are? We're taught that we are a spirit inhabiting a body, but in this mortal life at the visceral level of the psyche, we _are_ our bodies. If we can't accept our bodies, we can't accept who we are. If I could stand before all of you nude and not get a laugh, a wisecrack, or a snicker about my middle-aged body, how much more comfortable would I be with who I am? Why do I use skinnydipping? Because it seems to me to be the most acceptable form of social nudity there is. There is nothing sexual about it, unless people specifically choose to make it so. Swimming is a very reasonable time to be nude--swimsuits are actually a stupid invention if you take the time to think about it. Skinnydipping often evokes innocent images of youthful playfulness or Norman Rockwell paintings. And even the wearing of garments becomes a nonissue, because no one wears them swimming. To bring this discussion to a literature-related conclusion, I have decided that nudity is a morally neutral issue, which is made moral by context or by the intent of a human mind. Rather than defining the default attitude as avoiding nudity unless there's a good reason not to, I think the default attitude should be to think of nudity as a nonissue unless some other aspect modifies the situation--the most common aspect being sexualizing the situation. With this attitude, nudity would also be a nonissue in art, and only the context of the nudity would be questioned. Is the woman erotically carressing herself while showering? Bingo! Immoral nudity in art! Has the woman been raped, and she is showering in a desperate and futile attempt to feel clean again? That would be a powerful and vital scene in that story, and I don't believe the nudity would be immoral there. But in both cases, a woman is nude in the shower. For most people, that fact alone would decide the morality of the scene. But it's not the nudity that makes either of those scenes moral or immoral. In both cases, the nudity is neutral. The most important part of this issue to me is, a neutral attitude toward nudity would diffuse a huge amount of charged sexual attitudes and situations, many of them so charged they become perverse. I believe the things we fear would be caused by a neutral attitude toward nudity would actually be _solved_ by a neutral attitude toward nudity. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] _Millenium_ (was: Query on Donny & Marie Show) Date: 10 Aug 2000 12:35:53 -0400 "Jason Covell" wrote: > BTW, on the topic of religious satire generally (which pops up from time to > time), did anyone see that delicious take on Scientology on an episode of > Millenium a couple of years back? Very sly, I thought. If anyone did see > it, do they know if the LDS Church has ever received a similar send-up > treatment (in disguise, or otherwise)? I thought the whole Millenium Group was a veiled satire on the LDS church. It seemed as if every episode dealt with the conflict between the benefits of extra knowledge re. forthcoming events and the badefits of trying to control too much of your members' lives. Bits of dialog and situational parallels that were too close (and too funny, given the context) to be lightly brushed off as coincidental. But maybe so. I've tried to find out about the Morgan/Wong partnership with limited success--between the two of them, there seemed to be a lot of awareness about church matters. I think they left the show for its last (3rd?) season and it went rapidly downhill. Tony Markham - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU_ Studies Date: 10 Aug 2000 11:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Jeff, that blank BYU Studies issue is a forgery by Mark Hoffman. I'd hold on to it--it could be worth some $$ someday. The real blank BYU Studies issue wasn't Autumn of 1974, but Winter of 1983, and was a commemorative celebration of 150 years of the Word of Wisdom. My favorite article in that edition was titled: "A Modern Mormon's Guide to Liquor." As I understand it, an editor commissioned this essay to counteract widespread Mormon liquor-ignorance. Here's how the argument went: just because Mormons aren't allowed to drink alcoholic beverages, doesn't mean they aren't supposed to understand them. Apparently Latter-day Saints performed poorly answering the drinking questions in the "Entertainment" category of the "Trivial Pursuit" game and this article was intended to give them a much needed primer so as to be in the world, but not of the world. The only problem was that one of the editors vehemently opposed the publication of the liquor guide essay and secretly arranged for this issue to be printed in disappearing ink. I happen to have xeroxed copies of some the articles from that issue, which, actually, are even more rare than the blank volumes. The value of the real blank edition will certainly diminish as soon as Signature Books comes out with their reprint of that edition--the blank one, that is. Ed ===== Among best sellers, Barnes & Noble ranks _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ in its top 100 (thousand, that is). Available now at 20% off http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD&mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LSWeber@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 10 Aug 2000 16:14:21 EDT In a message dated 08/10/2000 12:57:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << I don't know if much more remains to be said about this subject. I think we've all more or less covered our bases. (On the other hand, I may open up a new can of worms with this message.) I'd like to illustrate where my current attitude toward nudity is with the following questions: If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how interesting would pornography be to people anymore? Especially young people who haven't been exposed to it yet. Without the intense curiosity about the human body that is fueled by our fervent efforts to hide it, would very many kids even bother to check pornography out? >> I've been lurking forever on this list, but I thought that I should finally ante up my two cents worth. It's my understanding that young people growing up in nudist families have lower rates of teenage pregnancy, and generally have a more mature attitude about sexual issues. Don't ask me where I heard this, because I can't remember! It's also my understanding that Europeans generally have fewer inhibitions regarding public nudity as has been mentioned here, with public topless beaches, public saunas and so forth. Not to beat this horse to death, but to put a literary twist on it, I think there's a great story to be written about a family of active nudists joining the church and trying to cope with the resulting cultural shock. Sure, they understand the general cultural norms of getting dressed to go to the mall or out to dinner, and of course to church, but they just can't fathom why their home teachers overreact when they come for their first home teaching visit and the family greets them at the door in the buff! Anybody want to write that? It could make a great comedy! Cheers, Lloyd Weber, LSWeber@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 10 Aug 2000 14:16:40 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > The medium does seem to matter to people, but for the life of me, I can't > figure out why. What difference does it make if a sculpture, a > photograph, or written words place an image of nudity in my mind? The only > thing that matters is my reaction to the nudity. > > I disagree, for one reason: with a sculpture, a painting, or a novel, there > are no "real" individuals involved: it's bronze, or oils, or words on a > page. But in a movie or a play, there really are naked people touching each > other, actors who may well be married to other people, and even if they're > not should probably not be doing those things with another person, even > "pretend." For me, that fact alone makes the medium of nudity significant. > This makes about as much sense to me as what a friend told me one time as a reason why she didn't see Zefferrelli's _Jesus of Nazareth_: "Well, I heard that Robert Elliot, the guy who played Christ, used drugs." Or this one, why you shouldn't see Jane Fonda movies: "She was against the Viet Nam war." Why actors choose to be naked or not in a film should, imo, have nothing to do with whether the nudity is appopriate. The only thing by which a work of art ought to be judged, it seems to me is, does it accomplish what it sets out to do. I really don't care that the director of _Powder_ was a sex offender. All I know is that the movie accomplished what I saw as its goal: to tell a bittersweet story of man's inhumanity to man. Yes, actors are people in their spare time. But on stage, or on the screen, they really are nothing more than tools used in service of the story. A naked actor on celluloid is ultimately no different than a naked sculpture of what was no doubt a model, or a real person. That being said, I will grant you that what that naked actor does can become erotic just as a painting of a naked person can be erotic. But the fact that the actor is a real person shouldn't be significant. I've been in plays where, as a married man, the script called for me to kiss another woman. I did, took my bows and went home to my wife. The fact that my Elder's Quorum President couldn't understand how I could sleep at night after kissing another woman was not my problem, but his. Thom - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 10 Aug 2000 14:30:31 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > I don't know if much more remains to be said about this subject. I think > we've all more or less covered our bases. (On the other hand, I may open > up a new can of worms with this message.) I'd like to illustrate where > my current attitude toward nudity is with the following questions: > > If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how interesting > would pornography be to people anymore? Especially young people who > haven't been exposed to it yet. Without the intense curiosity about the > human body that is fueled by our fervent efforts to hide it, would very > many kids even bother to check pornography out? I am reminded when, at the age of 17, I saw my first naked woman, a model in my life drawing class at El Camino college. I knew she would be appearing for about a week ahead of time, was intensely nervous about how this would make me feel, having Mormon worries about seeing a naked woman. The day came. I'm in a room with about 20 other people. The model comes out in a robe, walks up to a platform in the middle of the room, and drops the robe. Despite the fact that, judging from my drawings of her I still have, she was a really gorgeous woman, I don't remember ever having one erotic thought. I remember being amazed at that. I had all the raging hormones of the typical 17-year old, yet I wasn't turned on by this woman. Part of it had to do, I'm sure, was the fact that I was in a room with about twenty other people and the lights were on. But I'm also fairly certain that my state of mind had something to do with my lessened libido. The woman was a model, someone that I had to try and bring to live on paper with charcoal. Instead of seeing her as a sexual object, the purpose of my art helped me to see her as a marvelous concoction of curves and mounds, light and dark, different textures -- a truly original, one-of-a-kind form challenging my burgeoning artistic skills. I let the art carry me through the process and I was all right. OTOH, had I just been sitting there, watching this woman, letting my mind wander, I'm pretty sure I'd have had different thoughts. My point is, caroming askew off of D. Michael's salient point, is that I agree with him: nudity is entirely what we make it. -- Thom Duncan Read the further adventures of Moroni Smith, the LDS Indiana Jones! The long-awaited second episode in the Moroni Smith LDS adventure series, _Moroni Smith: In Search of the Gold Plates_ is now available as an e-book at the Zion's Fiction web page: http://www.zfiction.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU_ Studies Date: 10 Aug 2000 17:02:50 -0600 Ed Snow wrote: > > Jeff, that blank BYU Studies issue is a forgery by > Mark Hoffman. I'd hold on to it--it could be worth > some $$ someday. > > Believe it or not, I remember seeing a book for sale in the BYU bookstore sometime in the early 80's entitled _The Wit and Wisdom_ of Orrin Hatch. Opened, it was nothing but blank pages. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 10 Aug 2000 18:20:11 -0500 Thom wrote: >Why actors choose to be naked or not in a film should, imo, have nothing >to do with whether the nudity is appopriate. The only thing by which a >work of art ought to be judged, it seems to me is, does it accomplish >what it sets out to do. [snip] > >Yes, actors are people in their spare time. But on stage, or on the >screen, they really are nothing more than tools used in service of the >story. A naked actor on celluloid is ultimately no different than a >naked sculpture of what was no doubt a model, or a real person. Clearly there's a point at which this ceases to be true. The most extreme case is snuff films, where the artistry or purpose or whatever of the film itself should never be allowed even the slightest consideration in light of the appalling fact that a *real person* was killed in order to make the movie. Perhaps less clear, but still I daresay reprehensible for the vast majority of Mormons, would be the actor who committed an actual sex act on stage. At that point, most of us would I think say that the actor crosses a line in not merely depicting, but actually committing sin. (I'm purposefully *not* considering here cases where no act is committed, but one is suggested through stagecraft.) So where do we draw the line? Okay, all of us are probably going to accept that a married actor kissing another woman as part of a play is perfectly acceptable, if done in a professional manner. So there doesn't seem to be a clearcut qualitative rule that applies in all cases. Nudity seems to be somewhere in the middle. And I think that I, like many who have posted, would feel different about that nudity if it occurred in an ostensibly sexual context. Anyway. No definitive answers here--but a certain gratitude that we don't live in a nudist society (impractical as that would be in Wisconsin, between the temperature in the winter and mosquitoes in the summer). Some of us honestly look a lot better with our clothes on. (I'll admit, too, that I've never understood people who say that the human body is the most beautiful of all objects, shapes, etc. Speaking strictly on esthetic grounds, I'd have to vote for the banana slug over humans. Such grace! Such curves! Such glistening roundedness! I'm so pleased about the new banana slug stamps...) Jonathan Langford Speaking (very definitely) for himself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU Studies_ Date: 10 Aug 2000 17:30:42 -0600 On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Ed Snow wrote: >Apparently Latter-day >Saints performed poorly answering the drinking >questions in the "Entertainment" category of the >"Trivial Pursuit" game and this article was intended >to give them a much needed primer so as to be in the >world, but not of the world. The liquor questions are in Sports and Leisure, not Entertainment. Melissa Proffitt (who never gets the drinking questions right) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Higbeejm@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU Studies_ Date: 10 Aug 2000 19:44:11 EDT Ed Snow: "My favorite article in that edition was titled: "A Modern Mormon's Guide to Liquor." As I understand it, an editor commissioned this essay to counteract widespread Mormon liquor-ignorance....this article was intended to give them a much needed primer so as to be in the world, but not of the world." ********** Reminds me of the Family Home Evening lesson from my childhood where my father (an active, God-fearing, lifelong Mormon and ordained High Priest) sat us impressionable young kids down...dealt the cards...and taught us all the ins and outs of playing a good smart hand of Poker. True story. And what a lesson in cultural literacy! He just figured it was one of those things every educated person should know, so as not to be completely unlearned when something like "The Sting" was on TV as the movie of the week. I used to use that example when teaching critical reading skills in Freshman English classes. Sometimes you just need context as a tool for interpreting a text. (My parents did not, however, offer us a similar lesson on alcohol, so my knowledge of cocktails is abysmal.) And then there was the time we were driving through Las Vegas and my mom dropped a nickel in the slots in order to give us a first-hand object lesson about the evils of gambling...and promptly won $5. Yep, true story. Janelle Higbee - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU Studies_ Date: 10 Aug 2000 19:55:59 -0700 Howl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ever dependable you are -- this was a real treat. Thanks! --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN UVSC Says LDS Studies Benefit Utah: Salt Lake Tribune Date: 10 Aug 2000 23:50:46 EDT D4 [From Mormon-News] UVSC Says LDS Studies Benefit Utah OREM, UTAH -- The 20th Annual Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, Utah was the setting for a panel discussion on Thursday to discuss the first Mormon Culture Studies program in the state's higher-education system. Eugene England, a former Brigham Young University English professor and now the Orem college writer-in-residence, recently won a $25,000 one-year grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities that will aid in funding the new program. The new program will serve as a host to conferences and guest lectures that support the school's already established religious diversity and interfaith programs that are currently housed in UVSC's Center for the Study of Ethics. Eventually, the college hopes to work the Mormon cultural studies program into the curriculum and offer a full-blown religious studies degree. England believes the intent of the program is to provide a neutral and open atmosphere for the study of a culture, not a church. He listed three reasons why UVSC should provide the program; to help combat-anti-Mormonism; to enrich an understanding of Mormonism as a part of Utah culture; and to help Mormons understand, appreciate and improve upon their own culture. Elaine Englehardt, Utah Valley's University Assistant Academic Vice-President, remarked when the news went public in March, "it's been kind of a bullet train." Concern has poured in from the secular and sacred world. Three general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were concerned that the program would open the door to Mormon bashing. All six participants in the forum saw the program as favorable to UVSC. Robert Rees, an associate professor at the Universiy of California in Santa Cruz said, "Faith is an important part of human culture. You can't separate the two." Brian Birch, an associate director of UVSC's religious studies program, and Scott Kenney, a founding editor of Sunstone, were members of the panel. Daniel W. Witherspoon, an instructor at Salt Lake Community College, moderated the discussion. "Utah is one of only a handful of states in the country that does not offer a baccalaureate degree in the study of religion," Birch said. "This, despite the fact that Utah is arguably the most religiously influenced state in our union." Mary Ellen Robertson, who holds a master's degree in Women Studies in Religion from Claremont Graduate School said, "I think the academic study of religion is an energizing and worthwhile endeavor." Source: UVSC Says LDS Studies Benefit Utah Salt Lake Tribune 4Aug00 D4 http://www.sltrib.com/08042000/utah/9324.htm BY Kirsten Stewart: Salt Lake Tribune >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN Theatre professor vice president of national association: Date: 10 Aug 2000 23:50:46 EDT Press Release 8Aug00 D3 [From Mormon-News] Theatre professor vice president of national association PROVO, UTAH -- A professor of theatre and media arts at Brigham Young University is the new vice president for communications for the United States Institute for Theatre Technology (USITT), the national association of design, production and technology professionals in the performing arts industry. Eric Fielding, a member of the BYU faculty for 16 years and former chair of the Theatre and Media Arts Department, assumed his renewable two-year term in July. He has been serving as interim vice president since September. His responsibilities include overseeing the institute's journal, newsletter, annual directory and other periodicals, along with its Internet activities. Fielding's involvement with USITT began when he became a student member while completing an undergraduate degree at BYU in 197l. Over the years, his contributions to USITT have included service as commissioner for scenic design, member of the board of directors, design heritage and design showcase coordinator and associate director of international activities. He also served for seven years as executive editor and designer of the Institute's periodicals, including the quarterly journal Theatre Design and Technology and the newsletter Sightlines. His design for the American entry, "Mozart in America," for the 1991 Prague Quadrennial-the premier international exhibition of theatrical design-won a gold medal and was subsequently exhibited at Lincoln Center in New York City. In 1992, USITT presented Fielding with its Founder's Award, the Institute's highest member honor, and also elected him a fellow of the Institute. The resident scene designer in the Department of Theatre and Media Arts, Fielding has also worked with the Utah Opera, the Utah Shakespearean Festival, Pioneer Theatre Company, Sundance Theatre, the Colorado Shakespeare Festival and on several LDS Church films and the Hill Cumorah Pageant. -###- Source: Theatre professor vice president of national association BYU Press Release 8Aug00 D3 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 11 Aug 2000 01:04:51 -0600 Eric D. Snider wrote: >The only religious character portrayed as being a normal, non-crazy >person, is Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) -- and he sleeps with >Arroway on their first date! I'd rather be one of the "zealots" they >make fun of than an immoral pseudo-spiritual backslider like Joss. >(Is it OK to be judgmental about fictional characters?) (I would argue that it's not only okay to be judgmental about fictional characters, it's half the point of reading, and darned fun to boot.) I found Joss to be one of the more troublesome characters in the film because his religion seemed entirely situational. He picked the morality that would get him power, the held onto it as a means of gaining that power. He changed his approach to religion at least three times in the movie, and seemed more interested in his position to make policy than in actually pursuing some real religious truth. In other words, I thought he was the most cynically drawn religious character in the bunch. He spoke in religious tones to get power, not seek truth. I also never read the book, so I can't comment to its faithfulness to Sagan's words. But while I found the movie to contain a deeply spiritual element, I found it quite lacking in what I would consider to be an intellectually honest presentation of religion as anything but hocum. Which seems to be an increasing fad in modern fiction. Individual spirituality is on the rise in fiction at the same time that criticism of organized religion is nearly an all-time high. Even among Mormons, Terry Tempest Williams has made a national splash by raising her personal brand of animism as an alternative to the hidebound Mormon autocracy. I think this is an area where Mormons can have a new and different voice. We are a community that has both a large contingent of the dissatisfied, and a large one of the spiritually fulfilled. After having heard my whole life that there is no such thing as a truly happy Mormon (we're all living a lie, don't you know), I've grown up to discover that most of my friends find not only spiritual value in the Mormon experience, but honest-to-goodness peace and fulfillment. To my own shock, I discovered that I'm one of them. Does that mean that I think the Mormon experience is perfect? Define the term "Mormon experience" in a way that encompasses all who've taken part in it, and the answer is still no. But it has been powerful for many, and those stories deserve to be told as much as the stories of the disaffected or disappointed. I happen to have lived on both sides of that line, and like to read honest stories from each perspective. I just think there's room for stories about Mormons that aren't about The Church. And if some of those stories can't pass correlation, so what? I've had more than one blasphemous thought in my life, and I expect to have more. We're each here to gain our own experiences, and we've been commanded to tell our stories and experiences in journals and other writings. So let's allow each other to tell our stories without condemning the author for telling the story. If the story has no value for us, we can and ought to reject it for our own consumption. But we also should recognize that each finds truth (and Truth) in their own way, and by their own understanding. I found the presentation of religion to be weak in the film Contact, even as I thought it touched truthfully on the core of personal faith, spirituality, and an honest search for truth. That Mormons may have been inaccurately portrayed is largely irrelevant to me because that portrayal was silly and inconsequential at the same time that the core search for truth was real and powerful. By stripping that search of the baggage (that word again!) of *any* organized religion, I think the filmmakers made it more generally real and acceptable. I think we ought to try to do the same thing, but from a Mormon mindset--in all of its different and often conflicting flavors. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Favorite Short Story results (Andrew's Poll) Date: 11 Aug 2000 19:34:42 JST [MOD: Thanks again to Andrew for putting this together. I think that the small level of reply to the poll doesn't reflect any lack of interest in the topic, but the sense many of us feel that we haven't got enough knowledge to vote. I know that I came out of this with several additional titles to add to my reading list. So I hope Andrew doesn't feel that his labors were in vain!] Here are the results of last month's Favorite Mormon Short Story Collection poll. I got seven responses, most of which listed several favorite books. Brady Udall's "Letting Loose the Hounds" (1998) was mentioned on the most lists for collections by a single author, so I declare it the winner. Coming close behind were: Levi Peterson "Night Soil" (1990) Mary Clyde "Survival Rates" (1999) Paul Rawlins "No Lie Like Love" (1996) Margaret Blair Young "Love Chains" (1997) "Bright Angels and Familiars" (1992) was the overwhelming favorite for multi-author collections, with "In Our Lovely Deseret" (1996) a distant second. Not enough people mentioned favorite individual stories for me to declare a winner in that category. Thanks for your participation. Andrew Hall Nagareyama, Japan ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 11 Aug 2000 19:36:57 JST Andrew's Poll August question: This one is especially for the writers out there (although anyone can answer). 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Please tell us about the person and how you think they influenced what you do. Of course this can be any kind of teacher, including a university professor, a member of a fellow writing group, or a distant correspondent. alternatively (or additionaly): 2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? I was going to continue the "Favorites of the 90s" series with a poll on Mormon plays, but I wanted to get a bibliography of all major plays from the 90s first, and that will have to wait until September. We are in the middle of packing, and we fly back to the US on Wednesday, so big projects like that will have to wait. That reminds me, a couple of people have asked me what I am doing in Japan. I am a graduate student of Japanese and Chinese history at the University of Pittsburgh, and I received a fellowship to do my doctoral research in Japan for a year. My subject is Japanese colonial education policy in China in the 1920s-1945. My wife, Jenifer, taught English at a university and did her own dissertation research (linguistics--second language acquisition). So our year is up, and we are heading home. We are going to spend a few weeks in Wenatchee, WA (Jen's home town) and Provo (where my parents now live), and be back in Pittsburgh around September 5th. Our 18 month old son, Lachlan, has been on a largely rice-based diet, and his four or so words are all Japanese (well, bye-bye is the same in both languages), but I think he'll adjust quickly. Andrew Hall Nagareyama, Japan ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU Studies_ Date: 11 Aug 2000 16:36:34 -0400 Whenever I take a written driving test, I fail the blood alchol questions every time, I figure since I don't drink and drive, there are more important things for me to remember than how many beers or Wine coolers I can drink before the State considers me drunk and I have to call a lawyer. Mormon lit connection? I will use this experience in my book _Dancing Naked in My Shower with no Muzak_ Debbie Brown - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles in Mormon Lit. Date: 11 Aug 2000 14:45:54 -0600 I have hesitated saying much in this thread. I would like to add a few = thoughts to both Darlene's and Melissa's comments: 1) The actress who played April in our production of The Way We're Wired = was attacked on several occasions by members of her ward and by roommates, = because of the choice her character made. I really did stack the deck, = intentionally, by making it clear that she and Andy were not in love, and = by making her job almost absurdly perfect. Lots of reasons--the play = isn't really April's story, plus it's a comedy, plus I was up for tenure. = . . . Even so, her bishop was very offended. =20 2) I really like Sandra's character a lot. I clearly didn't write her = very well, because I've heard from a lot of people that she was the most = unsympathetic character in the novel and play. But she's my personal = favorite. She has the strongest voice in the novel, so strong I had to = write her first person, and not third like the rest of the characters. = =20 3) Darlene asks if we could write a story about a woman who turns down a = marriage proposal for her career. I don't see why not. There are lots of = reasons to not marry. Why does our culture seem to judge so freely the = choices other people make in their lives? =20 Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Blank _BYU_ Studies Date: 11 Aug 2000 12:28:11 -0600 On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:02:50 -0600, Thom Duncan wrote: >Believe it or not, I remember seeing a book for sale in the BYU >bookstore sometime in the early 80's entitled _The Wit and Wisdom_ of >Orrin Hatch. Opened, it was nothing but blank pages. Ah. An autobiography... Jacob - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Mitchell" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Nudity Date: 12 Aug 2000 13:44:54 -0500 D.Michael Martindale wrote: If everyone went skinnydipping every time they swam, how much lust would seeing a nude body evoke? And later To bring this discussion to a literature-related conclusion, I have decided that nudity is a morally neutral issue, which is made moral by context or by the intent of a human mind. Rather than defining the default attitude as avoiding nudity unless there's a good reason not to, I think the default attitude should be to think of nudity as a nonissue unless some other aspect modifies the situation--the most common aspect being sexualizing the situation. With this attitude, nudity would also be a nonissue in art, and only the context of the nudity would be questioned. Alan Mitchell humbly replies, after being chastized for hyperbole: This attitude doesn't seem to be a realistic one, given the way I view human nature. Of course I may be entirely wrong about nudity but too some of us there is a shock factor involved in the naked body. Always. Nudity shocks some of us. Some of us are wired that way. That's the fun. Take mooning. It is not a sexual act in any sense but when it catches you by surprise, which is the intention, it makes you double clutch. Yeah, I know, if I was culturally reconditioned, perhaps raised as a toilet seat, then I wouldnt be so shocked. My fault. I confess nudity is shocking to me. Whew, I said it! But isn't that the beauty of it? But didn't Samuelson said so much when he listed the scenes of nudity in London plays that were in good taste. His point being that each nude scene reflected a high emotional point in the film, e.g, the disrobing of Nazi criminals, the roll-call in the Garden of Eden, etc. My point is that the shock factor was used to communicate either the high shame or high desire or high spirituality of the moment. Anything less that high intensity would strike me, and Eric I hope, as hopelessly crass. What is appropriate nudity for Mormon Art? is a question far beyond the wisdom of this poor confused nako-phobe, but the enlightened argument that it is morally neutral NEUTRAL! is not helpful to us nako-phobes. The real question for Mormon Arts is: How much nudity can we get away with? I'm afraid the answer is not much. So we subvert it. Maybe that's better anyway. Alan Mitchell, writing fully dressed. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 11 Aug 2000 15:14:00 -0600 Okay, I have a huge confession to make. I was in London this spring. My = apartment didn't have air conditioning, and this particular evening, it = was 157 degrees in there. Celsius. (I may be slightly exaggerating.) = Couldn't sleep, very late, decided to watch the telly. My set got five = channels. On three of them, they had gardening shows. A Brit obsession, = gardening. Much like fishing shows on American TV, which I also don't = get. Anyway, I do not garden--I'm the only person I know who was unable = to grow zucchini, the one time we tried it. On a fourth channel, cricket = highlights. I like baseball--cricket, not so much. And on the fifth = channel, I kid you not, an all nude game show. Big confession time: I = watched it. =20 The idea of the game show was eight (or ten, or maybe twelve, I don't = remember) contestents, four male, four female, ran various obstacle = courses, competing. The grand prize, as I recall, was ridiculous--500 = pounds or something. And all the contestants, and the host, were = completely starkers, from the beginning to the end. And so they raced = around a course in canoes, or they swung on ropes, or they climbed = cliffs--that sort of thing. It was, first of all, absolutely not erotic at all. It was, second of = all, kinda entertaining in a bizarre sort of way. These folks were not = fashion models. They were very normal looking people; pretty saggy and = stretchmarky. There was nothing sexual about any of it. It looked = exhausting, and painful. They'd fall down, and you'd really wince, and = after a bit you saw some nasty bruises and strawberries on various fleshy = knees and elbows. Gosh I felt sorry for those contestents. And the = emcee, who was a good deal chirpier than even the most annoying American = game show emcees, was the flabbiest of all of them. Mostly you spent the = show rooting for a crocodile or something to show up and eat him. The main thing it did for me was it turned me very solidly pro-clothing. = But the point is, eroticism has almost nothing to do with nudity. This = show was not pornographic, I wouldn't say. It was embarrassing and sad = and exhausting and infuriating, but it didn't lead to the sin of adultery-i= n-the-heart. I was thinking of D. Michael's excellent 'if everyone went = skinnydipping' exercise. I think we'd feel really sorry for each other. = I think the important thing about modesty is its erotic content. = Eroticism is important--without it, a lot of folks would be way slower to = marry, and slower, when married, to propogate the species. So let's stay = dressed folks. Our sex lives depend on it. =20 I do agree that nudity is artistically neutral. And I would like to take = issue with the 'but is it necessary' argument. Every time some artist = chooses to use nudity, s/he could as easily have not chosen nudity. And = every aesthetic choice has aesthetic consequences. If Michelangelo had = put trousers on David, that choice would have made for a different = sculpture. So, is nudity misused? Sure, same as the way the word 'dog' = is often misused. But is it possible to get exactly the same effect with = clothing that one would have gotten with nudity? Of course not. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 11 Aug 2000 15:29:56 -0600 Teacher who made the greatest impact: Tie: Doug Thayer and Sam Smiley. Doug, by telling me that I had a bit of = talent, if I could just find my own voice. Sam, by creating for me an = entire model for how to write, which, by completely ignoring it, has made = it possible for me to write. It's rare to have a teacher who is totally = and completely wrong on every single writing-related issue. But Sam was = that for me. (Sam's not LDS, and not on the List, and yes, I still have = issues. But it's true; his approach to writing was so completely = misguided and irritating, I became a better writer just to spite him. = Among other things, he said that no one could ever be a good writer if = they believed in God. He also said that writers should always run in the = mornings--jogging stimulates the brain. My favorite was his 'writers are = the most moral people on earth' mantra. Why? Because writing requires = compassion and empathy, and compassion is the foundation of all morality, = hence a good writer is 'incapable of sin.' A genuine original, was Sam.) 2) Which author has had the greatest impact on me? Great question. I = have no idea. Stephen Jay Gould, probably. No, Tom Stoppard. Definitely = Stoppard. No, wait, I forgot Strindberg. Or Tony Kushner. Tim Slover. = Maggie Young. There are lots. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 11 Aug 2000 16:12:11 -0600 Andrew Hall wrote: > > Andrew's Poll August question: > > This one is especially for the writers out there (although anyone can > answer). > > 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Please tell > us about the person and how you think they influenced what you do. Of > course this can be any kind of teacher, including a university professor, a > member of a fellow writing group, or a distant correspondent. Max Golightly. From him, I learned two truths about writing plays: one is to make your villain as well-rounded as your protagonist. Try to get inside the villains mind, to see what makes him/her tick. The second thing I learned had to do with writing plays based on historical figures. He taught that historical accuracy was less important than dramatic flare. "If you're going to write something based on history, tell us something we don't know, or else write a history book." -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Singles in Mormon Lit. Date: 11 Aug 2000 16:15:43 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > > I have hesitated saying much in this thread. I would like to add a few thoughts to both Darlene's and Melissa's comments: > > 1) The actress who played April in our production of The Way We're Wired was attacked on several occasions by members of her ward and by roommates, because of the choice her character made. I really did stack the deck, intentionally, by making it clear that she and Andy were not in love, and by making her job almost absurdly perfect. Lots of reasons--the play isn't really April's story, plus it's a comedy, plus I was up for tenure. . . . Even so, her bishop was very offended. > > 2) I really like Sandra's character a lot. I clearly didn't write her very well, because I've heard from a lot of people that she was the most unsympathetic character in the novel and play. Just chiming here. ALL your characters in the play were well-rounded and well written. My opinion as to why some people didn't like her: because she was TOO real, and they were uncomfortable with a self-directed female. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 11 Aug 2000 23:03:22 -0700 Review ====== Lindsey Phillip Dew, "The Trial" 1984, Deseret Book Paperback, 237 pages, $9.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle John Lindsey is an LDS attorney living in a small town near Manti, Utah. As a small-town lawyer, his practice is pretty well limited to the local clientele. Although not wealthy, he manages to make a reasonable living. He is married, has several children, and is the bishop of his ward. One day, the local judge assigns John to a murder case that he really doesn't want. The victims are prominent, well-loved members of the community. One of the survivors is a slightly retarded young girl. The case is pretty solid -- eye-witnesses, evidence found on the suspects. The local district attorney will win this case easily. But then it is revealed that the local police did not follow proper procedure in gathering the evidence, and the judge throws out the evidence under the exclusionary rule. And the eye-witnesses turn out to be less than reliable. And there's the rub -- John knows that he has a good chance to win the case. But he also knows these two men are guilty of murder, and his sense of justice balks at the idea that they'll get off scott-free. John has no choice but to follow the law. And when the men are released, the entire town turns on John. His law practice disappears, his children are isolated from their friends, and the members of his ward lose their confidence in him. After all, he did make it possible for the killers of several loved neighbors to go free. "The Trial" describes much more than just a procedure before a judge. It is a story of conflicting moral values, an exploration of the nature of moral certainty, and the results of making choices in what can only be described as a "lose-lose" situation. Of course, John asks the Lord for guidance, but unlike other LDS novels, the Lord is curiously silent throughout the whole process. John must work out his own salvation, and indeed, with much fear and trembling. I thought a little of John's introspective thought will illustrate the fine quality of this novel (this is John speaking): When the Lord called me to be the bishop, I wondered at his judgment, but I never doubted the fact that he did call me, even though I couldn't figure out why But I am the bishop, and he has never withheld answers from me about how to fulfill my stewardship and direct this ward. In my daily life, I've been able to lean on him for answers. But on that hill, for one in my life, I was left answerless. When I was a child, I thought as a child. Everything was black or white. But now I see through a glass, darkly, and almost everything is in various shades of gray. The only pure while absolutes left in my life are the Lord and his gospel. But even though I've prayed and struggled, I honestly no longer know where I stand with him. This is frank. honest stuff. And although some may balk at the relativism inherent in such thought, I found it all very refreshing. John is ultimately returned to the good graces of the his community, but it is never said that they were justified in their rejection of their bishop. Dew is frank in his contempt for phony favor as well as phony disfavor. There is a cynical edge to the book that managed to keep my interest. "The Trial" is likely out of print by now. If you can find a copy, I think you'll enjoy it. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 12 Aug 2000 00:46:03 -0600 Andrew Hall wrote: > 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Please tell > us about the person and how you think they influenced what you do. Of > course this can be any kind of teacher, including a university professor, a > member of a fellow writing group, or a distant correspondent. CALLIHOO writers group. I can't specify an individual, because the group collectively has had the influence on me. I'd spent my life writing in a void, doing the best I could, but with no meaningful feedback. When I joined the group and went through a real basptism of fire as I received an accurate picture of how good my writing was, I was able to improve it to the point where how I write now is nearly unrecognizeable compared to how I used to write. I just needed some feedback. > 2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Orson Scott Card. I like to write science fiction; he writes science fiction. I'm LDS; he's LDS. I went to BYU; he went to BYU. I want to be famous and successful with my writing; he's famous and successful with his writing. I want to learn how he did it; he's very open on how he did it. I'm a smarta**; he's a smarta**. I relate very well to his philosophies and approach to writing. So I've made him my involuntary mentor, without giving him any choice in the matter. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] (On Stage) Catharsis Date: 11 Aug 2000 14:29:13 -0600 ON STAGE Catharsis Eric Samuelsen The oldest, perhaps the most valuable, and certainly the most = historically significant document in all of dramatic theory is Aristotle's = Poetics. Those few terse pages of commentary on Greek tragedy, by a = philosopher trained as a scientist, a man without artistic pretensions of = any kind, employing perhaps the most soporific prose style known to man, = have led to literally hundreds of treatises, explanations, denunciations = and commentary by legions of writers and scholars and thinkers, a few of = whom actually read the darn thing. In fact, the routine invoking of = Aristotle's name in connection with practices he never heard of and = certainly never espoused is one of the great jokes in the history of = letters. I see it today, when screenwriting colleagues talk about how = they teach their students 'Aristotelian structure,' by which they mean = basic protagonist-objective-obstacle structure. Of course, none of those = terms appears anywhere in the Poetics, and the only film I can think of = that really follows Aristotle's actual advice at all closely would be, = perhaps, Bob Fosse's _All That Jazz_, which isn't at all what they mean by = 'Aristotelian structure.' But this is nothing new--neo-classical Europe was = particularly fond of the 'Aristotelian' unities of time, place and action, = which, of course, Aristotle himself never dreamed of. Anyway, what I thought I'd do today is talk about one of the = oddest and most intriguing ideas in all of Aristotle, and one about which = there has always been tremendous debate. I want to talk about 'catharsis.'= It's an intriguing subject, one that goes right to the heart of how we = respond to works of art, and one with, I maintain, strange and valuable = connections to an LDS dramatic perspective. How do we respond to works of = art? How does drama affect us? What is the connection between the = emotional involvement we feel when we see a play, and our subsequent moral = behavior? All these questions, and more, are tied to the notion of = catharsis. Although catharsis is usually thought of as central to Aristotle's = entire theory, it's only mentioned once in the Poetics. That mention, = however, comes right at the end of Aristotle's definition of tragedy, = which would seem to make it a fairly important idea. Here's the passage: = "Tragedy, then, is a process of imitating an action that has serious = consequences, is complete, and possesses magnitude; by means of language = which has been made sensuously attractive, with each of its varieties = found separately in the parts; enacted by the persons themselves and not = presented through narrative; through a course of pity and fear completing = the purification (catharsis) of tragic acts which have those emotional = characteristics." (I'm quoting the Gerald Else translation). Catharsis, = I'm told by those who actually read Greek, is a Greek medical term, = perhaps best translated _purgation_.=20 I could spend a great deal of time breaking down this definition--in= fact, I do just that in my theory class every fall. Suffice it to say = that it is, at best, an enigmatic passage. "A course of pity and fear" = complete a "purgation (purification, induced vomiting), of tragic acts = which have those emotional characteristics." What would seem to be = happening here is a kind of homeopathic medicine; the doctor-playwright = prescribes a carefully chosen dosage of pity and fear, which induce a = strong-but-not-lethal attack of pity and fear, effectively inoculating the = patient, leading to a purified, healthier state. It's very odd. It's odd, first of all, because we don't generally regard pity and = fear as emotions we want purged. Most of us, I think, associate pity with = compassion, which is an emotion we want more, not less of. Fear could be, = I guess, called a negative emotion, but I have a difficult time considering= it one. I think fear can be pretty healthy, as long as it doesn't lead = us to cowardice. Well, it didn't make any more sense to future commentators either. = And so the search began, for an explanation of the audience response to = tragedy that a) was sufficiently noble and proper and good for so elevated = an art form, and b) at least tangentially related to what Aristotle wrote. = =20 One of the earliest neo-classical commentaries on Aristotle, = Francesco Robortello's Commentary of 1548, included this little gem: "The = audience . . . receive from tragedy the supreme benefit that, since all = people are subject to the same fate and nobody is immune from disasters, = men endure with greater ease any misfortune that happens to them, and = support themselves with the very powerful consolation of recalling that = the same disaster has occurred to others." =20 So that's how we're inoculated against negative emotions! A = typical reading of Robortello goes like this: We watch a tragic hero fall, = and then, when we inevitably encounter misfortune, we think 'hey, at least = I don't have it as bad as Oedipus.' It's probably true, too. Perhaps = some of the appeal of shows like Cops is this kind of 'things aren't so = bad for me; look at that guy' audience response. Robortello's response also invokes feelings of empathy; presumably our = response to tragic events in our life is conditioned by the tragedies = we've seen. But his commentary seems fairly removed from the kind of = emotional cleansing Aristotle seems to be calling for. Robortello, great = rationalist that he was, suggests that Aristotle is calling for an = essentially rational response to tragedy. And that doesn't seem to be = what 'purgation' means. Robortello clearly wouldn't do, and so the greatest of all = sixteenth century scholars, the majestically named Julius Caesar Scaliger = took a crack at it. And, with typical audacity and brio, decided to = dispense with it altogether. This is from his Poetices libri septem: "the = word catharsis is by no means useful for any subject matter whatsoever." = And that, with a brisk brush of the hands, was that. =20 Unfortunately, Aristotle remained the ultimate authority in these = matters and not, to his great regret, Scaliger. And so we see his = contemporary Ludovico Castelvetro take a more text-based stab at it. = "Tragedy . . . by frequently exposing men to scenes of a kind to excite = their pity, fear, and pusillanimity, will fortify them against these = weaknesses, and thus make the pusillanimous magnanimous, the timorous = brave, and the compassionate severe, which explains how with the emotions = of pity and fear as a means, tragedy purges and expels those very emotions = from the hearts of men."=20 Fairly straightforwardly put. And yet, the problem remains. From = my LDS perspective, I don't want to be made less compassionate and more = 'severe.' I don't see magnanimity as the opposite of pusillanimity. I = don't want those emotions purged from me. Am I therefore to reject = tragedy? Or reject Aristotle? I'm willing to, but with some reluctance, = because as I read and re-read The Poetics, I'm consistently aware of how = badly I'm probably misreading that text. I don't want to just reject = something potentially valuable, especially since catharsis seems to have = such a strong moral component. If tragedy does indeed cure some genuine = evil in my heart, I want to know how that happens, and apply that remedy = to my own parlous situation. David Hume offered a particularly fascinating view of tragedy, and = one I can say, for the first time in this discussion, I have myself = experienced. He asked this provocative question: "What is it, then, which = in this case raises a pleasure from the bosom of uneasiness, and a = pleasure, which still retains all the features and outward symptoms of = distress and sorrow?" His answer is fascinating: "This extraordinary = effect proceeds from that very eloquence with which the melancholy scene = is represented." In other words, we see a scene filled with pity and = sorrow. We lament the fate of our hero or heroine, we weep for their = distress. But we also admire the artistry with which that distress is = portrayed. Catharsis, to Hume, is nothing less than aesthetic delight. = It has nothing to do with pity and fear in our own lives, which we deal = with as we may, regardless of how many plays we've seen. But in the = theatre, the emotional response evoked by the artist is tempered by the = artistry which evoked it. And that's catharsis. I think Hume makes a fascinating point, and I do agree that he = describes a very real phenomenon. To him, catharsis suggests aesthetic = distance, and also suggests the reasons why a production of Hamlet will = probably sell out; if it's at all well done, people will flock to see it, = despite its downer ending. (Hamlet II: Where The Heck Is Everyone?) But = Hume's response feels incomplete to me. I feel something more when I see = a play than merely aesthetic pleasure. And if I genuinely believe that = art does good in the world, and I do, then that good can't just be = developing more refined tastes.=20 On to the great Gotthold Lessing, then, and number 75 of the = Hamburg Dramaturgy, one of the great critical documents of the 18th = century. "Aristotle's fear . . . is the fear which arises for ourselves = from the similarity of our position with that of the sufferer . . . In a = word, this fear is compassion referred back to itself." =20 Now we're getting somewhere. When I see or read a great tragedy, = I don't feel a diminution of emotion, I feel a heightening of emotion. I = don't feel emotions purged from me, leaving me less subject to them. I = feel emotions more strongly and truly than ever. I feel more compassion, = more empathy for those who suffer. And then, after a time, I turn those = same feelings onto myself. I worry about my family; I feel for the = families of others who suffer. And I resolve to act more compassionately = than before. I don't feel, and don't want to feel, emotions purged. I = don't want a catharsis. I don't want my condition remedied. I want to = feel more, not less. And so I was prepared to reject Aristotle, or at least traditional = readings of Aristotle, and build my own theory around, among other things, = Lessing's misreading of The Poetics. And then I came upon something that = persuaded me that there is no need. =20 Gerald Else is one of the most original and controversial of all = classicists. He's best known for his rejection of the traditional = evolutionary model for the origins of tragedy. Anyway, Else also had an = original and controversial opinion about catharsis. Catharsis, argued Else, has nothing to do with the audience, and = Aristotle never meant it to. Catharsis happens on-stage, among the = characters. Catharsis refers to those final moments of a tragedy, when = Oedipus contemplates the ruin of his hopes, when Creon views the body of = his entombed son embracing his dead fiancee Antigone. Catharsis, argued = Else, is a technical term for something the characters go through. =20 The more I think about it, the more I like it. I think our = response to any work of art is very complicated. What's always troubled = me about catharsis is that, of all my reactions to a serious play, = 'purgation of emotions' doesn't describe any of them. And the medicinal = model for tragedy has other troubling implications. Are we medicating an = audience against their will? Are we forcing them to relinquish emotions = they might prefer to retain? Are we forcing a response that makes them = less empathetic, more cold-bloodedly rational? I find it all very = distressing. I'm an Elseian, now. And I can also be a Humeian and a Lessingian.= Any work of dramatic art evokes multiple responses--emotional, aesthetic, = moral. I don't think I've ever experienced 'catharsis' in the traditional = sense as an audience member. And I do love a good tragedy.=20 Can tragedy do evil? Can a tragedy make us more likely to do = wrong? I don't see how. I can't help it; I think more compassion is = pretty much always a good thing. But that's the subject for another = thread. =09 Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 12 Aug 2000 14:53:29 -0400 Well, here's a negative one for you. It really shows my weakness as a person, but oh well. When I was in 4th grade my teacher assigned a writing project-it must have been poetry. I wrote a poem she didn't like. It was about Santa Claus being fake. I remember her holding it up in class and going on and on about how it was untrue and so forth-gave me a really bad grade. I don't remember anything else about it. Not her name or anything else that happened in class. I only know that it killed any desire I had to write for a very long time. Tracie Laulusa - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shelly Choong" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 12 Aug 2000 12:58:08 -0700 Andrew Poll's question: > > > > This one is especially for the writers out there (although anyone can > > answer). > > > > 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Please tell > > us about the person and how you think they influenced what you do. Of > > course this can be any kind of teacher, including a university professor, a > > member of a fellow writing group, or a distant correspondent. I can remember three teachers that made a profound difference in the direction I took as a lover of words. Mrs. Johnson was my high school Freshman English Teacher. She introduced me to the love of books and plays. It was the first time I was really introduced to fiction in a class setting that I enjoyed and remember. I had always done well in English, but this class gave me a passion for fiction and for words. Mr. Eggleston was a my college English teacher in my senior year in high school. He taught me to buckle down and write. He taught me how to see a project through. He started with five paragraph essays and taught us how to develop thought and process. We also read, "The Lord of the Flies" in his class and his approach to that book fascinated me. It was the first time I really grasped the idea of symbolism and concepts in words. I also had a creative writing teacher at Clackamas Community College that I truly admired. Craig Leslie is becoming a well-known author now, but when I was taking his class, he had two critically acclaimed books out that had been published by small a house. _Riversong_ was one of them. One day after class, he took me aside and said, "You can write. Keep at it." Then he suggested I have one of my short stories I had written in his class published. I never pursued that idea. But his words spurred me on. I was working on "The Jewelry Box" at the time and I went back to that piece with a renewed fervor. It was published the following year. Now, If I would've only paid more attention to Mrs. Doehring--my sophomore grammar teacher....... Shelly Johnson-Choong - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Nudity Date: 13 Aug 2000 00:39:43 -0400 D. Michael Martindale wrote: The most important part of this issue to me is, a neutral attitude toward nudity would diffuse a huge amount of charged sexual attitudes and situations, many of them so charged they become perverse. I believe the things we fear would be caused by a neutral attitude toward nudity would actually be _solved_ by a neutral attitude toward nudity. I have to disagree. A neutral attitude toward nudity is a nice theory, but highly impractical in practice. Sure, if we saw everyone nude, some people would not be attractive to us physically. But our children would be in danger because by and large, children have very attractive forms. There would be a strong move to stay young and healthy, or at least to appear young and healthy. Also, what about when you touch someone? Say you're standing in line at the grocery store and someone bumps into you. Depending on where on your body and where on theirs, you could get a wide range of reactions. It seems to me that under the current system, bumping someone's shoulder is a lot less charged because there is rarely any skin contact. It's not for nothing that at Ricks we were advised not to sit on each other's laps. I also wonder what it would do to healthy sexual relations. How could you get excited over seeing your spouse nude if you saw him or her that way all the time? What attraction would there be in it? Sure, you probably would get excited eventually, but it could louse up your reactions. Now the art angle: the Venus de Milo was originally in a temple where the Greeks would come and rub the statue. Rub it? Is that what our art is for? Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 12 Aug 2000 22:14:28 -0600 Jeff Needle wrote: > Review > ====== > > Lindsey Phillip Dew, "The Trial" > 1984, Deseret Book > Paperback, 237 pages, $9.95 > > Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle How did such an edgy, morally ambiguous book ever get published by Deseret Book in 1984? I thought that kind of LDS literature wasn't supposed to be publishable, especially sixteen years ago. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 12 Aug 2000 22:23:51 -0600 "Alan Mitchell (by way of Jonathan Langford )" wrote: > Of course I may be entirely wrong about nudity but too some of us > there is a shock factor involved in the naked body. Always. > Nudity shocks some of us. Some of us are wired that way. > I confess nudity is shocking to me. Whew, I said it! But isn't that the > beauty of it? If I may speak for nudists and naturists everywhere, their position is that that's the whole point. We are shocked by something that is about as natural as you can get (shocked by our own bodies!), but it's not a wired thing. It's a deeply socialized thing, care of our culture. They also claim that the shock generally wears off quickly when a person spends some time in an environment which is perfectly normal, except that nudity exists. Mooning, or British game shows where everybody is making a fool of himself, are not normal environments. I would venture to say that Eric felt sad about those nude game show participants more because they were doing undignified things than because they were naked. The vulnerability that comes from nudity only increased their patheticness, not caused it. If the participants on the show had been acting dignified, would the nudity have caused Eric to feel sad for them? He didn't feel that way at the nudity in the plays where the actors _were_ acting dignified. I have not visited a nudist resort, so I can only pass on second hand the witness of those who have. Hmmm, maybe I should visit one--purely for reasons of research, of course. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 13 Aug 2000 16:34:55 -0600 Eric wrote: >But the point is, eroticism has almost nothing to do with nudity For some reason, this still speaks to me in support of Michael's skinny-dipping analogy. The problem is that we misunderstand and misinterpret our bodies, whether we oversexualize nudity or hate our normal shapes. I think that the naked Brit show actually underlines this--it was intended to point up the bizarre. I have done some of my coursework for my bodywork practice at Esalen in Big Sur, California. Esalen was formed in the 1960's as an alternative sort of place for courses of various kinds--it is beyond-belief beautiful, lush gardens on a sea cliff in northern California. It has been the origin of much avante garde thought in these last few decades. The hot spring baths are on a cliff ledge overlooking the ocean. They are clothing-optional, but nobody wears any bathing suits, so the first time I went, I had a Mormon-mama dilemma: wear my one-piece among all the naked bathers or just take everything off. I went in the buff but was very uncomfortable. On subsequent visits--over the years--I opted to either bathe at night, not bathe at all, or, in recent years (more middle-aged as we go. . .) just get in. My experience was liberating. There were all sorts of bodies--young, old, sick, well--but in the context it was just skinny dipping. Not sexual at ALL, not shaming either. I realized yet again that I am NOT my body. I feel that we Mormons are very uncomfortable with bodies, whether in a sexual context or not. I don't know how we can best feel better about ourselves, but my skinny-dipping experience has been a good step in the right direction, for me. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 . - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 12 Aug 2000 16:31:23 -0600 I realize I forgot to answer this question: > > 2) Which author has had the greatest impact on me? Great question. As a playwright, if I were forced to narrow down to one writer who's impressed me the most, I would have to say Eugene O'Neill. He didn't write the best dialogue, he put too many stage directions in his scripts. But when I finished reading an O'Neill play, I had been in the mind of the characters. I had lived there. I had become them. Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Hugh Subject: [AML] Final Concert (Free Admission) Date: 14 Aug 2000 00:12:46 -0500 Hi all, A while back I sent a notice to AML-list of my series of concerts in Utah. We are now down to the final concert. It has been several weeks since that initial message, so I thought I would send a reminder. I also had the bright idea of including an "internet coupon" in the message. Just print out the coupon and present it at the ticket desk to receive two free admissions to the concert (details below). Feel free to forward this message, including the internet coupon, to anyone you know who might be interested in the concert. Final Utah Concert ------------------ Brent Hugh, piano Monday, August 14th, 7:00 PM Chase Fine Arts Center Utah State University, Logan, UT Admission: $7-Adults, $4-Students & Seniors, $20 Families Exciting performance of Chopin's Preludes (complete), Ravel's impressionistic masterpiece, the Noble and Sentimental Waltzes, and Bartok's folk music-inspired Piano Sonata. Tickets are available at the door. Call 801-544-5032 for directions/more info. Information/previews at http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/recit ======================================================================== PRINTABLE INTERNET COUPON TWO FREE CONCERT ADMISSIONS (CHILD OR ADULT) Print this coupon and present it at the ticket desk at either the August 14th concert. You will receive two free admissions to the concert (child or adult). Limit one coupon per family. You are welcome to print this coupon and give it to others and/or email it to friends/family members. The only limit is one coupon per family. 3EML14 ======================================================================== ++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bhugh@griffon.mwsc.edu ++++++++++++++ + Missouri Western St College Dept of Music, St. Joseph, MO + + Piano Home Page: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh + + Internet Piano Concert: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/recit + ++++ Classical Piano MP3s: http://www.mp3.com/brent_d_hugh ++++ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 14 Aug 2000 10:57:56 -0400 Must admit, I don't quite agree with Thom and Melinda on this one. I can't really say why except that it's personal opinion. I like the Yule Brenner "King and I". But, I have no background with the historical issues. I didn't realize for many years that it was even supposedly based on a "true" story. I hated the very idea of Disney's Pocahontas. I'm just a bit of a history buff and don't understand at all why they would take a real person and distort so totally what that person's life experience was. (I won't even go into the nauseating music, and, I never saw the entire film but was totally unimpressed with the clips.) Why not just make up characters with made up names for such a totally made up story. Not being in Utah much, I didn't have a chance to see Thom's play. Yet I know that I personally would not appreciate a play based on a real historic figure that did not take some pains to be accurate, or used "artistic license" as an excuse for gross distortion. I'm not saying Thom's play does that, I'm just saying I wouldn't have liked it if I felt it did. Then again, I grew up watching "The Sound of Music". Later I read several books written by the family that were fascinating. There were lots of places that the story was distorted to increase the drama of the situation. Though in other ways it was essentially their story. I haven't black listed it though. So, I guess all that goes to show is that I'm very inconsistent. Tracie Laulusa - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 11:11:31 -0700 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? James Carroll at Emerson College, Boston. As writer in residence who lead = a fiction seminar I was enrolled in, he was quite nurturing and a great = role model. His response to my story that appeared in the latest Irreantum = (yes, I originally wrote it as an undergraduate) has been one of the key = things that has helped me stay interested in writing fiction. On the last = day of class, he invited us all to his Beacon Hill townhouse and lovingly = read aloud to the whole group each person's best story of the semester. He = even served Irish whiskey (don't worry, I didn't partake). Carroll is a = successful novelist (mostly mainstream historical-oriented fiction) and = won the National Book Award a couple or three years ago for his excellent = memoir _American Requiem_. I've tried to contact him a few times with = half-baked fiction to get his feedback or even a referral to an agent or = editor, and he's never responded--but while I was in his class, he was = great on feedback and encouragement. My second place spot goes to my current online writers' group, Worldsmiths = run by D. Michael Martindale. Although critiques have lately been trailing = off in number, the responses have been the most thoughtful, detailed, and = useful of any critique group I've been involved in, including graduate = seminars at BYU.=20 2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? John Updike is my literary hero. I am consistently blown away by his = writing, although when I think about his plots and subjects there's not = much to them, usually. He is great on observation and description and = characterization and just plain writing. I envy his career and think of it = as the American literary career I most admire--John Updike for Nobel, I = say. His is the writing I turn to most often to jump-start my own writing. Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pup7777@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:34:34 EDT In a message dated 00-08-12 14:38:51 EDT, you write: << Max Golightly. From him, I learned two truths about writing plays: one is to make your villain as well-rounded as your protagonist. Try to get inside the villains mind, to see what makes him/her tick. >> I have a thousand things I "should" be doing right now, but I have to say that Max Golightly touched my life deeply. He was the first person to ever believe in me and not only did he eloquently say what was wrong with my writing, but he very eloquently said what was right, which I needed to know probably even more than the wrong. When positive feedback came from him, it was hard earned and I felt honest. He helped me believe in myself. Max and I and a couple others in that critique group wrote a book together and that was one of the most fun times I ever had. He agreed to write another one with me two days before he died. I was mad for a long time about his death. I wasn't ready to let that great teacher go. Max, if your listening THANK YOU! Lisa J. Peck - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 12:53:54 -0600 On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:36:57 JST, Andrew Hall wrote: >1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Please = tell=20 >us about the person and how you think they influenced what you do. Of=20 >course this can be any kind of teacher, including a university = professor, a=20 >member of a fellow writing group, or a distant correspondent. 1) My dad. He was the first one who saw an essay of mine and told me he thought it was pretty good. He said my meager High School essay was of college level quality. Since his degree is in Comparative Literature and= he worked as a TA for freshman English and he sometimes wrote freelance = during his law school years, I took his opinion seriously. Also because he = never lied to me that I ever detected. 2) Steven C. Walker. I took as many classes from him as I could. He encouraged me to take chances in all my writing and gave really good feedback for what worked and what didn't. With his encouragement I began experimenting with writing to see if I couldn't begin having some fun = even as I fulfilled otherwise unremarkable assignment requirements. It was = under his indirect influence that I wrote an analysis of a John Donne poem entirely in dialog (And it got a 92, even though the professor was = typically pretty straight laced). He showed me creative opportunities I might not have otherwise found. >alternatively (or additionaly): > >2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Steven Brust, Connie Willis, Terry Pratchett. Probably others. [Jacob Proffitt] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:16:03 -0500 1) Teacher--A fella from the University of Oregon named Robert Grudin, who taught Shakespeare and other things. Everyone should read his books, TIME AND THE ART OF LIVING and THE GRACE OF GREAT THINGS. Also Brian Evenson. 2) Writer--Richard Hugo. He was the real thing. Also Wendell Berry and Kafka. Todd Robert Petersen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:24:43 -0600 Shawn and Melinda Ambrose wrote: > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > The most important part of this issue to me is, a neutral attitude toward > nudity would diffuse a huge amount of charged sexual attitudes and > situations, many of them so charged they become perverse. I believe the > things we fear would be caused by a neutral attitude toward nudity would > actually be _solved_ by a neutral attitude toward nudity. > > I have to disagree. A neutral attitude toward nudity is a nice theory, but > highly impractical in practice. Thousands of naturists would disagree with you. > Sure, if we saw everyone nude, some people > would not be attractive to us physically. But our children would be in > danger because by and large, children have very attractive forms. Many naturists have their entire family involved: Mom, Dad, the kids. > There > would be a strong move to stay young and healthy, or at least to appear > young and healthy. Is that a bad thing? Anyway, from naturists whom I've met online, and one I know from my high school days, the appearance of a person's body is completely irrelevant to the enjoyment of being (to use Eric's word) "starkers" outside. > Also, what about when you touch someone? Among naturists, this is not permitted. > Say you're standing in line at the grocery store and someone bumps into > you. Depending on where on your body and where on theirs, you could get a > wide range of reactions. It seems to me that under the current system, > bumping someone's shoulder is a lot less charged because there is rarely any > skin contact. It's not for nothing that at Ricks we were advised not to sit > on each other's laps. I'm sure this happens among naturists who play sports. They untangle themselves, and get ready for the next serve of the volley ball. > I also wonder what it would do to healthy sexual relations. How could you > get excited over seeing your spouse nude if you saw him or her that way all > the time? Naturists also claim to have no problem in this area. Also, to those of who've pushed into their fifties, and who long ago left the bodies of our youth, I can assure you that mature love making is so far removed from the visual enticements as to be almost inconsequential. > Now the art angle: the Venus de Milo was originally in a temple where the > Greeks would come and rub the statue. Rub it? Is that what our art is for? > For the Greeks, maybe it was. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:32:47 -0600 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > Then again, I grew up watching "The Sound of Music". Later I read several > books written by the family that were fascinating. There were lots of > places that the story was distorted to increase the drama of the situation. > Though in other ways it was essentially their story. I haven't black listed > it though. So, I guess all that goes to show is that I'm very inconsistent. I'll restate my opinion. History is history, and ought to be judged on its accuracy as to time, and place, etc. Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. It is to entertain, inspire, cause one to think. Whereas an historian may be looking for undiluted facts, the artist is looking for the "spirit" of the story. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] AML Mailing List Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:07:14 -0700 The AML regularly sends out snail mailings about our events, services, and = publications.=20 If you would like to be on this mailing list, please send your street = address to me at chrisb@enrich.com. Sometimes we even mail out free copies of Irreantum to people on this = list. If you have been an AML member in the past or have requested a free copy = of Irreantum, you are probably already on the list--but you can resend = just to make sure. If you have names of anyone else who might be interested in the AML, send = us their addressess too. Thanks, Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:00:47 -0600 > 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer Can't narrow it down to just one. I feel indebted to a whole host of fine teachers starting with Miss White in 3rd grade who told me--in front of the whole class--that she was sure I would be a writer someday. Then there was the wonderful Joyce Nelson at BYU who gave me a "C" on the first paper I wrote for her Fiction, Drama, and Poetry class. Under the letter grade at the bottom of the paper she wrote something to the effect of: "You have a certain facility with language. Unfortunately, that is no substitute for substance of thought." I was stunned, unnerved, mortified--but I recognized the truth of what she said. I re-wrote the paper--working harder than I ever had on any assignment--and earned an "A" the second time around. Art Bassett, Allie Howe, Richard Cracroft, Jon Green, Madison Sowell, and Terry Butler all helped open my eyes to the power and the possibilities of language. Finally there was the incomparable Marilyn Arnold. She was such an important role model for me during my college years--a brilliant, compassionate, athletic, funny, and faithful scholar who was also a woman. I considered it a compliment of the highest order when Todd Britsch, then Dean of the College of Humanities, told me after reading my thesis that my writing style reminded him of Marilyn Arnold's. > 2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Again, I can't name just one. Eudora Welty, Anne Tyler, Toni Morrison, Charles Dickens, Virginia Woolf, Dostoevsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Montaigne, Flannery O'Connor, Emma Lou Thayne, Laurel Ulrich, Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Shakespeare, Calvino, Emily Dickenson. In the area of children's literature: Patricia MacLachlan, Katherine Patterson, Lois Lowry, Karen Hesse, Louis Sachar, Betsy Byars, Jerry Spinelli, Kevin Henkes, Jane Yolen, Eve Bunting. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Final Concert (Free Admission) Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:14:54 -0600 Brent, This sounds like an amazing concert! I'd love to come and bring my pianist daughter along. Chopin is her favorite composer (in terms of piano repertoire). And by the way, she loves your web pages--finds the practice tips, etc., very helpful. And the internet coupon is a great idea. Thanks. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] History or Drama? Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:12:26 -0600 Allow me to share with you all the thought process I am undergoing while writing my current play on the life of Moli=E8re, the great French playwright. I hope to provide insight into the historical vs. dramatic debate some of us have been undergoing on the AML list. Episodic plays, or plays in which scenes unconnected by anything other than perhaps a central character, are not my cup of tea. _Abe Lincoln in Illinois_ is an example of what I mean by episodic plays. = Documentaries tend to follow this patter. Though informative, and often inspiring (as was a recent documentary I saw on Thomas Jefferson), they usually have as their goal to illuminate their subject in some way. = I like plays that have strong thematic interconnections, where, though the characters are important, they serve an over-arching theme. In my musical, _PROPHET_, for instance, the over-arching theme was not that Joseph was a great man, or that Emma was a great woman, or that the Church is a great church (though those themes were present) -- the *main* theme was quite simply a romantic one, that love can bridge all gaps. (An example of an episodic approach to the story of Joseph can be seen in Nauvoo, the annual pageant called "The City of Joseph.") Another personal preference is for a single, clear, antagonist. This is seldom available to me in history. So, unless I tell a story based on a small event in a larger life, and if I felt loyalty to facts over substance, I would have to change the main antagonist every two or three scenes or so. In _Prophet_, I settled this concern by taking Symonds Ryder clear into the Nauvoo period, though he was out of the picture as a bad guy back in Kirtland. = So, in my current undertaking, I face once again the dilemma I faced in Prophet, and the one I face in another play based on LDS history: How can I make the jumble of facts fit within an overarching theme and still maintain some modicum of loyalty to the historical events? = I've chosen to tell the life of Moliere as a king of giant flashback on his dying bed. Various characters from his plays appear to re-introduce him to his certain events in his life. An early scene can serve as an example of the dilemma I had over accurate history and dramatic fluidity. Moliere's father wanted him to follow in his footsteps, as Superintendent of Royal Furnishings. Young Jean (Moliere was a stage name he adopted years later) didn't want to. His father sent him to a Jesuit school to teach him Latin and the classics, the proper education he would need to become a servant to the King. While there, he meets a young schoolmate named deConti, who later subsidizes Moliere's early theatrical ventures, but then, after a religious vision, ultimately condemns Moliere and all theatre. This is a cool villain, a Judas if you will. I jumped right on him as the most interesting of all of Moliere's antagonists. To me, it is more dramatic to have your villain be a one-time friend than, say, a local Parisian cleric (and their were a few of those who opposed Moliere as well.) So, I'm going to have de Conti as my bad guy but I'm going to steal words from his other villains and put them in de Conti's mouth. But that's not the dilemma I want to talk about. The dilemma that prompted this post is this: after leaving the Jesuit college, Moliere chummed around with no less a French luminary than Cyrano de Bergerac (Rostand's take on his life, btw, is an historical travesty, though a marvelous play). I just can't pass over that, owing to the fact that Cyrano's epicurean philosophy had an effect on the young Moliere. = So, what do I do? Do I show a scene of Moliere attending Jesuit college, then a scene post-college, where Moliere meets Cyrano. Or can I accomplish the goals of the play by combining the two, having Cyrano as a college buddy of Moliere? That's what I've decided to do. For one thing, it combines one scene into two, and the audience doesn't have to wait longer for Moliere to meet his first love, which is where the play really begins. = Trying to be more historically accurate would have set my pivotal scene further into the play and beyond the point in a play where audiences expect the plot to start off, the first ten or fifteen minutes. = (Studies have shown that beyond that, if you go beyond that to really lay out your cards, audiences have lost interest, never to get it back.) = I cheated history, I know. But I believe the final result will be a play that is true to the main themes in Moliere's life that is also entertaining as a work of theatre. -- = Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:13:04 -0700 At 10:14 PM 8/12/2000 -0600, you wrote: >How did such an edgy, morally ambiguous book ever get published by >Deseret Book in 1984? I thought that kind of LDS literature wasn't >supposed to be publishable, especially sixteen years ago. > >-- >D. Michael Martindale >dmichael@wwno.com Believe it or not, I asked myself the same question, and thus cited one of those "ambiguous" portions just to see if someone had the same impulse I did. I'll be interested in others' thoughts about this. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "mjames_laurel" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 15:16:43 -0600 I'm glad Marilyn mentioned Clinton Larson - he has a very special place in my heart. I wandered into a reading he was doing in the Little Theater at the Wilkinson Center strictly out of curiosity--I'd never heard of him, and I'd never been to a poetry reading before. I was enthralled. As soon as I could, I took a class from him - I'll never forget what he said the first time I met with him one on one--he handed back some of the work I'd turned in and told me, "This is the work of a talented undergraduate." Then he absolutely crushed me as he added, "But there are a hundred people on this campus that can write like this. If you want to be published, you'll have to do much, much better." Until then, I'd thought all it took was talent. I'd always taken for granted I was going to be a writer someday because everybody had always told me I was talented. I'd been published a few times, but I'd never understood how hard I was going to have to work to really write well. I took several classes from him and came to almost worship him. He was always very demanding, but very, very kind. From him, I learned a great deal about writing, but I think more importantly I learned to avoid what comes easy in favor of struggling with ideas, themes, and structures that are difficult. Laurel S. Brady - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] "The Onion" and Mormons Date: 14 Aug 2000 22:52:54 GMT The on-line satirical weekly, "The Onion", has a new search feature. I entered the word "mormon" and got the following 6 results: http://www.theonion.com/onion.3624/mormon_loses_inhibitions.html http://www.theonion.com/onion.3528/vacation_time_3528.html http://www.theonion.com/onion.3626/man_lost_all_hope.html http://www.theonion.com/onion.3604/heaven_overrated_3604.html http://www.theonion.com/onion.3528/consarned_asteroid_3528.html http://www.theonion.com/onion.3302/go_to_heaven_3302.html Not the author has a vague idea what Kolob is, among other things. My conclusion: someone is watching us. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: [AML] Teaching in Art (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 14 Aug 2000 17:25:16 -0500 Thom Duncan wrote: > Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal > is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. Two pretty big hitters, Horace and Phillip Sidney disagree with you. Both say that art's purpose is two-fold: to delight AND instruct. Tolstoy said that one of art's purposes is to get people to want to make moral choices, which is a kind of ethical teaching. I could go on, but that would get boring. I think it's very important to recongize the pitfalls of the always/never arguments. If art is never to teach, then one is free to say that it's purpose is just to what? Exist? Entertain? Is that what MOBY DICK does? Entertain us? Help us to kill some time or fight off the boredom that industrialized socitey have left us with? I sure hope that art does more than soak up a few free hours. Also there are a lot more subtle distinctions one can draw between history and art, particularly between history and writing. Some thinkers, notably Hayden White and Paul Ricouer don't see such a wide distinction between history and writing. In fact, they both say that there is a certain illusion floating around out there that history is apart from or above art (it goes back to Plato and others). History is still a kind of storytelling that is dependent upon other forms of writing for its formal structure, traces they are called. It is writing stacked on top of writing. Accuracy is an illusion, just as controlled as the effects in fiction. Here's a taste of White from his essay "The Fictions of Factual Representation": Readers of histories and novels can hardly fail to be struck by their similarities. There are many histories that could pass for novels, and many novels that could pass for histories, considered in purely formal (or, I should say formalist) terms. . . . We can not easily distinguish between them on formal grounds unless we approach them with specific preconceptions about the kinds of truths that each is supposed to deal in. So, no, the rules aren't all that different at all. Just the "reality" behind the rules, which is not always that easy to suss out. Also what's so wrong with teaching anyways? Todd Robert Petersen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 21:33:09 -0600 Andrew's Poll asked: >1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Like so many others, I can't name just one. In my case, however, it's at least partially because I never had a strong writing mentor in a traditional classroom setting. I got a little impact from a lot of people. The most influential would be Jim Henson (of Muppet fame). I don't know who wrote the screenplay for _The Dark Crystal_ but Henson made the movie, and that movie so vastly undertold its own story that I knew I could do better. So I started writing stories in an effort to do so. The teacher (teaching assistant, actually) who nearly knocked me out of writing altogether is (I think) our own Harlow Clark. Or at least the memory I have is populated by someone who looks suspiciously like Harlow (as much of the memory as I haven't blotted out). If it wasn't Harlow, I apologize for taking his name in vain. It may have been Harlow's evil twin. Back in the Spring of 1983, I took a fantasy short story into the writing lab at the BYU library, got some perfunctory comments from the TA on duty (who thought the story a bit juvenile for his tastes), and suggested that I would be willing to "write down" to a younger audience. He immediately responded that I didn't need to write down to reach that audience; I was already there. This drove me into a deep depression that followed me into the mission field and haunted my thoughts for the next two years. I didn't consider myself a trivial person, yet that TA certainly considered my story to be trivial. I went back and read it, and discovered that he was right. And that made me completely rethink my reasons for writing, and what I wanted from it. I also discovered that I was still concerned with the issue two years later, so I screwed up my courage, buckled on my defiant glare, and headed right back into the writing fray when I went back to BYU. And that's where I met David Evans. He taught me to look at story differently, and that it was okay to take form or structure from successful stories and use them as a model for constructing my own stories. When he read from one of my stories in class and praised it as both well constructed and well told, it was the first true success I had ever had. It was in his class that I met Orson Scott Card, who later taught a two-day writing workshop that proved to be my second positive writing experience in that I saw writers honestly trying to help other writers succeed. After that, it was a group of my fellow would-be writers who happened to be fellow staffers at BYU's sf magazine, _The Leading Edge._ A bunch of us got together and formed a writing group called NLQ. We then proceeded to try to discover what made successful fiction by shredding every resource we could find, and hoping that the blind can in fact lead the blind. And to at least some degree, we succeeded. Some of those early NLQers were Dave Wolverton, Carolyn Nicita, and Russell W. Asplund. While the group certainly can't take credit for those authors' eventual success, we taught and learned and shared as much as we could, and helped facilitate for each other a safe haven where we could expect to get honest critiques that were free of the kind of self-serving spite so often common in writing groups. Algis Budrys taught me to think of story structure as something that can be learned, and a practice that can be perfected. His "Seven Parts of a Story" is something I think about every time I sit down to write. Kris Rusch, Dean Smith, and Kevin Anderson (very successful genre writers) all taught that we can have control over our own destiny in the fiction markets, and that to write successfully, you need to study and understand why some stories are popular. Depending on your own literary goals, you can then incorporate those elements to varying degrees in your own fiction to expand or contract your intended audience. But it's Dave Wolverton who has embodied most of the things I wanted to be as a writer--and have relentlessly failed to be. He has been a teacher, a critic, a mentor, an example, a friend, and a fellow sojourner in the search for both artistic and market success. He's not the best teacher I've ever had, but he's been there in some form when I had most of my personal epiphanies about writing. (That was long, wasn't it? But you asked...) >alternatively (or additionaly): > >2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Like so many others, I wanted to be Orson Scott Card when I grew up. He was eventually replaced by Dave Wolverton for me as a writer who was both successful and accessible. It was only when I decided to be myself that I began to succeed, but those two powerful writers caused me to believe that real people could succeed--even Mormons. In genre fiction it would be Roger Zelazny, Patricia McKillip, and Ray Bradbury, who brought a real and powerful literary quality to their work, but still told stories of the fantastic. In fact, Roger Zelazny is the only author I held in such high esteem (primarily as a short story writer) that I couldn't think of a single thing to say to him when he came to BYU a few years ago. Sadly, he died a short time later, so I never got to know him as anything but an icon. (For those that know me, it's quite rare for me to be completely tongue-tied by anyone. It's only happened twice--Roger Zelazny and Spencer W. Kimball.) Otherwise, it would be Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, and John Irving. They told powerful stories that were beautifully written, intimately meaningful, and undeniably true--all the things that I find most worthwhile in fiction. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 14 Aug 2000 23:40:15 EDT Jeff Needle wrote: > Review > ====== > > Lindsey Phillip Dew, "The Trial" > 1984, Deseret Book > Paperback, 237 pages, $9.95 D. Michael Martindale asked: How did such an edgy, morally ambiguous book ever get published by Deseret Book in 1984? I thought that kind of LDS literature wasn't supposed to be publishable, especially sixteen years ago. _______________ I remember reading this book. I can't answer the question, but I do not recall that it was that edgy or morally ambiguous. Although Jeff quoted from the attorney's darkest moment, the scene was very real, not out of place at all, and well within my range of personal experience. I remember that it was a very good book and I enjoyed it. Jeff did an excellent review, and I would not wish to spoil the book for anyone who desires to read it, but the ending did turn out "happy", everything resolved nicely, and our hero was vindicated for doing right (which probably was needed for it to get published). The interesting scene I was surprised to find in the book was where the bishop's new calling was announced. What transpired on that occasion was not unheard of, but it was unusual. Once again, though, the scene was well written. It has been too long since I read the book for me to do any type of review without rereading it, but Jeff has done a review that is honest to the story as I remember it, piqued my curiosity, and would cause me to want to read the book if I hadn't. If I had written the review, I probably would have spoiled the ending. Or at the very least, Michael wouldn't have needed to ask his question. So, go read the book -- quick, before Jeff reviews another one! Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 14 Aug 2000 22:02:57 -0500 Hey, I just realized we own this book too. It's my husband's--he says he really enjoyed it, but I haven't read it (yet); guess I'll add it to my (ever-growing) reading list! I can't answer for how DB published it back then, though . . . Linda - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 14 Aug 2000 23:26:14 -0600 Melinda Ambrose wrote: > I have to disagree. A neutral attitude toward nudity is a nice theory, but > highly impractical in practice. There are people for whom it is not theory, and they claim it's as practical as being clothed, barring issues of protection against the elements. > Sure, if we saw everyone nude, some people > would not be attractive to us physically. But our children would be in > danger because by and large, children have very attractive forms. That's the point. We meticulously hide that form so it remains a charged issue for certain people. If the form were available at appropriate times to see, the intense reaction some people have to it would be diffused. I would go so far as to say an inappropriate reaction to the child's body would not develop in the first place with many people it otherwise might have. > There would be a strong move to stay young and healthy, or at least to appear > young and healthy. I see a strong, unreasonable obsession to stay that way right now in our hyperclothed society. I'd expect the opposite to happen: when people see what the majority of human bodies really look like, they will become less dissatisfied with their own. That's the reaction those who live the theory report. As it is, the only bodies ever available for viewing nude in our society are the young and healthy. > Also, what about when you touch someone? > > Say you're standing in line at the grocery store... Well, if we were to start going around nude constantly, there would obviously be adjustments in how we relate to people on a day-to-day basis. The accepted amount of personal space would probably increase. That's no big deal; there is a wide variation among cultures on what constitutes the appropriate amount of personal space. But I'm not advocating that sort of continuous nudity anyway. I'm advocating a disavowal of the hysterical obsession with hiding nudity. Let nudity happen when it's reasonable to do so. Many LDS members would be scandalized if they found out their relief society president posed nude for artists. They would be horrified to find out a group of members went skinnydipping together. We all know the extent to which nudity in films is condemned, regardless of the context. People freak out and act like the world has ended if someone _accidentally_ sees them nude. I'll bet very few people in America would feel comfortable with the bathing habits that were common a century ago, when family members would bathe in the same tub in their one room house without worrying about who happened to see them naked. And the most idiotic and destructive hysteria of all is the shock Americans feel if a mother nurses her baby in public without any great effort to hide her breast. I'm not talking about rampant nudity, I'm talking about a sensible attitude toward nudity that doesn't automatically equate nudity with wickedness or sexuality. > I also wonder what it would do to healthy sexual relations. How could you > get excited over seeing your spouse nude if you saw him or her that way all > the time? What attraction would there be in it? Sure, you probably would > get excited eventually, but it could louse up your reactions. This is the opposite side of the coin of the socialization Americans go through to always associate nudity with sex. Surely there are a lot more reasons to be aroused by your spouse than the sight of him/her nude. Otherwise, I'd have to wonder how shallow that couple's relationship is. > Now the art angle: the Venus de Milo was originally in a temple where the > Greeks would come and rub the statue. Rub it? Is that what our art is for? What the Greeks did with their art is of no relevance to us. We can make our own choices on how to relate to art. I expect a lot of modern people relate to the Venus de Milo in ways we'd consider more appropriate than rubbing it. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 14 Aug 2000 23:43:09 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > My second place spot goes to my current online writers' group, Worldsmiths run by D. Michael Martindale. Although critiques have lately been trailing off in number, the responses have been the most thoughtful, detailed, and useful of any critique group I've been involved in, including graduate seminars at BYU. [pleased grin] We're just going through a shakedown to see who the committed members are. I expected some dwindling over time. It's also smack in the middle of vacation season--lots of things subside during this time, only to pick up in the fall. If any of you are interested in looking into a "thoughtful, detailed, and more useful than BYU graduate seminars" writers group, check us out at the website listed below in my signature. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] History and Fiction (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 14 Aug 2000 23:51:04 -0600 Thom Duncan wrote: > I'll restate my opinion. History is history, and ought to be judged on > its accuracy as to time, and place, etc. > > Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal > is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. It is to > entertain, inspire, cause one to think. Whereas an historian may be > looking for undiluted facts, the artist is looking for the "spirit" of > the story. I like my historical fiction to try to be as accurate as it can be. But I also realize that practical considerations prohibit it from being completely accurate. I think half the fun of historical fiction is becoming interested in the events in question, then going to a history book and learning what really happened. The real problem in my opinion lies with the general audience. Too many people think historical fiction _is_ accurate. They need to be educated otherwise, then there would be no problem. People won't be thinking every line of dialog in _Braveheart_ or whatever is a true depiction if history. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] HUNTSMAN, "Woman in the Wind" Date: 15 Aug 2000 18:16:22 JST Deseret News Saturday, August 12, 2000 'Woman' makes dream a reality Production follows the life of a Mormon pioneer woman By Jerry Johnston Drusilla Hendricks was a dreamer. During the day, she dreamed of making a life for herself and her family. At night, her dreams took a more mystical turn. They were spiritual dreams of Jacob's Ladder, descending doves and glorious flowers. Her daytime dreams led her to join the Mormons and head west. Her nighttime dreams led her closer to God. And in "Woman in the Wind," Karla Hendricks Huntsman, Drusilla's great-great granddaughter, shares Drusilla's story in a spare, yet powerful production that casts a fresh light on Mormon pioneer heritage. With music by Kathleen Newton and Machelle Thompson and choreography by Kim Yandow, founding director of the Deseret Dance Theater, "Woman in the Wind — like Michael McLean's "The Ark" and Tim Slover's "Joyful Noise" — has the feel of a small piece that word-of-mouth will turn into a regional classic. It is a striking combination of new, old and bold. "It began when my brother wanted me to write a musical about Drusilla," says Huntsman. "Now, when people see it, I want them to think about their own ancestors and their own lives." For now, "Woman in the Wind" is scheduled for one more run — Aug. 16-19, 8 p.m. at the Ragan Theater on the campus of Utah Valley State College in Orem (call 801-222-8797 for information). Other performances, however, will undoubtedly come along. One reason is quality. The dance numbers, under the direction of Yandow, are precise and professional. And they all propel the story along. "Everything had to be in service of the story," she says. "We didn't want anything to distract." Yandow, a former America Junior Miss, came to Utah from New York, where she was a professional dancer, and took a post teaching dance at BYU. She stayed 11 years. A couple of years ago she formed the all-female Deseret Dance Theater as a type of "dance ministry." In New York, she says, she needed to do more with her art than simply solidify her own career. The DDT was her answer. Today, the local troupe is made up of working women, homemakers, mothers, a grandmother, college graduates, former missionaries — all dedicated to using dance as a way of communicating spiritual truth. "We want to be messengers of sisterhood and perserverance," says Yandow. "I really believe you can never separate spirituality from other aspects of life." And in "Woman in the Wind," that point is made over and over. Like the Broadway play "The Fantasticks," "Woman in the Wind" uses simple props and even simpler costuming. Yet the result is as seamless and elegant as a piece of Shaker furniture. And everything is serviceable — used to illuminate Drusilla's thoughts, feelings and daily life. For Drusilla, a fanciful girlhood filled with Bible reading and dream-visions would lead to years of persecution, hunger, fear and — eventually — triumph. Mobs ransack homes in the production, angry ministers preach, mourners mourn. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young even put in an appearance. There are several novelty numbers to lighten the tone. Huntsman narrates the story from the side of the stage, supplying the connecting tissue between the dances, songs and set pieces as the story moves along. Three men have been recruited for the male roles, including Craig Rollo, a marriage and family therapist, who had given up performing because the long hours and rigorous schedule wreaked havoc with his family. Then "Drusilla" came along. "My wife told me it was a show I needed to do," he says. "So I know it has something special to offer." Eventually, says Yandow, she would like to do the show with women playing both the male and female roles, a reversal on Elizabethan theater where men were cast as women. But that version will be down the road a ways. For now, the group is just glad to be working. And glad for the reaction the show is getting. The response has been very positive. Partly because the production is so tight. But mostly because — amid the grand scale of the pioneer migration and epic elements of LDS history — the story of Drusilla Hendricks stands as an example of quiet, individual courage. Her life — and others like it — are what breathe life into the grand, mythic sagas of American history. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] History and Fiction (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 15 Aug 2000 09:28:21 -0600 I know there's been a lot written on the historical-accuracy-in-fiction = thread, but let me say that while my heart is with Thom, my head is with = Tracie. It bothers me a great deal when I see history distorted, = especially when in a major motion picture where I know that most of the = audience will believe the distortion is true. JFK is a good example. = Pretty good movie. Contemptible as history. I thought about this last = night when I watched The Replacements. It's a truly awful movie--I don't = recommend it. (But of course, a case could be made for its morally = redeeming features . . .) But part of what bothered me about it is that = what could have been quite an interesting story turned into farce and = melodrama. You could get into issues of strike-breaking vs. union = loyalty, issues of celebrity and the American thirst for celebrity, issues = of personal integrity involving coaches who sided with the players in that = strike, but had a professional obligation to coach scab teams. And the = American thirst for violence, which football sates, at the cost of = athletes' health (average life span of an NFL player--53 years.) And I = like football a lot, and am appalled by it simultaneously. Boy, you could = stay true to the facts and go all sorts of places with the story of the = replacement players in the NFL. Of course the movie didn't do any of it. = Unfunny farce, and unexciting melodrama. Whereas if they'd just told the = story, something fascinating could have happened. I think the thing is for me, is that history is almost always more = interesting than a fictionalization of history. The real story of = Pocahontas is far more interesting, and heartbreaking, than the story that = results when you take a Barbie doll, turn her into an Olympic diver, and = give her cute animal sidekicks. When we 'dramatize' history, we usually = come up with less. Not more. The Patriot is a great example. Mel Gibson's character gets sanitized = big-time, and at a certain level, that's acceptable. And there is surely = a moral componant to the choice to, say, not make him a slave owner. But = how much more interesting a film if he WAS a slave owner--as he certainly = would have been in that time and place. There's tremendous dramatic = potential there in the story of someone fighting for liberty, but also = owning slaves. And those moral ambiguities go right to the central = paradox of the American revolution. =20 Right now, I'm working on a play about George Washington. What interests = me about Washington was his role as a slave owner. He detested slavery. = He wanted to free his slaves. But he never came out against slavery as = president, and when he tried to free his slaves at the end of his life, he = made a horrible hash of it, by his own admission. I love the story of a = great and decent man, a superb leader and a man of genuine insight and = courage, grappling with this most intractable of American mysteries, the = mystery of race. And failing, of course. And his tragedy became our = tragedy, as thousands of boys would die for his failure on the fields of = Antietam and Gettysburg and in the plains of Missouri and the banks of the = river Bull Run. THAT's and interesting story. While, with all due = respect to Pastor Weems, the George Washington of bad false teeth and = impeccable integrity is boring. And his story is inherently undramatic, = IMHO. And then there's our own history. My gosh, we've just scratched the = surface of the possibilities in LDS history. Why hasn't anyone written = the definitive Oliver Cowdery novel or play or movie? Why not Sidney = Rigdon? There are some amazing stories to tell. Thank heavens to = Margaret Young for sharing Jane Manning James with us all. =20 I vote for historical accuracy whenever possible. It just works better = dramatically. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Teaching in Art (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 15 Aug 2000 10:40:44 -0600 (MDT) Thom DUncan wrote: > > > > Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal > is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. It is to > entertain, inspire, cause one to think. The best teachers I have had inspired me and caused me to think. I beleive the true aim of teaching is to do what you claim art does. Of course, I have the wacky opinion that all art is didactic on some level. But since I believe good teaching inspires and causes one to think, I can see we have different definitions of the verb "to teach." --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 15 Aug 2000 09:33:23 -0700 At 11:40 PM 8/14/2000 EDT, you wrote: >I remember reading this book. I can't answer the question, >but I do not recall that it was that edgy or morally ambiguous. >Although Jeff quoted from the attorney's darkest moment, the >scene was very real, not out of place at all, and well within >my range of personal experience. I remember that it was a >very good book and I enjoyed it. > >Jeff did an excellent review, and I would not wish to spoil the >book for anyone who desires to read it, but the ending did >turn out "happy", everything resolved nicely, and our hero >was vindicated for doing right (which probably was needed >for it to get published). > Yes, you're right, although I too was hesitant to speak of the ending of the book. >The interesting scene I was surprised to find in the book >was where the bishop's new calling was announced. What >transpired on that occasion was not unheard of, but it was >unusual. Once again, though, the scene was well written. > Agreed again. As long as we're on the subject, I was a bit surprised at the depiction of a Mormon small town made up primarily of people who would turn against their home-town lawyer because he defended an unpopular cause. It was a surprisingly homogenous view -- the town seemed to act in concert -- turning their back on John as if in an orchestrated move. I wondered whether small Mormon towns really are this one-minded about things. Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Nudity Cut-off Warning Date: 15 Aug 2000 13:44:32 -0500 Folks, We've been on the nudity thread for a long time now. It's been fun, but I don't see the conversation going anywhere particularly new or closely related to Mormon letters. So I'm going to allow 24 hours for everyone to get in their last comments on this thread, then close it for the time being--unless someone comes up with a really, really strong connection to Mormon letters. Thanks for your understanding on this. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Teaching in Art (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 15 Aug 2000 12:26:41 -0600 Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > > Also what's so wrong with teaching anyways? If it's ancillary to the main piece, I see nothing wrong with it. For instance, I'm currently acting in a play called _March Tale_ by Tim Slover, directed by fellow list member, Scott Bronson. The play is a fictional account of part of Shakespeare's life. The audience attending is likely to learn a bit about how Shakespeare produced his plays, a little about Queen Elizabeth and why she is such a luminary in English history. They'll get some history on some of the players in Shakespeare's acting company, The Lord Chamberlain's Men. All well and good, because this "history" serves to underscore the story of the characters involved, who are all living, breathing vibrant people. And, maybe, they'll be "taught" a little bit about human nature. But it's all in the background. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Cut-off Warning Date: 15 Aug 2000 14:38:52 -0400 how about : I sing the **deseret alphabet** while dancing **nude** in the shower with no music? Get it?!?!?!?!?! I kill myself! Debbie Brown On 15 Aug 2000, at 13:44, Jonathan Langford wrote: Folks, We've been on the nudity thread for a long time now. It's been fun, but I don't see the conversation going anywhere particularly new or closely related to Mormon letters. So I'm going to allow 24 hours for everyone to get in their last comments on this thread, then close it for the time being--unless someone comes up with a really, really strong connection to Mormon letters. Thanks for your understanding on this. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 15 Aug 2000 13:01:10 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > > I vote for historical accuracy whenever possible. It just works better dramatically. One small example of why I don't believe this. Take the last few hours of Joseph Smith's life. We all know about the gut-wrenching song that John Taylor sang, "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief." after which (or so we've been told, the mob immediately starts to shoot and Joseph and Hyrum end up dead. Dramatically, that is just plain moving. But if you opted for historical reality, you would have John Taylor sing all 9 verses, not once, but twice, then have everyone sitting around for a half an hour staring at the walls until the mob showed up. So what does the dramatist have to do? He/she has to shorten the song, first of all, compress the time so the audience is bored to tears waiting for the climax. Eric does allow for historical cheating in his "whenever possible" statement above, so maybe this is one of those times. As dramatists, history should be our servant, not our master. -- Thom - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] ANDERSON, _Waiting for the Flash_ Date: 15 Aug 2000 15:54:20 -0700 In the new Dialogue, Tessa Santiago mentions a missionary novel by Paris Anderson titled _Waiting for the Flash_. Anyone know anything about it? Especially, what exactly does the title refer to? Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=EB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ Date: 15 Aug 2000 16:03:57 -0700 On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:04:51 Scott Parkin noted Eric Snider's comment : > >The only religious character portrayed as being a normal, non-crazy > >person, is Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) -- and he sleeps with > >Arroway on their first date! I'd rather be one of the "zealots" they > >make fun of than an immoral pseudo-spiritual backslider like Joss. and said: > I found Joss to be one of the more troublesome characters in the > film because his religion seemed entirely situational. > In other words, I thought he was the most cynically drawn religious > character in the bunch. He spoke in religious tones to get power, > not seek truth. > > I also never read the book, so I can't comment to its faithfulness to > Sagan's words. But while I found the movie to contain a deeply > spiritual element, I found it quite lacking in what I would consider > to be an intellectually honest presentation of religion as anything > but hocum. This raises a point I've wanted to discuss several times on the list, but haven't. Suppose someone were to read a thick blue book and find therein a prophecy about people who set up religions to get gain, and looked around and saw a lot of hypocrisy, like, say, a televangelist and his wife fleecing their flock out of millions, building a theme park, promising lifetime memberships in the park's resort hotel, then taking the money and spending it on themselves, or saw another televangelist get on the tube and tell his faithful that God was going to kill him if they didn't cough up several million. Suppose this person decided to write a story about religions set up to get gain. How would the story be received by other people who had also read the blue book and its prophecies about religious corruption, especially given the way its villains often act in the name of religion, even murdering prophets in religion's name? We see stories like that as attacks on religion, but surely the emotional and rhetorical energy of such stories depends on the assumption that the behavior described is not righteous, and that the audience and artist both recognize that fact. I wonder how our reading of such stories would change if we approached them as expressions, not of what normal religion is like, but of what unrighteous dominion is like. I'm quite interested in how religious corruption works in literature because I've been turning over in my mind a story about a man who joins the Church and brings his aging mother to Utah, where she wants to send Oral Roberts $1000 to pay off God's ransom note. This causes tension in the family, of course, and as I've been thinking about it, it seems to me the mother is one of these beloved inside-outsiders like Jeff Needle or Jan Shipps, fascinated by things Mormon, but having no desire to join. She probably reads Sunstone and Dialogue and argues with her son about them. I like the irony of an Oral Roberts follower being a passionate Mormophile, as well as the irony of her recognizing the prophecies about religions set up to get gain, but finding it irrelevant in Oral Roberts' case. I imagine her answering her son's objections by pointing to the Church's wealth and power and noting how many Church leaders are lawyers, doctors or otherwise wealthy. I've got a really good ending to it, as well. Now I just have to read a few more books about Evangelical Christian culture (and its discontents), like Hunter James' _Smile Pretty and Say Jesus_ (how Tammy Fae Bakker used to great her audience before going on the air). Reading all those books seems a daunting task. I want her to speak authentically from a culture I don't know well. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "webmaster@adherents.com" Subject: [AML] Re: _Contact_ Date: 15 Aug 2000 19:23:56 -0500 harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > > I also never read the book, so I can't comment to its faithfulness to > > Sagan's words. But while I found the movie to contain a deeply > > spiritual element, I found it quite lacking in what I would consider > > to be an intellectually honest presentation of religion as anything > > but hocum. Sagan's _Contact_ is one of the books indexed at the in the Adherents.com "Religion in Literature" database. If I recall correctly, there are over 100 citations from the book in the database. The book is half religious fiction and half science-oriented. Major sections are devoted to various religions and religious characters, including Protestantism, Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, and Ahmadiyya (Islam's version of Mormonism). Mormonism itself gets only one sentence in the book. Sagan obviously knew nothing about it, or was being willfully ignorant in the book. Contact the movie doesn't begin to indicate the extent to which the novel is concerned with religion. I think most LDS readers would find a surprising amount of things they really like in the novel. There are positive portrayals of religious people (such as the Ahmadiyyan scientist). But Sagan has somewhat capriciously decided which are the good and which are the bad religions. The Adherents.com site's index is listed by name of religion, not by book, but if anybody wants to get an idea of the extent to which Sagan included religion in the book, you can use Google: Type in "custom apps" and "Sagan, Carl" as the search string, or just use the following URL: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22custom+apps%22+%22Sagan,+Carl%22+Contact&hl=en&safe=active&filter=0 Once you get results, use the "cached" pages instead of the live links, because the site has been updated and pages shifted since Google last spidered it. Preston Hunter www.adherents.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Samuel Brunson" Subject: [AML] Re: Teaching in Art Date: 15 Aug 2000 19:13:01 MDT On the topic of teaching in art (and on the ongoing topic of how to write from an LDS ideology), I was in LA this past weekend and the LA Times' Book section on Sunday had an interesting article. Because it was the eve of the Democratic national convention, the paper asked an assortment of contemporary authors to write about their philosophies on politics and literature, and what influenced them politically. I haven't read all of it, although what I read I found terribly interesting. Although they're talking specifically about politics, I found their ideas applicable to LDS writing, especially those who wrote about writing from an ideological viewpoint. Of those I read, I liked T.C. Boyle's viewpoint the best (possibly because I'm a big T.C. Boyle fan); basically, he finds books written from an ideology with the express purpose of proving that ideology dull and unsuccessful. He prefers that a book actually explore whatever situation it's dealing with and find an honest conclusion. There are interesting ideas from Ishmael Reed and Margaret Atwood, among others. I'd be interested in knowing what other people thought of these authors' opinions and their application to our writing. They can be found on the web (at least for now; I'd swear yesterday they were at a different site) at: http://www.calendarlive.com/books/lat_0813politics1.htm I am more interested in writing for a national literary audience, so these authors' opinions are in the direction I'm interested in. They're valuable, though, for just about anyone. And none of them agree completely. But I'd love to hear what other readers and writers think. Sam Brunson ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Teaching in Art Date: 16 Aug 2000 00:25:42 -0600 Thom Duncan wrote: > Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal > is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > Two pretty big hitters, Horace and Phillip Sidney disagree with you. Both > say that art's purpose is two-fold: to delight AND instruct. > Also what's so wrong with teaching anyways? I don't think Thom really means art shouldn't or can't teach, but that the artist shouldn't be _trying_ to teach. Rather art should be an exploration of truth for both the reader and artist, without any preconceived notions where that exploration will end up. That's how art teaches us best. Essays, lectures, histories, etc., are the best form for the direct teaching approach. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Date: 16 Aug 2000 00:56:15 -0700 Per Jonathan's warning, a comment about the sociological implications of nude photos, a comment about nudity in films that bears on recent discussions of artist's responsibility, and "a really, really strong connection to Mormon letters." On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:41:29 D. Michael Martindale replied to David Hansen's comment: > > > I've found it hard to show examples of movies or live theater > > where nudity would be appropriate. Any suggestions? > > Off the top of my head: > > _The Mission_. The Catholic Church is threatening the existence of a > rainforest tribe in Brazil. Lots of religion bashing, but the nudity is > the natural, "National Geographic" state of the natives, including > complete front and rear nudity of a prepubescent girl. Nothing > sexual about any of the scenes. This reminds me of a discussion we used to have in my former life as a teacher. When we were discussing fallacies I'd pass out a quiz to my students with strange questions that illustrated fallacies, or led to a discussion of fallacies. The last question was, "Where can you go in any school library to find pictures of naked women?" I said that the answer wasn't a fallacy, but has some interesting implications for the reasons we give when portraying nudity. Most students didn't know the answer until I said, "Any junior high school boy knows this," and then almost immediately someone would say, "National Geographic." Everyone knows, of course, that National Geographic isn't banned from school libraries because the nudity is non-sexual, but several years ago a friend said, "Why are the naked people in National Geographic always African?" I got some thoughtful responses to that question, generally that the people in those photos were in their natural cultural setting. But, I would ask, how often do you see photos in National Geographic of nude French beaches? That's their culture. But France is also a first-world country. I keep wondering whether we accept nude photos of people in third-world countries because we consider them human in a different way than we are. I think about the implications of calling non- or less-industrialized (for which Juno's spellchecker suggests Lilliputian as a substitute) countries third-world, especially given the prestige and privilege the west attaches to being first and the disdain for third place. > _Braveheart_. Wedding night of newly married couple. The woman's > breasts are exposed. Even though this is an obvious prelude to sex, > the scene does not evoke sexual emotions, but rather feelings of > tenderness and love. And certainly the sex depicted is moral. > > _Romeo and Juliet_, the one with Olivia Hussey. The young couple are > shown waking up after their wedding night, he from the rear, and she > a quick view of her breasts. Nothing sexual about the scene itself, and > the nudity in the story is completely appropriate to the situation. These two remind me of a comment Jamie Lee Curtis made about a movie where she had brief frontal nudity. A friend called to tell her he was throwing a party and had rented the video and frozen it on that shot. Once a nude shot has been created it's available for anyone to use, whatever the context or original intent. Not a big problem in movies before video, I suppose, but it has an interesting connection to threads recently where we've discussed what responsibility artists have for the way people use or react to their art. I don't suppose the photographers and editors of National Geographic are thinking about horny junior high boys when they put together their issues--though many of them were horny junior high boys who went to National Geographic for their nudity--and if they are, I doubt there's anything they can do to control how those boys use the magazine. For me, that particular issue is crucial to thinking about responsibility and art. We get a lot of talk about creating art responsibly, but I don't hear a lot about receiving, partaking of, consuming art responsibly. And now for the "really, really strong connection to Mormon letters." Nine or ten years ago I published a short novel in which nudity plays a part. In some ways the story is a meditation on nudity. I had been working on the story for about 6 years when it finally got into print, started in one marriage and finished in another. Before I got married the first time the woman I was courting was living in a student apartment on 5th East and 5th North in Provo. She had a pair of roommates fresh out of high school who would, at nights sometimes, stick their heads out the upstairs window and shout, "Let's get naked," then slide to the floor giggling. Of course such behavior annoyed her, being a (very mature) RM. When I started writing the story I knew I had to get that remark in there. In the first several versions I have POV thinking about how daring the girls think they're being, and about the danger of doing it, but then a marvelous phrase presented itself to me, and this is how it came out. Much of the story takes place in the BYU library, which Amos imagines in the opening dream as the great and spacious building in Lehi's dream, which he's making his way towards. The fog in Lehi's dream is mirrored by a winter temperature inversion in the valley. This passage is from the middle of the story: >>>>> He looked at the people walking through the fog, past the library to their classes, their breath with the breath of a thousand automobiles hanging inverted in the air till the air they breathed out would be the air they breathed in, or until the wind came and blew it away, or the rain fell, absorbing the acid in the air to wash ponds and grass, fish, trees and bronze, to wash the twelve-foot bronze Indian standing on the lawn surveying the fog, surely cold, wearing only a loincloth. "A definite dress standards violation," Beth had said. "I think we ought to write a letter to the editor." "He's got a pipe too," Amos had said. "Not a good example to impressionable freshman." When they were courting, Beth had had some freshman roommates who used to shout out the upstairs window, "Let's get naked," and then slide to the floor giggling. Looking at the naked buttocks of the bronze Indian, it struck him how daring they must have felt, and how innocent they were to take such pleasure in that kind of daring. 'Let's get naked' is the altar call of marriage, he thought. <<<<< There's another passage in the story that deals with nudity, right towards the beginning, where Amos remembers a conversation with Beth about whether some people are prone to adultery. >>>>> One couldn't help wondering, 'What if I were in that position?' Prone? 'No, I didn't mean--' Prone to what? That was the question. There was something about the naked male body--especially of very skinny men like himself--almost too ludicrous to be prone to anything. To think of any couple he knew and loved prone together in the altogether was too embarrassing altogether. The wide-screen exposure of flesh didn't make it any less so. He supposed this insistent embarrassment was proper; sex was too intimate a con-joining to be thought of recklessly. <<<<< This leads him into a memory of verbal love play that's too explicit to quote here. There's a lot of verbal wit in the story. I enjoyed writing it. Love making words play. ("You're more interested in wordplay than foreplay," Beth tells Amos at one point.) I've written a couple of other stories about Amos, and I need to write one from Beth's POV, get inside her mind. There's a sad story in there somewhere. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 16 Aug 2000 02:06:31 -0700 On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:36:57 JST (See, Joseph Smith shows up everywhere) Andrew Hall writes: > 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Joyce Nelson, my highschool AP English teacher and Al Stumphy my highschool French teacher (and Brian Evenson's--I dropped by Timpview High to see M. Stumphy about 4 years ago and he stunned me by telling me he was retiring. "I'm 59 1/2 and it's time to get on a ship with my wife and cruise." Excellent dancer. He's talked to cruise lines about becoming their resident ballroom dance partner. He asked me if I'd ever gotten in trouble for my writing, and If I knew Brian Evenson. "Tears me apart" he said, and indicated that the people at BYU were idiots) were very good for me. Marden Clark has had a vast influence on my life. When his first book of poems, _Moods: of Late_, was published John S. Harris, department chair, [MOD note: I believe this would have been John B. Harris] introduced him at a reading by saying, "I don't know anyone who ponders and agonizes over every ethical question like Marden does." High praise (but double-edged?) I wish I had his ethical depth. I read him this wonderful passage in Walker Percy's _The Last Gentleman_ where Williston Bibb Barrett III(?) thinks about the decline of fine southern families, how his great grandfather once walked up to the local head of the KKK on the street and challenged him to a duel. Will thinks of himself as far below that kind of courage. I said I thought of myself that way, the ebb tide of the family. "I don't see you that way at all," he replied. "I think of you as a hero." Bela Petsco was a wonderful teacher. I hope he starts writing again. I benefited greatly from Leslie Norris's work, though I write very differently than he does. I appreciate the alternate line of descent he sketched for 20th century British poetry, a line that doesn't descend through Eliot. Lois Hudson at the UW taught me by example how closely a teacher can read, and that if you want to influence someone's prose, show them you've read carefully enough to understand what they're doing. This has had a tremendous impact on my criticism and how I review books. > 2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Dennis Clark, surely. The year I was born he was out of school with rheumatic fever and he took care of me. I have a whole sklonky of nonsense words that I've repeated all my life. I thought I made them up, but my father used them in a poem about Dennis called "Some Couth" (which Leslie Norris called, "a miraculous human document"). The poem shocked me, and I thought he had the wrong son, and considered challenging his poetic license when it came up for renewal. Then it occurred to me I may have learned the words from Dennis. (I think sklonky came from our father.) We have remarkably similar tastes. If I tell him I heard a story on NPR Sunday morning about Charles Bukowski, he's likely to have heard the same story on the same station, KUSU, about 7:00, because his ward meets at 9:00 (Colin's homecoming--marvelous talk--Dennis and Valerie did pretty well too) when KUER broadcasts Weekend Edition Sunday. And we've never gotten together and said, 'Hey, let's listen to the same radio station at the same times.' Marden Clark has also influenced my writing, as has Bessie Clark in some ways. She wanted to be a writer way back in the 30's a long time before her not-yet husband had even decided whether he wanted to keep trucking produce around Utah, Idaho and Wyoming or do something else like go off to college and meet the daughter of the first mayor of South Salt Lake (before the city was briefly unincorporated). She's always very encouraging, and has formidable verbal skills which it took me a long time to appreciate. Debating with her is like mud-wrestling a greased pig. Amazing how she can turn your words around on you. :) Dennis wrote a wonderful poem about her called "Selvage." Tess Gallagher's class at the UW was very good. I'm not sure what her influence is, except her story about how Ray Carver finally published the original un-Lishized version of "A Small, Good Thing," taught me a lot about how to approach certain kinds of dark writing, and got me thinking a lot about the ethics of editing, and the unequal power relationship between writers and editors. Walker Percy has shown me some of the possibilities of philosophical fiction, and some very interesting ideas about language as behavior. Reading this over, I think I would also add John Gardner, just from an exercise I read about that he used to give his students to write 100-word sentences. Before reading that I thought you just got lucky with sentences that long. You can craft long sentences. What a wonderful idea. What possibilities. And one final brief and immodest comment. When our niece Sarah moved down here fresh out of high school to help take care of her grandmother she took a job decorating candy at Kencraft in Highland (our niece Carrie, who grew up split between Highland and SLC and worked there once, calls it Hellcraft), where she worked with a woman named Jackie Ostler. She said Jackie saw me walking along State Street one day with my plastic bags (lunch with lots of left-overs containers in one, books, disks and student papers in the other) and thought I was a homeless man. Her husband, Nick said I had been one of his teachers. Later, when my teaching career was ending, Nick told Sarah that I had given him so much encouragement about one of his golf-course stories that he decided he could write a book, and he did. Thing is, I never had him in one of my classes. He swears he was, but I can't find his name on any of my old rolls. He was Lee Ann Mortensen's student and I subbed for her the day he brought in his golf course story. I'm glad he wrote his book. I opened the April 26 PG Review and saw his picture. He lost his fight with leukemia. His new baby daughter will not know him, but she'll have the book. Harlow Soderborg Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Teaching in Art Date: 16 Aug 2000 10:12:54 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > I don't think Thom really means art shouldn't or can't teach, but that > the artist shouldn't be _trying_ to teach. Rather art should be an > exploration of truth for both the reader and artist, without any > preconceived notions where that exploration will end up. That's how art > teaches us best. Essays, lectures, histories, etc., are the best form > for the direct teaching approach. For example, the following thought, or similar one's should never pop into the head of a serious LDS writer: "This novel will be so good and inspirational that thousands of non-members will join the Church because of it." The second such a thought creeps into the conscious mind, the writer is doomed to create nothing more than propaganda, capable of converting no one who isn't already pre-disposed to believe. I stand to be corrected the moment I read about a raging atheist visitor to SLC who, upon seeing the new church film, "The Testaments," then accepts the missionary lessons and becomes baptized. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Teaching in Art Date: 15 Aug 2000 19:20:57 -0500 I wrote: >> Also what's so wrong with teaching anyways? Thom answered: > If it's ancillary to the main piece, I see nothing wrong with it. [snip] > But it's all in the background. I see, this is the old, "I don't want it rammed down my throat argument." Is that right, or am I too flippant. Am I in danger of the council ? So we are left with separate but equal spheres. Teaching should happen in teaching places. Art should happen in art places. By the same logic, there should only be ancillary apearances of art in teaching, in the classroom, and it should only be in the back ground if it is to be any good. Basic logic dictates that every premise's opposite must also be true. I think that most good writers are trying to teach and delight in the same stroke and in more or less equal measures. Those more predisposed to entertainment are hacks. Those more predisposed to teaching are pampleteers. Todd Robert Petersen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] _The Mission_ (was: Nudity) Date: 16 Aug 2000 11:39:31 -0600 (MDT) > replied to David Hansen's comment: > > _The Mission_. The Catholic Church is threatening the existence of a > > rainforest tribe in Brazil. Lots of religion bashing, but the nudity is > > the natural, > Harlow S. Clark Now I'm going out on a tangent NOT related to nudity, but what I see as a common misinterpretaion of one of the best movies to deal with religion I have ever seen. I know Micahel Medved, a man whom I usually agree with, does not see it this way, but I find the church rather sympathetically portrayed. The Church does not threaten the rainforest tribe in Brazil. The church would like to protect the tribes. In fact, it is the secular government that is threatening the tribes. The cardinal who represents the church proper is constantly making statements about how the church would protect the tribes, IF it had any power. Unfortunately, the secular governments back in Europe have started to ignore the church's pronouncements. The Church has lost all power to protect it's own. There are hints of governments raiding churches for their gold and other treasures. The tribes that have become converted are being captured and sold as slaves despite what the church tries to do to protect them. The Cardinal realizes this and in an attempt to salvage something from thsi horrible mess, orders the Franciscan priests to abandon the tribe. Somewhat cowardly, but the Cardinal explains that if the priests are found to be helping the tribe, it would provide the secular governments with the perfect excuse to attack the church directly and eliminate it. By the Cadinal's narration throughout the film and his ending comments, neither he nor the church were happy about this. It was basically a choice between two evils, and it was not clear which was the lesser. There is no real religion bashing in the film, IMHO. Instead what I see is the bashing of secuar governments who refuse to give the church some leeway in handling its own converts (many of whom had started up monasteries and missions and so should have been untouchable). Okay - rant over. --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Teaching in Art Date: 16 Aug 2000 11:55:26 PDT I think it is only the current aesthetic (and by current, I mean the last 100 years or so) that takes an anti-didactic stance. In other words, our culture has changed in myriad ways over time, and it is a relatively recent development that our culture's sense of literary aesthetic disdains the didactic. In fact, there have been many periods in which (by today's standards) the literature of the time was heavily didactic, because the aesthetics of the time did not disdain didacticism as it does today. Todd's examples of Horace and Sidney are good--and certainly we can add writers like Pope to the list of "great" writers who believed literature was (at least in part) meant to instruct. The Modernists (who might very well be responsible for the anti-didactic mentality) were reacting against the Victorians, many of whom wrote with a "moral" to their tale--they specifically took pot-shots at Tennyson for his "sentimentality", which might be reinterpreted as a penchant for morals or didacticism. But even in the 20th cen. there have been those who felt the function of literature was "moral" and (at least in part) to teach. D.H. Lawrence believed in a didacticism of a sort--the sort of didacticism that "changes the blood" and not the mind, changing the blood first, the mind following after (this is a paraphrase of an actual statement). My two cents on this "teaching in art" thread: Outright or overt didacticism is frowned upon, and should be avoided. But characters in a story always provide examples of something (good examples, bad examples, etc.)--and ANY time you have an example, you have a teacher. Thus, literature ALWAYS has the capacity to teach, and in fact (IMO) always teaches. This does not mean the "lesson" is blatant or flagrant; but it is there. Changing the blood, while the mind goes often unaware. As LDS writers, we need to be in tune with this teaching capacity of literature, and careful that it isn't misused or abused. That is the key (IMO) to writing "moral literature", without necessarily succumbing to the much lower form of literature-with-a-moral. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] Poetry Reading with David Messineo at the Read Leaf Date: 16 Aug 2000 14:07:34 -0700 Margy Layton, who used to adjunct with me at UVSC in my former life, before she and her husband opened a bookstore in Springville, called to tell me that David Messineo, editor of a new magazine called Sensations, is doing a tour to promote his books and scare up talent for the magazine. He'll be doing a reading for about 30 minutes on August 26, 7:30., then open mike for about 1/2 hour. Messineo will read from his collection, _Suburban Gothic_. He also wrote _The Hundredth Anniversary of Coney Island Amusement Parks_ a collection of photos. The Read Leaf is at 164 S. Main Street in, Springville (which, for all you poor souls out in the hinterland who never get to attend these events, is the next town south of Provo, which is midway through the state that's kind of southwest of Idaho). Take the first or 2nd Springville exit. They both come out on Main Street. For more information you can call Margy at (801) 489-1390, or e-mail info@readleaf.com. If you can't make it there (and I hope I can arrange my work schedule to get there) you could e-mail a poem you want read to someone like me. (Though if you do, there's no guarantee the poetry editor of Irreantum won't snatch it up.) Feel free to pass this on to others who might be interested. Harlow S. Clark - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing Date: 16 Aug 2000 13:08:19 -0700 On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 11:45:57 Melinda Ambrose writes: > Part of the reason I've never made a serious effort to support myself > financially solely by writing is because I have a pragmatic streak a > mile wide (inherited from my father, who, while very intelligent and > creative, said of literary work, "You can't eat it."). He ate and drank the precious words His spirit grew robust He knew no more that he was poor Or that his soul was dust I typed that from memory, read in my father's freshman English text _About Language_ when I was 12. I haven't checked Emily D's punctuation, but I love the image. > Society in the United States has become wealthy enough and > technologically advanced enough to financially support many, > many artists, entertainers, writers, and philosophers. But in > many other societies, if you want to write full time you'll have > to starve. How about a for instance here. In many non-industrialized cultures the poet or artist is revered--though I wonder sometimes if that's just a stereotype. > Your physical and mental labor in those societies is more needed > to support life directly, not to just encourage life. > > With this in mind, I have difficulty justifying spending full time > writing, though I would love to do so. It seems an intangible way > to work, yet I love to read and to watch movies and listen to music. I'm not sure what you mean by intangible. Huge portions of our economy are devoted to intangibles, as attested by a term like 'intellectual property' and the number of lawyers litigating over it. The stock market is no more tangible than writing. What do you own when you own a share of some company? The only tangible thing you can point to is a piece of paper that says you own stock in a company. Of course, a piece of paper is also what you point to when someone asks for tangible evidence of your writing. Further, creating that piece of paper generates a certain amount of economic activity. Getting my name in print each week not only generates income for me, but for the paper manufacturer, the printer, the film company, Albertson's (if I happen to have color film that week, which NewUtah! doesn't develop in-house), UTA--because I have to drop the film off, gas stations, the boy or girl who delivers the paper to subscribers, and a host of others like the companies that manufacture the printer's ink and the darkroom chemicals, and, of course, the electric utility. > Have you ever met this difficulty? How do you answer it? A couple of observations. Much as many LDS disagree with Marxists, Marxist theory probably has a more humane understanding than capitalism as we practice it of an artist's role in society. Marxist theory sees an artist as a producer, just like all other producers in a society. Capitalists tend to see artists in the kinds of terms Socrates uses in Plato's Ion, "For the poet is an airy thing, a winged and a holy thing; and he cannot make poetry until he becomes inspired and goes out of his senses and no mind is left to him" (_Great Dialogues of Plato_ tr. W. H. D. Rouse, New York: New American Library, Mentor Books, 1956, p. 19 (Verse 533c or 534c, for those conversant with the Platonic numbering, which I'm not)). Socrates goes on to explain that this means poets are inherently economically untrustworthy since you never know when inspiration will strike, and you can't predict their output. You can't depend on a poet to produce anything on their own, and in a society whose mores depend on each person producing this makes the poet morally unfit, though inspired, to be a member of the society. I like Alan Bean's answer to that argument. He sees it as a marketing ploy, a way of making art seem scarce, therefore more valuable. In an NPR Weekend Edition interview Sunday October 25, 1998, where Liane Hansen referred to him in the teaser as "the only artist to walk on the moon," Bean said, "Actually being a real artist, a professional artist, is so different from the mythology of being an artist, and most of the mythology of being an artist wasn't presented by artists themselves, but presented by dealers who were trying to sell their art, so what occurs is they say, 'Well these are scatter-brained people and they live in a world of their own and they're completely right-brained and they don't--they're not systematic,' and all those things, you know the stories, and 'they just do--this is very relaxing to them.' Well first of all, none of that is true. To be a good artist you've to be as organized as to be a good radio announcer, to be a good accountant." I agree with Bean. Writing is hard work, but it's a skill you can learn. He talks about his decision to be an artist and his development over the last 17 years, the skills and techniques he's learned--things that parallel any professional's development in any profession. (He also has an interesting comment relating to Thom Duncan's assertion that art needs to capture the spirit of a moment, not the historical accuracy. Hansen asked him about a painting called something like "Lunar High-Five." He explained that you can't show exuberance through facial expression in a space suit--can't see the face--so he had to choose a body movement that would convey the exuberance.) Melinda also said, in a separate post, same thread: "Art in general is great but not, as a separate subject, vital. The real art is the way we live every day." I agree with the second sentence for much the same reason I agree with Eric Samuelsen's repeated testimony that art is good: The art that we create helps us, or ought to help us, if we will let it, be better people. Which is why I disagree with the first sentence. Listen to the number of stories you tell in a day. Try to get through a day without telling a single story, or a night's sleep. It can't be done. We are narrative creatures. When Reynolds Price wanted to increase his resources as a storyteller he turned to the source of great story in his life, the Bible, and decided that if he was going to understand how Bible stories achieved a power that held him and millions more in "helpless belief" he would have to translate the stories. When he brought out a volume of those translations, _A Palpable God_, he included "A Single Meaning: Notes on the Origins and Life of Narrative." It begins, "A need to tell and hear stories is essential to the species _Homo sapiens_--second in necessity apparently after nourishment and before love and shelter. Millions survive without love or home, almost none in silence; the opposite of silence leads quickly to narrative, and the sound of story is the dominant sound of our lives, from the small accounts of our days' events to the vast incommunicable constructs of psychopaths." I outlined this post on August 8 and I was going to end with the following paragraph, just to tie things up: Surely we do ourselves a disservice if we say that the work which sustains our minds and spirits is less important, even less tangible, than the work which supports our bodies. But after I had turned off the computer I had an interesting thought (though I'm not sure if Islam observes a sabbath): Even if the artist produces only intangibles, it is worth noting that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is built around the idea that the highest honor we can pay God is to structure our days around a recurring day in which we produce nothing, resting from our labors. Harlow Soderborg Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: [AML] Deseret Book Date: 16 Aug 2000 16:58:34 -0400 Well! I finally got Linda Adam's book _Thy Kingdon Come_ from Deseret today. I will probably think twice about ordering from them again, and its not because of the $3.95 shipping fee. That's standard from the on-line ordering I have done in the past. No, what will make me think twice is how long it took to get here. I ordered the book on the 2nd of August, and although the website said it would be available for shipping in one business day, I learned that it was packed on the 3rd, and shipped on the 4th. It was shipped bookrate. It took twelve days to get here. I have shipped things to Utah using bookrate, and it was in Utah within 7 days, tops. So why can Amazon or Barnes and Noble, charging the same shipping fee, get it to me faster? Hmmmmm? (and yes, that was the only item I ordered) I am happy to have it in my hands now, just have to figure out when I can start reading it, dang it! I leave Sunday to go to a fine arts camp in Michigan for a week of playing and learning chamber music (I play violin) and since I want to give Linda's book my full attention it may have to wait till I get back, on the 26th. :-( I will say though, that $14.95 for 517 pages with small print, is a good value. The only other better book value I have gotten this year was my Harry Potter book or 732 pages for $12.50 from Sam's Club. (Though they have now raised the price to $13.48. I bought one yesterday for my VT's birthday). The cover looks real good. Debbie Brown - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity Cut-off Warning Date: 16 Aug 2000 15:40:03 -0600 Nudity is like the weather...everybody talks about it but nobody does anything. Since neither Martindale nor anybody addressed my question regarding the place for Nudity in Mormon Art, (and I mean real nudity, not just talking about it in the shower, but real Picasso type stuff), I'll have to assume that no such thing will exist in the near future. Shucks, I wanted someone on the list to be the first AML streaker. Alan Mitchell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Teaching in Art Date: 16 Aug 2000 22:26:03 -0500 D. Michael Martindale observed that Thom Duncan wrote: >> Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal >> is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. And then D. Michael said: > I don't think Thom really means art shouldn't or can't teach, but that > the artist shouldn't be _trying_ to teach. Rather art should be an > exploration of truth for both the reader and artist, without any > preconceived notions where that exploration will end up. I reference the above as a response. > It [art's job] is not to teach, never, never to teach. Not, never and never all give me a pretty clear indication that Thom isn't trying to hedge. Thom, if you did mean something lighter, please chime in. Todd Robert Petersen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 17 Aug 2000 00:46:22 EDT Jeff Needle: As long as we're on the subject, I was a bit surprised at the depiction of a Mormon small town made up primarily of people who would turn against their home-town lawyer because he defended an unpopular cause. It was a surprisingly homogenous view -- the town seemed to act in concert -- turning their back on John as if in an orchestrated move. I wondered whether small Mormon towns really are this one-minded about things. _______________ At the risk of offending citizens of small Mormon towns everywhere, let me just say that ... I have no comment! In the book, I'm not sure they turned against their home-town lawyer as much as they turned on their bishop who, in their minds, should have known that "Thou shalt not kill." One of the strengths of the book was that, inspite of what everyone seemed to want to do, he was the one who held out for what was right, even though it was not popular. It probably had to be a small home-town to be that conflicting and one-minded. Had the book been set in a large metropolis (SLC, for example), the reaction would probably have been ho-hum, and I believe the story would have lost its power. Besides, there had to be some place up the road for ... oops, I told myself not to do that, didn't I? Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN LDS Impresario's Shakespearean Vision Honored: New York Times Date: 17 Aug 2000 00:46:22 EDT New York Times 30Jul00 A4 [From Mormon-News] LDS Impresario's's Shakespearean Vision Honored CEDAR CITY, UTAH -- The 2000 Tony Awards have validated the vision of LDS Church member Fred C. Adams, the founder and executive producer of the Utah Shakespearean Festival. The Festival was given the Tony Award for the Best Regional Theatre in June, drawing the attention of the theatre world to Cedar City, Utah, including a rather lengthy article recently in the New York Times. Adams grew up in central Utah, yearning to be an actor. An LDS returned missionary, Adams also reportedly served in the US Army before going to New York City, where he tried to start a career as an actor. While he managed to work in a few Broadway shows, including as an understudy in the 1953 production of Cole Porter's "Can-Can," he eventually gave up and returned to Utah, landing a position at what is now Southern Utah University, then a junior college, and asked to set up a drama department. While Adams felt that the community needed him, the situation was still difficult, "The community was going through a real letdown. The iron mines had closed. The economy was shattered. At that point I said to the mayor and the city council that I wanted to start a Shakespeare festival. They thought I was crazy. The idea of Shakespeare didn't seem to impress any of them." But Adams persisted, visiting the Oregon Shakespearean Festival for inspiration and persuading the local Lions Club to support the first season in 1962. The first season was a success, both on the stage and in the pocketbook, as the community came out not only to see the plays, but also to play roles on the makeshift stage. The festival managed to make a profit of $2,000 that year. Adams has said that Cedar City is a natural place for Shakespeare, claiming that the immigrants that Brigham Young sent to the area, often from Ireland and Wales, were natural entertainers. According to Adams, Cedar City initially had more entertainment than Salt Lake City. Since its founding, the festival has steadily grown, adding plays and facilities until today it attracts more than 150,000 ticket-holders to its two theatres over a ten-week season. And winning the Tony Award is a big boost to the festival, which plans further expansion, including an additional two theatres as part of a multi-block-long Renaissance center. The festival's reputation has also grown since 1962, as theatre audiences outside of Utah have started traveling to attend the shows. "I was dubious at first about Shakespeare in Utah -- and very reluctantly I went," said Kenneth Adelman, who has taught Shakespeare courses at Georgetown and George Washington universities. "And it blew me out of the water. This place is in the middle of nowhere. And what you get is extraordinary." Of course, because of the predominantly Mormon community in Cedar City and Utah, the festival does make some accommodations. The selection of non-Shakespeare plays is somewhat limited because of concerns over sex, blunt language or edgy themes, and while the festival has done plays like "Glass Menagerie" and "A Streetcar Named Desire," Tony Kushner's "Angels in America," which includes a gay Mormon as a character, would probably not be considered. The festival says, "We don't restrict ourselves because of the content of plays but rather because of whether the audience would go. So we wouldn't do 'Angels in America' because we probably wouldn't get an audience to watch it." But many plays also touch Mormon sensibilities. "The Merchant of Venice," part of this year's festival, has always been popular with Mormon audiences, according to Adams, "They see the victim in Shylock. Having been victimized themselves in their history, Mormons take great comfort in seeing this portrayal of humanity victimized by people who profess to be Christians." And this year's production is particularly sympathetic to Shylock, playing up the anti-semeticism of the Christians in the play, and even including dramatic elements that echo the holocaust. Winning the Tony Award now gives the festival visibility it hasn't had, and validates its decisions, perhaps even its slight accommodation to Mormons. Adams expects audiences and fund-raising to surge as a result of the award. And, it also gives him a sweet triumph, "At long last," he said. "We've been recognized!" Source: Far Out in the Land Of Shakespeare New York Times pg5 30Jul00 A6 By Bernard Weinraub Utah Shakespearean Festival Website http://www.barg.org/ [I haven't tested this website, but just offhand I'd say if it doesn't work, try "bard". I just send 'em as I get 'em. Larry] >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] National Geographic Nudity Date: 16 Aug 2000 23:26:21 -0600 Harlow S. Clark wrote: > Everyone knows, of course, that National Geographic isn't banned from > school libraries because the nudity is non-sexual, but several years ago > a friend said, "Why are the naked people in National Geographic always > African?" > I got some thoughtful responses to that question, generally that the > people in those photos were in their natural cultural setting. But, I > would ask, how often do you see photos in National Geographic of nude > French beaches? That's their culture. But France is also a first-world > country. Let's see. Nudity on the beach is the culture in France. Nudity in the jungle is the culture in Africa. The nudity in France is nonsexual. The nudity in Africa is nonsexual. The French people look a lot like most Americans, including their technological development. The African people look different than most Americans, including their technological development. It _looks_ like a form of bigotry. The Africans don't quite count, so their nudity doesn't quite count. Or is it just that the Africans don't know any better, but the French should? Is it that the Africans are heathens, and the French Christians? No, it still doesn't seem to be rising above the level of bigotry. > I don't suppose the photographers and editors of National Geographic are > thinking about horny junior high boys when they put together their > issues--though many of them were horny junior high boys who went to > National Geographic for their nudity--and if they are, I doubt there's > anything they can do to control how those boys use the magazine. Until the attitudes of Americans toward nudity changes, perhaps we should be grateful National Geographic exists. It gives those "horny" junior high boys a place to learn about the human body that is harmless and nonsexual. A whole lot better than something like Playboy, or the "wisdom" of their peers. > These two remind me of a comment Jamie Lee Curtis made about a movie > where she had brief frontal nudity. A friend called to tell her he was > throwing a party and had rented the video and frozen it on that shot. > Once a nude shot has been created it's available for anyone to use, > whatever the context or original intent. I would say this clearly illustrates the moral responsibility the audience has when receiving art. It is impossible to control how the audience will choose to react to one's art, and I don't think the artist should have to be responsible for it, as long as his intent is pure. I don't think he should have to worry about it at all. At least I think I think that. I could probably think of exceptions. Like Stephen King's book with the title I don't remember that talked about violence in a school. When a clear connection between that book and a real case of school violence came out, King refused to allow the book to be sold anymore. I think that was a reasonable action to take, even though I'm sure King's intent was never to encourage violence. But I also think it's an important distinction that it was a voluntary act on the part of the author to do so, not something imposed upom him from the outside. > And now for the "really, really strong connection to Mormon letters." > Nine or ten years ago I published a short novel in which nudity plays a > part. In some ways the story is a meditation on nudity. Better watch out, Harlow! People will start thinking you're as corrupt as Orson Scott Card! -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: [AML] RE: Teaching in Art Date: 17 Aug 2000 13:42:05 -0400 ." Chesterton's definition of literature may provide a useful frame of reference within which to consider your question: "Nothing is important except the fate of the soul; and literature is only redeemed from an utter triviality surpassing that of naughts and crosses by the fact that it describes not the world around us or things on the retina of the eye, or the enormous irrelevance of encyclopedias, but some condition to which the human spirit can come. All good writers express the state of their souls, even (as occurs in some cases of very good writers) if it is a state of nation." --Chesterton, as quoted by Simon Leys This was the best quote of several I gleaned from the article Sam Brunson pointed to in his post (http://www.calendarlive.com/books/lat_0813politics1.htm I found some interesting points and also I found I have to take what these authors said with several pounds of salt. The authors are all "political" authors, by which I mean respected, upstanding literate authors who are part of the establishment because they are best-sellers in American society (you know American society worships success). They do not, I gather, write all favorable accounts or even positive accounts of life in this and other countries. They were asked what novel(s) had the most profound effect on them. I learned quite a bit about myself this way; I have read none of these authors' works, not even one. I have read some of the same authors they cited, but only a couple of the same specific works they mentioned as influential. Many of the authors they considered the most influential I have not read at all, and do not plan to read unless forced to do so. I now understand somewhat more of the cynical nature of public discourse, if these authors are the ones our current "trendsetters" look up to. My own most influential political novel is the Book of Mormon. I gained most of the tenets of government and most of my attitude from it. However, I am at a loss as to what to do to apply what I think I know. I do try to be informed and I do vote, but it appears that more than this is called for. My husband and I are raising children; more and more I think I live in the ivory tower while my poor dear husband goes out to work in the big bad world. There must be some virtue, some valuable quality in raising righteous children that I haven't got a clear mental image of; perhaps it's a lack of eternal perspective. I could be writing fulltime and making money while defending truth, justice and the American way (in the Founding Fathers' sense) in the printed word, on screen and audiotape, but for some reason I stay here at home. I know it is the right thing for me to do at this time, but I am impatiently waiting for the day when I can be up and be doing in the world, too. Hmmm. What will I do when the opportunity comes? Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 17 Aug 2000 12:02:47 -0700 On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:33:09 Scott Parkin writes: > The teacher (teaching assistant, actually) who nearly knocked me out > of writing altogether is (I think) our own Harlow Clark. Or at least > the memory I have is populated by someone who looks suspiciously > like Harlow (as much of the memory as I haven't blotted out). If it > wasn't Harlow, I apologize for taking his name in vain. It may > have been Harlow's evil twin. This is ironic as Scott is one of the people I deeply admire as a working writer able to support his family from his writing, "one million words in print," I believe his signature once said. (BTW, as I was revising this this morning I started thinking about Scott's story, "Of Cats and Disease and Goodness" (_Irreantum,_ no. 4, Winter 1999/2000). Donna tends a 4-year-old with epilepsy and probably a degenerative disorder who may not live past adolescence. Jessie loves our cat, and Angel is very good about letting Jessie take her--arms out, palms up, like Yul Brynner carrying his dead son in The 10 Commandments--all over the house, though she occasionally hides, and Jessie has me find her. "I think she realizes Jessie is a special-needs child," Donna says.) > Back in the Spring of 1983, I took a fantasy short story into the > writing lab at the BYU library, got some perfunctory comments from > the TA on duty (who thought the story a bit juvenile for his tastes), > and suggested that I would be willing to "write down" to a younger > audience. He immediately responded that I didn't need to write down > to reach that audience; I was already there. While I am occasionally (a lot more occasionally than I would like) a big jerk, and while I was working in the English dept's writing lab in JKHB in the spring of 83, I doubt this was me. It doesn't sound like the way I would have approached someone's paper, and I very rarely got creative work. When I started working at the writing lab in 82 I had the disdain people who can do something well often have for people who can't. It took me about 5 minutes to realize that that wouldn't serve me well there, nor the people I was supposed to serve. People didn't need disdain or patronizing, they simply needed someone to help them write. If they could already write well they wouldn't need a teacher, and if they weren't interested in improving their writing they wouldn't seek one out. 83 would have been around the time I took Dean Hughes' writing for children class. I've always had great respect for children's and YA writers, and if I were a better writer I would try those genres more. (Same is true of science fiction and fantasy.) I was originally an elementary ed major. I wanted to teach children how to write, in somewhat the way Herbert Kohl described in _36 Children_ which I read the summer between 8th and 9th grade. So I don't think I would have dismissed something simply because I thought it was aimed at a young audience. I changed majors when I found out I didn't have any classroom management skills (still don't--one reason I no longer teach), but I have always tried to encourage other writers. I can imagine saying a story was too juvenile for my tastes, but more as a general comment than a comment on the story's (or writer's) worth. I can also imagine saying the story was already there, but meaning, 'That's not the problem I see with the story, there's something else we can do to improve it.' I get tongue-tied sometimes and find myself asking Donna to pass the, the, the, SOUP, just like my father. "What is it called?" she asks, even though she knows exactly what I'm asking for. I have to stop and think what it is that I'm looking at, perhaps even picture it in the garden before I can say 'zucchini, corn, cauliflower, broccoli, asparagus' (asperges is a word from the mass, I think it means cleanse). I've often wondered if this is what Walker Percy means when he describes a character as having an aphasia. So I sometimes get tongue tied and say things that don't well reflect what I'm thinking. Just after Christmas in 1988 Margaret Young asked via e-mail if I would be willing to read over her black pioneer novel. I wrote back that I would love to but I was working on an essay for the rest of the year. I simply meant, "this week" as it was the 52nd week of the year. But I phrased it the way I did partly for the irony of considering one week the rest of the year, and partly because not being able to do anything for the rest of the year makes you sound important. :) Margaret thought I was turning down her request, and I never did get to read the ms, and when I understood what had happened I was too embarrassed to say, "Margaret, did you think I was turning you down?" I often don't know how I come across to people. Walker Percy's statement (paraphrased), 'There is a lot of malice in my writing, but it's all impersonal, and I'm surprised when anyone takes it personally,' resonates deeply with me, not because I have his delicious malicious wit, but because I am often shocked at how people interpret my actions. In some ways I'm quite self-absorbed. I think it has something to do with attention deficit disorder, but it gives me a certain identification with autistic people. When Donna and I inherited an 18-year-old mildly autistic foster son for a time, I saw a lot of myself in him. I've drawn two stories from that experience, and started a third. I know I'm going to have to enter deeply into the mind of the autistic character, Charley Hobbes. (The father figure's name, of course, is Calvin.) I had an experience 3 years ago that haunts me occasionally. We went to the Charles R. Clark family reunion (my great-grandfather) and I finally met Charley and Annie's last living child, Grandpa's brother Carlos, the one who sold his share of Clark Brothers to his two brothers (there was a fourth, Myral, that I didn't know about till around the time I met Carlos. I don't think Myral was ever part of Clark Brothers) and moved to California. He told the reunion that he was born in 1899 and planned to live till 2000 so he could live in 3 centuries and two millennia, but he died a year later. Del, his approximately 67-year-old Down syndrome son, told my Aunt Jean, "Mother said she would come and get him on her birthday." And she did. Anyway, by selling out to Wallace (Grandpa) and Lawrence, Carlos spared his family the 20-year battle between Wallace's children and Lawrence's about how to divide up Clark Brothers, between the dairy, the warehouse and the dryfarm. Only Wallace's youngest son stayed on the farm, and after Leon was killed under a bursting silo, the situation got worse. Likewise one of Lawrence's two sons, Rich, stayed on the farm. One day in the spring or early summer of 83 or 84 he stepped off his tractor out in the field and died, as his cousin Harlan would die a few years later in the temple there in South Africa (where he was president) almost immediately after performing a wedding--I originally heard it was during the ceremony. At Rich's funeral someone mentioned a saying of his, "I'm not raising cows, I'm raising boys." One of Rich's boys, Kenny, (another as well?) stayed on the farm and when I went to the reunion in 97 Kenny introduced me to his wife. I put out my hand and she told me she wouldn't shake with me because I had thrown her in the Weber river 20 years earlier and almost killed her. I thought, 'If I tell her I don't remember something that was obviously so traumatic for her, it will destroy any credibility I may have with her.' What an odd thought. I remember 2 MIA service projects / swimming parties (or was it only one?) at Bishop Scott Rees's ranch during one of the latter of 5 summers I worked on the farm. (Working on Grandpa's dryfarm was a 20+ year tradition with our generation of cousins. The exchange between Rachel Nunes and Neal Kramer on Doug Thayer's _Summer Fire_ brought a lot of memories to me.) I vaguely remember people throwing each other into the river, and I think I threw someone in who was protesting a lot. She was probably telling me she couldn't swim, and that didn't register with me, maybe because the river is slow and shallow through Rees's. I vaguely remember people shouting at me, probably telling me she couldn't swim. I suppose Kenny dived in and saved her. I don't know. What I remember from those 1 or 2 parties is a group of teenage girls who kept coming around the haystack spying on my cousins and me as we were putting our swim trunks on. So if I say I have a very good memory and no memory of the incident Scott describes, do I lose all credibility? Of course there may be an evil twin. :) One day at WordPerfect a woman called me and told me she was with Colorado Memory Systems and wanted to talk to me about a disparaging remark I had made about their product to a customer. I looked through my notebook and couldn't find any call with the customer she named, and nothing about a memory or storage unit problem, and told her so. "Well, you're the only Harlow there aren't you?" "No," and I transferred her to Harlo Park (who I found out about by answering a page for him the first few days I was there). Though I have no memory of it, if it was me I apologize profusely. Flannery O'Connor says, in one of those foolish opinions Eric Samuelsen says every writer eventually gets into print, that writers with no talent should be strongly discouraged (silenced, or hounded out of print, may be closer to her words). I don't believe that. People who are interested in writing ought to be encouraged, not disparaged, especially young writers. Every great writer at one time mangled language. I love Edward Dahlberg's comment in the Preface to _Bottom Dogs, From Flushing to Calvary, Those Who Perish, and hitherto unpublished and uncollected works_, "I have committed sundry moldy solecisms; yet I was not born to desecrate literature." Harlow Soderborg Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Re: ANDERSON, _Waiting for the Flash_ Date: 18 Aug 2000 03:11:38 JST Paris Anderson, _Waiting for the Flash_ A Scotlin Company Publication, 1988. We are at my mother-in-law's house, where our copy of the book happens to be. It is a good short novel written as a missionary journal. The narrator sees himself as a rebellious, problem missionary. After a mental breakdown he begins maturing emotionally and spiritually. I forget what the title refers to. The journal style limits the book in some ways, but in general it is quite impressive look into the psyche of a missionary. Anderson must have some background in psychology. Blurbs from the back page: "Paris Anderson uses the Mormon missionary experience as the poignant organizational context for observing people who love, fear, suffer, grow, change, fail and succeed. All missionaries do not experience their mission the way Elder Say does; but, some do, and those who care whether organizations, especially churches, are constructive or destructive forces should understand this perspective." --J. Bonner Ritchie, Chairman, Organizational Behavior Dept., BYU. "This first novel by Paris Anderson, is good evidence of how fast Mormon literature is maturing. It will bring you new understanding, not only of a major part of Mormon experience, but of a central human experience, the journey from life as a mere sinner to life as a pilgrim." --Eugene England. "Paris Anderson's account of missionary life has the ring of authenticity. His protagonist, Elder Ron Say, the ex-hard guy, may be atypical but his voice is genuine: confused, sweet, deluded, and filled with a refreshing honesty. An interesting and enjoyable read." --Tim Slover. Other fiction by Anderson: "You: A Missionary Story" Sunstone, Sept. 1987. Told in the second-person. "Our Way" Dialogue, 1987. More recently he has been writing self-published children's novels, including _Claire: A Mormon Girl_. Andrew Hall Wenatchee, WA (We flew in from Japan yesterday and are here for a week). >From: "Christopher Bigelow" >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: [AML] ANDERSON, _Waiting for the Flash_ >Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:54:20 -0700 > >In the new Dialogue, Tessa Santiago mentions a missionary novel by Paris >Anderson titled _Waiting >for the Flash_. > >Anyone know anything about it? Especially, what exactly does the title >refer to? > >Chris Bigelow ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Revealing Ourselves in Writing Date: 17 Aug 2000 15:11:19 -0400 >It's not just LDS writers. All writers, I believe, reveal their deepest >feelings about Life, the Universe, and Everything in their writing. >Scott Card calls it their "world view." I agree with Card's contention >that writers can't help but reveal their deepest rooted understandings in >their writings. How these things are revealed would take more time and >brain power than I've got right now. However, I think it would be a >fascinating project to explicate someone's world view through an >intricate analysis of their writing. > >scott I have been disappointed many times by reading books by beloved authors who continued to write but whose worldview changed drastically. Hence their writing changed. Sometimes it changed so fundamentally that I could no longer appreciate their point of view. This happened with Robert Heinlein's writing, and with Isaac Asimov's writing, but not, so far as I can tell, with Ray Bradbury's writing. I wonder what will happen to my writing. I tried to edit a story I completed when I was fifteen. I had not prepared it for publication at that time. Now I cannot change it because I no longer believe in my own reactions; the characters would behave differently now. Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Re: ANDERSON, _Waiting for the Flash_ Date: 17 Aug 2000 13:50:28 -0700 Thanks, Andrew "Bibliography" Hall. I found this book for $22 at Alibris.co= m but only $5 thru Sam Weller's online. Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Read my novella about Mormon missionaries at http://www1.mightywords.com/as= p/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=3DEB00016373. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 17 Aug 2000 14:39:23 -0600 Harlow Clark wrote: >While I am occasionally (a lot more occasionally than I would like) a big >jerk, and while I was working in the English dept's writing lab in JKHB >in the spring of 83, I doubt this was me. It doesn't sound like the way I >would have approached someone's paper, and I very rarely got creative >work. ...which he followed up with a lot of interesting stuff. In case it wasn't clear from my original comment, I thought that anonymous TA's comments to be quite valuable in that they forced me to deal with the fact that not all people will like the things that I write. I think every new writer is faced at some point with the realization that while what they wrote may be well done, sometimes people just won't like it anyway. So while the memory may have been painful, it was a key one in forcing me to think about how what I write interacts with the broad concept of audience. It also taught me that just because someone has an opinion, I don't have to accept it at face value--a necessary skill if you plan to write for more than your immediate family (of course it's necessary for some us even within our immediate family). I survived my crisis of faith because I have an ego the size of New Hampshire. I know others have not survived their crises, and I think some fine writers have been lost because of the ordinary comments of readers. (FWIW, the anonymous TA was not trying to be mean. He was expressing an opinion that I eventually took to be quite valid. It was just the first time I had faced the possibility that my fiction wasn't at the highest levels of depth and/or competence. A sobering--and quite necessary--experience.) You raise an interesting point about the role of criticism for developing authors. I'm not sure any of us should tell another writer not to write, but I think we should give honest opinions when asked--keeping in mind that there are constructive and destructive ways of giving an opinion. I think Mormons often face an extra level of frustration when writing stories containing Mormon worldviews or mindsets. In addition to the standard issues of craft, story, and structure, they also have an at least somewhat alien view of how things are or should be. But that's another discussion. The main reason I thought that TA might be the venerable Harlow, was that I remember that person looking pretty much exactly like the modern-day Harlow. (Which is probably proof that it can't be you--no one looks the same twenty years later, do they?) I remember the TA telling me that I needed to do more descriptive writing (mine was heavily plot-oriented, with little or no description). He then told me about his own story that featured several pages just describing how the rain dripped off a (barn? apartment?) roof, and how that set up the POV's entire mindset. Does that sound familiar. Not that it matters, but one is always curious... Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Lindsey Phillip DEW, _The Trial_ (Review) Date: 17 Aug 2000 14:36:18 -0700 >At the risk of offending citizens of small Mormon towns >everywhere, let me just say that ... I have no comment! > >In the book, I'm not sure they turned against their >home-town lawyer as much as they turned on their >bishop who, in their minds, should have known that >"Thou shalt not kill." One of the strengths of the book >was that, inspite of what everyone seemed to want to >do, he was the one who held out for what was right, >even though it was not popular. > Yes. You're absolutely right. And if you remember correctly, he came very close to betraying the trust of his client, but stopped at the last minute. It was a nice scene. >It probably had to be a small home-town to be that >conflicting and one-minded. Had the book been set >in a large metropolis (SLC, for example), the reaction >would probably have been ho-hum, and I believe the >story would have lost its power. > >Besides, there had to be some place up the road for ... >oops, I told myself not to do that, didn't I? > >Larry Jackson Thanks for the good comments! --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Shawn and Melinda Ambrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Date: 17 Aug 2000 15:12:32 -0400 Books that one must appreciate for its writing and not its pace will never do as well because the audience that wants to appreciate that book is much smaller. I think the audience that _could_ appreciate the book is actually quite large. But since, I believe, most people read as an escape, they don't want to have to extend the mental energy needed to appreciate "artistic" works. Terry Jeffress Most people in our day don't read. Or, they don't read seriously heavy literature. Or, they read it only in high school or college courses. Or, they only read newspaper articles or non-fiction. I have a relative I visit monthly for two days at a time. Books are so much a part of my life, and so absent from hers, that I routinely bring four books with me and almost invariably finish two of them while I'm at her house. She has nothing to read in bathroom! What responsibility do we have for this phenomenon, and what should we do about it? There is not time to read everything... Melinda L. Ambrose - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity in Mormon Art Date: 17 Aug 2000 23:57:35 -0600 Alan Mitchell wrote: > Since neither Martindale nor anybody addressed my question regarding the > place for Nudity in Mormon Art, (and I mean real nudity, not just talking > about it in the shower, but real Picasso type stuff), I'll have to assume > that no such thing will exist in the near future. Maybe I missed the question, or maybe I couldn't think of any special role for nudity in Mormon art as opposed to any other art. But since you asked (challenged) a second time, I'll try to think of something clever. If the next Mormon film after _God's Army_ is called _Adam and Eve_, I would like to see the first couple's nudity portrayed simply and realistically, without long hair for Eve conveniently covering her breasts, or strategically placed shrubbery always covering up the sensitive areas. They were nude, innocent, and unashamed. Why should we be ashamed about it? If someone paints a portrait of the scene with Noah and Ham, they should paint it with Noah nude, period, like he really was. If someone does a sculpture of the tormented in hell, I think it would be appropriate and powerful to show nude beings writhing within flames of torture. I don't know what else to say. If the art calls for some nudity in a way that isn't denigrading to the human body, it ought to include it, Mormon art or otherwise. I don't think we need to figure out ways to include nudity in Mormon art. I just think we need to relax our attitudes toward nudity so we _can_ include it if its warranted. > Shucks, I wanted someone on the list to be the first AML streaker. 3 am Saturday night, my place. Come watch or participate. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: [AML] Catharsis and Compassion Date: 18 Aug 2000 09:08:53 -0600 I'd like to add another take on Eric Samuelson's question of catharsis and compassion. Dave Wolverton has developed something he calls "the Stress Induction/Reduction Theory of Storytelling" which I interpret to say that when an audience member (reader, viewer, whatever) experiences vicariously a character's stresses, that audience member becomes better able to cope with his/her own stresses and better able to care about the stresses of others. (catharsis and compassion) Dave lists the key points in this way: "1) All successful stories arouse a sense of danger which heightens the amount of stress in our reader's daily life. "2) In response to this recognition of danger, our reader produces endorphin-like substances to help cope with the increased stress. "3) The net reward for subjecting one's self to a story is that once the story reaches a successful conclusion, then our reader, who has performed an emotional exercise, becomes better able to handle the background stress in his or her own life." There's more, of course, elaborating this and applying it to storytelling. (Dave let me publish a two-part article series on this subject several years ago in the SF and Fantasy Workshop newsletter. If there is interest, perhaps we can get him to let AML reprint the articles.) Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cratkinson Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _Nurse Betty_ Date: 18 Aug 2000 13:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Hi all, Clark Goble sent the following to me today, thinking we listers might be interested. Thanks, Clark! -Christine Atkinson ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey you might want to pass the following link on to AML. It's some very good reviews of LaBute's _Nurse Betty_ that is coming out shortly. http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=6723 _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 18 Aug 2000 14:12:50 -0600 At 07:36 PM 8/11/00 JST, you wrote: >Andrew's Poll August question: > >This one is especially for the writers out there (although anyone can >answer). > >1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Please tell >us about the person and how you think they influenced what you do. Of >course this can be any kind of teacher, including a university professor, a >member of a fellow writing group, or a distant correspondent. Well, my fourth-grade teacher encouraged me enough that I wrote a play that year. The teacher that probably did the most to get me going on my writing, however, was my high school physics teacher. He was actually a math teacher (and when I got into college I found out that he wasn't a very good math teacher at that). The high school had been remodelled and had a new physics "lab" but no physics teacher, so they roped him into "teaching" the class. All he did was say, "Here are some experiments you can do. There'll be a test on the chapter at the end of the week," and go away somewhere. The tests he gave were right out of the teacher's manual, so all we had to do was read the chapter and we were set. I spent most of my physics class time writing a novel. It wasn't a teacher who encouraged me to become a writer, it was my father-in-law more than anyone. He has always loved reading science fiction and when I married his son, he asked to read some of my stuff. He told me that I should send it in--it was as good as the stuff that was getting published. I didn't actually sell anything for another 18 years, but his encouragement (and my father's belief that I could do anything I set my mind to) kept me going. >alternatively (or additionaly): > >2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? Andre Norton was the first writer I admired and tried to imitate, then came C J Cherryh, and Orson Scott Card. (I don't consciously imitate any of them now.) I've learned from many other writers as well but I don't know if I could apply the word "impact" (seems so strong) to any of them. It's been more of a line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept process, with no great revelations that I can recall. Probably the closest thing to "impact" was the idea of the id monster on the movie, FORBIDDEN PLANET. Now that really blew my mind and got me into exploring new and strange ideas--I really think that movie turned me in the direction of science fiction and fantasy more than anything, and that's the road I chose that made all the difference. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Katrina Duvalois" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 18 Aug 2000 18:34:27 -0700 Thom Duncan referred to "historical cheating" in livening up a true story for entertainment. I agree, that a certain amount of "editing" to history may be necessary to create entertainment, but I find it disconcerting when a piece is presented as a piece of "history" i.e., Pocahontas, which has been fictionalized to the point of not even being recognizable as the real story except for the names, or location. As for Disney, I have yet to see a story that they have taken and not "destroyed." For example; I recently read the original Hans Christian Anderson version of "The Little Mermaid" to my children and rather than being depressed by the outcome (she becomes sea foam) I was moved to tears over her obvious Christ-like charity that she showed to both the prince and his new wife. I have realized that I have to separate some stories as two separate entities. Even the "history" our children are taught (and we ourselves have been) is not completely accurate and we must, on our own, discover the truths about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, and other figures from the past. We already know that some scientific "theories" are taught as "truth" to our children, thus history is sometimes tainted in a more agreeable way to be taught in the public schools. I think this is why the "Work and the Glory" series has been so popular, the history is fairly accurate and yet fictional characters have been created to give emotion to the stories. It is unfortuunate, however, that to get a lot of people to read about historical events is through fiction. Katrina Duvalois - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 19 Aug 2000 08:54:48 -0600 I haven't been able to read my mail for about a week so I just found out about the poll but I just had to answer it. The teacher who had the greatest impact on me as a writer would have to be Mrs. Covach, my high school English teacher. She gave us an assignment to write a short fantasy story and gave me an A+ for my effort. She told me that I should have it published one day and I still intend to. I haven't yet because it isn't finished yet but I am still working on it. Once you read my story (see above) you will know that I was most infuenced by J.R.R. Tolkien. Obviously he is one of the best in that genre. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 19 Aug 2000 09:39:46 -0600 I too have no real knowledge of the true story behind "The King and I" but I do have some knowledge of Pocahontas' story and I have seen Disney's version of it. I agree with Tracie. If they were going to make up the intire story why didn't they just make up new characters. I mean it's inaccuate from the time they show Pocahontas in the film. It's my understanding that she was little more then a child when Jamestown was first settled (no more then in her eairly teens) and that Captain Smith had to have been no younger then his late twenties, though he most likely was in his thirties. I have also seen "The Sound of Music" and read real life stories about the Von Trapp's so I know the movie doesn't follow the true story exactly but I also know that it is very close, unlike Pocahontas. The only thing true in Disney's version is the names used, period. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Coke NEWELL, _Latter Days_ (Review) Date: 18 Aug 2000 18:33:48 -0700 Review ====== Coke Newell, "Latter Days -- A Guided Tour Through Six Billion Years Of Mormonism" (c)2000, Clayton Corey Newell Published by St. Martin's Press Hardback $24.95, 259 pp. + bibliography + index Review by Jeffrey Needle Back in the late '60's, as a young convert to Christianity, I was anxious to engage as many of the practitioners of this religion as possible. Doctrine seemed less important than personality. All Christian churches pretty much looked alike to me. One of the great superstars of the era was Rev. Bob Harrington, a flamboyant preacher known to us as the Chaplain of Bourbon Street. He walked the streets of New Orleans, easily identified by his trademark red tie and socks, and brought strippers and pimps to repentance (between drinks, of course). Harrington finally landed a gig at Carnegie Hall in New York City, where I grew up. I sat in the great Hall and watched the great man. He was, indeed, a rare character. Part of the Harrington lore was his appearance on the Tonight Show (back in the Carson days). When they returned from a commercial break, Harrington was fuming. The sponsor was Coca Cola, back in the days when their slogan was "Coke Adds Life." Harrington blasted them -- "Coke kills! How can they say it adds life?" The Coca Cola Company was not amused. They sued Harrington. So he laid down a challenge -- "Let's bring a corpse, in a coffin, into a courtroom. You bring as many six packs of Coke as you can carry, we'll pry the lid open, and pour the liquid on the corpse. As soon as it comes to life, I'll apologize." Coca Cola dropped the suit. This episode came to mind as I read "Latter Days." I thought to myself, "Well, what do you know -- Coke really *does* add life! Harrington was wrong!" At the very least, Coke adds life to an already lively and interesting story -- the story of Mormonism. Coke Newell's "Latter Days" is a lively and wonderfully-written account, not just of the institutional Mormon Church, but of the entirety of the metaphysics of Mormonism (thus the title "A Guided Tour Through Six Billion Years of Mormonism" -- a nod to the concept of the pre-existence). Covering mainly the period from Joseph Smith's birth to Utah's attainment of statehood, Newell brings the story alive with both historical and anecdotal accounts. We get a feel for this fine book, and its interesting author, early on: I may well be the only man on the planet who ever came to Mormonism by way of Jack Kerouac and the Tao Te Ching but the logic of such a maneuver is well accepted by Latter-day Saints. (Okay, not by all of them.) (p. 24) >From there, Newell presents, with no apology, the Mormon cosmology that sets Mormonism apart from the rest of Christianity. (We must wait until the last chapters of the book to learn more about his strange road to Mormonism.) No attempt is made to harmonize Latter-day Saint theology with larger evangelical thought, and this, I believe, is right. Mormonism either stands or falls on its own, finding its foundations in continuing revelation, sometimes independent of known written sources. As a work of apologetics, "Latter Days" succeeds, not because it presents any new arguments, but because it lays out the rules of engagement plainly and convincingly. Consider the following extended citation from the chapter "Christ in America": The Book of Mormon has placed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its prophets and members, into the critic's sights and the antagonist's rhetoric as much as any other matter, both in 1830 and today. And twenty, fifty, or two hundred years will not see that change. Then, as now, the primary attack is directed against the Book of Mormon and against Joseph Smith upon, ultimately, one and the same basic matter: the claim of new scripture, new revelations from God, and new prophets. And from one perspective, the attack is a robust one: nobody has ever proved the Book of Mormon to be historically and geographically accurate, nor has anyone ever proved that Joseph Smith actually saw God and Jesus Christ. At first counterthrust, one could say the critics likewise have no proof to the contrary, merely an empirical void. But this misses the point entirely. To the well-grounded Latter-day Saint, such arguments (advanced by either side) are captious and irrelevant. This is religion, not accounting. It functions at a plane far above, beyond, and divergent from historiography and radiometric dating, and it is "proved" in other ways. In the Latter-day Saint view, it will *all* be proved someday by those very methods, but such means used for that end will remain even then substandard and irrelevant. These are matters of faith, and the only appropriate proving grounds are personal and internal; one man, one woman at a time; between each and the God he or she seeks to know. (p. 48) Newell spares nothing in describing the trials and tribulations of the early Saints. His brief, but harrowing, account of the Haun's Mill Massacre raises the hair on your neck. One leaves the reading of this book with a real sense of the sacrifices of these pioneers. One of the most charming aspects of "Latter Days" is the way in which Newell presents a high concept, in the following instance the idea of "Church callings," and then brings us back to earth with a thud. This cite describes Brigham Young's reluctant acceptance of his orders to proselyte in England: A clarification: Brigham did not go voluntarily; neither did he choose the date nor the destination. But he went willingly, and there is a clear distinction in Latter-day Saint theology. One is called to duty by those in authority over him or her. One can refuse, make excuses, or flat out say no. The underlying theology is that the Lord directs his church through revelation to leaders, one at a time, each for his or her purview and that the Lord's wisdom exceeds ours. Anyone who has served in capacities of church leadership can attest that this is the case. And sometimes you just can't get anyone else to take the job. (p. 99-100) Indeed, one of the great successes of "Latter Days" is the humanizing, if I may say it this way, of a story that is an intensely human tale of divine leading. These were real people, in real trouble, with real convictions and, indeed, real flaws. The chapter "The Biggest Heaven and the Littlest Hell" brings us closer to Newell's motivation in accepting Mormonism as "true." He takes us briefly, but compellingly, through his early notions that something was not quite right in his Christian environment. The idea of an endless torment in hell just didn't seem correct to him. Mormonism's after-life concepts were, to him, exactly what he envisioned of a gracious God. This is a very good book. St. Martin's Press is to be commended for bringing this book to the market. And Mr. Newell is to be congratulated for doing such a fine job. Sorry, Rev. Harrington, Coke really *has* added life. If you're still around, give Newell's book a read. Who knows -- you may even trade in your red tie and socks for Temple garments and a Scripture Quad! --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN LDS Performer Releases CD, "Beyond These Walls": Jane Dumont Date: 18 Aug 2000 23:48:49 EDT 15Aug00 A2 [From Mormon-News] LDS Performer Releases CD, "Beyond These Walls" Jane Dumont 15Aug00 A2 WASHINGTON, DC -- Dana Bishop Sanders has recently released her first CD of ballads, big band, light rock, old Irish melodies, traditional religious songs, and swing. Dana Bishop Sanders grew up in Utah, learning to play the piano and violin and singing since her childhood. From that fairly conventional beginning, she has led a quite unusual life. As her musical talents developed along with acting skills, she performed over the years as a singer and actress in Australia, Los Angeles, New York, and the Washington DC metropolitan area. And now, as the busy mother of four children, she's also released an album containing her performances of 11 songs, 8 of which she wrote or co-wrote herself. __According to Dana:__ " 'Beyond These Walls' was written with the idea that I wanted to make music to help me on good days and bad--help me with my listening, help me on some days to simply not give up, help me to reach out more. The eclectic musical styles remind me that we can be surprised by what we hear when we really listen beyond our immediate familiar circle." The album is indeed eclectic - the various numbers express a wide range of styles and moods, including ballads, big band, light rock, old Irish melodies, traditional religious songs, and swing. There's a little something for everyone, but overall, the music is optimistic and joyful. The arrangements are very well done - Mike Crotty, the arranger, and Bob Dawson, the producer, are a Grammy-nominated team. Dana's rich solo voice is accompanied by various combinations of 51 musicians. Five of the songs from the album can be previewed on her webpage in several audio formats (see http://www.danasongs.com): - Sunday Kind of Love (Big Band) - Bless This House (Soft Spiritual) - Angel Wings (Inspirational, Irish melody) - Mama Told Me (Uplifting, Big Band) - Hold On (Contemporary Inspirational) Dana's creative lyrics add interest to the music and reflect some of the challenges of life, and a mother's approach to dealing with them. For instance, these words are from "Seize the Day": I don't need my own room - just a small bit of time, A stillness, a quiet, to look back and see - the parts of my day that were fine. To fill me up, so I can pour, to open my eyes to the day To listen and look, before I cross my life - I want to be able to say: Seize the day, seize the joy, hug the little ones running around. Seize the day, seize the joy, play your own music, savor each sound. It's only a day in the day of your life, it's only a moment in time, One little moment you've waited for all of your life. __Dana says__ "I worried at first that the variety of the musical styles would be distracting, but the album fits together well. The different styles are alternated through the tracks to give just the right mix. I especially enjoyed the songs written to traditional Irish music ("Angel Wings" and "Silver Promises") and some of the "softer" songs ("Hold On," "A Simple Life," "Bless This House"). But several of the more "upbeat" songs seemed to lift my mood effectively ("Down and Beyond" and "Seize The Day")." In the album's introduction, Dana wrote: "My wish is that this music will stir in you a spirit of hope, vigor, and joy--the essence of what I have felt in its creation." You succeeded, Dana - the music does just that. For more information about "Beyond These Walls," including online sample sound clips and ordering information, see: http://www.danasongs.com/ Or call 1-888-431-3262. >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN LDS Reporter Awarded in First Year: Morris IL Daily Herald Date: 18 Aug 2000 23:48:49 EDT 15Aug00 P2 [From Mormon-News] LDS Reporter Awarded in First Year MORRIS, ILLINOIS -- Vickie Speek, a features reporter with the Morris Daily Herald has won third place in the "columns" division in the recent Illinois Associated Press newspaper competition. Speek has also won honors in the Illinois Press Association competition in the "best school board reporting" division and the "best education reporting" division. The actual winning places in the IPA contest are not divulged until the awards presentation. This is the first year that Speek has been eligible to enter the annual competitions. She worked for several years as a freelance correspondent in Illinois and Michigan before joining the Herald staff in February. The "columns" award came from three different columns that Speek, a member of the Mormon Church, wrote in March and April dealing with genealogy and family. She writes a weekly column on family history in addition to features and hard news reporting. She is also the director of the LDS Family History Center in Morris. It was Speek's coverage of the controversy surrounding the dismissal of a tenured school nurse that won her honors in the "best school board reporting" and "best education reporting" divisions. The editorial staff of the newspaper has been honored with 13 awards for work it has done during the past year, including 10 awards from the Illinois Press Association and 3 awards from the Illinois Associated Press. Morris Daily Herald editorial staff garners 13 awards Morris IL Daily Herald 15Aug00 P2 http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/display/inn_news/news5.txt By Herald Writers [Vickie Speek is also one of Mormon News' volunteers. Congratulations, Vickie!] >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sally0115@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 19 Aug 2000 14:22:10 EDT Definitely the commercialization of books and fictional historical novels are two entirely different things. I found my love of history through reading historical fiction. I still love good historical fiction. What better way to learn of the Martin Handcart Company than through "Fire in the Snow", or the Moutain Meadow Massacre, than through "Fire and Fury", or the living of plural marriage than through "Family Kingdom", or the trials and tribulations of the early saints than through "For This My Glory". For those of us that simply enjoy reading a good book, why not learn of these events by reading of them in a fictional setting? I am not a ready of heavy works, yet, my knowledge of church history and American history was definitely started based on interest stemming from these wonderful historical novels. I don't know of any of you have come across the book The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall. It's not fiction, but I would love to see a fiction novel based on his book. Ruth Packer - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 19 Aug 2000 15:58:23 -0600 Katrina Duvalois wrote: > > Thom Duncan referred to "historical cheating" in livening up a true story > for entertainment. > I agree, that a certain amount of "editing" to history may be necessary to > create entertainment, but I find it disconcerting when a piece is presented > as a piece of "history" i.e., Pocahontas, the point of not even being recognizable as the real story except for the > names, or location. Let's not underestimate the power of such myth. For instance, George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree, but it's still a good story to tell your kids to teach them about honesty. > As for Disney, I have yet to see a story that they have taken and not > "destroyed." For example; I recently read the original Hans Christian > Anderson version of "The Little Mermaid" to my children and rather than > being depressed by the outcome (she becomes sea foam) I was moved to tears > over her obvious Christ-like charity that she showed to both the prince and > his new wife. The Disney Movie should be viewed as a separate attempt to tell the story, it seems to me, unless Disney makes it clear that they are telling THE story as it was written. The show had some great tunes, some neat animation, and that was it. > I have realized that I have to separate some stories as two separate > entities. Even the "history" our children are taught (and we ourselves have > been) is not completely accurate and we must, on our own, discover the > truths about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, and other > figures from the past. We already know that some scientific "theories" are > taught as "truth" to our children, thus history is sometimes tainted in a > more agreeable way to be taught in the public schools. I think this is why > the "Work and the Glory" series has been so popular, the history is fairly > accurate and yet fictional characters have been created to give emotion to > the stories. Don't get me started on the history of the "Work and the Glory." Historically, it's about as accurate as the George Washington stories. What the Work is: It's modern sensibilities projected onto a world that we know nothing about. The people in that novel are twentieth century folks dressed in nineteenth century clothes: occasionally, Lund throws a butter churn in to fool the readers they are getting history. This book is a NOVEL, one author's take on the story of the Saints. It should not be taken as history, anymore than "The Patriot" should be taken as an accurate account of the Revolutionary War. They are both entertainments. If you want history, read Arrington, or Davis Bitton, not Lund. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Viewing Date: 19 Aug 2000 16:03:53 -0600 Gerald G Enos wrote: > > The only thing true in Disney's version is the names used, > period. I'm sorry, I just don't see what's wrong with that. The artist holds no (I repeat) no loyalty to history. That is the purview of historians. The only loyalty an artist has is to his or her personal muse. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity in Mormon Art Date: 19 Aug 2000 17:42:42 -0500 > > > Shucks, I wanted someone on the list to be the first AML streaker. > >3 am Saturday night, my place. Come watch or participate. > >-- >D. Michael Martindale >dmichael@wwno.com Oh yes, just start this up, D. M., and NEXT you'll all be getting together for AML-List Strip Poker Night. ;-) ======= Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com Writing Page: http://members.xoom.com/adamszoo Little Ones Lost: http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo My new book, _Prodigal Journey,_ is now available online! Go to: http://deseretbook.com/products/4066899/index.html - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] History and Fiction (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 19 Aug 2000 13:00:32 -0500 Sorry I'm getting to this so late--I've been wistfully thinking about writing this post all week, in between other duties. So although others have made some of the same points, I'm going to chime in anyway... Thom stated: >I'll restate my opinion. History is history, and ought to be judged on >its accuracy as to time, and place, etc. > >Art, however, is art. Totally different rules apply. The ultimate goal >is different, too. It is not to teach, never, never to teach. It is to >entertain, inspire, cause one to think. Whereas an historian may be >looking for undiluted facts, the artist is looking for the "spirit" of >the story. I think that what Thom seems to be saying in the first part of this message is actually, do a degree, contradicted--or at least complicated--in the last sentence. In talking about the artist looking for the "spirit" of the story, Thom seems to me to acknowledge that part of the artist's concern *is* history--not at the level of strict fact, but at the level of human significance, which is still history in its essence. In other words, when a playwright creates a play about Joseph Smith, then part of the playwright's intent is to affect or draw on our existing ideas about who Joseph Smith is and/or the part he plays in our conception of ourselves. If the *sole* purpose of the playwright is to tell a story, say, about two people in love and the difficulties of their relationship, then the playwright would be better off choosing two other completely fictional individuals named John and Mary, so that the extra cultural/historical baggage about Mormon history and doctrine doesn't interfere with that story. Now, in talking about his own musical, _Prophet_, Thom acknowledges that although the main theme of the play was romantic, there were other themes relating to Joseph, Emma, and the Church. In other words, while we're watching his play, Thom *does* want us to think about not simply two purely fictional characters on the stage, but the historical figures of Joseph and Emma. I'd go further and say that although I haven't seen the play, I presume Thom either wants to affect how we feel about the historical Joseph and Emma, or wants to draw on how we already feel about Joseph and Emma in order to heighten the dramatic romantic storyline. To put it another way: I assume that it's *important* to Thom's story that his two main characters are Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith, not a purely fictional John and Mary. For this reason, it seems to me that concerns about the historical accuracy of a historically based play can't simply be dismissed out of hand as Thom seems to suggest. Once a playwright chooses to use historical characters, the playwright has to some degree entered onto history's territory, and can--should--be held responsible if not for every small detail, then at least for the fidelity with which he or she paints the large picture: to use Thom's words, the degree of accuracy with which the "spirit of the story" is depicted. There has to be some sort of reciprocity in these things. You can't have the benefits of writing about historical characters without incurring some related responsibilities as well. Depending on the type of fiction you're writing, you may also want to make sure that what you create fits the details of history as currently known. Personally, I rather like this type of historical fiction, though I also can enjoy the type of fiction that changes historical details as appropriate to make a good story line. I'm happiest, though, if any such changes are obvious--insertion of a specific, obviously undocumented point of view character, for example--and I have some confidence that everything I see or hear or read relating to a real-life character or period is either accurate, or at least not contradicted by what we know about history. Why? Because I like history as well as fiction, and I find it irritating to have to keep straight what actually happened versus what a writer may have changed for his or her own convenience. It requires extra work from me, and interferes with my enjoyment of the story. A writer who changes factual details, it seems to me, is writing for one of two audiences: (a) those who don't know the history and don't care about it; (b) those who already know the history so well that they can without effort tell the difference between documented historical truth and fictional distortion. For people like me, who care about the history but don't know enough about it to remember, without extra research, that Simonds Ryder existed at one point in Church history rather than another point, it's extremely annoying to have the feeling that we can't trust what we're seeing. It adds a distraction, an irritation. And so I generally choose not to read or view historical fiction that doesn't have a good reputation for accuracy, because I do care very much about keeping straight what I know versus what I don't know in history, and I don't have the time to research each time period myself to find out. It's one thing to say that you should go to fiction for enjoyment, and to history for knowledge, and not confound the two; but in practice I find it's not that simple. Besides, what we're talking about is not fiction that doesn't supply history, but that actually supplies mis-history: not absence but interference. Fiction that makes it all that much harder to keep straight the history that you think you know. (One possible way around this that I have seen is for the writer or playwright to include some sort of historical note describing what changes were made. I have liked this when I see it done--it gives me more confidence in the playwright's knowledge and faithfulness to history, so I can relax and enjoy the story.) I'm reminded a little bit of the type of science fiction that attempts to violate no known laws of the physical universe in order to tell its story. To authors of this sort, violating the rules of time and space as we currently know them is sometimes referred to as playing with the net down. I think the same type of label can be applied to those who ignore the historical details in writing stories about (ostensibly) historical characters: they're writing historical fiction with the net down, ignoring the rules of their own genre, or at least failing to rise to the challenge presented by the historical element of their writing. As such, their failing is a literary and artistic one, not merely a historical problem. My main point, though, is that even if you decline any responsibility on the level of details, there's still a responsibility, whenever you use historical characters and epochs, to be true to the spirit of the period or the person. And I think Thom's own words demonstrate that he believes in this level of responsibility as well--whether he recognizes it or not. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN New LDS Writer's Character Relies on God: BYU NewsNet Date: 20 Aug 2000 00:06:26 EDT A2 [From Mormon-News] [MOD: Does anyone have publication information about this book, e.g., publisher, price, etc.? Also, for anyone who reads this book, please remember that unsolicited reviews are welcome on AML-List...] New LDS Writer's Character Relies on God PROVO, UTAH -- Lois Thomas Bartholomew's book, "The White Dove," has everything "Harry Potter" does not: a character who relies on her faith in God. The inspiration for Bartholomew's heroine, Tasha, came from a dream she had one night. "I had a dream about a woman and a girl running from someone and hiding in a shed," Bartholomew said. Tasha is a princess who watches her father abdicate his throne for the sake of democracy. Tasha's father is threatened by Comnor, a man who overthrows the people's elected leader, Marko. Tasha and her small group of followers flee King Comnor and struggle to rejoin Marko. "It is an exciting book. I am a mother, so I am often tired. I think, 'I will read just a few pages.' Then I start reading and I can't put it down," said Bartholomew's daughter-in-law Amy. The book was written with a theme for a national young audience of readers with themes that promote Bartholomew's Mormon's beliefs. "Being a Mormon, my mother has put some underlining themes that you don't see in other books for children, like a faith in God," Ruth Bartholomew said. "There are certain things worth sacrificing for: family, your country and freedom," Lois Bartholomew said. "The White Dove" is Bartholomew's first published novel. She is working on a sequel to "The White Dove." There are also plans for a boy's adventure book. "It is important for BYU graduates and LDS authors to publish to national audiences. We have a responsibility to do good in the world," Lois Bartholomew said. Source: Local writes her own children's book BYU NewsNet 12Aug00 A2 http://newsnet.byu.edu/show_story.cfm?number=10622&year=current By Kami Cook: NewsNet Staff Writer >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 20 Aug 2000 02:28:02 PDT I think Katrina's view of history and fiction is the popular one, but it is a little outdated. The notion that there is a "true" history "out there", and that fiction can either maintain some fidelity to that "true" history, or it can distort it to varying degrees, has been all but abandoned by the postmodern mentality. These days, history is perceived by many as, in fact, a fiction. IOW, history is narrative--name ANY account of history that is not presented in the form of narrative--and as such, it is constructed. This means, in many cases, that a sense of causality and order is superimposed on a series of events. When we write a work of "fiction", we present scene after scene, and the implication is that one scene leads (causes) the next, or that the second somehow follows from or builds on the first--thus order is constructed, leading to a climax, resolultion, etc. A _history_ of events (say, the Revolutionary War, or the Crossing of the Plains) is a similarly constructed narrative. Events are portrayed as leading from one to another, a sense of order is constructed--voila! How is this different from fiction? You will say: "Because the events described by history actually happened!" Perhaps. Or did they? A great deal of history has undergone and continues to undergo revision. Like so many other experts in so many other fields, historians will often think they know something, only to find that they may have been wrong all along. Histories, like fictions, emanate from (or are sustained or informed by, or are constructed out of) ideologies. The history of the human race, written by a staunch racist, will differ considerably from that written by someone who believes all races are equal. Imagine comparing two histories of the Civil War--one written by a Confederate General, the other by a Southern slave. Compare these with the generic version we rely on as "true", which has been constructed from a predominantly Northern (read: Yankee), white perspective. Let's say they all describe the same sequence of events--will they be identical? I expect not, in which case, we have to ask: which one is the "true" history? The *historicity* of certain events may indeed be indisputable. But you'll be hard-pressed to find a historian who won't concede the possibility that any given *history* of events may in fact be disputable as to its *historicity*. What I'm trying to say is: there is really no way of knowing "what really happened." There is no "true" history "out there" to which fiction can (or cannot) be faithful. Talk to group of 3 or more siblings about growing up in their household and you'll get varying accounts--varying "histories" of Family X. The reason? Everyone has their own perspective of "what really happened." History is like this. To a great degree it is a matter of perspective. And our perspective is shaped in part by histories passed on to us, and we in turn pass on histories to others. Thus, we construct (and deconstruct, and reconstruct) our histories continually--and this, IMO, makes them fictions like any other constructed narrative. (The whole distinction between "fiction" and "creative nonfiction" (memoirs, etc.), by the way, is IMO a marketing ploy--the notion that "this really happened" is a big-seller, but the stories told in "nonfiction" are just as constructed and "fictionalized" as "fiction.") So, I suppose we can haggle over a novel's fidelity to the historicity of certain details, or given events (i.e. the sorts of clothes people wore, or the fact that Joseph Smith was shot at Carthage Jail in 1844); but to me it seems futile to attempt some sort of sustained loyalty, in a narrative labeled "fiction," to some other narrative labeled "history"--when that "history" is itself a "fiction", and that "fiction" becomes itself a part of "history". History is not an absolute truth, existing outside perspective (unlike, say, the existence of God--who exists whether or not your perspective allows for His existence). History is subjective. Yes, certain things happened in the year called 1971. And certain things happened in the year called 1999. This is not subjective (it is a matter of historicity). But how the events in 1999 grew out of, or resulted from, or are connected to, the events of 1971--any attempt to describe this is an attempt to impose order, to construct a narrative, and this attempt will be made from a particular perspective. This is a matter of history, and as far as I'm concerned, it is also a matter of fiction. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Card Son Obituary Date: 20 Aug 2000 16:48:35 -0600 Deseret News Friday, August 18, 2000 Obituary: Charles Benjamin Card=20 Charles Benjamin Card, beloved son of Orson Scott Card and Kristine A. Card passed away of natural causes on August 16, 2000 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Born July 28, 1983 in Greensboro, North Carolina. Charlie Ben was afflicted from birth with cerebral palsy, which prevented him from walking or speaking. Yet he blessed all those who knew him with his laughter, his kindness, his patience, and his love. He is survived by his parents; his older brother, Michael Geoffrey; his older sister, Emily Janice; his younger sister, Zina Margaret; his beloved friends and helpers, Erin and Phillip Absher; and all four grandparents. Another younger sister, Erin Louisa, preceded him in death. Memorial services will be held Saturday, August 19, at 3 p.m. in the Latter-day Saints meetinghouse at 3719 Pinetop Road in Greensboro, NC. Those who wish to bid him good-bye may come to the LDS meetinghouse between 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Saturday. His body will be buried in the American Fork City Cemetery in Utah. Family being served by Lambeth-Troxler Funeral Service. In lieu of flowers, memorial gifts to the Gateway Education Center, where Charlie was so well served, would be gratefully received. "Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall speak." - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] YOUNG and GRAY, _One More River to Cross_ (Review) Date: 20 Aug 2000 22:41:00 -0700 Review ====== Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray, "One More River to Cross", Volume 1 of "Standing on the Promises" (c)2000, Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray Published by Bookcraft, Hardback, 330 pages + bibliography, $19.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle When it was announced that Margaret's new book had been published, I was very excited. Her previous novels, "House Without Walls" and "Salvador" were, in my opinion, some of the finest LDS writing I'd ever encountered. I wondered how this book would compare with her earlier works, given her collaboration with Darius Gray. "One More River to Cross" tells the story of several black Mormon pioneers. Elijah Abel is likely the best known. Endless discussions about Joseph Smith bestowing priesthood upon a person of color have circulated in the LDS community for years. Some are convinced Joseph never would have given priesthood to a black man. Others insist that Abel was so light-skinned that Joseph didn't realize he was black, and withdrew his bestowal as soon as it was discovered. But this book takes the position that Joseph ordained Elijah Abel with full knowledge of his race, implying that this was not an issue for the Prophet, but would only later become an issue with the Saints after Joseph's death. I think this is a reasonable reading of the history. "One More River to Cross" is a story told plainly, with an abundance of historical evidence to support the storyline. In fact, each chapter is endnoted to indicate the sources of the claims made. A cursory glance at the sourcing reveals the impressive, and exhaustive, research done by the authors in order to present an authentic account. It would be easy to read this book superficially, and gain a feeling for what it must have been like to be a person of color in 19th-century America. And it would have been easy for the authors to present the Saints' camp as a place of refuge for blacks. But the reality of the times is laid out unsparingly. Yes, slaves were whipped by their masters in the cruel, gentile world. But blacks were not always spared the lashes among the Saints, among people who should have known better. Beneath the surface of this book is a curious tension that I've still not worked out. While most of the book is told in the third person, from time to time a first-person narrator is introduced. An example: "God moves in mysterious ways." "God ain't printing handbills these days, thank you, sir." "Mysterious ways," Merkley repeated, not even smiling. For himself, Elijah was not sure he wanted to be the black part of God's mysteries. I suppose Jane Manning felt the same way. (p.88) Without going into the context of the conversation or the identity of the participants, it is the insertion of the "I" in the last paragraph that intrigued me. Who was the "I" who suddenly imposed his, or her, thoughts into this story? This switch to first person led me to believe that we were to understand this book as a memoir, not just a historical telling. But whose memoir? Oddly, the further I read, the more I began to understand that this was, in essence the story of every Latter-day Saint, regardless of race. If the Church is to address the issues of race and gender, it must acknowledge every aspect of its history as "our" history, not a history of "them." And this is true of society at large. So long as we continue to divide people according to traits they did not choose, the road to real maturity will be scarred by the potholes of selective memory. Early on, when Joseph bestows priesthood on Elijah Abel: After that meeting, Brother Joseph called him on a mission, and Elijah knew he had as much priesthood, as many blessings as any white man. He knew it from head to toe and in every sinew. That, he guessed, was what troubled Elder Merkley [Elijah's erstwhile missionary companion]; that Black Elijah understood his own worth. (p.65) This didn't strike me so powerfully until, several pages later, we learn that Elijah has an imaginary companion -- Joseph, son of Jacob. This Joseph is, to Elijah Abel, as real as any other person. And, in fact, Joseph speaks the same dialect of black English as Elijah does! One wonders if Elijah really knows that this Joseph is just a figment of his imagination. It was the juxtaposition of ideas that struck me several pages later. For a man with such a fertile imagination, could his "knowing" he had priesthood have been as much of a projection of his own wishes as was Joseph of old? Was he really imagining the whole thing? If Elijah Abel was just a dreamer, as was Joseph son of Jacob, then why not understand his priesthood as just another dream? If the authors had planned this comparison of ideas, they did a fine job of it. I found myself having to stop reading and make a decision about this Elijah Abel. I decided his priesthood was real, and that this "real" priesthood drove his missionary companion away from him. Faced with isolation and continued subjugation, how can we fault him for looking elsewhere for encouragement? Other prominent black pioneers are discussed in this book. And we are promised that their lives will truly converge in the next volume. "One More River to Cross" is a haunting, beautifully written memoir of the lives of some of Mormonism's unsung heroes. Despised by the world because of the color of their skin, they found some relief in the company of the Saints. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than where they came from. And in the sometimes lengthy and stylized conversations between these fine people, you find a strength and an integrity that served them well in their long trek across the nation. You'll likewise find a deep humanity that extended beyond the boundaries of their own people. Read this book and learn. Here you'll find people of rare grace and native wisdom. Here you'll find the despised among the despised, somehow looking beyond the cares of the day to the promise of a grand tomorrow. "One More River to Cross" is an important addition to the historical record of a people who learned to reach deeply within themselves to find a sense of purpose, a sense of worth, that only the Gospel can bring. I highly recommend this book. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randall Larsen Subject: [AML] HOLZAPFEL & SHUPE, _Images of a Mormon Prophet_ (Review) Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:45:39 -1000 Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and R.Q. Shupe, Images of a Mormon Prophet (c)2000, the authors Published by Eagle Gate [Deseret Book Company] and the Religious Stud= ies Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Hardback, 314 pp.+ index+about the authors Reviewed by Randall Larsen I thought I saw Brigham Young in the audience at the recent Internati= onal Lion's Club parade here in Honolulu. The man I spoke to looked exa= ctly like the images in Holzapfel's and Shupe's book. Well of course it= really wasn't Brigham Young , yet after having spent many hours perusing I= mages of a Mormon Prophet and reading the well chosen descriptions of Broth= er Brigham included in the book-I felt I should recognize President Youn= g if he were to suddenly appear in the flesh. Holzapfel and Shupe ambitiously attempt to gather together "all the = known paintings and photographic images of Brigham from his lifetime" (1). = In addition the authors have also collected a representative sample of = graphic images of Brigham including some satiric political cartoons. The= book is divided into three sections. First, the book presents "an overv= iew of Brigham Young's life from 1801 to 1848." Second, the author's incl= ude and introductory essay "Now We See but a Poor Reflection." The first two sections motivate= the main body of the book which consists of the author's impressive colle= ction of images. Without this setting of the stage I fear the reader w= ould wonder why such a project was undertaken. After seeing ten picures= of Brigham at various ages, what is to be gained by viewing the whole f= amily album? I suspect one reason why we delight in viewing numerous images of Br= igham is the lack of a similar collection of images of the Prophet Joseph. Only one possible Daguerreotype image of Joseph is thought to exist a= nd that appears to be substantially retouched. In Brigham's case the imag= es are relatively plentiful. The question is how to make each image inter= esting. Perhaps a comment on the photo session will bring the images alive. = Did the photographer stop to straighten Brigham's tie and refine his pose= from image 87 to image 88 (238)? This is not a good strategy since perha= ps no one cares what happened at a photo session. The author's major hunch is that the reader will find the provenance = of a photo or painting interesting . How was the image made? Who made = it? How was the image preserved to our day? When considered in this w= ay, each image has its own story to tell. The stories are fascinating= and they perhaps raise questions that may be answered by readers. What happened to the painting of Brigham that "hung in the Lion House well= into the twentieth century" (84)? Is there an existant copy of the bus= t made of Brigham by a visiting italian sculptor Pietro Mezzara? (306). Was Brigham ever photographed by Matthew Brady?(3). Since I am a former Hollywood director of photography, I love the o= ld images for their technical features. The book includes generous descriptions of obscure imaging processes such as the Hand Colored Daguerreotypes, the Ambrotype, and the Chromolithograph. Another interesting feature of the book is the wide variety of writt= en descriptions of Brigham and his character that are included. The opinions vary from enlightened to depraved. Some useful chonologies of Brigham's life are included along with som= e rare photos of Brigham's wives and associates. You might see a resembla= nce in some of the images to your own contemporaries. I was amazed for exam= ple how much Marcellus Snow, a descendant of Erastus Snow resembles his foreb= earer. The author's book shows a historian's care for accuracy. Controver= sial issues such as how Brigham Young really died are skirted; however, t= here is no attempt to cover up evidence that the cause of death might not hav= e been a "broken appendix." I was gratified to note that on page 296 the = authors carefully note that the penciled notation "appendix broke" in Seymou= r Young 's diary was "[added later:]." This is significant because of Sam= Taylor 's claim that Brigham Young was poisoned. Sam Taylor wrote: In his journal of 24 August 1877, five days before Brigham's death, t= here is a penciled notation in Seymour Young's journal: "appendix broke." How did he know? This proves that Brigham Young's death was due to a ruptured appendix, doesn't it? Well, what is remarkable about that notation is that in 1877 a ruptur= ed appendix was not known to be a cause of peritonitis, called at that t= ime "inflammation of the bowels." In fact, it wasn't until 1886, nine yea= rs later, that Reginold Fitz, professor of pathogenic anatomy at Harvar= d, gave the pioneer paper on the subject. [Sunstone 15:3/16 (Sep 91)]. In my opinion Sam is probably right; however, I think the issue was= wisely avoided by the authors in what at first glance appears to be a Postum= =AE table picture book. The book merits a careful reading because it does grant new insights = into the character of a man who had a great deal to do with setting the co= urse of the church in the 19th century. Brigham is still with us in many ways. Now we can have his images = in our living room. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 21 Aug 2000 10:04:36 PDT >Don't get me started on the history of the "Work and the Glory." >Historically, >it's about as accurate as the George Washington stories. What the Work is: >It's >modern sensibilities projected onto a world that we know nothing about. This is perhaps the best reason for staking a claim in the belief that ALL history is, to some degree, fiction: we cannot escape the sensibility/mentality/perspective of the present from which we view "history", so all "history" is, shall we say, *made present*. Thus it is no longer "history". This, by the way, lends some interesting insight into the notion that "all things are present before the Lord" (i.e. the notion that only the present exists--whatever there is that we call "future" or "past" is known as such, and exists as such, only in the present--thus, there is only the present; the nature of eternity is NOW--it is always NOW). ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: [AML] BARTHOLOMEW, _The White Dove_ Date: 21 Aug 2000 11:11:06 -0600 [MOD: Thanks to several others as well for posting this information.] On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:06:26 EDT, Larry Jackson wrote: >From: Rosemary Pollock >To: Mormon News >Subject: MN New LDS Writer's Character Relies on God: BYU NewsNet = 12Aug00 >A2 >Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:30:00 -0400 > >[From Mormon-News] > >[MOD: Does anyone have publication information about this book, e.g.,=20 >publisher, price, etc.? Also, for anyone who reads this book, please=20 >remember that unsolicited reviews are welcome on AML-List...] _The White Dove_, by Lois Thompson Bartholomew. Houghton Mifflin, 2000; = 208 pages, $15.00 (or $13.50 if you get it from Amazon.com). I'm checking if the library has a copy. Reviews that emphasize "free of sex and = violence" make me a little nervous, as though that's the best that can be said of = the book...but we'll see. Melissa Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 21 Aug 2000 11:48:22 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: [snip] > > (One possible way around this that I have seen is for the writer or > playwright to include some sort of historical note describing what changes > were made. I have liked this when I see it done--it gives me more > confidence in the playwright's knowledge and faithfulness to history, so I can relax and > enjoy the story.) To redeem myself in Jonathan's eyes, we did include an historical note in the program, describing our approach to the history. > I'm reminded a little bit of the type of science fiction that attempts to > violate no known laws of the physical universe in order to tell its story. > To authors of this sort, violating the rules of time and space as we > currently know them is sometimes referred to as playing with the net down. > I think the same type of label can be applied to those who ignore the > historical details in writing stories about (ostensibly) historical > characters: they're writing historical fiction with the net down, ignoring > the rules of their own genre, or at least failing to rise to the challenge > presented by the historical element of their writing. As such, their > failing is a literary and artistic one, not merely a historical problem. Jonathan knows as well as any science fiction fan does that even the best writers of the genre "bend" the facts to make a dramatic point. Faster-than-light travel, though clearly impossible in Einsteinian physics, is often used as a dramatic device to put people in places that it would take light years to get to otherwise. Time travel stories regularly break the laws of known science as well. No less a figure than Issac Asimov has said that time travel is impossible. But that doesn't stop the creative writer from making it appear as if its possible. The onus, then, is on the reader, to discover for him or herself, the correctness of the science. I believe that writers of historical fiction can similarly bend the "laws" of history, telescoping events for dramatic purposes, combining characters, inventing characters, if they want to. Michaelangelo and the Pope never really had that discussion they do in the movie. Elizabeth never actually attended the Globe, though you wouldn't think so if you thought that _Shakespeare in Love_ was accurate history. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] MN New LDS Writer's Character Relies on God: BYU NewsNet Date: 21 Aug 2000 16:02:41 EDT In a message dated 8/21/00 11:19:03 AM Central Daylight Time, lajackson@juno.com writes: << The book was written with a theme for a national young audience of readers with themes that promote Bartholomew's Mormon's beliefs. "Being a Mormon, my mother has put some underlining themes that you don't see in other books for children, like a faith in God," Ruth Bartholomew said. >> My book on young pioneers (Stories of Young Pioneers: In Their Own Words) just came out and I had to be so PC that most the comments I made about faith and religion were deleted. It's geared to age 12 to 16, and being pushed to public schools. (American history, emigrant trail etc). In a situation like this, I think a publisher is very cautious. In a fiction book such as Bartholomew wrote, you can be more preachy and still be accepted. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] PERRY/HOFFMAN/PAYNE, _Scripture Scouts_ (Articles of Faith) (Review) Date: 21 Aug 2000 17:58:44 -0400 On the other hand, my older kids love it-though we have the Book of Mormon and Sampler, not specifically the A of F. Even my 16 year old will sit around and sing the songs. Maybe it's because they are old enough to get down on the little kids' level. And the ones in-between-that 8-10 year old range-wouldn't be left out of the fun for anything. After listening to them a couple of times they had them memorized. If we don't have the tape in the car they just quote it from beginning to end. Tracie Laulusa Original message--- I liked the music and found the children's type of play believable but found that the tapes didn't appeal to my ten- and eight-year-old. I loaned the tapes to a friend, and she found that her preeschoolers liked them best, though her eight-year-old was willing to listen. I also had trouble sorting out the characters. Eden thought the dog was Cookie Monster and wanted to know why I'd never told her Cookie Monster was a Mormon. I think if the tapes came with a story song book that introduced the characters, children would be able to identify them and get into the story sooner. The Scripture Scout tapes do their job, and I would recomend them for parents, especially of small children, to help them get through Sundays and other quiet times. Eden sometimes listens to them during the week, usually when I am trying to take a nap. If I ask her to turn it off, she asks me, "Don't you want me to listen to the scriptures?" What better recommendation could you have than that. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald G Enos Subject: [AML] History and Fiction (was: Movie Viewing) Date: 21 Aug 2000 17:14:26 -0600 I disagree completly. If the movie is supposed to be about Pocahontas then it should try to hold true to some of the facts that we do know of that time, and those people. (It's my understanding that even the outfits she wore were not right.) If they were going to make the story up completly from begining to end then they should have made up the names as well. That movie was made for children to view and it was mentioned that it was based on true events. So now there are alot of children out there that think it happened the way it did in the movie. That, IMHO, is a disservice to the people who viewed it and the people who actually lived it. I have no problem with historical fiction like The Work and The Glory because it tries to present what history is there as close as possible to the true events while still maintaining that the story and main characters in it are fictional. So my problem is with writers writing about historical characters but fictional events. If the events are all going to be fictional the characters should be too. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Katrina Duvalois" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 21 Aug 2000 22:18:05 -0700 On the contrary, Jason, I don't believe that my view is outdated simply BECAUSE it is the popular view. I also believe that history is much like the movie "Rakumon" which is the same story of a murder told from several different viewpoints, even the "victim" returns as a ghost and gives his own version. What is the truth? It is a compilation of all the events given, if you can make any sense of them. This is my perception of historical truth, or as close as we can get to it. So, I suppose that I agree with you that history as absolute truth is non-existent, but to get as close to the truth as possible you need to read different accounts of the same event (your example of reading about the Civil War from the Northern view and the Southern view is what I'm talking about). Even after that you will not "know" what the truth was, but you will at least be informed on different perspectives and thus (hopefully) dispel ingnorance. Is not the purpose of recording history to "learn something from it?" If all history is deemed as fiction then what's the point of reading it or studying it if the only thing to be gained from it is to be entertained or possibly enlightened from a "valuable Piece of fiction" (which does have some merit). My argument against Disney is that the audience is small children with no understanding of the actual events and the responsiblility then lies on the parents (who may also be ill-informed, or non-informed) to re-direct their children into understanding that "Disney's Version" of Pocahontas (or just about any other story) is just that, "Disney's Version." It has no historical or literary value at all except in its own right as an entertaining piece of animation with nice songs and a warm fuzzy ending. Part of my personal problem with fictionalizing history in this way is that it becomes "the new history." Children see the Disney Version of Pocahontas and believe it. Unfortunately, I think some parents are lazy and don't educate their children, those children are thus misinformed and ignorant of even a fraction of the truth. I still remember when I learned the George Washington cutting down the cherry tree story was made up. I was disappointed that it was taught to me as truth. If it is to be taught responsibly then I think that children should be informed that it is a fictional story to give an example of his character. There are ways to do this without destroying the value of the story, but to tell blatant lies and call them truths is appalling. That's what I think, anyway. Katrina Duvalois - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 22 Aug 2000 01:23:36 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > A writer who changes factual details, it seems to me, is writing for one of > two audiences: (a) those who don't know the history and don't care about > it; (b) those who already know the history so well that they can without > effort tell the difference between documented historical truth and > fictional distortion. For people like me, who care about the history but > don't know enough about it to remember, without extra research, that > Simonds Ryder existed at one point in Church history rather than another > point, it's extremely annoying to have the feeling that we can't trust what > we're seeing. It adds a distraction, an irritation. And so I generally > choose not to read or view historical fiction that doesn't have a good > reputation for accuracy, because I do care very much about keeping straight > what I know versus what I don't know in history, and I don't have the time > to research each time period myself to find out. I think those who choose to do historical fiction ought to take the approach that they will be as accurate as possible, unless there is some compelling dramatic reason to be otherwise. Of course, one person's compelling reason is another person's cheating with the facts. I probably take a middle ground between Thom and Jonathan's philosophies. When I watched _Prophet_, I was baffled by the choice of Simonds Ryder as the villain. Why commit such a glaring historical gaffe when a perfectly good and historic villain was available--William Law? But at the moment in the play where the reason for Thom's choice presented itself, I recognized it immediately. "_That's_ why he chose Simonds Ryder," I said to myself. It was a reasonable dramatic purpose for altering the historical facts. But I probably wouldn't have felt comfortable twisting the facts that far. In my opera about the same period in history, the villain _was_ William Law. Yet I didn't remain true to the facts either. Nor did I insert any footnotes 'fessing up to my sins for Jonathan. William Law was a historically accurate villain, but William Law never fled to a Carthage tavern and incite a drunken mob to go out and kill innocent Mormons. He did in my opera. The difference between my and Thom's historical sin is only a matter of degree. We both lied about historical facts for dramatic effect. Furthermore, I believe _all_ historical fiction does that to one degree or another. There are always compressed time periods, composite characters made out of several real historical figures, misattributing dialog or actions that seem dramatically better in the hands of someone else than the person who really said or did it, tinkering with the correct series of events to fit the gradual increase of tension in the plot until the riproaring climax is reached, manufacturing of scenes that are dramatic but patently false, etc. This has always happened and will always happen. I don't think it's the author's responsibility to inform the audience of any of it. Audiences are responsible for understanding that historical fiction _is_ fiction, and that the author will invoke some artistic license in the telling of the story. It's the responsibility of the audience to find out the facts if they care enough to know. If not, that's their problem. But I also think it's a perfectly reasonable part of a critique to point out how an author cheated on the facts, and if the critic thinks he went too far astray from the spirit of history, to call the author on it. I don't think we need to come to a consensus on exactly where the line should be drawn; I think the interplay of the discussion is sufficient to be true to history: the author does what he thinks best for the story, the critic points out where he cheated, and the synergistic result is that drama and history both are served. > I'm reminded a little bit of the type of science fiction that attempts to > violate no known laws of the physical universe in order to tell its story. > To authors of this sort, violating the rules of time and space as we > currently know them is sometimes referred to as playing with the net down. > I think the same type of label can be applied to those who ignore the > historical details in writing stories about (ostensibly) historical > characters: they're writing historical fiction with the net down, ignoring > the rules of their own genre, or at least failing to rise to the challenge > presented by the historical element of their writing. As such, their > failing is a literary and artistic one, not merely a historical problem. I disagree completely with this, in no small part because I am opposed to the science fiction purists who say that science fiction must violate no known laws of science. I say balderdash--if the story's good, that's all that matters. Otherwise we could never have any practical faster-than-light travel, and absolutely no time travel stories. Of course, part of what makes a science fiction story good could be how well the author tells a futuristic story by carefully following the laws of science. I have no problem with those who like to write such stories and those who like to read such stories. But I have a big problem when they say I can't write stories that violate that philosophy and still call it science fiction. Who are they to dictate my artistic tastes? -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 22 Aug 2000 01:42:40 -0600 Jason Steed wrote: > History is like this. To a great degree it is a matter of perspective. And > our perspective is shaped in part by histories passed on to us, and we in > turn pass on histories to others. Thus, we construct (and deconstruct, and > reconstruct) our histories continually--and this, IMO, makes them fictions > like any other constructed narrative. All throughout this history-and-fiction debate, as I continually came down on the side of allowing artistic license in historical fiction, a part of me was bothered by the fact that some historical fictions really irritate me for their historical inaccuracy. I remained silent about that, because who wants to display their contradictory opinions in public and make fools of themselves? But I finally figured out what the difference was. I can watch _Braveheart_, know it's mostly fictitious, and still enjoy it. But give me any Oliver Stone historical film and I throw up. What's the difference? It's because _Braveheart_ is intended to be entertainment, and therefore I allow artistic license. But Oliver Stone films clearly have an element of didactic propaganda in them. If fiction aspires to be didactic, then I demand factual accuracy from it, otherwise I categorize it as crass propaganda. This is probably why LDS fiction whose main purpose is to convert or uplift is so disliked: it's purpose is not entertainment, but didactic propaganda. With that as its purpose, it had better be factually accurate. But the critics thereof don't think it's very accurate to life at all. Under the circumstances, they have a right to complain about its propagandistic inaccuracy. Of course, if one follows the oft-touted advice to avoid conscious didacticism in their fiction, one can bypass this problem altogether. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:08:15 EDT In a message dated 8/22/00 11:45:46 AM Central Daylight Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << In my opera about the same period in history, the villain _was_ William Law. Yet I didn't remain true to the facts either. Nor did I insert any footnotes 'fessing up to my sins for Jonathan. William Law was a historically accurate villain, but William Law never fled to a Carthage tavern and incite a drunken mob to go out and kill innocent Mormons. He did in my opera. The difference between my and Thom's historical sin is only a matter of degree. We both lied about historical facts for dramatic effect. >> I know that William Law was JS's trusted counselor until the big fallout over polygamy, which he could not accept. In my opinion, he was NOT a villain because of this. Yes, he eventually turned against Joseph, but I believe he didn't turn against the church until later. I think Mormon writers tend to take these characters and make them villains, when they had been highly respected until the polygamy issue arose. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 22 Aug 2000 10:30:47 PDT >On the contrary, Jason, I don't believe that my view is outdated simply >BECAUSE it is the popular view. I didn't say it was outdated BECAUSE it was popular. I said (or, at least, I meant) it was popular but ALSO outdated. My apologies for any confusion. >I also believe that history is much like >the movie "Rakumon" which is the same story of a murder told from several >different viewpoints, even the "victim" returns as a ghost and gives his >own >version. What is the truth? It is a compilation of all the events given, >if you can make any sense of them. This is my perception of historical >truth, or as close as we can get to it. But there are infinite possible "compilations"--which compilated version is true? What do you leave out, what do you include (this is the nature of a compilation)? If you include it all, you will probably have contradictory notions--how can both sides of a contradiction be true? >So, I suppose that I agree with you >that history as absolute truth is non-existent, but to get as close to the >truth as possible you need to read different accounts of the same event >(your example of reading about the Civil War from the Northern view and the >Southern view is what I'm talking about). You agree with me, then contradict that agreement in one sentence. If there's no absolute truth in history, then what truth are we "getting as close as possible" to? Incidentally, my sister has a roommate from Georgia. They are students at BYU. The roommate told my sister that the first time she EVER heard that the Civil War had ANYTHING to do with slavery was at BYU. In the South (where she grew up, at any rate) there is no connection drawn between the War and the slavery issue, whatsoever. Sounds like a different historical fiction to me. Different from the historical fiction, that is, that the War was closely (inextricably?) linked to slavery issues. Is one true, the other not true? Or are they both fictions--attempts to explain an event (the War) whose historicity cannot be disputed, but whose history is subject to constant interpretation and reinterpretation? Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 22 Aug 2000 12:58:18 -0500 Jason writes: >History is like this. To a great degree it is a matter of perspective. And >our perspective is shaped in part by histories passed on to us, and we in >turn pass on histories to others. Thus, we construct (and deconstruct, and >reconstruct) our histories continually--and this, IMO, makes them fictions >like any other constructed narrative. I find that I both agree and disagree with this. Or perhaps I find what Jason is saying true but not terribly useful. Yes, it's true that history can be treated as a fiction, in that it is a constructed narrative, adding causality to "facts" that are always subject to alternative explanation and formulation. The same can be said of physics. Yet physics, history, and the writing of fiction remain separate endeavors, with their own standards for determining, if not truth, at least reasonableness. Historians have not ceased writing and doing research simply because alternative formulations are possible, even expected. And they continue to critique each other's work on a variety of grounds, related to methods, assumption, care with facts, etc. This, to me, is the essential difference between history and fiction. Using the term "fiction" for history is unuseful in that it leaves us without any commonly recognized distinct term for the kind of consciously fictive narrative creative authors write that recognizes the vast differences in community, goal, and above all, standards of discourse that separate what historians do from what creative writers do. The existence of similarity and overlap does not invalidate the conclusion--verifiable on numerous grounds--that the two are distinct endeavors. This may sound like an odd statement, coming from someone who so recently argued that writers of historical fiction need to respect what is known about history as well as the requirements of good writing in fiction. But it seems to me that when you write historical fiction, you enter into a genre that has as one of its *artistic* values a certain respect for the historical facts of the period and figures with which you are dealing. Some writers are more "strict construction" in this regard than others, as are some readers. But part of the game is dealing with the stuff of history on history's own ground. I know that Thom has little use for the cultural criticism branch of literary criticism--that which looks at the social significance and impact of literature--but for those of us who don't see art as an essentially distinct endeavor from other areas of human life, there are also grounds for a social criticism of historical inaccuracy. If history is how we construct our own sense of identity (which I believe it is, at least in large part), and if works of art and fiction are one of our primary vehicles for gaining a sense of history (equally true, in my opinion), then creators of historical art must take some responsibility--must be held accountable--for the history they create. As I tried to suggest in my earlier post, I think there are at least two levels of this--the level of historical detail, and the more critical level of broad fidelity to the spirit of what we know. I'm not willing to concede that either level is irrelevant in critiquing or responding to a work of art. I'd also like to respond briefly to comments from both Thom and D. Michael Martindale on my comparison of historical art to science fiction. I'm actually less straight-laced on this subject than my earlier comments may have made it appear. But I also disagree that faster-than-light travel is the same as "fudging" the details of a historical treatment. I was going to say that this is because FTL travel assumes some sort of scientific advance that hasn't taken place yet--and that is often alluded to in some way within the story--but I think that for me, the critical difference may lie in the knowledge level of the typical reader. Except with the most juvenile readers, there is a pretty general understanding that neither time travel nor FTL lie within science as currently understood. There's no potential for confusion there. If, on the other hand, someone starts fudging with the details of chemistry--alluding to an isotope that doesn't, can't, exist in our physical universe--it's simply poor writing, unless (as in the case of Asimov's _The Gods Themselves_) that impossibility is acknowledged, featured, turned into part of the story. There's a lot more that one could get into on this--but basically, I think that whenever a writer chooses to deal with some existing subject matter, such as theoretical physics, or 18th century England, or how to ride a horse, or life in a rural Wisconsin county--it's a mark of good craftsmanship to do one's research and treat that subject matter with some fidelity and respect. As a reader, I feel I have a right to expect it. If I don't get it, I spend my entertainment dollars elsewhere--not because I don't believe in art, but because good art, in my view, respects its materials, just like any other craft. (I also agree with Konnie's comment that it's worse to distort a historical character than to create a new fictive character from whole cloth within a historical context. The existing historical character is something that deserves to be treated with respect--and it's bad art not to do so.) I'd also be interested in comments from any bona fide historians on the List. I always get nervous when those of us who are English major-types start tossing around conclusions about other disciplines--though it doesn't stop me from doing so. Anyone want to provide a historian's perspective on any of this? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Influential Teacher Date: 22 Aug 2000 11:56:50 -0600 1. What teacher has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? As with so many others, there's a few First there's my older sister, Melanie, got the writing bug around sixth grade,as and that inspired me, gave me my start. She never continued, but I've never stopped. But although she no longer writes, she is still a fabulous critic. She gives me amazing feedback that has really helped my work. The first non-family adult to take my scribblings seriously was Sandie Mixa, my third grade teacher. Her encouragement of my first attempt at a novel still carries me. In high school, Debbie Drummond taught me the basics of organization and structure, which saved me countless times in college. She also taught me not to be afraid of the process. Susan Winn, my HS creative writing teacher, introduced me to my first real critique group--a terrifying but very helpful experience. She was always honest--sometimes brutally so--but always helpful, and always gave us hope and a direction to go. My worst teacher has already been listed. I'm glad he was good for someone. Suffice it to say my experience in that college class practically crushed my writing spirit. On one of the first days of class the teacher (without having yet read any of our work) basically told us we might as well give up, because the chances of any of us making it were nearly zero. He always pointed out the problems in my work, but never gave me enough explanation or help to know which direction to go next, or how to solve the problem. alternatively (or additionaly): 2. What author has had the greatest impact on you as a writer? She's not the greatest writer ever, and many might think she's nothing but fluff, but for me she is inspiring. She gives me a boost when I need it, and I can see her influence in my writing all over the place. She was my hero during much of adolescence: Lucy Maud Montgomery. For those who don't know, there's a heck of a lot more to her than Anne of Green Gables. She's the first writer to make me lose track of time as I read, to never want to put the book down. I recently reread a couple of her books after a long drought, and it felt like drinking at an oasis. Love her. Other writers who would make my list include C.S. Lewis, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and many others. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Collings (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Orson Scott Card Bibliography Announced Date: 23 Aug 2000 14:35:22 -0500 THE OVERLOOK CONNECTION PRESS PRESENTS- STORYTELLER: THE OFFICIAL ORSON SCOTT CARD BIBLIOGRAPHY AND GUIDE by Michael R. Collings * Afterword: "Fantasy and the Believing Reader" by Orson Scott Card * Over 500 pages of text and cover reproductions * Cover Art by Erik Wilson The first volume documenting and collecting Orson Scott Card's work for the last thirty years. Orson Scott Card has won the Hugo, Nebula, World Fantasy, Japanese Science Fiction, and John Campbell Awards among many other awards and honors. His novels include Ender's Game, The Tales of Alvin Maker Saga, The Worthing Saga, Xenocide, Speaker For the Dead, Folk of the Fringe, The Abyss, The Homecoming Saga, Maps In the Mirror, Lost Boys, and many other novels and short story collections. The Overlook Connection Press is proud to bring you every novel, story, poem-every word that has been published-and then some in the Orson Scott Card Bibliography and Guide by Michael R. Collings. This is a must for any reader, fan, or library who wants to learn everything about this wonderful author's work. CHAPTERS FEATURED IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY * Bibliography: Book-Length Publications: Fiction, Poetry, Plays * Short Fictions: Short Stories, Novella * Unpublished manuscripts * Non-Fiction: Science Fiction Criticism, Theoretical Essays, and Reviews. * Video and Audio Tape Dramatic Presentations * Selected Secondary Sources: Interviews, Reviews, Articles, Biographical sketches, etc. * This bibliography is Indexed. * ALSO: Cover art of most novels and collections, rare publications, reproduced here BEING PUBLISHED IN HARD COVER * Hardcover Edition ISBN 1-892950-26-x $59.95 Publication Date: December 2000 THE OVERLOOK CONNECTION PRESS PO BOX 526 WOODSTOCK GA 30188 24 Hour Order-Information 770-926-1762 FAX: 770-516-1469 E-MAIL: OVERLOOKCN@AOL.COM URL: http://www.OverlookConnection.com/ocpmain.htm Visa, Mastercard, Check, Money Order Accepted. Order Online! - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: : [AML] ANDERSON, _Waiting for the Flash_ Date: 22 Aug 2000 12:09:07 -0600 This may not be what Anderson refers to in his title, but in her "Emily" series, L.M. Montgomery has something she calls "the flash." Montgomery herself experienced it as a child and described in her journals almost exactly the same way as she wrote it in this exerpt from the first Emily book: "Emily called it that [the flash], although she felt that the name didn't exactly describe it. It couldn't be descibed--not even to Father, who always seemed a little puzzled by it. Emily never spoke of it to any one else. It always seemed to Emily, ever since she could remember, that she was very, very near to a world of wonderful beauty. Between it and herself hung only a thin curtain; she could never draw the curtain aside--but sometimes, just for a moment, a wind fluttered it and then it was as if she caught of glimpse of the enchanting realm beyond--only a glimpse--and heard a note of unearthly music. This moment came rarely--went swiflty, leaving her breathless with the inexpressible delight of it. She could never recall it--never summon it--never pretend it; but the wonder of it stayed with her for days. " I've always thought it fascinating, from an LDS standpoint, as if the thin curtain were the veil, and that for her it was very thin, so thin that sometimes she could get a glimpse of beyond the veil. I have no idea if this concept fits with Anderson's book or if this is what he's referring to, but I thought it might be. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] PERRY/HOFFMAN/PAYNE, _Scripture Scouts_ (Articles of Faith) (Review) Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:14:22 -0600 We haven't listened to Scripture Scouts for a while now; we were hearing them so often that we too had them memorized. But as I recall there was plenty to engage an older listener--lots of humor only grownups might get. As an adult listener I loved them, songs and all. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: RE: [AML] PERRY/HOFFMAN/PAYNE, _Scripture Scouts_ (Articles of= Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:51:02 -0700 (PDT) I ironically purchased the tape(the first Book of Mormon one) a day or two before the review came out--I had it on my list ever since Marvin Payne mentioned it in his Irreantum interview. And my four-year-old LOVES it. I can't describe how delightful it is to hear him recount the stories to me. I especially enjoy hearing him sing his favorite song, "the King Noah song": =20 I want want want=20 What I want want want=20 And this is how I get it: =20 I take take take=20 What I want want want,=20 And I don't even let it Bother me,=20 No siree,=20 Cuz I am king, king king! What a great song for a four-year-old who sometimes struggles with sharing with his two-year-old brother!=20 There are so many great resources to familiarize older kids with scripture concepts and stories. I'm thrilled to finally find something that speaks to a pre-schooler. (And glad, too, to know that older kids enjoy these as well!) The only bad effect: these tapes breed covetousness on my part! I wish I could afford to buy them all right now! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail =96 Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 00:46:58 EDT Miscellaneous responses from a working historian: *Taking liberties with history* I have recently discovered a way to enjoy some works which, while based on historical events or characters, are more fiction than history: As soon as I realize that's what I've got, my brain shifts over to view the work as a kind of speculative fiction, an alternate history like the genre which explores what might have happened had Lincoln not been assassinated or had the Aztecs discovered Europe first. OSCard deliberately uses this technique in _Folk of the Fringe_ and the Alvin Maker books, among others. I can finally enjoy _The Work and the Glory_ through this mindset, although I am certainly Lund had no intention of writing science fiction. *History is bunk* A recent post summarized why history and historians are virtually worthless: we can't really know all that happened, historians must constantly revise their theories, there is no such thing as objectivity, yada yada yada. With all due respect, the only people who ever seem to engage in such handwringing are theoreticians, academics, and students asserting new-found intellectual superiority. Historians acknowledge those problems, then shrug them off with "So what?" Those who *do* history rather than merely talk *about* history know we have to start somewhere, we have to account for all the (admittedly incomplete) facts, we cannot ignore contradictory facts for the sake of a neat theory, and above all it all has to *fit* -- there is beauty and an order and a logic and a sense of rightness even to the chaos of history. Mathematicians, all sorts of technicians and pure scientists, and even artists of all kinds must constantly revise their theories based on their own growth and the ideas and discoveries of others. A recent AML-Lister wrote that he or she could not revise stories written at age 15 because the characters would behave differently now. Exactly so! We theorize, we learn, we revise, we try again. To single out historians for dismissal on these grounds is ridiculous. *Drama as revelator* It has been written here more than once recently (paraphrasing Max Golightly?) that dramatized history must tell something new -- "otherwise you might as well write history." It may be no surprise that this irritates me no end, this attitude that history is a drone who merely records the facts, while Queen Drama, ah! she alone reveals the unknown! History is pondering, discovering, recovering the lost, discovering the new, understanding what has never been realized before -- fiction has no monopoly on that. If historians merely recycled already known and accepted facts, we might as well abandon the effort and get an easier job on some other assembly line. Example: _Army of Israel_, a recent history of the Mormon Battalion, examined a previously unrecognized contribution of the Battalion in transforming green easterners into seasoned Western frontiersman -- a revelation every bit as significant as the discovery that Joseph and Emma were romantically involved. === We've discussed at length the legitimacy of genre in fiction, and of not misjudging one genre by the conventions of another. May I suggest the obvious? Fiction and history are as different from each other as literary fiction is from the police procedural. We can't pretend they are the same. Someone who is qualified to judge fiction is not necessarily qualified to judge history. I'll go back to biting my tongue when list members are unintentionally dismissive of the achievements of historians and the value of history, but I would also ask that you remember there are writers of every stripe on this list. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN LDS Author Mentioned in Cyber Publishing Roundup: New Date: 22 Aug 2000 23:36:56 EDT CT The Day, 18Aug00 A2 [From Mormon-News] LDS Author Mentioned in Cyber Publishing Roundup NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT -- This article mentions local first time LDS author, Tage N. Wright Jr's book "The Armageddon." The story starts with Dr Jacob Campbell leaving Salt Lake City with a donation from Brigham Young and other LDS contributors in an effort to find the lost cities of the Book of Mormon. Campbell is led by a corrupt guide who is on his own purposes and the trail of danger, intrigue, and horror begins. The novel is compared to Stephen King's Novel "The Stand." It is a creditable effort for a first time author and portends of future efforts on the author's part. I consider it a "good read." Allan B. Hale Sr Exeter, RI bigbro@lds.net Source: Cyberpublishing Fills Crucial Niche New London CT The Day, 18Aug00 A2 http://www.theday.com/arts/ts-re.asp?NewsID={E14D6A7F-636D-49DC-884D-CAA892402E58} By Rick Koster See also: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587212870/mormonnews More about "The Armageddon " at Amazon.com >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN God's Army To Open in New York, East Coast: Kent Larsen Date: 22 Aug 2000 23:36:56 EDT 22Aug00 A4 [From Mormon-News] God's Army To Open in New York, East Coast NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- Richard Dutcher's movie about LDS missionaries in Los Angeles is coming to the rest of the United States, as distributor Excel Entertainment pushes to get the film in theaters nationwide. This weekend, the film opens in theaters in Colorado, Kansas, New York City, Texas, and Virginia. By September 22nd, it will have opened in theaters in Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, giving most of the U.S. a chance to see the film. Along with the openings, the movie is getting and will be reviewed in major newspapers where it is opening. Today, for example, Dutcher is appearing on a radio talk show on New York's WNYC, a public radio talk show, at about 1:30 pm EDT. [The program is broadcast live over the Internet through WNYC's website at and will be available in the show's archive starting tomorrow.] Sources at Excel Entertainment told Mormon News yesterday that even after September 22nd the show may open in other theaters as the distributor continues to approach local, independent theaters. Depending on how long the movie lasts in the theaters, the movie could be available on video next year or sooner. >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN Evenson's New Book "Contagion" Called "Menacing, Chilly": Date: 22 Aug 2000 23:36:56 EDT Seattle WA Times 16Aug00 A2 [From Mormon-News] Evenson's New Book "Contagion" Called "Menacing, Chilly" SEATTLE, WASHINGTON -- LDS Church member and former BYU english professor Brian Evenson has a new collection of short stories out, but the collection, like his previous books, is unlikely to be read by most LDS Church members. Like his previous work, Evenson's "Contagion" is "stark, dark and violent," says the Seattle Times' Richard Wallace. Also like his previous stories, those in "Contagion" are heavily influenced by Mormon and Western themes. The Mormon influence on his work goes as far as the prose itself, which Wallace says uses biblical themes and phrasing. He also calls Evenson's themes "sacred profanity" meaning "God's word going horribly wrong, as syntax destroys meaning and attempts to codify thought lead to blind obedience." This particular collection of stories also includes themes of language, including stories with titles like "The Polygamy of Language," and the title story, "Contagion," which Wallace calls "an elegant examination of the menacing nature of language and belief." Source: Menacing, chilly 'Contagion' Seattle WA Times 16Aug00 A2 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/entertainment/html98/cont16_20000816.html By Richard Wallace: Special to The Seattle Times See also: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1877655341/mormonnews More about "Contagion and Other Stories" at Amazon.com >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 13:17:30 -0600 (a response to a number of different posts on the subject--it's too hard to pick just one...) I think part of the fear that many of us have with historical fiction is that some will be duped by the license that the artist takes, and will thus take dramatic license as fact. In other words, we don't trust the reader to know better. The story goes that a BYU student once adamantly insisted during a church history class that Gerald Lund's fictional family were actual participants in the foundation events of the church. As Mormons, our fear of believing in something that isn't real (or true) and later discovering that our faith was misplaced is one of the great fears of our culture--especially with regard to Mormon history. >But I finally figured out what the difference was. I can watch >_Braveheart_, know it's mostly fictitious, and still enjoy it. But give >me any Oliver Stone historical film and I throw up. What's the >difference? > >It's because _Braveheart_ is intended to be entertainment, and therefore >I allow artistic license. But Oliver Stone films clearly have an element >of didactic propaganda in them. If fiction aspires to be didactic, then >I demand factual accuracy from it, otherwise I categorize it as crass >propaganda. This is a matter of individual experience. Marny and I love to watch films based on historical events, such as _Braveheart_, _Elizabeth_, _The Messenger_, or even _Shakespeare in Love_. We love seeing historical settings realized visually. But we never assume historical accuracy, and nearly always do research after the fact to see how the film depiction varies from general historical references (we most often start with the Encyclopaedia Britanica). If the event is a particularly charged one, we'll compare multiple references to see how different people have told the "history" of the event. It's not cynicism, it's just recognition that all stories are told from a point of view and to an intended effect--be the stories in films, novels, historicals, or histories. Our first assumption is that the presentation is slanted and at least somewhat interpreted (and thus at least somewhat inaccurate). Part of the fun of the experience is to see how the artist altered "known" events to tell an interesting story. As Mormons, I think we lose our sense of humor (and our objectivity) about any historical presentation--especially depictions of Mormon historical events. So many people call us fools for our belief in the foundation stories of the church that we've taken a siege mentality and fear believing wrongly. >This is probably why LDS fiction whose main purpose is to convert or >uplift is so disliked: it's purpose is not entertainment, but didactic >propaganda. With that as its purpose, it had better be factually >accurate. But the critics thereof don't think it's very accurate to life >at all. Under the circumstances, they have a right to complain about its >propagandistic inaccuracy. But I don't believe that any story is ever anything but didactic propaganda. Every story has a teller, and every teller has moods, passions, personal beliefs, political or social contexts, and their own experiences through which every "fact" must pass before it can be told. Every story has (as at least part of its purpose) the goal of convincing the reader (or viewer or listener) of something, be it the validity (or lack thereof) of the narrator's perspective, the accuracy (or fallacy) of the events depicted within, the realism (or absurdity) of the situations, the reliability (or fallibility) of the author. Propaganda has come to be a loaded term these days (nothing like a Nazi Minister of Propaganda to ruin a perfectly good word), but its plain meaning is to tell stories intended to convince the target viewer of a particular fact, idea, or belief. In other words, every single piece of packaged information we receive in the modern world, from newscasts to films to novels to sitcoms, is propaganda. Even _Braveheart_. I would argue that there isn't even a degree of difference between _Braveheart_ and anything by Oliver Stone (or Gerald Lund, or Levi Peterson, or Orson Scott Card). At best they tell their propaganda with varying levels of obviousness to their slant. We label the things that entertain or enlighten us as good, and we label the things that offend or frustrate us as bad. Where the line is drawn is entirely relative to the viewer. And those Mormon stories that are allegedly so guilty of being nothing more than didactic propaganda tend to sell quite a few more copies than the allegedly more realistic ones. Which scares those of us who are "enlightened" to a higher aesthetic. What if someone actually *likes* that thing that I have already dismissed as worthless? That makes one of us wrong, and I dare not contemplate that I might be the one in error. I would argue that neither reader is wrong; therefore, the fear is unnecessary, and the dismissive criticism is essentially misplaced. It's all inaccurate to life. It's all filtered. It's all interpreted. We just have to choose who we trust and who we question. I question everyone until they convince me over time that they're reliable; then I still question them, but with less rigor. Jonathan Langford wrote: >I'm reminded a little bit of the type of science fiction that attempts to >violate no known laws of the physical universe in order to tell its story. >To authors of this sort, violating the rules of time and space as we >currently know them is sometimes referred to as playing with the net down. >I think the same type of label can be applied to those who ignore the >historical details in writing stories about (ostensibly) historical >characters: they're writing historical fiction with the net down, ignoring >the rules of their own genre, or at least failing to rise to the challenge >presented by the historical element of their writing. As such, their >failing is a literary and artistic one, not merely a historical problem. There's an entire genre of sf that deals with intentionally altered history. The authors assume that their readers will start from the premise that what they're reading is rigorously accurate right up until it stops being accurate. Half the fun for the readers is seeing where the author skewed the known, and how reasonable their extrapolations are. The best (by my aesthetic) alternate history authors maintain the spirit of the history even as they muck around with the facts of it. They take a historical trend and illustrate it with fictional events, and in so doing actually expand my appreciation of the original, generally accepted events. Different alternate history writers alter facts to differing degrees, but they all assume that the reader either knows the accepted history or will research it. Isn't it fair for an author of other genres to believe the same? I like the idea of documenting your more convincing fictions--especially when you rely on a great deal of historical verity to validate your story--but I also think it's reasonable for me as an author to expect the reader to be at least a little diligent in learning and knowing the events that I write about. The author is, after all, writing fiction that's labeled as such. While I believe in authorial responsibility, I believe the reader has at least a little responsibility, too. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 12:53:20 PDT >Jason writes: > > >History is like this. To a great degree it is a matter of perspective. >And > >our perspective is shaped in part by histories passed on to us, and we in > >turn pass on histories to others. Thus, we construct (and deconstruct, >and > >reconstruct) our histories continually--and this, IMO, makes them >fictions > >like any other constructed narrative. > >I find that I both agree and disagree with this. Or perhaps I find what >Jason is saying true but not terribly useful. Yes, it's true that history >can be treated as a fiction, in that it is a constructed narrative, adding >causality to "facts" that are always subject to alternative explanation and >formulation. The same can be said of physics. Yet physics, history, and >the writing of fiction remain separate endeavors, with their own standards >for determining, if not truth, at least reasonableness. This goes back to what I was saying in my discussion with Eric--that art and philosophy and science and history, etc., are all just different modes of knowing, or trying to know (or understand) the world, humanity, etc. I think it is very helpful to recognize this similarity--it is more than a similarity, it is an affinity, a co-dependence--between these modes, which we divide into "disciplines" or "fields", but which are not so mutually exclusive as this division tends to suggest. Perhaps it is more helpful to insert the word *mythos*. Rather than saying that history is fiction, fiction history, we might say that both history and fiction are myths--attempts to explain, to understand, made through constructed narratives. True, as Jonathan says, the different "field" have their "own standards"--but in the end the goal is the same: to better know and understand ourselves and the world around us. One of the main reasons I think this recognition is valuable--I want to say it is _invaluable_--is that it tempers the tendency that many of us have to create hierarchies, to privilege one discipline or mode over another (which is what I felt Eric was doing when he claimed art to be superior to philosophy). When I say "history is fiction", I mean it is, like fiction, a myth. A story (usually in narrative form) meant to explain, or to convey meaning. But the "truth" to be gleaned from history is not to be privileged over that gleaned from fiction, and vice versa. When people argue that "historical fiction" should be loyal to "actual history", there is the implication that the "historical truth" is somehow more true than the "fictional truth", and this is the hierarchy I am seeking to deconstruct. That is why I feel there is value in recognizing that history is, in fact, fiction. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 14:02:28 -0600 ViKimball@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/22/00 11:45:46 AM Central Daylight Time, > dmichael@wwno.com writes: > > << > In my opera about the same period in history, the villain _was_ William > Law. Yet I didn't remain true to the facts either. Nor did I insert any > footnotes 'fessing up to my sins for Jonathan. William Law was a > historically accurate villain, but William Law never fled to a Carthage > tavern and incite a drunken mob to go out and kill innocent Mormons. He > did in my opera. The difference between my and Thom's historical sin is > only a matter of degree. We both lied about historical facts for > dramatic effect. > >> > I know that William Law was JS's trusted counselor until the big fallout over > polygamy, which he could not accept. In my opinion, he was NOT a villain > because of this. Yes, he eventually turned against Joseph, but I believe he > didn't turn against the church until later. I think Mormon writers tend to > take these characters and make them villains, when they had been highly > respected until the polygamy issue arose. > Violet Kimball > Another interesting take on the validity of history wrt fiction. Obviously, if you were to write the story of Joseph Smith in a fictional context, you would chose another villain. Let's say you chose Thomas Sharp, the Editor of the _Warsaw Signal_ as the villain, and saw his incendiary editorials as leading directly to Joseph's imprisonment. Would that be any less valid than D. Michael's approach with Law being the villain? Joseph had a lot of enemies in those final days, Joseph Jackson, John C. Bennett, to name just two more. To tell a completely accurate story would so muddy up the narrative that your readers would get lost. I think those writers on the list who complain about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a compelling story. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 13:23:04 PDT >*History is bunk* > >A recent post summarized why history and historians are virtually >worthless: >we can't really know all that happened, historians must constantly revise >their theories, there is no such thing as objectivity, yada yada yada. >With >all due respect, the only people who ever seem to engage in such >handwringing >are theoreticians, academics, and students asserting new-found intellectual >superiority. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're referring to one or more of my posts here. I apologize. Any dismissive attitude toward history and historians was unintended. My dismissive attitude is directed more precisely to the mindset that tends to construct a hierarchy of "truth"-reliability (i.e. history is more truthful than fiction, or vice versa). Admittedly, I do tend to fall into the "theoretician" or "academic" categories, and it is true that theory is different from practice--but I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. They inform one another, and are inextricably connected. >Historians acknowledge those problems, then shrug them off with >"So what?" Do you mean to suggest that historians (the implication being ALL of them) have no regard for philosophical/theoretical groundings? You don't want to be dismissed, yet you dismiss all theory? >Those who *do* history rather than merely talk *about* history >know we have to start somewhere, we have to account for all the (admittedly >incomplete) facts, we cannot ignore contradictory facts for the sake of a >neat theory, and above all it all has to *fit* -- there is beauty and an >order and a logic and a sense of rightness even to the chaos of history. This sounds identical to the fiction writer's predicament (to me, anyway). The attempt to make it all *fit* is what I meant by the attempt to construct narrative, to impose order. Just like a fiction writer. I'm not dismissing history/historians, I'm pointing out their relation to the fiction writer, and vice versa. >Mathematicians, all sorts of technicians and pure scientists, and even >artists of all kinds must constantly revise their theories based on their >own >growth and the ideas and discoveries of others. A recent AML-Lister wrote >that he or she could not revise stories written at age 15 because the >characters would behave differently now. Exactly so! We theorize, we >learn, >we revise, we try again. To single out historians for dismissal on these >grounds is ridiculous. No attempt to do so was intended, at least on my part. I meant to make the same parallels that you're making. >*Drama as revelator* > >It has been written here more than once recently (paraphrasing Max >Golightly?) that dramatized history must tell something new -- "otherwise >you >might as well write history." It may be no surprise that this irritates me >no end, this attitude that history is a drone who merely records the facts, >while Queen Drama, ah! she alone reveals the unknown! Precisely the sort of hierarchy I was attempting to dismiss. I agree with you. >History is pondering, discovering, recovering the lost, discovering the >new, >understanding what has never been realized before -- fiction has no >monopoly >on that. Ditto. My point exactly. >If historians merely recycled already known and accepted facts, we >might as well abandon the effort and get an easier job on some other >assembly >line. >We've discussed at length the legitimacy of genre in fiction, and of not >misjudging one genre by the conventions of another. May I suggest the >obvious? Fiction and history are as different from each other as literary >fiction is from the police procedural. We can't pretend they are the same. But you just did such a fine job of demonstrating their similarities! True, they are not the *same*. But they do the same thing. They are different, but only as different _modes_ of knowing or understanding. In the end, the goal is to construct a narrative (a myth--and I don't mean myth in the sense that it isn't true, but in the classic sense of a story that explains) that is a means of knowing, understanding, etc. Neither is "better" or "more true" than the other. >Someone who is qualified to judge fiction is not necessarily qualified to >judge history. I'll go back to biting my tongue when list members are >unintentionally dismissive of the achievements of historians and the value >of >history, but I would also ask that you remember there are writers of every >stripe on this list. Again, apologies for any misunderstanding. I felt history was being privileged over art (as something "more true" than art, that must be adhered to), so I was attempting to dismiss that hierarchy--not to dismiss history itself. When the privileging of art over history occurs (as it has on this list), I have attempted to dismiss that hierarchy also... Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 12:50:36 -0700 On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:58:23 Thom Duncan writes: > Katrina Duvalois wrote: >> I find it disconcerting when a piece is presented as a piece >> of "history" i.e., Pocahontas, the point of not even being >> recognizable as the real story except for the names, or location. Thom replied: > Let's not underestimate the power of such myth. For instance, > George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree, but > it's still a good story to tell your kids to teach them about honesty. I never tell that story except to make fun of it. ("Well then, George, we'd better move to Virginia. If you cannot tell a lie there's no place for you in Texas.") Its only value to me is that it's part of shared American culture. The story's only value in teaching honesty is if it's a true story, true to the facts of American history--otherwise, why attach it to someone revered as "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen"? I remember when I found out the story was a lie. We were back in DC on vacation. We were visiting one of my father's colleagues who was on sabbatical, perhaps even staying with them, and my father's friend told me that when we went out to Mt. Vernon the next morning we wouldn't find a stump for that cherry tree and no one ever had. There had never been one. Knowing that the story is a lie, does it have any power to motivate your action? (I'm using _your_ as direct address, not in a generic, rhetorical sense.) By contrast, Thom has spoken a few times about how _A Chorus Line_ affected his attitudes towards homosexuals. I suspect that the story's power to do that comes from the fact that it doesn't pretend it needs to be attached to a historical figure to be worth telling. Parson Weems story pretends just that. It's no small thing to chop down a tree that's going to generate income for your family. Any child who lived on a farm with an orchard and had to work them would have understood that, and likely not have believed a made-up story about a boy doing something he's surely going to be punished for, but his father doesn't punish him just because he tells the truth. Parson Weems knew this, so he did something to give the story credibility, he created a historical lie. It's a rich irony, creating a lie to teach people to tell the truth. And I know someone's going to say, 'Well, isn't that what art is, a lie that tells the truth?' I love Marvin Bell's response to that at the 1983 Duke U. Writers' Conference. I'm sure he knew it was Picasso's statement, but he ignored that and simply said, "Whoever said 'Art is a lie that tells the truth' had no regard either for art or for the truth.'" Harlow Soderborg Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Merlyn J Clarke Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 16:52:22 -0400 At 10:30 AM 8/22/00 PDT, you wrote: >You agree with me, then contradict that agreement in one sentence. If >there's no absolute truth in history, then what truth are we "getting as >close as possible" to? Incidentally, my sister has a roommate from Georgia. >They are students at BYU. The roommate told my sister that the first time >she EVER heard that the Civil War had ANYTHING to do with slavery was at >BYU. In the South (where she grew up, at any rate) there is no connection >drawn between the War and the slavery issue, whatsoever. Sounds like a >different historical fiction to me. Different from the historical fiction, >that is, that the War was closely (inextricably?) linked to slavery issues. >Is one true, the other not true? Or are they both fictions--attempts to >explain an event (the War) whose historicity cannot be disputed, but whose >history is subject to constant interpretation and reinterpretation? >Jason >=============================================== While you may not intend it, your argument could be interpreted to suggest that the whole enterprise of doing history is pointless. I think what you (and maybe others (I have not been following this thread)) are overlooking is the difference between good history and bad history, or that all history cannot be somehow dichotomized into one view on the one hand, or the other view, on the otherhand. The example you use is a case in point. To suggest that the Civil War is/was either about slavery or not (presumably the nature of the union), is an oversimplification (something most Mormons are notorious for). Good history is about complexity. No historical phenomena, or periods of time, can be reduced to single factors or either/or's. The skilled historian is one who brings forth the complexities in a comprehensive manner. And of course the skilled reader of history is one who looks for them, and refuses to accept simplistic explanations. The reading of history also requires an ability to think critically, to balance and evaluate the variables. All this presupposes that one has read a lot of history. To suggest that all history is bunk, or that we can't know a lot about the past which is essential to our understanding of the present, or that the historical enterprise is a waste of time or frivolous approaches nihilism. Merlyn Clarke > >________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > >- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature >http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm > > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _Bash_ Telecast Date: 23 Aug 2000 21:18:25 GMT According to the latest issue of "TV Guide" BYU alum Neil Labute's set of short dramas, "bash: latterday plays", is going to be shown on the cable TV channel Showtime on Monday, August 28 at 9:00 p.m. MDT. This production stars the original New York cast of Calista Flockhart, Paul, Rudd, and Ron Eldard, and was directed by LaBute himself. The "TV Guide" critic gave it a strongly positive review, for what that's worth. There is also a site on Amazon.com devoted exclusively to LaBute's new movie, "Nurse Betty", which opens in theaters September 8. It's the first tie-in between a new movie and Amazon, and is worth checking out. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 18:16:32 EDT In a message dated 8/23/00 3:39:30 PM Central Daylight Time, tduncan@zfiction.com writes: << I think those writers on the list who complain about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a compelling story. >> In most cases truth to one would not to truth to another. Yes, I think the editorials in the paper would lead more to a direct confrontation, but why can't the sheer drama of the event be compelling without making so many villains? I believe John C. Bennett would be more of a realistic person to portray as an enemy. I think historians have also contributed to this "villain" mania. Even poor Emma has been the villain at times. She was no where to be seen in Legacy as I recall. Plays and movies don't always have to beat someone up, or ignore someone else in order to make a man or woman a hero. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: [AML] PERRY/HOFFMAN/PAYNE, _Scripture Scouts_ (Articles of Faith) (Review) Date: 23 Aug 2000 18:52:09 EDT Cathy wrote: << them so often that we too had them memorized. But as I recall there was plenty to engage an older listener--lots of humor only grownups might get. As an adult listener I loved them, songs and all. >> I remember being on my mission in the late 80's when this series came out. Steve and my mom would send them to me, but I found it interesting that all the missionaries in the office enjoy listening to them, and we anxious awaited each new episode. John Perry - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 20:15:25 EDT In a message dated 8/23/2000 2:39:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time, tduncan@zfiction.com writes: << I think those writers on the list who complain about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a compelling story. >> I think that our objections have less to do with a dramatist failing to INCLUDE all that is known, and more to do with CHANGING something that is known. Leave out "A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief" if it clutters the scene, but don't change history to have John Taylor sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow". Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 23 Aug 2000 21:10:08 EDT <> No. I mean that we we don't let the possible validity of some theoretical shortcomings paralyze us into postponing our work until those shortcomings can be overcome. We do history anyway. I acknowledge that this isn't your intent, but let me explain what I hear when someone catalogs the theoretical faults of historians and the historical process: "Hello. Your life's work is invalid and shall remain so until you overcome the following faults. Although I have never actually done any original research myself, I am qualified to catalog your errors." I repeat, I know this is NOT your intent, and that I am hypersensitive. You have to understand, however, that I hear this same philosophy very often, and always by those whose names I never read on the sign-in sheets of any archive, and whom I never meet knocking on doors or poking into sheds and barns and attics and basements on field trips. <order and a logic and a sense of rightness even to the chaos of history. This sounds identical to the fiction writer's predicament (to me, anyway). The attempt to make it all *fit* is what I meant by the attempt to construct narrative, to impose order. >> You misunderstand me. I do not advocate imposing an artificial order. I mean that an honest historian cannot turn the world upside down without sufficient evidence. For example, everything we know suggests that human parents generally feel responsible for taking care of their children. If somebody suggests that this basic human trait was somehow different in 1950s San Francisco -- that it was there and then common for parents to eat their young -- that historian had better present some darn convincing evidence. Otherwise, it just doesn't *fit*. <> Great. All activities that lead to understanding the world or ourselves have similarities. But the approach is different, so the criteria for judging the result is different: A critic who judges a work of genre fiction by the conventions of so-called literary fiction is no fair judge. I believe we (the list) have agreed on that. A critic who misunderstands the nature of the historical process (by assuming, perhaps, that a history is invalid if it does not present an impossibly omniscient panorama of the past) is no fair judge. Jason, thanks for responding to my post in such detail, even on those points which were not specifically provoked by something you wrote. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "mcnandon" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 16 Aug 2000 07:20:49 -0600 I agree with Violet and I cringe when anyone makes William Law out to be a villain. He was a highly respected, faithful member of the church who took issue with polygamy. Nan McCulloch [MOD: Folks, a warning: Details of LDS history are appropriate as they relate to literary treatment, but we don't want to get into a discussion that focuses on issues of Mormon history per se.] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 24 Aug 2000 00:45:38 -0600 Violet Kimball: > I know that William Law was JS's trusted counselor until the big fallout over > polygamy, which he could not accept. In my opinion, he was NOT a villain > because of this. Yes, he eventually turned against Joseph, but I believe he > didn't turn against the church until later. I think Mormon writers tend to > take these characters and make them villains, when they had been highly > respected until the polygamy issue arose. William Law plotted to have Joseph Smith assassinated. That makes him a villain in my book, no matter how pure as the "driven snow" he started out. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 24 Aug 2000 01:27:28 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > But I don't believe that any story is ever anything but didactic propaganda. Since we keep going back and forth debating whether art is or should be didactic, I want to clarify what I mean when I make the distinction between didactic and nondidactic art. I agree that all art teaches us something. I don't necessarily agree that all artists _intend_ to teach us something. Sometimes they just want to create a thing of beauty or an entertaining story. That doesn't preclude the resulting art from having something to teach. Nor do I believe that an artist who does have something to teach automatically produces bad art. The critical difference in my mind is, how honest is the artist to truth? Since our interest here is primarily literary, I'll speak from the perspective of a writer. We have two writers, both of whom have a story to tell because they have something they want to convey--teach--persuade us to believe--whatever. The first artist sets up characters and plot situations that will do a good job exploring the theme he is interested in. He then sets everything in motion and lets the characters act in harmony with their characterization, lets the plot events unfold as believable results of the situations that came before, and virtually explores the theme as he writes along with the reader. He may not even be sure what the outcome will be, because he's teaching himself as he writes. The second author has a point to make, an opinion to sell. He makes sure the characters do the "right" thing to sell that opinion, manipulating them like puppets on a string to do what he needs them to do. The events of the plot must occur, whether they are contrived or arise naturally from preceding events, because they are required to sell the opinion. I consider the first story to be nondidactic, and the second to be didactic, even though they may both teach us something about a theme that the author consciously wanted us to learn about. The difference is that the second one is _primarily_ didactic: everything about the story becomes subservient to selling the opinion. Consistent characterization, plausibility in the plot events--all this is secondary to selling the point. Both authors are trying to be honest to the truth. The first tries to be truthful in the integrity of his characters and plot events. The second is trying to be truthful because he's working hard to convince us of an opinion that he firmly believes is the truth. The paradox is that the second author uses lies to sell truth. His characters are a lie, his plot events are a lie. They wouldn't really happen or act that way in "real life." That is what I consider to be didactic: that which is didactic at the expense of everything else. And that is why I think didactic art is an inferior form of art: it tries to use lies to tell the truth. Any artist can be didactic--can deliberately, manipulatively try to persuade us to a point of view--and still create good art, as long as he tells the truth in the process of selling us on the truth. He doesn't shortchange the truthfulness of his story elements in his effort to sell the truthfulness of his message. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 24 Aug 2000 08:39:10 -0600 ViKimball@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/23/00 3:39:30 PM Central Daylight Time, > tduncan@zfiction.com writes: > > << I think those writers on the list who complain > about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events > ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is > to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a > compelling story. > >> > > In most cases truth to one would not to truth to another. Yes, I think the > editorials in the paper would lead more to a direct confrontation, but why > can't the sheer drama of the event be compelling without making so many > villains? I believe John C. Bennett would be more of a realistic person to > portray as an enemy. Though this could be done, you have a problem dramatically, I feel. It is pretty well uncontested by historians that the publication of the Expositor by William Law, his brother, and others, was the inciting incident that lead directly to Carthage. It is what we call in playwriting the point of no return, where the outcome is pre-determined and must move inevitably to its conclusion. > I think historians have also contributed to this > "villain" mania. Even poor Emma has been the villain at times. She was no > where to be seen in Legacy as I recall. Plays and movies don't always have to > beat someone up, or ignore someone else in order to make a man or woman a > hero. Without conflict, you have no drama. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Villains (was: History and Fiction) Date: 24 Aug 2000 01:52:28 -0600 Violet Kimball wrote: > why can't the sheer drama of the event be compelling without making so many > villains? > Plays and movies don't always have to > beat someone up, or ignore someone else in order to make a man or woman a > hero. I think you may be reacting to the strong word "villain." How about anti-hero? Antagonist? The fact is, the protagonist has to have something to strive against for a plot to happen, and in those stories where the opposition is represented by people, having a bunch of weak antagonists (because they dilute one another's presence) rather than one strong antagonist for the protagonist to strive against, just doesn't WORK dramatically! -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 24 Aug 2000 10:37:16 -0600 mcnandon wrote: > > I agree with Violet and I cringe when anyone makes William Law out to be a > villain. He was a highly respected, faithful member of the church who took > issue with polygamy. Law is an excellent villain for a story of the last days of Nauvoo precisely because he was intensely loyal to Joseph Smith up until Joseph reportedly proposed to his wife. He becomes a tragic, Judas Iscariot figure at that point, feeling driven to fight against a man whom he once loved and practically worshiped. Bennett, OTOH, was pretty much a louse through and through with few redeeming qualities. The best villains (another tidbit from Max Golightly) are those who have some redeeming qualities so that the audience doesn't automatically hate them, and who may they actually come to understand, though they don't have to agree with them. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Didactic Literature (was: History and Fiction) Date: 24 Aug 2000 10:51:47 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > That is what I consider to be didactic: that which is didactic at the > expense of everything else. And that is why I think didactic art is an > inferior form of art: it tries to use lies to tell the truth. We've seen the emergence in recent years of films and plays that use a new technique to teach us something, by appearing on the outside to glorify what they actually decry. I'm thinking of _Saving Private Ryan_ and _Reservoir Dogs_ (which list member Scott Parkin rightly identifies as a violent anti-violence movie). In both films, the viewer is dragged kicking and screaming through scenes of horrible violence, shown in as much detail as any exploitation film may do, but in such realistic or creative ways so as to give the exact opposite meaning as would otherwise be given. To tie this to LDS literature: I believe this is what occurs in our sacred writings. The Bible's and the Book of Mormon's graphic descriptions of violence are meant not to numb us to the violence but to show us how real the consequences of violence can be. John Taylor's bullet-by-bullet description of the attack on Carthage is not meant to exploit the horror of the martyrdom but to help the reader understand how truly obscene and cruel the whole assassination was. One of my favorite plays is _Death of a Salesman_. I like the play precisely because it is a tragedy. Willie Loman's suicide tells me volumes about how people ought NOT to live their lives. I learn a great deal from Willie's failures. Arthur Miller teaches us about the joys of life by showing us one very unhappy life that ends in suicide. It's like using only black ink and yet drawing a beautiful sunset in all its colors. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Didactic Literature (was: History and Fiction) Date: 24 Aug 2000 21:44:06 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Since we keep going back and forth debating whether art is or should be >didactic, I want to clarify what I mean when I make the distinction >between didactic and nondidactic art. [SNIP] >The first artist sets up characters and plot situations that will do a >good job exploring the theme he is interested in. He then sets >everything in motion and lets the characters act in harmony with their >characterization, lets the plot events unfold as believable results of >the situations that came before, and virtually explores the theme as he >writes along with the reader. He may not even be sure what the outcome >will be, because he's teaching himself as he writes. > >The second author has a point to make, an opinion to sell. He makes sure >the characters do the "right" thing to sell that opinion, manipulating >them like puppets on a string to do what he needs them to do. The events >of the plot must occur, whether they are contrived or arise naturally >from preceding events, because they are required to sell the opinion. [SNIP] >That is what I consider to be didactic: that which is didactic at the >expense of everything else. And that is why I think didactic art is an >inferior form of art: it tries to use lies to tell the truth. Any artist >can be didactic--can deliberately, manipulatively try to persuade us to >a point of view--and still create good art, as long as he tells the >truth in the process of selling us on the truth. He doesn't shortchange >the truthfulness of his story elements in his effort to sell the >truthfulness of his message. I accept your example but resist your conclusion, because you still require me to accept that your opinion of the difference between honestly drawn characters and situations and manipulatively presented ones is both absolute, and correctly placed. Let me insert here that part of my argument is that a great deal of what some writers decry as artificial, contrived, or dishonest is, in fact, the author's honest effort to tell the truth as they understand it, illustrated by characters and situations that they believe are honest, real, and natural. The problem I have is that when we as readers (and, by definition, critics) like the choices the characters make, we label that as "honest;" if we dislike the choices, or think they make too obviously "right" choices, we label the author and character as dishonest toadies to a cynical effort to propagandize. I believe that's both unfair and artistically self-limiting. I don't think any of us is qualified to judge the author's intent, honesty, or integrity in telling a story, drawing characters, or elaborating situations. Some people see the world as more clearly delineated into good and bad choices than others of us do. For those people, a story where characters simply choose to do a "right" thing is as good and honest a story as they can possibly conceptualize, and contains no intentional manipulation to make those characters act that particular way. To say that such an author is dishonest or writes with cynically didactic intent assumes true knowledge of the author's intent, and a fair and unbiased judgement of that intent. I don't think there's any such thing--at least not on this planet. Which is not to say that I think all fiction has equal value. By and large, I suspect our tastes converge more than they diverge. I agree whole-heartedly that much fiction is too simplistic, too pat for my tastes, filled with internally inconsistent characters whose motivations seem contrived and/or fitted to a particular outcome. I find such stories unsatisfying and of little personal value, and I reject them as failing to meet my criteria for successful art. If asked, I will recommend against them. I will even say that I think the author cheated intentionally if I believe that's true. But I'm not ready to say that what I like represents an absolute standard of honesty on the part of the author, and what I dislike must therefore be dishonest, contrived, or cynically didactic. In this case, the finger points both ways. As artists we tend to want to point outward at the alleged errors of other artists, but tend not to recognize that our own work can be decried using our own critical methods. My "realistic" may well be another good and honest person's "cynical and fuzzy-minded." Likewise, my "simplistic" may be another's "deeply held truth." I'm not advocating any particular aesthetic (such as spelling "esthetic" with an "a" at the start), but I do believe that the vast majority of authors really are honest in their attempts to create art. Most of them aren't very good at it, but I think they're honestly trying--even when their assumptions about the basis of artistic quality differ from mine. That's what I'm objecting to--the assumption that any line is the one and only right and true one. Reject art to your heart's content; just accept that it's possible for someone to believe--and act--differently without being dishonest or intentionally manipulative. In this case, I don't think there's an absolute line between here and there. (Not to mention the completely separate question about what constitutes "real" and whether realism is either a necessary--or even desirable--trait in fiction.) Scott Parkin (Who's off to the World Science Fiction Convention in Chicago for most of the next two weeks. Talk to y'all when I get back.) [MOD: You lucky dog... Wave a hand in my direction as you pass by western Wisconsin.] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] CALDWELL, _The Principle_ (Review) Date: 24 Aug 2000 21:38:48 -0700 Review ====== Kathryn Smoot Caldwell, "The Principle" (c) 1983 Kathryn Smoot Caldwell Published by Randall Book, Salt Lake City Hardback, 193 pages, price not known Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Few subjects in Mormon history have produced such a large corpus of literature as has Plural Marriage. We seem to have an insatiable appetite for history, and non-history, dealing with this very controversial topic. The book opens with a woman named Shelly rummaging through some items in the attic of her late aunt Zella. Shelly is pregnant with her fourth child, which she learns, through pre-natal testing, is deformed. Her husband is insisting she have an abortion, but she can't bring herself to do this. Shelly is on a quest to discover her roots, to come to terms with the struggles she's having with her current family. She sees herself as weak and faltering, and believes that, if she can find the secret of the strength of her ancestors, she can draw from them and pursue a path she knows is correct. Among the papers are letters and mementos of life in Utah under "the Principle," or polygamy. The book focuses on a family line that begins with the marriage of Horace Carter to Polly (the first wife), and subsequent sealings to two other women, notably Sarah, an English emigrant. Because PM was actively persecuted by the local authorities, Sarah's daughter, Caroline, was never told of her true parentage. She was told her father had died, and that Horace was her uncle. When Horace began having financial difficulties, he had to close the house where Sarah and Caroline lived and move them all into Polly's household. It is only then that Caroline learns the truth about her heritage. The ensuing tensions between the two "families" and the scorn their fellow Saints displayed against the "cohabs" fill out the book in an intriguing, and sometimes chilling, manner. I had hoped to learn more about Plural Marriage by reading this nicely-written book. But I found myself questioning some of the information presented as "fact." For example, when Caroline learns that her mother is actually Horace's second wife, she asks her mother why the marriage took place: "He did it because he was told it was his duty. He was called to the Quorum of the Seventy, and when he reached that important position, it carried certain responsibilities. One of them was to enter into the Principle of Celestial Marriage. That means having more than one wife." (p. 21) This was a new thought to me -- being a Seventy required a man to enter into Plural Marriage? I've asked around, and can't find anyone to substantiate this claim. If any here have information, I'll be glad to have it. Behind the story is Caroline's on-going struggle with the moral basis of Plural Marriage, and the accommodations made (including lying) in order to evade the authorities. It also addresses the important question of how far one should go in explaining such difficult concepts to young children. Are they equipped to understand? Can they accept the ideas of their parents despite their inner uncertainties? And there is an additional storyline following Horace's strained relationship with his son, Sam. One needs a scorecard to keep track of who belong to who -- who is whose mother, who are really sisters and brothers, or only half-sisters and half-brothers? Interestingly, the story begins pre-Manifesto and follows through the 1890 proclamation to just a few years afterward. I don't know how accurately the author portrayed the disdain the general Mormon population displayed toward existing plural families. If she's even close, then these must have been very hard times indeed. I went away from this book appreciating the difficulties such families must have encountered. I liked the book; it would make a nice casual read. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brent Hugh Subject: [AML] God's Army Reviewed in Kansas City _Star_ Today Date: 25 Aug 2000 00:03:14 -0500 _God's Army_ was reviewed in today's Kansas City Star. Below are some excerpts; the entire article can be read (at least for a short time) at http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/fyi.pat,fyi/3774b328.822,.html ------------------------- MOVIE REVIEW: GOD'S ARMY `God's Army' preaches to converted By ROBERT W. BUTLER - The Kansas City Star Date: 08/24/00 22:15 "God's Army" Showing at the Cinemark Merriam Theatre. `God's Army' preaches to converted Mormon director's film makes good material for recruits Made by and aimed largely at practicing Mormons, "God's Army" will be dismissed by many as religious propaganda. Thing is, the film's observations about the nature of faith are insightful enough to arouse the interest of just about anyone with a spiritual bent. In telling the story of a young Mormon missionary assigned to spread the message of the Latter-day Saints in wicked old Los Angeles, writer/director/actor Richard Dutcher clearly is preaching to the converted. Mormon beliefs are referred to in an offhand manner (the intended audience is already familiar with them), and a scene in which missionaries convert Hispanic Roman Catholics clearly wasn't designed to increase ecumenical harmony. But the film's real subject is the test of faith that occurs when religious conviction collides with the cold, hard wall of reality. . . . Dutcher obviously has drawn upon his own missionary experiences in an effort to re-create this world, one frequently punctuated by practical jokes and the tensions that arise when young men are crammed together in cramped quarters with virtually no outlets except prayer. No coffee, alcohol, drugs or sex for this bunch. The casting emphasizes Mormonism's one-umbrella outlook; among the missionaries there's an African-American and a Latino, and a new convert is from Taiwan. From this description "God's Army" may sound heavy-handed and didactic. Curiously, it doesn't play that way. Though Dutcher the writer leans on melodrama -- one principal character has a fatal disease, and an unrelated subplot involves a faith healing -- as a director he possesses the skill and conviction to finesse his way around the objections of non-Mormon viewers. He's assembled a cast of talented unknowns who give "God's Army" a believable, lived-in feel that eludes most "Sunday School movies." Though it's receiving a single-screen commercial run in Kansas City, having already earned back its $1 million investment in Utah, the future of "God's Army" clearly resides in video. Virtually every Mormon congregation, and probably a majority of Mormon households, will end up with a copy of the film, which will serve innumerable young men, and some women, too, as an introduction to the rigors and joys of missionary work. . . . ------------------------- --Brent ++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bhugh@griffon.mwsc.edu ++++++++++++++ + Missouri Western St College Dept of Music, St. Joseph, MO + + Piano Home Page: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh + + Internet Piano Concert: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/recit + ++++ Classical Piano MP3s: http://www.mp3.com/brent_d_hugh ++++ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 24 Aug 2000 23:35:34 -0600 Nan McCulloch > I agree with Violet and I cringe when anyone makes William Law out to be a > villain. He was a highly respected, faithful member of the church who took > issue with polygamy. I'll bet Judas Iscariot was highly respected for a while too, but no one cringes when he's made the villain in anybody's historical fiction. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: [AML] Ric ESTRADA, "Peace with Honor" Date: 24 Aug 2000 23:05:56 -0600 While unpacking some boxes after moving, I ran across a book I=20 found on my mission. It's a DC comic book called "GI Combat,=20 featuring the Haunted Tank," Feb 1974, No. 169. The last third=20 of the book is a story called "Peace With Honor," with the byline=20 "Art and Story (adapted from the Book of Mormon) by Ric Estrada." The story is narrated by Ether, who warns Coriantumr that his=20 bloodthirst will lead to the destruction of his people. The great=20 battles between Coriantumr and Shiz's armies end with millions=20 dead, rejected peace terms, and new vows of vengeance.=20 Finally, it came down to the final battle, which ended with only=20 two wounded generals standing. Shiz stabbed Coriantumr, who=20 with "a last mighty thrust (THWACK! AIEEEE!)" cut off Shiz's=20 head. Ether moralizes on the tragic victory, then says he will "bury this=20 true account in the ground, that future generations may learn." The title, "Peace With Honor," is an obvious allusion to Vietnam,=20 which would have been a fresh memory in '74, and befitting the=20 anti-war theme of the story. I checked Ebay and found several Haunted Tank comic books=20 (but not this particular issue) listed with opening bid of around=20 $3, so it may be possible to find copies of this highly collectible=20 work of Mormon literature. MBA - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Didactic Literature Date: 25 Aug 2000 13:46:33 -0600 On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:51:47 -0600 Thom Duncan writes: > One of my favorite plays is _Death of a Salesman_. I like the > play precisely because it is a tragedy. Willie Loman's suicide > tells me volumes about how people ought NOT to live their lives. Which is exactly why I would LOVE to mount a production of Marsha Norman's "'night, Mother" here in Utah Valley sometime. It forces you to ask yourself so many questions about how to prevent the kinds of feelings and thoughts that Jessie had that led her to decide to kill herself. Wonderful play ... and I can think of a few actresses here that could do it justice. I don't know if the community would allow it though. scott - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] Tim SLOVER, _March Tale_ Date: 25 Aug 2000 12:19:04 -0600 Let it be known that Actors' Repertory Theatre Ensemble presents this year for its Castle Theatre Festival two plays; one by the bard, and one about the bard. The Merry Wives of Windsor, by Will Shakespeare, and March Tale, by Tim Slover. The festival takes place in the historic Castle Amphitheatre located on the grounds of the Utah State Hospital at 1300 East Center Street in Provo, Utah. Opening night for Merry Wives is Saturday, August 26th with further performances on September 1st, September 7th, 9th, 11th and with closing night coming on Saturday, September 15th. Opening night for March Tale is Friday, August 25th with further performances on August 31st, September 2nd, 4th, 8th, 14th and with closing night coming on Saturday, September 16th. All performances begin at 8:pm, or as soon as the sun goes down. There are no reserved or advanced tickets available for these shows. Tickets must be purchased at the door. Ticket prices are $9.00 for general admission, $7.00 for senior citizens and students with I.D. and $4.50 for children 8 to 12. No children under the age of eight will be permitted into the theatre. The amphitheater is outdoors and made of stone. For your comfort we suggest that you bring pillows and/or blankets. There is a bit of a walk from the parking lot to the theatre itself; if you are handicapped or in any other way are disabled feel free to have someone drop you at the theatre entrance. Now, on a personal note, I love this play. I saw both productions of Tim's Joyful Noise at BYU and loved them as well. Tim is simply an extremely fine writer. It has been a joy working with his script; I consider it a great honor to have had the opportunity. By-the-way, list member, Thom Duncan pulls off a delightfully bawdy Willam Kemp. For those of you in the area, I highly recommend you come see him and the rest of the wonderful cast in this play. For further info call 801.377.ARTE or me at my home, 801.226.7876 J. Scott Bronson--The Scotted Line "World peace begins in my home" We are not the acolytes of an abstruse god. We are here to entertain--Keith Lockhart - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: [AML] Re: History and Fiction Date: 26 Aug 2000 12:39:28 -0700 Responding to Violet Kimball, Thom wrote: > Joseph had a lot of enemies in those final days, Joseph Jackson, > John C. Bennett, to name just two more. To tell a completely > accurate story would so muddy up the narrative that your readers > would get lost. I think those writers on the list who complain > about historical fiction not adhering enough to known events > ought to try and actually write some and see how difficult it is > to remains true to reality while at the same time telling a > compelling story. This raises the issue of form -- an issue I've thought about much while reading this thread. What literary form have you chosen for your history-based story? Depending on the form, you will have different constraints and limitations. If the form you've chosen is a drama, then your story must be told within the constraints of that form. Such constraints would include running time (probably no more than 2 hours), and cast size (which affects your budget). In such a case, I'd agree with Thom that trying to make the narrative completely accurate would confuse the audience. However, if the form you've chosen is a novel, you needn't have those constraints. You may be able to tell the whole historical story -- okay, a larger percentage of the whole historical story -- with more of the twists & turns and ins & outs, than you could in a 2-hour theatrical presentation. Personally, I don't expect historical dramas, like those Thom writes, to adhere to the same standards that I expect of historical fiction. I prefer them to be accurate, yes, in what they *do* portray, but because of the form, I don't expect them to have the accuracy of *scope* that can be found on a larger canvas. And when I say "larger canvas", I'm not dissing the theatre. However, theatregoers have only 2 hours to experience and make sense of the story, and they can't rewind it or pause it if they get confused. Readers, on the other hand, may spend 10 to 20 hours experiencing a historical novel. The novelistic form does allow for more complexity, and more explanations. If a writer bends history because of the constraints of form, that's not so bad. But I can't think of any other reason that would be as acceptable. For instance, does the novelist think that the actual sequence of historical events is too "confusing"? Well, it's up to the novelist to make sure the readers don't get confused. Or would a telling of the "true" historical story fill up more pages than the simpler story you started out to write? Examine your prior decisions. What's more important -- to tell the story that wants to be told, or to not exceed a maximum number of manuscript pages? Each choice has its consequences. Or maybe you can find a way to satisfy both criteria, by doing something differently. Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: Re: [AML] LABUTE, _Bash_ Telecast Date: 26 Aug 2000 12:50:20 -0700 Here's the text of what TV Guide says about LaBute's "Bash". ------------------ TV Guide Aug. 26 - Sept. 1, 2000 issue from "Susan Stewart's Hits & Misses: Brief review of this week's notable programs" Bash: Latter-Day Plays (Mon., Showtime). [Rating icon: TV-MA, L]*. When plays are reproduced on TV, they often seem, well, stagy. That's not true of this scabrous piece by filmmaker Neil LaBute ("Your Friends and Neighbors"). The deceptively simple _Bash_ consists of three dramatic monologues. In each, a character reveals a shocking secret. Calista Flockhart, Paul Rudd and Ron Eldard are great as, respectively, a psychiatric patient, an all-American boy and a Mormon businessman. They're in almost constant close-up, and you can't take your eyes off them. My score: 8. ------------- * I think "TV-MA, L" = "for mature audiences; language" In my Northern California edition of TV Guide, the actual program description for "Bash" is very short: "Three provocative one-act plays". Do editions in other areas have longer descriptions? Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] LABUTE, _Bash_ Telecast Date: 28 Aug 2000 20:07:55 GMT Here's "Entertainment Weekly's" capsule on "Bash": "Calista Flockhart, Paul Rudd, and Ron Eldard deliver a triptych of dark, Mormon-themed monologues by writer-director Neil LaBute in a production taped before a live audience in L.A. It may have been an electric theatrical event, but captured coldly on video, Flockhart and Rudd's performances seem a bit too big for the small screen. Only Eldard registers with a brilliantly chilling turn as a morally bankrupt businessman. Grade: B-" _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "mjames_laurel" Subject: [AML] Shameless Plug Date: 28 Aug 2000 14:15:08 -0600 Hello everyone: I just received an e-mail from my publicist at HarperCollins informing me my novel, "Say You Are My Sister" (which is being released this week) is the featured book for two weeks on their website beginning today! There is an excerpt and interview, if anyone is curious. The url is www.harperchildrens.com/hch/fiction. Laurel [MOD: Congratulations!] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 28 Aug 2000 14:57:54 -0600 >Let's not underestimate the power of such myth. For instance, >George = Washington >didn't really chop down a cherry tree, but it's still a good story to = >tell your >kids to teach them about honesty. This seems to me to go to the heart of the disagreement I have with Thom = on these issues. I think the story of George and the cherry tree is not = only bad history, it's also bad story-telling, and not very valuable even = if the intent is to tell your kids about honesty. I think that the Pastor = Weems version of history is tremendously damaging, not just because it's = bad history, but because it's boring. =20 That's my real objection to a lot of historical fiction, including and = especially historically based films. The real Pocahontas is far more = interesting than the Disneyized version--I know this, telling her true = story kept my six year old spell-bound for hours, while she was pretty = bored by the movie. And the real story of the early LDS church is far = more interesting than the Power and Glory series makes it sound. Kennedy = was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. To create this enormous nonsensical = conspiracy theory around that event, as the film JFK does, isn't just bad = from an historical sense. It's boring. It's dull, really evil bad guys = (The CIA, boo! the FBI AND Secret Service) versus really good good guys = (Garrison, for heaven's sake). And the result is typical melodrama, and = just not very compelling. Whereas the real story, what really happened, = the combination of screw-ups and resentments and imagined slights that = made up the character of Oswald, that's interesting.=20 Thom used the example of Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief, and how boring it = would be to hear all nine verses onstage. And he's absolutely right, of = course, and you have to be selective. But we have a real problem in our = country. A recent poll showed that for American high school kids, by far = their least favorite subject in school is history. Amazing. The most = fascinating reading possible, the most exciting subject possible for = anyone, and yet, for high school kids, it's dull. Well, no wonder. High = school history textbooks are unbelievably dull, and not very accurate, = precisely because they try so hard to be uplifting and positive, pushing = the myth of American exceptionalism and logical positivism at every = opportunity, and distorting events as they go. Read your kid's high = school textbook sometime. You'll be appalled. (And you'll end up doing = what I did, which is to take a black magic marker to it, to your kid's = dismay.) History as Moral Uplift is dull. Whereas what really happened is = terrifically interesting. =20 Eric Samuelsen > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 28 Aug 2000 15:10:03 -0600 Jason argued: >These days, history is perceived by many as, in fact, a fiction. >IOW, history is narrative--name ANY account of history that is not = >presented=20 >in the form of narrative--and as such, it is constructed. This >means, = in=20 >many cases, that a sense of causality and order is superimposed >on a = series=20 >of events. When we write a work of "fiction", we present scene >after = scene,=20 >and the implication is that one scene leads (causes) the next, or >that = the=20 >second somehow follows from or builds on the first--thus order is=20 >constructed, leading to a climax, resolultion, etc. And so on. But this is overstated, I think. Certainly contemporary = historiography interrogates historical narratives, and insists that what = we call history is a construct. But the radical position Jason stakes out = is not, in fact, much in vogue anymore. Most historians I know agree that = history is a narrative, and agree that that narrative is shaped by the = cultural biases of the historian. But all historical narratives derive = from sources, including textual sources,but also archeological sources and = so on. And it is possible to maintain a kind of fidelity to those = sources, while still acknowledging the cultural discourse the historical = narrative inevitably reflects. We can't know 'what really happened.' But = we can reconstruct certain events, and we can make some statement about = the meaning of those events.=20 To go back to my new play-in-progress. It is an historical fact that = George Washington owned slaves. He freed some of them when he died, but = he didn't free them all, and in practical terms, freeing them had little = positive effect on their lives. He knew this, and his tortured musings on = the subject of slavery appear in a few of his letters to close contemporari= es. Of course, as a playwright, I'm going to create a narrative around = those texts. But the texts exist; no responsible historian would deny = that. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: History and Fiction Date: 28 Aug 2000 20:35:45 -0600 Frank Maxwell wrote: > For instance, does the novelist think that the actual sequence of > historical events is too "confusing"? Well, it's up to the novelist to > make sure the readers don't get confused. Confusing isn't why I would adjust the sequence of events. The gradual increase in dramatic tension would be my reason. Just because a novel can be more complex doesn't mean it isn't still subject to the rules of drama. > Or would a telling of the "true" > historical story fill up more pages than the simpler story you started out > to write? Examine your prior decisions. What's more important -- to tell > the story that wants to be told, or to not exceed a maximum number of > manuscript pages? "To tell the story that wants to be told" sounds like a phrase that would favor massaging history for dramatic effect, not vice versa. History just happens, the story that wants to be told would be the dramatic story behind historical events that conforms to modern conventions of interesting storytelling. When I examine my priorities with historical fiction, I find that accuracy is high up there, but higher still is dramatic effect, because it's _fiction_ I'm writing. > Or maybe you can find > a way to satisfy both criteria, by doing something differently. Satisfying both criteria--fantastic, if you can. But life rarely lets you have your cake and eat it too. In the vast majority of cases, there are always trade-offs to consider. -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] (Curiouser & Curiouser) Read by the Author Date: 29 Aug 2000 21:50:12 -0500 CURIOUSER & CURIOUSER: MORMON MUSINGS Read by the Author by Edgar C. Snow, Jr. When you listen to a book on tape, can you properly claim to have "read" the book? Let me illustrate what I believe might very well become one of the pressing moral issues of the day. Just last week in conversation I mentioned that I had recently read _The Iliad_ when a colleague interrupted me: "You mean you just 'listened' to it on tape in the car." There was a moment of silence as I stuttered to defend myself. I felt the same way I did in tenth grade when I got caught lying to get out of going to a Sadie-Hawkins Day Dance with our Russian exchange student that year, "Ima Bitticktov" (I use a pseudonym to protect her, or rather, me, in case she ever reads this essay). It's hard to believe, isn't it, that the comic strip "Lil' Abner," with all those females running around in skimpy hillbilly outfits, could have been instrumental in creating the feminist institution now revered as the "Sadie-Hawkins Day Dance," that one high school dance per year when girls get to ask guys out? Yes, I now confess I lied my sophomore year to get out of going to that dance to avoid hurting Ima's feelings. Everything seemed to go as I had schemed until a month after the dance one of Ima's friends asked me: "What was it your dad made you do instead of going to Sadie-Hawkins?" I couldn't remember what my excuse was, and since such a response is only appropriate for U.S. Presidents under congressional scrutiny, to this very day I'm ashamed that I said my excuse was I had to go to a Mormon priesthood meeting broadcast at Church on the Saturday night in question. That was, of course, back in the pre-satellite broadcast days when people outside of Utah listened to the general priesthood meeting broadcasts over the radio while sitting as a group in the chapel. I felt a twinge of guilt then, and now I regret that I hid my sin under the cover of my religion. "Oh, well either your grandmother got better, or you changed your plans because you said you were going out of town to visit her because she was sick," she responded. I forget what I said to her, but it was likely less than nimble. Now before you condemn me, you should know that the excuse about my grandmother wasn't as heinous as you might think since she was in fact sick at the time, and it was not entirely out of the realm of possibility that we might have visited her that weekend. But instead of rationalizing my transgressions away, I came to realize wickedness never was happiness, especially when you get caught. I learned an important lesson that day that has stayed with me my entire life: with a memory like mine, I'm better off telling the truth at all times, no matter how painful. So now you know why I felt so bad when I was accused of lying about reading _The Iliad_. I guess I have to admit that saying you've read a book like _The Iliad_ when you haven't actually turned the pages implies (i) you're bragging--no one has time to actually read anymore; (ii) you have an attention span longer than seven seconds (bragging again); and (iii) you read the classics (defined by Mark Twain to mean "Book[s] which people praise and don't read"--still bragging). On the other hand, saying that you merely "listened" to a book on tape suggests (i) you cheated, especially if the book was abridged; (ii) you likely didn't really hear all of the words anyway since you spent at least 60% of your time in the car yelling at other drivers; and (iii) you didn't really read a classic, you just sat through a classic, like somebody watching TV--it's not the same. Neither alternative satisfies. In the spirit of compromise, I suggest when you listen to a book on tape, it's proper to say, for instance, "I did _The Iliad_," or "I processed _The Iliad_," or "I experienced _The Iliad_," or, my favorite, "My car read _The Iliad_ to me." Now, if the author is also the narrator on the tape, you can even say, for instance, in all honesty, that "Shelby Foote read _The Stars in Their Courses_ to me last weekend," and no one can complain. I've sent letters to Bryan Garner, author of _A Dictionary of Modern American Usage_, and Sir Ernest Gowers, reviser and editor of H.W. Fowler's _A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_, suggesting these solutions to the problem. I'll keep you posted as to the outcome. Because of my lengthy commute to work, I experience a lot of books on tape. I check them out of the library, rent them, and sometimes even buy them. One of my favorite purchases is Stephen A. Ambrose's _Undaunted Courage_, the fantabulous story of Lewis & Clark's trek across the American wilderness, a tape which I have processed several times. It is read by Cotter Smith, an actor, rather than the author, although Ambrose speaks briefly by way of introduction at the beginning of the recording. To me, it is one of the great recorded books of the century for a variety of reasons: (i) it's high adventure, (ii) the smooth narrative sparkles with telling details, and (iii) it's not read by the author. Sure, I enjoy Ambrose's writing style, but his voice is not what you want to accompany you to work in the morning. When you hear him talk you imagine a man who has just gargled a shot of turpentine mixed with gravel, and then snorted a line of powdered helium. For those of you who know me, let me bring this point a little closer to home: Ambrose sounds like me. I still remember the summer of 1971 when I prayed to God that my voice would change. I hated the sound of my voice. During the day, I hung out at the neighborhood pool, watching girls, listening to songs by Bachman Turner Overdrive, and reading Doc Savage novels. At night, I did isometric exercises like Doc Savage did to develop his herculean physique in order to impress the girls I was watching at the pool, while often silently praying my raspy voice would change. Ever since one afternoon when my dad brought home a tape recorder and I first heard what my voice sounded like, I was both amazed and horrified. I talked like a girl! I thought kids everywhere would suddenly discover this startling fact and torment me by singing, "E-ddie talks like a gir-rl, E-ddie talks like a gir-rl." But, of course I came to my senses and realized that they already knew what I sounded like and had graciously passed over the opportunity. One particular evening in 1971 I remember I prayed for my voice to change and decided, as a test of my faith, not to talk till the next morning. I avoided everyone in the house and went to sleep early. If faith could move mountains, why not give me the voice of, say, singer Tom Jones? But by morning it was clear I would never be Tom Jones and I was sorry that I had made demands upon God for such a paltry matter. Yet even so, by the time school started again that fall, unknown to me, a miracle had happened. My school friends smiled when they spoke to me and remarked how my voice had changed over the summer--it was deeper, they said. Apparently I was one of the first boys my age to start puberty. I felt taller somehow, older, wiser. Soon I was moved to the bass section of the Church choir. Then, one evening, I decided to record myself again to hear what they were all talking about, only to find that my voice still sounded like I was talking through a kazoo, except now with a sinus condition. My voice remained an occasional source of self-consciousness for years. It's likely that nowadays with all of the disorders associated with our skewed views of how our bodies should look, somewhere in the psychological literature there's a categorized disorder for people who don't like the way they sound. "Voxerexia" perhaps, associated with people who refuse to talk. I eventually got over this disorder, in large part due to the following description I read given by Joseph Smith about the apostle Paul: Description of Paul--He is about 5 foot high; very dark hair; dark complexion, dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face; small black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders; a whining voice, except when elevated and then it almost resembles the roaring of a lion. He was a good orator (WJS, p.59). Did this mean Paul was, well, for lack of a better term ... a whiner? Maybe not. No, I interpret this to mean Paul sounded something like Stephen Ambrose, or perhaps like a chain saw in the distance, or the way music sounds on a teenager's headphones that are turned up too loud. Then I realized--Paul sounded like Ambrose who sounded like me! Therefore, if Paul is okay, I'm okay! This got me over my voxerexia. Usually you think of apostles and other general authorities having voices as deep as the valleys of Utah's mountains--for example, Paul Dunn, Thomas Monson, or, my favorite, the "Spoken Word" himself, Richard L. Evans. We rarely remember the squeakier voices of LeGrand Richards, Marion G. Romney, or, as I was soon to find out, Jonathan ("J.") Golden Kimball, the Mormon hierarch with the most peculiar voice and vocabulary. Voxerexics of the Church should know about these great men, and appreciate them for the role models they are for voice-impaired Mormons everywhere. I had heard hundreds of J. Golden cussing stories growing up in the church, but I never knew the secret about his voice until I attended a fireside by James Arrington at BYU. Brother Arrington had just written his one-man show, _J. Golden,_ and was sharing with us his research and warm appreciation about Uncle Golden, our beloved LDS folk hero. Brother Arrington played for us the only known recording of Brother Golden's voice, which he characterized in his remarks as "toned down Dudley Do-Right." When I heard the Elder Kimball recording that evening, I recognized the voice of my very own patron latter-day saint. In fact, a couple of years ago Arrington's fireside speech and a recording of his play were released on tape, and I was one of the first to buy them. The one-man show is truly wonderful--you really believe that it is "read by the author" himself the way that Bruce Ackerman imitates Uncle Golden's nearly inimitable voice. And in one of the more delightful moments in the play J. Golden tells some J. Golden stories himself. Now of course, when I talk with Mormon literary types about Arrington's show, I'm careful to try to say that I've "experienced" the play, although I must confess I haven't yet worked out a defensible position on the complex issue of describing the process of listening to a recorded play. It's different from a book--you can either read or watch a play. At about the same time I was wearing out my car's tape deck listening to Arrington's tapes over and over again, I purchased the entire New Testament on tape. While I have enjoyed listening to these tapes, I'm sure Joseph Smith would have been disappointed in the recording of Paul's letters--the narrator sounds like God, or at least what God sounds like in movies, not like Joseph's description of Paul. And I have to confess, as I tried to listen to Paul's letters, I relearned something I'd forgotten: stories go down easier than theology. I first learned this on my mission when I had received a letter from my home ward's primary, along with baggies full of crumbled up cookies. A note inside from a little girl said, "Bring home some great missionary stories." She knew, as we all know, that nothing can sustain our attention like a good story, and this is especially true when listening to a tape in the car. Paul's letters tell very few stories, unfortunately, and if you throw in the King James translation on your cassette tape, you've got a prescription that should not be taken while operating heavy machinery. I'm glad that I've actually read Paul's letters because I certainly can't say with a straight face that I've "done," "processed," or "experienced" Paul on tape, although I can say "my car read Paul" to me, it's just that I wasn't listening all the time. Please don't get me wrong; Paul writes very powerful, complex theological arguments, and throws in some beautiful imagery, but if actually read, it should be in a modern translation and while standing up. Now I know Joseph said Paul was a good orator in person and all, and I believe that, but that doesn't necessarily extend to cassette recordings. I'm just not sure how to safely listen to Paul's writings while driving the car, although a few solutions do come to mind. If, for instance, Joseph Smith had overseen an audio production of Paul's letters, I'm sure he would have recommended Stephen Ambrose as the reader, except I can imagine his directions: "CUT, CUT, CUT! Okay, Mr. Ambrose, you're not listening to me. Please elevate your voice, ELEVATE YOUR VOICE! Okay ... is everyone ready? Take 51!" On the other hand, consider J. Golden Kimball as the audio producer: "Dammit Mr. Ambrose! How the hell do you know Paul didn't cuss a little in his letters ever once in a while? Just spoon in a couple of "hells" and "damns" and mix 'em around ever now and then. I'm tellin' ya, the way it's written now isn't translated correctly!!" Or better yet, Brother Arrington, if you're reading this essay and you are at all interested, I think the time is now for a one-man show entitled "Paul's Letters: As Read by J. Golden Kimball." As a Georgia resident, I probably won't be able to attend the play, but I will gladly purchase the tape, and I'll be proud to say I listened to it. NOTE: This column originally appeared in the May 2000 issue of _Harvest_, a monthly online magazine for the LDS community. For more information, go to http://www.harvestmagazine.com ===== Among best sellers, Barnes & Noble ranks _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ in its top 100 (thousand, that is). Available now at 20% off http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD& mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] FreeQuad Software Date: 27 Aug 2000 19:23:57 -0700 Broad announcement: As many of you know, I've distributed a freeware program called FreeQuad for many years, but only in a DOS flavor. Finally, FreeQuad for Windows is ready. It's for Win95 and above, and uses the Microsoft Word Viewer as its primary engine. You can read the scriptures, scrolling at any speed you desire. You can search for words and phrases. And, of course, you can copy and paste or print as you desire. It isn't fancy, but it works. If you're looking for a program that doesn't take much disk space, and lets you read, search and copy the Quad, this should work just fine for you. And it's absolutely free. I also have a version that contains just a flat ASCII file with the scripture text, for those who desire just the text. You can find it at http://freequad.webjump.com. --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 29 Aug 2000 13:33:50 -0600 "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > But we have a real problem in our country. A recent poll showed that for American high school kids, by far their least favorite subject in school is history. Amazing. The most fascinating reading possible, the most exciting subject possible for anyone, and yet, for high school kids, it's dull. Well, no wonder. High school history textbooks are unbelievably dull, and not very accurate, precisely because they try so hard to be uplifting and positive, pushing the myth of American exceptionalism and logical positivism at every opportunity, and distorting events as they go. Read your kid's high school textbook sometime. You'll be appalled. (And you'll end up doing what I did, which is to take a black magic marker to it, to your kid's dismay.) Whose responsibility is to teach history, teachers or screenwriters? I'll tell you what the real problem is in America. It's actually a problem that the whole modern western world has. It's almost a fanatical insistence that something that isn't absolutely true event by event can't possibly be inspiring to people. We seem to have lost the love of myth that earlier generations had. So what if JFK is bad history? The scene where Garrison sits some people up in the courtroom and maps the trajectory of the one bullet is pretty darn riveting. If JFK had been about a fictional president, I believe it would have been more popular than it was, but because so many people thought they knew what really happened, more attention was paid to the supposed history than to the actual story which, personally, I found riveting from opening to closing frame. Disney's Pochantos should not be viewed as a cartoon adaptation of the original story, even if they marketers make it out to look like that. Instead, it should be viewed for what it really is: a succession of animated scenes of film with some songs thrown in. The questions a viewer should be asking him or herself is not "How accurate is this?" but rather, "Does the transition into the song work or is it forced?" "Is that joke funny or not?" "Is that animation inspired or rather pedestrian?" We bring too much of our own agenda to the art we consume in this country. We should work more at setting aside our own agendas, in this case, our own understanding of history, and try to see what the director or writer is trying to do to our emotions. If it's a cartoon movie about a real character and we and our children walk away humming some tunes, then the film has done it's job. If we walk away from JFK wondering where the three and half hours went, then Stone did his job. If we want history, we should go to the library. Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 30 Aug 2000 11:08:59 -0600 >From glennsj@inet-1.com Tue Aug 29 15:00:46 2000 Received: from [216.83.130.82] (helo=mail.inet-1.com) by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 13TsUw-0002Ba-00 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:00:46 -0600 Received: from oemcomputer (unverified [209.90.103.129]) by mail.inet-1.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.4) with SMTP id for ; Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:01:59 -0600 Message-ID: <001301c011ee$64436180$81675ad1@oemcomputer> References: <200008261951.OAA14722581@smtppop2.gte.net> <004301c0112c$aab81d80$82ff0b3f@oemcomputer> 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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Laurel Brady wrote: > I just received an e-mail from my publicist at HarperCollins informing me my > novel, "Say You Are My Sister" (which is being released this week) is the > featured book for two weeks on their website beginning today! There is an > excerpt and interview, if anyone is curious. The url is > www.harperchildrens.com/hch/fiction. Congratulations, Laurel! I read the excerpt, and all I can say is, Wow! Magnificent writing. Strong voice. Wonderful characters. Can't wait to read this one aloud to my kids. Carry on! Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 29 Aug 2000 14:49:17 PDT >Jason argued: > > > >These days, history is perceived by many as, in fact, a fiction. > > >IOW, history is narrative--name ANY account of history that is not > >presented > >in the form of narrative--and as such, it is constructed. This >means, in > >many cases, that a sense of causality and order is superimposed >on a >series > >of events. When we write a work of "fiction", we present scene >after >scene, > >and the implication is that one scene leads (causes) the next, or >that >the > >second somehow follows from or builds on the first--thus order is > >constructed, leading to a climax, resolultion, etc. > >And so on. But this is overstated, I think. Certainly contemporary >historiography interrogates historical narratives, and insists that what we >call history is a construct. But the radical position Jason stakes out is >not, in fact, much in vogue anymore. Most historians I know agree that >history is a narrative, and agree that that narrative is shaped by the >cultural biases of the historian. But all historical narratives derive >from sources, including textual sources,but also archeological sources and >so on. And it is possible to maintain a kind of fidelity to those sources, >while still acknowledging the cultural discourse the historical narrative >inevitably reflects. We can't know 'what really happened.' But we can >reconstruct certain events, and we can make some statement about the >meaning of those events. > >To go back to my new play-in-progress. It is an historical fact that >George Washington owned slaves. He freed some of them when he died, but he >didn't free them all, and in practical terms, freeing them had little >positive effect on their lives. He knew this, and his tortured musings on >the subject of slavery appear in a few of his letters to close >contemporaries. Of course, as a playwright, I'm going to create a >narrative around those texts. But the texts exist; no responsible >historian would deny that. It is possible I've overstated things, true. But I don't think you successfully refute my argument just by insisting that there are in fact texts and sources upon which historical narratives are based. It is IMPOSSIBLE to interpret ANY text or source OUTSIDE the present perspective--or outside the present context. Thus, while the historicity of the text itself (the actual words, paper they're written on, etc.) may be indisputable, the historicity of ANY interpretation of them IS disputable. Pragmatically, this disputability is ignored (i.e. I'm overstating, perhaps, its significance); but it remains, nevertheless: "history" is in many ways created in, and a reflection of, the present... Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN God's Army Prompts Mixed Reviews in East: New York Times Date: 29 Aug 2000 19:36:05 EDT 25Aug00 A2 [From Mormon-News] God's Army Prompts Mixed Reviews in East NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- As the LDS-oriented movie God's Army opened in New York City and elsewhere in the Eastern U.S., reviews have been mixed, with New York newspapers panning the show, while elsewhere reviews were much more favorable. Predictably, the nearly-impossible-to-please New York Times disliked the movie, but, surprisingly the more-plebeian New York Post and the Christian Science Monitor were also disappointed. But the Dallas Morning News and the Kansas City Star liked the movie, and, even more surprisingly, the intellectually-oriented public radio talk-show host Leonard Lopate practically bubbled over the movie in an interview with its director Richard Dutcher. The New York Times' criticizes the film for its "preaching that is likely to tax the credibility of the unconverted," but says it is possible to like the film for its "unusual subject and unpretentious performances." It suggests that Dutcher's performance in the role of Elder Marcus Dalton is particularly good, calling it "convincing." Dutcher might wish that the Times and the New York Post had compared notes before writing their reviews, since the Post seems to have the opposite criticisms of the movie. The Post calls God's Army an "intelligent movie" that "admirably doesn't quite end up preaching to the converted," but criticizes it for "too many bland performances, clumsily staged scenes and laggard pacing that drags out the proceedings for nearly two hours." The Christian Science Monitor's brief review (all of two sentences) has the same problem with the movie that the New York Times does. It says "At heart, this is more a Mormon recruiting film than a three-dimensional drama, but it provides fascinating glimpses of a subject that Hollywood hardly ever touches." Phillip Wuntch, writing in the Dallas Morning News, is much more positive about the film, admiring its unexpected subtlety and the unexpected detours the plot takes to get to a reassuring and predictable end. It particularly liked Matthew Brown's performance as Elder Brandon Allen, saying that his performance brought "poignant shades to Elder Allen's 'greenness.' " Wuntch complemented all the actors on "graceful" performances and noted that the musical score was "effective in its beguiling simplicity -- much like the film itself." In the Kansas City Star, Robert Butler says that God's Army goes beyond religious propaganda, making "observations about the nature of faith [that] are insightful enough to arouse the interest of just about anyone with a spiritual bent." Although he admits the plot sounds "heavy-handed and didactic," Butler says "it doesn't play that way." While he says Dutcher relies on melodrama in the plot, he also credits him with "the skill and conviction to finesse his way around the objections of non-Mormon viewers." However, Butler also notes that "a scene in which missionaries convert Hispanic Roman Catholics clearly wasn't designed to increase ecumenical harmony." Possibly the most positive of the New York publications was, paradoxically, the interview Dutcher did on public radio station WNYC-AM with host Leonard Lopate of New York & Co. Lopate, known as one of the more thorough interviewers, was very positive about the film, praising Dutcher for making a film about a little-known subject. Sources; God's Army New York Times 25Aug00 A2 http://www.nytoday.com/scripts/editorial.dll?eetype=Article&eeid=2967976&render=y&ck=&adrVer=920771229&mwhere=Manhattan&rwhere=Manhattan&rwhat=233&ver=3.20 By Lawrence Van Gelder Good works don't necessarily make good films. Movie Reviews: God's Army NY Post 25Aug00 A2 http://www.nypost.com/movies/36012.htm Movie Guide (God's Army) Christain Science Monitor 25Aug00 A2 http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/25/p14s1.htm God's Army Dallas Morning News 25Aug00 A2 http://dfw.citysearch.com/E/M/DALTX/0000/18/70/cs1.html By Phillip Wuntch 'God's Army' preaches to converted Kansas City KS Star 24Aug00 A2 http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/fyi.pat,fyi/3774b328.822,.html By Robert W. Butler: Kansas City Star Richard Deutcher on New York and Company Radio Talk Show WNYC New York NY 22Aug00 A2 http://www.wnyc.org/new/talk/nyandco/nyconew.html >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 30 Aug 2000 13:49:00 EDT In a message dated 8/30/00 12:09:40 PM Central Daylight Time, tduncan@zfiction.com writes: << > But we have a real problem in our country. A recent poll showed that for American high school kids, by far their least favorite subject in school is history. Amazing. The most fascinating reading possible, the most exciting subject possible for anyone, and yet, for high school kids, it's dull. Well, no wonder. High school history textbooks are unbelievably dull, and not very accurate, precisely because they try so hard to be uplifting and positive, pushing the myth of American exceptionalism and logical positivism at every opportunity, and distorting events as they go. Read your kid's high school textbook sometime. You'll be appalled. (And you'll end up doing what I did, which is to take a black magic marker to it, to your kid's dismay.) >> I tried to make overland migration history interesting in my book on young pioneers, and I apparently succeeded. (BTW, did anyone see Will Bagley's column Sun in the Trib. about my book?) The publisher sent it out to young readers for comments and they said something similar to this one: "I never like historical books before I read this book. . . ." Another one said: [this book] "is way better than any history text book." Too many teachers concentrate on dates, names and places. That is boring. I think it's the fault of the teachers and those who write the history books. Violet - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 29 Aug 2000 15:05:32 PDT >History as Moral Uplift is dull. Whereas what really happened is >terrifically interesting. But how do you know which version is "what really happened"? Sounds like one constructed narrative aims for the morally uplifting and bores you; the other doesn't aim for this and excites you (perhaps because it aims for something else). I'm just not sure it's really possible to say X (not Y) is "what really happened." Lest anyone misunderstand me, I must say I'm not bothered by this. I don't mind not knowing "what really happened"--because the myths and mythos of history are what's important. As we struggle to shape our past, we simultaneously shape our present. And vice versa. For over a century, literary history had "written out" the contributions of women writers (i.e. they were nonexistent, according to the histories). By shaping the past this way, the present took on a shape that was incredibly sexist--very few women writers were read, researched, or even heard of. But as present sensibilities changed (influenced in part by changing versions of history), so did the shaping of the past, so that now literary histories include (for most periods) almost, if not just, as many women as men. And this in turn shapes the present (again), undermining and deconstructing the sexist sensibility. This is all good. I don't mean to devalue history by anything I say. I only mean to call into question the notion that there is a "what really happened" that is out there, somewhere, locatable and knowable. If someone perceives something as happening, than that's "what really happened", even though it may contradict someone else's "what really happened." Think of it this way: if "what really happened" WAS locatable and knowable, the work of historians would come to an end. Once "what really happened" was discovered and/or recorded, there would be nothing more to do. Clearly this isn't reality. Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 30 Aug 2000 21:45:10 -0600 On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:49:00 EDT, ViKimball@aol.com wrote: >Too many teachers=20 >concentrate on dates, names and places. That is boring. I think it's the= =20 >fault of the teachers and those who write the history books. They may be boring (okay, they ARE boring), but they are very easy to = test. Since we only educate with the intention of testing, it's no surprise = that history books concentrate on dates, names and places. If you include = other stuff, you can't make easy multiple choice questions anymore. Jacob - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 31 Aug 2000 08:03:22 EDT In a message dated 8/30/2000 11:28:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time, jpsteed@hotmail.com writes: << But how do you know which version is "what really happened"? ... I'm just not sure it's really possible to say X (not Y) is "what really happened." >> Jason, I still cannot understand why this is such a major stumbling block that you make this point over and over again. Are you really sure it isn't possible to know that X (not Y) is what really happened? You do not believe it is possible to know whether Brigham Young (not my Uncle Mortimer) was a president of the LDS church in the 19th century? Or that Heber J. Grant was a polygamist Democrat (not a bachelor Socialist)? Or is "what really happened" unknowable because we may not know what color socks Brigham Young wore on the day he was sustained as president of the church, or what the weather was like on the day Heber J. Grant married his first plural wife? Is it the impossibility of omniscience that bothers you? Because all the historians in all the centuries in all the world working all the time couldn't possibly discover ALL that happened everywhere to everyone at every moment, then the part we do discover isn't A part of what happened? We don't apply that standard to religion, or to medicine, or to aerodynamics, or to any other way of knowing, so why is it that history is held to that? Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 30 Aug 2000 22:51:47 -0500 Thom Duncan wrote in response to Eric Samuelson: > Whose responsibility is to teach history, teachers or > screenwriters? It is everybody's, for the simple fact that the movies are MORE powerful than history books in our culture. The movies trump the actual, which is funny because what was initially compelling about photography and early cinema was the fact that they could capture the actual much "better" than other forms, which seemed to always point so directly to the artist's hand, and not to the subject itself. Now this is a debatable point, of course. I know what goes into making and manipulating photographs, film, video, etc, and would never venture to say that it is some kind of transparent medium. But still. Photos, cinema, etc. do something very powerful with our sense of reality. Think of Matthew Brady's civil war photos; the Lumiere brother's train pulling into the station film (which scared Paris audiences to death at its premiere). Because historically-based stories end up at the top of the heap, those who use history in their narratives have a responsibility to play it pretty straight. If they are going to mess around, it should be pretty clear that they are messing around. And if they want to go this route, they should make sure that they are commenting on the events they are trying to present AND comment on the nature of history AND of storytelling. Walter Benjamin pointed out the old bromide that the masses want diversion and that art demands concentration. I've heard it argued over and over on this list that art is art and teaching is teaching and so forth. Well, it seems like it's always a little of both. Entertainment is a diversion, like junk food. It's nice, but it finally doesn't get you much. People who write historical novels need to be careful that they're not substituting their "expeditious" versions of history for ones that might be closer to "facts" whatever those might be. > If we want history, we should go to the library. And chose which books, exactly? Once again, this is a kind of church and state argument about history and art. What are people so worried about? That their art might get messed up. Hitchcock once said that drama is life with the boring bits taken out. Cutting out stuff is one thing, adding is another. -- Todd Robert Petersen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Introductions Date: 31 Aug 2000 10:00:38 -0500 Greetings List members, It's that time of year again. As is customary, we invite all AML-List and AML-Mag subscribers who wish to do so to introduce yourselves. This is completely optional, but serves as a pleasant way for us to get to know each other better. If you've posted an introduction before, but it's been a while, consider introducing yourself again. Respond in paragraph form, and include any or all of the following: name, age, whether you're male or female, family status, home town, occupation, and connection to Mormon literature (reader, writer, teacher, critic, other). Go into as much or as little detail as desired, keeping in mind that this List is a public forum. Looking forward to hearing about all of you... [Note: All of the introductions will be posted to the List, but not to the Mag. So if you are an AML-Mag subscriber who send in an introduction, you probably won't see it when your introduction goes out.] Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Introductions Date: 31 Aug 2000 10:00:38 -0500 Greetings List members, It's that time of year again. As is customary, we invite all AML-List and AML-Mag subscribers who wish to do so to introduce yourselves. This is completely optional, but serves as a pleasant way for us to get to know each other better. If you've posted an introduction before, but it's been a while, consider introducing yourself again. Respond in paragraph form, and include any or all of the following: name, age, whether you're male or female, family status, home town, occupation, and connection to Mormon literature (reader, writer, teacher, critic, other). Go into as much or as little detail as desired, keeping in mind that this List is a public forum. Looking forward to hearing about all of you... [Note: All of the introductions will be posted to the List, but not to the Mag. So if you are an AML-Mag subscriber who send in an introduction, you probably won't see it when your introduction goes out.] Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Introductions: Jonathan Langford Date: 31 Aug 2000 10:04:12 -0500 I'll kick off the introductions by introducing myself. I'm Jonathan Langford, 38 years old, male, married with three children: Nathan, 11; Rowan, 5; and Michael, about 7 weeks. I'm originally from Oregon, but spent several years at BYU, where I met my (future) wife Laurel, followed by seven years in California where we both attended graduate school. I'm currently living in western Wisconsin (River Falls, about a half hour east of St. Paul, Minnesota), where my wife teaches mathematics at the local university. I work as a freelance (self-employed) writer in the educational technology field. We've been here for three years. While at BYU, I was actively involved in the science fiction and fantasy community there, including several years working on _The Leading Edge_, the student science fiction and fantasy magazine. I also helped run _Life, the Universe and Everything_, BYU's annual science fiction and fantasy symposium. My bachelor's and master's degrees were both in English from BYU; my thesis was on coming-of-age in J. R. R. Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_. I also worked some on other publications at BYU, including time as an intern for _BYU Studies_. In California, I officially specialized in medieval literature, but quit before completing my degree. My main current connection with Mormon literature is moderating AML-List, which I have done since May of this year. I've been a List member for about four years now. I also consider myself a member at large of the Mormon science fiction and fantasy community, and have an amateur interest in Mormon approaches to literary theory and criticism. And I like a good conversation. That's about it... Jonathan Langford - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 31 Aug 2000 10:47:01 -0500 Thom writes: >The questions a viewer should be asking him or herself is not >"How accurate is this?" but rather, "Does the transition into the >song work or is it forced?" "Is that joke funny or not?" "Is >that animation inspired or rather pedestrian?" > >We bring too much of our own agenda to the art we consume in this >country. We should work more at setting aside our own agendas, >in this case, our own understanding of history, and try to see >what the director or writer is trying to do to our emotions. At the risk of beating a dead horse--or at least repeating myself--I'll say once again that the choice to use a historically based character is a choice that, in my view, brings consequences. If you want to write a story that's uncontaminated by the reader's or viewer's prior knowledge of history, then don't use a historical character. Turning it around, it seems to me that use of a historical character is a sign that the artist *wants* to play on, or take advantage of, our prior knowledge of history. Otherwise, why choose a character that brings such baggage? Unless the baggage itself is part of what the artist wants to deal with or use to create an artistic effect. In which case it would actually work *against* the artist's purposes for audience members to, as it were, check their historical baggage at the door. What makes historical characters worth using in a work of art is precisely the baggage and associations they bring with them. You can't have it both ways: both using those historical associations to create an artistic effect, and at the same time ignoring those associations when they get in the way of what you're trying to achieve. I also don't see how critiquing the artist's use of historical materials is that much different than critiquing the animation. In both cases, what you're critiquing is the artist's use of the materials he or she has chosen to communicate the story. Let me turn this around another way. Why shouldn't I let my notions of history influence how I view a work of art? When it comes to the realm of my own reactions, I require a pretty powerful reason to decide that I'm wrong to respond in the way I do. So what is that reason? What will I gain from reacting the way Thom says I ought to react? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tyler Moulton" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Tyler Moulton Date: 31 Aug 2000 09:52:47 -0600 I would like to introduce myself. My name is Tyler Moulton and I've been a = lurker here with occasional posts over the last year. I am extremely happily married to the greatest wife and mother in the = world. (Her name is Heather, in case anyone ever wondered who holds that = position.) We have two delightful children--Katherine (6), who is just = starting first grade and busily losing teeth, and Joseph (4), who is = ecstatic about starting pre-school. I met Heather as I was finishing up a Masters' in Ancient Near Eastern = Studies from BYU. She was teaching English at a local middle school, and = we met at a mutual friend's wedding in the Provo temple. (As you can = imagine, she tells the story much better than I.) I taught in the religion department at BYU for two years before we moved = to England where I read for a PhD in comparative religion. (My dissertation= bore the presumptuous title, "Divine Benevolence, Embodiment, and = Salvation in the Teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.") We thought we would return to BYU, but such a dissertation (from one = uninitiated in the ways of CES) raised a few eyebrows and caused a bit of = a stir among some in the religion department. It appears that unless one = has been adequately trained for the ministry, he should not presume to = write--however tentatively--about something as fundamental as the = atonement. We live in Provo and I surprised everyone who knew me by finding gainful = employment as the Acquisitions Editor for Covenant Communications. I get = to spend my days looking for promising new book ideas for the LDS = audience. (Anyone? Anyone?) I love my job and the people I get to work = with. (I also have the unpleasant task of sending out lots of rejection = letters. I've been on the receiving end, too, so I know how it feels.) I like to hike in the mountains east of Provo and would love to have more = time to spend painting and writing. My parents were gypsies (by choice, = not birthright) and I inherited their love of travel. They introduced me = to the people and cultures of over forty countries on six continents and I = hope to provide similar opportunities for my children. I know many of you and look forward to meeting many more. This is a fun = community to be a part of. That's more than enough about me. Tyler Moulton - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 31 Aug 2000 09:17:19 PDT ><< But how do you know which version is "what really happened"? ... I'm >just >not sure it's really possible to say X (not Y) is > "what really happened." > >> > >Jason, I still cannot understand why this is such a major stumbling block >that you make this point over and over again. > >Are you really sure it isn't possible to know that X (not Y) is what really >happened? You do not believe it is possible to know whether Brigham Young >(not my Uncle Mortimer) was a president of the LDS church in the 19th >century? Or that Heber J. Grant was a polygamist Democrat (not a bachelor >Socialist)? You misunderstand me. I don't mean that the historicity of certain facts are unknowable. I mean the "real story" of history--the cause-and-effect, the narratives that impose order and meaning on a series of knowable facts--is unknowable. It is always possible to have different versions of the story (though the historicity of certain facts might be indisputable). I don't mean to harp on this point. Only to make it. But each time I make it, it is argued, so I take up my side of the argument. I don't mean to make a bigger deal of it than it is--I actually think it's a rather easy thing to acknowledge and accept as true. Jason _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Steed" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Jason Steed Date: 31 Aug 2000 09:48:18 PDT Maybe I can get through my introduction without getting into too much trouble... :) My name is Jason Steed, I'm married to Michele Barker Steed, and we have two children--Cameron (about to be 4) and Megan (about to be 2). We too are originally from Oregon (Monmouth and Tigard, respectively), and we met at BYU. We live (for now) in Las Vegas, where I'm working on my PhD in 20th century literature and teaching at UNLV. Love the school and the department, hate the city... I have a BA in English from BYU and an MFA in creative writing from U of Idaho. My interest in Mormon letters is relatively new and until several months ago (at a conference at BYU), I didn't know AML existed. But of course I'm VERY interested in all things literary (and philosophical and theoretical, especially as they pertain to literature), so even though I'm not as familiar with Mormon works/authors as most of you probably are, I'm very interested in and excited about this forum. I personally have managed to publish only a couple of short stories so far--I have a collection I'm working on, but it has been stuck on the back burner since the PhD thing got going. Most of my writing now is scholarly/critical in nature. I've published several articles on various topics, and last Feb I presented a paper on "Mormon Discourses of Death and Negotiations of Identity"--addressing the ways in which the Mormon sense of group and individual identity is forged in part by the ways we conceive of/perceive death--at a conference at Yale University. (But I was very frustrated over the paper's progress, so it's been discarded.) Anyway, that's probably enough. J.P. Steed English Department, UNLV 4505 Maryland Pkwy, Box 455011 Las Vegas, NV 89154-5011 jpsteed@hotmail.com http://complabs.nevada.edu/~stee6515 _________________ "God created man because he loves stories." -- Elie Wiesel "There is no story that is not true." -- Chinua Achebe _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 31 Aug 2000 13:26:00 -0400 I see Jason's point. There are certain things that happened in my family as I was growing up. No one argues that they happened. Yet, if you asked each of us individually we would all have a different viewpoint of just how, and maybe more importantly, why they happened. I do not agree that people purporting to write historical fiction have no responsibility. Don't argue with me, Thom :o). We will just never agree. I plan on meeting Joseph Smith one day. I'd like him to be a friend. Tracie Laulusa - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Cathy Wilson Date: 31 Aug 2000 11:39:22 -0600 I'm Cathy Gileadi Wilson. I was Cathy Gileadi till last July when I got married to Russell Wilson, head of the music department at the College of Eastern Utah. Fairy tales do come true. . .with nine children, I thought I'd be a sulky single mom for the rest of my mortal walk, but I met my soul mate and have become newly convinced about the wonderment of a good marriage. I have a B.A. from BYU in English/Spanish, and an M.A. from BYU in American Literature, with a creative thesis of poetry. I have taught part-time at BYU right after my Masters' (many years ago) and then at CEU for a semester or two, but adjunct salaries are abysmal so I'm holding out till a full-time position comes available. . . . I run a home-based editing/writing business and by a stroke of odd fortune (I listed my business on www.bizymoms.com, a site where mothers who have businesses can describe their work. When someone types in "ghostwriting" on AOL, I come up as one of the first hits), I have almost more work than I can handle. I do all sorts of projects for all sorts of fascinating people. I read, write and think about Mormon lit -- and literature in general. Irreantum has been kind enough to publish a number of my poems, thanks to Harlow Clark, who is a great supporter of LDS writers and artists with his insightful and kind reviews. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Matkin Subject: [AML] Introductions: Tom Matkin Date: 31 Aug 2000 12:27:42 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > > Greetings List members, I guess I'm one of those again. I have been fickle in my affiliation with this list, but have recently decided to try again because I love to read things that are well written. Also I'm curious to see if the new moderator makes a difference. Not that I'm critical of the former moderator, although I have been critical of the way the ground rules work to stifle responses to certain posts that seemed to beg for honest response. Mostly I expect to lurk. > > It's that time of year again. As is customary, we invite all AML-List and > AML-Mag subscribers who wish to do so to introduce yourselves. My name is Tom Matkin > This is > completely optional, I've always avoided this before, but maybe I've had a change of heart? > but serves as a pleasant way for us to get to know each > other better. I'm all for that. Although some introductions (not here of course, never here) seem more determined to hide the real person than to help anyone get to know him. > > Respond in paragraph form, and include any or all of the following: name, > age, whether you're male or female, family status, home town, occupation, > and connection to Mormon literature (reader, writer, teacher, critic, > other). Go into as much or as little detail as desired, keeping in mind that > this List is a public forum. > Did I miss the bit that said "Don't answer any of the questions until you have read all of the exam paper from top to bottom." Sorry I've already started wrong and to prove I'm imaginative and independent, I'll just forge on in my own way, making a brief gesture of compliance by answering all the questions in the foregoing paragraph in paragraph form. As I believe I mentioned, my name is Tom Matkin. I am married to the lovely Betty Matkin. We have 5 children ranging in age from 28 to 7. We have 3 grandchildren. We are tired. Betty teaches school part time and for the past 25 years I have been practicing law (by myself for the most part) in the very small town of Cardston, Alberta, Canada. I missioned in France with Thom Duncan a few years ago. I have been a bishop etc. etc. and I currently work as an ordinance worker at the Cardston Alberta temple and look forward to teaching early morning seminary in the coming year. I'm active in the local historical society and theatrical society and wrote and produced a play this summer called "Trail of the Chosen" which depicted the discovery and settlement of Cardston by Charles Ora Card and other polygamist pioneers in 1887. The play was a full broadway style musical (with a cast of more than 50) and attracted great attention and appreciation from sold out audiences in its 10 day run. I'm reluctant to ever write another play as I feel I can only do worse. (My treatment of "Esther" has a killer song about the Persian Beauty Parlour, but I can't seem to get very far beyond that) Still I do plod along writing verse mostly. I'm sort of in a limerick mode just now. (It's true that I write limericks/Which fall from my keyboard like bricks/And they seem every time/Ephem'ral not sublime/But something occasion'lly sticks.) I post these verses on a list that I created on Topica.com called mormonpoets list. There are a few other hardy soldiers on the list who post a few lines themselves. Some, I know, are AML subscribers as well. It has been a brave experiment and the results are not in yet, but if you want to really torture yourself you could peek at the archives for that list and see an awful lot of poetry that I have written. If you do that, you will know why I have made no effort to have anything published. If you have any excess creative energy of your own, come join the band. > Looking forward to hearing about all of you... > Oh, the pleasure has been mine. Thank you. No, no, you are too kind. Thank *you*. Tom -- Tom Matkin www.matkin.com (1 Jn. 4:8) 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Gae Lyn Henderson Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:33:12 -0600 I've never introduced myself on the list, so I guess now is the time. My name is Gae Lyn Henderson. I graduated with my B.A. and M.A. in English from BYU. I teach writing at BYU for English Composition and Honors. I'm interested in rhetoric, philosophy, critical theory, gender studies, sexual issues, psychological approaches to literature (particularly Jungian/mythological), new-age spiritualism, and Mormon literature. My writing is critical/academic. I'm presenting a paper at the AML session of RMMLA, October 12-14, in Boise, so I hope to see some of you there. I love some of the people I've met from the list!! (My turn to use exclamation points). I don't know about the rest of you, but I really need friends with whom I can share my literary and scholarly interests and even more than that--my questions and concerns about intellectual pursuits in Mormon culture. I'm married and the mother of six sons ages 13 to 25. We live in Highland, Utah. I love weight-lifting, running, and hiking, particularly hiking the trail to Timpanogus Cave which is 10 minutes from my house. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] History and Fiction Date: 31 Aug 2000 12:57:07 -0600 And so Jason and I go back and forth, both of us representing positions = we're actually somewhat uncomfortable with, and disagreeing when we'd = really rather agree. Let me see if we can fix the problem. First of all, I quite agree that 'what really happened' in the historical = past is unknowable. But the nagging itch of every historian I've ever met = is to get as close as we can. We take the source texts of history and we = construct narratives around them, and the narratives we construct = inevitably reflect the present. And although we may eventually agree = about certain facts and certain events, the significance and interpretation= of those facts and events must always reflect our own subjectivity. = Abraham Lincoln really was shot to death in Ford's Theater. Joseph Smith = really was killed at Carthage. There's no serious dispute in either case. = But why did these events happen? What's their significance? That's more = interesting, more important, and of course, more subjective. What really = happened? A mob broke into a jail, and shot a guy who called himself a = prophet. Was this the martyrdom of a prophet? An unfortunate mistake? A = justified homicide of a certifiable nut? I know what I think happened. = That's as far as I can say. More on this later. Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm