From: Kent Larsen (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN Merger of LDS Publishers Dissolves: Kent Larsen 31May01 B4 Date: 01 Jun 2001 10:12:12 -0500 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com Merger of LDS Publishers Dissolves BOUNTIFUL, UTAH -- The purchase of longtime LDS publisher Horizon Publishing and Distribution by newcomer Cornerstone Books announced last Fall has fallen apart, the victim of financial woes. Last August Cornerstone owner Richard Hopkins agreed to purchase Horizon, where he once worked, from its only owner, Duane Crowther, who was going on an LDS mission. But Hopkins says that when financing fell through unexpectedly, the combined firm was left without enough capital. The unexpected turn of events left the LDS market smaller, without the 12 to 24 new titles that Hopkins planned to publish each year. The split occurred in April, after Hopkins struggled for months to find alternative financing. He says he had a verbal commitment for the financing from Zions Bank, but that after the purchase agreement had been signed, Zions cancelled the commitment. He then searched and found additional financing early this year, but by that time the combined company had fallen behind in many areas, including its scheduled payments to Crowther. The loss of income forced Crowther, who was depending on the income for his mission and retirement, to return and address the problem. Hopkins says that he tried to renegotiate the deal, but that they were not able to reach a satisfactory agreement. Finally, in April, Crowther foreclosed and took over Horizon again. He has since brought in Clay Gorton to work as the company's General Manager and longtime LDS publishing veteran John Hawkes to serve as Production Manager. With the company returning to stability, Crowther has returned to his missionary service. The experience has left both companies weaker. Gorton says that Horizon is getting back into operation, printing additional copies of backlist titles that had run low and getting flyers out to customers advertising its products. He says that Horizon is just now addressing new manuscripts, and certainly won't have any new titles out before late in the Fall. Cornerstone has also been hurt because of the breakup, but has managed to find enough resources to get back in the market more quickly than Horizon. The company has a few new titles scheduled for this summer and expects to work back into full production in the Fall. Sources: Mormon News interviews with Richard Hopkins, Clay Gorton Cornerstone Finds Firm Foundation Without Horizon Publishers The LDS Bookseller Spring01 B4 By Richard Hopkins >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: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator Message Date: 01 Jun 2001 12:58:37 -0500 Folks, This started out as a set of comments on the Female Writer Wanted thread. Much of what I have to say here is specific to that thread; however, I also include a number of general points that I think are worth considering in general. The Female Writer Wanted has been (and continues to be) a good thread, in which an initial discussion of Richard Dutcher's call for a writer has blossomed into all kinds of interesting directions, from legal issues relating to writing employment to gender differences in experience, the contrast between experience and imagination as tools for the writer, and the reality and limits of empathy. It's also started leading in the direction of increasing warmth as List members express their views. To some degree, I think this is inevitable, since it touches on issues that relate very centrally to who we think we are as writers and human beings. On the one hand, the insistence on the priority of experience can seem to lead down a path of prior restraint for what writers "ought to" write about--that if you haven't had a particular experience, or if you aren't part of a particular group, you really shouldn't write about that experience, because you can't do it knowledgeably. On the other hand, the insistence that experience is not crucial for the writer, that all that is needed is imagination and research, can seem to diminish the importance and reality of the lives people lead--suggesting that "reading about it" has the same value as actually living through it, and thereby devaluing the personal prices people pay for their experiences. Let me hasten to add that I don't think either side of this discussion is actually promoting either of the views I list above. But I think many of us are reacting as if those are the views to which we're responding. And I think it's important for all of us to recognize that the discussion is dealing with questions where all of us are likely to be sensitive, because it relates to areas of personal identity. When we talk about what what writers can and can't do, it's hard (if not impossible) to separate that from the question of my own ability and identity as a writer. When we talk about the importance of experience, it's hard (if not impossible) to separate that from the question of the value of my own personal experience. I want the conversation to continue, because I think we're talking about some important questions that relate in very clear ways to the central topics of the List. But I'd like to invite us all to consider the following suggestions (many of which relate as well to certain other current threads): * Read the posts of others both carefully and with charity. If it is possible to interpret a comment as general rather than personal, please do so. * Recognize that the point to which we're responding may be different from the point someone else wished to make. For example: "I recognize that this is probably not what you were saying, but it reminds me of the statement I've often heard that..." * Avoid extraneous, offhand, and dismissive comments about particular groups, philosophies, or broad attitudes. For example: say "This is an attitude I've seen among certain brands of feminism," rather than "This is a feminist attitude." * Be careful to respect the intelligence and experience of others. Avoid commenting on motivations of other List members, except in the most careful and respectful of ways. * Be careful in the ways you express disagreement or lack of enjoyment of works which others enjoy. It's okay to say everything you think is wrong about an artistic work--but it's important to do so in a way that doesn't suggest that those who do appreciate it lack good taste, spirituality, etc. * Be careful not to react personally to criticism of works you enjoy. AML-List is a place where people are allowed, even encouraged, to say negative things about works of art, as well as positive things--if it's for what they see as a constructive purpose, such as improving the quality of art in general. At the same time, it's certainly okay--even encouraged--to disagree with someone's judgment of a work of art, as long (again) as this is done respectfully. * Avoid sarcasm. * Avoid point-by-point refutations of what others have said. It's better, and more constructive, to present your own contrasting position; rarely if ever acceptable to attempt a formal debate-style critique of someone else's position. * Avoid drawing conclusions about "the position of the List." As we read positions that disagree with ours, I've found that it's easy to start feeling that we are alone in our own position. At times, I've had writers on both sides of an issue who felt they were representing a minority opinion, against an overwhelming tide of opposition. This usually isn't the case. I've learned that there's a lot of diversity on the List, though it may not be reflected in those who choose to respond to a particular topic of conversation. * Don't read too much into a lack of response. Many is the post I have labored over, crafted carefully, then sent out--to vanish, so far as I could tell, into a mountain of silence. Discouraging, but I've learned that it happens to everyone. * Remember that this is a public forum. Write everything you write as if anyone might read it--because they may. * Don't simply keep repeating your own position. I think it's easy sometimes for our goal to drift from that of presenting our own position to silencing those with a different view, either through the intensity (or logic) of our arguments or simply by outlasting them. That's not an appropriate goal for this List. As I look back at list of suggestions, it strikes me as long and rather negative--a list of don'ts rather than dos. So I'd like to end on a more positive note, with a list of dos. Do-- * State your position clearly, fluently, passionately, either briefly or at length, respecting at the same time the positions of others that differ from yours. * Share your experiences and insights that contribute to the way you think about things. * Present your viewpoint even--indeed, especially--when it is different from what others are saying. There may be a lot of people who agree with you and are simply waiting for someone to speak up. How can you have a good conversation if many of the participants are silent? * Feel free to change the current of the conversation. If something someone says raises an interesting but different question in your mind, feel free to share it. You might just open up a new conversational vein. With that in mind, let's continue with the conversation... 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] Influencing Mormon Culture Date: 31 May 2001 17:18:07 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > > > > People who know me know they are going to get a hug. Regardless of > > gender. Perhaps it is that I am 60+ and have decided that culture is > > not as important as people. We all need hugs. I can't tell you how many > > young men have in a moment of a hug after a serious conversation. > > something to the effect: " I wish my Dad would hug me like you do". My > > Dad hugged me. I am grateful for that. I hugged my children, > > particularly after discipline. My wish would be that whoever decided > > that hugs were "unmanly" could be hugged by us all, that they might know > > the power of a healthy hug! > > > How wonderful! I find though in the Mormon culture, that it's taboo for > married people to touch members of the opposite sex in any way other than a > hand shake. Let's define this even further. The American Mormon culture. The French Saints have no problem at all with hugging and kissing the cheeks of members of the opposite sex. > As a young adult I had many male friends. But once I moved away and got > married, I no longer had male friends. As someone without a father or > brothers, that left me bereft of any male contact other than my husband. > Now I have three sons, but the taboo is still there. "Don't touch anyone of > the opposite sex unless they're family." Maybe it's not a universal Mormon taboo. My family is a very hugging family. My wife hugs her sons-in-law, I hug my son's girlfriends, my kinds all hug their friends. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.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] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Date: 31 May 2001 17:34:50 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > > Emotion on the other hand is honest. No qualifications at all? You've never met "phony" people, who cry at the drop of a hat to impress you? Emotion is as honest as the person who exhibits it. If, for instance, they've been abused growing up ("Don't you cry! Men don't cry!"), they're likely to NOT cry when they should. And this goes for the other emotions. > However, I would be offended by someone who would state what the my work > means, would suggest that they know better than I do what I meant, or put > symbolisms and meanings in it that were never expressed. I submit that this can and does happen. It's happened to me, I know that. I've had people come to me and go, "Wow, I totally get what you were trying to say in that section." They show me what they're talking about and, darned if they aren't right, there that symbolism is. I don't think a good writer can write anything without some symbol showing up somewhere. What are words, if not symbols that stand for thoughts. > I realize that there will always be critics. And sometimes before I submit > my work, I will ask for help with a critique from another writer. This is > far different from a critic shooting someone down, and far more helpful. > More likely than not, if I do get a book published and I am ever criticized > it will be a negative one. But if I get more positive response from people > who say "you moved me", then I will find that far more valuable than the > negativity of a frustrated critic. What your audience thinks is always more important than what faceless critics think. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.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] re: Female Writer Wanted Date: 01 Jun 2001 12:28:05 -0600 D. Michael Martindale compares giving birth to having the "runs." Hmmmmm. One of the biggest problems with this very problematic analogy is the failure to recognize that the *pain* of childbirth is but one aspect of the whole glorious, agonizing, sacred, torturous, and utterly transcendent experience. But I guess you'd have to have experienced it to understand. :-) 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: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture Date: 31 May 2001 18:00:13 -0700 Thanks to everyone for the great responses. Thom, I believe you are right about it being Dan Jones who used the prophet's arm for a pillow. I passed through Carthage in December of 1999 and took the tour. The elderly missionary there told that part of the story with great feeling and affection for the idea that Joseph Smith was so hands-on. Was it also Dan Jones who rode to Nauvoo from Carthage having been stabbed in the foot with a bayonet and arriving with his boot full of blood? I think you're right about the "I'm not gay" code. The force of the slap also indicates how worried the man is that someone might think he is gay. My favorite way to be hugged is for no slaps, a firm grip, and then a nice back scratch. I can never find enough sharp corners in buildings to scratch my own back, and I stopped being able to reach it years ago. What amuses me most about the "I'm not gay" code is that I've never met a man who was afraid someone would think he is gay who had anything to worry about from any gay men. The degree of fear seems to be directly proportional to the unlikelihood one of "us" would find him attractive. I'm always having to tell men, "Don't flatter yourself." Michael, I agree with what you said about an unlikely event being crammed into a story. In my case, the event was the story, and it is not nearly so far-fetched as a dog grabbing a rope and being dragged into the stratosphere. I appreciate your insights. Barbara, thanks for the points and scene from the Heyer novel. I know I read a novel by her at some point in my life, but cannot remember it. I know that men do show affection for each other in different ways, and I don't mind being slugged or called names, but I find that I've got a much thicker skin than the emerging generation of men. More and more I see young men who think too much. They analyze what their friends mean by innocent horseplay. As much as I regret the loss of a more ancient male affection style, I also regret the loss of men's men who can still take a joke. I fear I will have to lose my sense of humor someday soon, just so I don't upset anyone. Rex Goode - 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] Influencing Mormon Culture Date: 31 May 2001 21:26:18 EDT In a message dated 5/31/01 5:54:37 PM Central Daylight Time, REWIGHT@TELUSPLANET.NET writes: << My wish would be that whoever decided > that hugs were "unmanly" could be hugged by us all, that they might know > the power of a healthy hug! > >> Leo Buscallia (sp) got famous and wealthy about 30 years ago by telling everyone to hug and touch. He wrote books along the same line. Somehow people thought that was profound. I thought it was amusing that a message so simple and obvious would be such a hit with audiences. Violet Kimball [MOD: Leo Buscaglia] - 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] Female Writer Wanted Date: 31 May 2001 21:30:50 EDT In a message dated 5/31/01 5:55:00 PM Central Daylight Time, ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net writes: << >As a closet feminist (are men allowed to be feminists; I was once voted an >"honorary woman" by some feminine feminists at a company where it seemed >that only women were competent--does that count?) >> Carol Lynn Pearson has a bumper sticker that (I think) reads: "Feminism is the idea that women are human beings." I would like to have one to put on my car just as soon as I get the correct wording. My last one; "Write Women Back Into History" was ripped off by someone. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: [AML] Fiction as Plausible (was: Influencing Mormon Culture) Date: 31 May 2001 19:33:21 -0600 on 5/31/01 2:16 AM, D. Michael Martindale at dmichael@wwno.com wrote: > I once read an anecdote in a how-to-write book. An author wrote a story > about a dog who grabbed onto a cable with his teeth as it dangled from a > plane passing by for take-off, and was whisked up by the plane. When he > submitted the story to an editor, the editor dismissed that as > ridiculous. The author produced a newspaper article about that very > event actually happening. The editor was not impressed. He didn't care > if it had happened. He only cared that it sounded plausible. Was it Samuel Clemens who said, "Unlike real life, fiction has to make sense." Steve - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty Date: 31 May 2001 19:33:21 -0600 on 5/31/01 1:04 AM, harlowclark@juno.com at harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > but I would like to > discuss honesty, and the ways people get emotional reactions from other > people. Cornsidering how a passionate orator like Madolf Heatlump (who > only had one--I miss John Lennon) can create passion in a crowd emotion > in art and culture might be worth discussing. As a kid in Logan, UT, I was standing in the LDS meetinghouse foyer when some adults were asking elderly Sister Durtschi how Hitler had gotten the Germans behind him. She thought for a minute and said, "If you had been there with us, if you had once heard him speak, you would have followed him to the ends of the earth." Then she shook her head and muttered something in German which I have always wished I'd been able to understand. Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Hale Theater Date: 30 May 2001 22:25:32 -0500 It must be nice to live in an area where theatre is so abundant and so clean. I have had enormous troubles where I live getting involved in the theater and when I do, more often than not the material is something that I could not in good conscience do. So count your blessings. Anna Wight ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:56 PM > Eric Snider: > > > It has struck me often that while Utahns claim to be great lovers of > > theater, this really only goes so far. We talk about how many > > theaters we have -- far more than we should, given our population > > size -- and how we love to be patrons of the arts. But when you get > > right down to it, what do people actually go see? Shows they've seen > > before ("Joseph," "Forever Plaid," "Fiddler on the Roof"), shows > > their friends and relatives are in, and shows at one particular > > theater they always go to no matter what. Put on an unfamiliar show > > or a drama or one that challenges people's sensibilities, and > > suddenly people aren't quite the theater-lovers they used to be. > > There's a sad but simple calculus that goes on among those of us who plan > our community-based theatres' seasons: because we all rely heavily on > ticket sales we have to have so many "big" shows in the line-up in order to > keep the lights turned on so that we can do the stuff that turns us on. > We've got to do "Fiddler" and "Sound of Music" and "Joseph" so that we can > afford to do "Diary Of Anne Frank" or "Death Of A Salesman" -- not to > mention "Three Women" or "Stones". So on balance it's a good thing that > there's an abundant population of enthusiastic amateurs for whom the big > musicals *are* theatre, who will turn out in droves for those auditions, > fill those choruses, snap up those t-shirts, and pre-sell those seats to > those friends and relatives. > > Please don't get me wrong: I love musicals with a passion, besides being > glad we have them as bread and butter to finance the more serious works for > which we diligently strive to develop our audiences' appreciation. At the > Villa and Little Brown, for instance, we're mulling over our 2002 line-up > and have the necessary workhorses in the lineup to pay the bills. But we're > also experimenting with shorter runs at the Little Brown to give us more > slots for original local works, outside productions, and a leavening of true > classics. We know from experience that this is very risky -- we just don't > sell as many seats for the dramas that challenge as we do for the musicals > and comedies that amuse, and the overhead must still be paid -- but we > believe that there's an audience out there that will support the kinds of > serious endeavors we're planning, especially as we continue to raise our > production values. > > This list is heavy on authors, as is only right given its emphasis, so I'm > often challenged by the stream of book titles that goes by that I really > ought to read [I haven't even read _Wine Dark Sea of Grass_. *YET* -- I can > say that out loud because Marilyn is in Boston... ;-)] But you folks > challenge me and broaden my literary horizons. I hope the playwrights, > directors, and performers here provide you all the same kind of challenge, > to carve time out of your otherwise art-laden lives to support quality film > and live theatre. > > [Scott Tarbet] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] John H. GROBERG, _In the Eye of the Storm_ (Review) Date: 31 May 2001 23:04:19 -0500 In the Eye of the Storm by John H. Groberg 1993, Bookcraft (Deseret Book Company, Inc.) Hardcover, 303 pages, $16.95 Reviewed by Larry Jackson This is the story of Elder John H. Groberg's first mission to Tonga from 1954 to 1957. It is a story of faith, love, patience, obedience, courage, and adventure, and of listening to and following the promptings of the Spirit. The book has 60 chapters and a glossary. Everything takes place on Tonga, except events in the second and last chapters and in parts of two others. "I had no feeling that I was going into a particularly hard situation or that things were going to be tough. I had no thought of doing anything unusual, but rather simply wanted to do my best to get through each day doing as much good and as little damage as possible." This introductory understatement sets the tone of the book. I thought I would read it in my spare time over the course of a few weeks. I finished it in three days. Take, for example, this excerpt from the very first chapter: The motor struggled with all its might to climb the monstrous wave. I still felt we would be safe but realized we were in for a rough time. This was worse than any roller coaster ride, and the stakes were much higher. We were just approaching the top of this huge wave when immediately behind it appeared another one even larger. The boat turned crazily as we reached the top of the wave and started down. Suddenly, almost without warning, the second wave came roaring through and caught the front of our boat, flipping us into the air like a lion discarding a dead mouse. . . . I remember the sensation of falling, falling, falling through hissing winds and stinging salt spray into the boiling cauldron of an angry sea. As I hit the water, I remember wondering where the others were, and where the boat was, and hoping it wouldn't land on top of me. I thought I could still hear the uncontrolled whining of that frantic, racing propeller. As I sank below the water, I still seemed to be falling down, down, deeper and deeper. The pressure was almost unbearable; my lungs seemed ready to burst. _When would it end? And how?_ I wondered about my scriptures and the tracts and what few other things we had on the boat. I wondered about the most recent baptismal certificate I was carefully carrying in my scriptures. It's strange what you think of at times like that. Then I was on the surface again, out of the grasp of that terrible pressure but still in the center of a universe in unbelievable commotion. I could see no one and hear nothing but the confused sounds of a swirling sea of madness. For a moment I thought again, "This can't be! This isn't true! I'm a missionary; this isn't supposed to happen! I'm not supposed to swim!" But it _was_ true and I _was_ there, and I knew I had better quit complaining and start swimming. Elder Groberg served in two areas. The first was an island of about 700 residents with no electricity, running water, nor any other modern convenience. A week's travel by boat, it was the most distant Tongan island from the mission home. He was there for over a year with his "first, last, and only regular missionary companion". In his second area, he was the district president for a year and a half, responsible for 2000 members of the church on 17 islands. This would be similar to being the stake president of a very large geographical stake today. With travel time to and from Tonga, he served away from home for three years. The book tells of his missionary experiences and of the people of Tonga. Thinking at first that their life-style was simple, Elder Groberg soon learned that it was as complex as ours, "not in a physical 'rush here and scurry there' context, but in the context of interpersonal relationships, in finding one's place in society, and in coming to peace with God and with one's role in life, . . . just set against a different background." His first mission president gave him two assignments: learn the language as soon as possible, and build the kingdom. His companion spoke a little English and had been serving as a building missionary. He was "a native Tongan, a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood, worthy to be an elder, but at that time in Tonga men were ordained elders only when they got married." He was also given an assignment from the mission president. "I marveled at his ability to speak Tongan, even though it was his native tongue. I marveled even more at his obedience. . . . during the thirteen months we were together he spoke only Tongan to me." Through Elder Groberg's eyes, we come to feel a different world and another way of living. The story flows with excitement, balanced with a pacing that portrays a different way of telling time. "I remember asking the branch president what time sacrament meeting started. He looked to the west, pointed partway down the sky, and said, 'When the sun is about there.' " He reveals his innermost feelings of despondency and loneliness. He tells how he overcame these deep feelings through prayer. He tells of trust and confidence, required because of his situation and learned through his association with the Tongan people. He describes the love and faithfulness of Feki, his companion. ". . . my heart melted with admiration. He had absolutely refused to downgrade another. I knew I could trust him." The book is about faith, and faith is woven throughout the stories he tells. Elder Groberg shares many of his first hand feelings and growth as he experiences the faith of the Tongans. "I felt like I was standing on the shore of a mighty river while watching the powerful flow of faith go by. That river of faith was like an unfathomable current that I could see and feel, but not fully understand from where it came or to where it was going, yet every part of me felt its force and beauty and power. It was marvelous!" Communication to the island was by boat, which came every four weeks or so-sometimes. When a hurricane destroyed the crops and gardens, the food was gone in four weeks, but the boat didn't come for nine. The ninth week began . . . I was pretty much skin and bones by now. I remember being aware of my ribs sticking out, of sensing my heart beating and my lungs breathing, and feeling a great wonderment for the miracle of the human body. . . . At times I wasn't sure which side of the veil I would end up on, but it didn't matter. All that mattered was that God was in His heaven, and He knew me and my situation; He would see that what was right was done, for as far as I knew, I had done all I could. . . . Later that day I heard that most welcome sound, the haunting cry from high on the mountain, _"Seilo, seilo"_ ("A boat is coming"). Humor is not lost through the telling of his experiences. Elder Groberg shares the good and the bad, the serious and the funny with a consistent level of narrative, allowing each adventure to stand on its own until the reader realizes they are truly woven into one great whole. "Within a day I learned again the classic definition of seasickness: At first you're afraid you'll die; then you get so sick you're afraid you won't." "He asked me whether my feet had been uncovered during the night. When I said, 'I guess so,' he told me that rats had eaten the soles of my feet off!" "A female voice called back, 'Help me! I twisted my ankle.' I came around the bend and sure enough, there was the eighteen-year-old daughter. She had put down her load and was in the process of undressing." And in Tongan there is no G, R, or B sound, making _Groberg_ very difficult to pronounce. Elder Groberg's language is descriptive, thorough, and powerful. He speaks of life and death, faith and blessings, and the gift of tongues. He describes learning of his father's calling as a patriarch three months before he receives the letter announcing the news. He tells of harrowing travel by small sailboat on the open sea, and of his desire to learn from each experience. He describes a place of which most have only dreamed. And it becomes real and tangible. I am only half-way through the book. It gets better. This book, simply but powerfully written, will strengthen faith and bring a deep understanding of what it means to rely upon the Lord. It brought back to me the memories of some of the most personal and spiritual experiences of my lifetime. Elder Groberg has shared a few of his mission stories while speaking in general conference. The healing of the boy who fell from the mango tree. The Lord's Wind. But in the pages of this book, he is a storyteller. And what a story. Once I asked the Lord to bless us with a good tail wind. . . . As we got under way, one of the older men said, "Elder Groberg, you need to modify your prayers a little." "How's that?" I replied. "You asked the Lord for a tail wind to take us rapidly to Foa. If you pray for a tail wind to Foa, what about the people who are trying to come from Foa to Pangai? They are good people, and you are praying against them. Just pray for a good wind, not a tail wind." Ah, the simple things of life. So simple. So powerful. This book will take your breath away, spiritually. Larry Jackson June 1, 2001 ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty Date: 01 Jun 2001 01:57:11 -0500 > > Many writers work very hard to add texture and depth to a story. > Symbolism is not the invention of critics. For a fairly obvious example > of symbolism read the first chapter of Martin Cruz Smith's _Stallion > Gate_. It's the story of Joseph being delivered from prison after being > left there to rot. To emphasize that he's working with that story, Smith > retells the encounter between Joseph and Potiphar's wife a couple of > chapters later. To further emphasize it, he named the main character Joe. Oh, I realize writers use symbolism. I've done it myself, both in the book I've written and the one I'm currently working on. When I think of symbolism I think of CS Lewis and his Chronicles of Narnia. But sometimes, a rose is a rose and an apple is an apple, and the author had no intention of putting any symbolism into it. And some teachers like to find symbolism in everything. And most teachers don't get the opportunity to speak the the writer to find out if that's what was meant. Yet they teach as if they do know. Of course there's nothing wrong with supposing, or guessing, as long as we recognize that's what we're doing. Anna Wight - 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] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Date: 01 Jun 2001 02:15:38 -0600 katie@aros.net wrote: > I wonder--just a thought-- if Covenant or another competing publisher were to > launch a Jack Weyland clone who did the same things, only "better", would the > real Jack Weyland "improve" his writing? (according to the standards of those > of us who argue that he needs to improve?) Again, according to the 22 immutable laws, he wouldn't have to. He was first, and will always hold that distinction. He has his following who would not care if someone better came along. They might add the new author to their list of books to read (especially if he's billed as the "next Jack Weyland"), but they wouldn't stop reading the original Weyland. Just like Coke lovers hated drinking the "New Coke," even though studies demonstrated it tasted better. -- 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] Symbolism Date: 01 Jun 2001 02:21:29 -0600 Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > Eco has a healthy attitude - he realizes even the most careful, skilled authors > (and he is on eof the most) are not always in full concious control of their > works, and so things are in the literature that the author may not have > intended, but those elements are still there. I go further than that: these are the best elements of the story, the best form of symbolism and metaphor. This is the sort of "message" that an author can send without appearing didactic, propagandic, preachy, etc.--the one he doesn't know is in there. I think the problem comes when English instructors say, "This and only is is what the author meant by such and such." The right way to say it is, "This is what I got out of such and such. What did you get?" -- 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: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted Date: 01 Jun 2001 02:33:21 -0500 More than I wanted to know.:) But...it's still not the same thing. There's a whole lot of emotions involved in childbirth, which men feel to some extent, but for a woman it takes up her entire being at that time. (Emotions that I'm sure you did not feel on the toilet). Also pain is not just in one area during childbirth. It encompasses the whole body (unless she's got drugs). Emotions involved in childbirth? For me there was joy, fear, anger, embarrassment, humiliation, frustration, wonder, curiousity, anticipation, etc. Far too many to pinpoint. And pain? "Hold my hand, but don't touch me. Rub my back but don't touch me." Men may have heard this, but they don't understand how a woman can want to be touched but not want to be touched. Yet women understand this. As much as men want to be involved in the birthing experience (and they should be with their wives at this time) and as much as men have tried in history to take the birthing experience away from women (at one point female midwives were illegal), it still remains a woman's experience, and until science or God makes it possible for men to go through this it will always be. Men can jump up and down and say "I know, I know, I know. I held her hand, I was there. I know exactly how she felt", the truth is he doesn't know. Most men have the humility to admit this and would not insult their wives or other women by stating anything else. A man could make the attempt to write of childbirth, and might do a passable job, but he will never know. And a female writer who has experienced childbirth would probably be able to do a better job. Someone said "Pain is pain, joy is joy, grief is grief." But that's not true. Getting burned is a different pain from getting cut. The joy attached to an accomplishment is different from the joy attached to a newborn baby. The grief of losing a parent is different from the grief of losing a child. Just because someone has experienced a migraine headache (or in your case, cramps) doesn't mean they understand the pain of childbirth. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 01 Jun 2001 08:52:21 -0400 Thom Duncan wrote: > > James Picht wrote: > > > > _The West Wing_ is pro-Democrat anti-Republican > > propoganda, > > No, it isn't. It's pro-politics. One of the most well-rounded > characters is a young Republican working as one the President's > lawyers. [snip] It is always a bit of a thrill to agree with Thom, though the little Republican lawyer is only occasionally on the program. I truely believe that all real art is somewhat didactic, but that if it is overt, it is useless and destructive of the art. I really don't believe that the West Wing is consistently didactic (With the exception of the attack on Dr. Laura which was awkwardly inserted into the episode, and almost ended with nyah nyah nyah) I was driving the other day with talk radio (now that I am old, I fall asleep at the wheel when I can't yell at the radio). On that day, a listener called in to the "Black avenger" with a tirade about West Wing's final episode, ranting about the president going into the National Cathedral and cursing God. (A truly fascinating piece.) It was so irritating to hear anyone take a part of a program so totally out of context. I wanted to scream "Read Job" "Read _Anything_ in the Old TEstament. Read the accounts of the garden prayer and the crucifiction (I know Jesus doesn't curse God, but he does momentarily ask to be taken off the hook)" I have stayed silent on Dutcher. I had to watch his first film on video tape (I was impressed, and don't feel it was meant to proselyte) and I probably will have to wait for _Brigham City_ as well. Unlike Thom, (or for that matter many others) I thought the miracle scene was well handled and appropriate. If you want to see some that are really maudlin and awkward go see the Hollywood film "Song of Bernadette". Richard Johnson (who usually has a signature piece, but my computer is really whacked out right now). - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Date: 01 Jun 2001 09:43:05 -0600 On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 08:55:55AM -0600, katie@aros.net wrote: > I wonder--just a thought-- if Covenant or another competing > publisher were to launch a Jack Weyland clone who did the same > things, only "better", would the real Jack Weyland "improve" his > writing? (according to the standards of those of us who argue that > he needs to improve?) Covenant has quite a few titles targeted toward the young adult audience. I know they published at least one by Gary Davis and several by Jennie Hansen. You could probably also include Rachel Nunes, Dan Yates, and many others as young adult authors. Probability would suggest that at least one of these authors writes better books than Jack Weyland. Covenant has published YA fiction for at least the past eight to ten years, so their publications don't seem to have created any pressure to change Jack's writing. -- Terry Jeffress | Listen carefully to first criticisms of | your work. Note just what it is about AML Webmaster and | your work that the critics don't like-- AML-List Review Archivist | then cultivate it. That's the part of | your work that's individual and worth | keeping. -- Jean Cocteau - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kent Larsen (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN New Products: Doctrine, Adventure and 'Ask Gramps': Kent Date: 01 Jun 2001 10:12:38 -0500 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com Doctrine, Adventure and 'Ask Gramps' NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- Several recent new products look at LDS doctrine, while a some new novels are adventures or thrillers. Covenant has released "Hallowed Journey" a box set of its dramatized Book of Mormon Stories. It has also released a CD of BYU Education Week speaker Bernell Christensen, who looks at "What makes life worth living?" Meanwhile, Cedar Fort has released a thriller, "The Trevelyan Trap" and an adventure story for youth, "Treasure in Ghost Town." Readers may also find some adventure in Orson Scott Card's "Saints" the story of a Mormon woman through the trek from Nauvoo to Utah. Those wanting more doctrine will find a unique look at it in the only book so far this year to have come from the Internet. "Ask Gramps" from Maasai Publishing is a compilation of 101 questions asked of Clay Gorton in his Ask Gramps column over the past few years. That column is now on LDSLiving.com New and recent products: Hallowed Journey Box Set Covenant Communications CD; LDS Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Subject and Author $49.95 Dramatized Book of Mormon stories. Includes 184 stories portrayed by more than 100 actors using full sound effects. The Worth of Souls by Bernell Christensen Covenant Communications CD; LDS Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Subject and Author $11.95 Popular BYU Education Week speaker Christensen examines questions like "What makes life worth living?" and "What gives worth to a soul?" He explains how the worth of souls can be measured in the good we do for others. The Trevelyan Trap by Heather Johnson Cedar Fort Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author $12.95 Thriller. A wedding gift announces threats against the Trevelyan family, and its recipient struggles to discover the gift's creator and the source of a mounting death toll. See: More about "The Trevelyan Trap" by Heather Johnson at Cedar Fort or learn more about "The Trevelyan Trap" by Heather Johnson at Amazon.com Treasure in Ghost Town by Barbara Turner Cedar Fort Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author $11.95 This adventure for youth accompanies two children as they spend their summer in an old Colorado mining town, where they discover an old buried chest. See: More about "Treasure in Ghost Town" by Barbara Turner at Cedar Fort or learn more about "Treasure in Ghost Town" by Barbara Turner at Amazon.com Saints by Orson Scott Card Forge Book; National Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Subject and Author $17.95 A new edition of Card's story of the Mormon migration, told through the eyes of Dinah Kirkham. See: More about "Saints" by Orson Scott Card at Amazon.com Ask Gramps by Clay Gorton Maasai Publishing Book; LDS Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Author and Subject $11.95 Compilation of 101 questions that author Gorton answered in his on-line column, "Ask Gramps" currently found on LDSLiving.com. Questions run the breadth of the Mormon experience, including doctrinal questions as well as questions about the LDS lifestyle. >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: LuAnnStaheli Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Date: 01 Jun 2001 12:08:01 -0600 Valarie can probably answer this best if she's reading the messages, but when I used to read for Covenant I was told they weren't planning to buy YA books because the market wasn't big enough to warrant the time/money needed to publish them. I know that my 8th/9th grade students all read Anita Stansfield and Rachel Nunes like there were no other authors (even the boys). A couple of years ago I couldn't keep Chris Heimerdinger on the shelf, but now his series just sits. I think they have already read them by the time the students come to me. Those who have discovered Brent Rowley REALLY like his books (so much that I've had TWO copies of My Body Fell Off S T O L E N from my shelf!) - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 01 Jun 2001 04:23:17 -0600 According to Richard Dutcher, we can tell any kind of story as long as it's done from a faithful point of view. I agree with him. But just how far can we take this? Specifically, I've been wondering how intimately we can handle the temple in our fiction. There must be a million fine stories waiting to be told about the temple and what goes on in there. On the other hand, much of what goes on in there is sacred and not to be casually discussed outside its walls. A marriage is a common event in fiction of any kind. What if the marriage is a temple sealing? How much can we discuss? How much can we show? You may have a dramatic scene in mind during a temple recommend interview. How much detail about the interview and the questions is it appropriate to put into fiction? Dare I even suggest a scene during the middle of an endowment session? A person's first visit to the temple is a situation rife for dramatic story-telling, as much as any rite of passage story, and is an integral part of the Mormon experience. Obviously reciting the endowment session in our fiction would cross the line. But do we have to get good and vague to tell such a story, possibly ruining its impact? Is the temple a part of our culture that is forever beyond the reach of our fiction? If not, how detailed do we dare get? How much would offend our fellow Saints? More importantly, how much would offend God? -- 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: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Date: 01 Jun 2001 13:05:00 -0600 On Wed, 30 May 2001 23:14:20 -0500, REWIGHT wrote: >> My response in no way invalidated emotion as an acceptable response to >> a book. In fact, you were the one who wrote a post that looked down >> its nose at the intellectual treatise. This frustrated me, because I >> believe that an intellectual treatise provides just as valid a >> response to a work as the reader who sheds tears while turning the >> last page. A reader cannot give a work an inappropriate response. >> The author might have intended one response over another, but we >> cannot fault the reader for the response. >> >You have a valid point there and I apologize for frustrating you. Let = me >try to explain why I made that statement. > >The original post did seem to turn it's nose down at the woman and = others >like her, who said that she liked the book because it made her cry. An >honest response that to me shows no agenda whatsoever other than to = express >an opinion. Well, since it was my original post, I'll go ahead and chime in here. The woman I was talking about was a good friend of mine. She was my Visiting Teacher, and then I was hers, for many years. I liked her a = lot, and I always wished she would give herself more credit for being smart. What she said was not "I liked this book because it made me cry." She = said "This book was GOOD because it made me cry." Even more specifically, she told me that *I* would like this book because it was so good it would = make me cry. Her emotional response is not the issue. Two things bugged me about = this: 1. "Good" is not an expression of preference. It is an absolute = statement of universal quality. I know it's frequently used to express an opinion, but it creates an impossible situation for anyone who doesn't also like = the book--because then they are saying it's NOT good. 2. The idea that everyone likes the same thing about books is = ridiculous. I ended up in the very awkward position of having to say "I didn't like = this book at all," therefore suggesting (as in number 1 above) that the book ISN'T good and involuntarily implying that she's somehow stupid or naive = for liking it. (For those of you keeping track of our past discussions, the book in question was _The Little Red Buckets_ by Linda (Lynda?) Nelson, about which I started a long discussion a few years back. It also = explains why I couldn't just refuse to hurt her feelings by not saying anything.) I didn't say all of this the first time because I gave that example as a simple illustration of what some readers' criteria for quality reading = might be. Yes, I agree that it comes off as a little snobbish. That was the POINT. It's possible to put other readers down because they don't share = the same values, the same reasons for reading, that you do--especially if you happen to have spent many years studying books and reading and writing. It's especially easy to forget that people can still read and enjoy books without the benefit of all that expensive training, and that their = reactions are just as valid as yours. Did you read the rest of my post, Anna? What I've been trying to say is that we have to be careful, when we're making any kind of critique of a = book (from the full-blown literary kind to the simple emotional response), = that we're not judging it against an inappropriate standard. You wrote: >I tried to read Angela's Ashes, >a best seller that was made into a movie. I couldn't get passed the = first >chapter. Why? Because I couldn't stand the way it was written. No >conversations, all telling, no showing. To this day I can't tell you = what >the Dickens David Copperfield was about and I read the entire thing.=20 So would you therefore conclude that these were poorly written books, or that they're just bad, and that no one with taste should read them? Or = that they're just not what you're interested in, and not the kind of = literature that matters to you? You may not like _David Copperfield_ = (coincidentally I didn't like it either) but that doesn't make it a bad book, and it also doesn't mean that someone else might not love it. Conversely, not liking Jack Weyland or Linda Nelson or Shirley Sealy might not mean that they're writing bad books. If they're following the rules of their genre, and if their audience likes it, then it's unfair to hold them to a different standard just because you don't happen to enjoy what they write. To bring this back to the original point, which was that an emotional response is at least an honest one: I have no problem with readers who = only want to have that emotional response. What disturbs me is that it's okay for THEM to snub readers who prefer the more intellectual experience, as though they are somehow lacking in sensibility and true feeling. This is the reaction I had to your first response. So now we both get to clarify our positions. :) >However, I would be offended by someone who would state what the my work >means, would suggest that they know better than I do what I meant, or = put >symbolisms and meanings in it that were never expressed. Harlow has already gone into this in his usual effervescent fashion. :) = I would only add that when a person reads a book, they do not usually have = the benefit of calling the author on the phone and saying, "This is what I = got from what you wrote. Is that what you meant?" They base their reading = not only on what the author wrote, but on their own experiences and = knowledge. Sometimes those readings will be negative. Sometimes they're positive. = And sometimes a reader or critic will see something brilliant in your book = that you never even intended to put there--and instead of feeling offended, you're going to feel even better about your book because of it. And = other people will read that review or essay, and it's going to make them want = to run out and read your book too. >More likely than not, if I do get a book published and I am ever = criticized >it will be a negative one. But if I get more positive response from = people >who say "you moved me", then I will find that far more valuable than the >negativity of a frustrated critic. Critics are not always negative. Negative is not always wrong. I = disagree with D. Michael Martindale that it's part of a critic's job to point out = bad writing; my own idea of a critic's job (and in this context, I mean a reviewer, not a scholarly critic) is to illuminate a book for a = particular audience, to suggest whether or not it's worth their time to read it. = (This might include commenting on how the book is written, but my preference is= to apply that judgment in the context of what my readers expect from a book; "bad writing" is, in this sense, a relative thing rather than an = absolute.) But no matter which definition you use, ultimately the critic/reviewer = holds up a book to comparison with an ideal, and points out where it "succeeds" and where it "fails." Some of this will always be negative. As a = writer, you can ignore all the negatives and focus on the positives, or you can coldly examine what the reviewer writes and decide whether or not it has = any merit. Personally, I think it's more valuable to do the latter--and = maybe figure out how better to do something you yourself weren't satisfied with= in your book--than to assume that a negative comment is the jealous ranting = of a would-be novelist or intellectual snob. Believe it or not, sometimes = the critics are on your side. On a new topic: I would be interested to hear why you think (as you've = said more than once now) that if you ever did get published, all the criticism would be negative. To me that seems unnecessarily self-derogatory and a little fearful. Have you already circulated your novel among friends and had both positive and negative responses? Or do you think it's because = it's your first book and you don't know what reaction to expect? This question is interesting to me on a personal level. My mother-in-law reads and writes romance novels. I read one of her books--it was good, = but needed a little polishing on a technical level. She wasn't interested in= my comments. She told me she'd already decided not to pursue it because = she'd submitted it to a publisher and they'd rejected it. But when I pressed = her on this, it turned out that the "rejection" letter ACTUALLY ASKED HER TO SUBMIT FUTURE BOOKS FOR REVIEW. I couldn't believe she'd taken this as a personal affront! To her, it meant she'd failed. So I'm very interested= in people's reactions to criticism of their writing.=20 Melissa Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: [AML] Brazil Date: 01 Jun 2001 13:13:36 -0700 Hi all, I'm looking for our friend on this list who is from Brazil. Renatorio, I think. If you are still on this list, could you please e-mail me? I am trying to translate two words and that neither I or my Portuguese husband can figure out. (It's computer related and he's been in the U.S. a long time.) Thanks, Rachel _______________________ Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh) Best-selling author of the Ariana series and This Time Forever Web page: http://www.rachelannnunes.com E-mail: Rachel@RachelAnnNunes.com WANT A WEBSITE? Check out the host for my site: http://www.launch-web.net. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: renatorigo@bol.com.br Subject: Re:[AML] Brazil Date: 01 Jun 2001 18:40:39 -0300 Send me the complete phrase that contains the words you want to translate into Portughese and I=B4ll try to help you if I can. :-) Renato Rigo renatorigo@bol.com.br > Hi all, > > I'm looking for our friend on this list who is from Brazil. Renatorio, I > think. If you are still on this list, could you please e-mail me? I am > trying to translate two words and that neither I or my Portuguese husband > can figure out. (It's computer related and he's been in the U.S. a long > time.) > > Thanks, > Rachel > _______________________ > Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh) > Best-selling author of the Ariana series and This Time Forever > Web page: http://www.rachelannnunes.com > E-mail: Rachel@RachelAnnNunes.com > > WANT A WEBSITE? Check out the host for my site: http://www.launch-web.net. > > > > > > > - > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm > __________________________________________________________________________ Acesso pelo menor pre=E7o do mercado! R$ 14,90 nos 3 primeiros meses! ASSINE AGORA! http://www.bol.com.br/acessobol/ - 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] Female Writer Wanted Date: 01 Jun 2001 15:56:33 -0600 >From Anna: Men may have heard this, but they don't understand. . . I think Anna is right, yet her comments bring up an interesting question about artistic creation generally. I know that sometimes I sound like the New Age Mama on the list, yet my experience with creation (and observation of others) is that in the midst of the hard work, there can be transcendent moments that take us far out of our own literal understanding and experiences. We can somehow enter into another's reality, such as a character's reality or the reality of a character we're acting in a play, and render it as if we knew it firsthand. Would some of you other artists agree? And if that happens, then the important things are skill, focus, hard work and plain old stick-to-it-iveness till the rendering is right. Literal experience then may not always be absolutely necessary for powerful work. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty Date: 01 Jun 2001 16:48:06 -0400 REWIGHT wrote: > And some teachers like to > find symbolism in everything. And most teachers don't get the opportunity > to speak to the the writer to find out if that's what was meant. Yet they > teach as if they do know. No, offense, but you must have had a run of terrible teachers. Last semester in my SciFi class, one of the books I wanted to teach never came from the publisher. So I was caught short and decided, "What the heck, I've got all these remaindered copies of Jaxon Files in boxes in my basement, let's use those." I approached the experiment with fear and trembling. It was going to be nice to be able to say with absolute certainty that this is exactly what the author (me) intended, but I was taking a big risk putting my book out there alongside "Stranger in a Strange Land," "We," and "Ender's Game." In fact it felt the height of arrogance to even presume, and I told my students that. But they seemed to enjoy the experience. On the student evaluations, turned in anonymously in a sealed envelope and withheld from the teacher until after final grades had been turned in, the kids were uncharacteristically effusive regarding that particular text. Next time I teach the class, I'll put it in the syllabus and actually make them pay for their copies. Tony Markham - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] Hitler (was: Symbolism and Emotional Honesty) Date: 01 Jun 2001 15:17:46 -0600 Steve wrote: > on 5/31/01 1:04 AM, harlowclark@juno.com at harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > >> but I would like to >> discuss honesty, and the ways people get emotional reactions from other >> people. Cornsidering how a passionate orator like Madolf Heatlump (who >> only had one--I miss John Lennon) can create passion in a crowd emotion >> in art and culture might be worth discussing. > > > As a kid in Logan, UT, I was standing in the LDS meetinghouse foyer when > some adults were asking elderly Sister Durtschi how Hitler had gotten the > Germans behind him. She thought for a minute and said, "If you had been > there with us, if you had once heard him speak, you would have followed him > to the ends of the earth." Then she shook her head and muttered something > in German which I have always wished I'd been able to understand. On my mission, I got to talk honestly with some Germans who were there as well and they say much the same thing if you can establish an honest bond with them (it isn't something they'll casually admit). They have a great deal of shame about it. Hitler is an interesting orator to hear. Politicians then were expected to be rousing because swaying a crowd made good film shorts (which was the media draw of the day). There's lots of yelling and emotion that looks ridiculous to modern sensibilities, particularly if a less-emotional translator is involved. I remember well my shock the first time I heard Hitler and understood what he said. For one, he has a thick southern accent. For another, there is definitely a charismatic pull to his oration. His language flows and draws sympathy in a natural, energizing way and his conviction is absolute. He is certainly one of the best orators of his day. In the calm of reason and benefit of hind-sight, you understand how damaging his words are, but in the heat of emotion he can be very energizing and there is no doubt that he commands attention. Jacob 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] Female Writer Wanted Date: 01 Jun 2001 15:21:26 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > More than I wanted to know.:) But...it's still not the same thing. There's > a whole lot of emotions involved in childbirth, which men feel to some > extent, but for a woman it takes up her entire being at that time. (Emotions > that I'm sure you did not feel on the toilet). Also pain is not just in one > area during childbirth. It encompasses the whole body (unless she's got > drugs). Some women experience no pain at all. Would that make their experience invalid. > Emotions involved in childbirth? For me there was joy, fear, > anger, embarrassment, humiliation, frustration, wonder, curiousity, > anticipation, etc. Far too many to pinpoint. And pain? "Hold my hand, > but don't touch me. Rub my back but don't touch me." Men may have heard > this, but they don't understand how a woman can want to be touched but not > want to be touched. Yes, they can. Men are not completely oafs. > Yet women understand this. As much as men want to be > involved in the birthing experience (and they should be with their wives at > this time) and as much as men have tried in history to take the birthing > experience away from women (at one point female midwives were illegal), it > still remains a woman's experience, and until science or God makes it > possible for men to go through this it will always be. Men can jump up and > down and say "I know, I know, I know. I held her hand, I was there. I know > exactly how she felt", the truth is he doesn't know. How do you know he doesn't know. You cannot be in his head anymore than he can be in yours. > Most men have the > humility to admit this and would not insult their wives or other women by > stating anything else. But it's not an insult for a woman to suggest that a man doesn't have the capacity to understand the miracle of childbirth? > A man could make the attempt to write of childbirth, and might do a passable > job, but he will never know. And a female writer who has experienced > childbirth would probably be able to do a better job. If she was a good writer, perhaps. > Someone said "Pain is pain, joy is joy, grief is grief." But that's not > true. Writing is not about creating reality, but about creating verisimilitude, the semblance of reality. A blow-by-blow account of childbith by even the most skilled woman is guaranteed to be death on toast. But write about the emotions -- and all you listed men can and have felt -- and I don't think, giving two skilled writers of either sex, that one could do better than the other. > Getting burned is a different pain from getting cut. The joy > attached to an accomplishment is different from the joy attached to a > newborn baby. The grief of losing a parent is different from the grief of > losing a child. Just because someone has experienced a migraine headache > (or in your case, cramps) doesn't mean they understand the pain of > childbirth. My wife gave birth in a hospital where the woman next door was screaming her lungs out. My wife, OTOH, did all the LaMAze steps, the breathing, etc. and delivered with far less (outward) agony. As I said above, women in primitive tribes deliver children while squatting in the fields, bite off the umbilical cord with their teeth, and continue hacking away at the corn stalk. Birthing is as varied an experience as any human experience, despite what I interpret as your attempt to make it a monolithic female experience. And because it is, above all, a human experience, another sensitive human, male or female, should be able to explain the process in fairly realistic terms. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.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] Temple in Fiction Date: 01 Jun 2001 15:45:54 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > According to Richard Dutcher, we can tell any kind of story as long as > it's done from a faithful point of view. I agree with him. But just how > far can we take this? > > Specifically, I've been wondering how intimately we can handle the > temple in our fiction. There must be a million fine stories waiting to > be told about the temple and what goes on in there. On the other hand, > much of what goes on in there is sacred and not to be casually discussed > outside its walls. I think we are too "sensitive" with the goings-on in the temple. We seem to forget, for instance, that the Scriptures (available to all) also teach about chastity, sacrifice, and consecration. The WAY it is taught in the temple may be different, but I'm not aware of any new teachings that can't be also found in the scriptures. The Book of Revelation is ripe in temple imagery, for instance. > A marriage is a common event in fiction of any kind. What if the > marriage is a temple sealing? How much can we discuss? How much can we > show? There are only two aspects of the temple sealing ceremony that you would have to avoid, neither of which would greatly lessen the overall simplicity and majesty of the ceremony. You could also include every word the sealer says and not breach any protocol of which I am aware. > You may have a dramatic scene in mind during a temple recommend > interview. How much detail about the interview and the questions is it > appropriate to put into fiction? All the questions and all possible answers could be treated. They are published in a document (the CHI) which any member of the Church can see if they so desire, so they are not "sacred." > Dare I even suggest a scene during the middle of an endowment session? Yes. I can see it being done without breaking any commitments on your part. > A person's first visit to the temple is a situation rife for dramatic >If not, how detailed do we dare get? How much would offend > our fellow Saints? Ah, now THAT's the 64 thousand dollar question, and perhaps the most important, even more important than this question: >More importantly, how much would offend God? God is much not as offended over things as many of his children are. But if you want your fellow Saints to buy the story or book your write based on the temple, please disregard everything I said. It doesn't matter, in the long run what is actually verbotten to talk about, what matters is what your audience THINKS is verbotten. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Critique of Writing (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) Date: 01 Jun 2001 15:52:39 -0600 At 01:05 PM 6/1/01 -0600, you wrote: >This question is interesting to me on a personal level. My mother-in-law >reads and writes romance novels. I read one of her books--it was good, but >needed a little polishing on a technical level. She wasn't interested in my >comments. She told me she'd already decided not to pursue it because she'd >submitted it to a publisher and they'd rejected it. But when I pressed her >on this, it turned out that the "rejection" letter ACTUALLY ASKED HER TO >SUBMIT FUTURE BOOKS FOR REVIEW. I couldn't believe she'd taken this as a >personal affront! To her, it meant she'd failed. So I'm very interested in >people's reactions to criticism of their writing. I can't think of any professional writer I know who wasn't turned down for publication at first. To start, a writer looks for positive encouragement, as your MIL got! And even if the publisher had rejected it, another might like it. There are mailing lists, critique groups, contests, all kinds of support mechanisms in place for the romance writer! Tell her to join the RWA and get onto those lists! As an example of the kind of help that's available, The Beau Monde, an organization for romance writers who set their books in the Regency period, has a mentoring program in which it teams up a published writer with an unpubbed writer so the first can help the second. I was teamed up with a Regency writer named Jessica Benson, and she is an excellent critique partner. (I had reviewed a couple of her books, and she gets the chance to twit me about that all the time!) It's hard to write the kind of thing you like in a vacuum. No one I know in real life writes the kind of novel I enjoy, so meeting and learning from my favorite writers on the lists is a big part of my life. One of the best traditional historical romances by an LDS writer is, in my opinion, Her Norman Conquerer by Malia Martin. The story takes place at the time of the Battle of Hastings--the hero is Norman, the heroine Saxon. The scene about Harold's wife going onto the battlefield after it was all over to find his hacked-up body among the other hacked-up bodies was a killer. Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Hitler (was: Symbolism and Emotional Honesty) Date: 01 Jun 2001 17:48:51 -0600 As a kid in Logan, UT, I was standing in the LDS meetinghouse foyer when >some adults were asking elderly Sister Durtschi how Hitler had gotten the >Germans behind him. She thought for a minute and said, "If you had been >there with us, if you had once heard him speak, you would have followed him >to the ends of the earth." A woman I spoke to in Germany told me that Hitler put meat on their sandwiches. Pretty basic. In one of my novels, I wanted to deal with the idea of where the villains get all those henchmen to follow them and do their dirty work. I posited that the villain found out what they wanted and gave to them, or rather made them believe that he would do so. barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] re: Brazil Date: 01 Jun 2001 20:03:17 -0500 Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh): I am trying to translate two words and that=20 neither I or my Portuguese husband can=20 figure out. (It's computer related and he's=20 been in the U.S. a long time.) Renato Rigo: Send me the complete phrase that contains=20 the words you want to translate into Portughese=20 and I=B4ll try to help you if I can. _______________ It is since a phrase of computer, the computer=20 could translate it not? I have run over some=20 sites of internet that own a programs to translate=20 one other language into documents. Usually=20 Espanol is the biggest often choice. I have seen=20 not a translator of Portughese, still. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: "REWIGHT" Subject: [AML] Negative Reactions to Writing (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) Date: 01 Jun 2001 23:50:05 -0500 >I tried to read Angela's Ashes, >a best seller that was made into a movie. I couldn't get passed the first >chapter. Why? Because I couldn't stand the way it was written. No >conversations, all telling, no showing. To this day I can't tell you what >the Dickens David Copperfield was about and I read the entire thing. So would you therefore conclude that these were poorly written books, or that they're just bad, and that no one with taste should read them? No, I wouldn't come to that conclusion. Obviously many people saw things in these books that I didn't and certainly their opinions matter. I admit that as a writer, trying to be careful to show what's happening and not just tell, it irked me that the writer of Angela's Ashes made it to the best seller list. Now call that the response of a frustrated, jealous, would be writer. :-) I don't know. But he seemed to break ALL the rules. On the other hand I liked Huckleberry Finn even though it broke all the rules. Why? Maybe because it was written in the moment. Maybe I could hear Hucks voice speaking. With the Angela's Ashes it sounded more like someone just droning on and on. Now I know people are going to jump on me about that. In my opinion, Angela's Ashes is poorly written and Huckleberry Finn is extremely well written. But if someone disagrees with me, I think that's entirely fair. After all, how many parents want to burn Huck Finn? On a new topic: I would be interested to hear why you think (as you've said more than once now) that if you ever did get published, all the criticism would be negative. To me that seems unnecessarily self-derogatory and a little fearful. Have you already circulated your novel among friends and had both positive and negative responses? Or do you think it's because it's your first book and you don't know what reaction to expect? I like your new topic. Yes, it's fear talking here. Extreme fear. I know what rejection letters are like (although I haven't had a chance to recieve any for this book yet) and I'm preparing myself for them. It's far more fun to visualize great fame and success, appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show for her book of the month club, purchasing that mansion for my family with my private studio loft, and signing autographs, but, I tell myself I'm more likely to recieve the rejection letter. If I prepare myself for it, I can better cope with the rejection of my baby, and turn around and send it out rather than collapse on the floor in a heaving mess, never to darken the post office door again. I did have another writer critique the first few chapters, and she said she was thourougly enjoying it. I've talked about it with other people who seem to show a genuine interest and mention that they would like to read it. My family on the other hand, has no desire to read it. Perhaps because it might put them in a dillema if they don't like it. What can they say? Lie and say it was wonderful, or tell me outright that it sucks. Sometimes I tell myself that I should think positively, but these days it's enough to keep telling myself that one day my children will be out of diapers. They will...I hope. That's the dream. I don't know what the reaction will be. On top of it, I've sent it to two LDS publishing houses, and I realized the other day that employees of those publishing houses may very well be on this list. I've been shooting off my mouth a lot. My manuscript may cross their desk one day, they might possibly remember me from this list, and decide that there is no way they want to work with me, thinking that I'm an opinionated witch who isn't open to suggestions and can't even write a decent email. (To the oh so talented editor who may be reading this, I am willing to listen to suggestions.) Furthermore, I refuse to announce to the world that I am a great writer. I like to make people laugh, but not that much. In the meantime, I am working on a second novel trying to forget the first one exists. It will be months before I hear anything, unless someone really doesn't like it and garbages it after the first page. Then I might get my rejection letter faster. As for your mother-in-law, I would be more than happy to have someone make suggestions that make my work better. And if a publisher made that request of me, I would be working my fingers to the bone trying to get other things out to him. It sounds like she doesn't understand how this business works. If you get any kind of letter that isn't a standard form, then you've made some headway. Anna Wight - 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] Female Writer Wanted Date: 02 Jun 2001 01:15:08 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > it's still not the same thing. There's > a whole lot of emotions involved in childbirth, which men feel to some > extent, but for a woman it takes up her entire being at that time. (Emotions > that I'm sure you did not feel on the toilet). Also pain is not just in one > area during childbirth. It encompasses the whole body (unless she's got > drugs). > Just because someone has experienced a migraine headache > (or in your case, cramps) doesn't mean they understand the pain of > childbirth. This was the expected response, which I had hoped to assuage by using words like "extrapolate" and "part of" the childbirth process. I'm not talking about a deep down, gut understanding of an experience I've never had (whether I ever can have it or not). I'm talking about taking pieces of information here and there and everywhere you can get hold of it, grabbing every bit of personal experience that is remotely similar, even if way off in degree, and extrapolate from all that to create a facsimile of understanding which you encode into symbols called words. Then a woman will pick it up and read it. If I've done a superior job of research and preparation, I will have gotten a sufficiently close approximation with my symbols called words that they will evoke the memories of childbirth she has personally experienced, and she will proclaim that I got it just right. I don't have to truly understand childbirth to do that, because everything is communicated through symbols, and people fill in symbols with their own personal experiences. The men who pick it up and read it will never know if I got it right anyway, so I'm covered there too. If you're an editor looking for an author to write a convincing scene of childbirth, you'd probably be wise to find a female author who's been through it. But if you're a male author who needs a childbirth scene in your book, you shouldn't shirk from writing it just because you've never experienced it. You just do your best to get the symbols as close to right on as you can. -- 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" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] re: Temple in Fiction Date: 04 Jun 2001 13:37:36 -0500 The temple is one of those kneejerk areas in Mormon culture where people can get pretty irrational. I once had a missionary companion get extremely upset with me for discussing the carpet color and carpet sculpture patterns of various celestial rooms. At Irreantum, our editorial staff was split early on about a short story that included some kind of temple imagery or scenes inside the temple. I don't remember all the details, but I'm sure it didn't disclose actual language or rite details. Still, some editors felt that anything even remotely skirting the possibility of temple sacrilege would offend and alienate many readers, which is probably true. I find that kind of attitude often has a "slippery slope" logical fallacy behind it--in other words, the irrational fear that if we take any step in that direction, however small, we will inevitably get drawn onto a slippery slope that must carry us to a complete fall (in this case, probably a _Godmakers_-style mockery). So it is better to overcompensate and stay WAY far away from any imagined slippery slopes. Mormon culture is FULL of slippery-slope logical fallacies (for one, the attitude about R-rated movies), often disguised as "avoiding the appearance of evil" or "better to be safe than sorry." I'm not saying there is no such thing as slippery slopes and that Satan doesn't operate by subtly attaching flaxen cords one at a time, just that fear of slippery slopes is taken too far in Mormon culture and has become too dominant in the Mormon mindset. (In fact, in many ways that attitude IS the modern Mormon mindset.) Chris Bigelow - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: [AML] Sharing Experience Convincingly (was: "Female Writer Wanted") Date: 01 Jun 2001 19:39:12 -0600 on 6/1/01 3:56 PM, Cathy Wilson at cgileadi@emerytelcom.net wrote: > I know that sometimes I sound like the > New Age Mama on the list, yet my experience with creation (and observation > of others) is that in the midst of the hard work, there can be transcendent > moments that take us far out of our own literal understanding and > experiences. We can somehow enter into another's reality, such as a > character's reality or the reality of a character we're acting in a play, > and render it as if we knew it firsthand. Would some of you other artists > agree? And if that happens, then the important things are skill, focus, > hard work and plain old stick-to-it-iveness till the rendering is right. > Literal experience then may not always be absolutely necessary for powerful > work. Cathy, You are my favorite New Age Mama bar none. Make any observations you'd care to, ma'am. You have reminded me that as artists we can never really give someone an experience at all, they have to have the experience themselves. Here's what I mean... The best writers seem to give just enough clues about their subject that we as readers can fill in the blanks of the emotion or experience. It's like they sketch a blueprint and we build the house. It's the same blueprint for every reader, but everyone who reads builds a slightly different house. So, whether I've experienced giving birth, giving blessings, living off the land, making first contact with alien species, or discovered the secret meeting place of the Latter-day Danites or not, I might, with some skill, be able to sketch the outline of those experiences well enough for someone to read and recreate them in their own minds in an extremely satisfy way. Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 01 Jun 2001 22:50:33 -0500 Tough questions, but this is what it seems to me. And before I say anything else, this is not directed at anyone, but just a general statement of what I've observed. Part of the temple endowment is keeping it's sacredness. We are not to talk about specifics anywhere outside of the temple, even in temple preperation classes. For me, that covenant should not be broken just because I want to write a story. Artists tend to start believing that they are above rules. As long as it's artistic it's deemed acceptable. But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not as important personages as they like to think. Doctors, nurses, teachers, parents and policeman, contribute more substantially to society. They teach, heal and protect. Artists on the other hand, have the chief purpose of entertaining. Sometimes they might uplift and inspire but essentially they are there to entertain and beautify. Nothing wrong with this. God wants artists in the world too. But no matter how noble we may think our work is, it is still there for the entertainment of others. Certainly not a good enough reason to break covenants for. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture Date: 01 Jun 2001 23:58:58 -0500 > > Maybe it's not a universal Mormon taboo. My family is a very hugging > family. My wife hugs her sons-in-law, I hug my son's girlfriends, my > kinds all hug their friends. > Maybe. I just know that here in the wards I've been in Canada, I've rarely recieved any physical touch from men other than my family. Of course that could just be me. My husband had an experience where he was walking down a church hallway with another sister in the ward. People made insinuating comments to them. Sad really. It kind of reminds me of a line in City Slickers. Billy Crystal is at the cattle ranch, a woman comes up to him, says hi, and introduces himself. His first reaction was "I'm married." So now I have to ask a question and I'd like honest responses. Do men really think that when a woman says Hi, it's always a come on? See that's where the fear comes in. If I touch a member of the opposite sex, will he think of it as a come on? Will his wife beat me up? Will my husband leave me taking the children with him? Will I live out my days in the church in shame and infamy? Anna Wight > -- > Thom Duncan > Playwrights Circle > an organization of professionals > > -------------------------- Shameless Plug > ------------------------------- > Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! > > *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin > Payne > *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays > *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen > > For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer > festival: > http://www.playwrightscircle.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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] MN Merger of LDS Publishers Dissolves: Kent Larsen 31May01 B4 Date: 02 Jun 2001 01:24:51 -0600 > BOUNTIFUL, UTAH -- The purchase of longtime LDS publisher Horizon > Publishing and Distribution by newcomer Cornerstone Books announced > last Fall has fallen apart, the victim of financial woes. Last August > Cornerstone owner Richard Hopkins agreed to purchase Horizon, where > he once worked, from its only owner, Duane Crowther, who was going on > an LDS mission. But Hopkins says that when financing fell through > unexpectedly, the combined firm was left without enough capital. > He says he had a verbal commitment for > the financing from Zions Bank, but that after the purchase agreement > had been signed, Zions cancelled the commitment. I told my elders quorum president about this turn of events. He's been in the banking industry for some time. His reaction was, "Ah, yes, cut-and-run Zion's Bank." Apparently this is not an uncommon occurrence. Borrower beware. -- 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: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] Hale Theater Date: 02 Jun 2001 10:29:18 -0600 > It must be nice to live in an area where theatre is so abundant > and so clean. I have had enormous troubles where I live getting > involved in the theater and when I do, more often than not the > material is something that I could not in good conscience do. > So count your blessings. > > Anna Wight I'm a recent import to Utah Valley and definitely do count my blessings. I came from being heavily involved in an award-winning theatre in rural Utah that had the same calculus as we do here, with the addition that we had to worry about casting the stake president's son as Joe Cable in a high school production of South Pacific because Joe doffs his shirt. The SP went ballistic and the show was almost closed. Yes, having clean theatre is a blessing. There are also knee-jerk reactions that make it a two-edged sword. -- Scott Tarbet - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 02 Jun 2001 07:40:39 -0700 (PDT) One of the funniest moments in Mormonism happened to one of my friends in the Temple at BYU. I'd love to write about it, and, as I recall, I tried to write about it once in a column under Benson's "moderation" of AML-List, but he thought even with all of the muting I was doing to the piece, it was still too much, and he was probably right. I don't think it's possible to do anything about the Temple featuring characters while they're inside the Temple doing Temple activities without offending someone, unless it's a scene that could take place equally as effectively outside of the Temple, like, say, at the mall. Aspects of the Temple would have to be just plain old background. Otherwise, it's pretty risky. Ed ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 02 Jun 2001 12:17:25 -0600 I have a story that I have been working on that has a scene in it that is a temple recommend interview but I do not put the actuall recommend questions in it, mostly because I didn't trust my memory but also because I don't think that is important to the story. What was important was the fact that the couple in question had desided to get married. On the other hand I don't think the questions used in an interview are all that scared, they are in fact just questions. As for the temple it self another story I am working on ends in the temple. The scene I have worked on is the young mother with her mother-in-law in the brides dressing room getting ready for her to be sealed to her husband. There is another young women there getting ready for her marriage and the two brides and mother's start to talk. In short order they find out that the young mother is the long missing cousin of the other groom. The young mother and her cousin have no other living relatives. I intend to mention the fact that they met in the room couples and new missionaries are taken to before an endowment session and that they have a chance to catch up both there and in the Celestial room. I also will mention that they wittness each others marriage. I just haven't worked on those scenes yet. So I am in the temple, and may discribe some of the beauty of it, but I do not give any detail about the endowment session or even the marriage and sealling. To me it is intirely possible to do a scene in the middle of the endowment session. If you are focasing on the thoughts and feelings of your main character rather then the endowment it self. As long as you do not give any of the details of those scared ordinances then it would be o.k. After all even non-members can see the inside of a temple before it is dedicated. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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] Critique of Writing Date: 02 Jun 2001 00:55:25 -0700 On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:05:00 Melissa Proffitt writes: > Harlow has already gone into this in his usual effervescent fashion. :) Just me and Mr Kaseltzer. After an interesting discussion of symbolism Melissa turns to a new question, how people respond to criticism, and whether criticism is always negative. Sometime around 1978, after Pageant when the 5 steak presleydents in the New York Rochester mission met with the new mission prez, Marvin Curtis (Uncle Marvin to my cousins, whose mother's sister had died of cancer while married to him--he had then married a former nun ("She still loves the Church? That's like saying, 'Mom, Dad, I got a divorce, but I still love him," a Catholic woman told me--yes it'll find some place in my missionary stories)) and told him Rochester was the only mission where the missionaries got a two week summer vacation with 200 (2000?) girls brought in, and he needed to get the missionaries out of pageant, our mission pres. said, referring to some kind of negative publicity, "All publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right." More recently, at Tim Slover's Christmas party, 1999, a (relatively) young critic told Eugene England that a presenter at RMMLA in Santa Fe had praised him as a critic and said, "It is a pleasure to honor him by disagreeing." (The look on Gene's face was--in the word of a horrible series of credebt card kumurshuls--priceless.) And it _is_ a pleasure to take someone's ideas seriously enough that you want to honor that person through reasoned disagreement. I've mentioned Leslie Fiedler's _No In Thunder_ a few times (and Fiedler's name is forever bound up with Richard Cracroft's comment, "He's a from-the-hipper, and his wonderful example of how Fiedler shoots from the hip. Seems he was at a conference once and said, "Anti-Mormonism is the Anti-Semitism of the American west." "Some of us stood and cheered," Richard said.) It's about as caustic a rejection (the title essay anyway) as I've read. (Of course, there are Pauline Kael's comments on movies and other critics, especially in _I Lost it at the Movies_ and _Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang_. I read a poignant comment about that in a book of Wilfred Sheed's essays, "We all are, or were, friends.") But despite Fiedler's thunderous rejection of a lot of mid-century writing (including _Bang the Drum Slowly_, which reminds us of how much we Americans "love the privelege of being lied to"), he also says (close paraphrase), "I have not said no to anything it didn't cost me something to say no to." He's read the books and they mean something to him. > But when I pressed her on this, it turned out that the "rejection" > letter ACTUALLY ASKED HER TO SUBMIT FUTURE > BOOKS FOR REVIEW. I couldn't believe she'd taken this as > a personal affront! To her, it meant she'd failed. Reminds me of a very nice scene in Erica Glenn's Dancing Shoes where Rachel goes with Dulcie to a theatre producer's office for an audition. Dulcie is a fine dancer but can't read Shaxbeard worth beans (or pease porridge hot). Rachel is a lousy dancer, but starts reciting the passage Dulcie is trying to read. The producer (director?) hires her, and Dulcie gets angry and has a tantrum because Rachel has ruined her career. The producer (director?) says something like, "What's wrong with you?" It is the sponsitility of a critic (whether book reviewer or academic) to talk about both the strengths and weaknesses of a work, to give an accurate account of both. I decided, when I started reviewing books (courtesy of AML-List), that if I was going to say negative things about books I wanted the review to reflect that I had read carefully for both instruction and delight. I keep remembering that lovely quote from Edward Dahlberg's preface to _Bottom Dogs, From Flushing to Calvary, Those Who Perish, And Hitherto Unpublished and Uncollected Works_ (I haven't read): "I have committed sundry moldy solecisms; yet I was not born to desecrate literature." Nor was I, nor were the people I review, so I hope when I call attention to someone's moldy solecisms I do so graciously. (As my father once said, "When I write I can create a persona who is more intelligent, humane, kinder and wiser than I am." (Or something close to that.) I didn't intend to write something this long. I really should have been working on some posts in my drafts folder. Good knight. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) Date: 02 Jun 2001 13:07:12 -0600 (MDT) Quoting LuAnnStaheli : > Valarie can probably answer this best if she's reading the messages, but > when I > used to read for Covenant I was told they weren't planning to buy YA > books because > the market wasn't big enough to warrant the time/money needed to publish > them. I > know that my 8th/9th grade students all read Anita Stansfield and Rachel > Nunes > like there were no other authors (even the boys). A couple of years ago > I couldn't > keep Chris Heimerdinger on the shelf, but now his series just sits. I > think they > have already read them by the time the students come to me. Those who > have > discovered Brent Rowley REALLY like his books (so much that I've had TWO > copies of > My Body Fell Off S T O L E N from my shelf!) > > I was told the same thing when I submitted a YA manuscript to Covenant a couple of years ago--they don't publish much YA unless it's a universal-type of book, like Heimerdinger's books, which are read by all ages. They also have Cheri Crane's "Kate" series, which I haven't seen mentioned yet. Stansfield, Nunes, etc. are not actually targeted at youth, although I am not surprised to see that youth are reading them. But I wouldn't count them as YA. --Katie Parker - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Helena Chester" Subject: Re: [AML] Negative Reactions to Writing Date: 03 Jun 2001 08:42:27 +1000 I watched the video of "Angela's Ashes" and love it because I could relate to the RC.humour. The same applies to "The Nostradamus Kid". It was a flop on general ratings, but I found it hilarious because of my previous experience in Adventism. I would say we would appreciate Mormon humour more than the general public too. [Helena Chester] ----- Original Message ----- > > > >I tried to read Angela's Ashes, > >a best seller that was made into a movie. I couldn't get passed the first > >chapter. Why? Because I couldn't stand the way it was written. No > >conversations, all telling, no showing. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 02 Jun 2001 19:20:12 -0500 For some people, vot is verboten includes not only anything at all from the temple ceremony itself, but anything at all that even makes one think of something in the temple ceremony. Unfortunately, nobody can predict how an individual member of their audience will react, and after having or witnessing a few incidents in which someone took offense at a very minor oblique reference to the temple ceremony, most of us conclude that the only safe thing to say about the temple is nothing at all. -- Ronn! :) - 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] Card on "Basketball Doctrines" Date: 01 Jun 2001 18:01:33 -0700 (PDT) While surfing the net I came upon this amazing rant by Orson Scott Card on the cult of basketball in the church. It's from his "Vigor" newsletter, September 1998 (many of you have probably read it but it's new to me.) Card furiously denounces the trend of subsuming every cultural activity in the church to athletics and systematically dismantles every "organized sport is good for you" cliche you have ever encountered. His description of the tyranny of basketball over full-time missionaries EXACTLY depicts my own mission experience, one that I could never find the words to express because of misplaced, unjustified (I now realize) guilt. This piece left me flabbergasted and all I can say is "right on, bro!" It can be found online at http://www.nauvoo.com/vigor/16.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] LUND, _Fishers of Men_ (Review) Date: 03 Jun 2001 12:11:25 +0900 Title: Fishers of Men: The Kingdom and the Crown, Volume One. Author: Gerald N. Lund Shadow Mountain, 2000, 642p., $26.95. Fishers of Men is the first of a multi-volume series of novels set in Palestine during Christ's ministry. While Lund is not a subtle or nuanced writer, he has quite competently produced an educational, exciting, and occasionally inspiring tale based on the greatest story every told. The novel follows the changes that occur in two fictional Jewish families as they come in contact with Jesus and his teachings during the first year of His ministry. The first is the family of Capernaum merchant David ben Joseph, half of whom are dedicated to the zealot cause. The other is the family of Jerusalem Sanhedrin leader Mordechai ben Uzziel. There are two main plot directions in the work. One is the impact Christ's ministry has on the characters, some converting, and some not. Although Christ's actions and teachings are a major motivating factor in the plot, Jesus himself only appears in a few of the scenes. The other major direction is the three-cornered scheming between the Jewish Zealots in Galilee, the Jewish Sanhedrin (which is itself divided between Sadducees and Pharisees, united in their opposition to both Christ and the zealots), and the Romans. The story begins in AD 29, just before Christ's ministry begins. David, the Capernaum merchant, was one of the witnesses of the nativity (he was visiting his shepherd friends near Bethlehem as a young man), and is awaiting the Messiah's appearance as an adult. He is a friend of Simon Peter, which connection quickly brings him to Jesus after Simon is called as a disciple. His wife, Deborah, is a survivor of a leading Zealot family that was almost completely wiped out by the Romans when she was a young woman. They have four children, the second of which is Simeon, a leader in the Zealot cause, and the main protagonist in this ensemble cast. Deborah and Simeon are the most reluctant members of David's family to join the Jesus movement, because of His non-violent teachings. David's brother-in-law Aaron is a Pharisee. Meanwhile in Jerusalem, Mordechai represents the Jewish political elite, opposed to both the Galiliean zealots and Jesus. His daughter, Miriam, is caught between her loyalty to her father and her respect for the Galilieans. She is also charmed by the Roman tribune Marcus, who is in charge of a plot to destroy the zealots. So, a very tangled web of characters and loyalties. Let's start with the good things. First of all, the book is about Christ and the impact he had in the Holy Land. What better source material could you hope for? I loved these kind of historical toga novels about people discovering Christ and his Apostles when I was young. I must have read Lloyd Douglas' The Robe fifteen times. Also Quo Vadis, and (the movie) Ben Hur. Ben Hur and The Robe were among the best selling books of their day (the 1880s and the 1940s). The power of the real stories behind the fiction often raised them above the level of writing skill the authors brought to the projects. Lund fits into that category. Here are people coming across Christ, witnessing his miracles, and grappling with his surprising doctrine. The discussions the characters have with each other trying to figure out what it was they saw are among the best parts of the book. Lund teaches the reader a lot about the New Testament world over the course of this huge book. The book flap says that Lund did graduate work in New Testament studies at Pepperdine University and Hebrew at the University of Judaism in Los Angles (not a degree, just "studies"). He has worked as a tour director and lecturer in the Holy Land more than a dozen times, and has been an educator in the CES for more than 35 years, with a hand in developing some of the Church's curriculum materials. Throughout the book Lund takes breaks in the action to describe aspects of Jewish religion and culture. For example when Miriam gives the Roman tribune a tour of the Temple's outer courts and explains the architecture and ceremonies of the Temple. Or a whole chapter describing a betrothal ceremony. Or details on the differences and tensions between the Zealots, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Sometimes it is the same information found in Talmage's Jesus the Christ (usually taken from Farrar's Life of Christ), and therefore we have read or heard it before. But often the information is taken from recent biblical scholarship (Lund provides the sources for his information in the notes at the end of each chapter). Sure, this breaks up the action, but you didn't come to a historical fiction book about Christ just for the plot anyway, did you? Especially since it is Lund, who is more of an educator than a novelist anyway. I found the informational sections fascinating, I didn't know a good deal of the stuff he introduces before reading the book. And Mellvile did the same thing in Moby Dick, taking whole chapters to explain how a whale is gutted, etc. I thought Lund handled the balance between the plot advancing scenes, the spiritual experience scenes, and the educational scenes quite well. On the down side, Lund really is just a competent novelist. The dialouge is occasionally stilted, and the characters are all pretty monochromatic. One would think that with the size of this book, he could spend a little time giving them some depth. This is especially true of the "bad guys". The Gadiaton robber-type guy is basically a moustache-twirling melodrama villain. Pilate and Mordechai aren't much better. Perhaps Lund draws them that way because that is part of his world-view, people do bad things because they are bad people, simple. If you can get through the first third or half of the book, however, you finally get to the part where the characters start becoming more involved in the Jesus movement, and the Zealot/Sanhedrin/Roman battle starts to get exciting. Then my concerns about the somewhat clunky writing started to dissipate, and the book began to grab my attention. I enjoyed the experience, and I think it will appeal to a wide range of readers. I have only glanced through Lund's Work and the Glory series, and was not very impressed. But now if I see someone reading one of these books, I will not inwardly sneer, but be glad that they are having a good educational experience, and not a bad literary experience. And then I would direct them towards the superior historical fiction of Dean Hughes, Orson Scott Card, and Margaret Young/Darius Gray. It is not that the writing is bad, it just isn't noteworthy at all. The authors I mentioned before know how to turn a phrase beautifully, and they have taken me to unexpected places. Lund doesn't try to do either of those things. The cover is pretty ugly. It features a soft focus painting of Christ calling the fishermen as disciples. Deseret has done some nice cover art lately, but not this time. One interesting thing about the book, there is nothing specifically Mormon about it. Lund does set the birth of Christ in the spring, but explains it in his notes using biblical scholarship, not Latter-day scripture. It appears to be written so that it could be marketed to general Christian audiences. I called some Christian book stores near us, and they said they had it in their computer, but not in stock. I wonder if Shadow Mountain/Deseret has been able to get it into some of those stores. Andrew Hall Pittsburgh, PA _________________________________________________________________________ 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: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 03 Jun 2001 08:37:28 -0600 > Is the temple a part of our culture that is forever beyond the > reach of our fiction? If not, how detailed do we dare get? How ? > much would offend our fellow Saints? More importantly, how much > would offend God? > > -- > D. Michael Martindale > dmichael@wwno.com How truthful (even if not factual) could it possibly be when the only writers qualified to write it are bound by solemn oath to keep it sacred and counseled over and over not to talk outside about what goes on inside? As far as I'm concerned well-intentioned writers who need the the temple experience in their narrative ought to handle it the way well-intentioned writers have long handled sex -- yes it's there, yes, it's vital, yes, our heros are getting ready to go there...now cut away to waves crashing on beach. -- Scott Tarbet - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: [AML] Sharing Experience Convincingly (was: "Female Writer Wanted") Date: 03 Jun 2001 09:12:44 -0600 > in the midst of the hard work, there can be > transcendent moments that take us far out of our own literal understanding > and experiences. We can somehow enter into another's reality, such as a > character's reality or the reality of a character we're acting in a play, > and render it as if we knew it firsthand. Would some of you other artists > agree? And if that happens, then the important things are skill, focus, > hard work and plain old stick-to-it-iveness till the rendering is right. > Literal experience then may not always be absolutely necessary for powerful > work. > > Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson ;-) Ah, the primal mystery of performing art! Actors even have a name for that transcendant moment you refer to: we call it "finding the character's backbone"...among other terms for it, I guess. Literally hundreds of volumes have been written trying to define it and make it usable, but it is plain and simply transcendant -- that moment when all the character study and the application of on-stage technique and the careful, inspired, and talented choices all come together with an epiphonal thunderclap to show the actor not simply the character's motivation, but who he is in his essential being. Having said all that, despite the hackneyed mumbo jumbo one sometimes hears, no actor truly becomes the person he is portraying. If I'm doing a living (or historical) person then the "character" whose backbone I have found is a third party -- it's not the living person, it's not me, neither thesis nor antithesis -- it's a synthesis. If I'm portraying a fictional character I again find a synthesis, this time between me, the author or playwright's vision, and even the portrayals that have come before. Several times I have been fascinated to see the rewrites that happen after the first performances of a new set of characters; inevitably the author's world view has been shaped by the perspectives of the actors who have "created" the roles, and the work will never again be uncolored by those performances. -- Scott Tarbet - 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] Female Writer Wanted Date: 03 Jun 2001 16:01:24 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > There's a whole lot of emotions involved in childbirth, > which men feel to some extent, but for a woman it > takes up her entire being at that time. Let's turn this around for a minute. I'd like to focus on that phrase, "which men feel to some extent." On it's surface it seems pretty dismissive, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be. However, for me, it forms the crux of this entire discussion. If we determine that childbirth from a female POV is forever unknowable to a man, and therefore off limits artistically, should we not declare the opposite as well? And if we do this, why should we stop at childbirth? Are not all female experiences unique from male experiences simply by virtue of the fact that they are female and not male? My wife and I both saw "A Knight's Tale" (together even) and both quite enjoyed it, for similar reasons, but also for many different reasons; chief among them she has a crush on Heath Ledger, and I don't. I'll testify right now that my experience of childbirth was not a portion ("some extent") of what my wife experienced. I didn't dip into her well and see it from a limited point of her view. I had my own experience and it was pretty amazing. In fact, it took up my entire being for a time. For at least twenty minutes I couldn't utter a sound. Dare I say that my experience was unknowable to any woman? When I say that I couldn't utter a sound for twenty minutes what goes through your mind? You (meaning everybody -- male and female) have to try to guess why I couldn't utter a sound. Your biases about gender, for one thing, will determine how you fill in the blanks I leave in my description of how I experienced my first child's birth. What if I add that I couldn't utter a sound because every time I tried I came perilously close to a complete and utter breakdown of emotion. I knew that if I started crying, I wouldn't stop for an hour. Now what's your opinion of me? Do your biases force you to determine that I was just buying into the whole macho thing and couldn't let anybody see me cry in public? What if I say that I didn't give into the emotions because I didn't want to miss any moment of the event. I wanted to see it all. Feel the movement of the air in the room, hear every whimper that the baby made, and every coo and murmur from my wife, and see every move the doctor made and the nurses made and the expressions on the baby and my wife (the only people in the room not wearing masks) -- I wanted to memorize everything. Could you have guessed all that so that you could write the scene convincingly from my point of view? Maybe. Possibly. Possibly even probably. Or you could have asked me and I could have told you and you could have written it convincingly I'm convinced. Like D. Michael says in another post, we choose the details we will include and let the reader fill in the blanks with their own experience. I'm sure that my childbirth experience doesn't even speak for all men let alone any women. Given all that, I have made the (apparently) audacious attempt to write of things female from a female POV on occasion. Here is a small snippet. Susan is pregnant but worried that she is well past the time when she should have felt the baby's presence: For six days Susan was a quivering sack of emotions. Until the night, lying next to Marcus--who slept deeply and loudly while she soaked her pillow with tears--sure that she was carrying a dead fetus, she felt butterfly wings fluttering below her heart. Instantly the tears of anguish became one loud sob of relief. Marcus stopped snoring for a few seconds but he didn't wake up. Then Susan thought something--something for which she would be guilt-ridden for years to come. In fact, she still felt guilty for it to this very moment. Instead of telling the child within her that she was happy to know that he was alive and well, and that she was glad to finally make his acquaintance, she upbraided him. She cried out in her mind, "What took you so long? Where have you been? Why have you treated me this way?" I didn't even make the attempt to describe the emotions, just what they did to her. Then, I imply Marcus's insensitivity. Hopefully, though, some readers will realize (through this scene and many others throughout the story) that Susan's just really good at not letting Marcus hear her cry so that she can play the martyr ... but for no one but herself. Susan is as complex a character as I have ever created, and hopefully a believable one to males and females alike. I came to her through observation, informal interview, imagination and possibly a little inspiration. When I wrote my play, "Stones," I got to the part where Christ begins to describe to his mother the Atonement that he will suffer in the garden and she stops him, saying that no man could do that, that it would kill him. He says, "It won't kill me. And it's not going to happen today." To which she responds, "Yes it is. If you tell me today ... it happens today. And every day until I die." That seemed to me a uniquely female or motherly reaction. It wasn't something that I have ever felt or even imagined. Not until the moment that I wrote it. And I still have no idea where the idea came from. Writing across gender lines is either allowable or it's not. If it is allowable, then there can be no restrictions. "All right, you can describe any experience from a male/female point of view except childbirth and sex; those you will never understand. Oh, and harassment in the workplace ... and of course, being a professional. Well, and a mother/father. You'll never figure that out. And a missionary too. You'll never know what it is to be a Sister/Elder." Which, of course, brings us back to the impetus for all this gender talk. "God's Army" from the male POV was all about a few individual Elders working out their personal salvations. The same story from the Sister POV, it seems obvious to me (whether you're male or female), will have to include among it's many themes the travail of all Sisters in the field: That is that they are more mature and effective as missionaries than the Elders, but completely under appreciated and undervalued as to the potential for their contributions to the work. I think that whoever gets the gig needs to make a prime focus of the story the fact that Sister Fronk finally figures out that the Elders are not in the mission field to get converts, but to get converted. And I think any good female, or male writer could write that story ... convincingly. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.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] Critique of Writing (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) Date: 04 Jun 2001 09:29:41 -0600 (MDT) Barabra R. Hume wrote: > I can't think of any professional writer I know who wasn't turned down for > publication at first. Generally it's true - but MK Wren (a guest at LTUE in 2000) actually got her first novel submission accepted and published. But she got a few rejections after that before finally becoming established. --Ivan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty Date: 04 Jun 2001 12:14:26 -0600 On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 01:57:11AM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > Oh, I realize writers use symbolism. I've done it myself, both in the book > I've written and the one I'm currently working on. When I think of > symbolism I think of CS Lewis and his Chronicles of Narnia. > > But sometimes, a rose is a rose and an apple is an apple, and the author had > no intention of putting any symbolism into it. And some teachers like to > find symbolism in everything. And most teachers don't get the opportunity > to speak the the writer to find out if that's what was meant. Yet they > teach as if they do know. Of course there's nothing wrong with supposing, > or guessing, as long as we recognize that's what we're doing. Teachers find symbolism in everything because Writing depends on symbols. The word "rose" printed on a page is not a rose. When you use the word "rose," you evoke in the reader not just the generic image of a prickly shrub with pinnate leaves and showy flowers, but you also evoke the personal experiences the reader has had with roses, both real and in art. An author may deny the use of symbolism, but the author made a conscious decision to use a rose instead of a carnation, a lily, or some other flower. And frankly, what the author meant doesn't matter. Only what the reader has experienced while reading the text matters. When I write about literature, I don't tell you what the author meant. Instead, I discuss the experience and meaning that I got from the text, and I use examples from the text to demonstrate how I arrived at a position. I enjoy looking at how the symbols in the text create a deeper meaning than you can find with just the base meaning of an author's words. -- Terry Jeffress | If you can't annoy somebody with what you | write, I think there's little point in AML Webmaster and | writing. -- Kingsley Amis AML-List Review Archivist | - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 04 Jun 2001 12:58:37 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > Artists tend to start believing that they are above rules. I personally believe the should. I'll explain why down below. > Artists on the other hand, have the chief purpose of entertaining. No, that's the chief purpose of entertainers. Artists are more like secular prophets. It is their duty to look at the world around them and to point out its beauties and, sometimes, its ugliness. Does a prophet necessarily worry about whether a particular teaching is politically correct. Does he refuse to teach morality because it may offend immoral people? No, he tells the truth as he sees it to be. Artists should act under the same paradigm, with only this difference; they should not claim superior knowledge from God. When they do that, they usurp authority they don't have. > Certainly not a good enough reason to break > covenants for. I've covenanted to have no sexual relations with anyone but my wife, but if I'm cast in a play and it requires me to kiss another woman, I will. I don't see that as breaking a covenant. By the same token, if I have a character swear or commit an adulterous act, I don't consider that as breaking covenants, either. I'm just describing the act. Now, if I ADVOCATE such actions, then I'm on shaky ground. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 04 Jun 2001 03:52:52 -0400 Scott, Many thanks for your lengthy and intelligent response about the missionary narrative genre. The danube book finally arrived at my door, and I've read it so now I can offer a more informed response to the points you raise. You say, "I can't really explain my frustration with the 'missionary story' genre except to say that most stories focus around one of two things-"look how silly young Mormon men are and isn't it a wonder that they get any good work done," and "look at the spiritual growth/spiritual demise that such a focused experience led these generally unprepared young men to experience." In regards to Danube I can see how this criticism applies, though I don't think that exposing silliness was the main accomplishment of the work. Mitchell captures an intense post-mission nostalgia more than anything else. The nostalgia oozes out of every page, particularly the last hundred or so. Although the romance story with Magdalena at the end packed the novel into a trashy Mormon romance genre, if I choose to read Magdalena as the figurative symbol of his Austrian mission, then it multiplies the nostalgia, physicalizes it, and redeems the last 70 pages of the book. If that symbol is wishy-washy, or ultimately untenable, and I'm not entirely decided if it succeeds or not, then I think I'm going to cut out those last 70 pages and burn them. But the first 130, while revealing silliness and being driven a large part by anecdotal folklike telling of tales, I think goes beyond the two points you criticize above. There is a sort of Keroucian on-the-road feeling to it, a bounding energy and voice. However, I have to differ with Craycroft about the Henderson_Rain_King reference-what exactly was the parallel there? Just that Bellow is a religious writer and Mitchell too? two picaresque novels? In Henderson the Rain King the narrator has a tremendous I-want-I-want-I-want energy that is driving him forward, compelling his adventure through Africa. Mitchell's Barry, however, didn't seem to have that. Barry isn't driven by much, unless you count the King Follet spiritual experience at the beginning. (actually this lack of motive is an interesting characteristic in Mormon missionary narratives. Traditional Christian narratives (the few that exist!) begin with a conversion of sorts, and then the converted goes to convert. The M. missionary, however, begins the endeavor like a vision-quest.) What Barry does have driving him in the book is post-mission nostalgia, a characteristic that accurately describes the mental attitude of returned missionaries, and drags one back instead of forward (or forward in a back-looping kind of way). I agree that much of the first 130 pages of Mitchell's novel is anecdote driven. A lot of the interest arises out of Austrian culture rather than close human-nature examination, or something like that. (And actually, I didn't see the foundations laid for the Magdalena-Barry love affair, which prompts my embrace of the Magdalena as false symbol of Barry's'mission-which means their possible marriage will end in bitter misunderstanding, yes! Judith Freeman ruined her first novel, The Chinchilla Farm (may God help her with titles), with a happy romance ending in the last 3 pages. Perhaps this is the mandate of the mass Mormon crowd). I also agree that the issues should be caused in the missions, not reflected in them, as you say. The frivolity gets old, the childish voice gets old, one wants a more mature narrator who won't be so boyish. This is partly why Sister Fronk's perspective seems to be so suspenseful. Aren't sister missionaries much more demure? Actually I'd love to see a sister missionary pov in which the sister suffers from a tremendous lack of self-esteem, trudges through the streets and contemplates stepping in front of buses, tries to outdo the brother missionaries just to prove her equal ability, while inside she has no desire at all to really preach the gospel, only to occupy her forlorn life. I'm getting so sidetracked. The question seems to be, what would characterize the perfect Mormon missionary narrative? You say, "more human thought as oppposed to iconically Mormon thought. Or less focus on questions of truth, and more on how and why faith works (or fails, though I think we have few well-done stories of how faith succeeds than we do of failure) in the lives of people." I agree with you here, though I think Dutcher's film committs foible number two on your list. The Kansas Elder desires to know truth, and when he gets his testimony, game over. That story is quite an archetype in Mormon iconography-the idea that one desires to know if the church is true, then prays, receives an answer, and voila, all problems are now solved, the narrative conflict now begins the stage of denouement. That is so simple (and untrue) except perhaps for the simple-minded. The most interesting stories are those that defy that whole pattern. It comes back to the desire for a genre-breaker. What missionary narrative will break that genre? I think it must have at least several qualities: (1) A readability by Mormon and non-Mormon audiences. Mitchell's book is practically unintelligible to non-RMs, much less non-members, at least I think. If one focuses on human interaction, human communication, and those other Shakespearianlike observations of our nature, I think the narrative could straddle the fence and live in both worlds. (2) Strip the falling-in-love-with-investigators-or-members theme, drop the we-broke-the-rules-this-badly theme, and cut out all the anecdotal missionary folklore that gets to be like a string of jokes (great for shooting the bull before priesthood, though.) (By the way, there's a motherload of funny missionary folktales in _Contemporary Mormonism_.). And (3) more interesting missionary meditations on the world around him/her. I'm going out on a limb here, this point is just a hunch, but I think it would blow the world away to see an interesting reflector (non-pedantic) behind the nametag-and it would dispense with the frivolity. Tom J. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 04 Jun 2001 13:41:57 -0600 >Although the romance story with Magdalena at the end packed the novel into a >trashy Mormon romance genre Again, I must protest the automatic coupling of the words "trashy" and "romance." Sturgeon's Law applies, of course, across all genres. But why books about people who love each other are denigrated while books about people who kill each other are praised is beyond me. BTW, I've read quite a few novels that are marketed under the category of "Mormon romance," and I haven't considered any of them trashy. (If you want trashy romance, read something like "Sweet Savage Love," which started the whole bodice-ripper thing.) Rachel Nunes, Anita Stansfield, and Jennie Hansen, among others, write books with strong characterization, compelling plots, and dialogue appropriate to the characters. They know how to use the techniques of fiction writing as well as do many people who write li-fi. barbara hume barbara@techvoice.com Regencies reign! - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: renatorigo@bol.com.br Subject: Re:[AML] Hitler Date: 04 Jun 2001 07:08:36 -0300 LET=B4S FORGET HIM !!!!! - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] MCCOURT, _Angela's Ashes_ (was: Negative Reactions to Writing) Date: 04 Jun 2001 13:03:40 -0600 On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 11:50:05PM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > It irked me that the writer of Angela's Ashes made it to the best > seller list. Now call that the response of a frustrated, jealous, > would be writer. :-) I don't know. But he seemed to break ALL the > rules. . . . With the Angela's Ashes it sounded more like someone > just droning on and on. It took me a while to get used to Frank McCourt's prose style in _Angela's Ashes_. I think that McCourt did not use direct quotation, because he sees his entire work as a paraphrase. He presents the work as a memoir and not as fiction. Since many of the people McCourt describes are still alive and could possibly find fault with direct quotes, McCourt never quotes anyone. Besides, how accurately could you reproduce the conversations you overheard as a sever-year-old? I think McCourt purposely created the droning feeling you got from reading _Angela's Ashes_. McCourt's childhood had almost nothing positive about it. His happiest times occur while hospitalized and away from his destructive family. But McCourt creates such a vivid image of life in Ireland for the poor and working classes, that I couldn't put the book down. ObMormonLit: McCourt seems to blame much of the poverty in Ireland on the Catholic church. When McCourt leaves Ireland, he also finally feels free to leave the Catholic church. The saints in Winter Quarters and early Salt Lake City, live in similar poverty to McCourt. As a run-of-the-mill saint, it would have been easy to blame Joseph Smith and the other leaders for the poverty of the saints. Was there a huge exodus of saints to escape combined poverty and Mormon oppression? In either case, do we have any literature that shows the poverty of the early saints with the same power McCourt uses to describe Ireland? -- Terry Jeffress | Backward ran sentences until reeled the | mind. -- Wolcott Gibbs AML Webmaster and | AML-List Review Archivist | - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 04 Jun 2001 13:06:34 -0600 Ronn Blankenship wrote: > > For some people, vot is verboten includes not only anything at all from the > temple ceremony itself, but anything at all that even makes one think of > something in the temple ceremony. Unfortunately, nobody can predict how an > individual member of their audience will react, and after having or > witnessing a few incidents in which someone took offense at a very minor > oblique reference to the temple ceremony, most of us conclude that the only > safe thing to say about the temple is nothing at all. Perfect example. During a production of my musical Prophet (back in 1974), Joseph's shirt comes untucked during the tar and feathering scene. An audience member complained that "Joseph" wasn't wearing his garments. The actor puts on the garments. Next night, his shirt comes untucked. An audience member complained that they saw Joseph's garments. It was somewhere around that period of time when I stopped trying to think ahead as to what would or would not offend someone. Now I just do what *I* want to do, what feels artistically valid to *me*, knowing that some will like it and some will not. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Craig Huls Subject: RE:[AML] Influencing Mormon Culture Date: 04 Jun 2001 14:43:04 -0500 REWIGHT wrote: > > It kind of reminds me of a line in City Slickers. Billy Crystal is at > the > cattle ranch, a woman comes up to him, says hi, and introduces > himself. His > first reaction was "I'm married." So now I have to ask a question and > I'd > like honest responses. Do men really think that when a woman says Hi, > it's > always a come on? See that's where the fear comes in. If I touch a > member > of the opposite sex, will he think of it as a come on? Will his wife > beat > me up? Will my husband leave me taking the children with him? Will I > live > out my days in the church in shame and infamy? > > Anna Wight > > Sister Wight, I hope non of the above are considerations. I've been single for 8 years after a 31 year marriage. The first 3 years I was single were tough, as ward members who had hugged before all of a sudden stopped. I'm an older brother at 61, perfectly harmless but lovable. I would not allow the 'culture' to get in my way and after complaining a time or two in Gospel Doctrine and from the Stand in F&T meeting and once or twice in PEC things changed. I get my hugs and my handshakes warm and wonderful. AS HPGL I spend alot of time with the Widows and Single Sisters of the Ward and they appreciate a hug too that is a non intimidating, non sexual hug. I always ask first though! One Sister said to me not long ago. "It is neat to have a Brother Friend who I can love who does not feel intimidated and doesn't think I am trying to drag him off to the altar!" I told her, "That's why I only date Methodist Women!' we laughed and hugged! Incidentally, it is why I do not attend local Singles events. First Singles dance I went to in DFW area a year after my divorce, I felt like a slab of beef at a Texas barbecue! Dance one dance and the Sister wanted to know the balance of your bank account the expiration date on your Temple Recommend and did you have a beach home anywhere and if your folks didn't cross the prairie in a covered wagon then how long had you been a convert! This whole cultural thing came up in HP group yesterday and we had a wonderful non contentious though powerful discussion about it. When members coming from Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic and Hindu backgrounds along with some of us warped ones from the "Wasatch front" can hold such a discussion without ire, it helps you to know that HF is still in control. Our reason for the discussion was to help converts understand the difference between doctrine and practice. Such things as the color of the bread at the sacrament whether you use the right hand or not to take of the sacrament raised some interesting points. There are some very strange ideas that are not covered in the CHI that need to be addressed to keep people from taking local practices and turning them into doctrinal stands inappropriately. A whole other thread not appropriate for this list. This thread has been discussing what we as artists might portray to the outside world. I will end this chapter of my book with a very cultural issue. We had a Ward dinner couple of years ago and assignments were made for different people to bring items to compliment the Baked Ham the ward was providing. One delightful Sister who is very special, had only lived in Texas 4 months. Her assignment was to bring a green salad. When she arrived she apologized profusely as she handed a large baking dish that had a delightful orange Jell-O concoction with fruit set in it. She said: "I am really sorry but I was out of Lime Jell-O" She has since learned that green salad in Texas means greens like in lettuce etc.... We helped her feel comfortable, but we haven't let her forget about it! :-) Now if you folks in the Valley don't understand send me a private email and I will explain! -- Craig Huls mailto:dcraigh@onramp.net - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: [AML] Emotional Honesty (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) Date: 04 Jun 2001 14:57:35 -0500 REWIGHT wrote: > Emotion on the other hand is honest. ?! That's quite a remarkable assertion. I know that the emotions that people display aren't always honest. Sometimes they're entirely manipulative. I know that the emotions I feel aren't always honest. Sometimes I've been manipulated into feeling them. Sometimes emotion blinds us to the truth, which is why we shouldn't often make important decisions in the heat of strong emotion. As they say, when your heart's on fire, smoke gets in your eyes. One of our hymns tells us not to smother our emotions, but to let wisdom's voice control. Intellect without emotion is a terrible thing to contemplate - the cold, passionless intellects of _The War of the Worlds_ - but emotion without intellect is terribly pathetic. Honesty is a quality associated with truth, and truth doesn't exist without reason. I'm not going to argue for the primacy of intellect over emotion (I imagine my feelings on this are clear), but I think that in a church whose doctrine puts so much emphasis on reason as a path to enlightenment, we spend way too much time extolling the virtues of feeling. Jim Picht - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted Date: 04 Jun 2001 13:56:51 -0600 >I didn't even make the attempt to describe the emotions, just what they >did to her. Then, I imply Marcus's insensitivity. Hopefully, though, >some readers will realize (through this scene and many others throughout >the story) that Susan's just really good at not letting Marcus hear her >cry so that she can play the martyr ... but for no one but herself. >Susan is as complex a character as I have ever created, and hopefully a >believable one to males and females alike. I came to her through >observation, informal interview, imagination and possibly a little >inspiration. When I wrote my play, "Stones," I got to the part where >Christ begins to describe to his mother the Atonement that he will suffer >in the garden and she stops him, saying that no man could do that, that >it would kill him. He says, "It won't kill me. And it's not going to >happen today." To which she responds, "Yes it is. If you tell me today >... it happens today. And every day until I die." That seemed to me a >uniquely female or motherly reaction. It wasn't something that I have >ever felt or even imagined. Not until the moment that I wrote it. And I >still have no idea where the idea came from. Scott, I think that you have correctly identified and portrayed female reactions in both these pieces. Women do enjoy playing the martyr, even when they don't realize they're doing it. My family has intelligently chosen to ignore my whines and moans when I get into martyr mood--I can indulge myself as long as I want without bothering anybody, because they just go on with their lives. In fact, if anyone responds with sympathy to one of my complaints, I am actually startled. As for Mary's response, it is completely accurate. If something happens to one of the people I love, my entire life is colored by it and devastated by it. None of the good things in my life can really comfort me. If I knew my son were going to suffer some hideous fate, I would never be happy again. At least, that's the way I feel about it. Barbara R. Hume Editorial Empress barbara@techvoice.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Hale Theater Date: 04 Jun 2001 16:53:38 -0500 > > I'm a recent import to Utah Valley and definitely do count my blessings. I > came from being heavily involved in an award-winning theatre in rural Utah > that had the same calculus as we do here, with the addition that we had to > worry about casting the stake president's son as Joe Cable in a high school > production of South Pacific because Joe doffs his shirt. The SP went > ballistic and the show was almost closed. Yes, having clean theatre is a > blessing. There are also knee-jerk reactions that make it a two-edged > sword. > > -- Scott Tarbet I bet the SP had no problem with his son doffing his shirt to play church basketball.:-) Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 04 Jun 2001 14:44:04 -0600 At 07:20 PM 6/2/01 -0500, you wrote: >For some people, vot is verboten includes not only anything at all from the >temple ceremony itself, but anything at all that even makes one think of >something in the temple ceremony. Glenn Larsen had Apollo and Serena "sealed" in Battlestar Galactica, and Dave Woverton had Han Solo and Princess Leia "sealed" while kneeling across from each other at the altar in his Star Wars novel. I had no qualms about those little references, which I think should be pleasing to Mormon members of the audience. barbara hume barbara@techvoice.com Regencies reign! - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Last Three Days for SF X 5 Date: 05 Jun 2001 15:32:25 -0600 [MOD: I'm jealous...wish I could make it.] Fellow Listers, I wanted to take this opportunity to remind you all that there are only three performances left of the UVSC/Playwrights Circle Production of _SF X 5_, an evening of file original science fiction one-act plays. In production at the Black Box Theatre on the UVSC campus, the evening starts with an hilarious new play, _Youtahneeks_ by James Arrington: It's the future. America is a lost civilization. A sudden break-through in the field of paleo-linguistics -- the finding of a video tape of Aunt Pearl Farley addressing her clan -- changes the face of future history. The next play is by AML member J. Scott Bronson. _Fata Morgana_ takes place somewhere in the known Universe on a world where only three people are left alive. The play investigates the nature of God, the Devil, reality vs. illusion in a lyrical, almost fluid manner. _On the Way Out_ by the Playwrights Circle's newest member, Shannyn Walters (and directed by her husband Issac Walters, who also directs the first two plays), takes place in the kitchen of a family where the family matriarch has just died, and, in fact, is still there, sprawled out on the table. Members of her family arrive to pay their respects and it looks for all the world like a fairly typical funeral -- until the phone rings and Mom answers it! The forth play of the evening (written and directed by me) is _Let the Memories Die_ explores the exquisite nature of borrowed memory as Star Command Lieutenant Sony O'Donnell pays a visit to her aging Aunt Hettie, the inventor of faster-than-light travel. A second play, written and directed by James Arrington, _The M.A.K.E.R._, takes up the entire second act. It's a religious allegory that explores what happens when the richest man in the world buys a machine that promises to give him whatsoever his evil little heart desires. As typical with an Arrington play, it's gut-wrenchingly funny. As an added bonus, in between each play the audience is treated to a projected display of _The Angry Red Planet_, a grade-B sci-fi film of the fifties, whose claim to fame is that it was filmed on 11 sets in a little under 10 days. Performances are Thursday, Friday, and Saturday at 7:30 P.M. Tickets are six dollars apiece and are available at the door (I'll be manning the ticket booth, which opens at 7 PM). There will be signs at the major entrances to UVSC directing you to the Black Box theatre in the Gunther Trades building on the east side of campus (close to 400 W.) I hope to see some of you there. If I don't already know you, please identify yourself to the close-cropped goateed individual at the ticket office. Really, I'm a lot nicer person in real life than I am on the list. Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eileen Stringer Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 04 Jun 2001 15:29:06 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- >Actually I'd love to see a sister missionary pov in which the sister >suffers from a tremendous lack of self-esteem, trudges through the streets >and contemplates stepping in front of buses, tries to outdo the brother >missionaries just to prove her equal ability, while inside she has no desire >at all to really preach the gospel, only to occupy her forlorn life. May one ask why you would like to see this? 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: Eileen Stringer Subject: Re: [AML] Sharing Experience Convincingly Date: 04 Jun 2001 16:01:58 -0600 I have a question that perhaps those with some experience in this matter would be able to render assistance. Our family, as any family, is filled with some rich material for stories that is begging to be put on paper. I have approached several family members about different events and experiences that we have defined "pivotal moments" in our overall family history as pertains to the gospel. However the most compelling for me right now is the story of my uncle who was called on a mission to Brazil, contracted an deathly illness, was sent home to recover - but never officially released from his mission - upon fully recovering was not sent back to Brazil but was given a choice to either be drafted or volunteer to go to Vietnam. He chose to volunteer as that would give him a shorter tour of duty. He went, suffered what most did, but did elude capture. However his experience did not bolster his faith but rather wounded it deeply. He came home, found himself at Ricks, shortly after found himself with a pregnant girlfriend and a hasty wedding. My aunt has noted on occassion that the story needs to be told, but we think it would be better if it were more fictionalized that biography. However the dilemna for us is that he is reluctant to talk too much about it, but he has ventured to put some thoughts and feelings down on paper. Having never been anywhere near a battley, except for mealtimes during haying season, I really need some help in research in this area, how to write it realistically, and most of all how to approach my uncle and get his memories, his mission struggles and then being thrust into Vietnam fresh from an unfinished mission and how all that has made him the man he is today, a loving father, husband, faithful, active member. I have seen part of it from the sidelines but I don't think that is enough to tell a realistic, believable story. I appreciate all the advice any and all are willing to offer. 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: Mike South Subject: RE: [AML] Symbolism and Emotional Honesty Date: 04 Jun 2001 16:42:24 -0600 Terry L Jeffress wrote: > > And frankly, what the author meant doesn't matter. Only what the > reader has experienced while reading the text matters. When I write > about literature, I don't tell you what the author meant. Instead, I > discuss the experience and meaning that I got from the text, and I use > examples from the text to demonstrate how I arrived at a position. I > enjoy looking at how the symbols in the text create a deeper meaning > than you can find with just the base meaning of an author's words. I recently read an old interview with Charles Schulz, author of _Peanuts_. The interviewer brought up the subject of Robert L. Short's book _The Gospel According to Peanuts_, and mentioned Mr. Short's statement that he was writing about what he sees in _Peanuts_, not what Charles Schulz put there. This was Schulz's reply: "Invariably, the first question people ask is: 'Don't you think he has read too much into the strip?' That's not the point. His point is that this can be done with all works of art, and he would like to do this with all literature. Of course, the comic strip has appeal that other works of art do not have....He tells people all about the deep, hidden meaning in the strip. I couldn't ask for anything better. I don't appear at college lectures with him any more, though. Because it's not very good to have him tell about a Christian point, and then have someone ask me if that's what I actually meant and have me say, 'Gee, I don't think so.'" --Mike South - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 04 Jun 2001 21:02:28 -0400 > >Although the romance story with Magdalena at the end packed the novel into a > >trashy Mormon romance genre > > Again, I must protest the automatic coupling of the words "trashy" and > "romance." Sturgeon's Law applies, of course, across all genres. But why > books about people who love each other are denigrated while books about > people who kill each other are praised is beyond me. I didn't define trashy romance as a love story. neither did i praise killing narratives. I think you would agree that some love stories are better than others. The kind that you can predict on the first page, the kind that seems cut out of a mold of the romance genre, is what i've disparaged. i shouldn't have used "trashy," though, since that sounds like pages and pages of steamy sex. i should have said "poor" or something. > > BTW, I've read quite a few novels that are marketed under the category of > "Mormon romance," and I haven't considered any of them trashy. (If you > want trashy romance, read something like "Sweet Savage Love," which started > the whole bodice-ripper thing.) Rachel Nunes, Anita Stansfield, and Jennie > Hansen, among others, write books with strong characterization, compelling > plots, and dialogue appropriate to the characters. They know how to use > the techniques of fiction writing as well as do many people who write li-fi. > well, i must confess that i don't like hardly any romance books; the whole idea just doesn't appeal to me. not love in itself, but the guy who meets girl and they both hate each other or blah blah blah. you know they'll end up together, but you just don't know how, b/c there's this problem, etc., which is somehow resolved b/c of entering figure X, and then they can ride off into the sunset, or ride each other in the sunset, if it's a trashy novel. it's probably just my tastes in literature. i love adventure novels, which can be much worse than a romance novel, so i bow my head in false generalizations. but if you have a really, really good romance novel, i might read it. btw, what is "sturgeon's law"? [Tom Johnson] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Diann T Read Subject: [AML] Re: Symbolism (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen) Date: 04 Jun 2001 20:18:13 -0500 I've been reading this thread with quite a bit of interest and figured it was about time I threw in my own two cents' worth. On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:05:00 -0600 Melissa Proffitt writes: > On Wed, 30 May 2001 23:14:20 -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > > Harlow has already gone into this in his usual effervescent fashion. > :) I would only add that when a person reads a book, they do not usually > have the benefit of calling the author on the phone and saying, "This is what > I got from what you wrote. Is that what you meant?" They base their > reading not only on what the author wrote, but on their own experiences and > knowledge. Sometimes those readings will be negative. Sometimes they're > positive. And sometimes a reader or critic will see something brilliant in your > book that you never even intended to put there--and instead of feeling > offended, you're going to feel even better about your book because of it. And > other people will read that review or essay, and it's going to make them > want to run out and read your book too. During my high school and college years, I also tended to be amused--and sometimes bemused--by teachers' interpretations of literature. I remember once telling a friend that I'd love to be a fly on the wall if anything I wrote ever got to the point of being used in lit. classes, just to see what kind of weird stuff the prof would read into it. Since then I've come to the conclusion that literature interpretation, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder. Each reader is going to bring his/her own worldview to what they read, and each will see the same story in a slightly different way. It's been really interesting to see the differing responses to my books, either in fan mail or when people come up and talk to me at SF conventions. No two responses are ever quite the same. > >However, I would be offended by someone who would state what the my > work means, would suggest that they know better than I do what I meant, > or put symbolisms and meanings in it that were never expressed. I suppose the manner in which someone did this would determine whether or not it was offensive. I remember one guy who was adamant that one of my non-human races was bear-like simply because I had used the word "ursine" to describe their eyes--despite the fact that the rest of their physical description, and even their "culture," was definitely more lupine. Yes, *that* was annoying. On the other hand, soon after my first book came out, one of my good friends told me what she had seen in it as she read it. She had discovered that each of the three major characters represented something, almost an archetype. I had just thought I was writing a little adventure tale and hadn't really given much thought to symbolism, so I hadn't done this intentionally, but as I contemplated what she had found in it, I realized she was right. I still appreciate her sharing that with me. (Thanks, Barbara Hume!) Diann Read - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 04 Jun 2001 19:58:40 -0700 (PDT) --- Tom Johnson wrote: > --re this list in general, do you think mormon > literature is so different > from the literature of non-mormons that an entire > separate genre must be > created and a berlin wall set up to divide the two > camps? Seems like a > novel, in order to be "mormon," must contain > explicit references to m. > doctrine or organizations or families. Yet here I > am, a mormon, and my > favorite literature, for some reason, isn't found in > the mormon section of > my barnes and noble (btw, at 65th and columbus in > nyc there is a "latter-day > saints" section, sparse and miscatalogued as it is). > I rather like a quote > I read from an evenson-marcus interview done years > back, though I have to > modify the heart of it to comply with the rules on > this moderated list: > "Zimbabwean author Dambudzo Marachera says, 'Either > you are a writer or you > are not. If you are a writer for a specific nation > or a specific race, then > f--- you.'" The quote has stayed with me although > perhaps some clever > participant on this list can convert me over. As a comparatist (that's what us comparative literature folk call ourselves), I can't help but respond to this idea, so, although this thread has been somewhat dormant, I'm going to give it a go. On the one hand, us comparatists, once we got over that trying-to-find-the-universal-narrative thing (which was essentially an exercise in Eurocentrism in reaction to WWII---not a bad thing, but very limiting), have been deconstructing notions of race and nation and literature. We often deal with all that stuff that has now become so very trendy in cultural studies---writing on the margins, hybridity, multi-lingualism, 'minor' literatures (except we no longer use the word 'minor'---I forget what the new term is), etc. We show how the works of various writers challenge fixed notions of nation and race and gender. On the other hand, such a quote seems to me to be an exercise in wishful thinking. Writers come from communities, and no matter what their ties with those communities are or become, their work gets filtered through all those categories (both in production and consumption) of race, ethnicity, language, religion, nation and geography that are tied in to the writers' community(ies). And it's a perfectly viable exercise to discuss how a writer's work relates to these categories. Thus, Kafka is a Jew, a Czehk, a German speaker, a citizen of Prague, a bachelor, etc. Now, of course, what Marachera could be referring to is to writers who write in direct support of the state, merely reflecting the ideological narratives of those in power. And certainly we've discussed on this list several times the perils of didacticism and art strictly in the service of ideology. But at the same time, I have a hard time with writers who want to mystify the process, want to push an art for art's sake, divorced-from-political-considerations kind of writing. That in itself is a political stance as the problems of modernism (particularly in relation to fascism) prove, in my opinion. Not to mention (except that I am) the fact that the history of the novel (which, as I understand it, has been the dominant form of writing of the past two centuries) corresponds with, indeed helps create the history of the nation and nationalism. The novel is inextricably bound up with the nation and, especially in the case of western literature, with race. What all this is in-elegantly leading up to is a defence of the idea of a 'Mormon' literature. Now this is not to dismiss Tom's idea. More a redefinition on my part. I also believe that Mormon literature intersects with non-Mormon literature at large and that it's hard (and should be hard) to create hard boundaries, to create a Berlin wall. Part of the reason for that is that American Mormon culture blends in to American culture. But that's not going to stop me from trying to theorize trends, histories, possibities, triumphs and failures in Mormon lit. In fact, the very thing that makes Mormon literature so fascinating to me as an idea is that it has to relate in some way to a strong institutional culture (the LDS Church), to a national culture (American, and soon probably more), and to a larger religious context (Christianity and beyond). Of course, there is a Berlin wall when it comes to marketing Mormon lit. But there are barriers in every segment of book publishing and selling. And let's not forget that the Berlin wall was not impermeable when it came to intellectual work [So are Orthodox Mormons the East or West Germans?]. There was a certain flow back and forth. All these ideas of mine are only half-formed, but I wanted to riff off of this post of Tom's because I found it thought provoking. So how am I doing so far, Tom? If you, or any list member, wanted to revisit this quote that Evenson quotes and explained its appeal, I'd be able to respond in less of a scattered manner. Plus, I'd just like to hear some convincing explication of why a writer is either a writer, or not. Does this mean that the Soviet realists who wrote in the service of the state were not writers? What about Orson F. Whitney or any of the home literature writers? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] re: Hale Theater Date: 04 Jun 2001 22:33:40 -0500 Scott Tarbet: ... we had to worry about casting the stake president's son as Joe Cable in a high school production of South Pacific because Joe doffs his shirt. The SP went ballistic and the show was almost closed. _______________ Should have used the bishop's son. :-> Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: "Tom Johnson" Subject: [AML] Secular Prophets (was: Temple in Fiction) Date: 05 Jun 2001 01:06:50 -0400 > REWIGHT wrote: > > > > Artists tend to start believing that they are above rules. > > I personally believe the should. I'll explain why down below. > > > Artists on the other hand, have the chief purpose of entertaining. > > No, that's the chief purpose of entertainers. Artists are more like > secular prophets. It is their duty to look at the world around them and > to point out its beauties and, sometimes, its ugliness. Does a prophet > necessarily worry about whether a particular teaching is politically > correct. Does he refuse to teach morality because it may offend immoral > people? No, he tells the truth as he sees it to be. Artists should act > under the same paradigm, with only this difference; they should not > claim superior knowledge from God. When they do that, they usurp > authority they don't have. > Thom, just thought I'd throw in a quote from B. Udall: "There are more important things in this life than writing. Your parents, for instance. Your loved ones. Your dog is probably more important than your writing. Stop taking yourself so seriously. Be nice. Relax. Now go and write." (he's giving advice to young writers here.) This quote bothers me; I don't really believe he puts his dog above writing, but maybe he does. Do you think it is possible to believe that one is a secular prophet while at the same time elevating his dog above his s. prophetic role? This quote has made me think more and more about the role of the writer. I was weaned on Shelley's "unacknowledged legislators of the world" ideology for a long time, and believed it, but lately I've had mixed feelings about "the writer." I think it might be more accurate to say that "language is the unacknowledged legislator of the world," and that language manipulates writers in powerful ways. Tom J. - 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] Hitler Date: 04 Jun 2001 23:41:59 -0600 renatorigo@bol.com.br wrote: > LET=B4S FORGET HIM !!!!! I can think of no more dangerous way to handle our past. Forget? Don't=20 you dare. He was a dangerous, obsessive, charismatic man and we had=20 better remember that following emotional impulses in public discourse=20 can lead to deep human tragedy. We had better remember that there are=20 actively evil people who can do many good things for many people and=20 then order millions of others systematically killed. To forget that is=20 to lose the vigilance required of honorable men who wish to remain free. Jacob Proffitt - 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] Critique of Writing Date: 04 Jun 2001 23:48:02 -0600 On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:52:39 -0600, Barbara Hume wrote: >At 01:05 PM 6/1/01 -0600, you wrote: >>This question is interesting to me on a personal level. My = mother-in-law >>reads and writes romance novels. I read one of her books--it was good,= but >>needed a little polishing on a technical level. She wasn't interested = in my >>comments. She told me she'd already decided not to pursue it because = she'd >>submitted it to a publisher and they'd rejected it. But when I pressed= her >>on this, it turned out that the "rejection" letter ACTUALLY ASKED HER = TO >>SUBMIT FUTURE BOOKS FOR REVIEW. I couldn't believe she'd taken this as= a >>personal affront! To her, it meant she'd failed. So I'm very = interested in >>people's reactions to criticism of their writing. > >I can't think of any professional writer I know who wasn't turned down = for=20 >publication at first. To start, a writer looks for positive = encouragement,=20 >as your MIL got! And even if the publisher had rejected it, another = might=20 >like it. There are mailing lists, critique groups, contests, all kinds= of=20 >support mechanisms in place for the romance writer! Tell her to join = the=20 >RWA and get onto those lists! I did *try* to tell her these things, but she wasn't interested. I got = the feeling that she wanted it to all fall into place without any extra = effort on her part. Sad, but true. I don't know if she'd convinced herself = that she didn't care all that much, or if it really didn't matter to her, but = it was almost depressing that she was so close to publication and had let it go. I wanted to shake her--but it wasn't my book, and it wasn't my decision...still, it's hard to see potential flushed down the drain like that. Melissa Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Emotional Honesty Date: 05 Jun 2001 01:21:46 -0500 Sometimes I've been manipulated > into feeling them. Sometimes emotion blinds us to the truth, which is why we > shouldn't often make important decisions in the heat of strong emotion. Isn't that what writers do? We manipulate emotion. We put sad scenes in stories to make people cry, we put funny scenes in to make them laugh. We put exciting scenes in to make them feel adventurous, or romantic scenes in so that they fall in love. If you cry over a novel, that's because the writer wanted you to. If the writer didn't manipulate emotion, then the writing would most likely be dry and dull. Anna Wight - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 05 Jun 2001 01:39:57 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not as > important personages as they like to think. Doctors, nurses, teachers, > parents and policeman, contribute more substantially to society. They > teach, heal and protect. Artists do, too. > Artists on the other hand, have the chief purpose of entertaining. > Sometimes they might uplift and inspire but essentially they are there to > entertain and beautify. > But no matter how noble we may think our work is, it is still there for the > entertainment of others. I resent this characterization of art. I consider entertainment to be a subset of art, and a subservient purpose for art. The purpose of art is to communicate the human experience to others in ways that open their eyes to new ways of thinking. Art has done an enormous amount of teaching over the centuries. Art has often healed people, as they read literature or view films or videos that touch a vulnerable part of their lives that needed healing. And art even protects. Art has often challenged paradigms in society that were going astray, or defended valuable paradigms that were under attack. Art protects our cultural identity, our understanding of other human beings, our sense of right and wrong, our connection with past generations. Perhaps all you produce is entertainment, and as you say, that's just fine. But we think art is noble because it is. Even the scriptures are a form of art, studied as literary entities, full of stories whose purpose extend far beyond entertainment. Something that communicates the human experience to others in insightful ways is sufficiently noble to make the question meaningful, how much of the temple experience can we communicate? A great deal of the experience is already communicated in rather mundane ways: we allow extensive tours of every temple before dedication; the world is informed about the purposes of the temple and the ordinances that go on in there rather matter-of-factly; photographs of the temple interiors are displayed in visitor centers. We already share a significant part of the temple experience with the world. My question is merely: where do we draw the line? -- 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] Card on "Basketball Doctrines" Date: 05 Jun 2001 03:12:38 -0600 "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > This piece left me > flabbergasted and all I can say is "right on, bro!" > It can be found online at > > http://www.nauvoo.com/vigor/16.html I concur with every word of this article, and think it's an excellent example of Mormon culture vs. doctrine, of why "the church is true but the members are imperfect." -- 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: Vickie Speek (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN Judge Throws Out U of U Anti-Mormon Discrimination Claims: Date: 05 Jun 2001 08:08:46 -0500 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com Judge Throws Out U of U Anti-Mormon Discrimination Claims SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell ruled last week that claims of anti-Mormon discrimination from other students have no bearing on a federal lawsuit filed against the University of Utah by Christina Axson-Flynn. Flynn is the LDS student who claims the U. faculty forced her to quit acting school because she refused to swear during an audition. The lawsuit accuses several theater department staff members of religious discrimination. Campbell said the student claims were irrelevant to Axson-Flynn's case and filed too late. Whether the suit has merit though, has yet to be decided. Alain Balmanno, the assistant Utah attorney general representing five faculty members at the University of Utah, argued the school has the undisputed right to decide what may be taught in the classroom and to whom. Accommodating Axson-Flynn's religious view points would have required a change in the curriculum, he said. Attorney Steffen Johnson, an expert on First Amendment issues brought in to help represent Axson-Flynn, said the case isn't about academic freedom. He argued his client should not lose her constitutional rights to freedom of speech and religion when she enters the classroom. The case could go to trial in one to two years. Sources: Judge Rules Out Other Anti-Mormon Claims in Suit Against U. Salt Lake Tribune 31May01 D4 http://www.sltrib.com/05312001/utah/101801.htm By Kirsten Stewart: Salt Lake Tribune Judge hears religious discrimination lawsuit against U. Utah U-WIRE (Daily Utah Chronicle) 30May01 D4 http://www.uwire.com/content//topnews053001002.html By Jared Whitley: Daily Utah Chronicle (U. Utah) >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] Hitler Date: 05 Jun 2001 09:10:35 -0700 >LET=B4S FORGET HIM !!!!! Never forget. Never again. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "renatorigo" Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture Date: 05 Jun 2001 18:18:27 -0300 > . Do men really think that when a woman says Hi, it's always a come on? Depends on the way you say "HI" If I touch a member of the opposite sex, will he think of it as a come on? Depends on the way you touch him and the friendship between you. Will his wife beat me up? When a man is married usually a female friend must be her wife=B4s friend too. Will I live out my days in the church in shame and infamy? Of course not.. Let=B4s use our good sense... Don=B4t be radical... Renato Rigo - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "renatorigo" Subject: Re:[AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 05 Jun 2001 18:44:06 -0300 Chis wrote: > The temple is one of those kneejerk areas in Mormon culture where people can get pretty irrational. I once had a missionary companion get extremely upset with me for discussing the carpet color and carpet sculpture patterns of various celestial rooms. I really love temple architecture. As Civil Engineer, here in Brazil, I had the opportunity in participating of the construction of the temple of Campinas - S=E3o Paulo - Brazil. I had a lot of experience in building sofisticated buildings with marbles and high technology ; but when I participated in Campinas Temple construction I really felt something different...a professional realization... It=B4s really special Renato Rigo - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "renatorigo" Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted Date: 05 Jun 2001 18:53:14 -0300 > I don=B4t know if you have some edition in English (I kwon it exists) of the most famous female Brazilian writer - Clarice Lispector... You will see the female talent in writing... Her books are Pearls... One of her famous books: "Family Laces" (Trying to translate the Portuguese title into English - La=E7os de Fam=EDlia) or perhaps "Family Lacks" Renato Rigo - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Emotional Honesty Date: 05 Jun 2001 12:22:41 -0700 (PDT) --- James Picht wrote: > One of our hymns tells us not to smother our > emotions, but to let wisdom's voice > control. Intellect without emotion is a terrible > thing to contemplate - the > cold, passionless intellects of _The War of the > Worlds_ - but emotion without > intellect is terribly pathetic. Honesty is a quality > associated with truth, and > truth doesn't exist without reason. I'm not going to > argue for the primacy of > intellect over emotion (I imagine my feelings on > this are clear), but I think > that in a church whose doctrine puts so much > emphasis on reason as a path to > enlightenment, we spend way too much time extolling > the virtues of feeling. Well said, Jim. When I was in the MTC, we watched a video on the role of Jesus Christ in the plan of salvation. It was something that I had never seen before. I don't remember much about the content, but it involved many images of Christ (in a kind of super slow slide show format), a narrator, and sweeping, romantic, weepy music. Many of the missionaries around me were deeply affected by it, and afterwards there was an outpouring of sentiment. I was not touched by the presentation. The weird thing is that I'm not immune to schmaltzy modern church music (there's that song about the Lord's hands that I intellectually object to, but it gets me every time), and I enjoy looking at artistic representations of Christ, but there was something about the whole package (and esp. the music) that turned me off. I felt like the creators of the piece weren't trying to convey a message about Christ, but rather were going straight for an emotional appeal. That was my experience---others had a different one. So here is my question (and this hearkens back to a post I made on representing the workings of the spirit in literature): I'm open to the idea that people can have completely different reactions, both of which are honest, to an artistic work, or a sermon, or a performance. But why does that happen? Is it all in our 'formal' training, what each of us individually believes to be an 'appropriate' way of representing truth, or is there something else going on? And, finally, what are the implications for writers who want to reach as wide of an audience as possible? How do we represent spiritual feeling in a way that is honest---both emotionally and intellectually? Where does emotion and intellect intersect? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] MCCOURT, _Angela's Ashes_ Date: 05 Jun 2001 18:53:03 EDT In a message dated 6/4/01 8:44:27 PM Central Daylight Time, jeffress@xmission.com writes: << Was there a huge exodus of saints to escape combined poverty and Mormon oppression? In either case, do we have any literature that shows the poverty of the early saints with the same power McCourt uses to describe Ireland? >> You have to read the original accounts of members who suffered thru those years to see this poverty for what it really was. I am speaking in Sac. this Sun on "Faith of the Pioneers" and I have chosen Louisa Barnes Pratt as the hero of my presentation. She was spunky, bright, independent, believed in equal rights, and very cheerful under extremely trying circumstances. She had to get herself to Zion without her husband who had been sent to the Pacific Islands on a mission in 1843. I haven't read of too many deserters in WQ, but there was a small exodus of saints not only in Nauvoo after the discovery of polygamy, but especially during the trail years when handcarters began to experience the harsh reality of pulling their possessions, 100 pounds of flour, other food rations, children, and sometimes a sick relative in a small box of about 4 feet square by 8 inches tall. Those who left to wait for better transportation or offers of good jobs in Iowa, were cursed and criticized by those "with more faith." Some of their lives were saved when they "fell by the wayside." What we know little about are the hundreds of Mormons who got to Zion, but then left to go back to the Midwest, or to California. Many trail accounts mention meeting "go backs." Violet Kimball - 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] (Andrew's Poll) Mormon Juvenile Literature Date: 04 Jun 2001 17:31:53 EDT In a message dated 5/30/01 5:54:37 PM Central Daylight Time, jlang2@pressenter.com writes: << So, tell us what you think. What would you recommend for my kids? >Oh, also be sure to tell us roughly what age group the books are = directed=20 >towards. I am interested in everything from picture books for small=20 >children up. >> This poll has not been a raving success, and I don't want to seem like I'm tooting my own horn. (But then I changed my mind.) Young readers and adults are both enjoying "Stories of Young Pioneers: In Their Own Words." published 2000 by Mountain Press of Montana. They are getting ready for a second printing. The publisher and I have received hundreds of great comments from young readers as well as adults. Children as young as ten have read it. One wrote a review for Amazon.Com. (The fact that it appeals to YA and adults has been my biggest thrill so far) If interested, you can check some of the comments on Mountain Press Web Page, and on Amazon.Com and B&N. It was awarded the 2001 Spur Award for "Best Western Juvenile Nonfiction" by Western Writers of America. (I go to Idaho Falls June 23 for my award). According to MN, I am the only Mormon to ever win a Spur Award. The press told me that Deseret Book had ordered 200 copies and were going to feature it during Pioneer Days. (Although it is not just about the Mormon angle). So, I guess that at least says something about my book. Violet T. Kimball, who is only slightly embarrassed about this shameless plug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Young Pioneers in Their Own Words Rocks!, March 23, 2001 (Age Ten) Reviewer: NO from Bountiful, Utah USA My mom got me this book and I loved it. I couldn't stop reading it even when I was jumping on the trampoline. I thought it was great to read about kids like me, who were pioneers and had to go through such hard times. My favorite story in the book is one where they took some cows across a river and they had to seperate the moms and the babies and they didn't know how they would get them both across, but the moms and babies wouldn't leave each other and just swam across to stay together. What I liked most is learning how much these kids had to do on their own and how grown up they were. They worked just as much as the adults and some of them even had to take care of their families when their moms and dads died. I thought it was great that this book was made up from things these kids actually wrote and told about, so you could tell what they thought. I wish there were more books about how kids really are and what it was like to live in a different time. I think everyone should read this book. - 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) Mormon Juvenile Literature Date: 05 Jun 2001 20:04:50 -0600 Since the response to this latest of Andrew's polls was less than overwhelming, I threw out the question to another list (utahchildrenswriters). Here are some of the responses. Laura Torres (currently one of the editors at Klutz Books) wrote: Hi Sharlee Here's my short list of children's favorites by LDS authors: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card because Card succeeds in creating real characters and realistic motivations behind what they do--something lacking in a lot of science fiction. And it has a great ending. The True Colors of Caitlynne Jackson by Carol Lynch Williams. A difficult subject tackled with humor, warmth and honesty. Unforgettable story and characters. Once There Was a Bullfrog by Rick Walton. Rick is the picture book master and this is an innovative, fun book that kids like to read over and over. Rick Walton wrote: I hate to comment on this because most of the authors are friends, and I know I'm going to forget something. There have been a lot of wonderful books written by LDS writers. Just sticking with the LDS market--I like Alma Yates' The Miracle of Miss Willie (I think that's the title) and Caroline Hofling Morris's Saddle Shoe Blues. Also Dean Hughes' Lucky series. There have been some other good middle-grade/YAs. There have been few LDS picture books published, but there have been some good ones. Very successful, Pat Bagley's I Spy a Nephite series, though a take-off on Where's Waldo, was quite fun. I liked Marty's World (can't remember the author). And there have been a few other good picture books. By LDS authors for the national market--anything by Carol Williams or Louise Plummer. (In a perfect world both would have Newbery's or Newbery honors already.) Picture books, Buehner's Escape of Marvin the Ape and Fanny's Dream. Erik Slangerup's Dirt Boy. Michael Tunnel's Mailing May. Barbara William's Albert's Toothache. There have been a lot of good ones, and I could have listed many more. Janice LeFevre wrote: I like books that teach a lesson AND make me laugh. So, here is a short list of SOME of my favorite books by LDS authors (although some of them are just plain serious, not funny). I realize that some books are marketed to adults, but teens love them too. Like Rick, I'm sure I'm going to leave something out, but here it goes: *Fanny's Dream by Caralyn and Mark Buehner -- because it is so true to life. *Little Dogs say "Rough" by Rick Walton and Henry Cole -- because it gives me the anwers to my five-year-old's questions (Why does a turkey say "Gobble, gobble?"), answers she actually accepts. :) The illustations are also perfect! Also love the ABC book with the bunnies. *Sarah's Quest and anything else by Carol Lynch Williams -- because they are about the only thing I can get my nine-year-old daughter to actually read. The stories are also well-written, interesting and appeal to girls (even my son listens in if he thinks we're not noticing). I like the word definitions and explanations. *Grandpa and Me and the Wishing Star -- good book to use to talk to children about death. *Most books by Blaine or Brenton Yorgason (Bishop's Horse Race, Double Exposure, the new Heart's Afire series) -- great story lines and interesting characters. My twelve year old likes them. *That's What Friends Are For" by Joni Hilton -- teens can relate to them and it gets you rolling on the ground in laughter. *Riddle-day Saints by Rick Walton -- Who puts the leaves back on the trees in the spring? The relief society!!!! This book is a favorite of my children (although after hearing the jokes 50 MILLION times, maybe I wish it'd never been written. Hee-hee. Sorry, Rick!) *Anything by Gerald Lund -- I catch my twelve year old son reading them WAY past his bedtime. We've listened to Lund's books on cassette and everyone except my five-year-old hangs on every word. The editing on Lund's books could be much tighter, but we all enjoyed hearing historical fiction. *Death of a Tsar by Robert Marcum -- although the prospect of a branch president getting caught up on such an adventure is hard to believe, the story is exciting and readers cannot put it down until they've read the last page. *No More Strangers, Please by Alma Yates -- totally teen-age fun. *I Spy a Nephite by Pat Bagley -- my five-year-old goes to bed with it nearly every night. It's usually open on her chest after she's fallen asleep. *The Stepping Stone series about various Book of Mormon stories by Sherrie Johnson -- my five-year-old looks at them almost every night during our scripture time. She loves them so much we bought a couple of them for the CD-ROM. *My First Articles of Faith by Deanna Draper Buck and Jerry Harston -- principles taught simply and great illustrations. I like the board book format because it makes it durable for church. - 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] Emotional Honesty Date: 05 Jun 2001 17:35:03 -0600 >Sometimes I've been manipulated >> into feeling them. Sometimes emotion blinds us to the truth, which is why >we >> shouldn't often make important decisions in the heat of strong emotion. > Anna Wight: >Isn't that what writers do? We manipulate emotion. We put sad scenes in >stories to make people cry, we put funny scenes in to make them laugh. We >put exciting scenes in to make them feel adventurous, or romantic scenes in >so that they fall in love. If you cry over a novel, that's because the >writer wanted you to. If the writer didn't manipulate emotion, then the >writing would most likely be dry and dull. The difference being manipulated and FEELING manipulated is the skill with which its done. Obviously, you're right, that the purpose of art is to manipulate our feelings somehow. The problem comes when it's done ham-fistedly, where we're practically forced to cry (or whatever). Movie classified as "tear-jerkers" are aptly named, because they often practically force the tears out of us. It's a sign of lazy writing when an author (or screenwriter) says, "Well, we want the audience to cry here, so what should we do? Oh, I remember, Screenwriting 101: Give a character cancer, and that equals instant tears!" Or if we want them to feel patriotic, we just put some stirring brass music in the background and wave a flag, accompanied by some words that would seem trite without all the accoutrements. A writer shouldn't put a sad scene in just to make people cry. He should put it in because it furthers the plot, establishes the characters, or in some other way is a valid thing to have in the story. When he puts it in JUST to make us cry, that's when it's not fair. We only have a problem with feeling emotions over a work of art when those emotions were yanked from us, and not earned. 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: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 05 Jun 2001 17:33:57 -0500 Let me ask you this. You're stranded on a deserted island. Who do you want with you. The guy who can stitch up your shark bites or teach you how to fish, or the guy who can make pretty pictures in the sand. I'm not saying artists aren't important. They are. They just aren't as important as they think they are. It would be a dull world without artists and entertainers. They do the things you have stated. They uplift, inspire, remember, expose truths etc. as well as entertain. But they do the opposite as well. Most of the time they do the opposite. Take a look at Hollywood. Where do we draw the line when it comes to the temple? It matters not that you can read the entire temple endowment on line. That's not the point. The point is, that those who enter the temple, make a sacred covenant to God to keep those things sacred. No where does it ask us to keep them sacred except if we're writing a story. I see nothing wrong with describing a temple, people outside of the church have seen the inside of temples, and that part we are not asked to not speak about. But the endowment itself is to be kept sacred. If we are not willing to do that, then why are we going to the temple? Why are we lying to God and making promises we have no intention of keeping? Anna Wight ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:39 AM > REWIGHT wrote: > > > But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not as > > important personages as they like to think. Doctors, nurses, teachers, > > parents and policeman, contribute more substantially to society. They > > teach, heal and protect. > > Artists do, too. > > > > Artists on the other hand, have the chief purpose of entertaining. > > Sometimes they might uplift and inspire but essentially they are there to > > entertain and beautify. > > > But no matter how noble we may think our work is, it is still there for the > > entertainment of others. > > I resent this characterization of art. I consider entertainment to be a > subset of art, and a subservient purpose for art. The purpose of art is > to communicate the human experience to others in ways that open their > eyes to new ways of thinking. Art has done an enormous amount of > teaching over the centuries. Art has often healed people, as they read > literature or view films or videos that touch a vulnerable part of their > lives that needed healing. And art even protects. Art has often > challenged paradigms in society that were going astray, or defended > valuable paradigms that were under attack. Art protects our cultural > identity, our understanding of other human beings, our sense of right > and wrong, our connection with past generations. > > Perhaps all you produce is entertainment, and as you say, that's just > fine. But we think art is noble because it is. Even the scriptures are a > form of art, studied as literary entities, full of stories whose purpose > extend far beyond entertainment. > > Something that communicates the human experience to others in insightful > ways is sufficiently noble to make the question meaningful, how much of > the temple experience can we communicate? A great deal of the experience > is already communicated in rather mundane ways: we allow extensive tours > of every temple before dedication; the world is informed about the > purposes of the temple and the ordinances that go on in there rather > matter-of-factly; photographs of the temple interiors are displayed in > visitor centers. We already share a significant part of the temple > experience with the world. My question is merely: where do we draw the > line? > > -- > 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 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Secular Prophets Date: 05 Jun 2001 17:40:05 -0500 > > > > Thom, just thought I'd throw in a quote from B. Udall: "There are more > important things in this life than writing. Your parents, for instance. Your > loved ones. Your dog is probably more important than your writing. Stop > taking yourself so seriously. Be nice. Relax. Now go and write." (he's > giving advice to young writers here.) > Actually, I really like this quote. Writing to me is important. It may one day be how I earn my living. But there are other things far more important. Sounds like the person who made this quote has his feet firmly on the ground and has some good basic values. Including knowing that he isn't the most important person in the universe. Anna - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Basketball Doctrines: Moderator Note Date: 06 Jun 2001 13:54:29 -0500 Folks, This thread is starting to raise a number of responses, both agreeing and disagreeing with Card's article. Since this isn't a central topic for the List, and since this is currently (still) a high-volume time, what I'm going to do is discard everything that's currently in my in-box responding to the content of Card's article (either positively or negatively), with apologies to the List members involved. Let me clarify that discussions of Church culture as it applies to writing are certainly on-topic for the List, as are discussions of arts-oriented cultural activities such as drama and music. What I'm ruling off-topic are discussions of basketball, its positives and negatives, and how it is viewed in the Church--except as that may apply directly to how we, as readers and writers, might deal with it as a topic in Mormon letters. 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: William Morris Subject: [AML] Facial Hair (was: Last Three Days for SF X 5) Date: 05 Jun 2001 17:17:28 -0700 (PDT) --- Thom Duncan wrote: > [MOD: I'm jealous...wish I could make it.] > [snip] > I hope to see some of you there. If I don't already > know you, please > identify yourself to the close-cropped goateed > individual at the ticket > office. Really, I'm a lot nicer person in real life > than I am on the > list. I too am incredibly jealous and wish that we could somehow just get rid of the state of Nevada. If I could live in the Bay Area, but drive to the Wasatch Front in 4 or 5 hours that would be perfect. But what I really wanted to comment on is Thom's facial hair. I too wear a close-cropped goatee (with the full approval of my wife). Orson Scott Card, Dave Wolverton, and Howard Tayler (the Mormon author of the fantastic sci-fi web comic _Schlock Mercenary_) all have facial hair. And I have noticed that at both the Berkeley University and family wards there was a rather high incidence of scruffiness, especially among the grad students. Is there a meaningful pattern here? Are Mormon artistic/intellectual types more likely to have facial hair than 'other' Mormon men? Are all the men at the AML conferences comparing beard trimming notes? Just curious. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Card on "Basketball Doctrines" Date: 05 Jun 2001 19:14:41 -0600 [MOD: In line with my moderator message, I am letting this message through since it focuses on a writer's response to the newsletter, as opposed to responding to Card's particular arguments.] I find a great deal to think about in the various issues of Vigor. It just now occurred to me for the first time that, since the articles are about real problems and concerns of real Mormons, we might mine the archives for ideas to inspire some of our LDS literature. I look for stories about people whose experiences match mine in some way so I can deal with them honestly. For example, my imagination is big enough to create entire planetary civilizations, but not big enough to imagine being a happy housewife. My own emotional baggage gets in the way. Say--perhaps that could be a cathartic experience--sort of like role reversal! Pardon me while I come to some obvious conclusions in full view of everyone on the list. . . . barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 05 Jun 2001 19:35:25 -0600 At 09:02 PM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote: >btw, what is "sturgeon's law"? Theodore Sturgeon, a science fiction writer, speaking of the genre, said something along the lines of "Sure, 90 percent of SF is garbage, buth then 90 percent of anything is garbage." His percentage may be high, but the point is that you will find a lot of bad stuff in SF, fantasy, romance, westerns, adventure stories, the whole thing. I think, though, that if the writer enjoyed himself writing it, the story has served a purpose, even if no one else can stand to read it. I, too, like adventure stories, as long as the characters do not exist in an emotional vacuum--doing things with no feelings about any of it. I like Hammond Innes--have you read him? I love Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody mysteries--there's lots of adventure there, but the interesting facet is the wonderful characters. Who are your favorite adventure writers, and what do you like about them? Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Definitions of Art (was: Temple in Fiction) Date: 05 Jun 2001 19:53:10 -0600 > The purpose of art is >to communicate the human experience to others in ways that open their >eyes to new ways of thinking. I like this statement. I'm still thinking about it to decide how strongly I agree with it. I think it would prove quite interesting to cull the posts from the threads that deal with the purpose of art to see how many different definitions various members have posited during our discussions. No, I'm not volunteering to do it, but it would be enlightening-- Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 05 Jun 2001 21:26:42 -0500 At 09:02 PM 6/4/01 -0400, Tom Johnson wrote: >btw, what is "sturgeon's law"? According to a possibly apocryphal story (at least, he denied that it occurred for the rest of his life), science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon is supposed to have gotten up before a group of SF writers & readers and announced "Ninety percent of science fiction is crud*" After the audience reacted, he continued, "But then ninety percent of everything is crud." (*Some reports claim that he used a stronger word.) Many people have stated as a corollary: "Sturgeon was an optimist." -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 05 Jun 2001 19:29:45 -0700 (PDT) I finally got out to see Brigham City. I apologize because I haven't read what has already been said about the movie on this list (I didn't want to spoil my experience by reading other people's opinions) so I may be repeating what others have said. But I can't let it go without rejoicing in public. HOORAY! I'm so glad this movie has been made! The very last scene was one of the best scenes I have ever experienced in a movie. It was so well-done that it caused me to re-evaluate the entire movie, to continue thinking about and analyzing the movie for hours after, to catch in retrospect lots of masterful details from earlier in the movie that contributed to the incredible cathartic ending. For most of the movie I was vaguely uncomfortable (suspense isn't my favorite genre) and totally unaware of the little details that were going on--at least on a conscious level. But as I look back on the work as a whole, I see so many things that worked on me and brought things all together at the end. (For example, the red herrings that caused me to realize how suspicion can work on people, and how terrifying it would be to truly not be able to be positive your own fiance, for example, wasn't guilty . . . The whole theme of trusting in a person's character, thinking you know someone . . . ) Anyway, I'm still analyzing it and finding more things that made it all work. I just want to say GO SEE IT. STAY TILL THE END. IT'S SO WORTH IT. Just out of curiosity, do you think that non-members could be moved anywhere near as much by the ending? Would they catch the significance? Someone asked me about whether Dutcher can "justify" his making of a "movie like this" because it is a good way to proselytize. Is sharing truth proselytizing? Is providing a person a chance to evaluate her beliefs about trust, redemption and forgiveness proselytizing? My answer is yes, I think that this movie is an example of proselytizing in that it contributes to the good in the world. But I don't think "converting" was, or should have been, Dutcher's goal AS SUCH. What Dutcher is doing is simply creating art. I'm grateful, however, that it is moral art. Art that moved me deeply. And creating such art is a worthy goal of itself. Thanks, Richard! ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] Temple in Fiction Date: 05 Jun 2001 22:09:52 -0600 When I first saw this thread come up, I had the knee-jerk reaction of saying of course the temple is off-limits. And then I (rather sheepishly) remembered that two of my books have a temple scene. (Yes, kettle, I'm black.) I still believe that a writer must be extremely careful when treading into this area, for all of the reasons already mentioned, including alienating readers (and God), and breaking covenants. On the other hand, my two little scenes--I think--are important to the stories, reveal nothing that shouldn't be discussed openly, and (especially the second one, which is a sealing--the first takes place in the Celestial Room) need to take place there. For me, the important part is caution and restraint. When writing a temple scene, a writer needs to put up the mental red flags and be extra aware of what is and is not appropriate, and what is and is not really needed for the story. For me, an endowment scene would probably cross the line . As I write this it seems to me that it is the actual ritual and ordinance parts that are taboo, and for good reason. I can't see anyone being offended at a scene where a character is writing a friend's name on the prayer roll, finding their locker in the dressing room, or pondering in the chapel. Just my thoughts. Annette Lyon - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: (Andrew's Poll) Mormon Juvenile Literature Date: 05 Jun 2001 20:15:02 -0600 By the way, I just found out that Rick Walton's _Bunny Day_ will be on the cover of the Winter 2002 HarperCollins catalog. 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: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 05 Jun 2001 23:18:43 -0600 I don't know if it's kosher to discuss/defend one's own work, but I would like to make a few comments on Tom Johnson's wonderful comments about missionary fiction and Angel of the Danube. > Although the romance story with Magdalena at the end packed the novel into a > trashy Mormon romance genre, if I choose to read Magdalena as the figurative > symbol of his Austrian mission, then it multiplies the nostalgia, > physicalizes it, and redeems the last 70 pages of the book. Hooray! That is definately one way to read it (I realized when I read it for the first time). No comment on the lumps Tom has already taken for his genre moniker. > that. Barry isn't driven by much, unless you count the King Follet spiritual > experience at the beginning. (actually this lack of motive is an interesting > characteristic in Mormon missionary narratives. Unless you count his testimony, he doesn't have much motive? I had thought his desire to "get through" to the Austrians was quite pronounced. > What missionary narrative will break that genre? I think it must have at > least several qualities: (1) A readability by Mormon and non-Mormon > audiences. Mitchell's book is practically unintelligible to non-RMs, much > less non-members, at least I think. >From limited sample size, I disagree. Let's try it out. Including the AML list Ruth Starkman, all five NMs I know that have read it have found it a very good read, although some said the first 20 pages were difficult because of the newness. Offer it to your NM friend--they will realize it is not a proselytizing tool. I hereby offer 5 gratis copies to anyone on the list to give to NM. And > (3) more interesting missionary meditations on the world around him/her. I'm > going out on a limb here, this point is just a hunch, but I think it would > blow the world away to see an interesting reflector (non-pedantic) behind > the nametag-and it would dispense with the frivolity. > Tom J. I think Tom is right. I like the Fronc novel more and more already, and I haven't even read/written it yet. Alan Mitchell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 06 Jun 2001 01:43:28 -0400 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tom Johnson > >Actually I'd love to see a sister missionary pov in which the sister > >suffers from a tremendous lack of self-esteem, trudges through the streets > >and contemplates stepping in front of buses, tries to outdo the brother > >missionaries just to prove her equal ability, while inside she has no > desire > >at all to really preach the gospel, only to occupy her forlorn life. > > May one ask why you would like to see this? > > Eileen Stringer > eileens99@bigplanet.com > > Hmmm, I'm trying to decide whether the story would break stereotypes or reinforce them. I was originally thinking that a raging subtext behind the sweet-sister missionary would break stereotypes, but now that I reflect on it, perhaps not. Eileen, just out of curiosity, what is the raging subtext of the sister missionary? (perhaps you are a sister RM.) The Johnston newspaper critic praised the female miss. pov b/c he was tired of reading about the elder's raging lions. do sister miss's have raging lionesses? Tom J. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 05 Jun 2001 23:31:04 -0600 > Specifically, I've been wondering how intimately we can handle the > temple in our fiction. There must be a million fine stories waiting to > be told about the temple and what goes on in there. On the other hand, > much of what goes on in there is sacred and not to be casually discussed > outside its walls. > D. Michael Martindale Barry Monroe (Angel of the Danube) writes: May 21 Right now, I'm sitting at the International terminal at LAX and catching up my journal. I woke up at five o'clock and was too nervous to stay in bed so I drove to the LA temple this morning. I can't believe I haven't been back to the temple since I got home. The garden room is so beautiful. The person playing Eve looked like Magdalena or turned into Magdalena or something. In one part, the Lord gave Adam a helpmeet, and the Spirit whispered to me, "Is it good for man to be alone?" "Help!" I cried. The whole morning was so peaceful that I forgot the little questions and concerns. I couldn't bear to leave, so I stayed for the late morning session, then had lunch in the cafeteria. After lunch I went into the celestial room to meditate. The chandeliers reflected the light, which was as pure and clean as I had ever seen. Does light have different shades of purity? It seemed like it. I peeked in a empty room and above the altar there appeared to be a conduit of light that reached to heaven and I could request any truth from God, either past, present, or future. And so I prayed: "Thank You. Thank You. Thank You... etc. Can we say that much? Alan Mitchell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted Date: 05 Jun 2001 23:33:51 -0600 Scott, WOW! HOORAY! KEEP IT UP! (After all, Marilyn's off line.) I can wait to read the book. Alan > For six days Susan was a quivering sack of emotions. Until the night, > lying next to Marcus--who slept deeply and loudly while she soaked her > pillow with tears--sure that she was carrying a dead fetus, she felt > butterfly wings fluttering below her heart. Instantly the tears of > anguish became one loud sob of relief. > Marcus stopped snoring for a few seconds but he didn't wake up. > Then Susan thought something--something for which she would be > guilt-ridden for years to come. In fact, she still felt guilty for it to > this very moment. Instead of telling the child within her that she was > happy to know that he was alive and well, and that she was glad to > finally make his acquaintance, she upbraided him. She cried out in her > mind, "What took you so long? Where have you been? Why have you treated > me this way?" > > Writing across gender lines is either allowable or it's not. If it is > allowable, then there can be no restrictions. "All right, you can > describe any experience from a male/female point of view except > childbirth and sex; those you will never understand. Oh, and harassment > in the workplace ... and of course, being a professional. Well, and a > mother/father. You'll never figure that out. And a missionary too. > You'll never know what it is to be a Sister/Elder." > > Which, of course, brings us back to the impetus for all this gender talk. > "God's Army" from the male POV was all about a few individual Elders > working out their personal salvations. The same story from the Sister > POV, it seems obvious to me (whether you're male or female), will have to > include among it's many themes the travail of all Sisters in the field: > That is that they are more mature and effective as missionaries than the > Elders, but completely under appreciated and undervalued as to the > potential for their contributions to the work. I think that whoever gets > the gig needs to make a prime focus of the story the fact that Sister > Fronk finally figures out that the Elders are not in the mission field to > get converts, but to get converted. > > And I think any good female, or male writer could write that story ... > convincingly. > > J. Scott Bronson - 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] Secular Prophets Date: 06 Jun 2001 00:45:27 -0600 Tom Johnson wrote: > Thom, just thought I'd throw in a quote from B. Udall: "There are more > important things in this life than writing. Your parents, for instance. Your > loved ones. Your dog is probably more important than your writing. Stop > taking yourself so seriously. Be nice. Relax. Now go and write." (he's > giving advice to young writers here.) > > This quote bothers me; I don't really believe he puts his dog above writing, > but maybe he does. Do you think it is possible to believe that one is a > secular prophet while at the same time elevating his dog above his s. > prophetic role? Your dog is more important than your writing, though. Anything living is more important than anything dead. But you have to contextualize that. Your dog's every whim isn't more important than your writing any more than your child's every whim is. If there is a choice between taking your dog to a vet to treat a fatal wound and writing that next sentence, you'd better hie thee to a veterinary. The key is to recognize that there is a balance and to find and maintain it. Or don't get a dog... Much easier. Jacob Proffitt - 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] Hitler Date: 06 Jun 2001 08:46:12 -0600 >renatorigo@bol.com.br wrote: > > > LET'S FORGET HIM !!!!! > >From: Jacob Proffitt > >I can think of no more dangerous way to handle our past. Forget? Don't >you dare. Reminds me of the phrase I see on British war memorials all over the world: Lest We Forget. I assume the phrase is from Kipling's poem below. If so, it is interesting that although the phrase was written in 1897, it has been used on WWII memorials. [MOD: Also a hymn in our hymn book, at least the first three verses. Which, by the way, I actually led in our ward a year or two ago for Independence Day...] - Bob Hughes Recessional (A Victorian Ode) God of our fathers, known of old -- Lord of our far-flung battle line -- Beneath whose awful hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine -- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget -- lest we forget! The tumult and the shouting dies -- The Captains and the Kings depart -- Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget -- lest we forget! Far-called our navies melt away -- On dune and headland sinks the fire -- Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget -- lest we forget! If, drunk with sight of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe -- Such boastings as the Gentiles use, Or lesser breeds without the Law -- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget -- lest we forget! For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard -- All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding calls not Thee to guard. For frantic boast and foolish word, Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord! Amen. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 06 Jun 2001 01:32:36 -0400 William, Let me provide more of the context of the Marcus-Evenson interview. Marcus is asking Evenson about his sources, the influences that shaped Evenson's writing. Evenson says that it is beneficial to borrow techniques and styles from others, but one should borrow from a *broad range* of sources, rather than just a select group of writers. Evenson says, "I also think that when borrowing becomes too incestuous, too much confined to a small group of writers or a certain type of writer, it loses its power. Good borrowing makes unexpected links. The American writers I like seem to me to have stepped outside of the writers. Zimbabwean author Dambudzo Marechera says, ' Either you are a writer or you are not. If you are a writer for a specific nation or a specific race, then [MOD: epithet deleted].' I agree. Maraechera himself is an interesting case. His stories are highly autogiographical and take place in the ghetto where he grew up in, but his prose has gathered textures and rhthms from all over the globe--from Russia and from England as wel las from African writers. Even in his most personal and African moments he is carrying on a conversation with writers from elsewhere. Gordon Lish and Paul Auster's writings are in some senses similar--their fictions are seemingly autobiographical and most often take place in New York, but you see their best fiction addressing Austrian writers, French writers, Irish writers" (http://webdelsol.com/eveson/beven.htm). Maybe what he's getting at here is an appeal for Bhaktin's heteroglossia. If LDS writers close themselves off from non-LDS voices, and draw only from LDS sources, then perhaps there will be a kind of inbreeding of LDS voice, and Zion will become more and more insular and impenetrable and narrow and cleft-footed. See more responses to your points below. > As a comparatist (that's what us comparative > literature folk call ourselves), I can't help but > respond to this idea, so, although this thread has > been somewhat dormant, I'm going to give it a go. On > the one hand, us comparatists, once we got over that > trying-to-find-the-universal-narrative thing (which > was essentially an exercise in Eurocentrism in > reaction to WWII---not a bad thing, but very > limiting), have been deconstructing notions of race > and nation and literature. We often deal with all > that stuff that has now become so very trendy in > cultural studies---writing on the margins, hybridity, > multi-lingualism, 'minor' literatures (except we no > longer use the word 'minor'---I forget what the new > term is), etc. We show how the works of various > writers challenge fixed notions of nation and race and > gender. I think there is a difference between attempting a heteroglossic voice and a universal voice. I would promote the former, not the latter. I think it would be healthy to have a black voice occassionally appear in Jack Weyland, don't you? > > On the other hand, such a quote seems to me to be an > exercise in wishful thinking. Writers come from > communities, and no matter what their ties with those > communities are or become, their work gets filtered > through all those categories (both in production and > consumption) of race, ethnicity, language, religion, > nation and geography that are tied in to the writers' > community(ies). And it's a perfectly viable exercise > to discuss how a writer's work relates to these > categories. Thus, Kafka is a Jew, a Czehk, a German > speaker, a citizen of Prague, a bachelor, etc. > Yes, I agree, of course, that race, language, religion, nation, and geography factor into the text. However, I enjoy reading both Franz Kafka and Ralph Ellison as well as Saul Bellow and Jorge Luis Borges, each of which is markedly different from each other in the abovementioned categories, and deserves to be studied in terms of its historical and socio-cultural context; but despite these particularities, each writer seems to reach a general audience, i.e., the common reader can read all of these works and, if not totally understand them (who understands Kafka anyway), at least enjoy them. But with Mormon lit., the common reader suddenly finds an intricate labrynth of insider culture that is difficult to penetrate and understand without an accompanying text explaining Mormonism. As long as Mormon lit remains inaccessible like that--inaccessible because it is so immersed in the particularities of culture, and is driven by that inaccessibility--then it will always erect a Berlin Wall between itself and the world. I'm not saying that Kafka or Ellison isn't driven by culture, but somehow they've made that culture accessible. Not by explaining it, but perhaps by parabolizing it, or somehow allowing us to explore the culture without giving a guided tour of it. I recently had a non-member friend tell me he'd purchased a number of LDS books and couldn't seem to get into any of them. He was writing a novel about two Mormon brothers, one of which, the righteous one, was making a documentary film of the other, the unrightous one. The unrighteous one was a heavy drug-user. I asked to read the manuscript and, although I found the story interesting, the writer didn't seem to be able to penetrate the Mormon culture. (note--i was going to help him do that this summer but he himself died of a drug overdose the other week. ouch.) When, to this list, I inadvertently resurrected the question, 'Should Mormon Literature be a distinct genre?', I was not suggesting that Mormon Lit could not fit into a category like African-American lit, Jewish lit, Postcolonial lit, Victorian lit, and so on, but that Mormon Lit. should not be so distinct that it can't find appeal to a general audience who isn't familiar with the insider culture. Moreover, if we take what Brigham Young says about truth, that whatever truth exists in the world, be it facts of science, tenets of sociology, or principles of biology, that truth *belongs* to Mormonism. Why not stretch that to the realms of literature too? Whatever is good, true, and beautiful in the literature of the world *belongs* to Mormon literature? That way when I read Kerouc's _On the Road_ and feel an immediate connection with the Dean Moriarty character, I wouldn't have to say, "well, this unfortunately is not Mormon literature, but is good nonetheless." I could say, "Yes, this is Mormon literature, of the highest kind." I know that is kind of an odd stretch, but I can see Brigham Young nodding his head in agreement with me. Surely this topic has been hashed over a hundred times in scholarly articles. Maybe you can simply recommend some to me so I can give a more informed response. Tom J. - 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] Symbolism Date: 06 Jun 2001 09:15:15 -0600 Diann T Read wrote: > > During my high school and college years, I also tended to be amused--and > sometimes bemused--by teachers' interpretations of literature. I > remember once telling a friend that I'd love to be a fly on the wall if > anything I wrote ever got to the point of being used in lit. classes, > just to see what kind of weird stuff the prof would read into it. > There's another way to do it. Write a play, have it produced, and then prepare to be amazed at how your actors start to see things in your script that you never consciously put in there. I remember approaching the production of a play of mine years ago with some trepidation. One of the three characters in the play was a woman. I felt that she was the flattest of all the characters and didn't know quite what to do about it. Under the able direction of Tom Rogers, Elizabeth J. Smith took the role and brought a depth and spirit to the role that quite literally amazed me. Apparently, I HAD written a woman who's thoughts and dreams and aspirations rang true to other women. I asked her where she got the idea to play the character the way she did. She showed me right in the script where she got her insight. So, to sort of bring two recent threads together, apparently it is possible for a man to write a successful woman and for other people to find symbolism and meaning in your work that you as the author were never aware of. > >However, I would be offended by someone who would state what the my > > work means, would suggest that they know better than I do what I meant, > > > or put symbolisms and meanings in it that were never expressed. That depends on who said that. Were I Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan were to tell me he knew more about what my play meant than I did, I would defer. Because, well, Kazan did know more about Williams' work than Williams did himself. Just compare the work of the great playwright that was nurtured under the tutelage of the great director with Williams' later stuff. It's like two different people wrote it. >I had just thought I was writing a little adventure > tale and hadn't really given much thought to symbolism, so I hadn't done > this intentionally, but as I contemplated what she had found in it, I > realized she was right. I still appreciate her sharing that with me. > (Thanks, Barbara Hume!) > > I had a similar experience with my first novel (also, I thought, just an adventure tale). List member Dave Doering informed me once that I had written a good novel in the magic realism school of fiction. The fact that I didn't know what kind of literature that was made no difference. We must always remembers as writers that our works never completely live until they are read by someone else. They are also never fully understood until someone else reads them. Authors are often the last person to know what their works mean. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 06 Jun 2001 09:33:33 -0600 Anna Wight wrote: >>But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not >>as important personages as they like to think. That's assuming 1) that all artists think they're important, and 2) that in the great scheme of things they're not important. I think a case can be made that they're at least as important as anybody else. I think the great scheme of the gospel is for us to follow the example of Christ and value all our brothers and sisters equally, judging them not according to the various talents and gifts they have received from God, but according to their spiritual parentage ... which makes it impossible for us to place one above or below another. Certainly, as an individual, I can like one person's unique ability over another's, but that's just personal preference for various forms of art or entertainment -- two separate sets (speaking mathematically) that sometimes intersect and occasionally may form a complete union ... depending on my personal likes in art and entertainment. Anna Wight: >>Doctors, nurses, teachers, parents and policeman, >>contribute more substantially to society. They >>teach, heal and protect. D. Michael: > Artists do, too. As do mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents. Now, point to someone who doesn't fit in that group. But if we want to talk about whether or not the specific God given talents of artists have any unique ability to contribute to the spiritual enlightenment of others, I love the way Elder Packer stated it in his (in)famous talk given at BYU back in 1976: "Because of what they do, we are able to feel and learn very quickly through music, through art, through poetry some spiritual things that we would otherwise learn very slowly." D. Michael: > Something that communicates the human experience to others in > insightful ways is sufficiently noble to make the question meaningful, > how much of the temple experience can we communicate? Is it against any artist's creed to to let the spirit giude them in that? Well, maybe Thom's. ;-) J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com See SF x 5 this weekend! - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: [AML] Lacos de Familia (was: Female Writers Wanted) Date: 06 Jun 2001 10:18:11 -0700 >One of her famous books: "Family Laces" (Trying to ?translate the Portuguese title into English - La=E7os de >Fam=EDlia) or perhaps "Family Lacks" >Renato Rigo _Family Ties_ is probably the best English translation. I would like to read this book. Since I'm going to Portugal next week, I'll stop in at a bookstore to see if they have it. Thanks for the recommendation. Rachel _______________________ Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh) Best-selling author of the Ariana series and This Time Forever Web page: http://www.rachelannnunes.com E-mail: Rachel@RachelAnnNunes.com WANT A WEBSITE? Check out the host for my site: http://www.launch-web.net. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Emotional Honesty Date: 06 Jun 2001 12:45:52 -0600 At 05:35 PM 6/5/01 -0600, you wrote: >Movie classified as "tear-jerkers" are aptly named, because they often >practically force the tears out of us. It's a sign of lazy writing when an >author (or screenwriter) says, "Well, we want the audience to cry here, so >what should we do? Oh, I remember, Screenwriting 101: Give a character >cancer, and that equals instant tears!" Exactly how I felt about that horrible movie Terms of Endearment. Throughout the movie I was certain that I was supposed to respond in certain ways, so I stubbornly refused to feel anything (except irritation). Fifteen minutes into it, I thought, "I hate this movie so much that I just know it will sweep the Oscars." Besides, Jack Nicholson creeps me out. [Moderator may remove this unkind remark if he chooses.] With Steel Magnolias, however, a similar situation cropped up, and I cried buckets. It did reach me emotionally. I'm not a film critic, so I can't tell you exactly why one movie touched me and the other made me want my money back. They were probably both equally manipulative. barbara hume - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 06 Jun 2001 13:03:35 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > Let me ask you this. You're stranded on a deserted island. Who do you want > with you. The guy who can stitch up your shark bites or teach you how to > fish, or the guy who can make pretty pictures in the sand. > > I'm not saying artists aren't important. They are. They just aren't as > important as they think they are. Brigham Young would disagree with you. In (I believe) Volume 9 of the Journal of Discourses, the Lion of the Lord says (paraphrasing) "If I were given the task to civilize a group of savages, I would first teach them to appreciate the arts. THEN I would teach them religion." > The point is, that those who enter the temple, make a sacred covenant to God > to keep those things sacred. I bet we would differ on what "those things" are. I remember some very distinct things I covenanted not to reveal. Outside of those features, I consider the things in the temple as pretty much fair game. Especially when you through in to the mix that, at least as far as the covenants themselves are concerned, they are also taught in the Scriptures. That which we agree not to reveal is the method by which we bind ourselves to the covenants. But can one talk about the Law of Consecration, the Law of Morality outside the temple. Of course. How the earth was created? Well, let's read what the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham have to say. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 06 Jun 2001 15:23:23 -0400 Hey Alan, I'm dying to ask you something. What is the "historic Bennion ranch"? I also wanted to say that your book was extremely funny. I had check-marks all over the place beside passages that made me laugh. Keep it up, Tom - 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] Secular Prophets Date: 06 Jun 2001 13:08:24 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > > > > > > > Thom, just thought I'd throw in a quote from B. Udall: "There are more > > important things in this life than writing. Your parents, for instance. > Your > > loved ones. Your dog is probably more important than your writing. Stop > > taking yourself so seriously. Be nice. Relax. Now go and write." (he's > > giving advice to young writers here.) > > > > Actually, I really like this quote. Writing to me is important. It may one > day be how I earn my living. But there are other things far more important. > Sounds like the person who made this quote has his feet firmly on the ground > and has some good basic values. Including knowing that he isn't the most > important person in the universe. If he's not the most important person in the world -- while he's writing -- then why waste time writing? I write because I happen to think I have some opinions on things that other people are better off knowing about. Time and again, that's proven to be the case. If I didn't think I had ideas that no one else could express as dramatically as I could, I wouldn't be wasting my time. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals -------------------------- Shameless Plug Don't miss the Playwrights Circle Summer Festival at UVSC! *J. Golden* - a one-man play by James Arrington, starring Marvin Payne *SFX5* - 5 original short science fiction plays *Peculiarities* - a new full-length play by Eric Samuelsen For more information about the Playwrights Circle and our summer festival: http://www.playwrightscircle.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] Facial Hair (was: Last Three Days for SF X 5) Date: 06 Jun 2001 14:01:43 -0600 William Morris wrote: >> I hope to see some of you there. If I don't already >> know you, please >> identify yourself to the close-cropped goateed >> individual at the ticket >> office. Really, I'm a lot nicer person in real life >> than I am on the >> list. > > > I too am incredibly jealous and wish that we could > somehow just get rid of the state of Nevada. If I > could live in the Bay Area, but drive to the Wasatch > Front in 4 or 5 hours that would be perfect. > > But what I really wanted to comment on is Thom's > facial hair. I too wear a close-cropped goatee (with > the full approval of my wife). Orson Scott Card, Dave > Wolverton, and Howard Tayler (the Mormon author of the > fantastic sci-fi web comic _Schlock Mercenary_) all > have facial hair. And I have noticed that at both the > Berkeley University and family wards there was a > rather high incidence of scruffiness, especially among > the grad students. Is there a meaningful pattern > here? Are Mormon artistic/intellectual types more > likely to have facial hair than 'other' Mormon men? > Are all the men at the AML conferences comparing beard > trimming notes? Just curious. Speaking as a person who has worn a short goatee for a couple of years now (three?), I'll answer on my behalf. I think that a carefully cropped goatee has recently overcome the typical American stereotype left over from the 70s that facial hair equals hippy slacker. I think we are approaching the cultural cues in vogue in Germany while I was there -- i.e. that a careful goatee is a hairstyle choice appropriate for professionals when kept well trimmed and neat. Frankly, I'm glad. I look much younger than I am and since I own a business and advocate for the allocation of significant sums of business resources, I think I have realized specific benefits from having the goatee -- I end up justifying my expertise less, have fewer "testing" type questions, and people take me more seriously. I wear glasses instead of contacts for the same reason. Strategic personal presentation may be called manipulative, I suppose. I prefer to think of it as presenting accurate social registers. Jacob Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Facial Hair (was: Last Three Days for SF X 5) Date: 06 Jun 2001 14:39:20 -0500 At 05:17 PM 6/5/01 -0700, William Morris wrote: >--- Thom Duncan wrote: > > [MOD: I'm jealous...wish I could make it.] > > > [snip] > > I hope to see some of you there. If I don't already > > know you, please > > identify yourself to the close-cropped goateed > > individual at the ticket > > office. Really, I'm a lot nicer person in real life > > than I am on the > > list. > >I too am incredibly jealous and wish that we could >somehow just get rid of the state of Nevada. If I >could live in the Bay Area, but drive to the Wasatch >Front in 4 or 5 hours that would be perfect. Agreed. For me, the actual time required is ten times that much: between 40 and 50 hours. More if I actually stop to sleep somewhere along the way. (Shortening Nebraska and Wyoming would be a big help. Most of rural Missouri could go, too. I do have friends in St. Louis and Columbia, and there are the Church historical sites around Independence, so I stop short of suggesting the _whole_ state be elided.) >But what I really wanted to comment on is Thom's >facial hair. I too wear a close-cropped goatee (with >the full approval of my wife). Orson Scott Card, Dave >Wolverton, and Howard Tayler (the Mormon author of the >fantastic sci-fi web comic _Schlock Mercenary_) all >have facial hair. I don't have any right now, but as some on this list, including some you mention, can attest, I have been bearded at various times during the past couple of decades. Even won the "Best Beard" award from the Assn. of SF & F at BYU once. (BTW, the last time I saw either Thom or OSC in person, both were clean-shaven. And youthful-looking.) >And I have noticed that at both the >Berkeley University and family wards there was a >rather high incidence of scruffiness, especially among >the grad students. Is there a meaningful pattern >here? Are Mormon artistic/intellectual types more >likely to have facial hair than 'other' Mormon men? >Are all the men at the AML conferences comparing beard >trimming notes? And does that perhaps explain why said conferences are off-limits to Church employees? Or the oft-quoted remark about "intellectuals" being one of the major threats to the Church? -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Savage" Subject: [AML] Value of Artists (was: Temple in Fiction) Date: 06 Jun 2001 13:28:50 -0700 >>Let me ask you this. You're stranded on a deserted island. Who do you want >>with you. The guy who can stitch up your shark bites or teach you how to >>fish, or the guy who can make pretty pictures in the sand. >>I'm not saying artists aren't important. They are. They just aren't as >>important as they think they are. > > > But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not as > > important personages as they like to think. Doctors, nurses, teachers, > > parents and policeman, contribute more substantially to society. They > > teach, heal and protect. Ah, but is limiting ourselves to a desert island really the "great scheme of things?" Let's change this desert island to the afterlife when your body is perfected and you don't need fish or have to worry about shark bites. Then who would you rather have with you, a policeman, doctor, fisherman, or any of our wonderful story tellers, film makers, actors, singers, artists, etc? I don't want to have to do without a physician, but I would rather have to live with the resources of the pioneers and have my inspirational stories, songs, plays, etc. if I had to chose. Jeffrey Savage CEO, Smartshop P 408-778-8331 F 408-782-0761 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] Carol Lynn Pearson's Bumper Sticker (was: Female Writer Wanted) Date: 06 Jun 2001 16:29:11 EDT Last week someone quoted a bumper sticker from my mother's car. The actual sticker says "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people". It has been very interesting to read the discussion sparked by our request for a female writer. I personally do not think that childbirth can be compared to having the runs, but I do think that a good male writer can write about the pain of childbirth if he knows how it feels to have his feet tied to the bumpers of cars driving in opposite directions, while being gutted with a chain saw and having his intestines and heart devoured by a shark. If there is such a man, bring it on! Emily Pearson - 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] Critique of Writing Date: 06 Jun 2001 15:06:46 -0600 Melissa Proffitt wrote: >Barbara Hume wrote: > > >I can't think of any professional writer I know who wasn't turned down for > >publication at first. To start, a writer looks for positive encouragement, > >as your MIL got! And even if the publisher had rejected it, another might > >like it. There are mailing lists, critique groups, contests, all kinds of > >support mechanisms in place for the romance writer! Tell her to join the > >RWA and get onto those lists! > >I did *try* to tell her these things, but she wasn't interested. I got the >feeling that she wanted it to all fall into place without any extra effort >on her part. Sad, but true. I don't know if she'd convinced herself that >she didn't care all that much, or if it really didn't matter to her, but it >was almost depressing that she was so close to publication and had let it >go. I wanted to shake her--but it wasn't my book, and it wasn't my >decision...still, it's hard to see potential flushed down the drain like >that. I can't quite decide whether to thank your MIL for reducing the competition for a limited number of novel slots by walking away, or get cranky with her for being arrogant enough to believe that successful writing comes without extended effort. When in doubt, I always go for cranky. It seems to be my natural state... As one of those writers who is not blessed with a lot of innate talent, I often have a hard time understanding those who give up after the first rejection. I know that my own futility in no way bolsters someone else's disappointment, but I had over 75 rejections before I sold my first short story, and then the letter I got accepting the story was a form letter. I once received a mass rejection of 30 stories all at once (I had written and mailed 30 stories in 30 days to the same magazine). I've received form letters ("Dear Contributor..."), dismissive letters ("...try again when you've learned the basics of writing..."), smug letters ("...we don't do sf; try a children's magazine..."), and angry ones ("...should be ashamed for expecting someone to pay money to read this..."). Worse, I've received quite a few positive rejections recently (about 40 of my last 50; the rest were forms). These may be the worst kind, because they suggest success but not enough of it for the editor to buy anyway. The near misses often hurt far more than the flat rejections. I've received a lot of "well done, but I just didn't get it" rejections (including one from our very own Irreantum magazine), and more than a few "great story but I recently bought one just like it from a bigger-named author" rejections. Then there's the ever-popular "great story, but it just doesn't fit the balance of the magazine; send me something else." While it's nice to know that you're close, sometimes those are the most brutal kinds of rejections to get. You're allowed to stand in the vestibule, but not actually enter the house. Maybe I'm just thick-skulled (whatyamean "maybe"?), but I kept writing and sending stories. I had written over fifty short stories before I sold the first one. I then sold five of the next six stories I wrote, and figured I had hit my stride and figured out how to sell, only to be faced with another 75+ rejections before selling another. I've placed fourth three times in a contest that awards only to the top three entries--a contest that all of my friends have won. Fifteen years later I have well over 200 rejections to go with a paltry 20 acceptances. And of those 20 acceptances, I have only about 14 appearances (many a thing can go wrong between acceptance and publication; I've had magazines and anthologies fold on me, editors get fired and their projects dumped, and the ego-boosting simple change of heart/pocket veto). Heaven knows, at only twenty short story sales I don't get to claim success as a fiction writer, but I am living proof that even a mediocre talent can succeed to some degree with perseverance. So I have a real hard time with those who take their first rejection too hard, especially when their first submission enters ten steps closer to success than my first fifty did. Seriously, though, I do want to point out that editors don't ask to see more work unless they mean it. Few editors relish reading the slush pile; they do it because they hope to find something that can be worked into publishable form. They don't really expect to find an undiscovered gem in the slush--though hope does spring eternal; but they do hope to find promising talent. If an editor asks to see more of your work, they mean it. They believe that you have the talent to write successfully, and they want to try to help you turn the corner. They read enough bad fiction that they don't need to ask for more of it; when they ask to see other work, it's because they're looking for an excuse to buy something of yours--just not the current piece. They're not paid enough to be nice for its own sake when a form letter is so much easier to send. You can't force your MIL to do anything, but I think she needs to reconsider her belief in her own failure. It's okay to feel bad about being rejected, but when an editor asks to see more, you darned well ought to send more. Now. Right now. Contrary to popular belief, it's not as easy as it looks to craft sellable fiction. I talk to successful novelists all the time who still get rejected, and short story writers just need to get used to the idea because it's part of a successful career. FWIW. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LuAnnStaheli Subject: [AML] re: (Andrew's Poll) Mormon Juvenile Literature Date: 06 Jun 2001 15:08:37 -0600 Among my favorite LDS writers with books for Young Adults: Carol Lynch Williams: Carolina Autumn and Christmas in Heaven, et al. Chris Crowe: Two Roads Louise Plummer: A Dance for Three, et al. Lois Thompson Bartholomew: The White Dove Dr. Beatrice Sparks: Annie's Baby (non-fiction) Kristen D. Randle: The Only Alien on the Planet and Breaking Rank Orson Scott Card: Shadows of the Hegemon series-let the battle rage over audience Lu Ann Staheli - 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] Facial Hair (was: Last Three Days for SF X 5) Date: 06 Jun 2001 15:25:50 -0600 On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:17:28 -0700 (PDT) William Morris writes: > But what I really wanted to comment on is Thom's > facial hair. I too wear a close-cropped goatee (with > the full approval of my wife). Orson Scott Card, Dave > Wolverton, and Howard Tayler (the Mormon author of the > fantastic sci-fi web comic _Schlock Mercenary_) all > have facial hair. Actually, Dave hasn't worn a beard for almost a year now. He's teaching at BYU. He needs one though. > Are Mormon artistic/intellectual types more > likely to have facial hair than 'other' Mormon men? Don't know about that, but until quite recently I wore a rather distinguished (if I may say so myself) full red beard and mustache. Now, the only hair on my head is my eyebrows, which are white and virtually invisible, and my eyelashes which are also indectable. My four year old daughter says to me now, "Daddy, let me see youse beawd is gone." I bend down and she pats my mouth with her hand and says, "Yep, youse beawd is gone." "So, does that mean I can have a kiss now?" "Nope. 'Cause I stiw don't like Daddy kisses." Soon as I can I'm growin' it back. Facial hair makes for better writers indeed. Dave has hardly written a thing all year, and I can't get my brain to get out of first gear. > Are all the men at the AML conferences comparing beard > trimming notes? Just curious. Next time you're in town, come see me. I'll show you my trimming kit. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com See SF x 5 this weekend! - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: [AML] Value of Artists (was: Temple in Fiction) Date: 06 Jun 2001 17:07:14 -0500 Anna Wight wrote: > Let me ask you this. You're stranded on a deserted island. Who do you want > with you. The guy who can stitch up your shark bites or teach you how to > fish, or the guy who can make pretty pictures in the sand. I don't imagine you want an electrical engineer, an economist, a pilot, or a telephone lineman any more than you want an artist, do you? The desert island test is really only passable by well-rounded farmers, and I don't think you want to argue that they're the only people who are valuable to society. > I'm not saying artists aren't important. They are. They just aren't as > important as they think they are. No one is. In the most basic society, only farmers and hunters are essential (we'll assume that the domestic skills are at this point too basic to consider). As society becomes more complex, new skills become more important, old ones less so. An electrical engineer is useless in 18th century France, essential in 21st century America, and once again useless on the deserted island (unless he or she spent summers camping with the scouts). Hunters, and even farmers, become less than essential if we're willing to eat yeast grown in vats - we don't need them to provide us with calories, but only with food that tastes like food. Is an artist essential? It depends on the type of society you're talking about. Artists are unnecessary in brutish societies, but I think they're essential to civilization. So are pastry chefs. The quality of life and civilization is about more than the mere production of calories, shelter, and first aid. > [Artists and entertainers] uplift, inspire, remember, expose truths etc. > as well as entertain. But they do the opposite as well. Engineers design weapons, farmers ruin land, physicians maim, teachers turn inquisitive young minds into bored, stunted wastelands. If it's your point that the particular work of artists can be good or bad, it's as true of any other science or profession you can imagine. Returning to the earlier point (and an earlier post), it's meaningless to talk about the relative "substantial" (Anna's word) contributions to society of different professions. Simple society is sufficiently brutish that the notion may make sense, but civilization is a different thing. You say doctors heal, and I can point to Mengele and the Soviet psychiatric profession. You say police protect, and I can point to any of dozens of police states. You say teachers teach, and I can point to our local high-school and its amazingly smug NEA rep. Teaching done well is an art, and it enhances appreciation for art. Healing done well deals with the soul, not just the body, and it's not the simple application of medical technology. Art gives civilization its soul. Without it we can live dreary, well-fed, healthy 1984-type lives. That's not living, and that's not civilization. > But no matter how noble we may think our work is, it is still there for the > entertainment of others. If Michaelangelo simply entertained us, his works would be long gone. "Friends" is entertainment; _War and Peace_ is art that can also entertain. > Where do we draw the line when it comes to the temple?... The point is, that > those who enter the temple, make a sacred covenant to God to keep those things > sacred. Sacred, not secret. Oh, yes, there are things from the temple that I won't talk about and would feel very uncomfortable having others discuss around me. But there's no line to be drawn here. One writer might describe the most prosaic elements of temple operation and make them transcendent. Another might be unable to touch on any element and not make it seem profane. It very much depends, I think, on the character, talent, motivations and spiritual sensitivity of the author. I doubt very seriously whether anyone could give a blow-by-blow account of the endowment and make of it holy art, and I'm quite certain that that would be a violation of ones covenants. But it doesn't seem to me impossible that an artist might be able to represent elements of it, allude to the meaning of it, in a sensitive, beautiful way, and without violating any promises to God. There's no line between allusions to elements of the endowment and a detailed description of it, so I can't say a priori how detailed or descriptive an account would bother me. Jim Picht - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Secular Prophets Date: 06 Jun 2001 17:28:21 -0500 > B. Udall: "There are more important things in this life than writing. Your > parents, for instance. Your loved ones. Your dog is probably more important > than your writing. Stop taking yourself so seriously. Be nice. Relax. Now go > and write." (he's giving advice to young writers here.) I occasionally say something similar to my students about finance, accounting, economics, law school. There are lots of essential jobs, professions, and services, but it's not essential that any particular person be involved in any of them, nor is any person's value defined by his or her job. If I fell of the Earth tomorrow, the university would replace me, someone else would eventually do the research I'm planning to do, and the world would hardly notice. But my mom, my fiance, and my dog would notice, and it would really matter to the first two. The same would be true if I were a physician or an engineer. I suppose that one reason some LDS look askance at artists and writers is because they don't think what they do matters as much as what accountants and physicians do. But that assumes that the accountant does something that really matters in the long-term, which, usually, is patently untrue. If we can understand that _nothing_ that we do is as important as making the lives of those around us joyful, then we can stop worry about our daughters marrying musicians. (In all honesty, if I had a daughter and she wanted to marry a musician or an actor, I'd lock her in her room until it was time to send her to the old-folks' home.) Our lives are our work, not our jobs, and our lives are works of art. Whether they're art that inspires like the Sistine Chappel or merely entertains like an episode of "Will and Grace" is up to us. If we think our jobs are important, we're more likely to end up as a bad TV show. Jim Picht - 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] Facial Hair Date: 06 Jun 2001 17:07:06 -0700 I'm not so much interested in why people wear beards (and I have a full = one) as in why facial hair is so touchy for Mormons (as opposed to touchy = feely). It's commonly said to be a holdover from the hippy era, when = perhaps Mormons saw beards as the first step on a slippery slope that = ended in drug overdose and free-love communing. That so many remnants of = the beard taboo remain illustrates the petrified conservatism our culture = is capable of.=20 My reasons for wearing facial hair, in order of priority, are: 1) because my wife lets me and even says she likes it 2) to avoid daily shaving 3) to celebrate not working at the Church or BYU anymore 4) to cover up some acne scars and chubbiness (hopefully that's not as = self-deluded as a combover up top, where I have the opposite problem of = baldness--I actually liked my thinner hair texture better during chemothera= py) 5) yes, I admit, to signal nonconformity=20 Where I would like to push the cultural envelope more is never wearing = ties. Sometimes I have gone to church without a tie, but it feels weird = and I couldn't bring myself to teach Gospel Doctrine tieless, so it's been = several months since I abstained. I see that as cowardice on my part. And = just last month I moved into (almost) the shadow of the Provo Temple, in a = ward that seems like ground zero for cultural Mormonism. Nevertheless, = even with my beard and my rambling lesson about some of my life's = challenges (mostly about my mission), they just called me as elders quorum = instructor. =20 My dad recently shaved his beard because he aspires to be a temple worker, = and he says he finds joy in obedience. While he bore facial hair, he = received constant ribbing and other attention about it from family members = and people in his ultra-Mormon, Bountiful-bench ward. As for me, I = honestly think that if a Church leader asked me to shave for any reason, I = would say no--unless I chickened out. To tie this to literature, you could probably extrapolate some attitude = about personal appearance into attitudes toward what we read and write. Jacob Proffit, shame on you for shaving. Chris Bigelow - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 06 Jun 2001 18:24:26 -0600 At 01:32 AM 6/6/01 -0400, you wrote: > > But with Mormon lit., the common reader suddenly finds an >intricate labrynth of insider culture that is difficult to penetrate and >understand without an accompanying text explaining Mormonism. As long as >Mormon lit remains inaccessible like that--inaccessible because it is so >immersed in the particularities of culture, and is driven by that >inaccessibility--then it will always erect a Berlin Wall between itself and >the world.< I don't think this has to be so. For example, I've learned a great deal about what it was like to be in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars by reading Patrick O'Brian, C. S. Forester, and Alexander Kent novels. Talk about a particular culture! Now I know what the gun deck is really for (not guns) and where the orlop is and why the hammocks are tied to the railings during battle and what "clear the decks" really means and why you should never cut the rations of grog and which mast is the mizzen and what the t'gallants do and what the protocols are when an admiral comes on board and what ships of the line do versus what frigates do and why it's a good idea to put maggots into a festering wound and a whole lot of other stuff. It's accurate, too--I got so interested that I consulted primary sources. Can't an LDS writer write a novel set in the Mormon culture that will let people into our ways? I learned about the way a Jewish family celebrates the Passover from reading a novel by a Jewish writer, for goodness' sake. It's sometimes useful if an insider character explains some things to an outsider character if you don't overdo it. O'Brian has fun with this one, since the doctor never understands the ways of the Navy even after they are explained to him over and over. The author makes it fun to watch him try so hard but still leave the seamen frustrated. He'll listen to a long discussion about the correct terms for various locations on the ship, and then he'll say that he has to go downstairs. It's a hoot--and a marvelous literary device. Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 - 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] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 06 Jun 2001 21:47:31 -0600 Like Darlene, I finally got out to see the movie. Unlike Darlene, I had already read everything on the list about it, so I had some preconceived notions (I knew the ending was special, for example. One post nearly gave away who did it, and after one scene I leaned over to my husband and told him I knew who the murderer was. I was wrong. Oops.) After seeing movies my husband and I always disect them. This time we didn't agree on everything, but we did agree on a lot, such as: the ending was POWERFUL. I sobbed. We went with friends, and the wife of the couple actually said that at the end of the "who dunnit" scene, she thought the movie was over and decided if it was she hated it--but the last scene made all the difference, and she loved it. We also agreed that we would have preferred fewer red herrings, and a few more clues as to the real murderer, clues paraded in front of the viewers but not obvious--so that at the end we felt more like, "Oh my gosh! I totally missed that!" Instead of feeling like there was no way we could have figured it out. My husband was pretty adamant that a non-member wouldn't understand the import of the final scene. Possibly not to the extent of a member, but I think a non-member would "get" the point. I pointed out, though, that the movie isn't for them, anyway. That the target audience gets it, and that's the important part. Sidenote: When I brought the babysitter home that night she asked what movie we went to. She was visibly uncomfortable when I told her, and she related her experience seeing _God's Army_, which her family rented for FHE. At the healing scene she apparently flipped out--she thought that doing such a thing on film was against the religion or something--practically expected Dutcher to be excommunicated. She finally ended with, "If President Hinckley's okay with it, I guess I am, too." I didn't tell her that to my knowledge the prophet hasn't commented on the films. Her response was a sad one, but I suppose not uncommon. I think part of the problem lies simply in that this is the first time we've had anything like this. We as Mormons are not used to seeing ourselves on screen, and at first it may be a bit uncomfortable. I'm just glad someone's doing it, that we can now say there is something called Mormon Cinema. Annette Lyon - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Symbolism Date: 06 Jun 2001 21:56:49 -0500 I do think that it's possible for a man to write from a woman's POV successfully. I just think that a woman would be more successfull doing it. She could actually write from a woman's POV. That doesn't mean men shouldn't try. I just wish that there was some attitude (and there probably is out there), of "I don't really know, but I'm going to do my best." The attitude I've been feeling here, (and I may be wrong) is, "women don't experience anything special or unique, I completely understand them and I know just how they feel." I think if a man were to go through childbirth he would realize how extremely different this experience is from anything else and he would develop an incredible respect for women. As for symbolism, sure it could be nice for someone to find nuances in a story you weren't aware was there. That's part of an actors job, to create a character from what the writer has written and put other levels into it. But what if your readers, critics etc. find stuff that really isn't there. For instance finding gay characters because two of your straight males hug. Or claiming when your female character bites into an apple that it really represents a deal that Eve made with Satan, when actually, your character bit into the apple because she was hungry, on a picnic, and that's what was in the picnic basket. Or how about "the protagonist wore a black tuxedo to the formal dance because black is the color of death, and he has a secret suicide wish." Well, I guess the protagonist could have worn a powder blue tuxedo if he were a geek or living in the seventies. But lets face it, most men would choose the black tuxedo because it looks the best. It kind of reminds me of the controversy of Tinky Winky being gay because he was purple, had a triangle on his head and carried a magic bag. Or when Seseme Street got rid of Bert because a small minority of people thought Bert and Ernie were gay. Or those people who spend their time slow moing through Disney flicks to find anything that might resemble a fallic symbol, drug paraphanalia or the devil. That's what I mean about reading things into a peice of writing that aren't there. You could take any book and turn anything on any page into a symbol, but that doesn't make it so. I just think it would be the height of arrogance to approach a writer and tell the writer insistantly, "this is what you meant by this, and this is what this means," even when the writer says it ain't so. Finding symbols in writing can be fun and makes the writing richer, but, it should be tempered with the knowledge that one might be wrong or might lead you down a track that the author never went. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: [AML] Value of Artists (was: Temple in Fiction) Date: 06 Jun 2001 22:07:34 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:33 AM > Anna Wight wrote: > > >>But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not > >>as important personages as they like to think. > > That's assuming 1) that all artists think they're important, and 2) that > in the great scheme of things they're not important. I think a case can > be made that they're at least as important as anybody else. I think the > great scheme of the gospel is for us to follow the example of Christ and > value all our brothers and sisters equally, judging them not according to > the various talents and gifts they have received from God, but according > to their spiritual parentage ... which makes it impossible for us to > place one above or below another. Oh, I wasn't talking about individuals. Of course we are all equally important. I was talking in a more professional way where many artists seem to feel that they don't need to follow the rules, they can break them because they are artists. Or when we look at the way people are paid for their work where a successful actor can make millions but a successful teacher makes very little. All God given skills and talents are important. But writing a book although it may last through centuries, may not be as important as saving a life or teaching a child. Having the ability to sing, is wonderful, but it means little if you are nasty to your fellow men, whereas if you're a kind and considerate person, being able to sing is not a consideration for worthiness or happiness. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] re: Temple in Fiction Date: 06 Jun 2001 23:03:02 -0500 Alan Mitchell: Can we say that much? _______________ I would have left one sentence out and reworded the next one. Other than that, I had no problem with it, assuming the thoughts were a part of the story that was being furthered. I'm not sure a reader who is not a member would understand a lot of it, though. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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] Secular Prophets Date: 06 Jun 2001 22:14:21 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Your dog is more important than your writing, though. Anything living > is more important than anything dead. Writing is dead? Writing (or any art, for that matter) is, next to parenthood, is one of the most rewarding ways of creating life. 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] Emotional Honesty Date: 06 Jun 2001 22:19:26 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > At 05:35 PM 6/5/01 -0600, you wrote: > >Movie classified as "tear-jerkers" are aptly named, because they often > >practically force the tears out of us. It's a sign of lazy writing when an > >author (or screenwriter) says, "Well, we want the audience to cry here, so > >what should we do? Oh, I remember, Screenwriting 101: Give a character > >cancer, and that equals instant tears!" > > Exactly how I felt about that horrible movie Terms of > Endearment. Throughout the movie I was certain that I was supposed to > respond in certain ways, so I stubbornly refused to feel anything (except > irritation). Fifteen minutes into it, I thought, "I hate this movie so > much that I just know it will sweep the Oscars." > > Besides, Jack Nicholson creeps me out. [Moderator may remove this unkind > remark if he chooses.] > > With Steel Magnolias, however, a similar situation cropped up, and I cried > buckets. It did reach me emotionally. I'm not a film critic, so I can't > tell you exactly why one movie touched me and the other made me want my > money back. They were probably both equally manipulative. No. Steel Magnolias was manipulative. But it worked for you (and my wife) probably because it is, basically, a chick flick. The men in the film are virtually insignificant as characters. Terms of Endearment, on the other hand, earned every inch of its Oscars. Thom - 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] Temple in Fiction Date: 06 Jun 2001 22:13:22 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > Let me ask you this. You're stranded on a deserted island. Who > > do you want with you. The guy who can stitch up your shark bites > > or teach you how to fish, or the guy who can make pretty pictures > > in the sand. I bet I could find someone who could do all three. Thom said: > In (I believe) Volume 9 of the Journal of Discourses, the Lion of > the Lord says (paraphrasing) "If I were given the task to civilize a > group of savages, I would first teach them to appreciate the arts. > THEN I would teach them religion." The Church published "Theater Manual" uses this quote as an epigraph before the title page, but it gives the source as _Mormon Arts_, ed. Lorin F. Wheelright and Lael J. Woodbury [Provo: BYU Press, 1972], p. 43. And it goes like this: "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I should straightway build a theatre for the purpose." They end the quote there. Maybe he did say "THEN I would teach them religion," but I can't be certain. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com See SF x 5 this weekend! - 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] A Word A Day Quote Date: 07 Jun 2001 08:00:08 -0600 Borrowed this quote from Anu Garg's A Word A Day service. I thought it was (im)pertinent to some of our discussions. I think Anna Wight's really gonna like it. ;-) If a man have a genius for painting, poetry, music, architecture, or philosophy, he makes a bad husband, and an ill provider. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882) scott - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eileen Stringer Subject: Re: [AML] Definitions of Art Date: 07 Jun 2001 10:19:05 -0600 This discussion lept to mind the other day as I was reading a literary critique on Austen's "Pride and Prejudice." The critic quoted Samuel Johnson from Rasselas on how a writer should write: "[a writer].... must divest himself of the prejudices of his age or country; he must consider right and wrong in their abstracted and invariable state; he must disregard present laws and opinions, and rise to general and transcendental truths, which will always be the same: He must write as the interpreter of nature, and the legislator of mankind, and consider himself as presiding over the thoughts and manners of future generations; as a being superiour to time and place." In the context of our genre, Mormon Literature, do these words speak across the centuries to us and if so how? Do the works that are considered classics adhere to the above principles espoused by Samuel Johnson. Are we not in the keeping of general and transcendental truths that are always the same? Is our literature already doing this? If so is that why we are not widely accepted because we are writing works that are superior to time and place? Just wonderings that ramble in my mind at Midnight when reading Austen and her critics and the AML List. 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: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] SF X 5 (Review) Date: 07 Jun 2001 10:22:23 -0600 (MDT) Well, I saw SF X 5 last weekend and took liberal notes - so I feel that as this is the last weekend to see it, I'll give a quick review to (hopefully) entice all of you to go see it. There are "spoilers" below, though I don't give away any endings, but if you'd rather not know, just skip this email until you have seen them. Before getting into each individual play, I would like to comment on the title of the groups of plays as a whole. Five short Science Fiction plays is slightly inaccurate - as two of the plays are clearly fantasy - but I also understand that most of the public would have been confused by something like "five speculative fiction plays" since Speculative fiction is a term generally only used in SF/F circles, and "five Science Fiction and Fantasy plays" may have caused layout problems (not to mention SF/F X 5 would have looked like an algebraic equation, not a title). On to the first play: "Youtahneeks" by James Arrington. "the matriarch Aunt Pearl addressing her clan." This play is somewhat in the same vein as the book "Hotel of the Mysteries" where archeologists dig up relics of our time and imbue into them religious meanings and study even the most simple of concepts as though they were the very mysteries of the Universe. The basic setup is that Paleolingusits of the future have found the "holy book" of Microsoft and a damaged copy of a Farley Family reunion videocassette (which was very brave of Arrington to put into this play). Using these and other sources the paleolinguists recreate, in a stuffy, stilted and very academic (and very funny) way the dialect of Utah (particularly, as the play puts it "American Farkisms") was pronounced and used in such everyday situations as arguments on dates and parents saying farewell to their children attending BYU. (To pronounce the title correctly, rhyme it with the term "eubonics" that linguists use today for the African- American dialect). This play is basically the equivalent of an overlong Saturday night live sketch. It's really funny at first, but it really is a one-joke play. There's nothing beyond making fun of the Utah dialect (or at least the way paleolinguists would treat it in the future). There are some very funny skits and pronunciations, and then there are more. And more. And more. It gets tiresome. This particular sketch (it is more of a sketch than a play) would have benefitted from being half as long. But it is funny. Next play: Fata Morgana by Scott Bronson. Q: Are you God? A: I don't remember. This ties for the best play in the bunch. It starts off with an obviously Hindu deity doing Yoga on the stage, a very American farmer walking across in the background and a vaguely European peasant girl wandering around. Quite intriguing set up, especially when the peasant girl begins pestering the Hindu deity about "what it's all for." The girl seems unaware of the American farmer setting up a table with food on it in the background until the very end, when the farmer tries to dissuade her from following the deity's advice through some technobabble. At first I thought it was a science vs. religion theme, but I've come to decide that this play was more about physical vs. spiritual. The Hindu deity is about as Eastern and spiritual as possible (especially if you understand the Hindu philosophy of rejecting the spiritual) - and the American farmer was about as physical and Western as you can get. He was taking care of his bodily needs by eating, while the deity was overcoming the body through Yoga and meditation. Very thought provoking - of all the plays, the most likely to create discussion in the car on the way home at the very least. "On the way out" by Shannyn Walters. "No dear, I'm still dead." This play may have been more enjoyable, but the dead lady was breathing!!!! It doesn't take much to get me to suspend my disbelief, but a dead lady taking in rather large breaths of air (especially when she has a purse on her stomach to accentuate the fact) ruins it for me. I could accept it when she "comes back to life" halfway through the play (despite her protestations that she's still dead), but at the beginning and end, when she's supposed to be dead, she is taking in large, gulping breaths of air that cause the purse on her stomach to move several inches. It might have been better to have no purse on her stomach and tell the actress to breathe shallowly. This play was rather funny, and the characters all well acted. The dialogue was well written, and the storyline moved rather quickly. I enjoyed it for that part. That's all I can say. Let the Memories Die." by Thom Duncan. "The fringe benefits are great." The basic set up is one that hardly needs a Science Fiction set up. A house must be demolished to make way for some important building or another, but the old lady who lives there won't leave - at least not until she sees her niece. Her niece "Sunny" is a member of the "Star Corps" or something like that (I forget the exact name). The play at first seems odd, in that Sunny is narrating everything as it happens (she says, for example "She reached out to touch me" as the other actress reaches out to touch her). At first I found this annoying and began to wonder what this play had to do with anything really SF other than a few odd references here and there, and then an ending worthy of M. Night Shyamalan sneaked up on me and redeemed the entire piece. I can't give it away, of course - but it was a good ending, and the actress - despite having some difficulty with her lines, managed to pull it off very well. The M.A.K.E.R. by James Arrington "I pray." This is the other one that ties fro best in the bunch. Absolutely hilarious, it's also a fair Garden of Eden allegory that probably has deeper meanings behind it, but I was too busy having fun to try to do any close readings of the play. Basically, the richest man in the Universe spends all of his money to buy a machine called "The M.A.K.E.R." which will give him whatever he wants. However, to distinguish between casual conversation and true wishes, he must use the trip word "pray" to activate the maker (which is artificially intelligent, speaks, and has an interesting sense of humor). The rich dude locks himself in a warehouse, totally sealed off from the rest of humanity, convinced he will live the rest of his days in debauchery. Of course, as is common ever since genies first appeared, what you wish for may not always be what you really want, and having all your desires granted can be rather boring. There you go. Hope everyone who can see these plays will. I enjoyed myself and came away glad I saw it. [Ivan Wolfe] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Plausability (was: Influencing Mormon Culture) Date: 07 Jun 2001 13:00:44 -0400 I finished a book last night that could have been very good. I've been wanting to read it because I heard the author read part of in at a conference. (John Ritter/Over the Wall) I finally found it and started in. About a third of the way the author wrote something that I found totally improbable--though others might not--and he lost me. I finished the book, but from then on I was reading a book, not living the story. I know I've read equally implausible things in fiction that have not really disrupted my enjoyment of the story. Now I'm wondering why. Was this just soooo improbable to me that it overcame the connection to the story? Was I already having trouble connecting to the story, so it didn't take as much of an improbability to break the connection? Is it because it was about how something was thinking and feeling rather than an 'action scene'? I'm not sure, but I know I said out loud--now why didn't an editor catch that! Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > audience, merely saying "It really happened" isn't good enough (unless > you're writing biography or historical fiction or > > I once read an anecdote in a how-to-write book. An author wrote a story > about a dog who grabbed onto a cable with his teeth as it dangled from a > plane passing by for take-off, and was whisked up by the plane. When he > submitted the story to an editor, the editor dismissed that as > ridiculous. The author produced a newspaper article about that very > event actually happening. The editor was not impressed. He didn't care > if it had happened. He only cared that it sounded plausible. > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eileen Stringer Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 07 Jun 2001 11:06:35 -0600 > From: Tom Johnson > >Actually I'd love to see a sister missionary pov in which the sister > >suffers from a tremendous lack of self-esteem, trudges through the streets > >and contemplates stepping in front of buses, tries to outdo the brother > >missionaries just to prove her equal ability, while inside she has no > desire > >at all to really preach the gospel, only to occupy her forlorn life. > > May one ask why you would like to see this? > > Eileen Stringer > eileens99@bigplanet.com > > >Hmmm, I'm trying to decide whether the story would break stereotypes or >reinforce them. I was originally thinking that a raging subtext behind the >sweet-sister missionary would break stereotypes, but now that I reflect on >it, perhaps not. Eileen, just out of curiosity, what is the raging subtext >of the sister missionary? (perhaps you are a sister RM.) The Johnston >newspaper critic praised the female miss. pov b/c he was tired of reading >about the elder's raging lions. do sister miss's have raging lionesses? >Tom J. It would actually reinforce the stereotypes and certainly wouldn't do much to change the genre, just a variation on a theme and rather unrealistic from where I sit. The raging subtext of a sister missionary was succinctly described by Scott Bronson when he replied under the topic Female Writer Wanted and I paraphrase: "The story from the Sister POV, will have to include the travail of all Sisters in the field: That is that they are more mature and effective as missionaries than the Elders, but completely under appreciated and undervalued as to the potential for their contributions to the work." I would also add that the sister POV would be less self-absorbed than the elder. "The good of the many outweighing the good of the few or the one." {Paraphrasing Spock} That would be the "raging lioness" I saw in most of the sisters I served with (I served in Australia Perth). All I served with came out with a testimony and an overwhelming desire to teach the gospel to any and all who would listen, very few "sweet sisters." Many of the sisters were converts and came out with a burning desire to share the truth and ran headlong with the obstacles Scott B. articulated and that did sometimes frustrate them and cooled their fire causing angst. I think it appropriate to note here as well that few of the missionary stories I have read really have the mission president involved much at all in the missionaries' lives. In my mind such a pivotal position in mission life should get a bit more ink. That is the view from my porch today. 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: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Favorite Adventure Stories Date: 07 Jun 2001 14:02:49 -0400 I, too, like Amelia Peabody stories. Though I like to listen to them on tape rather than read them. Sometimes she gets a little too prosy for my reading attention span. I think the young Ramses(sp?) was a little far fetched. He got much more believable for me as he got older. I really liked the backdrop of archaeology. I like most of Dick Francis--he's also one I mostly listen to. (These days I listen to most fiction I 'read'--doing laundry, driving the kids around.....) Still horse mad after all these years. And he can tell a ripping chase-type scene. I thought I would have a whole list, but most of them fall into other classifications. I love Dorothy Sayers, but I believe her books would be classified as a mysteries. Adventure in another time and place is fantasy or sci-fi....... Tracie Laulusa - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BYU Press Release (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN BYU professor completes transcripts of original and Date: 07 Jun 2001 13:49:57 -0500 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com BYU professor completes transcripts of original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon PROVO, UTAH -- After more than a decade of research, Brigham Young University English professor Royal Skousen has completed typographical transcripts of the handwritten original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. A three-book set of the manuscripts is now available to scholars for the first time. The books provide an interesting literalism about the Book of Mormon and its translation, said Skousen, and will engender discussion and strengthen the understanding of the remarkable consistency of the text. The first volume in the series contains a transcript of the original manuscript, which is the text of the Book of Mormon written down by various scribes as Joseph Smith, first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, dictated the translation of the book from ancient records. In 1841, Joseph Smith placed the original manuscript in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House in Nauvoo, Ill. Upon its removal in 1882, most of the manuscript had been destroyed by mold and water seepage - only 28 percent of the original manuscript remains. The second and third books contain a transcript of the printer's manuscript, a handwritten copy of the original manuscript used for typesetting the 1830 edition. The printer's manuscript is virtually 100 percent intact and is held by the Community of Christ (previously known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) in Independence, Mo. The newly published volumes make available to researchers the earliest primary sources needed for scholarly study of the Book of Mormon, one of four canonized scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "As an internationally respected linguist, Professor Royal Skousen has produced a careful, scholarly transcript of the original textual sources associated with the Book of Mormon. His work provides scholars and other interested individuals easy access to the original and printer's manuscript," said BYU president Merrill J. Bateman. "This is an outstanding piece of scholarship by a well-respected professional." The volumes display the earliest available wording of the Book of Mormon. Additionally, the books provide a history and description of the manuscripts and feature color and ultraviolet photographs of select parts of the manuscripts, including a fragment showing what is considered the oldest existing sample of Joseph Smith's handwriting. For Skousen, the books are the result of 13 years of work - hunting down lost fragments of the original manuscript, analyzing language and structure and reconstructing the handwritten text into type. The project required his skills in linguistics, orthography, Hebrew, Greek, computers and technology. As he worked, Skousen found 14 examples of a common Hebrew-like construction in the text. Where English uses an "if-then" structure, Hebrew uses an "if-and" structure, said Skousen. In the original text, one passage reads, "If ye shall ask with a sincere heart with real intent having faith in Christ and he will manifest the truth of it unto you." Cases of the "if -and" structure, uncharacteristic of English, were removed by Joseph Smith later for clarity. "Many of the changes Joseph Smith made to the text are like that. They are not earthshaking changes, but were made to improve the readability of the text," said Skousen. The transcripts of the two manuscripts are the first part of a planned five-volume series published by BYU's Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, of which the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) is a division. "Because Dr. Skousen's work was meticulously done, it will serve as a solid foundation for further study of the Book of Mormon and will help researchers be more precise in their study of its literary techniques," said Dan Peterson, chairman of FARMS. -###- Source: BYU professor completes transcripts of original and printer's manuscripts of the Book of Mormon BYU Press Release 6Jun01 A2 See also: More about "The Book of Mormon: The Original Manuscript: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text" edited by Royal Skousen at Amazon.com and More about "The Book of Mormon: The Printer's Manuscript: Typographical Facsimile of the Entire Text in Two Parts" edited by Royal Skousen 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: KGrant100@aol.com Subject: re: [AML] Value of Artists Date: 07 Jun 2001 16:02:39 EDT Anna Wight wrote: > Let me ask you this. You're stranded on a deserted > island. Who do you want with you. The guy who can > stitch up your shark bites or teach you how to > fish, or the guy who can make pretty pictures in the > sand. I'd be willing to stay away from places sharks frequent so I could enjoy the company of the artist :) Seriously. . . I've found that during life's challenging times, art (particularly music, drama, and writing) becomes essential to sanity. For instance, there was a time when I literally found myself hungering for Out of the Grey's music (a Christian duo whose music expressed exactly what I needed to hear at the time). When I go too long without nourishing my soul in that way (enjoying or creating something artistic), I really feel the negative effects. I've always loved this poem (which I don't have time to look up, but this is close): If of thy worldly goods thou art bereft And of thy store two loaves alone are left Sell one, and with the dole Buy hyacinths to feed the soul. (Sorry, I don't remember the poet's name.) > I'm not saying artists aren't important. They are. > They just aren't as mportant as they think they are. Or, I would suggest, some may not be important in the *way* they think they are. An artist may believe that to be important, he has to be the next Dostoevsky or to receive continued critical acclaim. He may not achieve these things, but it may be that by being himself, he will save someone's life. Sounds important to me. Kathy - 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] Facial Hair Date: 07 Jun 2001 14:28:41 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Jacob Proffit, shame on you for shaving. Huh? Who said I shaved? My goatee is still intact. In fact, in my recent decision to pursue an MBA, I deliberately didn't apply to BYU (even though I could probably get in and BYU is ranked 44th nationally) in part because I don't want to shave the goatee. It's too useful for reasons I already stated. It is my sincere belief that I would take a business hit if I were to shave. I have anecdotal evidence to support that claim. If I were to become a clean-shaven BYU clone, I would instantly lose a lot of valuable street cred. As far as the LDS cultural ramifications are concerned, so far I've identified no draw backs. Even though I live in Salt Lake City and have a very traditional Stake leadership, they still decided to call me as EQ President and treat me no different than any other active member. Of course, I'm pretty conservative generally and don't challenge cultural orthodoxy very often, beard notwithstanding. Jacob Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: [AML] re: DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 07 Jun 2001 12:53:51 -0700 WARNING: This post reveals the murderer in _Brigham City_--so don't read further if you don't want to know who it is. (I can't figure out any way to say what I want to say without doing it.) I wrote a long post about how I thought that _God's Army_ didn't so much show the world what Mormon missionaries do, as it showed that Mormon missionaries are Christians. I wrote that I thought the movie did that by its many parallels to Christ's ministry. Once again, I don't think _Brigham City_ is necessarily about being Mormon. It's about being Christian. I think the movie could almost have been set in any town. To me, the movie was about not seeing the beam in your own eye. When the sheriff questioned the construction company owner (he was so sure the murderer must be someone on that construction crew), he didn't apply the owner's answer to himself (and to the employee he'd hired). I was so sure that the conflict in this movie was going to be about whether the murderer had been forgiven because he'd just been baptized, and what was the sheriff/Bishop going to do about *that*! I, too, totally overlooked what the construction company owner had said. It was only when I was sitting there in my seat, stunned, with my mouth hanging open, that I saw my mistake! How powerfully done! (And a lesson I don't think I'll soon forget.) And then, of course, the sheriff feels responsible for his mistake and what it cost the town. And the ending shows the power, and necessity we all have, of Christ's atonement. (And, of course, this is most powerfully shown in a Mormon Sacrament meeting, but really, couldn't it also have been shown in a Catholic setting, or a Quaker setting, showing an authority and/or religious figure seeking, and receiving support and forgiveness?) I think Dutcher is a brilliant Christian writer, and I love it that his movies are set in a Mormon setting. I don't understand the negative reaction some people are having to seeing a blessing or the Sacrament ceremony being shown on the screen. We are certainly expected to watch Jesus Christ being crucified on the screen! I have never been able to watch *that*--but I have no problem with a Sacrament meeting. Beth Hatch - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings (was: Facial Hair) Date: 07 Jun 2001 13:29:15 -0700 (PDT) --- Christopher Bigelow wrote: > I'm not so much interested in why people wear beards > (and I have a full one) as in why facial hair is so > touchy for Mormons (as opposed to touchy feely). > It's commonly said to be a holdover from the hippy > era, when perhaps Mormons saw beards as the first > step on a slippery slope that ended in drug overdose > and free-love communing. That so many remnants of > the beard taboo remain illustrates the petrified > conservatism our culture is capable of. > Now that the discussion has gotten interesting (not my fault---I was just curious about the whole facial hair thing), I think that it would be good to expand the topic a bit---especially so that our female listers (most of whom I assume do not sport facial hair) can get involved. I'm trying to think of the equivalent for women---maybe a second piercing in each ear. But the broad topic for the list that I'm thinking of is: the visual signs we use to show what 'brand'(and I use that word in its full, trendy marketing sense) of Mormon we are. I think of, for example, doc martens. It used to be that if you wore a pair of docs, that you were generally trying to project that you listened to some form of 'alternative' music, were interested in arts, and considered yourself an urbane, liberal kind of Mormon. Starting with the mid-90's, though, I began to notice that a lot of young Mormons who didn't quite fit the bohemian type began wearing them. I'm sure there are a plenty of other examples---both ones that are still in effect and others that have lost their cachet. Certainly, I agree with Chris that the beard thing is a holdover from the hippy generation and so its symbolic use in works of Mormon literature would probably be quite effective. On the other hand, I've found that Mormons, orthodox, conservative, or not, tend to be okay at getting over the visual things as long as 1. the visual symbols aren't too extreme, and 2. you're given a chance to exhibit your self----your personality and beliefs, either in a formal (sunday school lesson) or informal (foyer conversation) setting. We judge on appearance, but then revise our judgements fairly quickly as we interact with others (or at least that is my experience). That's why meeting together as fellow Saints is so important--we get a chance to get over ourselves. What that suggests to me is that visual details in Mormon literature mean something to Mormon audiences, but also can't be solidified or counted upon (for reaction), or rather can't be relied upon to be a straight up one signified (symbol) equals one signifier (meaning) kind of thing. So: Other examples of Mormon visual trappings? Comments on their use in Mormon literature, especially in Mormon lit. that tries to reach a broad Mormon audience? ~~William Morris [MOD: An excellent post, William. This rescues what had been a largely humorous off-topic thread and gives it a direct literary application! As moderator, I can only applaud.] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] Facial Hair Date: 07 Jun 2001 15:06:14 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > Speaking as a person who has worn a short goatee for a couple of years > now (three?), I'll answer on my behalf. I think that a carefully > cropped goatee has recently overcome the typical American stereotype > left over from the 70s that facial hair equals hippy slacker. I think > we are approaching the cultural cues in vogue in Germany while I was > there -- i.e. that a careful goatee is a hairstyle choice appropriate > for professionals when kept well trimmed and neat. Frankly, I'm glad. > I look much younger than I am I've trimmed my beard to a goatee and my hair to a buzz for precisely the opposite reason. I'm 52 and I didn't like the way most of my hair was coming in gray (especially the beard). So I cut it back. People tell me I look ten years younger. FWIW, I grew my beard for precisely the reason you did. I was 35, looked 27, and wanted people to take me seriously. The little bit of gray I had then helped that illusion immensely. Thom - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: [AML] RE: Mormon Visual Trappings (was: Facial Hair) Date: 07 Jun 2001 15:26:21 -0600 >Where I would like to push the cultural envelope more is never wearing ties. Sometimes I have gone to church without a tie, but it feels weird and I couldn't bring myself to teach Gospel Doctrine tieless, so it's been several months since I abstained. I see that as cowardice on my part. I really, really want to wear a pantsuit to church. All of my outfits that are both comfortable and attractive have pants rather than skirts. But so far I haven't had the courage. I did one time wear a split skirt, which looks like a skirt but is actually wide trousers, and several sisters said wistfully that they wanted to do that, too. I asked my bishop about it once, and he said, "If you wear a pantsuit to church, I won't throw you out." Ball's in my court--but I diddled around and now I have another bishop! It seems like such a small thing--I know! I'll write a story in which my character does it! Then I'll see what happens! Barbara R. Hume Editorial Empress barbara@techvoice.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] Critique of Writing Date: 07 Jun 2001 16:18:50 -0600 On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:06:46 -0600, Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: >Melissa Proffitt wrote: >>I got the >>feeling that she wanted it to all fall into place without any extra = effort >>on her part. Sad, but true. I don't know if she'd convinced herself = that >>she didn't care all that much, or if it really didn't matter to her, = but it >>was almost depressing that she was so close to publication and had let = it >>go. I wanted to shake her--but it wasn't my book, and it wasn't my >>decision...still, it's hard to see potential flushed down the drain = like >>that. > >I can't quite decide whether to thank your MIL for reducing the=20 >competition for a limited number of novel slots by walking away, or=20 >get cranky with her for being arrogant enough to believe that=20 >successful writing comes without extended effort. I got cranky. Go right ahead and join me. (I mean, REALLY. Here I am pouring all my energy into child-rearing and -education, I still haven't figured out how to successfully combine this with writing despite the = many suggestions other list members have made, and she has the NERVE to just = toss her success out the window like this?!?) Of course, I was polite about it...in-laws and all that, you know.... >Seriously, though, I do want to point out that editors don't ask to=20 >see more work unless they mean it. Few editors relish reading the=20 >slush pile; they do it because they hope to find something that can=20 >be worked into publishable form. They don't really expect to find an=20 >undiscovered gem in the slush--though hope does spring eternal; but=20 >they do hope to find promising talent. > >If an editor asks to see more of your work, they mean it. They=20 >believe that you have the talent to write successfully, and they want=20 >to try to help you turn the corner. They read enough bad fiction that=20 >they don't need to ask for more of it; when they ask to see other=20 >work, it's because they're looking for an excuse to buy something of=20 >yours--just not the current piece. They're not paid enough to be nice=20 >for its own sake when a form letter is so much easier to send. I think every aspiring writer needs to print this out and tape it up on = the wall where it's easily visible from the computer/typewriter/quill and ink bottle. This is one of the secrets that you just don't know about when you're starting out. It's all or nothing: anything that isn't glowing acceptance seems like a crushing rejection. But it's not. >You can't force your MIL to do anything, but I think she needs to=20 >reconsider her belief in her own failure. It's okay to feel bad about=20 >being rejected, but when an editor asks to see more, you darned well=20 >ought to send more. Now. Right now. What she needs to do is kill her ego and learn to accept constructive criticism. From anyone. Or forget about professional writing and stick = to writing for friends and family. Because it *is* work; not just the = writing, but the selling. My mother-in-law didn't want to invest the energy it = would take to become a published writer, and she's lost her chance. For a novelist, it is daunting to get the rejection that says "send us your = *next* novel"--that's a lot of work. But that doesn't mean throw the manuscript away! Revise it and send it to another publisher while you start on that second novel. But don't just give up. And please, all of you who are just beginning to work on a writing = career, DON'T try to work in a vacuum. My mother-in-law's single greatest = problem was that she had no input from anyone that wasn't glowing, noncritical praise. Find people whose opinions you trust and then TAKE THEIR ADVICE SERIOUSLY. You don't have to make every single change they suggest, but = you should think about why they suggest the things they do. The writing group I am just quitting :) has a couple of people in it who respond to criticism in a frustrating way. Every time someone makes a negative comment on their writing, they will either explain the problem away, or say "yes, I meant to do it that way, even though it sounds = stupid." (In one instance, they had a villain (they're collaborating on a novel) = who was a terrible cliche of a Sophisticated Evil Genius. When we pointed = this out, they airily assured us that they knew that, and they wanted him to = be cliched so they could make him *less* cliched later and it would be more interesting. My response to this would be censored by the moderator, so I'll leave it out.) They only accept corrections of glaring physical inaccuracies, and don't even consider any other kinds of critique. Don't do this. =46or one thing, what's the point of asking other people to read your = story if you're not interested in what they have to say about it? This reaction implies that they believe the other readers in the group aren't capable enough readers and critiquers to accurately assess their writing. But if *we* all think the villain is an awful cliche, what makes them think that other readers won't have the same reaction, especially since we're a representative sample of their target audience? If you ask for advice, = you have to be willing to take it. Discard it later, after you've considered it, if it would take your story in a bad direction. But listen first. =20 I think it's too late for my mother-in-law. She enjoys writing, but = she's a hobbyist at heart. But maybe I (and maybe some of you) can learn from = her mistakes. Melissa Proffitt - 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 in the Papers Date: 07 Jun 2001 15:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Here is a good article about Neil LaBute and "Nurse Betty" from the "LA Weekly" (don't know if you've seen this already--last fall was when I got so ill and I missed a lot) http://www.laweekly.com/ink/00/42/cover-dargis.shtml The Moralist by Manohla Dargis Neil LaBute, Latter-Day Filmmaker Here also is an older article by Mary Dickson that appeared in the Salt Lake "City Weekly": http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/09-21-98/slc_story.html Both stories play up LaBute's LDS affiliation. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terri Reid Subject: RE: [AML] Critique of Writing Date: 07 Jun 2001 17:18:57 -0700 I had read somewhere that Stephen King received multiple rejection letters (I'm thinking it was somewhere near 100) before he was accepted. (I bet those folks are kicking themselves now.) Rejection is just part of the job. Talent and perseverance make a writer. There are a great number of wonderful writers that we will never hear from because they don't persevere. If it was easy to be a writer - everyone would be doing it. Terri Reid - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] FW: BRIGHAM CITY - Last Chance! Date: 07 Jun 2001 16:35:58 -0600 [MOD: Apologies that this did not, in fact, go out yesterday...] -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:30 PM BRIGHAM CITY is closing in Utah! After playing to packed houses and garnering critical acclaim across the nation, BRIGHAM CITY will finish its successful run tonight at the following Utah locations: Sandy - Megaplex at Jordan Commons (9400 S. State) - 7:45 p.m. West Jordan - Carmike 12 (9200 S. Redwood Rd) - 7:10, 9:45 p.m. Brigham City - Capitol Theater (53 S Main) - (435) 723-3113 Cedar City - Fiddler's Three Theaters (170 E. Fiddlers Canyon Road) - (435) 586-5924 North Ogden - North Pointe (1610 North Washington Blvd) - (801)782-9822 Payson - Huish (98 W Utah Ave) - (801)465-2451 St. George - Cinema 6 (905 South Main) - (435)673-1994 This is your final chance at these locations to see the film Michael Medved calls "fiercely fascinating...more vivid performances and richer, deeper emotional content than the noisy nonsense provided by most of today's big studio offerings." The New York Times calls BRIGHAM CITY "Engrossing. . . concise, skillful filmmaking. . .the performances are impeccable." BRIGHAM CITY will play, at least through the weekend, at these other locations in Utah. These are the final weeks, however, so hurry and see the hit film at these great theaters before it's too late: Bountiful - Gateway 8 (206 S. 625 West) - (801)292-7979 Cedar City - The Twin Theaters (33 N Main) - (435)586-2501 Layton - Cinemark Tinseltown USA (Layton Hills Mall - 800 West 1500 North) - (801)546-3582 Logan - Carmike Cache Valley 3 (1221 North 200 East - Cache Valley Mall) - (435)752-7762 Orem - Scera (745 South State Street) - (801)225-2560 Provo - Cinemark at Provo (1200 Towne Centre Boulevard - Provo Towne Centre) - (801)852-2872 St. George - The Movies (214 N 1000 East) - (801)673-1994 Taylorsville - CO Midvalley Cinemas (5766 South 1900 West) - (801)964-2921 West Jordan - Cinemark 24 Jordan Landing (7301 South Jordan Landing) - (801)282-9772 West Valley City - Carmike Ritz 15 - Hollywood Connection (3217 South Decker Lake Drive) - (801)973-4FUN Thanks to all those who have made BRIGHAM CITY a success! If you have yet to see it, go with a friend this weekend! If you've already seen it, see it again! Long Live LDS Cinema! Scott Champion Excel Entertainment Group/ Zion Films - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] Facial Hair Date: 07 Jun 2001 16:39:03 -0700 Reading all of the responses about facial hair is interesting. My father would not grow a beard because every time he came down the mountain from hunting in the Fall my mother would not kiss him until he shaved. I didn't grow a beard (if you can call it that) until 1995 during summer camp with the scouts. I would always go without shaving during summer camp for 1993 and 1994 but would shave when I came home (I've been a Scoutmaster or Scout Leader of some kind since 1990). That year (1995) the Scoutmaster in our Ward (my third Ward and fourth Scouting calling) talked me into not shaving since it was cool for the scouting leaders not to shave. I told him I would keep the goatee and shave the rest since it was too thin else where. My wife and daughter loved it. My son thought it was pretty cool too. I would usually shave in the spring. I have now had one for two years straight as of this summer. I get occasional remarks but two other members of the Young Men's Presidency in the Stake have a goatee as well. Most people aren't too hung up on facial hair here. As to why some feel strongly there was a statement in the late 70s or early 80's when one of the General Authorities was asked why the Brethren didn't grow beards any more and he pointed to the current Prophet as the example of how we should be. No statements have been made since then as I can recollect. Would I shave if asked to? Tough question. I know my daughter would be opposed to it. My wife may mourn a little too. My guess is depending on who asked and what the calling was they were issuing to me I probably would. I know several people who have gone inactive over this kind of thing. To me it is a very trivial matter. Having a beard (goatee) or not is not important to me. It does make me look older so I am more respected but from my experiences the Lord has a way of compensating for appearances. I have a feeling there may be some trials of obedience yet to come. To me the approval of the Lord is much more important than the approval of some members. Jerry Tyner - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Katrina Duvalois" Subject: [AML] RE: Mormon Visual Trappings (was: Facial Hair) Date: 07 Jun 2001 17:33:23 -0700 It seems to me, and you even admit, that one of the reasons for Mormon men to grow facial hair is _to signal nonconformity _. Up until the last general conference, I wore 5 earrings. 2 in one ear and 3 in the other. I liked the imbalance and nonconformity it represented. But after hearing Brother Ballard's (?) talk about obeying the prophet, I got up and took the extra earrings out and haven't put them back. Why is it necessary, as an artist, to have to be a non-conformist? What's wrong with being obedient and non-rebellious? I have found that those with facial hair or multiple earrings, etc. are the ones who seem to _kick against the pricks_. Why is that? It's like rationalizing seeing R rated movies. (I am included in this group) As for not wearing a tie, why do you say _I see that as cowardice on my part_? Are those that stand up for what's right cowards? Maybe _right_ is the incorrect word, but I don't see the appeal in total non-conformity. I believe my life would be a lot simpler and less traumatic if I had just been a little less rebellious. I strive for a bit of conformity now, although, my personality forbids it. Does being an artist, LDS or otherwise, signal that we have to be _non-conformists_? Why do artists think they are being different when they end up looking like all the other Bohemian Artists they presume to be different from? Actors, musicians, writers, painters, etc. There seems to be an attitude of striving to be _different_. Katrina Duvalois - 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] Re: SF X 5 (Review) and Symbolism Date: 07 Jun 2001 18:24:33 -0600 On Date header was inserted by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU Ivan Angus Wolfe writes: > Well, I saw SF X 5 last weekend and took liberal notes - so I feel > that as this is the last weekend to see it, I'll give a quick review to > (hopefully) entice all of you to go see it. > Fata Morgana by Scott Bronson. > > Q: Are you God? > A: I don't remember. > > This ties for the best play in the bunch. It starts off with an > obviously Hindu deity doing Yoga on the stage, a very > American farmer walking across in the background and a > vaguely European peasant girl wandering around. Quite > intriguing set up, especially when the peasant girl begins > pestering the Hindu deity about "what it's all for." The girl > seems unaware of the American farmer setting up a table > with food on it in the background until the very end, when > the farmer tries to dissuade her from following the deity's > advice through some technobabble. > > At first I thought it was a science vs. religion theme, but I've > come to decide that this play was more about physical vs. > spiritual. The Hindu deity is about as Eastern and spiritual > as possible (especially if you understand the Hindu > philosophy of rejecting the spiritual) - and the American > farmer was about as physical and Western as you can get. > He was taking care of his bodily needs by eating, while the > deity was overcoming the body through Yoga and meditation. > Very thought provoking - of all the plays, the most likely to > create discussion in the car on the way home at the very least. I have never, ever, ever, ever responded publicly to a critique or review of any of my work, whether acting work, directing work or writing work. But I'm going to respond to Ivan's review. I am not going to take issue with anything he has said. I just think some of you who are interested in the symbolism thread might be intrigued with some background information in connection with this production of my play. First: Here are all the notes I give to the director about the setting and the characters in the play: SETTING Stage: Bare Time: Doesn't Matter Place: Tundra CHARACTERS First: The First to Speak Second: The Second to Speak Third: The Third to Speak Second: In the script there are no stage directions whatsoever. Not even (He enters.) or (She exits.) Here is all you will see in parentheses: (Pause.) All I wrote were the words spoken. Everything else in that play was decided on by the director and the actors and the designers. The gender of each role was decided on by a group of directors trying to figure out who got whom for their various plays. One of the variables contributing to that decision was who auditioned. If you don't get strong male actors, well then, use the women. I think Ivan's take on things is very interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not what the play is about. But that's OKAY. It's a valid interpretation based on what he saw, heard and brought to the performance. I wouldn't think of taking that away from him. Afew days ago Terry Jeffress had this to say: And frankly, what the author meant doesn't matter. Only what the reader has experienced while reading the text matters. Works for plays too. Centuries ago, when I was studying theatre at BYU, I did a director's book on "Agnes of God." I had read an interview with the author of the play wherein he deals with the issue of the nature of Agnes's pregnancy. Either she was raped by the gardner, or it was an immaculate conception. The playwright's assertion was that it was an immaculate conception. His point was, why would God allow that to happen to an innocent girl for no apparent reason. An immaculate conception on the other hand served to imbue, or simply validate the faith oif the believers. Well, I don't buy it. But I loved the script. So, I looked around in it for something else. I knew there had to be something else because the script resonnated with me, whereas the author's statements did not. There was something there that even he didn't know about. (If I could find the blasted book in this house I'd give you direct quotes, but ... ) In the beginning of the play the Psychiatrist tells us, for some reason, that she has innexplicably stopped menstrating. At the end of the play, almost as an aside, she tells us that she has begun menstrating again. Now, I don't necessarily believe that all bad things that happen must have a good effect on the world, but if that's what the author wants, it was there. I don't think it's beyond the scope of God's intention to allow bad things to happen to people so that others can serve and improve their own lives and hence the the lives of others beyond them. Something happened to that psychiatrist that changed her from a barren woman to a woman capable of giving life. Symbolically, that works on many levels. So, Ivan gets to keep his thoughts and feelings about my play. Because he liked my play. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 07 Jun 2001 19:59:28 -0700 (PDT) --- Tom Johnson wrote > Maybe what he's [[Evenson]] getting at here is an appeal for > Bhaktin's heteroglossia. > If LDS writers close themselves off from non-LDS > voices, and draw only from > LDS sources, then perhaps there will be a kind of > inbreeding of LDS voice, > and Zion will become more and more insular and > impenetrable and narrow and > cleft-footed. Put in this context, the quote makes a lot more sense to me. I agree with the merits of heteroglossia. And I think that the very best Mormon literature will indeed reflect a hybrid of influences (and I've expressed on this list before my hope for an international Mormon literature----how cool would it be to read a novel that combines Mormon influences with say, Filipino folk mythology, or explores a Roma (Gypsy) convert trying to make a life in Germany?). At the same time, I don't want to discount inbreeding. I'm not talking about inbreeding of what we read (and with the Mormon authors I'm familiar with I don't think that's issue) or the people we associate with--because there's certainly room for all influences--but I think that a little inbreeding in the sense of Mormon authors responding to other Mormon authors and artists is desirable. And I especially think that there needs to be a vein of Mormon literature and criticism that takes orthodox Mormon thought, culture, and literature (home literature) seriously and doesn't just dismiss it as foolish provincialism. And I think there should be room for some impenetrable, highly coded Mormon works. I sincerely believe that not only do (and will) these works stand on their own merit, they also will provide a certain magnetic pull on Mormon artists whose work is more on the margins. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to Mormon literature (especially literary fiction) to end up being the gloss, the occassion for a kind of writing that only plays to the 'literary establishment' (which is not entirely monolithic, but for arguments sake, we'll say its best reflected by the eastern publications that still publish and review li-fi). > When, to this list, I inadvertently resurrected the > question, 'Should Mormon > Literature be a distinct genre?', I was not > suggesting that Mormon Lit could > not fit into a category like African-American lit, > Jewish lit, Postcolonial > lit, Victorian lit, and so on, but that Mormon Lit. > should not be so > distinct that it can't find appeal to a general > audience who isn't familiar > with the insider culture. We've discussed on this list before how a writer goes about reaching this broader audience, how to demystify or represent the Mormon culture, including a great exchange about the merits of providing a glossary of Mormon terms for a novel. We've also discussed if Mormons are in danger of losing their distinctness. And we've also discussed whether or not Mormonism has a large enough body of fiction to elicit a true Mormon criticism. When I take my memories of those discussions and add it to a consideration of Mormon lit. as a genre, and more importantly, as one that could appeal to a general audience, I get quite confused. That's why I continue to suspect that as a category it has more to connect it to marginal national literatures than to 'ethnic' or 'period' literatures. But I don't know. I'll work on that. Finally, an aside for Tom: Kafka, Borges, Auster, Bhaktin? Looks like we speak a similar language. Have you ever read (I hate questions like this because invariably I haven't ever read...but...) _The Seven Madmen_ by Roberto Arlt. Unfortunately, I don't know Spanish so have only read it in translation, but it's a hilarious, haunting work that I highly recommend. I have no idea if Arlt is well known to American readers---he should be. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] Critique of Writing Date: 07 Jun 2001 14:54:56 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote about positive rejections: These may be the worst kind, because they suggest success but not enough of it for the editor to buy anyway. The near misses often hurt far more than the flat rejections. While it's nice to know that you're close, sometimes those are the most brutal kinds of rejections to get. You're allowed to stand in the vestibule, but not actually enter the house. Amen! That is the story of my life! (And that of many other listers, I'm sure.) Annette Lyon - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Secular Prophets Date: 06 Jun 2001 22:17:15 -0500 > > If he's not the most important person in the world -- while he's writing > -- then why waste time writing? I write because I happen to think I have > some opinions on things that other people are better off knowing about. > Time and again, that's proven to be the case. If I didn't think I had > ideas that no one else could express as dramatically as I could, I > wouldn't be wasting my time. Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I write because I like to. I have a story or an opinion I want to share. I realize people won't necessarily agree with me. I know someone out there can do it better. I just think it would be nice to entertain someone for awhile, or make them laugh or cry. I also write in hopes that one day I can make money at it. Some may find this offensive, but there will be at time in the future when I will have to support my husband and seven children, and I would rather do it writing than working in McDonalds. At this point with two preschoolers, writing is what I can do at home. Like I said there are more important things than writing - like my children. But writing is never a waste of time. How is working on a talent a waste of time? Anna Wight - 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] Joel and Ethan COEN, _O Brother, Where Art Thou?_ (Film) Date: 09 Jun 2001 15:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Finally saw the Coen brothers' latest movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", with George Clooney. Amazing how it gets what are called "mixed reviews" when what you percieve is a masterpiece (I'll confess; I'm a Coen cultist.) In many of their films the brothers create a mythic universe where angels, prophets and devils exist ("O Brother" is "The Odyssey" transposed to depression-era Mississippi.) In the penultimate scene Ulysses Everett McGill (Clooney) sinks to his knees, confesses his sins to God, and prays for a miracle. You could dismiss this as a post-modern joke (the Coen's practically beg you to) if it weren't for the profound atmosphere of reverence the Coen's create for geniune religious feeling (check out the baptism sequence) as opposed to the evil, Bible-selling Cyclops (John Goodman.) It's actually a pre-modern ethos that should seem familiar to latter-day saints. But the brothers know that irony is the only way to get such a message across in this day and age. Who can forget the last scene (and last line) of "Raising Arizona"? ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - 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] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 08 Jun 2001 10:23:54 -0600 Tom Johnson wrote: >But with Mormon lit., the common reader suddenly finds an >intricate labrynth of insider culture that is difficult to penetrate and >understand without an accompanying text explaining Mormonism. As long as >Mormon lit remains inaccessible like that--inaccessible because it is so >immersed in the particularities of culture, and is driven by that >inaccessibility--then it will always erect a Berlin Wall between itself and >the world. I'm not saying that Kafka or Ellison isn't driven by culture, but >somehow they've made that culture accessible. Not by explaining it, but >perhaps by parabolizing it, or somehow allowing us to explore the culture >without giving a guided tour of it. (I kind of combine two different comments here; the first is about how Mormon authors sometimes try to create artificial differences between Mormons and the rest of the world, and the second--and much shorter--comment is about how there is real value in criticizing Mormon story from a Mormon context. It may appear that I reverse myself here, and I suppose I do to some degree, but these are really two different thoughts that I should have handled in two different posts. In deference to our esteemed moderator and the sensibilities of list readers, though, I wrote a single tome that can be easily skipped over for those so inclined.) I'm not sure that I buy the notion that Mormon literature is so horribly impenetrable to to non-Mormon readers. Other than some few specific details about temple ceremonies that we've already debated quite a bit on this list (and that rarely, if ever, make their way into Mormon fiction), there is pretty much nothing about our culture that's really that hard for people to understand. I think Mormons perpetuate the myth of our rampant distinctiveness as a means of excusing themselves from trying to talk to others about our commonalities. We desperately want to be a peculiar people, a people set apart, a set of beliefs that can't be truly understood without long-term, focused study. We like the idea that our culture and religion are hard to comprehend without a native guide. (I also think we conflate Wasatch front culture with Mormon culture and assume that all Mormons everywhere behave like Utahns, but that's a different discussion.) Hooey. We're not that unique. For example, pretty much every Christian religion has some form of communion. That we call ours the Sacrament and have a particular set of prayers to go with it in no way makes the concept alien to anyone who has even a remote notion of what communion is. Water, wine, wafer, or wheat bread, it all equates to a ceremony of individual redemption through partaking of symbols of the body and blood of Christ. Ours is a pretty obvious implementation of a concept that is core religion to a huge international populace. It's why the end of Richard Dutcher's _Brigham City_ can have power to any viewer--most are familiar with communion, and he includes the specific detail of the woman distressed by her sin choosing to forego that communion early in the story to specifically illustrate how this culture interprets their part in the ritual. Nothing else is needed--no lengthy digression into the Atonement, no treatise on the cultural significant of children's role in public administration of a religious rite, no extended exposition of baptism and renewing covenants and the authority structure of the Mormon church. The prayers speak for themselves, and the one illustrative scene sets the remaining necessary context for understanding the essence of the rite. Sure, there are a lot of in-jokes to be made, a lot of winks to the audience that would require a lot of explanation but that add only the barest hint of authenticity to the story. And Mormons use those kinds of in-jokes a lot, in part because we want to feel special and unique. But those jokes and nods and winks aren't really what makes Mormon culture interesting. We can be understood fairly easily, because despite our hopes to the contrary, we are generally pretty much like everyone else in the broad strokes, though many of the fine details can be quite unique--as they are with any culture and cultural literature. So I'm not sure I accept that a) some great gulf exists between Mormon literature and the world, or b) that Mormons can or ought to spend a lot of time trying to create a sense of alienness about our culture and religion. I think we're afraid that despite our claims to unique religious truth, our actual day-to-day culture might be at least a tad trivial. So we build monuments to our own uniqueness in our minds and assume that no one can understand them. But there's nothing wrong with trying to understand Mormon stories from a Mormon context and criticizing them as such. Because despite our often ordinary daily culture, our interior religious life and thought is as worthy of study as any other. To announce that Mormons are different in some key areas and that our stories need to be understood in light of those key differences in no way proclaims us as culturally impenetrable to the rest of the world; it only says that despite our vast similarities there are some specific departures from general wisdom that need to be commented on directly and separately from the other aspects of the story. I've kind of combined two rants here--one on the general comprehensibility of Mormon religious life, and one on the value of a focused cultural criticism of Mormon story. To me these are completely different discussions, and need to be handled individually. As storytellers, though, I think we need to understand that the uniqueness of the Mormon viewpoint comes not through little cultural details, but through a series of powerful perceptual differences that come through in the story without the use of silly behavioral gewgahs. Those real differences in perception demand to be understood, but as authors we need to trust that the real story comes through the author's Mormon mindset and the characters' true voices, not through explicating some trivial social practices. Scott Parkin - 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: SF X 5 (Review) and Symbolism Date: 08 Jun 2001 12:50:32 -0600 (MDT) I myself (Ivan Wolfe) wrote: > > > > At first I thought it was a science vs. religion theme, but I've > > come to decide that this play was more about physical vs. > > spiritual. The Hindu deity is about as Eastern and spiritual > > as possible (especially if you understand the Hindu > > philosophy of rejecting the spiritual) - and the American > > farmer was about as physical and Western as you can get and I meant to say the "hindu philosophy of rejecting the physical" - oh, well - i should have spent more time editing.... --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Value of Artists (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:27:48 -0500 [MOD: This post includes some messages originally sent in response to the "Secular Prophets" thread and others.] > > Brigham Young would disagree with you. In (I believe) Volume 9 of the > Journal of Discourses, the Lion of the Lord says (paraphrasing) "If I > were given the task to civilize a group of savages, I would first teach > them to appreciate the arts. THEN I would teach them religion." > I don't disagree with that. But lets say you're starting a new community. Out in the middle of nowhere. You have a group of people. What do people need? They need food. So hopefully, you have farmers. You also need shelter, so you need people to build just basic simple shelter. You need medical people to take care of illness and injury. You need people to know how to cook, clean, sew etc, and those who can teach those skills to others. You need to create laws and those who will enforce those laws. Once you have met basic needs, then you have time to do other things. Such as creating works of art, writing music and stories, designing fashions, or turning those humble pieces of shelter into great works of architecture. These things are important too, because they lift the spirit. They are a small example of how we are God's children. He is the great creator, and man's creations are a primitive example of what we will one day be capable of. Before someone can appreciate art (or religion), they need to be fed. Churches around the world know this. That's why they go in and feed and clothe the children before they start preaching. Imagine life without art. It would be sad. Dark. And unhappy. But we could survive. Now imagine life without food. Anna Wight >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Thu Jun 07 14:43:35 2001 Good point. Our needs in the afterlife will be different. But we've got to deal with this life first. Someone else summed it up nicely that we are not our jobs. I think what I was trying to explain was the "artist as God" theory, or as many physicians are prone to believe the "doctor as God" theory. That self importance that some people have about their work that places them above everyone else. Anna Wight >From thj5@columbia.edu Thu Jun 07 19:41:03 2001 Scientists always get excited when the gods-in-embryo discussion pops up b/c they think they've got some kind of head start on the future worlds they'll be creating--they've got the chemisty and physics and biology down pat so they can make that cheetah really fly. Few seem to remember the verse,"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." [Tom Johnson] > Borrowed this quote from Anu Garg's A Word A Day service. I thought it > was (im)pertinent to some of our discussions. I think Anna Wight's > really gonna like it. ;-) > > If a man have a genius for painting, > poetry, music, architecture, or > philosophy, he makes a bad husband, > and an ill provider. -Ralph Waldo > Emerson, writer and philosopher > (1803-1882) > Hah! You're wrong. Don't like it, nor do I agree with it. I think men can make good husbands and providers no matter what talent or work he does as long as it's moral. Being a good husband has nothing to do with how he makes his living. It has to do with how he treats others. Anna Wight >From ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Fri Jun 08 15:26:34 2001 At 09:00 AM 6/7/01, you wrote: >Borrowed this quote from Anu Garg's A Word A Day service. I thought it >was (im)pertinent to some of our discussions. I think Anna Wight's >really gonna like it. ;-) > > If a man have a genius for painting, > poetry, music, architecture, or > philosophy, he makes a bad husband, > and an ill provider. -Ralph Waldo > Emerson, writer and philosopher > (1803-1882) > >scott Never mind Anna. What does _Sis. Bronson_ say? -- Ronn! :) >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 08 13:07:35 2001 Thom Duncan wrote: > > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >> Your dog is more important than your writing, though. Anything living >> is more important than anything dead. > > > Writing is dead? Writing (or any art, for that matter) is, next to parenthood, is > one of the most rewarding ways of creating life. Writing isn't creating life. Your writing wont stand before God some day to be judged. Your writing wont obey or disobey you based on its own desires ("Here, play! Nice, play! Sit! Heel! There's a good boy. Stop chasing the children, play!"). And you won't be held accountable for abusing your writing. Your writing feels no pain, or joy. It cannot die or achieve immortality (discounting metaphorical extensions). Your writing won't fetch the newspaper, or accept a belly rub. Your writing is not alive and does not deserve to be elevated above those around us who are. Jacob Proffitt >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 08 13:35:16 2001 [MOD: I transferred this from the Mormon Visual Trappings thread because I thought it worked better here.] Katrina Duvalois wrote: > Does being an artist, LDS or otherwise, signal that we have to be > _non-conformists_? Why do artists think they are being different when they > end up looking like all the other Bohemian Artists they presume to be > different from? Actors, musicians, writers, painters, etc. There seems to > be an attitude of striving to be _different_. > Katrina Duvalois Interesting comments. It brings two movies to mind. The first is Pleasantville which has a lot to say about art and is a movie that finally helped me understand some things. In the movie, it is the role of the artist to push the boundaries. I think checking boundaries is largely the role of the artist in society (which is why artists tend to be more liberal than their surrounding culture). And it is a valuable role. Boundaries do need to be pushed. They need to be checked and examined. You might want to drive a cart as close to the mountain as possible, but there is also a need for someone who will go over there and look down (if nothing else, to check for erosion that needs to be buttressed so the trail won't collapse even though we feel so safe against the mountain). The problem comes when nobody bothers to defend the boundaries. Artists will push, but they need to have push back as well. There needs to be resistance on the boundaries that are important. There needs to be honesty and dialogue and sound and fury and disruption and assimilation. It's unfairly hard on the artist, but needed. We have honest artists today, but the culture has abdicated its responsibility to consider and reject. The second movie that comes to mind with your comments is Bring It On. I bought the DVD recently and watched it with the directors commentary. One of the interesting things the director had to say was his deliberate contrast of punk and cheer. One comment he made stands out where he says that in a way, the modern rebels are the cheerleaders -- the youth who reject the current ennui of their generation and decide to be publicly cheerful and upbeat. Modern competitive cheer is athletic and requires brains, conformity and dedication all in the face of little respect and marginalization. The interesting point is that it takes courage not to conform, but that in a weird, modern twist conformity has become non-conformity. Jacob Proffitt >From ViKimball@aol.com Fri Jun 08 14:08:25 2001 In a message dated 6/8/01 11:54:15 AM Central Daylight Time, REWIGHT@TELUSPLANET.NET writes: << Having the ability to sing, is wonderful, but it means little if you are nasty to your fellow men, whereas if you're a kind and considerate person, being able to sing is not a consideration for worthiness or happiness. >> Anna, I must remind you that some of our best opera singers have been nasty and difficult and still rose to the top. Maria Callas and others come to mind. I doubt that anyone listening to her sing (me included) ever thought about her character. Violet >From OmahaMom@aol.com Fri Jun 08 14:16:27 2001 In a message dated 06/08/2001 12:11:42 PM Central Daylight Time, KGrant100@aol.com writes: > If of thy worldly goods thou art bereft > And of thy store two loaves alone are left > Sell one, and with the dole > Buy hyacinths to feed the soul. > > (Sorry, I don't remember the poet's name.) > Comes from the Rubiyat by Omar Khayam (& my spelling is probably way off.) Karen Tippets - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Critique of Writing (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:28:06 -0500 >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Thu Jun 07 14:59:08 2001 > I once received a mass rejection of 30 stories all at once (I had > written and mailed 30 stories in 30 days to the same magazine). I've > received form letters ("Dear Contributor..."), dismissive letters > ("...try again when you've learned the basics of writing..."), smug > letters ("...we don't do sf; try a children's magazine..."), and > angry ones ("...should be ashamed for expecting someone to pay money > to read this..."). > OUCH!!! Ouch and more ouch. And you survived this? I have great admiration after reading this post. But I'm not sure if I can find hope, or hopelessness. You certainly have a talent for determination. I'm saving this post, and will look at it now and then. But I'm not sure if I should look at it when I get rejected or not. I can say to myself, "this is only one rejection, this guy went through thousands", or I can say "I have to go through a thousand rejections more?" Still it's good insider information. I have a tendency to think that it will be the first major sale that will get the ball rolling and I could be like J.K. Rawlings. But then your post comes along and I realize that getting well established is going to take a lot of preserverance and a lot of rejection. Isn't it funny that artists, who must have sensitive souls in order to express the human condition, must also find themselves in situations of recieving the most rejection. Anna Wight >From dcraigh@onramp.net Fri Jun 08 12:53:41 2001 Annette Lyon wrote: > Scott Parkin wrote about positive rejections: > These may be the worst kind, because they suggest success but not enough of > it for the editor to buy anyway. The near misses often hurt far more than the > flat rejections. > > > > While it's nice to know that you're close, sometimes those are the most > brutal kinds of rejections to get. You're allowed to stand in the vestibule, > but not actually enter the house. > > Amen! That is the story of my life! (And that of many other listers, I'm > sure.) While, I am not sure I am a writer. [I think of myself more as a guy who has lived forever with lots of stories to tell.] This I know. I will not be defeated by critque nor rejection. Heavens folks that's not the end, that's the beginning. If you know the problems, then you can figure out the solutions. There are a myriad of things one can do, if he gets out of the S.P. mode (read self pity, a condition I am very familiar with! ;-)) So you get a rejection notice, no matter whether it is a soft letdown or a flat turndown. What does that mean? Figure it out. If the editor won't tell you specifically take it to someone you trust to be truthful with you ask them to look it over, for that matter work it over. Give them a big pile of pencils and say. Be My hero tell me what you think is wrong with this? I have decided the man on the street who I would like to read my stuff, is the critic I am most interested in. He's buying the stuff, [hopefully!] Not that the professional cannot teach me more than I probably have time to learn. I am sure there are many on this list who could really help me if I had all the time in the world. But I'm 61 that means I only have about 40 years left. My months go by like my days used to! There are on the the internet a plethora of self-help aids for the writer who wants to get assistance. There are libraries full of books on how to self-publish and make a living at it in your local library and on the internet as well. Minimal investment to get it done. I have only been on this list for a small amount of time. I have found some great hints and ideas here on AML and elsewhere. I wanted to write 25 years ago. I put it off and put it off and then wrote and got rejections and got rejections and said. Heck Huls, "DO it yourself"... Now it may work and it may not work. This much I know I'm too old to spend time sending it out to editors or agents to make decisions. 25 years ago? Maybe. But not now. Time is too valuable. My advice if you want to do it and God hasn't told you no then go for it and remember until you decide to take action nothing is going to work. With the help of some books: "Garth Allred -Unlocking the Powers of Faith" and Dr. Phil McGraws' "Life Strategies" I have just kicked the end out of a tunnel I was digging with the shovel of rejection and self-pity. I've gleaned from reading things from so many of you on this list who are actively putting things down, making things happen that rejection and criticism is a stepping stone, not a stumbling block. To us "newbies on the list" Where would Richard D. or Thom, or Margaret or Darain or all the rest of those who have published be if they had said: "Better not put that scene in there might make some people mad and others too happy! " .... this above all to thine own self be true... I think that's from Hamlet but thats 40 years ago! [Help me Morris or Martindale or someone!] So ....folks watch my smoke! My Cherokee and Mormon Ancestors will all be lining up to take the credit for what is about to happen. Da Moose is on da rampage! If the first one don't sell the second one will or the third or the fourth and folks ....der ain't nuttin gonna stop me but me! [well of course FIH might take me home] but tha wud be ok 2, cuz I lov and mis'im! I think Terri summed it all up in this statement! > Talent and perseverance make a writer. There are a great number of > wonderful writers that we will never hear from because they don't > persevere. If it was easy to be a writer - everyone would be doing it. > > Terri Reid > > God Bless us all, beards, no beards, bald or wooly, pierced ears, plain, fat or skinny. He loves us. The world needs us. So lets get on with it! I will now disappear for a while to put my money where my mouth is! I've got books to sell, write, distribute and only 40 years left to do it in! Craig Huls >From terryj@pcterryj.censoft.com Fri Jun 08 15:45:21 2001 On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 05:18:57PM -0700, Terri Reid wrote: > I had read somewhere that Stephen King received multiple rejection > letters (I'm thinking it was somewhere near 100) before he was > accepted. (I bet those folks are kicking themselves now.) > Rejection is just part of the job. Talent and perseverance make a > writer. There are a great number of wonderful writers that we will > never hear from because they don't persevere. If it was easy to be > a writer - everyone would be doing it. I hold to a theory that good writers know the quality of their own works, and because those writers recognize that quality, they persevere until they find a publisher for their manuscripts. If I may snip and change your meaning: "There are a great number of . . . writers that we will never hear from because they don't persevere." I believe that through the perseverance, writers learn to improve their quality. Even though the publishing industry presents a twisted and political system for getting your novel published, I give thanks every day for that huge filter of all the dreck out there. If you have any doubt about the service that the publishing industry provides, just start reading the unfiltered fiction freely available on numerous websites. Publishers usually reject fiction for a sound reason. When I pick up a book from a known publisher, I at least have the assurance that at least two people liked the work: the purchasing editor and one person in marketing. When you look at self-publication, you do not have that same guarantee. Self-published work rarely gets the wise suggestions from the seasoned editor and the neurotic proofreader. It suffers because its cover has not had the attention of a professional graphic artist; the beauty of the message gets corrupted by amateur typesetters -- or worse MS Word. Of course every rule has an exception, so you can probably find examples of self-published titles that will somehow overcome the odds and become a classic. Writers who work to please a publisher also work to please you. The editor points out inconsistencies and give some simple suggestions that make a world of difference in the overall tone and pace. The proofreader notices that 57.3 percent of the time you use a comma before the and in serial lists and corrects the other 40.9 occurrences. (The proofreader sees the other 1.8 occurrences, but decides that the tone of the sentence is better served by leaving the comma out.) A cover designer. . . . Well, you get the picture. Since your book has to earn enough to pay for all the services these people invest in your manuscript, so don't take that rejection letter as an insult, but as an indicator of future economic performance of that version of the manuscript. So get back to the keyboard and keep writing. A rejection letter doesn't mean never, just not yet. -- Terry Jeffress - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:28:18 -0500 [MOD: Note that this post includes some originally sent in response to the older "Facial Hair" thread. Also, rather than working to fine-tune both these messages and possible responses to them, let me simply point out that "the doctrines or policies of the LDS Church" is not on-topic for this List--including debates about differences between "doctrine," "policy," and "counsel" (or "cultural expectation"). So while it's okay to note in passing how you view a notions relating to appearance, I won't be allowing extensive responses or rebuttals on whether a particular notion is/is not Church doctrine, is/is not justified, etc. Also, please remember to respect the integrity, opinions, and beliefs of those whose opinions differ from yours.] >From tlaulusa@core.com Fri Jun 08 11:29:06 2001 My husband has always had a moustache, and sometimes a beard--even in high school--except for his mission. And he is about as far from an intellectual Mormon as you can get. (that is a bit of hyperbole but he is pretty 'conservative') A friend of ours recently shaved off his very nice beard and moustache because he was directed to by the temple presidency. I know he's still the same person but I can't get used to him without it. And I don't understand what it is about facial hair or lack there of that makes a man more or less worthy to serve in the temple. I counted my blessing that David and I have 15 more years of kids at home. I sincerely hope that in that time 1 Sam 16:7 will have prevailed. Tracie Laulusa >From tlaulusa@core.com Fri Jun 08 11:47:55 2001 But not all Mormons wear earrings or facial hair to be non-conformist. I used my husband as an example in another post that so far isn't posted. He wears a moustache because it looks better--and believe me, it's true (though he doesn't look ghastly with out it.). I have a really good friend who did the double pierced earring thing because she thought it looked feminine. After the prophet's talk she stopped wearing them, mainly because of her CES secretary job. But--she is not a non-conformist. She didn't start wearing earrings to be a non-conformist. I never realized that the type of shoes a guy wore was suppose to 'mean' something in the Mormon culture. I thought guys started wearing more casual shoes because they are more comfortable. It would be humorous to have a Mormon novel with two males wearing pretty much the same thing for very different reasons. They spend the whole book thinking they know what the other is saying, and find in the end that they've been totally clueless. Tracie [Laulausa] >From barbara@techvoice.com Fri Jun 08 12:51:53 2001 Why is it necessary, as an >artist, to have to be a non-conformist? What's wrong with being obedient >and non-rebellious? I see no particular value in non-conformity simply for the sake of non-conformity, except perhaps in certain situations such as when an adolescent is engaged in a perfectly natural and necessary striving for independence and identity. But I see no value in conformity to cultural norms simply for the sake of conformity, either. Being obedient to the prophets in terms of gospel principles is one thing. Being intimidated by the weight of cultural expectation into doing things you'd rather not do, given your personality, is something else. One of the difficulties of living in the Mormon environment, as we've often said, is to separate one from the other. And different people have different ideas about what's gospel and what's cultural. I personally find it hard to believe that God considers it necessary for a man to wear a strangling bit of colored cloth tied about his neck to be a worthy Mormon male, or for a woman to wear garments that are open to the cold wind at the bottom to be a worthy Mormon female. But a lot of people feel that if something has always been done, at least in their lifetimes, it must continue to be done. It's interesting for me, in reading LDS fiction, to see what views the writers put into the mouths of their protagonists and their antagonists. Sometimes the characters meant to be admirable come off to me as prissy, prosy, or pendantic because they espouse cultural values as though they were Scripture. Sometimes I simply disagree with the writer's worldview, which is expressed through the characters--and that's all right, because it's not anyone's responsibility except mine to exemplify my own views. Sometimes a writer convinces me to change my opinion (a daunting task) by showing the natural consequences of a certain behavior. Whether or not that was the writer's intention, it's an important part of writing LDS fiction, IMO. I wonder how many Christians have decided to clean up their acts after reading the Left Behind series? Perhaps those who believe in the scenario he posits for the last days? barbara hume >From ChrisB@enrich.com Fri Jun 08 12:54:47 2001 Jacob, I thought I remembered you saying that you used to wear colored = shirts and grow facial hair, but then you moved to Utah and decided to = conform completely by shaving and wearing white shirts. Was that somebody = else entirely, or did I just misremember your earlier post? Congratulations on keeping the goatee, and may it continue to serve you = well. Chris Bigelow >From glennsj@inet-1.com Fri Jun 08 13:24:36 2001 Barbara Hume wrote: >that they wanted to do that, too. I asked my bishop about it > once, and he said, "If you wear a pantsuit to church, I won't throw you > out." Ball's in my court--but I diddled around and now I have another > bishop! It seems like such a small thing--I know! I'll write a story in > which my character does it! Then I'll see what happens! HA! I love this, Barbara! (Just helping fill in for Marilyn Brown's absence). Sharlee Glenn >From ChrisB@enrich.com Fri Jun 08 14:09:36 2001 Katrina Duvalois wrote: <<>> Art thrives on conflict, we've all heard numerous times--but it's true. = You can be obedient and nonrebellious and still write about conflict, such = as conflict between humans and the elements or between humans and = adversity (illness, prejudice, etc.). But what about conflict inside = oneself or inside a community that purports to be united? Those are two = very important slices of the conflict pie, and rebellion and nonconformity = are the main tools for accessing them. Seems to me that one of the primary sources of conflicts for Mormons to be = concerned about is the conflict between us (as individuals or a Mormon = group) and the devil. We can easily handle stories in which the devil = comes at us through other people who he stirs up to persecute or otherwise = hurt us. But in order to show conflict with the devil from WITHIN an = individual or group, you have to give the devil some inroads into that = person or group, otherwise he's not present to do battle with. That = requires some people to be disobedient, which requires an author who can = relate with disobedience enough to portray it realistically and compellingl= y. I think that's what people like Neil LaBute and Brian Evenson try to do = with their art, and look how rebellious and nonconformist they appear to = orthodox Mormons. Yes, they are probably both extremes. <<>> Well, some pricks deserve to be kicked against. <<>> I see it as cowardice because what prevents me from going to church = tieless is NOT a sneaking suspicion that ties are really somehow part of = the gospel and pleasing to Heavenly Father but rather a fear of feeling = personally uncomfortable because I've stirred up the pot, though I truly = feel the pot NEEDS stirring. Mormons are so great at giving nonconformists = targets that it's hard for people with any cultural imagination not to = take some shots.=20 There's a funny and too-true piece in The Onion this week about a woman = who used up all her juicy autobiographical material in her first novel and = whose life is now too easy and boring to generate fictional material = (http://www.theonion.com/onion3721/author_wishes.html). For a Mormon to = create any worthwhile Mormon art outside of genre formulas, I think they = have to keep some tension alive in their personal lives. For me, that = tension is, "I believe in Mormonism but don't like it." For others it = might be, "Mormonism is a great ideal but not humanly possible to live up = to." Or whatever. <<>> As humans, we can't avoid communities of one kind or another. What's fun = is to bridge communities and try to cause some cross-pollination. Chris Bigelow >From ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Fri Jun 08 15:26:39 2001 At 04:26 PM 6/7/01, you wrote: > >I really, really want to wear a pantsuit to church. All of my outfits that >are both comfortable and attractive have pants rather than skirts. But so >far I haven't had the courage. I did one time wear a split skirt, which >looks like a skirt but is actually wide trousers, and several sisters said >wistfully that they wanted to do that, too. I asked my bishop about it >once, and he said, "If you wear a pantsuit to church, I won't throw you >out." Ball's in my court--but I diddled around and now I have another >bishop! It seems like such a small thing--I know! I'll write a story in >which my character does it! Then I'll see what happens! You remind me of when we had a similar conversation on "appropriate" female attire 15 or so years ago, and I seem to remember being in favor of mini-skirts . . . >Barbara R. Hume >Editorial Empress Do you have your own theme music that plays whenever you enter a room? >barbara@techvoice.com -- Ronn! :) >From ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Fri Jun 08 15:26:48 2001 At 04:06 PM 6/7/01, you wrote: > >I've trimmed my beard to a goatee and my hair to a buzz for precisely >the opposite reason. I'm 52 and I didn't like the way most of my hair >was coming in gray (especially the beard). So I cut it back. People >tell me I look ten years younger. FWIW, I grew my beard for precisely >the reason you did. I was 35, looked 27, and wanted people to take me >seriously. The little bit of gray I had then helped that illusion >immensely. > >Thom Actually, I like appearing youthful: it's sometimes an advantage to be able to blend in with the students . . . -- Ronn! :) >From geb@cs.pitt.edu Fri Jun 08 15:46:22 2001 Traditionally beards are worn by intellectuals and religious men. The scriptures command that we let not a razor come upon our heads. Thus more conservative Jews traditionally wear beards. The most conservative members of other religions such as Greek and Russian Orthodox and Muslims also wear beards. Mormon culture originally was similar in this, but for some reason (an attempt to look conventional to the world?) the hierarchy has adopted the odd policy of orthodoxy=clean-shaven. Gordon Banks >From dmichael@wwno.com Sat Jun 09 00:58:11 2001 Katrina Duvalois wrote: > Why is it necessary, as an > artist, to have to be a non-conformist? Art _is_ noncomformity. If you create art that is conformist, you create cliches. The very purpose of art is to look at things in new ways. You can't do that by conforming. So what's so surprising that a mind which thinks in nonconformist ways so it can create original art will manifest itself in visually nonconformist ways? > What's wrong with being obedient > and non-rebellious? Depends on who you're being obedient to and what you're rebelling against. It's good to obey God. It's not good to obey Satan. It's good to obey another human being only if that human being is inspired by God. Otherwise you have a responsibility to determine for yourself what the correct thing to do is--even if an expert tells you (that's what second medical opinions are all about). It's not good to rebel against God. It's good to rebel against Satan. It's also good to rebel against any human who is exercising unrighteous dominion over you. Refer to the D&C for a fine explanation on how to exercise the authority of the priesthood: it doesn't include any kind of dominion over others! I would say "dominion" includes forcing your opinion of fashion or grooming on someone else. Even the recent statement on piercings from the First Presidency was worded as counsel--what was it? "Strongly discourage" or something like that?--not "Thus saith the Lord." -- D. Michael Martindale - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] List Volume and Compilation Posts Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:27:31 -0500 Folks, We come into the week with a backlog of something like 40-50 posts. (I didn't post any on Saturday because experience suggests that Saturday posts prompt more new messages than they clear from the in-box.) My attempted one-time solution to this has been to send out a number of compilation posts to try to get us on-track. (Posts that are particularly long or are not part of currently "hot topic" threads are still going out separately.) This is a one-time-only solution (this method is sufficiently time-consuming that I can't do it on a regular basis, and has other disadvantages as well, such as the fact that you can't tell who's sent a post when it comes into your in-box, since they all seem to be coming from me. (Wow, I'm writing a lot recently!) I don't know what I'll do if the heavy List volume continues. Probably simply start ruthlessly trimming many of the chattier posts, though I like the flavor of conversation that they afford to the List. Again, you can help by limiting yourself to two or, at the most, three posts a day. 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: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 08 Jun 2001 15:31:43 -0600 Eileen Stringer wrote: > >Hmmm, I'm trying to decide whether the story would break stereotypes or > >reinforce them. I was originally thinking that a raging subtext behind the > >sweet-sister missionary would break stereotypes, but now that I reflect on > >it, perhaps not. Eileen, just out of curiosity, what is the raging subtext > >of the sister missionary? (perhaps you are a sister RM.) The Johnston > >newspaper critic praised the female miss. pov b/c he was tired of reading > >about the elder's raging lions. do sister miss's have raging lionesses? > > >Tom J. > >It would actually reinforce the stereotypes and certainly wouldn't do much >to change the genre, just a variation on a theme and rather unrealistic from >where I sit. Yeah, me too. I think part of what concerns me is how many of those missionary stories try to do exactly that--create a single, encompassing viewpoint of *the* authentic, true, realistic missionary voice. I'm not sure it's possible or desirable to try for that universality. I'm not sure there is *a* raging subtext for any missionary story--sister, elder, or otherwise. Each person rages at their own combination of subtexts, and those combinations are both infinite and often exclusive. As I've been rereading Alan Mitchell's _Angel of the Danube_ so I could respond to Tom Johnson (comments coming soon, Tom--probably Monday), I think I finally put my finger on the thing that tends to interfere with my enjoyment of missionary stories. It's that so many of them attempt to interpret the entire missionary experience in a single narrative. They tend to try to make sense of the whole broad concept instead of staying with one character's experience, and the stories of the people they work with end up being subsumed in the search for an overall interpretation of the mission. Again, it's the iconic thing. I believe the authors presume a little too much. As much as I'm enjoying reading Danube again (it's really my first careful reading; the first time I read the first fifty pages then skimmed the rest), it's one of the two-and-two-halves things that I keep flinching at as I read. ===== Large disclaimer/explanatory note: ===== I *like* Mitchell's book. I like it a lot, and feel that it may well be the best modern missionary memoir novel I've read. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to read an engagingly told story of one character's attempt to understand and interpret his own mission. The story is loving, critical, powerful, and difficult. More importantly, it reads as true to the author's own experience, and that's what makes it such a good read. If I didn't like it as much as I do, I couldn't generate the energy to comment on how I wish it had been better, or how it makes me wish other stories could fill in other parts of the story that he partially told so well. I will post a more complete review of the book that explicates the two-and-two-halves things that jar me about it as soon as I can figure out how to articulate those thoughts. Unfortunately, the remainder of this post will end up offering the half-hatched versions. ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ==== Any tale of this kind must necessarily be specific to one person's experience. I also served a German-speaking mission (spent a year in Berlin back when the wall was still up), so I appreciate his observations on German culture and attitude a lot; they exactly mirror my own experience. I had apes (Assistants to the President) that I found overbearing and at least a little self-righteous. I once knocked doors for eighty hours a week on three successive weeks without teaching a single discussion, then was told by my district leader that I was a failure as a missionary because of it. I got so discouraged at one point that I walked away from one companion, and stayed inside my apartment for several weeks with another while reading about six years worth of Ensign magazines. Other than serving in northern Germany instead of Austria, I'm probably about as close a match to the ideal audience for _Angel of the Danube_ as exists in terms of my own missionary experience. And yet, it also described experiences and situations and cultural assumptions that were quite different from my own. It offered some scenes and situations that I have a hard time accepting, and drew some conclusions that I just can't quite agree with. I feel like the story is asking me to accept those conclusions as universal truisms, not just the mind and experience of one missionary. In trying to answer the question, "What did my mission mean?" I think the story (somewhat necessarily) universalized the answer. And by offering no convincing alternative viewpoints, it emphasized that sense for me. Part of what unsettles me, I guess, is that the answer Barry Monroe came up with is one I wish I had also come up with and didn't. The honesty of the narrative made that answer very powerful. So I guess part of what interferes with my acceptance of the novel is its very success at providing a powerfully true viewpoint. I know, that's a feature of the memoir-style novel. In explicating one character's viewpoint it attempts to illuminate many general truisms. I suspect that Alan Mitchell never intended to claim this as a universal experience, and yet I still came away from his novel feeling that the text ended up making exactly that claim. I also accept that I may be the only one to come away from the novel feeling that way. Individual reader response is exactly that--individual. My only real frustration with the novel was that it's the same response I ended up having with every other missionary story I can remember reading; a sense that there was just a lot more story to be told to cover the issue effectively. Benson Parkinson is trying to do exactly that with his multi-volume novel. By following several distinctly different personalities through their missions, he attempts to draw a larger picture that encompasses even more of *the* authentic missionary experience. I think he's doing that successfully, but I still wonder what the attempt to interpret the whole missionary experience hopes to accomplish. It still forces me to either agree, or to reject the conclusions offered, and by extension, the novel itself. In the end I guess I want one of these novels to leave me with the sense that this is at best one missionary's story, and that there are an infinite number of other stories to be told that can intersect, cross, and invert this particular story, yet still be just as true to the POV's experience. I don't need to see those other experiences, but I would like an acknowledgement that author and POV recognize that valid spiritual response can and is often quite different. And that's what bugs me about most of the missionary memoir stories I've read; they end up claiming more scope that I think is their right. They take on too much of the missionary experience, and end up reducing so much of it to pithy epigrams. A perfectly valid and literarily defensible form capable of very powerful and movingly true stories. But I'd still like to see something a little more intimate, a little less vast in scope and meaning. A novel-length work that focuses on one key experience in a missionary's life with less of the iconic "this is what it's like to be a missionary" feel. Again, just one reader's response. I liked _Angel of the Danube_ as much as I've liked any missionary memoir story I've read. It's a book that I feel is both good and true (about the highest compliment I can offer other than "I hate you; I wish I'd written that!"). It may well be as good a book as can be written in that form. Now I'd like to see some different forms with different narrative goals. Scott Parkin - 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] Devil's Advocate Date: 31 May 2001 18:22:24 -0500 At 09:45 AM 5/20/01, you wrote: >Linda Adams: "I wish the devil would help me finish volume 2." LOL! More accurately, "The devil's busy putting every possible road block in the way of finishing volume 2. What a guy! He knows that will only give me stamina in the face of adversity, build suspense for my readers and sell more books when it finally hits the press!" Love your list, D. Michael! :-) Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - 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 Salt Lake Tribune Looks at Recent LDS Books: Salt Lake Tribune Date: 10 Jun 2001 13:54:56 -0500 Tribune 3Jun01 A6 [From Mormon-News] Salt Lake Tribune Looks at Recent LDS Books SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Utah authors are publishing a number of faith-based books this summer and all are guaranteed to teach and entertain. "On This Day in the Church: An Illustrated Almanac of the Latter-day Saints," by co-authors Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Alexander L. Baugh, Robert C. Freeman and Andrew H. Hedges encourage readers to find out "What happened in church history on your birthday?" The authors have produced a book that shows off their research skills without being exhausting. The oversized illustrated hardcover book is from Eagle Gate and available at $32.95. "Ten Times Ten" marks another milestone commemorating the first 100 temples, with text and artwork by Chad Hawkins. An opening map locates each temple, from Kirtland to Boston. A brief history accompanies each drawing and a portion of each dedicatory prayer is included. The book has a full-color centerpiece and is available for $39.95. A more human side of church history has been collected by Larry E. Morris in "A Treasury of Latter-day Saint Letters." J. Willard Marriott's brief 1958 letter to "Dear Gordon," as he is being called as an assistant to the Twelve is quoted. "His call was a blow, a complete surprise." The book is from Deseret Book's Eagle Gate and available for $19.95. "The First Vision" is rich with vivid illustrations by Cary Austin and Greg Newbold. It was written by the prophet Joseph Smith (albeit abridged) and is a good bedtime story for little children. Other books include "Letters for Emily, by Camron Steve Wright," Dad Was a Carpenter," by Kenny Kemp, "Married for Better, Not Worse," by Stephen R. Covey and "The Fourteen Secrets to a Happy Marriage," by the Lundbergs. Source: Red-Letter Dates in LDS History and the First 100 Temples Salt Lake Tribune 3Jun01 A6 http://www.sltrib.com/06032001/arts/102465.htm By Melinda Miller: 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: "Benson Parkinson" Subject: [AML] PARKINSON, "S. Dilworth Young" in JMH Date: 11 Jun 2001 10:39:22 -0600 An article of mine on S. Dilworth Young was just published in the current = Journal of Mormon History. I got my comps Friday. S. Dilworth Young, who = was a member of the Seventy, published fiction, biography, and much = poetry, including a book-length poem on Joseph Smith that went through = something like 20 printings at Bookcraft. My article grew out of a series of columns I did for AML-List in December = 1997. The editor there saw them and invited a submission. Has anyone kept = track of published books and articles that appeared previously or grew out = of AML-List postings? Those would include at least Richard Dilworth Rust's = _Feasting on the Word_ and Ed Snow's _Of Curious Workmanship_ and several = articles. You could also include some fiction that went through our = writers' circles when we had those going. Ben Parkinson - 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] Critique of Writing Date: 10 Jun 2001 09:46:37 -0600 You are so right about constructive critizim. My family will all say my writting is superb so I have joined a group in order to get some real, helpful, critique's, but you have to keep in mind that not all of these critique's are helpful to you. I was taking a class in creative writting once and the teacher suggested that I had to many characters in the story so I took some of them out. Now sometimes I wonder if that had been the right thing to do and no matter how hard I try I can't but them back in. (It was probably the right thing to do.) Then a couple of years ago, in a critique group I had joined, an other published author suggested that I change the name of most of my charactors because most of the names started in A. She also said that my main charactors name should be changed for reasons other then it started with A. Anyway I listened and changed the A names except for the main charactor's because I feel that her name is an essential part of the story. Anyway listen to the critique's of skilled writers outside of you family and friends but carefully concider what they have to say before you make those changes. They may change your story in a way you didn't intend to go. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Value of Experience (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:55:39 -0500 >From terryj@pcterryj.censoft.com Fri Jun 08 14:53:00 2001 On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:56:49PM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > I do think that it's possible for a man to write from a woman's POV > successfully. I just think that a woman would be more successfull > doing it. She could actually write from a woman's POV. That > doesn't mean men shouldn't try. I just wish that there was some > attitude (and there probably is out there), of "I don't really know, > but I'm going to do my best." The attitude I've been feeling here, > (and I may be wrong) is, "women don't experience anything special or > unique, I completely understand them and I know just how they feel." I can only speak for myself, but I hold that "other people don't experience anything special or unique beyond what I can experience." In your sense, we cannot really know what's inside the head of any other living being, man, woman, or other. We cannot really know what it feels like to break a bone unless we have really had one broken. But, if we truly limited ourselves to writing what we know, then we would have a never eding series of novels about growing up. Do you really want to read another story about "How bleak was my puberty?" Not me. I want to read about characters who "Live! Live! Live!" [1] When I create a character, I know exactly what goes on inside that character's head. If I write a scene and describe the feelings a female character has during childbirth, I know exactly what's in that characters head. You as a reader may not find my description believable, but that's a different problem. Frankly, I've seen so many birth scenes on TV, that they have lost their impact on me. I would have to believe that I had something extrodinarily unique to say before I wrote a childbirth scene. Such scenes have lost their shock value and have become routine. > I think if a man were to go through childbirth he would realize how > extremely different this experience is from anything else and he > would develop an incredible respect for women. Should we also give incredible respect for people who survie cancer or the loss of a child? Does experiencing an extreme amount of physical or emotional pain really set one group of people above another? My respect for other people does not come from creating a class division (men/women, rich/poor, educated/uneducated, experienced/unexperienced) with special feeling for various classes. Everyone has equal respect as my brothers and sisters of our Heavenly Father. I might give more attention to certain individuals, such as my wife and children, but all people have the same respect. [MOD: The rest of this message is being posted separately as part of the "Symbolism" discussion.] [1] With a nod to Patrick Dennis's _Auntie Mame_. -- Terry Jeffress >From bwillson01@email.msn.com Fri Jun 08 17:24:40 2001 If any writer male or female described childbirth as: >how it feels to have his feet tied to the bumpers of >cars driving in opposite directions, while being >gutted with a chain saw and having his intestines >and heart devoured by a shark. I think it would cause me to have serious reservations about their ability to write realistically about anything. But having been present when my wife went through labor and delivery of our four children and having shared the experiences of birth with my three daughters bringing forth 15 grandchildren, I think, if I were so inclined and needed to write about it, I could give a fairly accurate account of the experience from a woman's point of view. On the other hand, IMHO I truly believe the subject matter experts should be the ones to write about experiences they have actually been through, and writers should leave the speculation to journalists. Bill Willson >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Sat Jun 09 19:12:20 2001 >Actually, I think you can write convincingly about something you haven't >experienced. It takes homework, and I think it helps if you can relate your >own experiences to it. That's what fiction writing is all about. But if I >as a writer, do write about something I haven't experience, I'm not going to >go around telling people that I know exactly how they feel. This is a good point. Yes, you can. That's what the word "fiction" means! Since _Prodigal Journey_ was published last summer, which includes vivid scenes of drug abuse and addiction in part of it, I have been judged that I must have personal experience with this issue to "write about it so well." (not my words) This comes from both recovered addicts and those completely untouched by the stuff. I insist that I have never broken the Word of Wisdom, neither would I go take drugs (or commit any sin) merely to gain "personal experience" in order to write about it. My research included knowing several people in my life who have had serious struggles with it. One member recently mentioned to me a relative of hers was "unsure" about finishing my book, because of "what kind of person she must be to write about this kind of thing." While my friend was able to reassure her as to my character, the tendency remains among readers to judge that an author's work is somehow biographical. The relative did finish the book, and reported she wants to read the next one, but is "a little afraid" of what she might find in it. :-) The only thing that truly disturbs me about this mindset is the unforgiving nature of it: what if I _had_ experience with drug abuse, later repented and found my way back, and were writing about it to show how awful a mistake it was? I'd still be called "_that_ kind of person..." by some. What happened to our professed belief in the Atonement of Christ to pay for our sins? I guess this is off the main topic of this thread (why Dutcher wants someone with direct experience), but I find it interesting to see how I personally have been "judged." People will definitely find the God's Army novel "More Believable" if they can claim a Real Female RM wrote it. :-) It's like a stamp of authority. As for my writing, I'm wondering if I should put a warning label on the cover: "not for faint-hearted, fluffy-fiction lovers?" "PG-13?" (I'm not letting my own children read it until they reach 12 or 13, not so much due to content, but because the issues I cover are not child-oriented and need a more mature mind to absorb them.) It's a curious thing. Back to finishing my last few chapters--I can see the light at the end of the tunnel now! Linda [Adams] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Temple in Fiction (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:56:10 -0500 >From kdenos@juno.com Thu Jun 07 23:24:14 2001 That was very good in my opinion. My question, is it alright to mention somebody protraying Eve? The rest of it was fine. I suppose that Thom is right and it is alright to mention stuff that you can find in the scriptures but is it alright to talk about the acting that is shown there? Probably, I was just wondering. Konnie Enos >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Fri Jun 08 11:30:35 2001 Larry Jackson wrote: > > Alan Mitchell: > > Can we say that much? > > _______________ > > I would have left one sentence out and reworded > the next one. Other than that, I had no problem > with it, assuming the thoughts were a part of the > story that was being furthered. > > I'm not sure a reader who is not a member would > understand a lot of it, though. The passage, imo, would be understandable enough, for a non-member to get the gist of the experience. And that's the best a writer can hope for, verisimilitude. -- Thom Duncan >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Fri Jun 08 13:04:37 2001 I'm reading the fifth in the series of "Children of the Promise." Dean Hughes includes a scene where a couple is getting sealed. He does it well. Anna Wight >From thj5@columbia.edu Sun Jun 10 00:45:08 2001 Are the heavy questions asked in a baptismal interview or a temple = interview considered off-limits for fiction?=20 Tom [Johnson] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Symbolism (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:56:28 -0500 >From tlaulusa@core.com Thu Jun 07 12:51:38 2001 I sometimes find wonderful symbolism for me personally in the darndest places. But I remember distinctly disliking my high school American lit teacher because she would spout the most, to me, absurd things, as if they were actual indisputable fact. And, she didn't allow for any other opinions to be expressed. Ours was not to reason why. Ours was to listen, take notes, and regurgitate. Tracie Laulusa >From terryj@pcterryj.censoft.com Fri Jun 08 14:53:00 2001 Received: from [208.219.23.55] (helo=pcterryj.censoft.com ident=root) by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 158TFb-0003to-00 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:52:59 -0600 Received: (from terryj@localhost) by pcterryj.censoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25555 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:53:37 -0600 [MOD: The first part of this message is posted separately as part of the discussion of "Value of Experience."] On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:56:49PM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > As for symbolism, sure it could be nice for someone to find nuances > in a story you weren't aware was there. That's part of an actors > job, to create a character from what the writer has written and put > other levels into it. But what if your readers, critics etc. find > stuff that really isn't there. For instance finding gay characters > because two of your straight males hug. Or claiming when your > female character bites into an apple that it really represents a > deal that Eve made with Satan, when actually, your character bit > into the apple because she was hungry, on a picnic, and that's what > was in the picnic basket. . . . Each reader brings a unique set of experiences to your story. You do not paint your story on a pure white canvas. Instead, you paint the story on a transparent sheet of plastic. The reader then takes your painting and overlays it on the canvas of their past experience. Readers see the major elements of your story only colored by the images already on the reader's canvas. In this way, your work appears different to each and every reader. And, your work becomes a permanent part of each reader's canvas -- something that will effect the reader's perception of all future stories. So perhaps when reading your scene where two men hug, your reader does conclude that those men have accpeted a homosexual lifestyle. Can you really deny the reader's experience? (Of course we all know that men no longer hug, because they want to avoid making reference to Judas betraying Jesus.) > That's what I mean about reading things into a peice of writing that > aren't there. You could take any book and turn anything on any page > into a symbol, but that doesn't make it so. I just think it would > be the height of arrogance to approach a writer and tell the writer > insistantly, "this is what you meant by this, and this is what this > means," even when the writer says it ain't so. You won't find anything but symbols on the pages of a book. Symbols do not have fixed meanings. Just ask Merriam-Webster; they have to continuously update their symbol-meaning tables. In fact, an entire school of literary criticism exists based on the idea that the ambiguity in symbolism creates good literature. The more ambiguous the textual symbol, the richer the experience we can have with the text. The more meanings I can create from your story, the more value the story has, and I will want to reread the story for the multiple meanings. (See William Empson, _Seven Types of Ambiguity_ for one such approach.) I agree that we should not approach writers intending to tell them what they meant in their own works. But I think all fiction writers must accept that different readers will each have a different experience. Why not welcome the difference? Why not enjoy the different colors and textures that your small creation now displays when viewed in front of another person's canvas. Of course, there's a danger in listening to different opinions. When you encounter a sufficiently strong idea, you cannot purge that idea from your mind. Let's take your Teletubbies example. You may hold that the creaters of Teletubbies had no intention of portraying Tinkie-Winkie as a homosexual, but that idea has now forever infected your mind. I would wager that you can never again watch an episode of the Teletubbies without thinking of the "Tinkie-Winkie represents homosexual ideals" issue ever again. You may not believe the issue yourself, but the idea itself had sufficient strength that it caused you to spread it to others here on AML-List. (As you can tell, memetics facinates me. I love the concept that ideas spread in the same patterns and methods as viral infections.) > Finding symbols in writing can be fun and makes the writing richer, > but, it should be tempered with the knowledge that one might be > wrong or might lead you down a track that the author never went. At this point, I have to flat out disagree. I have no obligation to the author, except to give him an attribution when I quote from his text. I cannot ever draw the "wrong" meaning from a text. I may not draw the same idea from a text as the author intended or even get the same ideas as other readers; nevertheless, I have found those meanings in the text -- regardless of the author's intent. I agree with you that we should not attribute the meanings we get from the text directly to the author. We must own our interpretations. We must state our claim and demonstrate how we came to our position. But if the author uses a symbolically-loaded object in the text, critics will always make symbolic connection to the sets of meaning that object invokes. Freud may had said that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," but something made you choose to have your character smoke a cigar rather than a pipe, cigarette, or marijuana joint. Perhaps your character likes the idea of putting something in his mouth that Cuban women had on their bare legs. Perphaps he's a stake president and smokes the occasional cigar to still show his loyalty to his rebellion in the '60s. Perhaps she wants to show she's equal to men and spurns cigarettes as the smoking choice of the weak. No matter what meaning you tell me you draw from my text, I cannot deny that you did find that meaning. I may not have consciously intended to bring Eve to your mind when I had my female character bite an apple, but I have to admit that someone might see it that way. In the end we have to admit that authors write for themselves. We may want fame and fortune. We may think we have something valuable to share. But we have to accept that our words in another person's mind may take on a meaning far from the one we intended, and writers must accept that eventuality or, like Kafka, keep their manuscripts hidden away in a secret place where no one can even question what you meant. -- Terry Jeffress >From ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Fri Jun 08 15:26:30 2001 At 09:56 PM 6/6/01, Anna Wight wrote: >It kind of reminds me of the controversy of Tinky Winky being gay because he >was purple, had a triangle on his head and carried a magic bag. Or when >Seseme Street got rid of Bert because a small minority of people thought >Bert and Ernie were gay. Or those people who spend their time slow moing >through Disney flicks to find anything that might resemble a fallic symbol, >drug paraphanalia or the devil. The topless fairies in _Fantasia_, perhaps? (BTW, it's spelled "phallic".) -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:56:40 -0500 >From ViKimball@aol.com Fri Jun 08 13:57:52 2001 In a message dated 6/8/01 12:36:03 PM Central Daylight Time, rareyellow@yahoo.com writes: << If LDS writers close themselves off from non-LDS > voices, and draw only from > LDS sources, then perhaps there will be a kind of > inbreeding of LDS voice, > and Zion will become more and more insular and > impenetrable and narrow and > cleft-footed. >> I hope I see a Mormon version of "Fiddler on the Roof" in my lifetime. I know we have the talent, but I think it is the fear of big brother watching that has prevented such a production to date. Violet Kimball >From thj5@columbia.edu Sat Jun 09 21:50:27 2001 William wrote: >And I think there should be room for > some impenetrable, highly coded Mormon works. Cryptographic texts might work best with temple topics. It wouldn't be too difficult to get a point across about the temple by way of indirection, the sort of thing that would set Mormon heads a-spinning, but leave non-Mormons clueless. But what's the appeal of that kind of literature? Sounds like Jewish kabbalism. Which I'm fine with, sure, but I don't see why it would make for great literature. More like great puzzles. Have you read Kafka's _Penal Colony_ or "the bridge" or "the emperor"? These seem like highly coded texts to me. Give me an example of what you had in mind. > I sincerely believe that not only do (and will) these > works stand on their own merit, they also will provide > a certain magnetic pull on Mormon artists whose work > is more on the margins. Many texts have little codes in them. Nabokov, for example, is playing games with all the numbers in _Lolita_. Some critic comes along and explains it all, and I say, oh, that's sort of interesting, but it didn't do much for me at the time I'd read it. On the extreme side you have some kind of string of letters that, when read from top to bottom instead of left to right, or diagonal across the page, spell the name of a person who will be assassinated in the year 2020, (_The Bible Code_). If I remember correctly, in that Evenson-Marcus interview, Evenson was explaining that the Church didn't factor much into his writing; it just wasn't the kind of thing that came out in his prose. So, is _Tongue_ considered Mormon literature? Just because the Church or the doctrine of the Church or Church themes aren't in there does not mean it's not Mormon. Otherwise it would be like Mormon writers were self-obsessed with their own religion and their selves in it, like they were always writing about themselves. Sure our lives are "supposed" to revolve around our faith, and not the other way around, but that doesn't always work out, and that's not what literature is always about. I am still of the opinion that, just as there is no "Mormon science" or "Mormon physiology" or "Mormon mathematics," if there is a "Mormon literature" it should contain all the good, true, and beautiful--and not simply all elements of Mormonism. To do the latter is to deny what Mormonism is all about. However, you've argued quite a bit for the other pov, and I can see where you're coming from. There is no "African Mathematics" but there is an "African Literature." Exactly what, then, are the elements that identify a work as Mormon literature? > We've discussed on this list before how a writer goes > about reaching this broader audience, how to demystify > or represent the Mormon culture, including a great > exchange about the merits of providing a glossary of > Mormon terms for a novel. We've also discussed if > Mormons are in danger of losing their distinctness. > And we've also discussed whether or not Mormonism has > a large enough body of fiction to elicit a true Mormon > criticism. When I take my memories of those > discussions and add it to a consideration of Mormon > lit. as a genre, and more importantly, as one that > could appeal to a general audience, I get quite > confused. That's why I continue to suspect that as a > category it has more to connect it to marginal > national literatures than to 'ethnic' or 'period' > literatures. But I don't know. I'll work on that. I'm sorry here. I came to the list a bit late, and have missed out on all these discussions. I know there's an archive of posts somewhere, but I'm not sure how to access them. > Finally, an aside for Tom: Kafka, Borges, Auster, > Bhaktin? Looks like we speak a similar language. > Have you ever read (I hate questions like this because > invariably I haven't ever read...but...) _The Seven > Madmen_ by Roberto Arlt. Unfortunately, I don't know > Spanish so have only read it in translation, but it's > a hilarious, haunting work that I highly recommend. I > have no idea if Arlt is well known to American > readers---he should be. > I haven't read Arlt. I did pick up a copy at the library the other day, though. With that last line of your post, it makes it seem as if you are not American. But your name (which is a famous American name as well as the name of a renowned literary agency) is American. Tom [Johnson] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Missionary Stories (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:56:57 -0500 >From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 08 13:00:01 2001 Eileen Stringer wrote: > I think it appropriate to note here as well that few of the missionary > stories I have read really have the mission president involved much at all > in the missionaries' lives. In my mind such a pivotal position in mission > life should get a bit more ink. > > That is the view from my porch today. In my mission, I didn't think the mission president was involved much with the missionaries. I saw him once a month with a large group of other Elders and unless I screwed up I don't think he ever heard of me. I had three different mission presidents during my mission and the same pattern existed with all three. Unless you are an AP or screw up publicly a lot, you just aren't going to have the mission president involved with you very much. Maybe it is different with the sisters. Perhaps this is one reason why a woman might write a better story about sister missionaries because it seems likely to me that a mission is a different experience for the Sisters than for the Elders in ways that aren't discussed very much. Jacob Proffitt >From thj5@columbia.edu Sat Jun 09 21:30:35 2001 Go, Sister Erin Brokovitch! [Tom Johnson] [Eileen Stringer wrote:] > That would be the "raging lioness" I saw in most of the sisters I served > with (I served in Australia Perth). All I served with came out with a > testimony and an overwhelming desire to teach the gospel to any and all who > would listen, very few "sweet sisters." Many of the sisters were converts > and came out with a burning desire to share the truth and ran headlong with > the obstacles Scott B. articulated and that did sometimes frustrate them and > cooled their fire causing angst. [snip] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Snow Subject: Re: [AML] Joel and Ethan COEN, _O Brother, Where Art Thou?_ (Film) Date: 11 Jun 2001 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) I'm convinced R.W. Rasband and I were separated at birth. I also loved _O Brother_. I even bought the soundtrack (I'm suggesting a new AML-List test for whether items are on topic: 7 degrees of Wallace Stegner. There's a Mormon connection here since the movie uses the song "Big Rock Candy Mountain," a Stegner novel). I never feel so many simultaneous conflicting emotions as I do when I watch a Coen brothers movie (or go to church). Here's but one example. The baptismal scene is eeriely divine in its beauty and spirituality, especially with Alison Krauss singing, acappela, "Down to the River to Pray," along with a backup Baptist choir. And the comic elements and the correspondence to the lotus eaters in the Odyssey do not detract one iota from the spiritual experience one feels in watching this episode, but instead, enhance it with a reverent kind of comic relief. I don't understand why this movie didn't win any Oscars. It was at least as good as "Gladiator", "Crouching Tiger" or "Traffic." Ed ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 Literature as Distinct? (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:51:24 -0600 > > >From ViKimball@aol.com Fri Jun 08 13:57:52 2001 > > In a message dated 6/8/01 12:36:03 PM Central Daylight Time, > rareyellow@yahoo.com writes: > > << If LDS writers close themselves off from non-LDS > > voices, and draw only from > > LDS sources, then perhaps there will be a kind of > > inbreeding of LDS voice, > > and Zion will become more and more insular and > > impenetrable and narrow and > > cleft-footed. > >> > > I hope I see a Mormon version of "Fiddler on the Roof" in my lifetime. I know > we have the talent, but I think it is the fear of big brother watching that > has prevented such a production to date. I don't think our own people are a mature enough audience. Tevya, for instance, breaks two of his culture's traditions to allow two of his daughters to marry. Mormons would not see him as a loving father for letting his daughter marry outside the temple--they would see him as a weak father. We tend to see Tevya, however, as a hero for going against his traditions because he loves his children more. And let's not forget the fake dream that Tevya has. Would we continue to see a character who lied about a vision to his wife as in a favorable light? Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] MN Salt Lake Tribune Looks at Recent LDS Books: Salt Lake Tribune Date: 11 Jun 2001 16:06:25 EDT In a message dated 6/11/01 12:45:25 PM, lajackson@juno.com writes: << "Married for Better, Not Worse," by Stephen R. Covey and "The Fourteen Secrets to a Happy Marriage," by the Lundbergs. >> Actually, this is one book entitled "Married for Better, Not Worse: The Fourteen Secrets to a Happy Marriage," written by Gary & Joy Lundberg. Not sure how Stephen Covey's name got in there. John Perry - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings (comp2) Date: 11 Jun 2001 23:20:50 -0500 >From renatorigo@bol.com.br Sat Jun 09 05:59:41 2001 > Do you believe God wants you with skirts or ties? We only need to wear "normal" clothes to go to church.. I had my baptism in 1999 and my wife didn=B4t want to have her baptism because of strange things that happened at Church. We usually went to Church without ties and skirts. I hate ties and my wife love pants. After a few months the bishop asked us to change our clothes because of other members that were abandoning the "standard" clothes. The respect is in your heart...in your faith... THE REST IS THE REST... Renato >From Jacob@proffitt.com Mon Jun 11 12:58:31 2001 Chris Bigelow wrote: > >From ChrisB@enrich.com Fri Jun 08 12:54:47 2001 > > Jacob, I thought I remembered you saying that you used to wear colored > shirts and grow facial hair, but then you moved to Utah and decided to > conform completely by shaving and wearing white shirts. Was that somebody > else entirely, or did I just misremember your earlier post? > > Congratulations on keeping the goatee, and may it continue to serve you > well. Misremembered. I said I stopped nonconformity for its own sake. I can't think of any good reason to wear non-white shirts to church, so I don't bother justifying it any more. Kept the beard for reasons I've already expressed. I see no problem conforming if it is harmless. Jacob Proffitt >From annette@lyfe.com Mon Jun 11 15:39:09 2001 I think it's sad when artists feel the need to set themselves apart with trappings like multiple earrings and facial hair. I have no problem with either "trapping," for what it's worth. I know many men who look distinguished with beards, although I personally don't like the look of goatees. (My brother-in-law grew a beard while he had the chance before his mission, and he looked great. Maybe when he graduates from BYU he'll grow it back.) I do have a problem when members of the church grow a beard or sport some other trapping to make a statement of non-conformity--because that statement generally says, "I am not one of you." Since when are we supposed to be divisive? Aren't we supposed to be united? That's the point of building Zion, isn't it? Of course, that doesn't mean we should be clones, but it tell me that we shouldn't make a point of drawing a line and standing on the other side of it just to be different. Annette Lyon >From Chris.Bigelow@unicitynetwork.com Mon Jun 11 16:52:32 2001 One major Mormon visual trapping is the "celestial smile" of the curving garment neckline visible beneath thinner-fabricked shirts (mostly on males, I guess--on women you usually see the square-shaped neckline from the back). In Utah, occassionally you will see a local TV commercial with the spokesman's celestial smile visible, sometimes I think purposely so. I work in the shadow of Geneva Steel in Utah County, but despite its Mormon origins this company has evolved to probably more than half non-Mormon, and by far my best indicator--short of asking them pointblank--of who is Mormon is whether I spot the celestial smile. When I peoplewatch in downtown SLC, trying to decide whether they're active Mormons or not is one of my focuses, and the celestial smile is the key tool. In my missionary memoir, I include numerous garment anecdotes, short of stating what the symbols actually mean (but I do describe the appearance of the symbols). It's set in Australia, and I describe myself having to get used to the fact that Australian men commonly wear T-shirts with the same scoop-shaped neckline often visible beneath fabric. To verify whether they are Mormon or not, you have to take it a step further and look for the outline of the sleeves, which are usually of the wifebeater variety in Australia. Anyway, don't we make certain assumptions about people we talk to and interact with if we can see their garments? I could even see a line in fiction, "Bessie noticed the vacuum salesman's garment outline, so she felt comfortable inviting him in for a drink, though she was determined not to buy anything." In fact, I wonder if, scanning through "Brigham City" carefully, any garment lines show. Maybe the garment lines are even visible at times on the murderer, which would help keep Mormon audiences from suspecting him, even if just on the subconscious level. If Dutcher didn't do anything along those lines, it was a missed opportunity. But I didn't consciously think of it while viewing the movie--I'd have to watch again, which I will on video. Chris Bigelow - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Value of Artists (comp2) Date: 11 Jun 2001 23:21:04 -0500 >From renatorigo@bol.com.br Sat Jun 09 06:11:20 2001 > Writing is a work as others...of course you need to make money with it... The problem is: 1)Art is a work only an artist can do ; 2)Sometimes good art doesn=B4t make money and bad art sometimes makes money; 3)If you put the action, "making money", in front of the art you will have a little probability of success; 4)If you make a good work (independent of kind of the work)you will have monetary success; The money usually will be the consequence of good work; 5) For me, for example, it would be easier to make money working in Mc Donalds than writing a book. As a writer I=B4m a good reader... :-) Working in Mc Donalds it would be easy to become the Manager.... Renato >From bwillson01@email.msn.com Mon Jun 11 14:03:00 2001 Anna Wight wrote: > >But lets say you're starting a new community. Out in the >middle of nowhereYou have a group of people. What >do people need? They need food. So hopefully, you >have farmers. You also need shelter, so you need >people to build just basic simple shelter. You need >medical people to take care of illness and injury. You >need people to know how to cook, clean, sew etc, >and those who can teach those skills to others. You >need to create laws and those who will enforce those >laws. > >Once you have met basic needs, then you have time to >do other things. Such as creating works of art, writing >music and stories, designing fashions, orturning those >humble pieces of shelter into great works of architecture. [MOD snip] If you take a group of people, any group of people, and put them out in the middle of nowhere, IMHO they will survive, unless they are totally mentally and physically disabled, or the biosphere they are deposited in is totally bereft of the nescessities of life. I think anyone can learn to forage for food, hunt and gather, plant and harvest, build a rudimentary shelter, cloth themselves, if only with fig leaves and learn to get along. On the other hand only a small percentage of these starter people will have the gift of the Muse. Therefore the arts and sciences will be slower in manifesting themselves in your new colony if you only choose farmers, builders, and hunters. As far as laws go, the only law these new colonists really need is the law of the gospel. I think they would survive quite nicely without lawyers. As far as the arts go, I like what William Carlos Williams said: It is difficult to get the news from poems yet men die miserable every day for lack of what is found there. Regards, Bill Willson - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Critique of Writing Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:17:54 -0500 A rejection letter doesn't mean never, just not yet. > > -- > Terry Jeffress I think I'm going to post that sentence on my computer. I just got a rejection letter today for my book. It's hard even though I've been trying to mentally prepare myself for it. Since it was a form rejection it didn't give me any clues as to what's wrong with it. So, I'm sending it out again today. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Critique of Writing Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:24:35 -0500 I was taking a class in creative writting > once and the teacher suggested that I had to many characters in the story > so I took some of them out. Now sometimes I wonder if that had been the > right thing to do and no matter how hard I try I can't but them back in. > (It was probably the right thing to do.) I guess if you can't get them back in, they weren't meant to be there. Then a couple of years ago, in > a critique group I had joined, an other published author suggested that I > change the name of most of my charactors because most of the names > started in A. She also said that my main charactors name should be > changed for reasons other then it started with A. Anyway I listened and > changed the A names except for the main charactor's because I feel that > her name is an essential part of the story. The problem with having characters who's names all start with the same letter, is that it's too confusing for the reader. Even only two characters with the same letter can get confusing. Certainly in real life, families may give all their children names with the same letter, or worse, names that all sound alike (Charlene, Darlene, Marlene, and Arlene), it doesn't work that well in fiction. I remember on one list writing a story with several other writers and everyone unintentionally picked names beginning with A. It got so confusing I couldn't tell who was who anymore. Even a conversation between Rachel and Rebecca, or Bill and Bob can drive the reader nuts. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: [AML] Interesting Good Guys Date: 11 Jun 2001 14:28:29 -0600 I recently read an inspirational (as a marketing category) novel that illustrated a couple of points we've discussed on the list. The book is Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers. The plot is based on the Old Testament book of Hosea, the prophet who had to keep redeeming his wife from a life of prostitution. The book starts around 1850. In the novel, Angel is sold into prostitution at the age of eight, and ten years later a decent man named Michael takes her out of the brothel and marries her. God has told him to do this, and he trusts God to tell him the right thing. The woman, hardened by years of abuse and degradation, breaks his heart over and over, but she eventually learns about Christlike love from seeing it exemplified in her husband. She runs away from him several times before she accepts God's forgiveness, but in the end she becomes worthy of his love. Her name is Sarah, and although she'd been told she cannot have children, she does give him some. His character's name is Michael Hosea. One thing I liked about the book is that Michael is a good man, but he is not boring. Writers often struggle with the fact that the villains seem more compelling than the good guys. Michael is incredibly strong, both physically and spiritually, and he eventually receives the reward God has promised him for obedience to very difficult commands. The villain, who seems capable of controlling everything in the beginning, eventually becomes smaller and more fearful as other characters are strengthened by God's love and can no longer be intimidated. The other thing I found interesting is that God is a character in the book, and I think the writer uses that well. God speaks to the characters when they are open to him, and it's all very natural. I like that. Angel is resistant to Michael's and God's love for a very long time. The writer says she was writing out of her own experience of having been pig-headed in the same way. I can relate-- barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Value of Experience Date: 11 Jun 2001 17:58:33 EDT It might be worthwhile to interject here that men and women usually don't think alike (probably a hormonal thing). I've talked to lots of folks, and although they may often reach the same conclusions--his thought processes went one way, hers went another. There are those who will argue that a lot of it is sociological conditioning, but there have been studies done that indicate very different processes in problem solving, even though a similar solution is derived at. Men and women have different concepts of the world we live in. We often learn the same things differently. We may end up with similar belief patterns, similar testimonies, similar knowledge, similar experiences, etc.--but a very vast majority of the time it wasn't because we looked at it in exactly the same way. Within a gender, there is also wide variation in reaction, processing & conclusion, because we are unique individuals...but gender similarities are there whether we want to admit it or not. Karen Tippets - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] Missionary Stories (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 16:34:37 -0700 I find it interesting that you say your mission presidents were not involved in your mission or missionary life. I had a very different experience. In the time I served in the Montana Billings mission I had two mission presidents. I saw them personally only at Zone and Mission Conferences but we had to write a report to them and our leaders weekly. I knew they read mine because several times I received a hand written note from them of encouragement. I also had a very heart felt interview with them each time I saw them including my last interview. I just had this overwhelming feeling that they knew us, loved us, prayed for each of us individually and were divinely inspired for the good of all of us. The things they taught us or asked us to do either came true in my life or other and we all knew by our own experience or by watching others that is something went wrong it was because we had not followed our President's council. I guess every mission as well as every missionary is different. Jerry Tyner - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 11 Jun 2001 19:21:47 -0400 >> > In my mission, I didn't think the mission president was involved much > with the missionaries. I saw him once a month with a large group of > other Elders and unless I screwed up I don't think he ever heard of > me. > I had three different mission presidents during my mission and the > same > pattern existed with all three. Unless you are an AP or screw up > publicly a lot, you just aren't going to have the mission president > involved with you very much. my constant thought always deals with the way we assume that all experience is the same as our own. I served under two mission presidents who were as unlike as oil and water, but I confess that my experience was much like yours. In contrast however; I spent much of yesterday in the company of a mission president. He came to this area because the Savannah Stake Single Adult/ Young Single Adult group(s) had invited him to be the speaker at a fireside (I am the High Council Advisor to the Group). I was expecting him to be on time etc., but didn't expect to see him at anytime until the fireside. I had been assigned to be the "High Council Speaker" in one of the smaller branches on the periphery of the Stake. While sitting on the stand, I looked out upon the congregation and behold, thus sitteth the Mission President. I quietly asked the Branch President if he were expecting the Mission President and he indicated not. After meetings I asked the pres. how he happened to show up at this Branch. His answer was revelatory. "Sis. ---(I am not being cute with the names. One of the unpleasant facts of my current health status is that I can't remember anybody's name %$*&+#@) and I don't have any particular assignment on Sundays so we try to go to a different congregation in the Mission each Sunday. That way we can stay in touch with our missionaries." "Do you contact them in advance?" I asked. "No, not really, but they all know we are likely to show up any time at all. They seem to enjoy the visits." When the fireside began at seven two missionaries and the brother with whom they were doing a split showed up. " We will have to leave early because we have an appointment, but when we read in the program that he was going to be here, we wanted to say hello to Pres.---" That was followed by hugs all round between the missionaries and their mission president and wife (without the proverbial back slapping) They sat quietly in the meeting for about half an hour then slipped out to go to their appointment. Certainly an mission president experience that was out of my paradigm, but I suspect not an unusual one world wide. One of the primary reasons why I agree that the ultimate Missionary Nove will never be written is that every mission is different, and the actions of every mission president will be filtered through as many points of view as there are missionaries. I gave a talk one time about my perception that Priesthood callings and "jerkhood" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As examples I used (was it Elijah) the prophet in the old testiment who called bears out of the forest to eat the children who were teasing him about his bald head, Jonah and his mini rebellion, and a few personal examples like the Branch President (ME) who was insensitive enough in on comment to send his first counseler home from which he didn't come back to church until I was released. The point being that sometimes we have to accept jerkhood along with the priesthood. When the talk ended a sister came to me in tears. She had recently returned from a mission and was having trouble deciding whether to remain active. Her mission president had offended her so that she was interpreting the church by him. She said, "Brother Johnson, thank you. You have made me realize that just because a Priesthood leader is a Jerk, that doesn't make all priesthood leaders the same. I have been feeling so uncomfortable in church waiting for someone like you to attack me-- I didn't really realize that someone can have the priesthood, be fulfilling a calling the best way he knows how, and still be such a terrible, offensive person" Viewing her president through her filter, probably there are missionaries who were in her mission at the same time who felt that that mission president was wonderful-- a budding general authority. Richard B. Johnson - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] Joel and Ethan COEN, _O Brother, Where Art Thou?_ Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:24:27 -0600 Hey Russ, Would you care for some gopher? This film is one of my all time favorites. I see it is out in DVD this week. Roy Schmidt - 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] Value of Artists (comp) Date: 11 Jun 2001 18:10:25 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: [snip] > > Imagine life without art. It would be sad. Dark. And unhappy. But we > could survive. > > Now imagine life without food. I once attended a showing of drawings created by people living in Hitler's concentration camps. Haunting images drawn with bits of charcoal on scraps of paper. Often created (according to the notes accompanying the drawings) at the risk of the artist's life. Discovery of these drawings meant death, and the artists knew it. There are those who need to tell their stories as surely as they need to eat. It is part of our survival as individuals. It is part of our survival as cultures. It is a primary, not secondary, part of our life experience. --Mike South - 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] Missionary Stories Date: 11 Jun 2001 18:25:30 -0400 At 01:56 PM 6/11/01 -0500, you wrote: >>From Jacob@proffitt.com Fri Jun 08 13:00:01 2001 > volved with you very much. Maybe it is different with the sisters. >Perhaps this is one reason why a woman might write a better story about >sister missionaries because it seems likely to me that a mission is a >different experience for the Sisters than for the Elders in ways that >aren't discussed very much. > >Jacob Proffitt ================================== There's an interesting example of this in the latest Dialogue...a missionary journal by Erika Knight. She writes, among other things, of run-ins with the mission president in Russia. It has been my very limited observation that as more and more mission presidents are drawn from local, non-US populations, the relationship between mission president and American elders is distinctly different. Merlyn - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marcshaw1@aol.com Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _Shape of Things_=20 Date: 11 Jun 2001 16:42:38 EDT Here's a link or two to reviews/articles about Labute's newest play that=20 premiered at the Almeida in London at the end of May.=A0 Sounds like Labute= is=20 continuing with religious/Greek roots.=20 http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/10/sticulthr02004=20 Here are some other article/reviews on Labute's new play.=20 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4201351,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4196154,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4185756,00.html Marc Shaw - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories Date: 12 Jun 2001 00:52:32 -0400 Scott wrote: > > I think part of what concerns me is how many of those missionary > stories try to do exactly that--create a single, encompassing > viewpoint of *the* authentic, true, realistic missionary voice. I'm > not sure it's possible or desirable to try for that universality. > > I'm not sure there is *a* raging subtext for any missionary > story--sister, elder, or otherwise. Each person rages at their own > combination of subtexts, and those combinations are both infinite and > often exclusive. A friend of mine who'd served in Sweden (a female RM) said she saw _God's Army_ and "just didn't like it." I pressed her to give me an answer why, and ultimately she said that "it didn't reflect my mission at all." I then explained that it was a fallacy to insist that one person's experience stand for every person's experience, since every one is a different person, but she still shook her head and said, "Nope, still don't like it." At this point I was tearing out my hair and asked her exactly what her mission experience might be represented by, and she declined to tell me. I was really worked up now and went off on a big tirade about how Mormon art will never succeed if the audience always insists on universal truisms, but then my wife calmed me down and changed the subject. > > As I've been rereading Alan Mitchell's _Angel of the Danube_ so I > could respond to Tom Johnson (comments coming soon, Tom--probably > Monday), I think I finally put my finger on the thing that tends to > interfere with my enjoyment of missionary stories. It's that so many > of them attempt to interpret the entire missionary experience in a > single narrative. They tend to try to make sense of the whole broad > concept instead of staying with one character's experience, and the > stories of the people they work with end up being subsumed in the > search for an overall interpretation of the mission. Have you read Bela Petsco's _Nothing Very Important_? He seems to throw in little clips here and there of missionaries (Petsco is ostensibly the constantly recurring Elder Agryr). It's a nice change of pace, but the stories are a bit light; they are sketches, vignettes, and don't force me to think in ways I hadn't before. > Again, it's the iconic thing. I believe the authors presume a little too much. > > As much as I'm enjoying reading Danube again (it's really my first > careful reading; the first time I read the first fifty pages then > skimmed the rest), it's one of the two-and-two-halves things that I > keep flinching at as I read. > > ===== Large disclaimer/explanatory note: ===== > > I *like* Mitchell's book. I like it a lot, and feel that it may well > be the best modern missionary memoir novel I've read. I highly > recommend it to anyone who wants to read an engagingly told story of > one character's attempt to understand and interpret his own mission. > The story is loving, critical, powerful, and difficult. More > importantly, it reads as true to the author's own experience, and > that's what makes it such a good read. How can you say "it reads as true to the author's own experience"? Unless you know Mitchell on a personal level, I think you presume too much. Perhaps Mitchell's own experience was actually much different than Elder Monroe's. I actually hope that it was; otherwise, why bother calling it fiction? > > If I didn't like it as much as I do, I couldn't generate the energy > to comment on how I wish it had been better, or how it makes me wish > other stories could fill in other parts of the story that he > partially told so well. I will post a more complete review of the > book that explicates the two-and-two-halves things that jar me about > it as soon as I can figure out how to articulate those thoughts. > Unfortunately, the remainder of this post will end up offering the > half-hatched versions. > > ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ==== > > Any tale of this kind must necessarily be specific to one person's > experience. I also served a German-speaking mission (spent a year in > Berlin back when the wall was still up), so I appreciate his > observations on German culture and attitude a lot; they exactly > mirror my own experience. Wait a minute. Are you implying here that you "appreciate his observations" in the book because they mirror your "own experience"? Wouldn't you appreciate them more if they went *against* your experience? I served in South America, where baptisms are a dime a dozen, and so the frustration Monroe faced in Austria was something that went very much against my own experience--and precisely because of that I think the book intrigued me more. However, I get wary when I hear people comparing their own experiences in life to the books they read, as if art needed to mirror life in order to be art. Back to Plato we go. I had apes (Assistants to the President) > that I found overbearing and at least a little self-righteous. I once > knocked doors for eighty hours a week on three successive weeks > without teaching a single discussion, then was told by my district > leader that I was a failure as a missionary because of it. I got so > discouraged at one point that I walked away from one companion, and > stayed inside my apartment for several weeks with another while > reading about six years worth of Ensign magazines. I'm really sorry to hear about your six-years reading of Ensign mags. Had Mitchell written his book then, you could have simply picked it up and got a few good laughs out of it. And you could have penned him a really long letter. > Other than serving in northern Germany instead of Austria, I'm > probably about as close a match to the ideal audience for _Angel of > the Danube_ as exists in terms of my own missionary experience. > > And yet, it also described experiences and situations and cultural > assumptions that were quite different from my own. It offered some > scenes and situations that I have a hard time accepting, and drew > some conclusions that I just can't quite agree with. I feel like the > story is asking me to accept those conclusions as universal truisms, > not just the mind and experience of one missionary. Can you give me an example of a conclusion you believe Mitchell is forcing on you as a universal truism? If I remember correctly, didn't Monroe say that his mission was about human communication. Why do you feel that he's pushing that conclusion as a universal? > In trying to answer the question, "What did my mission mean?" I think > the story (somewhat necessarily) universalized the answer. And by > offering no convincing alternative viewpoints, it emphasized that > sense for me. Part of what unsettles me, I guess, is that the answer > Barry Monroe came up with is one I wish I had also come up with and > didn't. The honesty of the narrative made that answer very powerful. > So I guess part of what interferes with my acceptance of the novel is > its very success at providing a powerfully true viewpoint. Strange. I'm not quite sure I follow you. First you say Monroe's answer was expressed as a universal truism. Then you say it bothered you b/c it was a universal truism. Then you say that the truism actually proved true for you, and thus it bothered you that you didn't make the conclusion yourself. Huh? If the shoe fits, why is the customer unhappy? Is it because the customer is being forced to buy it, despite it fitting near perfectly? > I know, that's a feature of the memoir-style novel. In explicating > one character's viewpoint it attempts to illuminate many general > truisms. I suspect that Alan Mitchell never intended to claim this as > a universal experience, and yet I still came away from his novel > feeling that the text ended up making exactly that claim. I'm sorry to be so insistent here, like some kind of evil literature teacher, but "I still came away from his novel feeling . . ." is somewhat of a weak statement to make. Why did you feel that way, what factors produced the feeling? > I also accept that I may be the only one to come away from the novel > feeling that way. Individual reader response is exactly > that--individual. Individual responses vary, sure, but it's somewhat of a disclaimer to hide behind that argument in light of a better one. >My only real frustration with the novel was that > it's the same response I ended up having with every other missionary > story I can remember reading; a sense that there was just a lot more > story to be told to cover the issue effectively. Later in the post you express a desire for just one story to be told, but to be told at novel length. Is that what you mean here? > Benson Parkinson is trying to do exactly that with his multi-volume > novel. By following several distinctly different personalities > through their missions, Do you think these "distinctly different personalities" are a bit caricaturish, like with movies set in high schools--there is the nerd, the jock, the pretty girl, and the shy girl. he attempts to draw a larger picture that > encompasses even more of *the* authentic missionary experience. I > think he's doing that successfully, but I still wonder what the > attempt to interpret the whole missionary experience hopes to > accomplish. It still forces me to either agree, or to reject the > conclusions offered, and by extension, the novel itself. > > In the end I guess I want one of these novels to leave me with the > sense that this is at best one missionary's story, and that there are > an infinite number of other stories to be told that can intersect, > cross, and invert this particular story, yet still be just as true to > the POV's experience. I don't need to see those other experiences, > but I would like an acknowledgement that author and POV recognize > that valid spiritual response can and is often quite different. One technique that might be interesting is a kind of Henry Jamesian omniscient narrator, floating inside the different minds of the investigators and missionaries and church leaders and mission presidents. Then again, I hate those kinds of stories. How about telling the same story seven different times, each time going back over a different element in the narrative? Seems like a trick one might do just once, and then never again. > And that's what bugs me about most of the missionary memoir stories > I've read; they end up claiming more scope that I think is their > right. They take on too much of the missionary experience, and end up > reducing so much of it to pithy epigrams. But the pithy epigram of the _Danube_, according to your comments above, seemed to include you in its scope, and you admit that its scope applies to you. Again, I'm somewhat puzzled. Sometimes people object to a missionary story because it doesn't describe their mission (like my Sweden RM friend above), and others object to the missionary story that describes their mission accurately, (but tends to suggest that interpretation as a universal experience). Perhaps the problem is something else. An RM reader must react differently than a non-RM reader precisely because of the context of the personal missionary experience he or she is carting along to the page. Perhaps the RM reader is a little touchier reading about these things. The mission is a sacred experience for him or her. It's like when someone writes about you in their stories. My wife has done this on a couple of occassions, quoting me saying something, describing me a certain way. Immediately I think, but wait, that's not me, that's not the whole picture of me, you're making me look like a monster, or, you're making me sound so bland. Maybe the same reaction takes place with the RM reader--wait, that's not my mission, that's not the whole picture of what happened, you're making my elder days look monsterish, or, you're making me sound so bland. What do you think? > A perfectly valid and literarily defensible form capable of very > powerful and movingly true stories. But I'd still like to see > something a little more intimate, a little less vast in scope and > meaning. A novel-length work that focuses on one key experience in a > missionary's life with less of the iconic "this is what it's like to > be a missionary" feel. I think Judith Freeman's _The Chinchilla Farm_ would be one step in this direction. Have you read it? If not, I highly recommend it. For every step forward, she takes a step back into the past. It's really quite daring, since flashbacks are often detrimental to narratives. However, hers are not really *flashback* flashbacks, but rather little anecdotes from the past that, when put in context with the present events, make those present events more meaningful. Do you know of any novel (non-missionary) that accomplishes the sort of thing you desire? In my opinion it would end up being more of an essay, a kind of long and rambling reflective monologue. > > Again, just one reader's response. I liked _Angel of the Danube_ as > much as I've liked any missionary memoir story I've read. It's a book > that I feel is both good and true (about the highest compliment I can > offer other than "I hate you; I wish I'd written that!"). It may well > be as good a book as can be written in that form. I know that the moderator said we shouldn't go through line by line in a refutation style way, but I've done this several times on the lds-philosopher listserv, and found it quite fun (though I always get crushed). Your saying "It's a book that I feel is both good and true . . ." seems to me a very problematic statement. I often hear the trio (very Trinity like) of the "good, true, and beautiful," but these are quite empty words to describe a text. What is good? Good is . . . that which makes us most happy? Besides the fact that different things make different people happy, or that different people find happiness in different ways, thus eliminating the possibility of a universal good (you don't like universals anyway), however good is defined, one can always step back and ask, "But is that good?" See Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" ("G. E. Moore (Principia Ethica (1903)) argued that no matter what definition of 'good' is proposed (e.g. as what satisfies desire, maximizes happiness, or furthers evolution), it can always be asked, 'But is that good?' The question always remains open, and never becomes trivial. 'Good' resists definition or analysis: and the attempt to pin it down to an invariable, specific content is, in Moore's phrase, the 'naturalistic fallacy'." www.xrefer.com). The same can be done with beauty or truth, I think. > > Now I'd like to see some different forms with different narrative goals. Write them, Scott. Tom [Johnson] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings Date: 12 Jun 2001 01:39:19 -0400 Jacob Proffitt wrote: >Misremembered. I said I stopped nonconformity for its own sake. I >can't think of any good reason to wear non-white shirts to church, so I >don't bother justifying it any more. Kept the beard for reasons I've >already expressed. I see no problem conforming if it is harmless. I'm going to generalize here: great artists cannot be conformists. The very high proportion of goatees (for the men) and perhaps for the women .. . nevermind, only demonstrates "an outward expression of an inner emotion" (is that the definition of a ritual?). The artist is nonconformist inside, and the nonconformity leaks outward. Growing the goatee is a ritual. Goatee Tom - 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] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 12 Jun 2001 01:44:08 -0600 Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: > I'm not sure that I buy the notion that Mormon literature is so > horribly impenetrable to to non-Mormon readers. > Hooey. We're not that unique. Three vignettes that address this: 1. I knew a local stand-up comedian once who did lots of jokes about Mormons. When away from Utah, where the likelihood was great that people in the audience wouldn't know what a Mormon was, he used to gimmick to give them some kind of clue so those people could get something out of the jokes: he'd describe Mormons as "Amish in polyester suits." Now I hope we would give a little more accurate impression of Mormons in our literature, but the basic idea is correct: we don't need to dive into great detail about what being a Mormon is all about. We can provide just enough information to get the basic idea across without bogging everything down with involved explanations. As a science fiction reader/writer, I'm afraid I have a head start in many of you knowing how to do that--it's SOP for science fiction and fantasy. 2. In high school I had a Baptist friend named Tom, except he had never actually been baptized. He invited me to one of his services once, and told me that every time before communion, the pastor would explain that only those who had been baptized should partake of it. Tom swore the preacher always said it while looking at him, as if he were saying, "Now only those who have been baptized--TOM!--should partake." I attended, they passed out the communion, and it was absolutely clear to me at every point what was going on. There was nothing inscrutable about the procedure. When the trays were offered down the row where Tom and I sat, we declined. I have also been to a Catholic mass a couple of times, and in spite of the greater ritualistic implementation, was not confused about what was going on. Consequently, I don't think a Christian of any stripe would find our sacrament to be mystifying at all. Nor our baptisms, nor our ordinations, or blessings of children, nor our healing of the sick. They might be full of questions on details, but the gist of what's going on is pretty obvious. 3. The novel I've been working on, whose rewrite is now close to finished, is aimed specifically at a Mormon audience. Absolutely no attempt to explain any references that a typical Mormon would understand. When I submitted chapter one to my writers group, one member (Dave) who was not a Mormon and knew little of the religion or culture, said he was absolutely fascinated by the chapter. It helped him to understand this culture he had been living in the midst of all these years. He said that he was able to follow pretty good what was going on, and even the references that weren't completely clear to him, he was able to get the gist of what was going on. He enjoyed getting immersed in this "alien" culture. My conclusion: just write. Write about Mormons and their religion and their culture, and don't try to explain everything. Then let a non-Mormon read it. Let him point out the parts that are just too unclear, where he couldn't decipher what was going on at all. You may be surprised to find out how few of those instances there are (assuming you're a good writer and don't write everything opaquely). -- 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] Missionary Stories Date: 12 Jun 2001 09:49:21 -0600 Richard Johnson wrote: > > As examples I used > (was it Elijah) It was Elisha. > She said, "Brother Johnson, thank you. > You have made me realize that just because a Priesthood leader is a > Jerk, that doesn't make all priesthood leaders the same. I have been > feeling so uncomfortable in church waiting for someone like you to > attack me-- I didn't really realize that someone can have the > priesthood, be fulfilling a calling the best way he knows how, and still > be such a terrible, offensive person" I've received similar comments after the performances of my play, _Matters of the Heart_. It's extremely moving to be an occasional voice for the underdog. Thom - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Emotional Honesty (comp) Date: 12 Jun 2001 16:53:12 -0500 [MOD: Apologies to Barbara and Sharlee. I created this compilation yesterday, then was unaware that it had not already gone out until Sharlee re-sent her post...] >From barbara@techvoice.com Fri Jun 08 13:51:47 2001 chick flick. The men in the film are >virtually insignificant as characters. Terms of Endearment, on the other hand, >earned every inch of its Oscars. Why? Every character in it was pretty much crazy. I could not care about them. I wanted them all to go away. I could not wait to get out of the theater. Same response I had to Mosquito Coast. And I do not consider Tom Skerritt insignificant. . . . . Do you label as "chick flick" a movie that shows women as strong? I think of the term as meaning a movie about relationships instead of about action. barbara hume >From glennsj@inet-1.com Fri Jun 08 16:20:32 2001 Thom Duncan wrote: > No. Steel Magnolias was manipulative. But it worked for you (and my wife) > probably because it is, basically, a chick flick. The men in the film are > virtually insignificant as characters. I usually can't abide manipulative tear-jerkers (i.e., The Champ (Ricky Shroeder version), Beaches, Somewhere in Time, Field of Dreams, etc.), but I loved Steel Magnolias. I think I was willing to forgive the manipulation (even the over-the-top graveside scene starring you-like-me-you-really-like-me Sally Field) because it was so well-written. The dialogue is witty and intelligent and it is inhabited by these zany, well-drawn, lovable characters. And it's funny (it has some of the best one-liners in the history of film). Also, it never takes itself too seriously--the most common pitfall of other tear-jerkers. Sharlee Glenn - 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] Facial Hair Date: 12 Jun 2001 12:49:24 -0700 William Morris wrote: > But what I really wanted to comment on is Thom's > facial hair. I too wear a close-cropped goatee (with > the full approval of my wife). Orson Scott Card, Dave > Wolverton, and Howard Tayler (the Mormon author of the > fantastic sci-fi web comic _Schlock Mercenary_) all > have facial hair. And I have noticed that at both the > Berkeley University and family wards there was a > rather high incidence of scruffiness, especially among > the grad students. Is there a meaningful pattern > here? Are Mormon artistic/intellectual types more > likely to have facial hair than 'other' Mormon men? > Are all the men at the AML conferences comparing beard > trimming notes? Just curious. I think you're observing not an artistic/intellectual phenomenon, but a California phenomenon. I live somewhat south of you, in Gilroy, 30 miles south of San Jose. In an elders' quorum meeting a couple of months ago, I was surprised to notice that there were lots of men in the room who were not clean-shaven. So I did a quick tally on the back of a tithing envelope: Out of 19 people in the room, 9 had facial hair: 4 men had mustaches; 2 men had mustaches & goatees; and 3 men had mustaches & beards. and 10 people were clean-shaven, (but this included 2 full-time missionaries and 1 baby). So for adult men, the final score was a tie: Facial Hair, 9 No Facial Hair, 9. But if we exclude the missionaries, the score becomes 9 to 7, Facial Hair winning by 2 points. (If we're trying to ascertain whether or not Mormon men prefer to be clean-shaven, then to include the missionaries would skew the sample.) I did another tally this past Sunday in priesthood meeting, since "Facial Hair" was being discussed here on the list. In opening exercises for priesthood meeting in my ward, I counted 26 adult men. (I did not count Aaronic Priesthood youth, or a couple of graduating high school seniors who had just been ordained elders.) Out of those 26 adult men, 13 had facial hair: 5 had mustaches; 4 had mustaches & goatees; and 4 had beards; and 13 were clean-shaven. Final score: Facial Hair, 13 No Facial Hair, 13. Another tie! So, at least in my ward, facial hair is a non-controversial choice for adult men. And -- here, at least -- it's not a function of being artistic or intellectual. Gilroy is not a university town; it's a former agricultural community where lots of Silicon Valley commuters live. We have a wide range of occupations (white collar & blue collar) represented in our ward membership. And having a beard in my ward has nothing to do with making a statement of "nonconformity". It has nothing to do with activity or inactivity, or degrees of faithfulness or devoutness. During the opening song in priesthood meeting, only 3 of the 7 brethren on the stand were clean-shaven -- the bishop, his first counselor, and the Aaronic priesthood boy conducting the music. The second counselor and the high priests group leader had mustaches & beards. The elders quorum president and the executive secretary (who was playing the piano) had mustaches & goatees. It's possible that this is a fluke, and that my ward is an anomaly. (I'd have to go to the other Gilroy ward, and count mustaches & beards there.) But I suspect the 50/50 statistical split between facial hair and clean-shaven-ness is closer to the American norm than the 99/1 split that you might see in Provo. I could analyze this some more, but I've got to go to work. One more thing: expressing one's "individuality" through one's appearance is *not* the same as expressing "nonconformity". Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LuAnnStaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Plausability Date: 12 Jun 2001 15:39:40 -0600 I've read Over the Wall and I didn't find anything implausible about it. Just wondering what you are referring to. Lu Ann Staheli Tracie Laulusa wrote: > I finished a book last night that could have been very good. I've been > wanting to read it because I heard the author read part of in at a > conference. (John Ritter/Over the Wall) I finally found it and started in. > About a third of the way the author wrote something that I found totally > improbable--though others might not--and he lost me. > I finished the book, but from then on I was reading a book, not living the > story. > [snip] > > Tracie Laulusa - 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] Facial Hair Date: 12 Jun 2001 16:41:51 -0500 At 04:25 PM 6/6/01, you wrote: >Soon as I can I'm growin' it back. Facial hair makes for better writers >indeed. Dave has hardly written a thing all year, and I can't get my >brain to get out of first gear. A-ha, so that's the root of my problem! I don't even have little chinny hairs to let grow out. Linda (almost done now with book 2) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - 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] Emotional Honesty Date: 12 Jun 2001 16:42:18 -0600 > >From barbara@techvoice.com Fri Jun 08 13:51:47 2001 > > chick flick. The men in the film are > >virtually insignificant as characters. Terms of Endearment, on the other > hand, > >earned every inch of its Oscars. > > Why? Every character in it was pretty much crazy. I could not care about > them. I wanted them all to go away. Oscars are given to actors who do a good job of creating interesting characters. It usually doesn't matter whether we like them or not (e.g., Hannibal Lecter). As a person, Shirley MacLaine's character was insufferable. I would hide under the couch were I in her presence. But what a great acting job. > I could not wait to get out of the > theater. Same response I had to Mosquito Coast. Mosquito Coast was another actor's tour-de-force, not to mention the great message it had on the evils of fanaticism. > And I do not consider Tom Skerritt insignificant. . . . . Do you label as > "chick flick" a movie that shows women as strong? No, they can be strong as long as they are believable. Julia Roberts was great in that movie, btw. > I think of the term as > meaning a movie about relationships instead of about action. Tango and Cash is an action movie which I happen to loathe with a passion. The writing, acting, and directing sucks. Give me a believable chick flick with interesting characters (like _Return to Me_) and I'll love it. But give me crappy actors in a film genre I prefer and I'll hate that, too. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moderator Apologies Date: 12 Jun 2001 18:58:22 -0500 Folks, I didn't mean to cut off discussion just by saying the List volume was heavy! Please, keep on sending your posts--but understand that (a) I may not always be as timely as I'd like to be, and (b) if we reach the point where the List volume stays high consistently over several weeks, we may need a new solution for how we prioritize things. But please don't stop talking. The conversation was just getting interesting... Jonathan Langford Apologetic AML-List Moderator - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings (was Facial Hair) Date: 12 Jun 2001 17:21:31 -0700 (PDT) --- Frank Maxwell wrote: > I think you're observing not an > artistic/intellectual phenomenon, but a > California phenomenon. > [And] > And having a beard in my ward has nothing to do with > making a statement of > "nonconformity". It has nothing to do with activity > or inactivity, or > degrees of faithfulness or devoutness. Frank, the evidence you presented, while limited to your ward, has convinced me. I think you're right about this being a California phenomenon, and I suspect that if you polled the men in your ward, we would find their reasons for facial hair to be similar to the ones Jacob Proffitt provided. It's about professional credibility (whether you're a lawyer or a general contractor or an IT guy) and about the fact that some men's faces simply look better with some sort of beard. So this raises the question for me again----how does this translate into the visual details we put into our fiction? If facial hair is no longer a symbol of non-comformity to some LDS folks, does it make sense to try and use it as such in fiction? And if not, as a consequence, do we then rely upon the responses of characters inside of our text to help us accrete meaning to our visual details, or do we rely on our notions of the attitudes of our audience, our 'implied readers'? Or do we just not worry about it at all? Obviously, you can't (or at least I can't) obsess over every single detail you put on the page. Sometimes you just have to let the characters form in that mystical way that they do as you envision them in your mind, but these details aren't completely neutral. On some level, though, they count for a whole lot, and writers and critics and readers are going to respond to them. I just wrote the final paper of my career as a student (man, does it feel good to write that) on in-text audiences----how the responses of society to artists/prophets in texts affect how we approach the artists who are the main characters in the texts(_Kassandra_ by Christa Wolf was my major example). My premises were somewhat shaky so I'm not going to go into them, but to shift this idea to Mormon literature, because of that paper and this discussion, I paid particular attention to visual details and characters responses to them as I read Maurine Whipples' _The Giant Joshua_ this past week. It turned out to be a particularly good work to do that with. Because the setting is the settling of Dixie, the founding of St. George, the characters in the novel are acutely aware of all the visual trappings that each person in town displays. This is partly because they're poor, so each new article of clothing is a straight up symbol of status and economic success. And it is partly because Brigham Young has railed against certain fashions, so how one lines up in relation to gentile fashion is outward proof of one's worthiness (except, that, of course, it's not and Whipple masterfully shows the hypocrisy of those kind of judgements). My point is that how individual characters react to various visual details creates a complex picture of Mormonism and their reactions to these details add meaning to these details---meanings that a reader wouldn't necessarily assign those same details without these in-text reactions. Clory's red bonnet is one of the best examples. I don't have the time to go into detail right now. Anybody who's read the novel want to riff off of this idea? If not, I'll try to come back with some more on Clory's bonnet later in the week. ~~William Morris, with a shout out to Frank for his empirical data (and also because Gilroy is such a fabulous, garlic-reeking place). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Emotional Honesty Date: 12 Jun 2001 18:19:00 -0600 >Tango and Cash is an action movie which I happen to loathe with a >passion. The writing, acting, and directing sucks. Give me a believable >chick flick with interesting characters (like _Return to Me_) and I'll >love it. But give me crappy actors in a film genre I prefer and I'll >hate that, too. Ah--I understand at last--you're looking at the movies in terms of your own skill set. Reminds me of the actress who said that Dryden's All for Love was better than Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra because Cleopatra's part was bigger. I will hate a disgusting movie with good acting much more than a likeable movie with weak acting. Clearly, we look for different things. This sounds very much like the discussion we've been having about best-selling Mormon fiction that list members dislike because the writer doesn't use the techniques they've been trained in. The readers who enjoy it are not looking for skillful writing--they're looking for the kinds of stories they prefer. Let everyone follow his or her own muse-- barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dallas Robbins" Subject: [AML] Elbert Peck Resigns from Sunstone Date: 12 Jun 2001 21:54:42 -0500 PRESS RELEASE June 12, 2001 With much gratitude tinged with sadness, the Sunstone Foundation announces that our long-time editor, publisher, managing director, Elbert Peck, resigned from his various roles this past Friday, June 8, 2001. Since his arrival in 1986, Elbert has worked tirelessly to shore up and expand Sunstone's mission to host open forums for discussing Mormon experience, scholarship, issues, and art.* We will miss having his creativity and vision steering us daily, but we are very happy that he will continue as a friend, advisor, and volunteer. Even before he began his tenure with Sunstone, Elbert had long shown his commitment to creating a space with Mormonism where members and friends could freely share their experiences and explore their faith. In 1981, he was a co-founder of the Seventh East Press, an independent, off-campus newspaper for BYU student opinions, essays, and analysis. After graduating from BYU and moving to Virginia, Elbert organized the very first regional Sunstone symposium, held in Washington, D. C. in 1985. Elbert's vision and core belief that the "truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ are better understood and, as a result, better lived when they are freely and frankly explored" has animated the pages of our magazine and brought great diversity and life to our symposiums and other sponsored events. In his letter of resignation, Elbert writes: "I leave with a deep sense of gratitude for the wonderful experience of my fifteen years at Sunstone. It is hard to imagine another job that could be so rewarding, that could connect me with so many splendid people, that can call me to draw upon my diverse skills, talents, and ideals." He continues: "Life after Sunstone does not mean life without Sunstone. I plan to be a willing volunteer and contributor. To especially do what I have encouraged others to do: write short things for the magazine and organize a symposium session or two. To help where and when asked." For the past year, Elbert has indicated that he was finally wearing down and "working his way out of Sunstone." In preparing for this day that has now finally arrived, the board of directors has this past year hired two new staff members: William Stanford came on board in August 2000 as our business manager, and Dan Wotherspoon was hired in January 2001 as the new magazine editor. Carol Quist, our valued office manager for the past nine years, continues to be indispensable. With Elbert's departure, each has agreed to take on additional duties. The planning for this year's 2001 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, August 8 - 11, led by symposium chairs Stacie Sears and Jane England, is well underway. *Mission Statement of the Sunstone Foundation The mission of the Sunstone Foundation is to sponsor open forums of Mormon thought and experience. Under the motto, "Faith Seeking Understanding," we examine and express the rich spiritual, intellectual, social, and artistic qualities of Mormon history and contemporary life. We encourage humanitarian service, honest inquiry, and responsible interchange of ideas that is respectful of all people and what they hold sacred. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jack" (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] Author's Heaven and Hell Date: 12 Jun 2001 23:49:01 -0500 A writer died and was given the option of going to heaven or hell. She decided to check out each place first. As the writer descended into the fiery pits, she saw row upon row of writers chained to their desks in a steaming sweatshop. As they worked, they were repeatedly whipped with thorny lashes. "Oh my," said the writer. "Let me see heaven now." A few moments later, as she ascended into heaven, she saw rows of writers, chained to their desks in a steaming sweatshop. As they worked, they, too, were whipped with thorny lashes. "Wait a minute!," said the writer, "This is just as bad as hell." "Oh no, it's not," replied an unseen voice. "Here, your work gets published." [Ronn Blankenship] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Childbirth (was: Female Writer Wanted) Date: 12 Jun 2001 20:53:03 -0500 At 08:35 PM 5/30/01, you wrote: >The example that Anna provided was giving birth. Although this *is* an >emotional experience, it is not exclusively (or even primarily) that. >Giving birth is physical. Sure, a man can share in the experience, he can >observe and describe and do all kinds of research and even interview >hundreds of women who have given birth, but he can never know for himself, >physically, what it FEELS like. Early in our marriage, a childbirth instructor we had (LDS, incidentally) once told the husbands to imagine passing a kidney stone the size of a walnut. And that would come slightly close to the sensation. :-) Linda (sorry I don't have anything more profound to add to the discussions lately...) Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - 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] YOUNG and GRAY, _One More River to Cross_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 00:29:13 -0500 At 05:34 PM 5/10/01, you wrote: >If I'm reading non-fiction, I'd rather have the chapter notes at the end of >the chapter for easier access. If I'm reading an historical novel, I want >the notes at the end so I can read the novel and then see what the history >was. _One More River to Cross_ is definitely a hybrid of some kind. I >think it would have been far more satisfying if I'd been thinking of it as >history, rather than as a novel. In that respect, having the notes at the >end of each chapter kept me constantly aware that *this stuff really >happened,* and I liked that. Liberated history. Huh. > >Melissa Proffitt My two cents to this--I was also distracted by the notes being right there in the middle, and at first thought wondered why they weren't put in the back all together, esp. the lengthy ones. I also liked the footnote idea--the notes are right there on the page where they happen. HOWEVER, considering both the importance of the stories Young and Gray are telling, AND the fact that these wonderful Black pioneers are (currently) little-known stories, on further thought I felt the placement of the notes was, in fact, essential. Many people do not read notes at the back of books. Many people do not read footnotes, either. (Others, like me, aren't happy until they've read every tiny word of print in the book, especially the fine print of notes.) But if one is forced to at least look at notes at the end of a chapter before going to the next, there is the greatest chance that all these notes will get *read.* And I felt that, although distracting in some cases (where the notes were long), the content of the notes is essential for readers to learn. IMO, this too-long ignored portion of our history, that of our faithful Black members, should be required reading. Nevermind whether the notes "get in the way" or it doesn't exactly read like a "novel" as much as a "liberated history." Read it ANYWAY and learn. I also feel the notes do give us factual historicity, which considering most readers' ignorance of the subject, needs to be addressed. I believe they chose the correct location for the notes. Linda Adams Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - 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] Marilyn Brown Novel Award Date: 13 Jun 2001 00:44:26 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > If your novel manuscript is ready, you could win the $1,000 Marilyn Brown Unpublished Novel Award, which is administered by the Association for Mormon Letters. Manuscripts must be postmarked by July 1, 2001, and mailed to: Marilyn Brown Novel Award, 125 Hobble Creek Canyon, Springville, UT 84663. Please submit manuscripts copied on both sides of the paper and bound with a comb binding. To facilitate blind judging, put no author identification on the manuscript and include a sealed envelope containing your name, address, phone number, and manuscript title. Include a self-addressed envelope for notification of contest results, and provide sufficient postage if you want your manuscript returned. The contest, which takes place every other year, was won last time by Jack Harrell, whose winning novel manuscript is under contract with Signature Books. Honorable mentions went to Dorothy Peterson, Laura Card, and Alan R. Mitchell, whose novel manuscript has been published by Ced! ar Fort > as Angel of the Danube. Not only does this seem like a good reminder for the upcoming contest deadline, but I have a question or two: It would appear that we're not aiming for normal manuscript format with binding and double-sided printing. Does this mean we should also single space the lines and use a more readable font than Courier? Perhaps get a little creative with the layout (e.g., how chapter headings look and stuff), as if we were publishing the book ourselves? -- 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: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 13 Jun 2001 01:40:16 -0600 [MOD: I split this post into two because some people's email readers, I believe, have difficulty with long posts.] Some general thoughts up-front, then some specific responses. First, I'm not a critic and I don't pretend to be. I'm a writer and a reader and something of a cheerleader for Mormon expression, but I have *no* grounding in critical theory. At best I'm an average reader trying to articulate both my joy at seeing stories of my culture and my desire to see our stories reach beyond the limits we seem to have set for ourselves. As I said in a previous post, I'm not well-read and I'm not qualified to have my own opinion, so take it for what it's worth--the opinion of one reader. Second, I see nothing wrong with mitigating my own opinion of a work. I not only expect people to have other interpretations than mine, I fully expect those interpretations to be of superior quality to my own. I toss thoughts out there with the hope that others will respond and I will learn more. I certainly don't believe myself to be any wellspring of wisdom, so I can't state unequivocally that my opinion is right and others' are wrong. Reader response can be infinitely varied and all absolutely true, despite opposing conclusions. I also believe the writer is one of those readers who's allowed to express a response to his own work. (As per the Symbolism thread, I do believe that the author is often surprised to see symbolic constructs in his own work that he didn't consciously put there. But having found them--or had them pointed out--in his work, the author has as much right to comment about their meaning in the story as any other reader.) What I would love to do is sit down with Alan Mitchell and have about a three-day discussion on what he believes, what he intended to accomplish with his novel, how well he believes he succeeded at his own goals, and what other kinds of comments he's received. I liked his book. I'd like to see what other kinds of books he's interested in writing. I'd like to cheerlead him to write another and another and another, because I think he's done some things better than I've ever seen them done before, and I have faith that he can do them again. Since that's unlikely to happen, this forum is the best one I have. I've trolled a little to get him and others to respond, but the world remains silent. So unless people want me to continue to fill the air with my helpless flailings, they better kick in with their own thoughts and opinions and expressions so I can sit back and learn something. I'm really selfish that way. Third, I don't think there's any incompatibility with liking a book *and* with wishing that it had done some things differently, or with quibbling with points raised in the book. To at least some degree, I expect a book to challenge my assumptions, and I expect to simply disagree with some of those efforts whether I admire the author's craft in presenting it or not. I don't subscribe to the theory that one must agree with every aspect of a book to like it, and I don't believe that criticizing a part of a book requires that I continue with that criticism throughout. I hold only one opinion inviolable--that my opinion is likely to change with further discussion. Maybe that makes for an unsatisfactory critical essay, but let me repeat--I am just a reader, not a critic. I have neither the conceptual foundations nor the vocabulary to enter into a critical discussion beyond the most broad concepts, though I'm willing to be educated (I really miss Mike Austin's Critical Matters columns). In the end, I hope that by commenting I can get others to disagree, thus creating tension and interest among the Mormon readership and spurring sales. To me that's the only good reason to write a review. At this point I'm at least as interested in spurring the development of more and varied stories as I am in identifying whether a story meets some abstract concept of literary quality. Fourth, maybe my opinion is just plain wrong (though I would argue that there are few "wrong" response to any literary work--the reader brings too much of their own experience into it to argue whether they have a right to their own opinion, and to share all of that experience would require too much explanatory text to be useful or interesting to most readers). I can accept that I may be wrong. Maybe I equivocate too much in my thoughts. Guilty as charged. But because my primary interest is to generate wider discussion, I'm not convinced that such equivocation is a bad thing. On to specific responses... ----- Tom Johnson wrote: >A friend of mine who'd served in Sweden (a female RM) said she saw _God's >Army_ and "just didn't like it." I pressed her to give me an answer why, and >ultimately she said that "it didn't reflect my mission at all." > I then explained that it was a fallacy to insist that one person's >experience stand for every person's experience, since every one is a >different person, but she still shook her head and said, "Nope, still don't >like it." What's wrong with that? She didn't like it. Maybe she didn't have a companion as glib and generally together as Richard Dutcher. Maybe her mission president was a bit warmer and fuzzier. Maybe she never had to address issues of individual faith for herself or her companions. Maybe she never experienced the miracles of faith and healing that _God's Army_ depicts even though she wanted to. Maybe she didn't feel the wider camaraderie shown in GA (I know I didn't). Maybe there was never a sense of sexual tension between her and the Elder missionaries. Maybe she felt more connection to the people in her area. Maybe she felt less acceptance by the people in her area. Maybe the culture shock of seeing Mercedes taxis and Volvo garbage trucks and all the little physical details of Sweden so informed her sense of her mission that any story that lacked those details felt wrong. Maybe the foreign language and locations created a sense of separation from the experience that the English-speaking US missionaries in GA didn't have to deal with. Maybe the one key overriding interpretation she had of her own mission wasn't to be found in the story Richard Dutcher told. Enough little differences taken together eventually lead to a sense that the story just didn't represent her own experience. Maybe most of those differences were trivial, like the fact that the only mission-owned car I saw in Germany was a brand new Volkswagen bus that I only saw three times--once when I was picked up at the airport on my way in, once when I went to the mission office for some medical tests, and once when I was picked up on the way home. But a thousand details taken together can create a significant barrier to acceptance. That's a valid response and is too complex for most people to explicate in detail. I accept that a memoir is exactly that--one person's experience. Maybe my sense that _Angel of the Danube_ attempted to claim generality that it shouldn't have claimed is a flaw of my own limited understanding of how and why literature exists. I not only grant the possibility, but the likelihood. It's still how I came away from the book feeling. I'm sorry if that isn't specific enough; if I knew how to be more specific, I would be. On the other hand, _God's Army_ didn't leave me with that sense of trying to encapsulate the entire missionary experience. I think part of the reason for that is that GA featured a lot of good-hearted missionaries who were trying to do the right things and who had widely differing assumptions and approaches; Danube focused on a group of missionaries collectively referred to as "the clowns" who generally lived on the downward side of the line and had mostly lost hope of feeling good about their day-to-day experiences. When you show me only one view of the world, that suggests to me that you believe that to be the only realistic view. When the only other examples of people who went on missions (that I can recall off-hand) are Capt'n Scotty the Self-Absorbed, the self-righteous apes, Steve the technician who'd lost his faith, and Clay the Salesman who thought missionary work and sales were the same thing, you create a strawman. No positive portrayals of those with different opinions than Barry. No nod to the fact that some people had honestly good and wonderful times on their missions and felt of the spirit in real and different ways. GA gave me not only the guy who left with a wasted testimony, but it also gave me the guy who chose to stay and the guy who wanted to be nowhere else and the guys who probably hadn't really considered either extreme. It gave me the self-important, somewhat condescending sister missionary, but also showed us that she could be more than just a caricature. It gave me despair, but also hope. One miracle with a thorn, and one without. It allowed for a variety of equally true, and completely different, experiences. GA was also a visual medium with good actors, which cannot be underestimated in creating an abstraction layer between the story and the viewer. I think novels are more intimate a form and reach more deeply into the reader than most films. In novels we tend to create our own faces for people, and that causes them to take on more verity in our deepest minds. >How can you say "it reads as true to the author's own experience"? Unless >you know Mitchell on a personal level, I think you presume too much. Perhaps >Mitchell's own experience was actually much different than Elder Monroe's. I >actually hope that it was; otherwise, why bother calling it fiction? Perhaps I presume too much. Let me try "it rang true to itself, with an internal consistency that suggests that it's also true to the author's experience." We talk often about this broad concept of "true" or "honest" fiction that leaves readers with a sense that the author has told the truth in concept, if not the truth in detail. That's all I meant, and I don't think it's inconsistent with what I see so many other readers comment to. > > Any tale of this kind must necessarily be specific to one person's > > experience. I also served a German-speaking mission (spent a year in > > Berlin back when the wall was still up), so I appreciate his > > observations on German culture and attitude a lot; they exactly > > mirror my own experience. > >Wait a minute. Are you implying here that you "appreciate his observations" >in the book because they mirror your "own experience"? Wouldn't you >appreciate them more if they went *against* your experience? Not necessarily. I appreciate his comments *on German culture and attitude* a lot because I had the same general experiences. That common experience creates a bridge between his experience and mine and enhances the general verity of the story for me. If he had told me that all Austrians were smiling happy people who sang _Edelweis_ constantly while frolicking in the public square and inviting missionaries in at every door I would have doubted the verity of his tale and would have mistrusted other details of the novel (unless it had been offered as an absurd tale--another form that I would love to see Mormons write in). No, I wouldn't have appreciated his details of German culture and attitude if they had varied widely from my own experience of those things. It would have forced me to reject those details and doubt the verity of the remainder of the text. >However, I get wary when I hear people comparing their own experiences >in life to the books they read, as if art needed to mirror life in order to >be art. Back to Plato we go. I guess we just disagree on this one. If he had portrayed an Austria that was radically different from my own direct experience in a genre that relies on verity to time and place as one of the core assumptions of that genre, I would have found the novel to be dishonest or lazy. I'm not asking that every experience exactly mirror my own, and in most of the details, Danube didn't match my own experience. But I do ask for a core honesty, a sense that the author is telling me a truth in fictional garb, and I think Mitchell delivered on that extremely well. In this case, he wrote in a genre that assumes a lot of factual verity. Other genres do not. >Can you give me an example of a conclusion you believe Mitchell is forcing >on you as a universal truism? If I remember correctly, didn't Monroe say >that his mission was about human communication. Why do you feel that he's >pushing that conclusion as a universal? For a couple of reasons. First, because I didn't see Mormon characters other than Monroe with wisdom equal to his own. Sure, you had the door-to-door salesman who was so desperate to keep the good feelings he had on his mission that he converts the rest of his life into a pseudo-missionary structure. But Clay is clearly portrayed as being shallow and more than a little desperate (to me, at least). Clay's experience is trivial; only Barry Monroe has deep insight on-camera. Second, that's the premise of the entire novel, pretty much stated as such in the first three paragraphs of chapter 1: ----- "...he looked me in the eye and waved the tortilla at me and told me to finish writing the experiences of my mission. Dude is right. I need to either finish it or forget it, but that seems impossible. Maybe ten years down the road when I have a wife, a job, five cars and two kids, maybe then I'll get it. Maybe then I'll understand the carnival incident, the Danube bomb, the mermaid, and the folk legends. Maybe then I can let go of the mission. Yeah right. Just erase two years of my life. Another thing--girls are so strange. I mean marriage is a milestone, like baptism, right? Only they pull you under the water and keep you there. But maybe it wasn't the mission--maybe it was just me. Yeah, like other elders didn't get dragged down too? Was it all that bad? No, just at times--okay, most of the time. Nobody at home understands what it was like. Just because I went to Austria I feel like I'm some Nam vet in need of therapy. That's a morbid thought--better not dwell on it..." (page 1) ----- The whole point of the story is for Elder Monroe to interpret his mission--or at least the concluding events that forced him to consider his whole experience. I accept that whatever follows is that interpretation. But throughout his musings he rejects all other interpretations. Yes, the author nods to a series of caricatures and says that such things exist, but they're void of deeper meaning. This is underscored for me at the top of the third paragraph above where he wonders if it's just him, then dismisses the individual interpretation in favor of a more grand, universal one because, "Yeah, like other elders didn't get dragged down, too?" The character makes a claim that the author never refutes or mitigates in the remainder of the story. To me, this brings the POV's voice up a level and turns it into the author's voice. Again, this is a feature of the genre--it's a fictionalized account of the author's experience, a memoir that we are expected to take as generally true. The genre demands that I treat it as the author's voice and beliefs. Spice it up with supporting scenes like the zone conference on page 107 where POV states "Love is what it's all about" then spends the rest of the scene showing how all other participants in the conference were playing political games to establish themselves in the new mission hierarchy (with the exception of Unts--one of the aforementioned "clowns"--who reinforces POV's own opinions). Or the final interview with the new mission president who turned out to be narrow and unforgiving (not to be confused with the former mission president who was largely portrayed as trunky). He pays lip service to other experiences, but undermines all of them except Barry Monroe's. To me the text suggests that only Monroe's is *the* true and honest depiction of the missionary experience as offered in this novel. That he compellingly tells his missionary story compounds the conundrum for me. (I'll grant that it would be more accurate to say that the novel attempts to portray *the* Austrian missionary experience, not the global one. I find even that much to be difficult when the story allows for no other correct interpretations.) That's how I read the text, rightly or wrongly. [MOD: Cut to part 2...] 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] Missionary Stories (pt 2 of 2) Date: 13 Jun 2001 01:40:16 -0600 > > In trying to answer the question, "What did my mission mean?" I think > > the story (somewhat necessarily) universalized the answer. And by > > offering no convincing alternative viewpoints, it emphasized that > > sense for me. Part of what unsettles me, I guess, is that the answer > > Barry Monroe came up with is one I wish I had also come up with and > > didn't. The honesty of the narrative made that answer very powerful. > > So I guess part of what interferes with my acceptance of the novel is > > its very success at providing a powerfully true viewpoint. > >Strange. I'm not quite sure I follow you. First you say Monroe's answer was >expressed as a universal truism. Then you say it bothered you b/c it was a >universal truism. Then you say that the truism actually proved true for you, >and thus it bothered you that you didn't make the conclusion yourself. Huh? >If the shoe fits, why is the customer unhappy? Is it because the customer is >being forced to buy it, despite it fitting near perfectly? When all other shoes in the store chafe his foot the same way, the customer has every right be unhappy at the general problem while still agreeing that the shoe in hand is the best of the bunch. Since all shoes in his immediate area chafed the same spot, the customer has reason to believe that the pain is a feature of shoes in general, and going to another store will not remedy the problem. By buying the shoe, then talking about it with other potential shoe buyers--and shoe makers--the customer attempts to share information that may inform those potential buyers, while still recognizing that his own foot may have been the anomaly instead of the rule. He also tacitly (or directly) challenges other shoe makers to evaluate whether his sore foot is worthy of their redesign effort for future brands. I commented earlier on why I think the novel claims universality. But I never said that Barry Monroe's conclusions in any way mirrored mine--only that I wished to have had as powerful and clear an endcap to interpret my own mission by. I wish I had been able to have Barry's powerful experience and sense of closure. But I never had it myself, though I accept that the interpretation in this novel is true to the character's own experience as shared with us in the text. I think what it comes down to for me is a fundamental difference in *how* the mission is interpreted--which is to say, in what context that interpretation comes. I never had a "Donau Weibchen" on my mission. I never fell in love with an investigator. I didn't have that deep sense of desperation that led me to an outrageous act of missionary zeal before drunken revellers and magistrates. My missionary experience did not dovetail into the dating and marriage portion of my life, so I had no conflation of love for a people with love for a person. My mission was more distinct and separate from the rest of my life, with a pretty clear demarcation between here and there, and no Donau Weibchen to draw the different parts of my life together. So yes, I would like to have had Barry Monroe's fully encompassing interpretive moment to tie all the parts of my life into a single extended, transcendent, transformative experience complete with desert mystics. But I didn't. And I haven't. And I probably never will. I will have to settle for the small bits version that he alludes to at the end of the novel (bottom of page 195, after the prayer), where I get my Truth in tiny portions spread out over time, without the big kickoff event. Maybe I just feel sorry for myself that my missionary life shared much of the frustration of Barry Monroe's but without the transcendent transition, so I'm taking it out on the author. That's as valid a reader response as any other, though I don't think it accurately reflects mine. I liked Barry's clarity by the end. I liked the fact that he felt set on a good path that would lead to good ends after his extended trial of faith. I believe his conclusions were good and right and arguably the best that one could hope to come up with. He may well have correctly identified how all missions should be interpreted--it certainly feels that way to me. Seventeen years later, I still haven't interpreted my mission; I guess I need to write my own book and force myself to do so. Then I can listen while others debate whether I thought my vision was intended as a universal. I would hope I would be at least a little amused, and would congratulate myself on having generated enough interest to spark the conversation in the first place. >Individual responses vary, sure, but it's somewhat of a disclaimer to hide >behind that argument in light of a better one. Not somewhat, it's a huge disclaimer. We can debate whether I'm allowed to have my opinion without being able to express it in terms that satisfy your interest, but I'm not sure that's a useful discussion. I've attempted to express some of the details behind my belief; if they're insufficient, I'm not sure what else I can offer that will satisfy. But I disagree with whether I'm hiding or whether I'm acknowledging and accepting alternate viewpoints. That is, after all, the crux of my whole criticism of the novel's alleged claim to universality--that it didn't allow for convincing alternative viewpoints. And while we're here, let me point out that I think _Angel of the Danube_ does the best job that I've seen so far (remembering my limited reading experience in the genre) of being both general and specific in its details and in creating an experience that I wish I could claim as my own. It's a darned good book, and it comes as close to not raising my "this is how you should believe" hackles as any missionary memoir story I've read. Take it as a cop-out if you want, but I'm quite the relativist when it comes to reading and interpreting fiction. I admit that when I claim that Mormon stories try to tell me how to believe, or try to claim divinely inspired Truth (with a capital "T"), or try to depict the best of all possible worlds, that I'm revealing more about my own frustrations with the broader culture than I am about the specific novel in question. I think Mormon culture spends a lot of time telling us how things "should" be, and I transfer that belief onto pretty much every story by and for Mormons that I read. Fair or not, that's part of where I come from as a reader, and it's part of how I approach Mormon stories. The funny thing is that I don't think Alan Mitchell tried to do any of those things, and that's part of why I like his novel so much. If there was a claim of universality, I believe that it was subconscious, not intentional, because I think the rest of the novel shows far too much thoughtfulness and honesty. I think he really did tell a story of one missionary experience--either as it really was or as he wished it could have been. I don't think it matters which. Which is not to say that I think the book was flawless. I got *real* tired of his incessant use of the word "Dude." Frankly, that's why I put it down the first time, and why I resisted reading it for over a year despite the generally glowing praise it's received. It struck me as artificial, not authentic, despite the venerable Cracroft's suggestions to the contrary. I didn't care for the whole desert mystic/communing with nature thing either; I think it's an easy out for setting up a spiritual experience. So what? It was a good book that I enjoyed for a lot of reasons. I think it succeeds on many levels, and while I can quibble over details or specifics for weeks on end, I still liked it. A lot. > >My only real frustration with the novel was that > > it's the same response I ended up having with every other missionary > > story I can remember reading; a sense that there was just a lot more > > story to be told to cover the issue effectively. > >Later in the post you express a desire for just one story to be told, but to >be told at novel length. Is that what you mean here? Yeah. It's another kind of story that I would like to see--a novel-length handling of a single missionary event that spends more time building the context of that one event and that focuses on the lives of the other characters in the story more, not just the missionary's POV. That's another thing that I cringe at in missionary stories--they're often awfully self-indulgent. You suggest later the idea of a single scene told from multiple POVs. Was it Hemingway who did a short story that way with the bullfight? I know that Octavia Butler did an sf novel that way (was it _Clay's Ark_?)that got a lot of critical attention. That would be an intriguing way of telling a single missionary experience--from the POV of one missionary, then the companion, then the investigator, then the spouse, then the friend. Show me many views of the same scene so that I see a wider variety of viewpoints and interpretations. Suggest a vaster realm of experience than the tidy missionary vignette. Do that convincingly from those five viewpoints, and I think you have a story that can meet the universal ideal while actually undermining the very concept. By showing a wider variety of responses to the same event, you suggest even more possible responses and open it up to more readers--Mormon or non. Just a thought. And maybe a challenge. > > Benson Parkinson is trying to do exactly that with his multi-volume > > novel. By following several distinctly different personalities > > through their missions, > >Do you think these "distinctly different personalities" are a bit >caricaturish, like with movies set in high schools--there is the nerd, the >jock, the pretty girl, and the shy girl. I think that's a distinct possibility that Ben will have to work very hard to avoid. I know that I'm not talented enough to take that project on, so I look for other ways to do it--such as the multi-POV story with a more limited scope. Fortunately, there are many writers with many methods and skills. In the end, I want to just see more of whatever we can produce. But I also think it would be cool to get some more experimental forms and structures that still retain a "faithful" core assumption. >An RM reader must react differently than a non-RM reader precisely because >of the context of the personal missionary experience he or she is carting >along to the page. Perhaps the RM reader is a little touchier reading about >these things. The mission is a sacred experience for him or her. It's like >when someone writes about you in their stories. My wife has done this on a >couple of occassions, quoting me saying something, describing me a certain >way. Immediately I think, but wait, that's not me, that's not the whole >picture of me, you're making me look like a monster, or, you're making me >sound so bland. Maybe the same reaction takes place with the RM >reader--wait, that's not my mission, that's not the whole picture of what >happened, you're making my elder days look monsterish, or, you're making me >sound so bland. What do you think? I think that hits it. You made a point earlier that we should read such stories as individual stories, not attempts at universal comment, and I agree fully. But I think Mormon lit (and Mormon culture) has a long history of illustrative fiction that tries to be universal--we often tell stories of how we wish things were, not how we believe they really are. Part of it is that we tend to want a correlated spirituality. I think Mormons are often afraid of non-standard, edge-case instances of spiritual experience. If I claim to have experienced personal revelation, people look at me like I'm trying to subvert the orthodoxy of revealed religion, when I'm actually trying to acknowledge that the gifts of the spirit can be bestowed on any of us, even a snivelling wretch like me. I think that's why we couch so many of our spiritual stories in naturalistic settings--it's a safe place to leap off from that's been established by many generations of writers. A vision in the desert in the dead of night is always easier to swallow than a vision in the swirling waters of the men's room urinal next to the baptismal font. Yes, we (and I) need to learn to read the general truisms exposed in such stories without nitpicking the details so much. Metaphor is a wonderful thing, but Mormons want their metaphors to have clear interpretations and encapsulated meanings. It's one of the challenges any writer in the Mormon market must face. >Your saying "It's a book that I feel is both good and true . . ." >seems to me a very problematic statement. I often hear the trio (very >Trinity like) of the "good, true, and beautiful," but these are quite empty >words to describe a text. What is good? Good is . . . that which makes us >most happy? [SNIP] Maybe I was being lazy (whadaya mean, "maybe"), but all I was trying to say was that I found the book to offer an experience that I considered worthwhile. And I did consider it to be a *very* worthwhile experience. It challenged me, it reassured me, it portrayed a consistent and apparently honest viewpoint. It was written well scene by scene, as well as sentence by sentence. But that doesn't mean I can't use it as a foil to talk about something else. Especially if someone reads the book to find out just how much my opinion is up in the night. Isn't that at least part of why this list exists? Scott Parkin - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 03:16:59 -0600 "The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd" Film commissioned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "Standard-Issue, Manipulative Tear-jerking" It started before the film did. We waited in the "waiting room" (my designation), which room had precious few chairs to sit on. It wasn't good enough to just let us in the theater and watch the film. We had to be "spoken to" first. Well, that wasn't so bad, because it was mostly rules of etiquette, something our society needs more of these days. The theater is nice--really not a bad seat in the house. We settled down for more waiting. But again, they couldn't just start the film. We had to be "spoken to"--again. By three people, no less. One of them reiterated the rules, apparently taking a cue from Moroni that the best learning occurs through repetition. The other two told us what we would be watching, let us know a free Book of Mormon was available to us, and bore subtle testimonies. They should just put a big sign over the screen that says, "We are trying to covert you." After we had been sufficiently primed for a spiritual experience, the movie finally started. The film was mostly well-made from a technical standpoint--mostly. But the acting--standard issue LDS film stuff. So was the music. Right off, I knew if Michael McLean wasn't the composer, some clone of his was. I'm not sure anyone wrote the music for this film. For all I know, there's a handful of stock recordings in a vault that they pull out and re-use. No one could ever tell--it all sounds the same. I was bemused by the choice of casting with Ben Stiller as protagonist Jacob. Oh, Ben Stiller wasn't the protagonist? Well, the actor sure looked like Stiller. I couldn't get that notion out of my head the whole time. If the actor playing the evil villain Kohor had been any more weaselly, he would have been comical. My wife expected him to break out in a Bronx accent at any moment. The cute younger sister with the monkey was basically a Lamanite Shirley Temple--included for "Aaah!" effect. At least Helam, the father of Jacob, did well. But that Swede playing the Savior! Or was he Danish? I don't remember. This is the actor they searched high and low for as if they were casting Scarlett O'Hara for _Gone With the Wind_? A blond, blue-eyed, fair-skinned "Jewish" Messiah with the most remarkable baby-face I've ever seen? At least he has never appeared nude on stage, like virginity was Princess Di's most selling feature for marriage to Prince Ears. The story is about some Nephites or Lamanites or whatever--who could tell?--divided up into believers and Kohor-lovers. Jacob is the son of Helam, a prominent believer, but--surprise surprise--has doubts, and is courted by Kohor to be his right-hand man because he's such a good artist--excuse me, artisan, in pseudo-Nephite-Lamanite lingo. He can carve the mighty jaguar well, and for some reason, that matters to Kohor. Jacob is also in love with a non-believer's daughter who--surprise, surprise--becomes a believer with the ease of a Jack Weyland character, and who sports the occasional tear-tracks on her cheek to prove it as the medicine man--excuse me, holy man--preaches. Well, things play out as the Book of Mormon says it does--government falls apart, tribal kings arise--intercut with standard issue scenes of the life of Christ, complete with direct quotes from the King James version of the New Testament as the only dialog, because, by gosh by golly, that's just too sacred a story to actually make seem real. The crucifixion scene was okay--but the huge miniseries "Jesus of Nazareth" had a much better one. The most enjoyable part of the film from a cinematic point of view was the destruction scenes in the Americas, done well with lots of exciting disaster-film shots. Then the Savior appears to the Nephites/Lamanites/Samoans/Navajo--whatever the heck they all were. This is just about the tackiest rendition of a dramatic scene I have ever witnessed. "We're running long, Keith, we need to cut somewhere." That's the most charitable interpretation I can give to director Keith Merrill's motives for presenting this scene the way he did. A couple quick "mumble mumble's" to depict God's voice coming from heaven, but not understood by the people, then a clear quote of God's words. A bright shaft of light and a quick, lightfooted descent on wires by the Swedish (Danish?) Lord, and it's over. Marvelous anticlimax. But lest you think I had indigestion that night and just didn't want to like anything about the film, let me prove you wrong. The ending was impactful. It was the only thing set up well and delivered effectively. When Jacob's father, the now-blind believer who had waited all his life to see the Savior, is finally told the Savior is here, and he is brought to the Lord and healed, then looks into the Savior's face for the first time--that is a moving scene. Oh, sorry, did I spoil the ending for you? Are you serious? You already know the ending before you go in to see it. What the Book of Mormon doesn't cover, the book of cliches does. The minute old father Helam goes blind, you know what's a-coming. But you are moved anyway, because it was good filmmaking. Now if only Keith Merrill and the Church had made the _whole_ film that way. The film ends. Fade out, roll credits. Oops, there are no credits, just like with _Legacy_. What aversion the Church has to credits in their films is beyond me. Personally, I'd like to know who did what or played whom. Instead, they let the music keep playing and slowly raised the lights in the theater. They might as well have projected a slide on the screen saying, "The Spirit will be working on you now." But alas, my cynicism takes a beating. The Spirit _is_ working on people in the audience. Sniffing everywhere as if we'd just seen _Love Story_ for the first time. As we leave, I see one woman with her arm around another, comforting her and leading her out of the theater. We leave the theater ourselves, and there before us is a brightly lit statue of Jesus Christ, looking down on us with a smile. They might as well have hung a sign on his neck saying, "Are you converted yet?" And who are these "we" I keep talking about that accompanied me to the film? My wife, my kids, my mother, my sister and some of her family, and my daughter's Lutheran girlfriend. My mother was moved and loved the choice of actors for the Savior. My wife liked it, except for the scene where Christ descends to America. The rest of my relatives all thought it was wonderful. And the Lutheran girl? She shrugged her shoulders and said it was interesting. So I have to ask myself, what audience is the Church targeting with this film? If they're trying to jerk some tears from existing LDS members with simple, unpretentious tastes in film, they are succeeding admirably. But if they are trying to spread the message of the Gospel and bring souls to Christ, well all I can say is, the Lutheran hasn't asked for baptism yet. -- 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: Gerald G Enos Subject: Re: [AML] Facial Hair Date: 13 Jun 2001 10:57:00 -0600 Because of this topic on the list I made a point of looking to see if I could see anyone with facial hair at church on Sunday. I was surprized to notice that most of the men with facial hair had well trimmed goatees. But I would still have to say that most of the men were clean shaven. My husband is one that doesn't have whiskers because I refuse to kiss him when he doesn't shave, otherwise he would sport a full beard and mustache like his dad did. Of course I live in Salt Lake County so I really didn't think I would find alot of unshaven men. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 13 Jun 2001 10:47:01 -0600 1. I personally would have discribed us as closer to Mininites then Amish. After all we don't have the abhorance of technoligy that the Amish do. But it was an effective way of painting a visual picture. 2. I grew up a Lutheran and have attended many Christian churches in my day and I fully agree with you. The gist of what is going on is usually fairly clear even to an outsider. That is if they have any experience with religion in some form or another. But I still say we have a language all our own. 3. I had a simular experience in a creative writting class I took some years ago. My story was for a Mormon audience but everyone in the class, including the teacher, were not L.D.S. All of them agreed that they had no trouble getting the gist of what was going on and even learned a little about our culture in the process. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: [AML] Western Writer's Conference, Anyone? Date: 13 Jun 2001 12:29:40 EDT If anyone on the list is going to the Western Writer's Conf. at Idaho Falls next week, I hope you will try to say hello to me. (It's at Shilo Inn) If anyone on the list lives there, you might be interested to know that the Barnes & Noble store is hosting a book signing for all the Spur Awards Winners Fri. June 22nd at 7:00 PM. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 10:56:16 -0600 Huls, Craig. JUST WAIT. Plano, Texas: Happy Ending Press, 2001. ISBN 0-9678771-0-5. Trade paperback, 266 pages. In _Just Wait_, a group of three fourteen-year-old boys abduct their virgin friend, Kent, tie him up, and arrange for a group of five high school senior girls to perform sex on Kent. Now from the publisher's name, Happy Ending Press, you can imagine how everything will progress: the police find Kent, take his statement, follow leads (no red herrings), get warrants, make arrests, get a confession, go to trial, and convict the perpetrators -- all in a sensitive and tactful telling suitable for all but the youngest audiences. As a police procedural and courtroom drama, _Just Wait_ works fairly well: the police work hard to follow correct procedure and all the lawyers work hard to do the best jobs for their clients. Huls has a good sense of pacing within scenes and creates a natural curiosity about how things will turn out. I think part of my curiosity came from my preestablished expectations of courtroom dramas, where the other shoe always seems to fall. I kept expecting the the bad guy to get a couple of favorable breaks (like inadmissible evidence) that the good guy must overcome. So even though nothing of that sort happens in _Just Wait_, I think I artificially created tension by drawing on the genre and not from the story itself. In the last few chapters, the courtroom section gets somewhat preachy and repetitive. For example, Huls includes a lengthy session with the defense lawyers and then an equally long repetition of the same information in the court room, almost word for word. When Kent's psychologist takes the stand, he gives testimony that has little bearing on the case, less bearing on the story, and provides a more-than-obvious warning to parents and moral for the entire tale. As an examination of a rape victim's emotional trauma, _Just Wait_ does little to make me care about the victim except for general outrage at the crime itself. Kent has a strong character. He comes from a strong home, attends church regularly, and belongs to a youth group (Just Wait) that signed a pact to abstain from sex until marriage. Kent's psychologist never doubts that Kent will recover, and he even speculates that Kent will actually come out stronger because of this negative experience. So Kent never really demonstrates any changes -- except for his ability to forgive the kids that raped him, which doesn't seem too much of a struggle for Kent. At least, we never get to see Kent struggle. _Just Wait_ skims over many opportunities for much of what I would consider interesting character developments. For example, chapter 21 ends with the arraignment of the accused and the accused getting out on bail. Chapter 22 begins with the trial 25 days later. I would like to have seen more of how Kent feels about having to go to school with his assailants. Chapter 22 skims over Kent's feelings by saying that he just never talked to the other boys and they avoided each other, but that just describes the boys' actions, not their emotions. Kent sheds a lot of tears throughout, but his perfect, humble responses to his experience makes him much less interesting as a main character. What about Kent dealing with reporters from sleazy magazines that hound him as he walks home from school? What about Kent's nervousness as he waits for the results of tests for STDs -- and maybe a false positive result? What about the youth group leader that tries to bar Kent from the Just Wait group because he knows that Kent has had sex? What about Kent remembering his sexual experience whenever he sees a pretty girl and how that changes his relationship with his female friends? Many opportunities existed to show challenges for, conflict within, and development of Kent's character. In fact, _Just Wait_ doesn't really have a main character, unless you consider the rape itself a character. As you read the text, your understanding of the rape changes and develops, but you never really get to know any one of the characters well. So _Just Wait_ consists of an entire cast of minor characters that never really develop or change in any significant way. Sure, the perpetrators feel remorse and parents wonder where they went wrong, but I never got a satisfying feeling of knowing or caring about any particular character. Even though _Just Wait_ missed many opportunities to involve me emotionally, I enjoyed reading the story as a light suspense novel. Huls has a good sense of pace; writes clean, plausible scenes; and has a knack for writing snappy dialogue. -- Terry Jeffress | We are drowning in information but starved | for knowledge. -- John Naisbitt AML Webmaster and | AML-List Review Archivist | - 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] My First Novel Date: 13 Jun 2001 11:13:14 -0600 Pardon me a moment while I brag. I've just completed the second novel I've ever written. Technically I completed a rewrite, but the first draft was so haphazard in certain ways, that I didn't consider the novel truly written until this rewrite was finished. My first novel was written years ago, and is so bad that I hesitate to count it. (But I did finish it.) Taking that hesitation into account, I can then brag that I've just completed my first genuinely decent novel. Either way, I can say without qualification that I have just completed my first LDS novel. If I understand human nature correctly, this puts me in a select group among those who go around calling themselves writers. I have actually completed a novel! I recommend the experience to everyone who has aspired to writing. It's a satisfying feeling of accomplishment. -- 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: RE: [AML] Marilyn Brown Novel Award Date: 13 Jun 2001 11:30:01 -0700 Those are Marilyn's specs, so I'll let her speak to that (but she is = evidently still away in Boston). - 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] Author's Heaven and Hell Date: 13 Jun 2001 14:06:32 EDT In a message dated 6/13/01 12:36:05 PM Central Daylight Time, jack@telaservices.co.uk writes: << A writer died and was given the option of going to heaven or hell. She decided to check out each place first. As the writer descended into the fiery pits, she saw row upon row of writers chained to their desks in a steaming sweatshop. As they worked, they were repeatedly whipped with thorny lashes. "Oh my," said the writer. "Let me see heaven now." A few moments later, as she ascended into heaven, she saw rows of writers, chained to their desks in a steaming sweatshop. As they worked, they, too, were whipped with thorny lashes. "Wait a minute!," said the writer, "This is just as bad as hell." "Oh no, it's not," replied an unseen voice. "Here, your work gets published." [Ronn Blankenship] >> Great joke. Thank you for putting this in a different pronoun than we usually see. (I speak of the male gender, of course) Violet Kimball - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 14:15:55 EDT In a message dated 6/13/01 12:57:46 PM Central Daylight Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << So I have to ask myself, what audience is the Church targeting with this film? If they're trying to jerk some tears from existing LDS members with simple, unpretentious tastes in film, they are succeeding admirably. But if they are trying to spread the message of the Gospel and bring souls to Christ, well all I can say is, the Lutheran hasn't asked for baptism yet. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com >> Michael, I enjoy your reviews so much. There is always great insight, analysis, and clever comments on the acting and actors. Last and not least, a bit of humor, or in some cases, a lot of humor. Heaven knows most reviews are pretty dull, and I have to include my own among that number. Violet Kimball - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 13 Jun 2001 08:17:33 -0700 >So I have to ask myself, what audience is the Church targeting with this >film? If they're trying to jerk some tears from existing LDS members >with simple, unpretentious tastes in film, they are succeeding >admirably. But if they are trying to spread the message of the Gospel >and bring souls to Christ, well all I can say is, the Lutheran hasn't >asked for baptism yet. > >-- >D. Michael Martindale >dmichael@wwno.com (With apologies to Jonathan -- this really is off-topic on a literature list, but relevant to this review, I think...) [MOD: Not necessarily off-topic. Reader/viewer response and institutional context is part of art and art criticism, after all...] I'm amused by your review. I hadn't even heard of this film. I suppose it will be available via the TV commercials soon, or at Deseret Book? Who knows. I routinely order new films. One of the recent flics, Luke 11, arrived some time ago. And I braced myself for the inevitable missionary phone call. It came the other night, and I must admit, I was a little put off by the call. From a non-member point of view, I 'd like to point out a few things that I find a little disconcerting: 1. As a 51-year old man, I find it very off-putting to have an 18-year old call me by my first name, and identify himself as "Elder" so-and-so. It seems to me that this bit of courtesy would go a long way in alleviating some of the resentment folks feel toward the missionaries. 2. I wish they would learn to talk without mumbling. My guess is that many of them are frightened by the prospect of speaking with a complete stranger, something they'll have to overcome when they actually go out on their missions. 3. As for the film itself, it really had little of substantive content. When asked what I thought of it, I said, "Well, I don't think I benefited much from it. It was mostly fluff, as far as I could see." The missionary had no answer for that, except to (kind-of) agree. After talking a little more, it turned out he shared my opinion of the film. What a position to put someone in! Anyway, just a few thoughts. [Jeff Needle] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG and GRAY, _One More River to Cross_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 12:26:36 -0500 Personally I prefer the notes at the end of each chapter. I find when they're at the end of the book I have to flip back and forth and try to remember to read them. If I read all the notes at the end it's harder for me to know what they are in reference to. In the Work and the Glory, Lund started out having all the notes at the end of the book and then changed it to the end of the chapters. I found that much more helpful. I'm not the kind to skip notes unless it's just a reference to another peice of work. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 12:39:04 -0700 I agree with most of Terry L Jeffress' review of _Just Wait_. The Mormon character, Kent's psychologist, did give testimony that seemed to me to have bearing on the case. He spoke to the harm done and to the fact that there was no consent on Kent's part for what happened to him. That's to the best of my recollection, although I don't have the book in front of me as I write this. I agree that there didn't seem to be a main character or characters. I don't think it was the rape itself that was the main character as much as the issues about male rape with female perpetrators. I also think that there was another shoe that fell as the investigation progressed, but I won't identify it here to avoid telling too much for prospective readers. If the psychologists warning was more than obvious, I think he missed the moral of the entire tale. Perhaps I am misdirected from the intended moral of the story by my own status as a recovering victim. I saw it more from the point of view of one who dislikes the view of young men as creatures who will take sex on any terms, even brutally forced upon them. For me, that resonated more than what the Mormon psychologist said about parenting and modern society. I perhaps identified more with Kent as a victim than Terry because my outrage at the crime was more personal, hit closer to home. At the same time, I felt that Kent handled it far too well. The scope of the story's chronology stops before we'll see the affects years down the road on Kent's relational skills. There wasn't enough in the story to foreshadow it, so it leaves me with the impression that this didn't hurt Kent as much as it would have a real young man, as much as it did me. Some of what Terry L Jeffress wanted to see I agree with. I would like to know how Kent fared at school. I don't really know that I care about him dealing with sleazy reporters. Seems sensational and out of step with the rest of the book, which tries hard to balance a sensational topic with sensitive treatment. The author did a fine job with many of the needed balances. I'm glad it didn't play out like a made-for-Lifetime-TV movie. Overall, I thought the book was good. I read it over two evenings, which I almost never do. I cared enough about Kent to keep going, and even came to care about the perpetrators, all virtually children. Normally, I wouldn't say that a book was too short or too tight, but I think this story had much more potential than it realized, using Terry L Jeffress' overall assessment that the characters needed more development. It could easily stand to be longer with more meat, but as it was, it was well done. A longer version would run the risk of moving from sensitive to sensational, but I think this author could manage that risk well. Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 13:39:37 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > When Jacob's father, the now-blind believer who had waited all his life > to see the Savior, is finally told the Savior is here, and he is brought > to the Lord and healed, then looks into the Savior's face for the first > time--that is a moving scene. I was so turned off by the film that by the time I got to this scene, I wasn't moved at all. The producers had been trying to manipulate my emotions for an hour or so, I wasn't about to give up the fight with this scene. I was so utterly UNconvinced that this fair-haired boy could ever by Jesus that I could no longer suspend my disbelief. > But alas, my cynicism takes a beating. The Spirit _is_ working on people > in the audience. I don't wish to sound cynical, but I think emotion is working on the audience, not the Spirit. Joseph describes the workings of the Spirit as sudden insights of intelligence, not influxes of emotion. > So I have to ask myself, what audience is the Church targeting with this > film? If they're trying to jerk some tears from existing LDS members > with simple, unpretentious tastes in film, they are succeeding > admirably. But if they are trying to spread the message of the Gospel > and bring souls to Christ, well all I can say is, the Lutheran hasn't > asked for baptism yet. Their message is to the larger world. Simply, "We are Christian. See, we make movies about Jesus." Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: Re: [AML] My First Novel Date: 13 Jun 2001 12:46:42 -0700 Congratulations! This is one novel I can't wait to read! Are you entering it in Marilyn Brown's contest? Beth Hatch D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Either way, I can say without qualification that I have just completed > my first LDS novel. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 16:08:32 EDT Thanks, Michael, for speaking up. I agree on every point, but have restrained myself from writing any sort of criticism on "Testaments." Filmmakers (Spike Lee excepted) generally try to avoid bashing each other's work in public. We get enough abuse from the critics. But I do think we should start speaking up on films coming out of the church's audiovisual department. Some of the smaller films are exceptional, and most of the church membership never see or know anything about them. But the larger films have serious problems. My opinion on the theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building is that whatever movie is playing on that screen should be the most powerful film on the face of the earth, something that would knock the audience out of their seats with the pure, unrestrained power of Christ. That should be our goal. Cinema is such a potent tool, and we're still playing around with it and making toy movies. I left the theater after seeing "Testaments" with the firm conviction that none of my non-member friends or family would ever see this movie. It embarrassed me by reducing The Book of Mormon to the level of "Xena - Princess Warrior." It is inconceivable to me that a talented filmmaker, working in partnership with the Holy Spirit, would produce something as ineffective as "Testaments." Nonmembers leaving that theater have no hint of the grandeur, beauty, and power of The Book of Mormon. No hint of Abinadi, Alma, Jacob, and the rest. They leave thinking the Book of Mormon is some limp L. Ron Hubbard concoction of romance, nasty villains, and cute little monkeys. I, too, was moved when the father character is healed and sees Christ, but I give all the credit for that moment to the actor, Rick Macy. The director neutered the scene by quickly cutting to a phony shot of the Catholic Jesus with a big light behind his head. Shameful. I'd better stop writing right now, before I really cut loose. One last comment: Maybe it's time we start selecting our church filmmakers with the same care that we choose our temple architects. If our filmmakers don't have the talent, let's turn it over to the non-members. Richard Dutcher - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 13 Jun 2001 17:28:37 -0500 At 03:08 PM 6/13/01, Richard Dutcher wrote: >I left the theater after seeing "Testaments" with the firm conviction that >none of my non-member friends or family would ever see this movie. It >embarrassed me by reducing The Book of Mormon to the level of "Xena - >Princess Warrior." Hey, I'm getting a great idea for a satire . . . >Nonmembers leaving that theater have no hint of the grandeur, beauty, and >power of The Book of Mormon. No hint of Abinadi, Alma, Jacob, and the rest. >They leave thinking the Book of Mormon is some limp L. Ron Hubbard concoction >of romance, nasty villains, and cute little monkeys. I presume they're trying to suggest that either "cureloms" or "cumoms" were monkeys, as I don't otherwise recall any reference to lower primates in the BoM? -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Heaven and Hell Date: 13 Jun 2001 16:35:22 -0500 At 01:06 PM 6/13/01, you wrote: >Great joke. Thank you for putting this in a different pronoun than we usually >see. (I speak of the male gender, of course) >Violet Kimball I can only take credit (or blame if that is how some see it) for forwarding it. I don't know where it originated. -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 15:31:44 -0700 Thom wrote: >I don't wish to sound cynical, but I think emotion is working on the >audience, not the Spirit. Joseph describes the workings of the Spirit >as sudden insights of intelligence, not influxes of emotion. Well, since I didn't learn anything new by seeing the film, I suppose you're right, but I can't help but think that it had to appeal to nonmembers who are influenced by emotions, and that carried with those emotions there may have been thoughts new to them. Whether those thoughts bore any resemblance to truth is another question. Personally, I don't mind if films toy with my emotions. I certainly hope they do, but I don't get my personal revelations from films. I love a good tear-jerker though. I'm in the mood for one so I think I'll go get out my well-used copy of "Imitation of Life" and a box of Kleenex and let myself be toyed with. Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 17:08:38 -0500 > > I, too, was moved when the father character is healed and sees Christ, but I > give all the credit for that moment to the actor, Rick Macy. The director > neutered the scene by quickly cutting to a phony shot of the Catholic Jesus > with a big light behind his head. Shameful. I've seen the movie twice. The first time, I was warned that I would cry. I didn't. I didn't get moved until the very end when the father is healed. But I still didn't cry. The second time, everyone was passing out kleenex. Again I didn't cry although I was still moved by the fathers healing. And Jesus didn't look right to me. I walked away, wondering what I was missing. How come everyone around me was so moved by what was on the screen. Had I missed something? Had I hardened my heart from the spirit? Yet, (don't laugh) when I watch Touched by an Angel, I nearly always cry. Some episodes have reduced me to a puddle on the floor. My family laughs at me. So how come I'm so much more touched by a TV show than a church movie. Frankly, I felt guilty. When I first read this review, my first thought was that the reviewer was extremely cynical. But it has touched a chord in me. For the first time someone else has said that the movie didn't affect them the way it was supposed to. I didn't dislike the movie as much as this reviewer did. And when it's out on video, I will buy it for my family. It's better than the Hollywood versions of Jesus that have him baptized by sprinkling, questioning who he is, and spending a good portion of his life being angry. And the movie did touch me. But move me - seeing the First Vision on a rickety old projector moved me more. In fact that film testified to me that the church is true. Anna Wight - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2001 17:23:15 -0600 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > I left the theater after seeing "Testaments" with the firm conviction that > none of my non-member friends or family would ever see this movie. It > embarrassed me by reducing The Book of Mormon to the level of "Xena - > Princess Warrior." It wasn't even that good. At least Xena has humor, great fight scenes. And some of its episodes have been genuinely moving (as opposed to being manipulative) in their spirituality. (Not to mention Lucy Lawless, much more than a pretty face.) Thom - 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] My First Novel Date: 13 Jun 2001 13:28:36 -0700 And yet you tell us nothing of what's in this book. Given the exceptional quality of your reviews, we expect something great. Please, details!!! At 11:13 AM 6/13/01 -0600, you wrote: >Pardon me a moment while I brag. > >I've just completed the second novel I've ever written. Technically I >completed a rewrite, but the first draft was so haphazard in certain >ways, that I didn't consider the novel truly written until this rewrite >was finished. > >My first novel was written years ago, and is so bad that I hesitate to >count it. (But I did finish it.) Taking that hesitation into account, I >can then brag that I've just completed my first genuinely decent novel. > >Either way, I can say without qualification that I have just completed >my first LDS novel. > >If I understand human nature correctly, this puts me in a select group >among those who go around calling themselves writers. I have actually >completed a novel! I recommend the experience to everyone who has >aspired to writing. It's a satisfying feeling of accomplishment. > >-- >D. Michael Martindale >dmichael@wwno.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Merlyn J Clarke Subject: [AML] Re: Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 13 Jun 2001 21:20:01 -0400 At 08:53 PM 6/12/01 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:35 PM 5/30/01, you wrote: >>The example that Anna provided was giving birth. Although this *is* an >>emotional experience, it is not exclusively (or even primarily) that. >>Giving birth is physical. Sure, a man can share in the experience, he can >>observe and describe and do all kinds of research and even interview >>hundreds of women who have given birth, but he can never know for himself, >>physically, what it FEELS like. ====================================== I just read Jane Smiley's latest book, Horse Heaven. A pretty good book, though it drug on a bit. But the interesting thing about it was that in each chapter, she advanced the story along through the perspective of the different principles in the story, including several thoroughbred race horses, and a Jack Russell terrier. There was of course the obligatory sex scenes--from both the male and the female perspective. I thought she did a pretty good job. This despite the fact that she had obviously never been either a race horse, Jack Russell terrier, or a man. Which is not to say that her portrayal of male or female emotion is exactly accurate, or coincides with the experiences of every male or every female. I'm wondering if this insistance on dichotomizing the male and female experience is really valid? I'm wondering if every female child-bearing experience is so identical? I've had a wife, and two daughters. All have born children. Their versions of the experience all differ significantly. Similarly, I don't think every man's sexual experience is identical either. I suspect the differences among the sexes may be as significant as between the sexes. The reality is that none of us can completely enter the being of another in order to accurately capture precisely what the other experiences. When you come to it, we can't even describe the taste of salt, and don't actually know if salt tastes exactly the same to all people. This hardly becomes a reason to not attempt a literary portrayal of the experiences of others regardless of gender, nor to assume that these portrayals are not sufficiently accurate. The argument tendered above, that only women can know the experience of child birth, seems to tend toward the falacy of some strata of the feminist view, who argue vehemantly in favor of equality from one side of their mouth, while out of the other, argue for specialness. I think we are all special, whether male or female, and the job of the artist, indeed maybe one of the definitions of the artist, is one who can capture the essense of what others experience, and convey it in insightful, recognizable and enlightening ways. Merlyn Clarke - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tami Miller" Subject: [AML] re: Value of Artists (was: Temple in Fiction) Date: 14 Jun 2001 02:11:17 -0000 Anna, I agree that nothing is worth breaking sacred covenants for, however, I must disagree with your opinion of artists. I have learned more from books and art than anywhere else. Artists are there to teach, also. They are not just an ornament in society. They are teachers, and as such, they should be aware of what they are putting out there into the world, and into the minds of others. Just my quick opinion! Thanks, Tami > >But lets face it, artists, in the great scheme of things, are not as >important personages as they like to think. Doctors, nurses, teachers, >parents and policeman, contribute more substantially to society. They >teach, heal and protect. > >Artists on the other hand, have the chief purpose of entertaining. >Sometimes they might uplift and inspire but essentially they are there to >entertain and beautify. Nothing wrong with this. God wants artists in the >world too. > >But no matter how noble we may think our work is, it is still there for the >entertainment of others. Certainly not a good enough reason to break >covenants for. > >Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: [AML] Historic Bennion Ranch (was: Missionary Stories) Date: 13 Jun 2001 22:00:06 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > Hey Alan, I'm dying to ask you something. What is the "historic Bennion > ranch"? The historic Bennion "Greenjacket" Ranch is located 7 miles south of Vernon, UT where the Sheeprock mountains meet the Vernon Hills. It consists of 2000 acres of private ground with varied terrain, historic sites, and abundant wildlife. Two wives of Welsh pioneer John Bennion were invited by Chief Greenjacket, of the local Goshute tribe, to take winter refuge at their encampment which is now a half mile from the main house. Israel Bennion was born in the 1860s and pioneered several ranches in the area, including construction of a bunglow house in 1917 at the foot of Greenjacket hill, where he lived until his death in 1944. Israel's greatest legacy was his children including Howard Bennion (West Point, Eng. of Edison Electric, SS Manuel author), Mervin Bennion (Naval Academy, Captn of West Virginia at Pearl Harbor, Congressional Medal of Honor--Look for him in the new Pearl Harbor movie), Kenneth Bennion (LDS Business College). Our family moved to Vernon four years ago and are engaged in restoring the ranch house and managing the ranch and its resources. It is a 65 mile drive west of Provo. I would be happy to provide more specifics about any of the above points. Alan Mitchell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 13 Jun 2001 22:28:39 -0600 I also > believe the writer is one of those readers who's allowed to express a > response to his own work. > > (As per the Symbolism thread, I do believe that the author is often > surprised to see symbolic constructs in his own work that he didn't > consciously put there. But having found them--or had them pointed > out--in his work, the author has as much right to comment about their > meaning in the story as any other reader.) > > What I would love to do is sit down with Alan Mitchell and have about > a three-day discussion on what he believes, what he intended to > accomplish with his novel, how well he believes he succeeded at his > own goals, and what other kinds of comments he's received. I liked > his book. Alan responds: Actually, I don't know why we couldn't sit around for a few days. You're welcome to come out to Vernon anytime. I'd like to see what other kinds of books he's interested > in writing. I'd like to cheerlead him to write another and another > and another, because I think he's done some things better than I've > ever seen them done before, and I have faith that he can do them > again. Boy, I need some of the attitude to put in my backpocket. > Since that's unlikely to happen, this forum is the best one I have. > I've trolled a little to get him and others to respond, but the world > remains silent. I'm new at this, so I am sorta lost as to how much to say about my book. Sometimes I think Barry Monroe could say it better. But I'll do my best to respond to points in another mail. Alan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 13 Jun 2001 23:03:33 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > I accept that a memoir is exactly that--one person's experience. > Maybe my sense that _Angel of the Danube_ attempted to claim > generality that it shouldn't have claimed is a flaw of my own limited > understanding of how and why literature exists. I not only grant the > possibility, but the likelihood. It's still how I came away from the > book feeling. I'm sorry if that isn't specific enough; if I knew how > to be more specific, I would be. My take is the that the problems you see are problems inherent in writing in the first person. It make you get in the head of the author and sometimes, you want to keep your distance. In _Angel_, you may not want to go where Barry goes and it is an inherent danger. In Parkinson's MTC, for example, we don't have to go where Cory goes because it is told as third person. And in first person, there is nobody to tell Barry, "Quit saying 'Dude' all the time!" so the reader has to do it. But first person has the advantages of a voice and it forces you to get in his head, which makes it read more authentic and honest. And it makes you hate his straw-character generalizations of other missionaries, friends, girls, Austrians, etc. Yes, Barry is trying to figure out the mission, and post mission life, but remember this is from one point in time, two months after he is home where emnity and love are still fresh. It may not be Barry next assessment, or final assessment. I agree, that it could be a restricting book to some readers. Danube focused on a > group of missionaries collectively referred to as "the clowns" who > generally lived on the downward side of the line and had mostly lost > hope of feeling good about their day-to-day experiences. > > When you show me only one view of the world, that suggests to me that > you believe that to be the only realistic view. When the only other > examples of people who went on missions (that I can recall off-hand) > are Capt'n Scotty the Self-Absorbed, the self-righteous apes, Steve > the technician who'd lost his faith, and Clay the Salesman who > thought missionary work and sales were the same thing, you create a > strawman. No positive portrayals of those with different opinions > than Barry. No nod to the fact that some people had honestly good and > wonderful times on their missions and felt of the spirit in real and > different ways. Would that have helped the book? If Barry had an older brother who said, "Okay, this is what coming home is like." Actually, it has been my experience that there is little help for returning missionaries to make the transition and try to calculate which life is real: the mission life or the home life, especially when the home life seems so full of people only partially living the gospel. As if Barry could say, "we have met the enemy and he is us." GA gave me despair, but also hope. I have received letters from readers who say they have received hope and insight from the book. One just today from a Steve (lapsed Mormon) who said, Quote: My mission took place in the same time period as yours ('78 - '80) and though it occurred half way around the world [], you helped me realize some things about my mission. I understood that I have buried a lot of memories and experiences from that time with the feelings that "it was just a dream". Your book reminded me that my mission was all too real, though not what I anticipated or even wanted....My mission wasn't the illusory failure I have assumed it was; it was a great experience that can serve me still in ways I had never supposed. Thanks for helping me see this. > Perhaps I presume too much. Let me try "it rang true to itself, with > an internal consistency that suggests that it's also true to the > author's experience." I don't say "dude." Why do you feel that he's > >pushing that conclusion as a universal? > For a couple of reasons. First, because I didn't see Mormon > characters other than Monroe with wisdom equal to his own. Actually, Barry fears the trunky mission president because he is wise and prophetic, and admires the the Mexican-immigrant patriarch for his humility, kindness, and wisdom. Loves his greeny Unts Vidic. Respects his former den leader. Remember, Barry is a work in progress, and has only a few heros. > He pays lip service to other experiences, but undermines all of them > except Barry Monroe's. To me the text suggests that only Monroe's is > *the* true and honest depiction of the missionary experience as > offered in this novel. That he compellingly tells his missionary > story compounds the conundrum for me. What would you think about a novel from Unts Vidic's POV? Everything Barry left out? Alan Mitchell - 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] Mormon Visual Trappings Date: 14 Jun 2001 00:47:01 -0600 William Morris wrote: > So this raises the question for me again----how does > this translate into the visual details we put into our > fiction? If facial hair is no longer a symbol of > non-comformity to some LDS folks, does it make sense > to try and use it as such in fiction? And if not, as > a consequence, do we then rely upon the responses of > characters inside of our text to help us accrete > meaning to our visual details, or do we rely on our > notions of the attitudes of our audience, our 'implied > readers'? Or do we just not worry about it at all? If your character lives in Utah County, Utah, his beard reepresents noncomformity. If he lives in California, it represents a perfectly normal grooming choice. We worry about what is true to our characters--where do they live, what represents noncomformity in that community, and does our character want to comform? We don't worry about what a characteristic of a character "stands for." -- 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: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 2 of 2) Date: 13 Jun 2001 23:19:33 -0600 > So yes, I would like to have had Barry Monroe's fully encompassing > interpretive moment to tie all the parts of my life into a single > extended, transcendent, transformative experience complete with > desert mystics. Alan responds: Ditto. > Maybe I just feel sorry for myself that my missionary life shared > much of the frustration of Barry Monroe's but without the > transcendent transition, so I'm taking it out on the author. Why not? I take it out on Barry from time to time. > And while we're here, let me point out that I think _Angel of the > Danube_ does the best job that I've seen so far (remembering my > limited reading experience in the genre) of being both general and > specific in its details and in creating an experience that I wish I > could claim as my own. It's a darned good book, and it comes as close > to not raising my "this is how you should believe" hackles as any > missionary memoir story I've read. Oooh, I like that paragraph. (Is Dutcher reading this?) > The funny thing is that I don't think Alan Mitchell tried to do any > of those things, and that's part of why I like his novel so much. If > there was a claim of universality, I believe that it was > subconscious, not intentional, because I think the rest of the novel > shows far too much thoughtfulness and honesty. I think he really did > tell a story of one missionary experience--either as it really was or > as he wished it could have been. I don't think it matters which. Is Mr. Dutcher in the house? > Which is not to say that I think the book was flawless. I got *real* > tired of his incessant use of the word "Dude." That was Barry; not me. Frankly, that's why I > put it down the first time, and why I resisted reading it for over a > year despite the generally glowing praise it's received. It struck me > as artificial, not authentic, despite the venerable Cracroft's > suggestions to the contrary. I didn't care for the whole desert > mystic/communing with nature thing either; I think it's an easy out > for setting up a spiritual experience. So what? It was a good book > that I enjoyed for a lot of reasons. I think it succeeds on many > levels, and while I can quibble over details or specifics for weeks > on end, I still liked it. A lot. > Yeah. It's another kind of story that I would like to see--a > novel-length handling of a single missionary event that spends more > time building the context of that one event and that focuses on the > lives of the other characters in the story more, not just the > missionary's POV. That's another thing that I cringe at in missionary > stories--they're often awfully self-indulgent. > >An RM reader must react differently than a non-RM reader precisely because > >of the context of the personal missionary experience he or she is carting > >along to the page. I've had several comments that can be characterized by: "Whew, I didn't know other RMs felt that way." > But that doesn't mean I can't use it as a foil to talk about > something else. Especially if someone reads the book to find out just > how much my opinion is up in the night. Isn't that at least part of > why this list exists? > Scott Parkin So Scott, tell me...what did you get out of your mission? And try not to make your answer too self-indulgent. ') Alan - 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] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 02:02:26 -0600 Terry L Jeffress wrote: > Even though _Just Wait_ missed many opportunities to involve me > emotionally, I enjoyed reading the story as a light suspense novel. > Huls has a good sense of pace; writes clean, plausible scenes; and has > a knack for writing snappy dialogue. Sounds like beef-flavored cotton candy. Promises to be meaty, but ends up fluffy. A book should be either beef or cotton candy, not both. Who wants to eat beef-flavored cotton candy? Blecch! -- 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] My First Novel Date: 14 Jun 2001 03:01:14 -0600 Elizabeth Hatch wrote: > > Congratulations! This is one novel I can't wait to read! > > Are you entering it in Marilyn Brown's contest? I most certainly am. And I recommend that none of the rest of you enter. Who needs such stiff competition? -- 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: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 08:57:43 -0400 I haven't seen the film yet. But I read all your comments and really have to wonder. Because every person that I know that has been out west and seen the movie comes back and raves. They get tears in their eyes just talking about it. And they are all very different people, with different experiences in the church, in education, in work...... Maybe those who don't like it just don't say anything about it. But those who do talk about it talk about both being touched by the spirit and being 'moved' emotionally. These are people I know. They are people that I know well enough to know that they don't equate every emotion with a spiritual experience (though I know some people who are like that as well). I guess I'll just have to reserve judgement until, sometime when I'm out there, I make time in my schedule to see it myself. Tracie Laulusa - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 09:55:57 EDT In a message dated 6/14/01 12:29:20 AM Central Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: << > I left the theater after seeing "Testaments" with the firm conviction that > none of my non-member friends or family would ever see this movie. It > embarrassed me by reducing The Book of Mormon to the level of "Xena - > Princess Warrior." >> My dh and I will be in SLC for a few hours on June 26th. I'm almost tempted to go see this film, but I did not like "Legacy," so the chances of liking this seem even more remote. Stan cried during Legacy, but I got more and more annoyed that Emma was no where in sight. At the end of the film when they gave us a card to make comments, or sign our names to be "visited" I just put a big question mark and wrote: "Where was Emma?" Violet - 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] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 09:48:30 -0700 Regarding the novel which Terry reviewed: > Huls, Craig. JUST WAIT. Plano, Texas: Happy Ending Press, 2001. > ISBN 0-9678771-0-5. Trade paperback, 266 pages. > Was this novel written by an LDS author, or published by a Mormon company? To which audience is the book being marketed -- LDS, "Christian", or general readership? Is it a YA novel? Did you review it for us because a main character, the victim's psychologist, was Mormon? What was the victim's denomination? Thanks, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 14 Jun 2001 03:39:06 -0400 [MOD: Again, I'm splitting this response into two posts...which could get interesting, since Tom indicates that this is his response only to the first part of Scott's comments...oh, well.] > Reader response can be infinitely > varied and all absolutely true, despite opposing conclusions. For some reason I despise these kinds of statements. Sorry. I don't think reader response can be infinitely varied, first of all. Try it. How many responses can you imagine to Mitchell's work? Suppose I say that I thought it possessed a striking similarity to Macbeth. Now wouldn't that be a little odd? A great treatise (non-metaphoric) on elephants. Huh? But this is beside the main point of our discussion. >I also believe the writer is one of those readers who's allowed to express a > response to his own work. Yes, everyone has their rights of expression, but I wouldn't trust a writer's reading of his own work. The writer is too steeped in his own intentions to see more objectively what is actually written. The writer often desires to see his own intentions succeed--I remember Mitchell's response just one week ago, "I had thought his desire to 'get through' to the Austrians was quite pronounced." What if you define art as "the unintended something that happens between point A and B" (David Plante). If you accept this curious statement about unintentions, then unless the author has an incredible sense of distance (or the work is far behind him), it is difficult for him to see past what he wanted his work to be, and to the actual art he has produced. Elizabeth Hardwick once put it like this: Would you trust a pig's advice on the nutritional value of pork? > > > What I would love to do is sit down with Alan Mitchell and have about > a three-day discussion on what he believes, what he intended to > accomplish with his novel, how well he believes he succeeded at his > own goals, and what other kinds of comments he's received. Authors are hesitant to limit the interpretation of their to only their intentions--they'd rather have them meet those intentions and far exceed them. They want it to mean many different things to different people, and if the author steps up and says X means this and Y means that, then he'll no doubt put off the reader who felt so strongly that X meant other things. Plus, I just don't see what the author is really going to add to the text. It's like a car. You can have the mechanic of the engine explain how he intended it to run, like a racecar, idle quiet as a mouse, accelerate like lightening (wow, three cliches in a row!), or you can just take it out for a long spin yourself. Ultimately, what the mechanic intended with the engine doesn't amount to jack squat. (no offense to jack, btw.) This is, of course, the intentional fallacy. I'm not saying that an interview with the writer isn't worthwhile--it probably is very worthwhile in terms of craft, figuring out how he puts together ideas to make a story. Look at the Paris Review--they're always interviewing writers about this kind of thing. But as for what the text is, I'd leave the writer at home on that one. (On a tangent here, have you seen _Finding Forrester_? One reason (not the only reason) the JD Salinger figure stops writing is b/c he doesn't like how literary critics tell him "what his work *really* means." Excellent movie, by the way. I think it's a great rebuttal to that terrible article by Card about the evil of basketball.) Here's a question, though, that really drives fiction writers crazy. Richard, Alan, how much of that stuff was autobiography? There's a really great essay by Scott Russell Sanders called "The Writer and the University" on this topic. I can't remember which collection I read it in, but the essay made me want to graffiti the nearest English department. > > > > I don't subscribe to the theory that one must agree with every aspect > of a book to like it, What theory is this? >and I don't believe that criticizing a part of > a book requires that I continue with that criticism throughout. I > hold only one opinion inviolable--that my opinion is likely to change > with further discussion. very humble. >Maybe that makes for an unsatisfactory > critical essay, but let me repeat--I am just a reader, not a critic. > I have neither the conceptual foundations nor the vocabulary to enter > into a critical discussion beyond the most broad concepts, though I'm > willing to be educated (I really miss Mike Austin's Critical Matters > columns). > > In the end, I hope that by commenting I can get others to disagree, > thus creating tension and interest among the Mormon readership and > spurring sales. To me that's the only good reason to write a review. A martyr for disagreement! I too sometimes like to argue a point just to see if I can sustain it. I don't care a whoop about sales and interest--it's simply more fun to disagree. I don't believe your motives anyway. Disagreement is the mechanism towards a finer understanding. The antithesis forces one to reevaluate the thesis with greater clarity. Hegel was all over this. > At this point I'm at least as interested in spurring the development > of more and varied stories as I am in identifying whether a story > meets some abstract concept of literary quality. > You will spur the development of more stories by disagreeing with them? Okay. What might be an "abstract concept of a literary quality"? I'm scratching my head here. Kant's sublime? Keats' negative capability? > > Maybe I equivocate too much in my thoughts. Guilty as charged. But > because my primary interest is to generate wider discussion, I'm not > convinced that such equivocation is a bad thing. If you're interested in the discussion aspect, then I can feel confident that you won't take offense at my dissentions. > > What's wrong with that? She didn't like it. Maybe she didn't have a > companion as glib and generally together as Richard Dutcher. Maybe > her mission president was a bit warmer and fuzzier. Maybe she never > had to address issues of individual faith for herself or her > companions. Maybe she never experienced the miracles of faith and > healing that _God's Army_ depicts even though she wanted to. Maybe > she didn't feel the wider camaraderie shown in GA (I know I didn't). > Maybe there was never a sense of sexual tension between her and the > Elder missionaries. Maybe she felt more connection to the people in > her area. Maybe she felt less acceptance by the people in her area. > Maybe the culture shock of seeing Mercedes taxis and Volvo garbage > trucks and all the little physical details of Sweden so informed her > sense of her mission that any story that lacked those details felt > wrong. Maybe the foreign language and locations created a sense of > separation from the experience that the English-speaking US > missionaries in GA didn't have to deal with. Maybe the one key > overriding interpretation she had of her own mission wasn't to be > found in the story Richard Dutcher told. > Enough little differences taken together eventually lead to a sense > that the story just didn't represent her own experience. Maybe most > of those differences were trivial, like the fact that the only > mission-owned car I saw in Germany was a brand new Volkswagen bus > that I only saw three times--once when I was picked up at the airport > on my way in, once when I went to the mission office for some medical > tests, and once when I was picked up on the way home. But a thousand > details taken together can create a significant barrier to > acceptance. That's a valid response and is too complex for most > people to explicate in detail. > I accept that a memoir is exactly that--one person's experience. > Maybe my sense that _Angel of the Danube_ attempted to claim > generality that it shouldn't have claimed is a flaw of my own limited > understanding of how and why literature exists. I not only grant the > possibility, but the likelihood. It's still how I came away from the > book feeling. I'm sorry if that isn't specific enough; if I knew how > to be more specific, I would be. > What bothers me about her dislike-motive was that she brought the mirror of her own experience up to someone else's experience, and because they didn't match up, she rejected the other's experience. Isn't that rather myopic? It's like saying that I didn't like Aliens III because it didn't match up with my own experience of outerspace. Or, maybe that is a bit extreme, it's like saying Sleepless in Seattle was a terrible movie because none of my romances ever ocurred like that. I hate to repeat the old cliche of universal and particular, but I will acknowledge it briefly here. Sure, a story needs to hit a chord somewhere in us, so that it feels "true," but also needs to be different enough to be interesting. If we always demand that the universal chord be ringed in our brains, then we limit ourselves to . . . ourselves. Are things only aesthetic for you if they strike a chord of experience that you've likewise had? I will admit that my answer to that question is undoubtedly yes, but I wish it weren't so. I wish I didn't like something only because it was like me. I heard somewhere, in a kiersey temperment prediction explanation of sorts, that marriages worked out best if you shared with your spouse two similarities of personality (of the four possible, e.g., INFP). If your wife is an INTJ, that's great. If she's an ESRT or an IGIT (sorry, forgot the other options), then that difference is too large to sustain a long-term attraction. On the other hand, if she's likewise an INTJ, then that's likewise problematic. Might the same go for narratives? I think that's essentially what you're saying. For my Sweden friend, GA was WXYZ while she was ABCD. > On the other hand, _God's Army_ didn't leave me with that sense of > trying to encapsulate the entire missionary experience. >I think part > of the reason for that is that GA featured a lot of good-hearted > missionaries who were trying to do the right things and who had > widely differing assumptions and approaches; Danube focused on a > group of missionaries collectively referred to as "the clowns" who > generally lived on the downward side of the line and had mostly lost > hope of feeling good about their day-to-day experiences. > > When you show me only one view of the world, that suggests to me that > you believe that to be the only realistic view. When the only other > examples of people who went on missions (that I can recall off-hand) > are Capt'n Scotty the Self-Absorbed, the self-righteous apes, Steve > the technician who'd lost his faith, and Clay the Salesman who > thought missionary work and sales were the same thing, you create a > strawman. No positive portrayals of those with different opinions > than Barry. No nod to the fact that some people had honestly good and > wonderful times on their missions and felt of the spirit in real and > different ways. > > GA gave me not only the guy who left with a wasted testimony, but it > also gave me the guy who chose to stay and the guy who wanted to be > nowhere else and the guys who probably hadn't really considered > either extreme. It gave me the self-important, somewhat condescending > sister missionary, but also showed us that she could be more than > just a caricature. It gave me despair, but also hope. One miracle > with a thorn, and one without. It allowed for a variety of equally > true, and completely different, experiences. You make some good points here. There really is quite a variety. I'd forgotten all of these side stories. The one story that was developed more than others, though, was Elder Brown (was that his name?). He was the main character around which all the other stories seemed to revolve, and I thought Elder Brown simply lived out a Mormon cliche. Is the church true? I need to pray. Oh . rr . rr. rr. car is starting in the background. rr. rr. rr. got my answer!!! Now denouement. (thank goodness we didn't hear the car start up vvvrroom vvvroom in there.) [MOD: Cut to part 2 of 2.] Tom J. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 2 of 2) Date: 14 Jun 2001 03:39:06 -0400 [MOD: Continuation of previous post...] [MOD large snip] > >Wait a minute. Are you implying here that you "appreciate his observations" > >in the book because they mirror your "own experience"? Wouldn't you > >appreciate them more if they went *against* your experience? > > Not necessarily. I appreciate his comments *on German culture and > attitude* a lot because I had the same general experiences. That > common experience creates a bridge between his experience and mine > and enhances the general verity of the story for me. If he had told > me that all Austrians were smiling happy people who sang _Edelweis_ > constantly while frolicking in the public square yes! yes! yes! >and inviting > missionaries in at every door I would have doubted the verity of his > tale and would have mistrusted other details of the novel (unless it > had been offered as an absurd tale--another form that I would love to > see Mormons write in). What did you think of Evenson's _Lies_? Would you say that it "rang true" to the author's experience or not? Evenson certain goes against my experiences with bishops (thank my lucky stars); is that why I thought the book was so hollow? perhaps if I'd lived Evenson's byu ordeal, I'd hear bells bells bells on every page. > No, I wouldn't have appreciated his details of German culture and > attitude if they had varied widely from my own experience of those > things. It would have forced me to reject those details and doubt the > verity of the remainder of the text. But don't you think that rejecting a text that varies widely from your own experience can do you more harm than good? It limits your aesthetical acceptance to only those experiences you've had or half had. I'm not sure if I believe this. I'll have to think about it for a while. When I say, I thought this was a bad book (for example, Roberto Arlt's _The Seven Madmen_ (sorry William)), is it only because the experiences of the characters are so dissonant with my own life (e.g., an Argentine conspiracy?) that I can find no connection to it? Do I continue to read on despite the caucophony, knowing that the book is perhaps stretching me in ultimately mind-broadening ways? Or do I shut it and conclude that it was a poor book? This point brings us back to William's comment about all texts being inseparable from their surrounding culture. If we share the culture, then we share the aesthetic, b/c it "rings true" inside of us. However, I hope to move beyond this. > > >However, I get wary when I hear people comparing their own experiences > >in life to the books they read, as if art needed to mirror life in order to > >be art. Back to Plato we go. > > I guess we just disagree on this one. If he had portrayed an Austria > that was radically different from my own direct experience in a genre > that relies on verity to time and place as one of the core > assumptions of that genre, I would have found the novel to be > dishonest or lazy. > > I'm not asking that every experience exactly mirror my own, and in > most of the details, Danube didn't match my own experience. But I do > ask for a core honesty, a sense that the author is telling me a truth > in fictional garb, and I think Mitchell delivered on that extremely > well. > > In this case, he wrote in a genre that assumes a lot of factual > verity. Other genres do not. I wonder if any missionary narratives have been written by people who did not serve in that same mission. The forthcoming mindcore of Sister Fronk, for example, will have to be set in LA--i hope the writer is not from LA. Am I wrong in this assumption, that almost all fictional missionary stories written take place in the areas the authors served in? > > > >Can you give me an example of a conclusion you believe Mitchell is forcing > >on you as a universal truism? If I remember correctly, didn't Monroe say > >that his mission was about human communication. Why do you feel that he's > >pushing that conclusion as a universal? > > For a couple of reasons. First, because I didn't see Mormon > characters other than Monroe with wisdom equal to his own. Sure, you > had the door-to-door salesman who was so desperate to keep the good > feelings he had on his mission that he converts the rest of his life > into a pseudo-missionary structure. But Clay is clearly portrayed as > being shallow and more than a little desperate (to me, at least). > Clay's experience is trivial; only Barry Monroe has deep insight > on-camera. > > Second, that's the premise of the entire novel, pretty much stated as > such in the first three paragraphs of chapter 1: > [mod snip] > > The whole point of the story is for Elder Monroe to interpret his > mission--or at least the concluding events that forced him to > consider his whole experience. I accept that whatever follows is that > interpretation. But throughout his musings he rejects all other > interpretations. too tidy. [my] life isn't like that. >Yes, the author nods to a series of caricatures and > says that such things exist, but they're void of deeper meaning. I too wanted something more. But then, generally I always do. > This is underscored for me at the top of the third paragraph above > where he wonders if it's just him, then dismisses the individual > interpretation in favor of a more grand, universal one because, > "Yeah, like other elders didn't get dragged down, too?" > > The character makes a claim that the author never refutes or > mitigates in the remainder of the story. To me, this brings the POV's > voice up a level and turns it into the author's voice. Again, this is > a feature of the genre--it's a fictionalized account of the author's > experience, a memoir that we are expected to take as generally true. > The genre demands that I treat it as the author's voice and beliefs. Hmmm. Interesting to think here about what satisfies us and does not as readers. On the one hand, we want something somewhat packaged for us, the meaning contained. But on the other hand, we don't want it too tidy. We want it to branch off in different directions, a wild bush. > Spice it up with supporting scenes like the zone conference on page > 107 where POV states "Love is what it's all about" then spends the > rest of the scene showing how all other participants in the > conference were playing political games to establish themselves in > the new mission hierarchy (with the exception of Unts--one of the > aforementioned "clowns"--who reinforces POV's own opinions). Or the > final interview with the new mission president who turned out to be > narrow and unforgiving (not to be confused with the former mission > president who was largely portrayed as trunky). > > He pays lip service to other experiences, but undermines all of them > except Barry Monroe's. perhaps too solipsistic? like the world revolves around him? i'm not entirely sure about this. But if I were to agree with you here, I'd say that I too would rather see our protagonist revolve around the world instead. To me the text suggests that only Monroe's is > *the* true and honest depiction of the missionary experience as > offered in this novel. That he compellingly tells his missionary > story compounds the conundrum for me. > > (I'll grant that it would be more accurate to say that the novel > attempts to portray *the* Austrian missionary experience, not the > global one. I find even that much to be difficult when the story > allows for no other correct interpretations.) > > That's how I read the text, rightly or wrongly. Scott, I appreciated reading your intelligent and thoughtful comments. I hope we can keep the discussion going. I will try to respond to your points in post number two, but my eyes are too tired right now. Tom J. - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 04:05:51 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > Frankly, I felt guilty. I hope Richard, Thom, and I were able to assuage some of your guilt. > I didn't dislike the movie as much as this reviewer did. And when it's out > on video, I will buy it for my family. It's better than the Hollywood > versions of Jesus that have him baptized by sprinkling, questioning who he > is, and spending a good portion of his life being angry. You must be watching the wrong Hollywood movie (sounds like "Last Temptation of Christ"). Watch Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" miniseries. Oh, sure, it still has the sprinkling baptism, since Zefirelli is Catholic. But none of the rest of that garbage is there. I was moved by the film. And Robert Powell as Jesus looks much more like Jesus--at least the stylized Jesus our culture is familiar with. And no John Wayne playing a Roman centurion with his cowboy accent, like in a certain other film about the life of Christ. -- 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: Craig Huls Subject: Re: [AML] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 07:57:54 -0500 First I want to express my gratitude for Terry Jeffress and Rex Goode for reading and commenting on this first novel. I shopped it several places and one agent told me without explaining: "Cause Novels don't sell well" Reading this comment by Terry Jeffress helped me understand what I've done and what the Agent was trying to say: >In fact, _Just Wait_ doesn't really have a main character, unless you >consider the rape itself a character. As you read the text, your >understanding of the rape changes and develops, but you never really >get to know any one of the characters well. So _Just Wait_ consists >of an entire cast of minor characters that never really develop or >change in any significant way. Sure, the perpetrators feel remorse >and parents wonder where they went wrong, but I never got a satisfying >feeling of knowing or caring about any particular character. This book was inspired by the fact that Males do not get equal treatment on the issue of sexual abuse or rape. There is much more of it going on than is ever discussed, and it is going on in LDS homes as well. While I have a BA in Psychology and hours of lay counseling experience I do not have the credentials, in my opinion, to address the issue as more than one who has worked with survivors. Without wanting to pay the price of obtaining the PHD inorder to make my point. "Just Wait" became a vehicle.... Terry's comment that the main character is the RAPE is probably the result. Interesting to see that comment, and to have it jump off the screen at me.... Thank you Terry! >Even though _Just Wait_ missed many opportunities to involve me >emotionally, I enjoyed reading the story as a light suspense novel. >Huls has a good sense of pace; writes clean, plausible scenes; and has >a knack for writing snappy dialogue. Most encouraging Terry, thanks a bunch!.... Rex Goode wrote: > I perhaps identified more with Kent as a victim than Terry because my > outrage at the crime was more personal, hit closer to home. At the > same > time, I felt that Kent handled it far too well. The scope of the > story's > chronology stops before we'll see the affects years down the road on > Kent's > relational skills. There wasn't enough in the story to foreshadow it, > so it > leaves me with the impression that this didn't hurt Kent as much as it > would > have a real young man, as much as it did me. > > Some of what Terry L Jeffress wanted to see I agree with. I would like > to > know how Kent fared at school. I don't really know that I care about > him > dealing with sleazy reporters. Seems sensational and out of step with > the > rest of the book, which tries hard to balance a sensational topic > with > sensitive treatment. > > The author did a fine job with many of the needed balances. I'm glad > it > didn't play out like a made-for-Lifetime-TV movie. > > Overall, I thought the book was good. I read it over two evenings, > which I > almost never do. I cared enough about Kent to keep going, and even > came to > care about the perpetrators, all virtually children. > > Normally, I wouldn't say that a book was too short or too tight, but I > think > this story had much more potential than it realized, using Terry L > Jeffress' > overall assessment that the characters needed more development. It > could > easily stand to be longer with more meat, but as it was, it was well > done. A > longer version would run the risk of moving from sensitive to > sensational, > but I think this author could manage that risk well. > > Rex Goode > Again thanks to Rex Goode for these insightful comments. The sequel regarding Kent shows the long lasting and serious impact the event had on him well into his adult life, It will show more now! My desire was to write something a 12 year old could read today that might get him talking with his parents about things that I fear too many parents are not addressing. Perhaps choosing the novel format was a mistake, but it was two things, first something that I had to write and second very therapeutic both for me and for several young men whom I have shared it with. They have opened up and perhaps with professional help will get through their "survivorship" now that the scab is off the wound. That I have found fulfilling. Without realizing it I found a market for "Just Wait" accidently, though it hasn't made me any money, it has short cut several times what it would have taken in time to help someone understand they were a victim and thus begin the process of healing. So neophyte writer that I am I feel good about those results. You have both been gentle with an "Old Man" and motivating and most helpful. There will be a great deal more attention paid to the three sequels all of which are started.... I'm finding it interesting to use "multi-tasking" as I write the stories of the impact of what happened to three of the characters, Kent, Missy and an unnamed soul whom will not be talked about at this point. What may become one novel is at the moment three. My consulting and data processing background is paying off with the "Multi-tasking" approach. [grin] I am not proud of my typos and typesetting and Terry, your off line comments on that matter are greatly appreciated. An investment in a professional approach to cleaning up my act will take place! The Good News: first printing was small, to be used for review and promo and for that we can all be grateful! "Just Wait" will be cleaned up technically, probably not re-written much other than timeline issues you pointed out, and distributed as an E-book by HEP and YEP that is my goal I want Happy Endings. I hate to pay admission to a movie that leaves me unhappy! I don't mind a little violence and mayhem now and then but I like a happy ending! Thanks again to Rex and Terry and thanks to AML for a an opportunity to get such insightful advice as I move forward in this endeavor to have an impact through the written word. At my vintage I don't know that I will ever be a great writer I hope to be entertaining and have some kind of impact on the lives of others. I am positively influenced by the very constructive thoughts you both expressed! -- Craig Huls mailto:dcraigh@onramp.net - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 09:07:38 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > > > > So how come I'm so much more touched by a TV show than a church movie. Because Touched By An Angel is made to entertain first, move people secondarily. The Church movie is made to propagandize only. > Frankly, I felt guilty. Don't be. It shows that you have an innate ability to tell the difference between smaltz and true artistically engendered emotion. > When I first read this review, my first thought was that the reviewer was > extremely cynical. But it has touched a chord in me. For the first time > someone else has said that the movie didn't affect them the way it was > supposed to. Add me to that list (I suspect there are many more of us.) > I didn't dislike the movie as much as this reviewer did. And when it's out > on video, I will buy it for my family. It's better than the Hollywood > versions of Jesus that have him baptized by sprinkling, questioning who he > is, and spending a good portion of his life being angry. May I suggest that you go out and buy Zefferelli's _Jesus of Nazareth_ TV miniseries? One of the finest renditions of the life of Christ ever made. I believe we see Jesus getting sprinkled, but that is really very minor compared to the great spiritual scenes elsewhere in the film (Just no recalling Peter walking into Matthew's house and kneeling before the Lord to repent of his having unfairly judged Matthew as unworthy of the kingdom brings a little tear to my eye. And Jesus doesn't spend his time being angry -- though he does kick the sellers out of the temple.) This film, produced and directed by a Catholic, gets much closer to portraying Christ than any LDS filmmaker has to date. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 10:40:11 -0600 On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 05:08:38PM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > I've seen the movie twice. The first time, I was warned that I > would cry. I didn't. I didn't get moved until the very end when > the father is healed. But I still didn't cry. > > The second time, everyone was passing out kleenex. Again I didn't > cry although I was still moved by the fathers healing. And Jesus > didn't look right to me. I saw the movie recently with a group of men and boys from my ward (a substitute fathers and sons outing -- but I'll save that rant for some other forum). This end scene moved me, but not because Christ heals the father, but because of what happens just before. SON Father, I'm so sorry that you cannot see Christ because of my sin. FATHER Son, it is enough for me to know that you have seen him. To me this expresses the great miracle of the movie. That the son has come to Christ. What greater happiness can we experience than to see our children accept the gospel and have their own testimony. Perhaps my own situation with wayward children make this scene more poignant. And I must agree, that this scene filled me with emotion, but I think that similar to the feeling of calm you get after strenuous exercise, that you have more openness to spiritual promptings after a bout of strong emotion passes. I agree with much of the criticism of _The Testaments_. I didn't like the casting for Christ, but I also set that aside and just read the character as a symbol rather than let the visual image interfere. I could still allow myself to contemplate the effects of Christ's visit to a community of believers in spite of the actor's visual appearance. -- Terry Jeffress | If you can't annoy somebody with what you | write, I think there's little point in AML Webmaster and | writing. -- Kingsley Amis AML-List Review Archivist | - 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] Critique of Writing Date: 14 Jun 2001 10:21:26 -0700 Re: Melissa Proffitt and her mother-in-law's not-quite-rejected novel: I'm wondering, Melissa. Do the dynamics of the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship make it difficult for your MIL to accept your advice? In general, isn't it difficult for MILs to take advice from their DILs? Obviously you feel very strongly that your MIL should have a different attitude about her "rejection" letter. And any of us would be envious of the encouraging feedback she received from the publisher. But has she perceived your energetic opinion as being judgmental of her? If so, she may be less likely to follow your advice. Or is she reticent to compare herself against other family members who are writers? I knew a girl who was an excellent pianist, who would come home from school & find her mom playing the piano. But as soon as the daughter walked in, the mother would quickly stop playing and get up from the piano. The daughter felt that the mother was embarrassed to be playing the piano in front of her. Maybe your MIL needs to get feedback from a neutral observer, who is not emotionally invested in what happens next. The UCLA Extension Writer's Program offers professional critiques of screenplays. They might do critiques of novel manuscripts as well. I think the price was $75 to $100 per critique. (This might be an interesting gift for an aspiring author to receive from a loved one.) Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 11:30:12 -0600 > > I left the theater after seeing "Testaments" with the firm > conviction that > > none of my non-member friends or family would ever see this movie. It > > embarrassed me by reducing The Book of Mormon to the level of "Xena - > > Princess Warrior." > > It wasn't even that good. At least Xena has humor, great fight > scenes. And some > of its episodes have been genuinely moving (as opposed to being > manipulative) in > their spirituality. > > (Not to mention Lucy Lawless, much more than a pretty face.) > > Thom I was embarrased when I saw _Testaments_ because of the subtext: if you convert to the Truth then you will be rewarded with a very sexy wild woman. Of course she too has converted and now wears less makeup and jewelry and has the softer spiritual side coming to the forefront. But don't forget how tempting she looked in the beginning. Reminds me of a talk I heard by a former mission president who said that he told all his elders to pay attention to his wife. If they were faithful they would get a similar reward someday. And what message is the movie teaching young girls about how to get a husband? Actually a pretty realistic one I guess. Gae Lyn Henderson > > - 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] Facial Hair Date: 14 Jun 2001 12:24:28 -0700 Konnie Enos wrote: > Because of this topic on the list I made a point of looking to see if I > could see anyone with facial hair at church on Sunday. I was surprized > to notice that most of the men with facial hair had well trimmed goatees. > But I would still have to say that most of the men were clean shaven. > My husband is one that doesn't have whiskers because I refuse to kiss him > when he doesn't shave, otherwise he would sport a full beard and mustache > like his dad did. > > Of course I live in Salt Lake County so I really didn't think I would > find alot of unshaven men. So I wasn't the only AML-Lister counting beards at church last Sunday! In my ward, too, nearly all the men who have goatees or mustaches keep them well-trimmed. The only one with a longer, Old Testament or Mormon pioneer style beard is the high priests group leader. He's told me that his wife won't let him shave it off! Fortunately, his hair in his beard is still black. (He's an engineer at IBM, a company which 30 years ago not only prohibited beards, but mandated ties and white shirts for its employees. But IBM doesn't require that now.) I agree that the closer one is to Mormonism's cultural center, the less likely one is to see lots of facial hair on LDS men. I think a survey would show that Mormon society is more clean-shaven than American society at large, just as other surveys have shown that Mormons are more likely to vote Republican than would members of any other religious group in the U.S. (I think it's 70 or 80%; I can look this up if anyone's interested.) I remember "New Era" articles in the early 1970s, explaining why church leaders didn't want young men to grow beards. It wasn't that beards were inherently evil. It was because, at that time, beards were part of a cultural context which promoted rebellion, immorality, etc. The counsel against beards was a response to a cultural phenomenon, and was acknowledged as such in the articles. The same articles also counseled young women to not wear miniskirts, but the rationale given for that rule was different. Over the years, American society has changed its attitude: facial hair no longer automatically signifies rebellion or "hippie"-ness, but is now a non-controversial (though non-standard) grooming choice. Mormon society's attitude is about 10-15 years behind. Facial hair, especially beards, is frowned upon, though not forbidden. This attitude is reinforced by the fact that official church institutions, such as BYU, formally prohibit beards among its staff and students. This becomes a self-perpetuating cycle: "Men who attend BYU can't grow beards. This is appropriate because beards symbolize rebellion and disrepect for authority. And how do we know that beards symbolize rebellion? Because men at BYU who grow beards are rebelliously breaking the rules. And what rule are they breaking? The rule against growing beards. Therefore, beards symbolize rebellion and disrespect for authority. . . . etc." So maybe, in that closed system, having a beard is symbolic of rule-breaking and disrespect for authority. But should that symbolism exist outside that closed system? I don't think it's necessary. But as long as two of the largest employers on the Wasatch Front (BYU in Provo, and LDS Church HQ in Salt Lake) prohibit their employees from having beards, that symbolism will remain. What was a moral issue in the late '60s and early 70's has now become an organizational preference. But the organizational preference is so influential that it permeates Utah Mormon society in general, reinforcing people's pre-existing disapproval of beards so much that they perceive beard-wearers with suspicious, even though there's been nothing said about beards in General Conference for over 20 years, and there are no questions about beards in worthiness interviews. To some, having a beard may be almost as bad as being a Democrat. No, worse, because there are General Authorities who are Democrats. There are no GA's who have beards. (I'm not saying that BYU or Church HQ should change their grooming standards. Just that their grooming standards have a sociological impact on the surrounding communities.) Anyway, I think the farther one gets from the gravitational center of Mormon culture, the less pervasive the influence of cultural stereotypes and predispositions. By the way, I'm clean-shaven. (I had a beard for 4 years while I was a Gospel Doctrine teacher in the early '90s, but nobody ever complained. My way of being a nonconformist was to have a beard without a mustache.) Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] My First Novel Date: 14 Jun 2001 13:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Jeff-- I had the same reaction at first (spill it, Brother Martindale!), but if he is going to be entering the Brown novel contest (and I suspect he is), then it would probably be best not to let too much out about the novel because for all we know (and I don't know, but I'm guessing) the judges (or soon-to-be judges) of the contest could be on this list. I have no idea what the protocol is for this kind of thing, but this was the line of reasoning that led me to not try and solicit juicy excerpts or a plot summary. If I'm wrong, then I second Jeff. Details, please. ~~William Morris --- Jeff Needle wrote: > And yet you tell us nothing of what's in this book. > Given the exceptional > quality of your reviews, we expect something great. > Please, details!!! > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Savage" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings Date: 14 Jun 2001 13:17:43 -0700 >If your character lives in Utah County, Utah, his beard reepresents >noncomformity. Unless it is deer hunting season. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 14 Jun 2001 14:27:34 -0500 When I first brought up the subject, I didn't mean to suggest that a man couldn't write from a woman's perspective. In fact I had stated that he could and that I had written from a man's perspective in the book I wrote. In fact it's somewhat like the one mentioned here where each chapter is from a different person's perspective. I wrote from the perspective of several different people both male and female. What I was suggesting, that if you have a good male writer, and a good female writer writing about an experience that is uniquely female, the woman will do a better job of it. For some reason this seemed to cause problems with the male audience. Why? Is it that men don't want to think that women might know something that they don't? Or is it an insult to suggest that the woman might do a better job at something? I will be the first one to put up my hand and say that I don't know how the male mind thinks, what his sexual experience is, how giving a blessing feels, what it's like to be able to write my name in the snow, why bodily function contests are necessary when in groups of the same gender, or why getting married means you don't have to dance anymore. All I can do is guess based on my observations and my own experiences. So by all means, write from a woman's perspective. But realize, it's just guessing. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 14:43:39 -0600 On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 09:48:30AM -0700, Frank Maxwell wrote: > Regarding the novel which Terry reviewed: > > > Huls, Craig. JUST WAIT. Plano, Texas: Happy Ending Press, 2001. > > ISBN 0-9678771-0-5. Trade paperback, 266 pages. > > Was this novel written by an LDS author, or published by a Mormon company? > To which audience is the book being marketed -- LDS, "Christian", or > general readership? Is it a YA novel? > > Did you review it for us because a main character, the victim's > psychologist, was Mormon? What was the victim's denomination? Author: LDS Publisher: LDS (in this case Author = Publisher) Market: General readership. A bookstore would probably shelve the book in the YA section, but Craig clearly intends a broader audience, probably both young adults and parents. Only the psychologist and his family belong to the Church. Kent, the victim, belongs to some undesignated church that believes in sexual abstinence before marriage and forgiving others of their sins. I don't believe that Kent ever mentions or thinks of Christ, so I could not explicitly say he belongs to a Christian church. Religious denomination does not matter in the plot of JUST WAIT, so I didn't bother to mention religious affiliation in my review. I reviewed the book because Craig asked me to. I could have just sent a private communication to Craig, but I thought that the list would like to have an opportunity to know about a novel written by one of our list members. -- Terry Jeffress | Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a | blank sheet of paper until drops of blood AML Webmaster and | form on your forehead. -- Gene Fowler AML-List Review Archivist | - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 14:57:45 -0600 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > > I haven't seen the film yet. But I read all your comments and really have > to wonder. Because every person that I know that has been out west and seen > the movie comes back and raves. They get tears in their eyes just talking > about it. And they are all very different people, with different > experiences in the church, in education, in work...... Maybe those who > don't like it just don't say anything about it. You have hit on the truth of the matter without even knowing it. For instance, the only place I've dared share my dislike of the film is online. Were I to say the things I've said at a family meeting or in a Church gathering, I would be summarily ignored, at best, or considered an apostate at worst. There is also another possibility. I know of one person who also hates the movie but isn't willing to say so. When asked, she talks only about the good points, always falling short of saying what she really thinks. So some of the people saying they like it may actually like it, others may just say they do just to keep the peace. Which ties back into Mormon Literature in an interesting way. Would we expect more "positive" reviews from fellow Saints than we would from another audience? Like Eloise Bell says, we as a people place a lot of emphasis on being "nice." -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - 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] Plausability Date: 14 Jun 2001 19:52:32 -0400 I *did* say that probably no one else would think that it was implausible. And it was such a small passage too. Kind of amazing that it had that effect on me. In the first chapter Tyler tells us the story of his sister's death. It happened when he was 4 and she is 6. He is at the time of the telling, I believe, 13. Later in the story, when he's made a pretty big mess of everything he says: "It was times like these when I really missed Lissie. Missed my older, smarter sister who always knew what to say and what to do to make me feel better. Who hugged me--I could still feel her strong arms around me now--and taught me new words and how to write my own name and taught me a song about Christopher Robin who went to a palace with a girl named Alice." It just hit me as all wrong. I have a four year old son, and a seven year old daughter. I know that Josh, at four, does not think about his 'older, smarter sister'. A six year old does not 'always knew what to say and what to do to make me feel better'. We're talking a four year old and six year old here! And strong arms around him. Now Josh might consider his 17 year old sister as strong--in fact the above description fits their relationship very well, though the perceptions of 'smarter' probably belong to an older child--but he, Josh, is every bit as strong as his seven year old sister, and maybe even his nine year old sister. I could see a boy of 13--the age Tyler is when he's telling the story--having these perceptions if he was that age when it happened. Maybe even if the accident happened when the boy was 6 or older, and the sister a bit more than two years old than him. But, it just didn't ring true for a boy of 13 to remember his sister in this light--a sister only two years older than himself, when the accident happened when he was four. As you can tell, it really, really bothered me. And it is such a small thing. And yes, of course I'm reading it from the perspective of my own experience--but I know kids pretty well. My own and the dozens I've worked with over the years. It just didn't work for me at all. Also, I think the first chapter set up an expectation that the death of the sister would have more of a role in the story than it did. The character's 'coming of age', or whatever you call it, did involve his understanding of his dad and his dad's reaction to his sister's death. But, except for the above paragraph, little was said about how it effected him personally, other than it disrupted his family life enough for them to be willing to send him to NY. The author sets up this elaborate retelling of the accident. All about how Lissie plays these tricks. All about Tyler watching--part of the joke. All about her shushing him, and his 'clamping my mouth so I wouldn't give away our joke to Dad.' And then the truck hitting her and her screaming, and him yelling to his dad to stop...... He's an angry young man, has trouble controlling his temper, his family life has been disrupted, but, except for the above paragraph, the death of his sister has not been a factor in all that. I mean, it effected his father profoundly, and that effected Tyler's life, but the death did not seem to affect him directly except as a loss of comfort in a paragraph that didn't ring true to me. That death, given the importance it is given in the first chapter, should have, for my 'enjoyment' of the book, had something more to do with the story than just as his dad's problem and an excuse for him to be sent to NY. But then maybe, as a four year old, the death would not effect him that profoundly. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > I've read Over the Wall and I didn't find anything implausible about it. Just > wondering what you are referring to. > Lu Ann Staheli > > Tracie Laulusa wrote: > > > I finished a book last night that could have been very good. I've been > > wanting to read it because I heard the author read part of in at a > > conference. (John Ritter/Over the Wall) I finally found it and started in. > > About a third of the way the author wrote something that I found totally > > improbable--though others might not--and he lost me. > > I finished the book, but from then on I was reading a book, not living the > > story. > > > [snip] > > > > Tracie Laulusa - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2001 17:35:51 -0600 On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:55:57 EDT ViKimball@aol.com writes: > "Where was Emma?" Excellent question. It seems to be a tradition in the church to minimize her contribution to the building of the kingdom almost to the point of complete exclusion. Yet, I wonder how able Joseph would have been without her. Lucy Mack Smith said of her daughter-in-law: "I have never seen a woman in my life who would endure every species of fatigue and hardship from month to month and from year to year with that unflinching courage, zeal and patience which she has ever done ... she has been tossed upon the ocean of uncertainty -- she has breasted the storms of persecution, and buffeted the rage of men and devils, which would have borne down almost any other woman." Joseph himself had this to say of her on an occasion when he was in hiding and she came to see him: " ... what unspeakable delight, and what transports of joy swelled my bosom, when I took by the hand, on that night, my beloved Emma ... Many were the reverberations of my mind when I contemplated for a moment the many scenes we had been called to pass through, the fatigues and the toils, the sorrows and sufferings, and the joys and consolations, from time to time, which had strewed our paths and crowned our board. Oh what a commingling of thought filled my mind for the moment, again she is here, even in the seventh trouble -- undaunted, firm, and unwavering -- unchangeable affectionate Emma!" I fear that Brigham Young's opinion of her has lasted through the years and we have adopted it as doctrine. That's rather shameful I think. I hope she gets her due in Richard's new project. I really do. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.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 News Briefs: Kent Larsen 13Jun1 X1 Date: 14 Jun 2001 19:59:05 -0500 [I am forwarding this excerpt from Kent Larson's Mormon News list. It appears to be serious. However, my antenna has gone up. I can't access the SLTrib right now, but the names Rolly and Wells seem to trigger a repressed memory of humor deep in the past. Is this really serious, or is something extra going on here? In either event, it seems related to Mormon Letters ... :-> Larry Jackson.] News Briefs In the News Today: LDS Church Magazines to have More Articles from GAs: Salt Lake Tribune 13Jun01 N1 LDS Church Magazines to have More Articles from GAs SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- A recent memo to the editors of the LDS Church magazines, including the Ensign, New Era and Friend, establishes quotas for the portion of their content that is written by General Authorities. According to the Salt Lake Tribune's Rolly & Wells, a memo from editorial director Richard M. Romney specifies that at least 50% of each magazine will be written by General Authorities, including at least one from a member of the First Presidency, another from a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, one or two from a member of one of the Quorums of the Seventy, and a "classic" article from previous members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. ROLLY & WELLS: Old Elms Get The Ax in a Power Play Salt Lake Tribune 13Jun01 N1 http://www.sltrib.com/06132001/utah/105306.htm By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells and Paul Rolly >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] My First Novel Date: 15 Jun 2001 01:21:09 -0600 Jeff Needle wrote: > > And yet you tell us nothing of what's in this book. Given the exceptional > quality of your reviews, we expect something great. Please, details!!! I'm pleased you care. But I won't be giving any details for the time being, because I'm entering the Marilyn Brown contest, so I need to remain as anonymous to those judges as possible, whoever they might be. If I give out details, they may be able to tell which book is mine. But it's not that good anyway. Don't get your hopes up. It's pretty mediocre actually. Come to think of it, it's downright pathetic. (It's better for the reader to come to the book with low expectations and be pleasantly surprised than to come with high expectations and be unpleasantly disappointed.) -- 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: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? Date: 14 Jun 2001 19:55:33 -0700 (PDT) > >From thj5@columbia.edu Sat Jun 09 21:50:27 2001 > Cryptographic texts might work best with temple > topics. It wouldn't be too > difficult to get a point across about the temple by > way of indirection, the > sort of thing that would set Mormon heads > a-spinning, but leave non-Mormons > clueless. But what's the appeal of that kind of > literature? Sounds like > Jewish kabbalism. Which I'm fine with, sure, but I > don't see why it would > make for great literature. More like great puzzles. > Have you read Kafka's > _Penal Colony_ or "the bridge" or "the emperor"? > These seem like highly > coded texts to me. Give me an example of what you > had in mind. I have read those Kafka works and do think that Mormonism could add to what I call the 'parabolic' genre. But what I more had in mind wasn't cryptic in the sense of number games or kabbalistic symbols (which are more emblems than symbols), but rather form, dialogue, and terms that are highly specific to certain Mormon communities. Insider fiction. And yet as I write this, I can't come up with any great examples, so I guess that's probably indicative of the limitations of such a project, as you've already pointed out. > If I remember correctly, in that Evenson-Marcus > interview, Evenson was > explaining that the Church didn't factor much into > his writing; it just > wasn't the kind of thing that came out in his prose. > So, is _Tongue_ > considered Mormon literature? Just because the > Church or the doctrine of the > Church or Church themes aren't in there does not > mean it's not Mormon. > Otherwise it would be like Mormon writers were > self-obsessed with their own > religion and their selves in it, like they were > always writing about > themselves. Sure our lives are "supposed" to revolve > around our faith, and > not the other way around, but that doesn't always > work out, and that's not > what literature is always about. I am still of the > opinion that, just as > there is no "Mormon science" or "Mormon physiology" > or "Mormon mathematics," > if there is a "Mormon literature" it should contain > all the good, true, and > beautiful--and not simply all elements of Mormonism. > To do the latter is to > deny what Mormonism is all about. However, you've > argued quite a bit for the > other pov, and I can see where you're coming from. > There is no "African > Mathematics" but there is an "African Literature." > Exactly what, then, are > the elements that identify a work as Mormon > literature? Actually there is a movement towards 'ethnic mathematics' (including an African Math) in certain academic circles. I don't know enough about it to evaluate the merits of such a movement (I would imagine that such projects would be rather limited---like it or not, certain 'western' concepts dominant academic, public and popular discourse). Besides to speak of a Mormon physiology or science is to make a bit of a false analogy. Literature is a different beast. There is a Mormon philosophy just like there is a Jewish one. Both branches are obviously sub-genres of the larger philosophic enterprise, and certainly many have made the case against ethnic-religious-gender based disciplines, but they persist nonetheless. Literature is an even stranger thing because, as you point out with your Evenson example, it's very difficult to categorize many authors. Comparative literature has challenged the notion of national literatures as some pure thing, and I think that trying to define Mormon literature as some pure thing is incredibly tricky. All Mormon writers have different relationships with the institutional church, with the Mormon publishing scene, with the academic world, with western regionalism (Mormon lit. is often seen as a sub-genre of this category). I haven't read enough Mormon literature to truly know if one can develop a list of elements that make it so. In many ways, Mormon literature is literature that defines itself, in some way, either textually or in its outer context (author's statement, critical treatment, etc.) as Mormon. I'm still working my way through this one Tom. But to borrow from my comp lit roots----we know the elements of Mormon literature by looking at the anthologies, journals and marketing efforts that are trying to create a canon of Mormon lit. > I'm sorry here. I came to the list a bit late, and > have missed out on all > these discussions. I know there's an archive of > posts somewhere, but I'm not > sure how to access them. No reason to be sorry. The archive can be found at the AML Web site, but it is not organized by topic so it's difficult to find exact discussions. There is a somewhat cyclical nature to the list and those members who have been around for awhile and don't feel a need to contribute to a discussion they've already had generally sit back and let the 'younger' ones go at it. I'd like to see the entire archive ported to a web-searchable database one of these days, but I'm sure it would be a while before the AML board could consider such a project. > I haven't read Arlt. I did pick up a copy at the > library the other day, > though. With that last line of your post, > it makes it seem as if you are not American. But > your name (which is a > famous American name as well as the name of a > renowned literary agency) is > American. I'm an American and my name is as about as Anglo-Saxon as you can get, especially when you add in my middle name: Henry. I'm a Utah-CA hybrid currently living in the Bay Area. The reason I wasn't sure about the American reception of Robert Arlt's fiction is that I encountered him in a graduate course on Latin American fiction, and so only heard there how he was received in his native Argentina (in the 20's and 30's). ----Plus, when I tried to find English-language criticism on him, I found very little, and the translation I read was fairly recently done and from a small publishing house, so I just assumed that he's not super well-known here in the states. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.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] Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 15 Jun 2001 08:59:38 -0600 In another post by Craig Huls, he said he likes happy endings. I have long held the view that all movies and books have happy endings, though we may not perceive them as such. I'm going to go out on a limb here and put my opinion to the test. If the Moderator will allow, and you list members want to play along, please send me the title of any movie you've seen, or have heard of, that you think has an unhappy ending. I bet I can show you that the ending really is a happy one, and I'll explain why that is so. If I haven't seen the movie, I'll tell you that. If I can't find a happy ending to every movie you mention that I've also seen, I'll eat public crow on the list. So, come on, here's a chance to publicly humiliate that big blow-hard, Thom Duncan. Try me. Thom Duncan - 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 Products: New and Old Novels, and a Martin Harris Biography: Kent Larsen Date: 14 Jun 2001 19:44:54 -0500 Biography: Kent Larsen 13Jun01 US NY NYC A4 [From Mormon-News] New and Old Novels, and a Martin Harris Biography NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- Recently published LDS books include a number of novels aimed at the LDS market and a biography of Martin Harris that the publisher says is the most complete account of his life. The novels include a new edition of an early Lee Nelson novel, the complete, unabridged version of Gerald Lund's most recent novel, and a novel based on the well-known poem, The Touch of the Master's Hand. The biography of Martin Harris was written by his brother's great-granddaughters who have spent years researching his life. Their account draws on rare correspondence and family information to present a portrait of a man who has been misunderstood by history. Cedar Fort has issued the new edition of Lee Nelson's "Wasatch Savage," one of Nelson's earliest novels, published in the 1970s by Liberty Press. Also new is a mystery from Covenant Communications called "Beneath the Surface," Robert Farrell Smith's latest novel, "Captain Matrimony" from Deseret Book, and the second book in Larry Barkdull's "Zion" series, which explores the development of a perfect society by Enoch. New and recent products: Beneath the Surface by Jeni Grossman Covenant Communications CD; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author $14.95 Mystery. Two sons of a man killed in the suspicious flooding of a rock quarry are convinced their father was murdered and are looking for revenge and to bring the truth to light, no matter who gets hurt. Wasatch Savage by Lee Nelson Cedar Fort Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author $17.95 A new edition of an early Lee Nelson novel that intertwines the lives of a feisty young woman who takes over her dead father's business, an athletic cowboy bull rider, a disillusioned inventor who disappears into the Wasatch Mountains and an Indian who sets a stolen calf loose on an uninhabited island in the Great Salt Lake. Kingdom and the Crown Vol 1: Fishers of Men by Gerald N. Lund Deseret Book Unabridged audio; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author $39.95 Complete audio version of Lund's newest novel, the start of a series portraying the life of Christ. Captain Matrimony by Robert F. Smith Deseret Book Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author & Subject $12.95 Romantic humor novel about an eastern Mormon, Andy Phillips, who comes to teach in the tiny Utah town of Mishap, where residents are scared because two young lovers disappeared while leaving for their honeymoon. The town now believes anyone who marries in town will find an unseemly and untimely end. But Phillips solves the mystery of the disappearance of the young lovers, gets the town to discount the curse, and finds the girl of his dream. The Touch of the Master's Hand by Larry Barkdull Maasai Publishing Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author and Subject $6.95 A novel inspired by the famous poem, The Touch of the Master's Hand tells the story of a family trying to raise money to pay for the treatment of their young daughter. Their efforts are met with disappointment and betrayal, but the kindness of friends and the gift of a violin from a mysterious old man cause the miracle of healing. ZION -- The Long Road to Sanctification by Larry Barkdull Maasai Publishing Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author and Subject $16.95 The second book in the Zion series, which tells the story of Enoch, the Seer as he tries to establish the most perfect society to exist on Earth. In this book Rabunel, on a mission of mercy, is captured by the secret Mahan society, wounded and left for dead. His brush with death sets off a series of events that resolve into a central question: "Is a Zion society the product of environment or individual choice?" Martin Harris Story by Madge Harris Tuckett and Belle Harris Wilson Maasai Publishing Book; LDS Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Author and Subject $12.95 The most complete and accurate account of Martin Harris' life, according to the publisher. The book includes detailed research, rare correspondence and many rare photographs. Written by his brother Emer's great-granddaughters. >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] Missionary Stories (pt 2 of 2) Date: 15 Jun 2001 12:28:29 -0600 Tom Johnson wrote: >What did you think of Evenson's _Lies_? Would you say that it "rang true" to >the author's experience or not? Evenson certain goes against my experiences >with bishops (thank my lucky stars); is that why I thought the book was so >hollow? perhaps if I'd lived Evenson's byu ordeal, I'd hear bells bells >bells on every page. Didn't read it. After _Altmann's Tongue_ I decided that as much as I liked the kinds of things I think he did with his relentlessly amoral viewpoints, I just didn't find as much enjoyment or insight in the text as I had hoped for. So I had no incentive to read any of his other books. With your little non-recommendation added to my own apathy, I still fail to have a reason to break my existing torpor and rush out to buy the book. >But don't you think that rejecting a text that varies widely from your own >experience can do you more harm than good? It limits your aesthetical >acceptance to only those experiences you've had or half had. I'm not sure if >I believe this. I'll have to think about it for a while. First, I don't reject Mitchell's text--or at least not as a whole. I think I made it quite clear that I not only found much to appreciate, but that I *did* appreciate it despite quibbles with some of the particulars. I did find his tent-preachment and display before the judge scenes to be essentially absurd--at least relative to my own experience. I enjoyed them anyway and thought they accomplished something within the story. I not only never did anything even remotely similar, I can't imagine that I would. So yeah, inside my head I made a little evaluation that said "unlikely!" and read the scene as a purely fictional construct. My only concern with the details at that point were whether they were internally consistent within the scene, and whether they fit broadly within the novel frameworks established by the novel. I thought they did, so I was able to accept the scenes while still believing them to be complete fantasy. Whether they really are fantasy or not is irrelevant. I don't think we can turn off our own BS detectors when we read, and I don't think we should be asked to. But when you make a point of something in an otherwise realistic setting, you have to expect me to evaluate whether that something is equally realistic. If you tell me that inviolable police procedure in Santaquin, Utah is to make a thorough investigation and immediate arrests when someone shoots a deer in your neighbor's front yard at Christmas-time, I'm going to doubt the verity of the claim, because I have direct personal evidence that refutes it. Not only did my local police not arrest, they didn't investigate, despite the huge pool of blood in the middle of the street (I had blood stains on my driveway for weeks where I had driven through it, not knowing what it was). I thought it was pretty clear who both fired a gun within city limits (illegal) and who poached the deer out of season (illegal at the state level), and my cursory investigation pointed straight at one specific house where the drag marks ended and secondary pools of blood appeared. So I know from personal experience that even if a policy exists in Santaquin, Utah, to investigate and arrest on all weapons-fire, the Santaquin City police department doesn't hold that policy as inviolable. The specific fictional claim would be inaccurate, and I know it. Because I know it, I now want to know why the author made such a claim. I've been jarred out of the reading experience by a misplaced detail. Years ago I read a book (was it _The Stepford Wives_?)_ that opened with a scene of a Mormon woman taking a bath. The author (narrator) stated clearly that it was official church doctrine that Mormons should never lose contact with their garments and that the church had established a policy that all Mormons should tie their garments around their wrists when they bathed. This is knowably wrong as a general statement of official Mormon policy and belief, and I had to question the author's intent in presenting that inaccurate detail. I read the book anyway, but I also decided that the author was playing fast and loose with the details. Then again, _The Stepford Wives_ hardly claimed to be journalism so while I can be disappointed that the author didn't work for more verity in the details, I can't reject the whole story on the basis of a single detail (though I did end up rejecting it for a whole host of other reasons...). I believe that when an author includes a detail, they also invite you to evaluate its verity. Whether I reject the whole text or not doesn't revolve around a single detail, though consistent inaccuracy in a genre defined by accuracy does beg some questions. I published a short story in _Irreantum_ that featured an impossible disease, a cat that could absorb illness from people, and a narration from the cat's POV, all set in a split-entry house in American suburbia. I have the advantage of knowing that cats don't read _Irreantum_ on a regular basis (and that even fewer of them participate on the AML-List), so I can expect few readers to be able to refute the cat's voice or perspective or magical healing abilities as absolutely untrue. But I would be a little disappointed (and more than a little frightened) if anyone believed that the story was journalism (though about 75% of the details in the story were taken from my own experience). Of course those premises are untrue, and rejection of the story because it's obviously not factual on those points would be unfortunate, because that's not the basis on which I believe the story should be read. It's a fantasy, and pretty clearly defined as such within the first two paragraphs. Its conceit is a fantastic premise told by a fantastic narrator. Then again, the genre it claims demands a certain amount of fantastic creation. So the story is consistent within the conventions of its genre, and should be read differently than a story that claims absolute verity. I know an awful lot of Mormon readers skipped right over my story because it was fantasy. While I can be disappointed (I thought it was a pretty good story that succeeded on its own terms, and a not-terrible Christ-allegory, as well), I can't claim that those readers shouldn't have rejected the story. Whatever filters they use to determine readability are theirs to contend with. I made a choice not to write to people who would reject on those bases. But among those who have read it, the cat owners have tended to praise me for getting the sense of "catness" right. I take that as evidence that despite the obvious ludicrousness of the premise, I still got most of the details right, and created a sense of verity and consistency within the fantastic premise that made the story as real as it can be. I think that's part of my job as a writer, and I think I mostly succeeded within the broad requirements of my genre. As a primarily sf writer, I can never require that absolute verity be a requirement of good fiction. But if I claim specific knowledge, I better make sure I get the details right or my readers will skewer me. That's another convention of my genre. >I wonder if any missionary narratives have been written by people who did >not serve in that same mission. The forthcoming mindcore of Sister Fronk, >for example, will have to be set in LA--i hope the writer is not from LA. Am >I wrong in this assumption, that almost all fictional missionary stories >written take place in the areas the authors served in? I listened to the director's commentary on my _God's Army_ DVD last night, and Richard Dutcher comments that much of the story he tells reflects his own missionary experiences in Mexico, and that many of the points of characterization for Elder Allen were actually taken from his own personal experience. Obviously, this successful missionary story did not limit itself only to the specific locations and contexts of his own experience. But it did successfully show realistic missionary experience--as taken from the author's own experience, even if set in a different time and place. It did successfully give a feel of parts of Los Angeles--at least partly because it was actually filmed there. The vignettes were true, regardless of time or place. They rose to a point of universality that transcended a specific setting. If Dutcher had shown me L.A, though, and claimed that he was showing me Mexico City, I would have had a problem. If he had shown me downtown Moscow and claimed he was showing me Los Angeles, then he would have strained my credulity. But Dutcher made no such claims. He could have put everyone in pressure suits, filmed it inside a coal mine, and claimed that the story was set in a Denebian asteroid colony and I wouldn't have questioned it because the details supported his claimed setting. But he does run the risk of some readers challenging those details if they have their own experience with Denebian (or any other) asteroid colony. (I grew up north of Chicago, so I find some of the visual details of the movie _The Matrix_ to be a little comical. It was filmed in Sydney, Australia even though it's allegedly set in Chicago. They use Chicago place names and streets, but the visuals are all Sydney. Some might reject the film because of that mismatch; I couldn't have cared less because it didn't matter to the story where it filmed, and the details had no impact on the plot. I grinned, too, at the scene at the opening of _Die Hard 2_ where Maclain is allegedly calling from the Dulles International Airport near Washington D.C. (I lived about twenty minutes away from there for three years) even though the payphone he's using clearly displays the words "Pacific Bell" etched into the metal faceplate. So what? I learned long ago that films are often made far away from their claimed locations, so those details don't destroy the story, though they do momentarily jar me out of the suspended disbelief of my viewer experience. I loved _Ferris Beuller's Day Off_, but some of the scene transitions are just plain impossible. The scene with the joy-riding parking lot attendants has them going up a slope in one place, catching air, then landing in a spot about fifteen miles away. There was one Arnold Shwarzenegger movie that featured a chase on Lower Wacker in Chicago that lasts for about five minutes. Lower Wacker is a maximum of a half-mile long, so to make their chase last as long as it did, they must have run over the same five-blocks' worth of street a half-dozen times. In _God's Army_ Dutcher talks about the scene where the elders push the bathroom door open and take snapshots of different folks sitting on the toilet. Cinematic magic allows the shots of the sitting elder to be taken in one bathroom while the shots of the camera-toting elders pushing the door open and snapping merrily away is shot in a completely different house thirty miles away. These facts don't harm the movie-watching experience for me, because they don't matter to the story.) > > He pays lip service to other experiences, but undermines all of them > > except Barry Monroe's. > >perhaps too solipsistic? like the world revolves around him? i'm not >entirely sure about this. But if I were to agree with you here, I'd say that >I too would rather see our protagonist revolve around the world instead. A little. For me. I think the novel would have been better if he had allowed for other valid experience on-camera. Not great tomes of alternate experience, just one other character who had a different, but still successful, conclusion to his experience. Maybe four or five paragraphs and/or one scene added in. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] SF X 5 (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2001 13:39:13 -0600 Ivan rated the plays, and labeled a couple as the "best" of the bunch. I have my favorite too (different from his), but I think the point is not how they compare with each other, but how each individual piece worked. I saw good things about each production, but have some suggestions on how certain of them could be more effective. I attended last Friday night. After reading about the event on the list, I invited my husband's sister and her spouse to attend and they brought along their daughter and her boyfriend. We had a good time discussing the plays afterward, so I can give you the gist of the reactions. > "Youtahneeks" by James Arrington. The older four members of our group cracked up at Utah dialect pronunciations. The two young people sat there without laughing so I'm not sure if they got the jokes or not. I have to agree with what Ivan said about this play--very funny, not really a play, more a string of skits. My sister-in-law (former English teacher) said over and over that this would be a perfect show to require one's students to attend so that they could learn about dialects in a fun way. I didn't sense any serious intentions with this one, except perhaps to help us be more sensitive to language and as a culture to our own peculiarities (and to laugh at them), so I have no suggestions for improvement. > > Fata Morgana by Scott Bronson. This was the most difficult play for our group to understand and appreciate. My brother-in-law Brent said that he kept trying to figure out what it was about, then looked at the rest of our faces and saw we were engrossed, and felt that he must be not clever enough to get the symbolism. My husband was very intrigued though and mentioned what he got out of it was that the peasant girl just couldn't be happy, no matter what the situation, and also couldn't see, understand or value anything. (I felt he was making a subtle comment on his wife's (my) tendency to be dissatisfied with life and that he felt the play could teach me a lesson.) However, Brent said he just gave up trying to understand and started thinking about the Laker's/Phillie's game he could have been watching at home on TV. I asked him if he enjoyed watching the actress who played what Ivan Wolfe called "an obviously Hindu deity doing Yoga." This young woman was very physically attractive and, yes, Brent admitted that he was watching her very closely. I found myself doing the same, almost letting the dialogue slide by as I watched her strength and flexibility and positioning. (Perhaps a too much of a distraction from what Bronson was trying to get us to hear?) In addition, there was some mention made of the live chicken being carried across the stage by the farmer. Strangely two of us had seen it and two of us completely missed it. To do justice to this play, I would need to read it or see it again. I just didn't take it in very well on the first viewing. > "On the way out" by Shannyn Walters. > > "No dear, I'm still dead." Intriguing premise--if mother comes back after she is supposed to be dead what will happen? The tensions between family members come up again, the issue of independence arises for the children, and finally, do we ultimately stay with mother's apparent corpse or just walk away? The characters here walk away to live their own lives, perhaps a little more at peace. One daughter is still on the phone calling for advice--an eternal hanger-on I guess. Group reaction: interesting. I liked it more than anybody else did, mostly because it made me think about my own family and all the hidden tensions and strings that bind us to other people. > > Let the Memories Die." by Thom Duncan. > > "The fringe benefits are great." I'll let Ivan set this up again: > > A house > must be demolished to make way for some important building or > another, but the > old lady who lives there won't leave - at least not until she > sees her niece. > Her niece "Sunny" is a member of the "Star Corps" or something > like that (I > forget the exact name). > > The play at first seems odd, in that Sunny is narrating > everything as it happens > (she says, for > > example "She reached out to touch me" as the other actress > reaches out to touch > her). At first I found this annoying and began to wonder what > this play had to > do with anything really SF other than a few odd references here > and there, and > then an ending worthy of M. Night Shyamalan sneaked up on me and > redeemed the > entire piece. Very powerful short play! This play offered the mind expansion that I hope to find in science fiction. I couldn't understand, as Ivan mentions, the narrator character. Then when I found out why she was telling the story, rather than just acting it out for us, it was doubly effective because of the former sense of being disconcerted. (She turns out to be a true "alien." One who can do things a human being can't do, and who makes us then reconsider our own brand of existence and what it means.) My sister-in-law, Karen, said that the ending brought tears to her eyes (so it passes the emotion-evoking test we been talking about on the list lately). But more than that, Thom's play stimulated me to really think about ideas--ideas like what is memory, how we take it for granted, whether memory is good or bad, what memory means in terms of the way we live in the present, what memory means in terms of our relationships. It also evoked questions about what it means to age. What really is important at that point in life? Lots of good, juicy, thought-provoking meat. A worthy script, presented effectively. > > The M.A.K.E.R. by James Arrington > > "I pray." > > Absolutely hilarious, > it's also a fair Garden of Eden allegory that probably has deeper meanings > behind it, but I was too busy having fun to try to do any close > readings of the > play. Our group agreed that this play was enjoyable, with some fun moments. One thing we particularly liked was when the magical MAKER machine created a Don Juan character and then a Zorro character for the protagonist who wanted to learn how to romance a beautiful woman. The resulting chaos was quite delightful. Don Juan and Zorro couldn't stop fighting and even pantomimed their fight once when they were admonished to be quiet. Some points of critique: slow beginning--needed to get moving more quickly. I also thought Arrington's symbolism was a bit heavy-handed. He had to repeat so we wouldn't miss it the not-very-masked reference to the Tree of Life admonition: It is given to you--nevertheless you may choose for yourself. This play though was easy to understand and provided some laughs as it delivered its not-subtle message. Gae Lyn Henderson - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 15 Jun 2001 14:13:30 -0600 > For some reason this seemed to cause problems with the male > audience. Why? > Is it that men don't want to think that women might know > something that they > don't? Or is it an insult to suggest that the woman might do a > better job at > something? > > I will be the first one to put up my hand and say that I don't > know how the > male mind thinks, what his sexual experience is, how giving a blessing > feels, what it's like to be able to write my name in the snow, why bodily > function contests are necessary when in groups of the same gender, or why > getting married means you don't have to dance anymore. > Funny here Anna! So in this continuing back and forth between Anna and the guys, we've had comments that feminists (or maybe women in general) want it both ways: to be "just as good as" and to be "special." I think that what Anna is talking about repeatedly in her posts is not whether men can write effectively about childbirth, but a larger issue: that women have a centuries-long sense of being the second sex, the one's who are not quite as important, who sit in the background, who have the lower-paying jobs, who do the back-up work for the big shots. Therefore, we do want to claim our own territory. If childbirth is the arena that is uniquely ours, then we will hang onto it and try to own it as exclusively as we can. Why do you think that huge rituals have developed around the childbirth experience in many cultures that exclude, exclude, exclude men? So that women, can, at least, have one little area in which they are valued and important! In which what they say matters! If you had sat in the audience all your life and watched the men conduct the meetings, then maybe you could understand this. We are the support people, and we sometimes have some strong reactions to territorializing our domain. But heck yes, men can write about childbirth and do a great job. Men are great. I love men. We just also want to be considered great by these talented and wonderful guys. and in response to D. Michael here is my birth story: D. Michael Martindale: > Now I have zero interest in trying to compare pain scores and see if my > cramps measure all the way up to childbirth cramps. That's not the > point. The point is I've felt excruciating pain in my abdomen that would > not go away until I passed something. If I ever need to write a scene of > childbirth from the POV of the mother, I can extrapolate from that night > of torture to describe at least part of the experience rather vividly. I > can add more understanding from research (e.g., a quote from Carol > Burnett that Bill Cosby incorporated into his act: the pain of > childbirth is like pulling your lower lip completely over your head You are bringing back some painful (and glorious) memories. Two of my six children were born via completely "natural" childbirth--no pain relief of any kind. And because I had four prior C-sections, the labors were long and slow--i pushed for over 3 hours. My legs are shaking with exhaustion. I can't get my breath. Dr. Parker tells me to push again. I try to lift my legs and hips up. They won't go. I can't hold up my legs. Everyone is prodding me, "Try, push harder, you can do it, don't quit!" I'm going to collapse. "Push, push, you can do it!" I scream. My body is ripping apart! "Keep pushing!" I can't rip apart my own body, but I have to, I have to!. "You did it, you did it." It's over. I did it. I gave birth. God helped me. Thanks Heavenly Father. My baby, my baby. Tears run down my face. I'm so happy. I've never been this happy. This is joy. Could a male author successfully describe a birth? Definitely. But please, male authors everywhere, just don't try to describe MY birth. Case in point, when my mother asked my husband about the birth, all he said was that HE was exhausted (which of course he was). But my mother felt he missed seeing the woman's point of view. Gae Lyn Henderson > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] re: MITCHELL, _Angel of the Danube_ Date: 15 Jun 2001 14:27:50 -0600 I'll dare to tread not only where Scott Parkin has gone (a fearful prospect indeed), but even have the temerity to do so in a forum frequented by the author of the work in question. I just finished the book at 4:30 am this morning so my experience with the book is still pretty raw. That's probably a good thing. As you can surmise from the above, I was captivated by the book. It managed to be engaging from the first person perspective and that's hard to do. I don't know if the book managed to be universal as Scott has pointed out, though I think that any time you do first person you are begging to be universal. Danube was too close to my own mission experience for me to gauge its universality. So as far as I can tell, it's descriptive of a single experience. I served my mission in Northern Germany and I can tell that the author knows the German people intimately from the perspective only available to a missionary -- as someone who spent a lot of time talking to Germans (okay, technically Austrians, but I didn't detect a lot of difference) about personal, spiritual matters. He nailed it dead on, though it was a little disconcerting to have no overt time references and yet include some clues that placed it about a decade before my time. Anyway, universal or not, it spoke to me. That's the culture I experienced. The missionaries rang true, too. I liked the clowns, but I'll disagree with Scott that they are our only close depiction of missionaries. I think that the apes are well described, though they appear infrequently. Elder Brannan was particularly sympathetic as someone who knew the score but still let his spirituality show through. Also, Unts was a good description of a missionary who is willing to work hard and with the Spirit at the same time (a rare combination, in my experience). Unts messed around sometimes, but like (and possibly better than) Barry, he was also very spiritual and able to keep things in perspective. Frankly, the relationship with Unts was one of the things that made the book multi-faceted enough to be believable and not just some humorous riff on the life of a missionary. The integration of Unts is what allowed me to go with Monroe when things turned serious at the end. Without that seriousness throughout the book, the transition at the end would have been much tougher and would probably have lost me. Before I get too gushy, I should probably point out that I didn't buy some of Elder Monroe's actions. I think that there is some wish fulfillment at the end when Monroe "goes prophet". What missionary didn't dream of doing those things? I certainly did. I think it was too convenient to get the Fashing invitation and that the Austrian judge was way more lenient than any Germanic authority figure I've ever known. I think Monroe was too facile, too glib, and that he got a response at all in situations where he would have been allowed none. The circumstances were too convenient and the responses too scripted. I won't go so far as to say that they are impossible, just that it was one point in the book where I couldn't follow with full suspension of disbelief. That said, I think those scenes were important to the book because they allowed Elder Monroe to go ballistic in a way that would highly contrast to his post-mission life. It adds to the stark contrast that I think was important as he tried to figure out what post-mission spirituality was supposed to be. Anyway, I laughed. I cried. The book made me want to evaluate (possibly even write) my own experience, but that's too painful, so I probably won't. I'm going to make Melissa read it because I want to be able to point out the things that I experienced that are so well captured by Mitchell -- things that I have tried to explain, but with indifferent success. Then again, maybe you just had to be there... Jacob Proffitt - 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] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 15 Jun 2001 15:35:14 -0600 On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:27:34 -0500, REWIGHT wrote: >When I first brought up the subject, I didn't mean to suggest that a man >couldn't write from a woman's perspective. In fact I had stated that he >could and that I had written from a man's perspective in the book I = wrote. >In fact it's somewhat like the one mentioned here where each chapter is = from >a different person's perspective. I wrote from the perspective of = several >different people both male and female. > >What I was suggesting, that if you have a good male writer, and a good >female writer writing about an experience that is uniquely female, the = woman >will do a better job of it. >I will be the first one to put up my hand and say that I don't know how = the >male mind thinks, what his sexual experience is, how giving a blessing >feels, what it's like to be able to write my name in the snow, why = bodily >function contests are necessary when in groups of the same gender, or = why >getting married means you don't have to dance anymore. > >All I can do is guess based on my observations and my own experiences. > >So by all means, write from a woman's perspective. But realize, it's = just >guessing. I couldn't understand how the original conversation went from men saying = "we can write about women's experiences as convincingly as a woman can" to = women saying "you men have no idea what women go through; don't pat our hands = and tell us 'I know just how you feel' when we're having a baby." I even = read the original thread from the beginning and discovered something = interesting: Not one man on this list ever said that his ability to write about = women's experiences meant that he knew just how women felt. =20 This was something that certain *women* concluded the men were saying. = That those men later gave some examples of pains they'd suffered or metaphors they'd heard that helped them imagine childbirth only served to reinforce this notion. The above post has given me an idea why this happened. The logical leap here goes from the passage: >What I was suggesting, that if you have a good male writer, and a good >female writer writing about an experience that is uniquely female, the = woman >will do a better job of it. to: >So by all means, write from a woman's perspective. But realize, it's = just >guessing. In other words, there's the idea that by writing about something, a = writer is in some sense laying claim to knowledge about that subject; if the = writer didn't understand the subject, how could he or she possibly evoke understanding in the reader? The corollary to this is that a person = who's experienced something is always going to understand it better than = someone who hasn't. This is true as far as simple understanding goes. We don't tell a person who's lost her husband that we know just how she = feels--even if we've also lost a husband! We don't presume to guess at other = people's emotional states through observation. This has nothing to do with writing an experience. A writer who depicts--let's stick with childbirth--isn't saying "I know = just how you feel; you can tell because this description is so realistic, even though I've never given birth." He or she is simply describing an event = as clearly and evocatively as possible. It's the reader who decides how realistic, how effective the scene is. If it's *really* powerful, if the reader is seriously moved by it, then it's tempting to ascribe that = emotion to the writer's insight and skill. But mostly, it's the meeting of the = two, reader and writer. I've been reading Rachel Nunes' latest book _This Time Forever_. I won't= go into detail, because I'm going to review it separately, but speaking of = her books in general--there's a lot of awful stuff that happens to people. Rachel has said many times (here and on her web site) that responses to = her books are tremendous...readers, mainly women, contact her to tell her how true her stories are, how well she's depicted their experiences, how = they've been through exactly the same things as Rachel's characters. Yet to my knowledge Rachel has never had a baby die of a heroin overdose, watched a child die of AIDS, had another child need a kidney transplant as a = teenager, divorced her husband, lost a husband due to epilepsy-induced depression, = or been to Kodiak Island (neither have I, but her descriptions sure made me want to live there). In writing about these tragedies, and how people overcome them, Rachel has never claimed to know "just how people feel." = She has a good imagination and she's done a lot of research--and she *has* = had tragedies of her own. Everyone has. Terror, sorrow, longing, love, = hatred, jealousy, pain--these emotions are remarkably similar at the core, once = you get past how many different reasons people have for feeling them. But we don't want to hear that we're similar. We want to keep our uniqueness. And when it comes to women's writing in particular, a lot of= us are pretty sensitive. I do know about this. Women writers and critics = have worked too hard to get their writing heard around the world to want to be told they can be replaced by men--that their voice isn't *that* unique. = How can a man who's passed a kidneystone imply that he now understands childbirth? we demand. With good reason. Except--again--it still = doesn't apply to writing. Passing a kidneystone teaches you pain. Holding your first child teaches you love. Reading books teaches you the technical details (something even women learn by reading; labor pains do not = announce themselves by shrieking "Hey! I'm called Transition!"). If a man can = take these details and a hundred other observations and turn out a description= of childbirth that makes a woman say "How did you know this is exactly what happens?!" then I don't see any difference in effect from a woman who's borne nine children describing it the same way. Because THE MAN ISN'T CLAIMING UNDERSTANDING. He's just setting something down on paper and hoping it hits the target. I had a surprise Caesarean with my first baby. It went very well, I felt= no pain, I was walking around two days later, and I've had three VBACs = since. A former co-worker of my husband's had a C-section with her first baby; = the incompetent doctor botched it, she nearly died, and has had terrible fertility problems ever since. I could describe my experience to the letter--exactly how I felt and what I thought--and still have women tell = me "that's not how it goes at all." So what if I'm a woman? So what if I actually experienced it? My experience just gives me a leg up in the research department. >For some reason this seemed to cause problems with the male audience. = Why? >Is it that men don't want to think that women might know something that = they >don't? Or is it an insult to suggest that the woman might do a better = job at >something? You give our men too little credit. I can't think of a single man on = this list who is threatened by the women here or anywhere, except for Thom, = who is actually a sweet teddy bear of a guy and is threatened that one of us = who knows his secret will reveal it. (oops) The men responded as they did because every one of them has experience = with depicting things and emotions and situations they've never felt or seen = or experienced. I'd bet most of them have received feedback from people who told them, as Rachel's readers do, that they've written a play or story = that exactly mirrored someone's own experiences. They know full well it's not the same as living it. But they also know that this has very little to = do with how profoundly you can reach a reader or a playgoer with your art. I won't deny that experience gives you a tremendous advantage when = writing about a topic. But it doesn't give you a corner on that subject. If the reader doesn't believe it, your experience won't go very far. But here's the real question: If you really believe that a good female writer can convey a uniquely female experience better than a good male writer, then find some examples of each and let's see! If it's true, it ought to be provable. Melissa Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2001 15:39:39 -0600 [MOD: Please note that I very much appreciate Jacob's taking on the minority viewpoint here. Sometimes on the List, people on one side of an issue will speak eloquently, passionately, and first about how they feel on it--and those who feel otherwise will simply not say anything at all. Which doesn't help the conversation. So bravo, Jacob!] Well, I guess I'll stop waiting for someone to dare defend the movie and just give my own opinion. I saw the movie shortly after it first came out, so I'm going to be a little hazy on details. Still, I remember it well enough because I discussed it with Melissa all the way home. Let me just start by saying that Testaments is light-years better than Legacy. What a relief to let that one die finally. I'm not sure I can deal with the proselytizing aspects of Testaments. I mean, supposedly that's its purpose, but I'd be willing to bet that more members see it than non-members. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with that, and I suspect that the movie's creators knew full well that members would not only be the primary audience, but also the major source of feedback they would receive. The heavy emphasis on missionary work is an easy way to justify the expense, but I just don't buy it much. At any rate, the response of non-members is a foreign planet as far as I'm concerned, so I'll have to restrict my comments to those of a believing member seeing the movie. As a faithful member, I enjoyed Testaments and found it satisfying on an emotional as well as spiritual level, and I'll even admit I cried. That statement puts me in something of a pickle, though. I mean, how could I prove that my reaction wasn't just emotional manipulation? You on AML-list have no idea if I can tell the difference. I thought that the director was spiritually inspired, even though I disagree with some of his choices. I mean, intellectually, I wish the little sister bit had been left out entirely in order to make room for exploring the ex-believer mother of the girl. But that's a small nit to pick in a movie that I thought resonated on so many other deeper levels. Deep? I dare call the movie deep when so many more distinguished, more professionally qualified people have ripped on it for being so shallow? I can't speak to the professional quality of the acting or dialogue. I'll admit that I am mostly uncritical of movies in general and tend to analyze after the fact, and even then with a light touch. I don't know how well the actors portrayed their roles -- though it was at least well enough not to draw my attention. What I do know is that Testaments dealt with some powerful archetypes that were put together in interesting ways to show eternal principles. The main evil guy may or may not look like a weasel, but to me, he portrayed the facile face of evil that puts on a good show, denying its own existence in order to get what it wants. Evil people exist and they can and do combine into secret organizations that manipulate others for evil purposes. The main kid was a son that didn't understand the faith of his father -- a faith that made life inconvenient for him and one he was willing to compromise in order to make what he considered a better life for himself. By relying on his own wisdom, he was caught in a situation where he was in great physical as well as spiritual danger. That happens. It also showed how a person who was willing to find the truth and who was willing to sacrifice for it was made happier in her decisions despite her problems that resulted from her decision to be a believer. Maybe the movie took too much on trying to show all these changes. The son and the romantic interest both have to undergo conversion in the course of a film that is complicated by having to divide its attention further by the cut scenes of the Savior. It's a lot to do in a movie, but I thought it brought it off credibly enough for me to enjoy. Okay. So I liked the converging conversions of the main characters. I liked that evil had a face and that we saw the public image and the private depravity that put the hero in danger. But the crowning moment for me was as the very end. The boy's father was, for me, the hero of the movie anyway: a man of faith who honestly looked forward to seeing the Savior someday. I identify with that. I look forward to seeing the Savior, and I wish I had lived in that day when I knew that the visit of the Savior would occur within the span of a lifetime (the sign of the birth had been given and the prophecy existed that Christ would visit them shortly after his death). I identify with his struggle seeing his son depart the faith, and I get emotional to witness his willingness to sacrifice himself to save his son both physically and spiritually. And then, to realize that he is even willing to sacrifice seeing the savior and be content with that sacrifice was a powerful thing to me. And what an interesting way to experience Christ healing the blind! We hear about it often enough, how Christ healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, and the blind to see. It has become something of a rote phrase, even trite, in our theology, but Testaments gave that face substance. The father was content with his fate. He wanted to see the Savior, but he had made his choice and he was happy with his decision and had great joy in his son being at his side in the presence of Christ. And the reward was unexpected to him (however much we might have been expecting it) and you could see that in his face as he was cured and saw what he had always dreamed of seeing. Emotional response? Sure. But deeply spiritual as well to see the faith of a man who held steady, made his sacrifices, and still loved God. It was powerful and moved me deeply spiritually. I cried. I was moved. It was emotional. But all of those things don't mean that it wasn't deeply spiritual as well. So my question is: if that is manipulative, then please explain how any story depicting sacrifice and hardship, that ends with true reward, can not be manipulative? Just because we see the blessings afterward doesn't lessen the impact of the sacrifices to get there -- at least not for me. Sometimes, movies (and books and whatever) should show the good guys getting an unadulterated reward. Particularly when depicting Christ visiting the righteous. Jacob Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2001 17:17:20 -0500 [MOD: Ditto for Darvell (what I said about Jacob's post on this subject).] The comments about this church film have been interesting, to say the least. But I personally think many who have seen the film have actually missed the point. I was very touched by the film. There are two reasons why. The biggest reason that liked the film is because it made me feel that Christ really does live and that he visited these people. You hear that in the church so often that you may think, "Yeah, yeah, we know that. What else does this story have to say?" DON'T gloss over that fact. It's a big deal. The second is that these people from the Book of Mormon really lived. I doubt the film makers got their lifestyle correct, but who cares? The hat-status thing was pretty cool, but it probably wasn't like that. But that's not the point. What this film helped me to understand was that, even though these people may have been different from us and separated from us by time and culture -- THEY LIVED. And they believed in Christ. Two very simple ideas. This film was meant to bear testimony. It did that to me. The thought that Christ actually lives and visited these people was very strong to me. I didn't care a lot for _Legacy_, but this film really touched me. If it worked for me, it must've worked for others. If it didn't work for you, well, that's okay, maybe something else has or can. Darvell Hunt [MOD: Part of this message snipped for another post.] _____________________________________________ 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: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: [AML] Yahoo! Date: 15 Jun 2001 17:17:20 -0500 BTW, I'd like to announce a small YAHOO as a P.S. here. This week I got my own somewhat-weekly column in a local Utah County newspaper for which I've been writing news clips since January. (The Lehi Free Press edition of the NewUtah! [exclamation theirs, not mine]). It's a satirical editorial called "West Side Stories" that deals with the people and places on the west side of Utah Lake, where I live. I hope this provides some sort of stepping stone for my writing career, both in gaining knowledge and becoming noticed as a writer. My editor really seems to like my stuff. Yahoo. 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: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2001 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT) For a similar perspective on "The Two Testaments" to Terry's, one where the reviewer acknowledges the film's "Spielbergian" nature in trying to ingratiate itself with today's audience (and yet the reviewer attempts to see the film as made in good faith by talented people) check out http://www.xmission.com/~aml/reviews/b/B20029.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.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] Critique of Writing Date: 15 Jun 2001 11:22:34 -0600 It's interesting that this anecdote has generated more interest than I'd expected. Most of the replies have been good, but have indicated to me = that (because it was anecdotal) I haven't explained the situation clearly. Because I seen in my mother-in-law an example of how some writers begin = and never go on, I'm going to try to clarify the situation, using Frank's queries as a jumping off point. Everything I'm about to say could be construed as extremely negative. I should explain that I love my mother-in-law and that, having seen how my sister and my friends cope with their in-laws, I am extraordinarily = grateful to have this one. :) I admire her ability to raise eleven (!) children = and her love for all her descendants. For the past two years she's been recording books on tape as Christmas and birthday gifts for her grandchildren. She has 19 of them. She has a wonderful, evocative voice and the kids love these gifts--so do I. She's also been very generous to our family over the years. So basically, I think she's a great lady. I also do understand more or less why she's given up on a writing = career--even if I'm incredulous about it. On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:21:26 -0700, Frank Maxwell wrote: >Re: Melissa Proffitt and her mother-in-law's not-quite-rejected novel: > >I'm wondering, Melissa. Do the dynamics of the >mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship make it difficult for your = MIL >to accept your advice? In general, isn't it difficult for MILs to take >advice from their DILs? I don't know about most such relationships, but mine appears to be in the minority. I have a great relationship with my mother-in-law; we have the same birthday, we love Jane Austen, we have any number of personal characteristics in common. (Strangely enough, my brother's wife has the same kind of relationship with *my* mother. So there's two.) I don't = think she has trouble taking advice from me because of that family dynamic. = Even if we didn't have a good relationship, I've seen her take this same = approach with other people--some her own children, some totally unrelated. Let me draw you a picture. Jacob's mother is strong-willed, fairly = bright, and artistically talented. She is, however, emotionally motivated rather than intellectually so. Having come to a conclusion about some issue, = she then holds fast to her opinion in the face of all argument--even when the argument reveals that she's overlooked something in her reasoning. She = is *extremely* stubborn about almost everything, and even more so when it = comes to her art. =46urthermore, writing is not the first thing she's given up on. Earlier= in her life she practiced drawing and painting. She's moderately good. Actually, her art is at about the same stage as her writing: full of = feeling and inspiration, but in need of some technical development. I have no = idea why she stopped; maybe Jacob knows. For a while, she assembled and sold dolls in a craft store. She stopped doing that when the payoff = diminished to the point that she wasn't making money--EVEN THOUGH it was something = she really enjoyed doing. (Or, I should say, she stopped enjoying it when it became work instead of play.) With all of that, you would expect her to be the kind of mousy person who doesn't trust her own ability and gives up at the first sign of = resistance. Not even close. She simply doesn't care. As far as I can tell, all of = her artistic endeavors are something she does to shed excess creative energy. She's not trying to become a painter or sculptor or writer--she's just painting or sculpting or writing to give herself something to do. = They're hobbies, performed for her own entertainment. As such, she doesn't need = to push her talent because that would make it less fun. >Obviously you feel very strongly that your MIL should have a different >attitude about her "rejection" letter. And any of us would be envious = of >the encouraging feedback she received from the publisher. But has she >perceived your energetic opinion as being judgmental of her? If so, she >may be less likely to follow your advice. =20 I was considerably less energetic when I spoke to her. Mostly I was incredulous. I pointed out that the "rejection letter" was an = encouragement and asked if she was pursuing it. She said (roughly--this was about = seven years ago) that she just didn't feel like it...said with a laugh and a = shrug of the shoulders that I interpreted as "yes, I'm disappointed, but this = is the best I can do, so what's the point in trying harder?" She didn't = want my advice, so I didn't give it to her. Some of this was undoubtedly that= I was a callow youth in the first throes of smug self-righteousness over = Good Writing, but mostly she'd already made up her mind. >Or is she reticent to compare herself against other family members who = are >writers? I knew a girl who was an excellent pianist, who would come = home >from school & find her mom playing the piano. But as soon as the = daughter >walked in, the mother would quickly stop playing and get up from the = piano. > The daughter felt that the mother was embarrassed to be playing the = piano >in front of her. My impression is that she either thinks she's the best writer in the = family, or doesn't much care. (Or is happy for everyone else's accomplishments.) But beyond that, I'd have to read her mind. >Maybe your MIL needs to get feedback from a neutral observer, who is not >emotionally invested in what happens next. This would address the issue of having to take criticism from a relative/friend (always tricky, *especially* if your relationship is = already good, and one reason that I don't critique friends' work anymore). But I don't think a neutral assessment would have any more impact than = mine--even weighing in the "neutral" and "professional" aspects. =46or some reason, most of the work I've done in critique has been with = raw beginners. The one characteristic every one of them has in common is an inability to divorce their own ego from the work at hand. They *say* you can be brutal, but it's not true. They just want reassurance. They want praise. This is *hard.* But most of you have probably been through this minefield yourselves--learning how to coax someone to keep trying without comparing their magnum opus to something you took out of the cat's litter box last night. Somehow my mother-in-law got stuck on this step. She takes = criticism--even something as mild as "its, not it's"--very personally, as though it's a comment on her intelligence that *she* didn't see the error you pointed = out. But she's experienced enough that she doesn't have the newbie's = diffidence and lack of confidence. Instead, she is *profoundly* self-confident. = But beyond observing this, I can only guess at motive. Is she hardening = herself to criticism so it doesn't hurt? Is she unable to impartially judge literary merit, including her own? Does she dismiss all other critics as less intelligent to bolster her own sense that she's not quite as good as she could be? I have no idea. Everyone who's spoken up on this subject has had very good suggestions. = =46or my mother-in-law, it's all moot. This all happened SEVEN YEARS AGO. She entertains herself writing her mother's life history, a weekly family newsletter, her scrapbooks, and other odds and ends. She's happy doing this. Sure, it's frustrating to those of us who want to sell our stories and novels and poetry. But some people will always be hobbyists. Some people have loads of talent and don't seem to care about developing it. =46rustrating as it is to us onlookers, it's ultimately their call. I = can't make my mother-in-law go back to her keyboard any more than I could force her to join a real writing group--because you have to have desire before anything else. Desire will not compensate for inadequate writing; but without it, you'll never be more than a hobbyist. Still, this discussion has brought up some excellent points about the writing industry that I think are unknown to most beginning writers. Usually people start writing because they have a story to tell, or = because they love reading and want to create a book themselves, or because some teacher or friend has complimented their talent. But so much goes into writing that isn't obvious from reading books. All of publishing is = opaque while you're reading. Writers pick up bad habits from observing = techniques without understanding why or how they're used. The processes of = completing a manuscript and getting it into a form that someone will read--never = mind figuring out who should read it if you want it published--aren't easily deduced from looking at a published book. Setting aside my = mother-in-law's personal quirks, any number of aspiring writers can have their potential careers blasted by a misunderstood rejection letter, an inadequate = support system, or a poor (or antagonistic!) critique. These are the kinds of things we who are better informed can help beginning writers with. They have to find the desire on their own. Melissa Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] HULS, _Just Wait_ (Review) Date: 15 Jun 2001 13:42:00 -0500 > > My desire was to write something a 12 year old could read today that > might get him talking with his parents about things that I fear too many > parents are not addressing. Perhaps choosing the novel format was a > mistake, I haven't read the book. But, I don't think writing a novel is a mistake. Many people prefer to get their information in a novel form. I learned a lot of church history from reading "The Work and the Glory". History that might have been dull reading otherwise. It seems to me your more likely to reach your audience in a novel than if it were a pamphlet that gets handed out and the kid ignores. A novel makes it more personal. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LuAnnStaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Plausability Date: 15 Jun 2001 19:46:03 -0600 Tracy, I've forwarded this strand to John H. Ritter. I always like to get the author's comment on their own text if possible. He may write directly to you or to the listserve. He responded to another email I sent him so we will wait and see if he has a comment about the point of view he decided to use. I didn't find a probl;em with it, but I read the novel at school and didn't really focus on this scene as I read. Thanks for clarifying. I'll try to give that part a reread and think about it more closely. Lu Ann Tracie Laulusa wrote: > I *did* say that probably no one else would think that it was implausible. > And it was such a small passage too. Kind of amazing that it had that > effect on me. > > In the first chapter Tyler tells us the story of his sister's death. It > happened when he was 4 and she is 6. He is at the time of the telling, I > believe, 13. > > Later in the story, when he's made a pretty big mess of everything he says: > > "It was times like these when I really missed Lissie. Missed my older, > smarter sister who always knew what to say and what to do to make me feel > better. Who hugged me--I could still feel her strong arms around me > now--and taught me new words and how to write my own name and taught me a > song about Christopher Robin who went to a palace with a girl named Alice." > > It just hit me as all wrong. I have a four year old son, and a seven year > old daughter. I know that Josh, at four, does not think about his 'older, > smarter sister'. A six year old does not 'always knew what to say and what > to do to make me feel better'. We're talking a four year old and six year > old here! And strong arms around him. Now Josh might consider his 17 year > old sister as strong--in fact the above description fits their relationship > very well, though the perceptions of 'smarter' probably belong to an older > child--but he, Josh, is every bit as strong as his seven year old sister, > and maybe even his nine year old sister. I could see a boy of 13--the age > Tyler is when he's telling the story--having these perceptions if he was > that age when it happened. Maybe even if the accident happened when the boy > was 6 or older, and the sister a bit more than two years old than him. But, > it just didn't ring true for a boy of 13 to remember his sister in this > light--a sister only two years older than himself, when the accident > happened when he was four. > > As you can tell, it really, really bothered me. And it is such a small > thing. And yes, of course I'm reading it from the perspective of my own > experience--but I know kids pretty well. My own and the dozens I've worked > with over the years. It just didn't work for me at all. > > Also, I think the first chapter set up an expectation that the death of the > sister would have more of a role in the story than it did. The character's > 'coming of age', or whatever you call it, did involve his understanding of > his dad and his dad's reaction to his sister's death. But, except for the > above paragraph, little was said about how it effected him personally, other > than it disrupted his family life enough for them to be willing to send him > to NY. The author sets up this elaborate retelling of the accident. All > about how Lissie plays these tricks. All about Tyler watching--part of the > joke. All about her shushing him, and his 'clamping my mouth so I wouldn't > give away our joke to Dad.' And then the truck hitting her and her > screaming, and him yelling to his dad to stop...... He's an angry young > man, has trouble controlling his temper, his family life has been disrupted, > but, except for the above paragraph, the death of his sister has not been a > factor in all that. I mean, it effected his father profoundly, and that > effected Tyler's life, but the death did not seem to affect him directly > except as a loss of comfort in a paragraph that didn't ring true to me. > That death, given the importance it is given in the first chapter, should > have, for my 'enjoyment' of the book, had something more to do with the > story than just as his dad's problem and an excuse for him to be sent to NY. > But then maybe, as a four year old, the death would not effect him that > profoundly. > > Tracie Laulusa > ----- Original Message ----- > > > I've read Over the Wall and I didn't find anything implausible about it. > Just > > wondering what you are referring to. > > Lu Ann Staheli > > > > Tracie Laulusa wrote: > > > > > I finished a book last night that could have been very good. I've been > > > wanting to read it because I heard the author read part of in at a > > > conference. (John Ritter/Over the Wall) I finally found it and started > in. > > > About a third of the way the author wrote something that I found totally > > > improbable--though others might not--and he lost me. > > > I finished the book, but from then on I was reading a book, not living > the > > > story. > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Tracie Laulusa - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Manipulative Endings (was: _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_) Date: 15 Jun 2001 20:41:52 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > So my question is: if that is manipulative, then please explain how any > story depicting sacrifice and hardship, that ends with true reward, can > not be manipulative? This is how to tell the difference. Have someone kick a dog on screen. Tears well up in the viewers. That's manipulation. Have someone kick Hitler. If tears well up for the pain Hitler feels, that's not manipulative. Thom - 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] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 15 Jun 2001 21:50:47 -0600 These posts are getting awfully long. I promise I'll shut up about this stuff soon. But not today. (That's what being unemployed and having all day to sit at the computer and write does for you.) Tom Johnson wrote: > > Reader response can be infinitely > > varied and all absolutely true, despite opposing conclusions. > >For some reason I despise these kinds of statements. Sorry. I don't think >reader response can be infinitely varied, first of all. Try it. How many >responses can you imagine to Mitchell's work? Suppose I say that I thought >it possessed a striking similarity to Macbeth. Now wouldn't that be a little >odd? A great treatise (non-metaphoric) on elephants. Huh? But this is beside >the main point of our discussion. Infinite variation doesn't require infinite digression from the text. The reader that thought it strikingly similar to Macbeth might have a point if he explains why. The reader who thought it was a treatise on elephants was just plain wrong. Despise to your heart's content. That's your reader response, wrong though I may feel it to be as the author whose text you critiqued with it. But I think it is possible to read Mitchell's work and have completely opposite opinions on the same text. I wouldn't have to work very hard to justify a reading of Danube that showed the author to be a mystic who placed as much value on German folklore as on revealed religion, arguing that the failure to show the missionary program as in any way noble proved the author's disaffection with the organization of the church. I would find such a contention opposite to my reading of the story, but I can see the elements of the story that support it. I was at a tax seminar the other day learning about how to compute sales and use tax in the state of Utah. It turns out there are 7 specific points of distinction that require an evaluation by the preparer and could lead to a different tax rate. That means approximately 5000 potentially different (though not always exclusive) tax rates. I thought there were significantly more than 7 potential points of reader divergence in _Angel of the Danube._ > >I also believe the writer is one of those readers who's allowed to express a > > response to his own work. > >Yes, everyone has their rights of expression, but I wouldn't trust a >writer's reading of his own work. The writer is too steeped in his own >intentions to see more objectively what is actually written. The writer >often desires to see his own intentions succeed--I remember Mitchell's >response just one week ago, "I had thought his desire to 'get through' to >the Austrians was quite pronounced." What if you define art as "the >unintended something that happens between point A and B" (David Plante). If >you accept this curious statement about unintentions, then unless the author >has an incredible sense of distance (or the work is far behind him), it is >difficult for him to see past what he wanted his work to be, and to the >actual art he has produced. Another point of simple disagreement. I think the author's intentions and opinions of their own work matter. I think the narrative intent of a story is instructive in understanding how and why scenes were chosen and specific POVs constructed. I think knowing what the author intended provides an even more interesting context in which to discuss other meanings in the text. It also gives me a whole separate area of analysis where I can argue how well the author reached his own narrative goals. As a would-be author, I like to believe that my choices have something to do with the success of the story, otherwise storytelling becomes little more than shouting out some vague plot outlines and letting all the details be filled in by the individual readers. If Mitchell had just shouted out "Austria is weird! Love is good! Life is hard! Missions are hard to interpret!" and walked away, I would say he had failed to produce even rudimentary art, though I would agree that the author's comments on his own text were at best trivial. And if your narrative goal is to justify why criticism is more important than the work being criticized, then I think you have to take that with a grain of salt as well. >Elizabeth Hardwick once put it like this: Would you trust a pig's advice on >the nutritional value of pork? I wouldn't inherently mistrust it. I would certainly have to put it into a context, since I'm not convinced that being a pig makes one an expert on nutrition. But if I wanted to find out what it's like to be a pig, I would tend to trust a pig's opinion over that of a nutritionist. It depends on what you want to know. Yes, meaning is an individual thing. But intent can be a great clarifier of texts for those of us who want to know why choices were made and what the expected effect of those choices was. >Authors are hesitant to limit the interpretation of their to only their >intentions--they'd rather have them meet those intentions and far exceed >them. They want it to mean many different things to different people, and if >the author steps up and says X means this and Y means that, then he'll no >doubt put off the reader who felt so strongly that X meant other things. >Plus, I just don't see what the author is really going to add to the text. >It's like a car. You can have the mechanic of the engine explain how he >intended it to run, like a racecar, idle quiet as a mouse, accelerate like >lightening (wow, three cliches in a row!), or you can just take it out for a >long spin yourself. Ultimately, what the mechanic intended with the engine >doesn't amount to jack squat. (no offense to jack, btw.) This is, of course, >the intentional fallacy. Again, we just disagree, though I think I see some of the reasons for it. I agree that the author is not qualified to make absolute pronouncements about meaning--meaning is a concept in the mind of the reader--but I still think the author's intent goes a long way to explaining how and why the novel was constructed and presented as it was. The mechanic's intent most certainly does matter in the development of the car. If he intended to create a speedy, powerful touring car and instead produced a slow, underpowered go-cart, then the mechanic failed and I have no appreciation of his skill, understanding, or application of his craft. I will tend to view his future promises with mistrust or open suspicion. If this go-cart is marketed as a competitor to the Ferrari 308 GTS, then I think the mechanic's intention goes a long way to explaining the price tag and the slick ad campaign. That he failed to meet the engineering quality of a Yugo is something he needs to explain to his investors and buyers. I agree that the fact the mechanic claims Ferrari design principles doesn't make his car a Ferarri. But it does help me understand the finished product in a more complete way, and to evaluate more fully how and why choices were made. That I view the finished product as a go-cart is my right, despite the $200K price tag place there by the manufacturer. As a writer, I find wthe riter's intentions quite instructive because I want to be a better writer. Question for everyone-- Would an anthology of short fiction featuring short comments by the authors and short interpretive essays by reviewers or critics be interesting? I know I love to hear authors talk about their fiction, and I would love to see both the author's and a critic's view of the same text. Would any of you find that interesting? Would you pay money to see work by some of the better-known names in Mormon lit handled this way? Just curious. I've been kicking that idea around for quite a while and am interested in the marketability of such a project. >Here's a question, though, that really drives fiction writers crazy. >Richard, Alan, how much of that stuff was autobiography? It drives them crazy because it's hard to answer. I published a story in _Irreantum_ about a cat. Most of the details in the story were real, but the whole central premise was a fictional construct. How do I separate the two? But I think it's a fair question worth both asking and answering. > > I hold only one opinion inviolable--that my opinion is likely to change > > with further discussion. > >very humble. I thought so. That's one of the things I've learned in my nearly six years on this list--that I learn more in discussion that I do alone, and that my opinions change faster as a result. I've reversed myself quite a bit on this list after vigorous discussion, though that personal reversal may not have been obvious to other list members. That's why I comment even though I'm pretty sure most list readers cringe whenever they see my name. It's a selfish response--I learn more if other people present their arguments. > > In the end, I hope that by commenting I can get others to disagree, > > thus creating tension and interest among the Mormon readership and > > spurring sales. To me that's the only good reason to write a review. > >A martyr for disagreement! I too sometimes like to argue a point just to >see if I can sustain it. I don't care a whoop about sales and interest--it's >simply more fun to disagree. I wouldn't say martyr, though I do try to make it a point to support certain viewpoints that I believe are underrepresented (my ongoing support of simple Mormon morality tales and sentimental literature, even though I don't read or like much of it myself). I do care a whoop (and a hoot and a holler, too) about sales and interest. If I can help build a larger, more demanding readership I hope to help create a marketplace in which to sell my own work. Right now the Mormon market is small and limited; I want to build a market that's large and far reaching so my stories of Mormon thought have a place to live. I have a whole concept of Mormon literature that I don't think is particularly well represented, though I have read some great pieces that I think qualify under my ideal. I'm working on starting an online magazine of Mormon literature to support my vision, and I think there is plenty of work out there that would fit. I've already identified the first novel I want to publish if it isn't published elsewhere first. But my little venture will never fly if I can't get the Mormon readership to expand their own ideas of what "Mormon literature" can include. >I don't believe your motives anyway. >Disagreement is the mechanism towards a finer understanding. The antithesis >forces one to reevaluate the thesis with greater clarity. Hegel was all over >this. I already admitted that. I'm selfish--I want to learn and find that disagreement spurs the best presentation viewpoints not currently my own. I learn more that way. But I really do want to create a larger Mormon literary community, as well. The two are not exclusive goals, though, IMO. > > At this point I'm at least as interested in spurring the development > > of more and varied stories as I am in identifying whether a story > > meets some abstract concept of literary quality. > > > >You will spur the development of more stories by disagreeing with them? >Okay. Why not? If I point out that I would like to see a fuel efficient two-seater instead of a minivan, Honda just might build a car like the Insight (a car that I desperately want to own, though I can't come anywhere near affording the 20K price tag). If I don't point out my desire to see something else, why would Honda bother to engineer a solution for which there is no demand? I believe that much of literature is a dialog between the author and the community. If the author receives only positive feedback, the art stagnates and the community suffers. Throw down a challenge and see what comes of it if you want to grow and change the literature. It's not that far out of a concept. >What might be an "abstract concept of a literary quality"? I'm scratching my >head here. Kant's sublime? Keats' negative capability? Too many people disagree about what constitutes value or quality for me to accept that there's a single, universally accepted definition. Again, I don't think the idea is that far out. >If you're interested in the discussion aspect, then I can feel confident >that you won't take offense at my dissentions. Not at all--at least not in the broad sense. But it does sound like you're throwing down a gauntlet. I'll reserve further comment until I see just what this little bon mot means. >What bothers me about her dislike-motive was that she brought the mirror of >her own experience up to someone else's experience, and because they didn't >match up, she rejected the other's experience. Isn't that rather myopic? >It's like saying that I didn't like Aliens III because it didn't match up >with my own experience of outerspace. I'm not sure that she rejected the other experience so much as she rejected the specific presentation as irrelevant to her interests. I talked about this in another post. If you actually have experience with outer space, then I think you have a better basis on which to reject the detail, and I think you have every right to do so. It may be myopic, and may cause readers to exclude themselves from reading stories that they would very much enjoy. But that's not only their right, it's their responsibility. I as a reader have no special responsibility to accept every word an author presents, any more than I as an automobile driver must drive every SUV made by every manufacturer for at least a year each to know that an SUV just doesn't fit into my needs as one individual driver. I can reject an instance without being required to do a full evaluation of either a single instance or of all instances. >Are things only aesthetic for you if they strike a chord of >experience that you've likewise had? I will admit that my answer to that >question is undoubtedly yes, but I wish it weren't so. I wish I didn't like >something only because it was like me. I don't think I require that a story touch on my own experience to be enjoyable, but when it does intersect with my experience I expect to be accurate or else have a good reason for the divergence. I think the movie _LadyHawke_ is a nearly perfect fantasy story, and is the one film I've seen more often than any other (with the possible exception of _The Rocky Horror Picture Show_ which I saw 41 times as a youth). I have no experience with what it's like to be a thief, a former captain of the guard, a disgraced priest, or a beautiful young woman, and I certainly have no direct experience with magic curses that change people into animals for approximately half of each day--or at least not in France in the Middle Ages. But I love nearly every second of that film. In that case, the discovery of different times and places and people is part of what makes the story interesting--but not the only thing. I loved _The Name of the Rose_ even though I have little direct experience with the Inquisition in either time or place. Part of what I enjoyed were the new things and ideas. But if there had not been some comprehensible aspect of character or setting, it would have been much harder to enjoy. One of my favorite short stories was published in a recent issue of _Irreantum_ ("Dead People" by Russell William Asplund) and featured a modern realistic setting populated by ghosts (both figurative and real). That I have no experience with ghosts was not an impediment to my enjoyment of that story, though admittedly it was the POV's commentary on his own life that really drew me into the story. I identified with *much* of what he had to say about the business of living, and the fantastic context provided a vehicle that enabled that expression to be refined into a pointed comment on our expectations. Yes, it was the unreal that made the expression interesting and engaging, but it was the firm grounding in the realistic that made it intimate. I think successful fiction requires both. >I heard somewhere, in a kiersey temperment prediction explanation of sorts, >that marriages worked out best if you shared with your spouse two >similarities of personality [SNIP] >Might the same go for narratives? I think that's >essentially what you're saying. For my Sweden friend, GA was WXYZ while she >was ABCD. Maybe. Sort of. I'm not sure it's that simple. I don't know why she didn't connect; I know I did even though I had few of the non-trivial experiences that Dutcher portrayed in his film (I also failed to have many of the trivial experiences, too; no salt in the cereal, no pictures on the john, no general frolicking, and *no* picnics with sister missionaries--they weren't allowed in Berlin at the time (either picnics or sisters)). Not every image engages every viewer, and not every story engages every reader. How do I explain why I prefer the color blue over eggshell white? I just do. How do I explain that I love the rock band Rush but can't stand Bruce Springsteen? I love Mozart, but Bach just doesn't interest me the same way. I get a kick out of Karl Orff but Philip Glass leaves me cold. I like Enya but not Sinead. This discussion started with my comment that I generally didn't care for stories based on missionary experiences. Despite the massive amounts of comment I heard on _God's Army_ and the fact that it showed longer and in more theaters in Utah than pretty much anywhere else, I still didn't see it on the big screen. It just didn't interest me enough. (Of course I turned out to be wrong; the film ended up interesting me a great deal, but that lack of initial interest stopped me from seeing it for a long time.) I knew I should see it. I knew that to be educated on modern Mormon storytelling I would have to see it some day. But I never got the energy to overcome my own inertia. Even after I presented it an award on behalf of the AML. Then I saw _Brigham City_ (more out of a sense of duty than anything else) and I so enjoyed the film that I stopped at Media Play and bought _God's Army_ on the way home from the theater, because I figured if GA was anywhere near as good as BC, I had to see it. Now. The end result is that I now have a testimony of Richard Dutcher and can unabashedly say that I am a fan and would love to find a way to work with him on something. Your friend may well have found much in _God's Army_ that was familiar and felt right to her. But the overall film may have just left her flat for any of a large number of reasons. Heaven knows, a story told from a male missionary's POV (especially one that gets a good shot in on a sister missionary) leaves a pretty large experiential gap. She may well have felt that Richard Dutcher was trying to portray *the* quintessential missionary story, and when it failed to address her on her terms found it be pale. That's her right, just as it's my right to say that I found much to like about it and was engaged despite the many variances to my own experience. There's a separate discussion here about what people *should* like, and how much of a story they *should* read, and whether anyone has the right to reject any work as uninteresting without having fully experienced the work. I think people do have that right, though they may very well be missing out on something that they would find vital if they had only overcome their own inertia. I know I did with _God's Army_ and I feel properly chastened and at least a little better educated that I was before. Which is not to say that I will now run out and read _Tathea_ from cover to cover--I'm still not interested in reading that novel despite the AML Award I gave it. But I do recognize that I may be missing out on something that would be a powerful experience for me. Oh well. Scott Parkin - 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] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 16 Jun 2001 13:41:49 -0500 At 03:13 PM 6/15/01, you wrote: >I think that what Anna is talking about repeatedly in her posts is not >whether men can write effectively about childbirth, but a larger issue: >that women have a centuries-long sense of being the second sex, the one's >who are not quite as important, who sit in the background, who have the >lower-paying jobs, who do the back-up work for the big shots. I'm running into similar flack from certain Black persons who tell me I should not even try to write from the Black perspective. For similar reasons. Yet I don't see the world in one color (white); I'm not going to avoid using multicultural characters because the historical injustice and oppression of non-white peoples is something I can't experience because of the pale color of my skin. To me, using an "all-white" cast of characters would be more racist, just like a book with all male or all female characters could be considered sexist. Any thoughts on this angle of the writer's dilemma? (I'm going off-line again after I post this--but will catch up in a week.) Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LuAnnStaheli Subject: [AML] Re: RITTER, _Over the Wall_ Date: 16 Jun 2001 21:07:08 -0600 I'm sending a compilation of several emails between Tracie Laulusa and Lu Ann Staheli from the AML list, including a response from John H. Ritter about his YA novel Over the Wall . I've tried to reconstructe this post into chronological order to make it easier to follow the threads. Lu Ann I finished a book last night that could have been very good. I've been wanting to read it because I heard the author read part of in at a conference. (John Ritter/Over the Wall) I finally found it and started in. About a third of the way the author wrote something that I found totally improbable--though others might not--and he lost me. I finished the book, but from then on I was reading a book, not living the story. Tracie Laulusa I've read Over the Wall and I didn't find anything implausible about it. Just wondering what you are referring to. Lu Ann Staheli I *did* say that probably no one else would think that it was implausible. And it was such a small passage too. Kind of amazing that it had that effect on me. In the first chapter Tyler tells us the story of his sister's death. It happened when he was 4 and she is 6. He is at the time of the telling, I believe, 13. Later in the story, when he's made a pretty big mess of everything he says: "It was times like these when I really missed Lissie. Missed my older, smarter sister who always knew what to say and what to do to make me feel better. Who hugged me--I could still feel her strong arms around me now--and taught me new words and how to write my own name and taught me a song about Christopher Robin who went to a palace with a girl named Alice." It just hit me as all wrong. I have a four year old son, and a seven year old daughter. I know that Josh, at four, does not think about his 'older, smarter sister'. A six year old does not 'always knew what to say and what to do to make me feel better'. We're talking a four year old and six year old here! And strong arms around him. Now Josh might consider his 17 year old sister as strong--in fact the above description fits their relationship very well, though the perceptions of 'smarter' probably belong to an older child--but he, Josh, is every bit as strong as his seven year old sister, and maybe even his nine year old sister. I could see a boy of 13--the age Tyler is when he's telling the story--having these perceptions if he was that age when it happened. Maybe even if the accident happened when the boy was 6 or older, and the sister a bit more than two years old than him. But, it just didn't ring true for a boy of 13 to remember his sister in this light--a sister only two years older than himself, when the accident happened when he was four. As you can tell, it really, really bothered me. And it is such a small thing. And yes, of course I'm reading it from the perspective of my own experience--but I know kids pretty well. My own and the dozens I've worked with over the years. It just didn't work for me at all. Also, I think the first chapter set up an expectation that the death of the sister would have more of a role in the story than it did. The character's 'coming of age', or whatever you call it, did involve his understanding of his dad and his dad's reaction to his sister's death. But, except for the above paragraph, little was said about how it effected him personally, other than it disrupted his family life enough for them to be willing to send him to NY. The author sets up this elaborate retelling of the accident. All about how Lissie plays these tricks. All about Tyler watching--part of the joke. All about her shushing him, and his 'clamping my mouth so I wouldn't give away our joke to Dad.' And then the truck hitting her and her screaming, and him yelling to his dad to stop...... He's an angry young man, has trouble controlling his temper, his family life has been disrupted, but, except for the above paragraph, the death of his sister has not been a factor in all that. I mean, it effected his father profoundly, and that effected Tyler's life, but the death did not seem to affect him directly except as a loss of comfort in a paragraph that didn't ring true to me. That death, given the importance it is given in the first chapter, should have, for my 'enjoyment' of the book, had something more to do with the story than just as his dad's problem and an excuse for him to be sent to NY. But then maybe, as a four year old, the death would not effect him that profoundly. Tracie Laulusa Dear LuAnn, Thanks for sending along the AML comments. It's fun to see Over the Wall being scrutinized so closely. Though I'm responding only to you, please fell free to pass this response along to Tracie or to the listserv itself. I've never participated in a listserv, so I don't quite know the protocol. Thanks. Okay, here goes. I think Tracie's point is well-taken. I can certainly see how she arrived at it. And though I often tell my writing workshop students that "The truth is no defense," when it comes to having broken a reader's "fictional dream" and ruining her enjoyment of the story--I will start from that point in this case. When I was four years old, my mother died of breast cancer after a rather short illness. I never felt the loss. That is, I never cried or felt abandoned. And in later years, sad thoughts of her death never entered my mind--and still don't--though I got an awful lot of pity along the way from well-meaning adults. I credit my peace with Mom's passing to the fact that I was four when it happened and that I believed it when I was told again and again, "Your mother is in heaven, John. She's watching over you." So essentially, I never felt a loss. (I even dedicated Choosing Up Sides to her as if she were still "here.") The death of my mom for my eleven year old sister, however, was completely different, as you might imagine, as was the effect it had on my dad, my three year old brother, and my six year old brother. We all had our unique points of view. And there's my touchstone for this scene. My six year old brother. His strong arms around me when a neighbor boy pushed me down one day while our mom was away, in the hospital. His "knowledge" of the world, his stories about what school was like or how bobcats prowled our backyard (we, as was Tyler in the novel, were country boys, independent and roamers of the nearby hills) or the proper way to eat an ice cream cone. (You have to lick around the back of it before it melts on your fingers.) Oh, yes, at four years old, how I admired my "older, smarter" brother. And I would wager to say that neither our mother nor our father, as outside observers, would ever believe from their adult perspective that I, as a four year old, would think these thoughts about my brother. Shoot, even HE wouldn't know. I don't think I've ever told anybody until now. In fact, I think my parents would KNOW I didn't think this way--as Tracie noted about her own children in her comments--[QUOTE]I know that Josh, at four, does not think about his 'older, smarter sister'. A six year old does not 'always knew what to say and what to do to make me feel better'. We're talking a four year old and six year old here! And strong arms around him.[END QUOTE]. Goodness. Well, maybe I was a weird kid. But I actually suspect that none of us KNOW what our children are really thinking about the world around them. So I based the scene, and Tyler's memories of it, on my own. But as I said above, the truth is no defense for writing something readers won't believe. As an author, I am constantly trying to anticipate the reactions to my fictional scenes. (It's my editor's job to help me do this as well--and he does.) I am constantly going back and "foreshadowing" events as I revise my drafts in order to make some outlandish or pivotal scene more believable. Unfortunately, I can't foresee them all. In this case, I wish I would have alluded to Tyler's thoughts in a more believable manner--as I hope I have done above, sans revision (!!), of my own boyhood memories of the family dynamics in my house. Thank you LuAnn and Tracie for taking my work so much to heart. I will be ever vigilant in the future to scaffold my scenes a bit stronger than I did here. There is nothing worse than breaking a reader's fictional dream--it breaks a writer's heart. Please feel free to contact me if you so desire. I welcome you to view the comments posted on my own Bulletin Board at www.JohnHRitter.com and to add your own to the discussion of my novels. I send all best wishes. Sincerely, John H. Ritter 6.16.2001 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: [AML] Request for Information: Mountain Meadows Massacre Date: 16 Jun 2001 21:11:52 -0700 I've been wanting to read Marilyn Brown's _Wine-Dark Sea of Grass_, but I don't have it yet, so I went on the internet and did a search for Mountain Meadows Massacre. I found a memoir from John D. Lee (I think that was his name) and a related article that linked from his memoir-site. I read about the massacre, the cover-up, destroying angels, blood atonement and castration, among other things. I am stunned. I've been a member for twenty-six years (I was a teenager when I discovered and joined the church); I lived in Utah for seven years; I graduated from BYU, and I've never heard of these things before. Can any of you recommend books I can read, or give me information, that will help me process these things? I'm so grateful that I can turn to all of you. I honestly don't know who else I could ask about these things. I feel certain that many, or most, of you have already dealt with them. Thank you so much. Beth [MOD: I have always heard that the most reputable place to start is with Juanita Brooks's book, entitled, I believe, _The Mountain Meadows Massacre_. Comments?] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Richard Dutcher interview (Deseret News) Date: 17 Jun 2001 20:06:31 -0000 Deseret News, Sunday, June 17, 2001 Richard Dutcher, Mormon moviemaker By Doug Robinson Deseret News senior writer PROVO =97 If Richard Dutcher, the Mormon moviemaker, ever runs out of movie= =20 ideas he could mine material from his own life. He could tell the story of a young boy who fills his long hours at home=20 alone by writing his own novels, and years later, after long days working in oil fields and pizza=20 joints and nursing homes, he writes more stories. He could write the tale of a father who chases women and works behind bars= =20 and a stepfather who chases girls and is locked behind bars. He could tell a Disneyesque story of a scrawny high school kid who lives in his car and looks the part of a rebel with his scraggly hair and black leather jacket except he is a student body officer and editor of the school newspaper and much more. He could tell the classic tale of a starving actor who has to buy his groceries at a gas station because it's the last place that will give him credit, and then after spending five years making a movie he is told he must add nudity and sex scenes =97 so he quits the business and resigns himself to being a schoolteacher. Dutcher, the writer-producer-director-actor for "God's Army" and "Brigham City," could turn his life into a movie, and, for that matter, he already has. Parts of his life were spread among the various characters in "God's Army," his movie about missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The missionary with the pedophile father? That's Dutcher= =20 and his stepfather. The missionary who had the emotional=20 religious-conversion experience? Dutcher again. Maybe he is a devout Mormon, a member of his ward's elders quorum presidency= =20 and a returned missionary and the first Mormon to take Mormon movies to the big screen, but= =20 he didn't exactly grow up in Happy Valley with church on Sunday and Family Home Evening with= =20 Jell-O on Mondays. "I've had some dark, ugly kinds of experiences I'd rather not experience=20 again," he says. By all accounts, Dutcher has emerged from it all remarkably unscathed, an=20 energetic, devout, driven man of 37 years with four children and a talented,= =20 sculptor wife. "He has succeeded through an incredible force of will," says his wife, Gwen= =20 Dutcher. "Like pushing a huge boulder up a hill." Dutcher was a down-and-almost-out filmmaker in California when he stumbled= =20 upon the idea of making movies for an audience he knew, or thought he knew: Mormons. He wrote= =20 "God's Army" based on his own missionary experiences, then moved to Provo to baby-sit the= =20 project. Right from the start, he had decided he didn't care if the movie offended=20 non-Mormons; after all, he reasoned, people had been poking fun at Mormons in films for years. This=20 movie was for Mormons. But by the time the final credits rolled, it was Mormons =97 some= of=20 them anyway =97 who were offended by his movies and bashed him for it in letters to Utah=20 newspapers. "There's a vocal minority who think I'm a child of Satan, and then there's= =20 the non-Mormon community who compare me to Frank Capra," says Dutcher. "You can't be both.= =20 I'm just a normal guy. They see one movie, and they think they know the guy. I've been= =20 called egotistical and blasphemous. It kind of hurt. It felt like I was being judged by my own= =20 people. Suddenly, I was outside the culture to these people. I wasn't one of them. Then it got= =20 very personal. They questioned my honesty; they say I just want to make money off the church.=20 People who don't know me at all. It's hard to read about yourself in the paper and have=20 people describe you as something that you're not. They're writing about this character Richard=20 Dutcher that doesn't feel like me at all." Apparently, it's acceptable to show Catholic Mass or Catholic confessionals= =20 or Jewish bar mitzvahs, but to some it was unthinkable to show a Mormon church meeting or= =20 a sacrament prayer or a healing. Dutcher of course disagrees. "You can't tell Mormon stories without telling specifics of Mormonism," he says. "I had no interest in making Mormon doctrine look just like any other Protestant religion. Why would I do that? Why not make it some other religion, like other Mormon filmmakers. There are tons of Mormon filmmakers who are telling Mormon stories and then take Mormonism out of it. It's cowardly and greedy. They do it because they think they'll make more money at it, but they're doing a disservice to their own people." Though stung by the criticism, Dutcher says the response has been mostly "positive." He says he received "a ton of response" about "God's Army;" many people wrote to say the movie inspired them to serve missions or to be baptized. Dutcher says he even received "positive feedback" from an LDS general authority about "God's Army," "but I don't want to say any more. It's not for public consumption. It was a private conversation. I don't want to use that as a marketing ploy. But it would shut these people up." This new mix of Mormonism and movies has proved touchy. Dutcher was even taken to task by some Mormons for violence in the murder mystery "Brigham City," although the actual violence was not even shown on= =20 camera. Others were offended that he showed missionaries playing practical jokes on one=20 another and acting, well, like 19-year-old boys, never mind that Dutcher served a mission (in=20 Mexico) and wrote the script based on personal experiences. That notwithstanding, Dutcher is just getting warmed up. "I will stick with= =20 the Mormon themes until they stop making money," he says. "And if that happened, I'd move on= =20 to make money, so I could make some more of them. If I had the money, I'd make movies till I= =20 ran out of money." Dutcher has aspired to make movies since he was a young teen, but it has=20 been a long and winding road to reach that point. He spent his early years in Mount Vernon,= =20 Ill. His father, Lyle Hill, was a truck driver, meatpacker and bartender. He also was, in Dutcher's=20 words, an alcoholic and a womanizer who came home "loud and rowdy" after his binges. He remembers=20 visiting his father at his bar, riding his tricycle between the tables and playing=20 pinball while his father worked. "The first seven years were pretty grim," says Dutcher. "We lived in tiny=20 houses, there was no money; Mom worked and Dad was gone all the time. In one of our houses you=20 could see the dirt through the holes in the floor." Dutcher's parents divorced when he was 6. "He went his way, and I didn't see= =20 him again till I was 23," he says. "I tried. I didn't harbor ill feelings. He had problems with= =20 alcoholism, and those were the reasons the marriage fell apart. It was good to meet him and talk to=20 him, but it's hard when you've grown up without a father and learned to do without him. It's hard to= =20 create a relationship. We talk every couple of years, but there's not a lot to talk= =20 about except the Cubs." His mother remarried a man named Harold Dutcher about a year later. He was a= =20 businessman whose knack for failed businesses kept the family on the move in search of a= =20 new start. From Illinois they went to Wisconsin, Kentucky and then Utah, just in time for=20 Dutcher to begin his sophomore year at Hillcrest High. It wasn't until years later that Dutcher learned his stepfather carried a dark secret. He was convicted of molesting a young girl shortly after Dutcher returned from his church mission. Later, other similar cases came to light. Harold is in prison, scheduled to be released in 2007. "I get a phone call every now and then (from his stepfather)," says Dutcher. "He saw 'God's Army.' He liked it." And how did his father react to the pedophile father who is mentioned in the movie? "He never mentioned it. I never mentioned it. I was interested to see how he would react to it, because I was very forthright about it in the movie." Harold's one legacy is his religion. Dutcher and his family converted from the Pentecostal faith to Harold's LDS faith. "The first time I attended an LDS meeting I remember immediately liking it," says Dutcher. It wasn't until he was 14 that Dutcher= =20 says he was truly converted through an experience he would later recount through the=20 African-American missionary in "God's Army." The family was visiting Mormon historical sites in=20 Illinois, and he had been praying for months to know if the church was true. "I had read the Book of Mormon a couple of times, as well as the Bible, and= =20 I had been very active, but I never felt that experience of having personal revelation that= =20 it was true," he says. "I was at a crossroads, if I was going to keep going. I was sitting in the=20 Carthage jail where Joseph Smith was martyred, and I bowed my head and asked if it was real. I began=20 sobbing and I couldn't stop. Everybody was looking at me and wondering what was happening.= =20 It was powerful and wonderful. I was just filled with light. It didn't come from within; it= =20 came from without. I was just a participant. It is still something I draw on and go back to." Just before the start of Dutcher's senior year at Hillcrest High, the family= =20 moved again, this time to Kansas; Dutcher remained behind. He stayed with one family and then=20 another, but it proved uncomfortable for both. He was kicked out of his second home at=20 Christmastime and was on his own. Dutcher spent part of his senior year living out of his beat-up,=20 bumpers-falling-off '71 Mercury Comet. He slept in his car and showered at school or at friends' houses. He= =20 had little money, which was nothing new. He had just two pairs of pants to wear, and he=20 survived on macaroni and cheese and 29-cent hamburgers from Dee's. "I had just enough money to keep gas in the car and eat a little," he=20 recalls. "If there was a choice between seeing a movie or eating, I'd choose the movie. . . . I=20 remember wishing that someday I could buy a can of soda and it would not be a big deal." Despite his meager circumstances, Dutcher earned good grades, edited the=20 school newspaper, acted in school plays, worked various jobs to support himself and served as= =20 student body vice president. He was offered several scholarships, and=20 accepted one to BYU. "He was not a wild guy, but he marched to his own drummer," recalls Shellie= =20 Jorgensen, a Dutcher confidant and former classmate. "He dressed differently than=20 everyone else. Preppy was the fashion, and he wore a black leather jacket, jeans and the same shoes=20 the whole year. He was short and scrawny. Anyone who didn't know him would think he was a nerd,= =20 but he wasn't. Everyone who knew him liked him. He was always very kind and very=20 independent, and he was a hard worker. He didn't ask for anything from anybody." Says Gwen, "He's so free of baggage for someone who went through what he=20 went through. It astounds me. He's got confidence. He had to be independent at an early age.= =20 At 14, if he wanted clothes he bought them, and if he wanted meals he cooked them. I admire him= =20 for how he was able to come out of it without resentment and with a positive outlook on=20 what he can achieve." There was never any doubt what Dutcher would do someday. Not in his mind or= =20 anyone else's. He never made an announcement or a conscious decision; it was= =20 just understood. "I never considered doing anything else," says Dutcher. "It would be either= =20 films or novels." Says Jorgensen, "He always had a real passion for writing and acting. For=20 years my husband and I have been waiting for him to do this. I told my husband when we got=20 married that this guy is going to be famous someday. He has that something about him." His love of writing and storytelling came at least in part from growing up= =20 alone. His mother was working, his father was gone and his older brother (by 2 1/2 years) was off= =20 with his own friends. "I had to make up stories to entertain myself," he says. "I didn't have any= =20 money, so I couldn't go anywhere." He wrote his first novel when he was 11. (Years later he=20 realized it was a rip-off of "Alive.") When he was 13, Dutcher was profoundly moved by an article he read in the=20 Ensign, an LDS Church magazine, in which church President Spencer W. Kimball urged LDS=20 artists to tell the Mormon story. "It was exciting, thrilling," he says. "We had a really big lawn in=20 Kentucky, an acre and a half of grass that I mowed with a push mower. That's how I would occupy my time,=20 thinking about stories or how to make films or novels." His love for telling stories came to include the art in all its various=20 forms =97 writing, theater, movies, acting. It was all the same. He wrote a play in high school =97 "It was terrible," he says =97 and he= began=20 acting in plays. "People loved to see him in our school plays," says Jorgensen. "He'd=20 improvise during the play and have the place roaring with laughter. It would throw the other actors=20 for a loop. It was great. You could see he had an absolute talent for it. He was constantly writing=20 things and acting." Dutcher spent a year at BYU and then took a series of jobs to pay for a=20 church mission. He pumped gas and changed tires in Arizona, and he cooked pizza, worked in a=20 nursing home, pressed apple cider and drilled for oil in Kansas. Through it all, he would= =20 come home at the end of each day, clean up, write his stories, send them to publishers and wait for= =20 the next rejection slip. "I thought the only way to get out of those jobs was to publish a book or=20 sell a script," he says. After serving his church mission, Dutcher returned to BYU and began to=20 audition for locally produced movies. He had small parts in church films, TV movies and=20 independent films. After graduating from BYU in 1988, he moved to Los Angeles to find more movie=20 roles, but they were hard to come by. During his 10 years in L.A., he was a substitute schoolteacher and worked=20 the graveyard shift at 7-Eleven while pursuing a career in movies and supporting his wife and=20 children. For a time, he stayed home with the kids, writing scripts and managing apartments on the=20 side while Gwen worked. An art major at BYU, she was a master sculptor for Disney's=20 collectible porcelain figures =97 Winnie the Pooh, Cinderella, Thumper. "We certainly got to see what it was like to struggle financially, but they= =20 were incredibly happy years," says Gwen. "That's what I expected when I married an actor and=20 filmmaker. We lived paycheck-to-paycheck occasionally. The worst it got was when we maxed all=20 our credit cards. All we had was our gas card, so we'd get our groceries at= =20 the gas station." Dutcher waited for the big break that never came. Nobody was going to=20 discover him, he realized, so he decided the only solution was to make his own movie. He=20 wrote, directed, produced, marketed and raised money for "Girl Crazy," a romantic comedy. He= =20 made the movie with $50,000 and no name actors. "That's where I learned how to make films," he says. "That was my graduate= =20 school." It took five years to complete the project, and Dutcher put every dime he=20 had into it. He sold the movie to HBO, but didn't make enough to cover his costs. When Dutcher met=20 with a distributor about international sales =97 which would have provided him with= significantly=20 increased profits =97 he was told that he must add nudity every seven or eight minutes. Dutcher,= =20 who had become so entrenched in Hollywood and making movies that he was slowly drifting away= =20 from his religion, was at a crossroads. "It was at that moment that I wondered what am I doing here," he says. "I=20 knew I wasn't going to do that. I walked out really in despair. I thought there is no way I can= =20 be LDS and be a successful filmmaker. It was a real turning point. I thought I was going to= =20 have to give it up. I had come to a place where I had to choose. I knew the formula (for a successful= =20 movie) by then. I even had the film in my head that if I made it I would have everything I=20 needed =97 recognition and money. Then suddenly you have a career. I even=20 started shooting the film. "I was lying in bed one night and saw where I was heading and it wasn't a=20 good place. I was really going down the wrong path. I wasn't being true to the kid. These=20 weren't my stories; I was just responding to the market. Mormonism was a big part of it. These films= =20 could have been made by anybody." Dutcher quit the movie business and planned to become a full-time=20 schoolteacher and novelist. Or so he thought. One day he was barbecuing hamburgers in the yard when his= =20 eye fell on the L.A. Times movie section. "There were four new gay-themed films opening in L.A.," he says. "I was so= =20 frustrated. Why do they get to make movies, and I don't? Why can't Mormons do the same thing?= =20 Each film doesn't have to be for the whole world. Just appeal to enough people to get your=20 money back. Even if only LDS liked the films, that's enough. It was so clear. It was as if=20 someone shook me. I sat at the picnic table and started to work it out. Up to that point I was writing= =20 mainstream stuff. I wondered what kind of story can I tell as a Mormon that no one else can=20 tell. It was a totally new place. I began writing. I'd be weeping at the computer. Just going through= =20 these stories that moved me and taught me. I realized I had spent five years on 'Girl Crazy' to= =20 make 90 minutes of fluff. It was cute, but it didn't mean anything. It was totally disposable= =20 entertainment, and it almost drove me to bankruptcy. I decided five years of my life was worth=20 more than that, and at least I was going to make something that matters so I could look back on it= =20 and say it was worth it." He wrote a script for a Mormon Western and even started to raise money for= =20 it when he realized the film would be too expensive for an independent filmmaker to produce.=20 There was no way an investor was going to give him $2 million to $3 million for a movie that=20 targeted an untested market. To make a movie he could afford, Dutcher decided it had to be set in= =20 L.A, it had to be in present day and it had to use young actors (read: cheaper, nonunion). Then= =20 it dawned on him: Missionaries. "What better movie to lead off with?" he says. "I drew on my own=20 experiences. I took two years and condensed them. They tell you to write about what you know. I knew this= =20 was absolutely right." He met plenty of skepticism along the way. It took him four years to raise= =20 $300,000 and produce 'God's Army.' Dutcher played the lead role in part to save money.=20 "It was hard to find the right actor on that budget," he says. "I almost cast someone else. But= =20 at the last minute I thought I'm not going to do all the work and let someone else have all the= =20 fun." "God's Army" was largely a husband-wife production. Gwen, who was a line=20 producer for "Girl Crazy," helped with costumes, marketing, sets and publicity. "She would use= =20 her maiden name so we wouldn't sound like a mom-and-pop outfit," says Dutcher. "It was just= =20 Gwen and I until a couple of weeks before the movie actually opened. I was working constantly.= =20 We were in over our heads." They even booked theaters and hand-delivered prints of the=20 movies to Utah theaters before signing with Excel Entertainment. The movie, of course, took the industry by surprise. "God's Army" played in= =20 240 cities nationwide last year, grossing $2.6 million at the box office=20 before being sold to video. That paved the way for Dutcher's next film, "Brigham City," another film=20 that went mainstream, albeit not as successfully as "God's Army." Now Dutcher has turned his=20 energy to another Mormon-movie project: "The Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith Jr." It will be by far his biggest undertaking, with a production cost of $10=20 million and financial support from Larry H. Miller. Dutcher will use "recognizable actors" this time and= =20 will play only a minor character in the movie. Most of the filming will take place in Canada, New= =20 York and Missouri. Dutcher expects to complete the film in a year and a half. "I feel peaceful about it," he says. "There's something very fitting, going= =20 back to that experience in Carthage jail. It feels right. I'm surprised=20 nobody has beaten me to it." Dutcher has done extensive research on his subject and consulted with=20 Richard Bushman, a Joseph Smith historian, but the movie is likely to rankle= =20 a few Mormons again. "Most of us don't really know that much about Joseph Smith," he says. "I=20 found that out myself. I'm very familiar with the scriptures, but when you go into historical facts= =20 and his story, well, I had no idea. They're not bad things, or good things, just the particulars of= =20 his life. I think it's better when you see him as a man. We have elevated him to Godlike stature.= =20 There's nothing wrong with revering him and honoring him in his divine mission, but there is= =20 something wrong with believing that while he was here he was perfect. It leads us to a false= =20 understanding of the role of prophets. I find it comforting. If the Lord can use flawed people to= =20 do his work, there's hope for all of us." Dutcher, meanwhile, wonders why other Mormons aren't telling Mormon-related= =20 stories when their religion is such a central part of their lives, but then he seems to= =20 answer his own question =97 "Maybe it's because they realize they're not going to get rich." After years= =20 of financing films with personal credit cards and loans and "always living right on the edge" =97 he= =20 was $30,000 in debt when he started "God's Army" =97 he still has never owned a home. He's still= =20 renting a house in Provo but recently purchased an acre of land in the area. He also splurged= =20 and bought himself a second car =97 another first for him. "It feels good to have something," he says of his land purchase. "Hopefully,= =20 with another movie, we can start building a house. I don't want to take out a huge loan from the= =20 bank. I've never had the living that could guarantee a certain salary. . . . I feel better, but= =20 I'm very aware that I might be back there again in a couple of years. Filmmaking is a pretty precarious,= =20 unstable way of living." Not that he's complaining. He is living the boyhood dream of making films=20 and telling stories and loving it. He typically writes in the morning and puts on his producer's hat= =20 in the afternoon and then dotes on his children =97 Lucas, Ethan, Eli and Issac =97 and his wife.= By=20 the way, you can see Gwen in "Girl Crazy," in which she is identified in the credits as "sexy=20 neighbor." And that's Gwen being baptized in the ocean in "God's Army," and that's her again in the=20 picture on the wall of his house and another on his desk in "Brigham City,"= =20 identified as "Wes' sexy wife." Looking back on his two latest films, Dutcher says, "It feels good. It feels= =20 really good. I hope I get better at it =97 better at storytelling. I'm not satisfied with what I've=20 done. Someday I hope to make a film, sit back and say, you know what,=20 there's not one thing I'd change about it." E-mail: drob@desnews.com =A9 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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] Re: _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Comp) Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:49:00 -0500 >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Fri Jun 15 12:56:48 2001 > > I didn't dislike the movie as much as this reviewer did. And when it's out > > on video, I will buy it for my family. It's better than the Hollywood > > versions of Jesus that have him baptized by sprinkling, questioning who he > > is, and spending a good portion of his life being angry. > > You must be watching the wrong Hollywood movie (sounds like "Last > Temptation of Christ"). Watch Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" > miniseries. > Actually, it wasn't the Last Temptation. I was thinking of the made for TV movies they did last year. I believe one was called Mary and the other was called Jesus. Anna Wight >From RichardDutcher@aol.com Fri Jun 15 12:58:14 2001 Did anyone else notice that the villains and most of the background characters were very ethnic in appearance, whereas the "good guys" (with the exception of the Hawaiian prophet) had fine caucasian features beneath their brownface make-up? Interesting (and hopefully unintentional) subtext... Richard >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Mon Jun 18 13:24:59 2001 This is in response to both Jacob and Darvell's posts. > > The biggest reason that liked the film is because it made me feel that > Christ really does live and that he visited these people. Yes, I agree with that. The first time I saw it I really felt like He was my brother, not just some invisible God somewhere. >>dare call the movie deep when so many more distinguished, more professionally qualified people have ripped on it for being so shallow?<< If you got something from it, then it accomplished it's purpose. So what the professionally qualified people thought it shallow. Sometimes it's easy to feel intimidated. But your opinion is as valuable. >>The boy's father was, for me, the hero of the movie anyway: << Yes he was. I said earlier that I was moved when he was healed. Actually that whole last scene between the son and father moved me. And Christ appearing moved me too. I just didn't cry the way everyone else did, and I didn't understand why I wasn't sobbing the way the people around me were. I thought I was missing something. .>> I cried. I was moved. It was emotional. But all of those things don't mean that it wasn't deeply spiritual as well.<< Someone made an inference that crying is not a sign of the spirit. Perhaps for the person who made that statement, it isn't. But many people cry when they feel the spirit. I have had occasions when that has happened and it would be wrong for someone to suggest that I didn't feel the spirit. How could they know that? >>if that is manipulative, then please explain how any story depicting sacrifice and hardship, that ends with true reward, can not be manipulative?<< Good question. It seems we call anything manipulative that brings emotion into play. Yet how else do we depict hardships, death, birth, joy, sorrow ? Without conflict, drama, happy endings etc, writing and movies would be very dull. I'm on the fence on this movie. It didn't move me the way it moved others. Does that make it bad? Of course not. It moved others. It made other people feel something. No one movie is going to accomplish this for everyone. I also liked the special effects scenes where the civilization was falling apart. And it was certainly better than Hollywood's version of Christ. Richard Dutcher, I know you're out there, why don't you make a film of Christ and show Hollywood how it's really done. Show Christ's humour, joy, sorrow, relationships, and life. (And a real baptism.) It seems Hollywood can't do it right. They only get pieces. For instance, one movie I saw of Christ showed Mary as a cold mother and Joseph as an old man when Christ was just a little boy. Well, Mary couldn't have possibly been cold. Most show Christ being sprinkled instead of baptised. One showed Christs humor and had him playing with kids, but later had him angry and pushing people away. One had Satan, during Christ's temptation, dressed in a suit. Well, Satan might appear to men in a suit now, but in Christ's time I don't think he would. Most have Christ not accepting of his role, and not knowing who he is. He comes across as a victim, unable to make choices. Could this movie been better? Probably. Wouldn't it be nice to see a full length feature. There is enough material in Mormon doctrine to make movies until Christ's Millenium. Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: GAs in Church Pubs (comp) Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:50:39 -0500 >From ChrisB@enrich.com Fri Jun 15 10:18:30 2001 I left Ensign employment about 18 months ago, and this memo is very much = in line as the next step in a progression I observed going on at Church = magazines. This new policy will lessen my interest in the magazine, = because GA articles tend to be long, sermonizing, and light on disclosing = the personal details and experiences--the drama--that make reading = interesting. According to reader surveys, the Ensign's most-read articles = are the Mormon Journal vignettes (now called Latter-Day Voices or = something like that), and the GA articles are generally the opposite of = those. Of course, you do get an occasional good one (Oaks, Holland, = Maxwell). With this new policy, I feel sorry for the editors, because for = a Church employee to contact a GA regarding a writing project requires = navigating many levels of permissions and authority. I remember one time I = literally had 12 levels of communication (6 up, 6 back down) to work with = one GA, and I don't think he was even an apostle (can't remember). Also, = some GAs behave as if every comma placement was inspired and not open to = correction, which I suppose makes an editor's job easier but makes them = feel less proud of the output. Chris Bigelow >From glennsj@inet-1.com Fri Jun 15 10:28:36 2001 Regarding the Tribune article on the new quotas for GA-written material in the church magazines: Nope, this isn't tongue-in-cheek. When my 13-year-old daughter's original musical, "Dancing Shoes." was produced at the Villa last summer, the New Era sent a staff writer and a photographer to put together what was supposed to be a four page story. They spent hours and hours attending and photographing reheasals, interviewing directors, producers, cast members, family members, and, of course, Erica herself. And several months later when Erica was asked to write an original composition for the YW world-wide celebration, they were out and at it again. Well, we just found out from the very disappointed staff writer that, after all the expense and work and after being told my her editors that this was the best thing she'd ever written, the four-page spread was being reduced to a one column blurb. The reason? To quote the e-mail she sent us: "The General Authorities have been on the staff of the magazine to include at least 10-12 pages of General Authority talks into each issue for the last few months, so it has left very little room for special interest stories." Interesting development. I hope the New Era (not to mention the Friend!) can hold on to its readership. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com >From Derek1966@aol.com Fri Jun 15 23:43:44 2001 In a message dated 6/15/01 9:11:41 AM, lajackson@juno.com writes: << According to the Salt Lake Tribune's Rolly & Wells, a memo from editorial director Richard M. Romney specifies that at least 50% of each magazine will be written by General Authorities, including at least one from a member of the First Presidency, another from a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, one or two from a member of one of the Quorums of the Seventy, and a "classic" article from previous members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. >> This past week I saw a letter that my mom received from one of the editors of the Friend, stating that the church magazines will no longer be publishing fiction and have been instructed to put in more articles from general authorities and true stories. John Perry - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Comp2) Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:51:10 -0500 >>> dmichael@wwno.com 06/14/01 04:05AM >>> > >You must be watching the wrong Hollywood movie (sounds like "Last >Temptation of Christ"). Watch Zefirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" >miniseries. > >Oh, sure, it still has the sprinkling baptism, since Zefirelli is >Catholic. But none of the rest of that garbage is there. I was moved by = the >film. And Robert Powell as Jesus looks much more like Jesus--at least >the stylized Jesus our culture is familiar with. Another scene Zeffirelli did very well is the Visitation of Mary to = Elizabeth, also significant to Catholics ("Blessed art thou among women, = and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"). The scene is one of the most = beautiful things ever put on film. MBA >From dmichael@wwno.com Sat Jun 16 02:49:05 2001 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > So my question is: if that is manipulative, then please explain how any > story depicting sacrifice and hardship, that ends with true reward, can > not be manipulative? Just because we see the blessings afterward > doesn't lessen the impact of the sacrifices to get there -- at least not > for me. Sometimes, movies (and books and whatever) should show the good > guys getting an unadulterated reward. Particularly when depicting > Christ visiting the righteous. But the father being healed was the one part of the movie I _did_ like, because I thought it's emotions were evoked honestly. It was comparably inspiring to the healing scene at the end of the film _Ben Hur_, and for some of the same reasons: two women who had sacrificed much, who had taken risks to see Christ, and were content with their spiritual illumination, are then healed of their leprosy without asking for it or expecting it. It was the rest of _Testaments_ I didn't like. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com >From dmichael@wwno.com Sat Jun 16 03:05:01 2001 Darvell Hunt wrote: > The comments about this church film have been interesting, to say the > least. But I personally think many who have seen the film have actually > missed the point. If I've missed the point of a film, it's the film's fault for not getting the point across better. That's one painful lesson I've learned as a writer being critiqued by discerning readers: if it's not there, it's not there, no matter how much I want to believe it was. > The biggest reason that liked the film is because it made me feel that > Christ really does live and that he visited these people. "Jesus of Nazareth" did that much better (well, except for the part about visiting the Americas). Sorry, but the actor was so un-Jesus-like, the New Testament scenes so standard issue, and the descent to America so corny, that I received no sense of verity about Christ really living from this film. It was more of the same-o same-o obsession with reverence over veracity. (As if veracity were not a form of reverence.) > The second is that these people from the Book of Mormon really lived. I > doubt the film makers got their lifestyle correct, but who cares? I didn't feel it here either. Not with Ben Stiller, Shirley Temple, and the Bronx Weasel playing these people. My impression was more along the lines of an elaborate, professionally made roadshow. The scene where the love interest is introduced sure didn't help. Again, they needed a sign saying, "Here's where we make these people seem real." Ben Stiller wants to flirt with the Zarahemla Playmate of the Month, so what does he do? Throws rocks at her and hides. Sure, real if these people were twelve years old. But at the age he was, this only shows a serious dysfunction about relating to the opposite sex. (I haven't thrown rocks at girls for at least three years now.) > This film was meant to bear testimony. It did that > to me. The thought that Christ actually lives and visited these people was > very strong to me. I didn't care a lot for _Legacy_, but this film really > touched me. I liked _Legacy_ better. I think. It's been a while. Maybe I should watch it again. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.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] Re: Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" (comp) Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:51:21 -0500 >From scottparkin@earthlink.net Fri Jun 15 21:59:49 2001 Thom Duncan wrote: >I have long held the view that all movies and books have happy >endings, though we may not perceive them as such. >So, come on, here's a chance to publicly humiliate that big >blow-hard, Thom Duncan. > >Try me. Actually, I agree with your premise. I think most stories do end up with at least some positive aspect. But I also think it's become popular to emphasize the negative or dark parts of the resolution. Still, I'd like to see your take on a couple of films. _Jacob's Ladder_ _Seven_ _War of the Roses_ On this last one, I don't think it's fair to have put that little frame story on it, and that's where the positive resolution comes from--the frame. The actual story of the war between the Roses ending with the chandelier scene was pretty darned close to a perfectly hopeless ending. Of course these are all R-rated films. Then again, that hasn't seemed to be a problem for either of us... Scott Parkin >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Sat Jun 16 12:38:56 2001 Old Yeller. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo >From barbara@techvoice.com Sat Jun 16 13:46:05 2001 Message in a Bottle. (I've seen that many men think that the hero dying bravely and the heroine mourning for him thereafter is a happy ending. It isn't.) Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Sat Jun 16 16:37:23 2001 Of course this is based on Thom's perceptions of what a happy ending is. What one person might percieve as a happy ending, the other might not. Okay Thom, I've got one. Thelma and Louise. So, are you going to say that Thelma and Louise driving off a cliff is a happy ending because they got to avoid the consequences of their actions? Or maybe it's a happy ending because they got to go out in a blaze of glory. Anna Wight >From markhata@delhi.edu Mon Jun 18 08:06:59 2001 I think that "Seven" had an unhappy ending Tony Markham - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 15 Jun 2001 18:01:21 -0700 Gae Lyn, I tend to agree with your point of view. Having been the father of two children (one leaving next month for his mission in Ohio Columbus) both my wife's births were excruciating in their own way from my point but for my wife they were agony. My son was about three weeks early and two days before my birthday. Her labors were both short but intense. She nearly broke my thumb on the first when she squeezed it with each contraction. On the second my daughter was a forceps baby because she was coming with her face turned wrong. On the surface I knew the pain for each but I could never get close to actually feeling it. I think the bottom line is the research done by a man before writing those kinds of scenes (hopefully they research those things) makes for good reading or visualizing but to actually write it with a sense of true feeling (by one who has been there) it takes a mother and as I have seen every birth is different. As men we do the best we can in every respect but as my wife is always reminding me the man presides in the home with the support (and sometimes permission) of their wife. I know without my wife I would definitely not be the man I am and having two wonderful children it makes me very grateful for the sacrifice she made to bring them into this life. I am very grateful during this particular Father's Day (even though it is somewhat commercial now days). I know many men won't agree with this but where would we be without our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and sisters in the Gospel. The Sisters may not preside but we wouldn't be able to succeed without them. Jerry Tyner - 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] re: MITCHELL, _Angel of the Danube_ Date: 15 Jun 2001 21:49:18 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: >The missionaries rang true, too. I liked the clowns, but I'll >disagree with Scott that they are our only close depiction of >missionaries. I think that the apes are well described, though they >appear infrequently. Elder Brannan was particularly sympathetic as >someone who knew the score but still let his spirituality show >through. Also, Unts was a good description of a missionary who is >willing to work hard and with the Spirit at the same time (a rare >combination, in my experience). I didn't say there weren't strong characters in the story other than Barry Monroe, I said that all the good ones were "clowns" who had the same generally angry and frustrated approach to their lives and missions as Monroe did. What I didn't see (or at least don't recall) was seeing non-clowns who were as honest with their spirituality as this "edge" group was. To me that felt like a statement that the only honest spirituality comes out of being at slacker and a cynic. I disagree with the premise. >Unts messed around sometimes, but like (and possibly better than) >Barry, he was also very spiritual and able to keep things in >perspective. Frankly, the relationship with Unts was one of the >things that made the book multi-faceted enough to be believable and >not just some humorous riff on the life of a missionary. The >integration of Unts is what allowed me to go with Monroe when things >turned serious at the end. Without that seriousness throughout the >book, the transition at the end would have been much tougher and >would probably have lost me. I agree completely. I actually liked Unts quite a bit better than I liked Barry. Then again, I didn't see as much of Unts' inner monologue, so it his moments of spirituality came against a less dark background. >Anyway, I laughed. I cried. The book made me want to evaluate >(possibly even write) my own experience, but that's too painful, so >I probably won't. I'm going to make Melissa read it because I want >to be able to point out the things that I experienced that are so >well captured by Mitchell -- things that I have tried to explain, >but with indifferent success. Then again, maybe you just had to be >there... I had a similar response. He captured the deep frustration that I experienced in Berlin in a way that I haven't seen done anywhere else. It certainly has prompted me to think about my own mission and whether I should attempt my own memoir. But I also believe that there is plenty of room to improve on the presentation and/or to fill in individual variances that many readers would find engaging. If I ever do my own missionary memoir novel for public consumption, I'll go about it by a very different route--and probably have some smart-aleck commentator pick on my choices. That's okay. It's part of the process and the community, and I would have it no other way. 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] Yahoo! Date: 15 Jun 2001 17:46:34 -0700 Congratulations! Sounds like a real hoot! At 05:17 PM 6/15/01 -0500, you wrote: >BTW, I'd like to announce a small YAHOO as a P.S. here. This week I got my >own somewhat-weekly column in a local Utah County newspaper for which I've >been writing news clips since January. (The Lehi Free Press edition of the >NewUtah! [exclamation theirs, not mine]). > >It's a satirical editorial called "West Side Stories" that deals with the >people and places on the west side of Utah Lake, where I live. I hope this >provides some sort of stepping stone for my writing career, both in gaining >knowledge and becoming noticed as a writer. My editor really seems to like >my stuff. Yahoo. > >Darvell Hunt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Book-Free Zones, 6/14/2001 Date: 15 Jun 2001 17:48:13 -0700 I'm forwarding this intact as of some interest to aml members. Jeff =================== If you find these free daily transcripts helpful, please forward this one to friends and family. If you're not yet a subscriber, come to WWW.BREAKPOINT.ORG and click on "subscribe" to join. =================== BreakPoint with Charles Colson Commentary #010614 - 6/14/2001 Book-Free Zones: Are We Losing Our Cultural Heritage? If you've ever met someone who never learned to read, you know they behave a lot like Jeremy Spreitzer. If Jeremy wants to know the latest news, he turns on the TV. If he can't avoid checking the contents of one of his graduate school textbooks, he buys the audio book. A grad student who can't read? Well, the truth is, Jeremy can read, very well. He just doesn't want to. In shutting himself off in a book-free zone, Jeremy represents a disturbing new trend: the large group of Americans who are a-literates. That is, people who know how to read, but prefer not to. According to the Washington Post, ten years ago more than half of all Americans read at least thirty minutes every day. Today, only forty-five percent do. Even those who read on the Internet are mainly scanning for information; they're not really comprehending what they're reading, says researcher William Albert. In grocery stores, products now feature colors, shapes, and icons instead of words. The same with video games for kids. And instead of reading classic stories, kids watch the Disney version on videotape. This is bad news for Christianity. In his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, TV critic Neil Postman says the printed word demands thoughtful analysis, sustained attention, and active imagination. This is not the case with television, video games, and webzines. They encourage a short attention span, disjointed thinking, and purely emotional responses -- which shapes the way people think. So how does this affect Christianity? Most religions teach that the way to contact the divine is through mystical visions, emotional experiences, and practices like Eastern-style meditation. Judaism and Christianity, however, stand alone in their insistence on the primacy of language. Postman says that, as a young man, he read the Ten Commandments, and was struck by the words: "You shall not make for yourself any graven image." He said he realized that the idea of a universal deity couldn't be expressed in images but only in words. As Postman puts it, "The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking." This is the God we worship -- a God known principally through his Word. It's why missionaries spent decades learning and translating native languages, equipping people of all nations to read God's Word. But here in the West, we're in danger of coming full circle: The new visual media created by modern technology may actually undermine literacy, leading us back to an image-based culture. And then we risk losing our cultural heritage -- including the ability to understand the Scriptures. We can fight this trend by making sure we make time to read ourselves and by insisting that our children turn off the TV and read good books. Visit BreakPoint Online for a list of books we recommend for summer reading at . And if you know someone like Jeremy Spreitzer, who hates to read, give him a copy of the Bible -- and not on audio tape! Put the bookmark at John 1:1, where it says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." For further reference: Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Viking Press, 1986. Weeks, Linton. "Aliteracy: Read All About It, or Maybe Not; Millions of Americans Who Can Read Choose Not To." Washington Post, 14 May 2001. Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries =================== THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a daily commentary on news and trends from a Christian perspective. Heard on more than 1000 radio outlets nationwide, BreakPoint transcripts are also available on the Internet. BreakPoint is a production of The Wilberforce Forum, a division of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Chairman: Charles W. Colson Dean: Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D. Executive Director: Jim Nelson Black, Ph.D. Senior Writer: Anne Morse Associate Editor: Roberto Rivera Research Associate: Kim Robbins Editor, Wilberforce Forum: Douglas C. Minson Editor, BreakPoint Online: Peter L. Edman Production Manager: Teresa Woodward Staff Writer: Daniel L. Weiss Editorial Assistant: Janel Kragt List Maintainer: Larry Wilson For product requests, further information, or to make a donation, visit our website at http://www.breakpoint.org or call 1-800-457-6125 in the United States. Copyright notice: BreakPoint may be copied and re- transmitted by electronic mail, and individual copies of a particular BreakPoint e-mail transcript may be printed, provided that such copying, re-transmission, printing, or other use is not for profit or other commercial purpose. BreakPoint may NOT be reproduced on the World Wide Web or in broadcast media, print media, or other media without express written permission. Please contact Prison Fellowship Ministries at 1-800-457-6125 to submit a request. Any copying, re-transmission, distribution, printing, or other use of BreakPoint must set forth the following credit line, in full, at the conclusion of the portion of BreakPoint that is used: Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries. Prison Fellowship Ministries(R) may withdraw or modify this grant of permission at any time. =================== http://www.breakpoint.org/ http://www.wilberforce.org/ http://www.pfm.org/ http://www.angeltree.org/ ---- INSTRUCTIONS! If you want to unsubscribe your address, send a message from the e-mail box that receives the transcripts to: mailto:breakpoint-request@lists.netcentral.net Put "unsubscribe" in the SUBJECT of the message. ********************************************************************** This list is from your pals at NetCentral ---- NETCENTRAL IS A SPAM-FREE ZONE ---- - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 16 Jun 2001 09:03:09 -0500 Thom Duncan: In another post by Craig Huls, he said he likes happy endings. I have long held the view that all movies and books have happy endings, though we may not perceive them as such. ... Try me. _______________ This reminds me of the (old) cartoon I recently saw showing a movie theater packed with sharks, the screen showing the Titanic sinking, and the caption, "I love happy endings!" Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 2 of 2) Date: 16 Jun 2001 11:56:59 -0400 Scott, It seems to me that with missionary stories, the suspension of disbelief is much harder to achieve, since the audience (if RMs) has had a similar experience. I'm not saying the audience has had the same experience, but they generally read the text as if the domain for the missionary experience has definite boundaries, as if it must be between points A and E, and if the experience is G, then the reader rejects it, says it is "absurd." But for a non-RM reader, the suspension of disbelief would not be so difficult to achieve. Suppose the experience is J--way beyond the points A and E. They don't have a similar experience to compare it to, so they more readily believe. With other story topics, non-missionary stories, in which the reader has not had similar experiences, the suspension of belief is likewise more readily achieved. For example, I'm currently reading Moby Dick. I've never been whaling, so perhaps I am more easily convinced that this is what it's like to go a-whaling. But had I been whaling before, I would constantly be bringing my past to bear on the text, comparing it, judging it. Which is better, to come to the text without any similar experiences, or with some similar experiences? This is the bane of missionary stories--they aren't original enough. Tom - 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] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) Date: 17 Jun 2001 21:50:05 EDT In a message dated 6/15/01 7:38:58 PM Central Daylight Time, gaelyn@mstar2.net writes: << My legs are shaking with exhaustion. I can't get my breath. Dr. Parker tells me to push again. I try to lift my legs and hips up. They won't go. I can't hold up my legs. Everyone is prodding me, "Try, push harder, you can do it, don't quit!" I'm going to collapse. "Push, push, you can do it!" I scream. My body is ripping apart! "Keep pushing!" I can't rip apart my own body, but I have to, I have to!. "You did it, you did it." It's over. I did it. I gave birth. God helped me. Thanks Heavenly Father. My baby, my baby. Tears run down my face. I'm so happy. I've never been this happy. This is joy. >> What a terrific (and graphic) description of your birthing scene. It brings my own back to haunt me, but they were never that painful. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kent Larsen (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] Excerpts from MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 13Jun1 X1 Date: 18 Jun 2001 07:04:14 -0500 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com News Briefs In the News Today: Testaments Actor Tells About His Experience: BYU NewsNet 12Jun01 A2 LDS Church Magazines to have More Articles from GAs: Salt Lake Tribune 13Jun01 N1 Testaments Actor Tells About His Experience PROVO, UTAH -- Rick Macy, one of the actors in the LDS Church's film "The Testaments," told a group of students Monday about his experiences making the movie. Macy said he felt participating in the film was a grave responsibility. "You feel a little bit overwhelmed," he said. For Macy the most significant part of the film was the final scene, where his character, Helam, is healed by the Savior, "I was not prepared ... for the temendous feeling, and that is a word that doesn't even begin to describe the feeling of one being in the presence of the Son of God. I've never had an experience like that." Testaments actor speaks about his experience BYU NewsNet 12Jun01 A2 http://newsnet.byu.edu/index.cfm?story=2021%2C31684 By Jennifer Ripplinger: NewsNet Staff Writer LDS Church Magazines to have More Articles from GAs SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- A recent memo to the editors of the LDS Church magazines, including the Ensign, New Era and Friend, establishes quotas for the portion of their content that is written by General Authorities. According to the Salt Lake Tribune's Rolly & Wells, a memo from editorial director Richard M. Romney specifies that at least 50% of each magazine will be written by General Authorities, including at least one from a member of the First Presidency, another from a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, one or two from a member of one of the Quorums of the Seventy, and a "classic" article from previous members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. ROLLY & WELLS: Old Elms Get The Ax in a Power Play Salt Lake Tribune 13Jun01 N1 http://www.sltrib.com/06132001/utah/105306.htm By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells and Paul Rolly >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: "Tom Johnson" Subject: [AML] insider texts Date: 18 Jun 2001 14:04:08 -0400 William, I ran across an article in the nyreview of books that was = relevant to our discussion on insider texts Thought I'd paste a section = of it here. He pretty much slams the idea.The review is by Coetzee on = Celan. Tom J. Between 1938 and his death in 1970 Celan wrote some eight hundred poems = in German; in addition there is a body of early work in Romanian. = Recognition of his gifts came soon, with the publication of Mohn und = Ged=E4chtnis (Poppy and Memory) in 1952. He consolidated his reputation = as one of the more important young German-language poets with = Sprachgitter (Speech Grille, 1959) and Die Niemandsrose (The No-One's = Rose, 1963). Two more volumes appeared during his lifetime, and three = posthumously. This later poetry, out of phase with the leftward swing of = the German intelligentsia after 1968, was not quite so enthusiastically = received.=20 By the standards of international modernism, Celan's work up to 1963 is = quite accessible. The later poetry, however, becomes strikingly = difficult, even obscure. Balked by what they took to be arcane symbolism = and private references, reviewers called the later Celan hermetic. It = was a label he vehemently rejected. "Not in the least hermetic," he = said. "Read! Just keep reading, understanding comes of itself."=20 Typical of the "hermetic" Celan is the following posthumously published = poem, which I give in John Felstiner's translation:=20 You lie amid a great listening,=20 enbushed, enflaked.=20 Go to the Spree, to the Havel,=20 go to the meathooks,=20 the red apple stakes=20 from Sweden-=20 Here comes the gift table,=20 it turns around an Eden-=20 The man became a sieve, the Frau,=20 had to swim, the sow,=20 for herself, for no one, for everyone-=20 The Landwehr Canal won't make a murmur.=20 Nothing=20 stops.=20 What, at the most elementary level, is this poem about? Hard to say, = until one becomes privy to certain information, information supplied by = Celan to the critic Peter Szondi. The man who became a sieve is Karl = Liebknecht, "the Frau.the sow" swimming in the canal is Rosa Luxemburg. = "Eden" is the name of an apartment block built on the site where the two = activists were shot in 1919, while the meathooks are the hooks at = Pl=F6tzensee on the Havel River on which the would-be assassins of = Hitler in 1944 were hanged. In the light of this information, the poem = emerges as a pessimistic comment on the continuity of right-wing = murderousness in Germany, and the silence of Germans about it.=20 The Rosa Luxemburg poem became a minor locus classicus when the = philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, defending Celan against charges of = obscurity, gave a reading of it through which he argued that any = receptive, open-minded reader with a German cultural background can = understand what it is important to understand in Celan without = assistance, that background information should take second place to = "what the poem [itself] knows."1=20 Gadamer's argument is a brave but losing one. What he forgets is that we = cannot be sure that the information that unlocks the poem-in this case, = the identities of the dead man and woman-is of secondary importance = until we know what it is. Yet the questions Gadamer raises are important = ones. Does poetry offer a kind of knowledge different from that offered = by history, and demand a different kind of receptivity? Is it possible = to respond to poetry like Celan's, even to translate it, without fully = understanding it?=20 Michael Hamburger, one of the most eminent of Celan's translators, seems = to think so. Though scholars have certainly illumined Celan's poetry for = him, Hamburger says, he is not sure he "understands," in the normal = sense of the word, even those poems he has translated, or all of them.=20 "[It] asks too much of the reader," is the verdict of Felstiner on the = Rosa Luxemburg poem. But, he continues, "what is too much, given this = history?" This, in a nutshell, is Felstiner's own response to = accusations of hermeticism against Celan. Given the enormity of = anti-Semitic persecutions in the twentieth century, given the = all-too-human need of Germans, and of the Christian West in general, to = escape from a monstrous historical incubus, we can ask what memory, what = knowledge is it too much to demand? Even if Celan's poems were totally = incomprehensible (this is not something that Felstiner says, but it is a = valid extrapolation), they would nevertheless stand in our way like a = tomb, a tomb built by a "Poet, Survivor, Jew" (the subtitle of = Felstiner's recent study), insisting by its looming presence that we = remember, even though the words inscribed on it may seem to belong to an = undecipherable tongue. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] UDALL, _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ (SL Tribune) Date: 18 Jun 2001 20:25:21 -0000 Udall Mints a Dickens of a Tale in 'Miracle Life' Sunday, June 17, 2001 BY BRANDON GRIGGS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE As a seventh-grader in rural St. John's, Ariz., Brady Udall once played a football game against a ramshackle rival school on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The reservation school had the hopeless air of a prison. Its football field was littered with broken glass, and a cactus grew in one end zone. After St. John's beat the ragtag Apache players by some lopsided score, Udall and his teammates climbed back onto their shiny new bus to head home. Udall was gazing out of the bus when Apache students began hurling bottles, folding chairs and chunks of concrete from a nearby three-story dorm building, denting the bus and shattering its windows. In the seconds before the barrage, Udall locked eyes with an Apache boy staring back at him through the bars of one of the dorm's windows. The youth had broken teeth, scabbed hands and a expression of weary disdain. "For some reason, the look on that boy's face has never left me," says Udall, now 31. "I knew one day when I wrote a novel it would be the first thing I'd write about. I'll never know anything about that boy, but as the god of my own little universe, I decided to give him a story and a name." The boy's name and his story form Udall's debut novel, The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint, published earlier this month by W.W. Norton. A witty, wise and heartwrenching tale of a naive orphan's struggle to survive an often unforgiving world, Edgar Mint marks an ambitious step forward for Udall, whose previous book, 1997's Letting Loose the Hounds, was a collection of stories. Udall will read from The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint, much of which is set in Utah, Thursday at The King's English Bookshop in Salt Lake City. He also will teach a short story workshop during the weeklong Writers at Work conference beginning June 24 at Westminster College. "One of the reasons I wanted to write this character [of Edgar Mint] was that I was given anything I needed in life," says Udall, whose great-uncles include former U.S. congressman and Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and former congressman Morris Udall, who ran for president in 1976. "And here you have this orphaned, half-breed kid who's grown up in exactly the opposite situation. One of the jobs of an artist is to step across the line and imagine the other. The last thing I wanted to do was write about myself." As conceived by Udall, the singular life of Edgar Mint is somehow both blessed and doomed almost from its start. Bastard son of a rebellious Apache girl and a bumbling would-be cowboy from Connecticut, Edgar experiences his life's defining moment at age 7 when a mailman's Jeep runs over his head. Left for dead by his drunken mother, the runty Edgar is miraculously revived at the local hospital by Barry Pinkley, a doctor who takes an intense and peculiar interest in the boy's well-being. After a long hospital stay, Edgar is shunted to the Willie Sherman school on the Apache reservation, a despairing, dead-end place filled with delinquent youths who torment him. "I knew it would get ugly. I just wasn't prepared for how ugly," says Udall of the novel's grim Willie Sherman chapters -- a locale inspired, of course, by his school's ill-fated visit for the football game. Interviewed by telephone, he says, "I can see some people getting upset that I'm portraying Native Americans this way. But to me it has nothing to do with race. It's poverty and alcoholism and abuse, and these kids are the result of that." Edgar perseveres and eventually is rescued from Willie Sherman by two LDS Church missionaries who find him a foster home with a kind but troubled Mormon family in rural (and fictional) Richland, Utah. Before long his unlikely savior Barry Pinkley resurfaces, setting the now teen-age Edgar on a new course to find the anguished mailman and show him the boy he ran over is still alive. Desperate for stability, Edgar cherishes his few possessions: a pearl-handled jackknife, a urinal puck and a Hermes Jubilee manual typewriter, on which he hammers out pages of gibberish. By the novel's end he has become an indelible character: sweet-natured but sneaky, docile yet given to impulsive acts that propel his life in new directions. But he is no hero. Over the course of the book Edgar lies, steals and evens commits murder -- albeit an arguably merciful one. "I [originally] imagined him as a little more noble," says Udall, who expects some readers might balk at Edgar's behavior and at the cruelty inflicted upon him. "I never imagined I'd write a book in which I'd brutalize a small child for 500 pages." Early reviews of Edgar Mint have been anything but brutal. Author Junot Diaz called the book "a story that tears at you and calls you back to it." Kirkus Reviews called Edgar Mint "a remarkably assured debut novel that brings to life a unique world. A bit of a miracle in its own right." Novelist Tony Earley said, "If Dickens had been born in Arizona, he might have written a book like this." Other reviewers have compared Edgar Mint to John Irving's picaresque A Prayer for Owen Meany. Most, however, invoke Dickens -- a comparison that makes Udall squirm. "That's a little much for me," he says. "I think that's just because there's an orphan in it." Edgar Mint also attracted the attention of Hollywood, or at least of R.E.M. lead singer Michael Stipe, whose fledgling film production company optioned the rights to the novel. Udall traces his writing career to about age 12, when he won $25 in a poetry contest. He won Playboy magazine's fiction contest while a graduate student at the prestigious Iowa Writer's Workshop. The success of his first book, Letting Loose the Hounds, led in 1998 to a teaching post at Franklin and Marshall College in the Amish country of southeastern Pennsylvania. This fall, Udall starts teaching at Southern Illinois University -- not the ideal job, perhaps, but closer to his beloved West. Udall graduated from Brigham Young University and considers Utah his second home. The last third of Edgar Mint unfolds in the Southern Utah home of Clay and Lana Madsen, a well-meaning Mormon couple with marital problems and a sexually curious teen-age daughter. Edgar soon discovers Lana is having an affair with another man. "I can see a lot of Mormon people might be upset by the way that family is portrayed," says Udall, himself a practicing member of the LDS Church. "I don't mean to offend anybody, but I think sometimes it's kind of necessary. It's high time somebody out there, if not me, wrote about Mormons in a real and honest way." Somebody recently asked Udall if he wants to be considered a Mormon writer. He said no. "This is not because I am embarrassed by my faith and culture, but because I am working hard to create the kind of art my culture seems set on rejecting," he says. "We, as a people, have always been a bit immature when it comes to art. We have always been threatened by anything that doesn't fit squarely within our system of belief. Good art will always be complex, contradictory and will resist easy judgment -- all things that would make any good Mormon nervous." Will The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint make some readers nervous? Maybe. More likely, it will make them root for the scruffy boy with the lumpy head and a profound longing for a home he has never known. "It sounds corny, but this book has some spiritual aspect to it," Udall says. "There's power in accepting who you are, in finding the place you belong instead of the place people tell you that you belong." S.L. Readings Brady Udall will read from The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint Thursday at 7 p.m. at The King's English Bookshop, 1511 S. 1500 East in Salt Lake City. He will read again from the book June 28 at 7:30 p.m. at the Jewett Center, 1250 E. 1700 South on the campus of Westminster College. For more about Udall or his new novel, visit the book's Web site at www.edgarmint.com. (Forwarded by Andrew Hall) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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] Critical Anthology (was: Missionary Stories) Date: 18 Jun 2001 14:53:35 -0600 On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:50:47 -0600, Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: >Question for everyone-- > >Would an anthology of short fiction featuring short comments by the=20 >authors and short interpretive essays by reviewers or critics be=20 >interesting? I know I love to hear authors talk about their fiction,=20 >and I would love to see both the author's and a critic's view of the=20 >same text. Would any of you find that interesting? Would you pay=20 >money to see work by some of the better-known names in Mormon lit=20 >handled this way? > >Just curious. I've been kicking that idea around for quite a while=20 >and am interested in the marketability of such a project. One of the reasons I still like Isaac Asimov's story and essay = collections is because in most of them, he provides commentary on the circumstances surrounding the creation, sale or publication of each item (as well as addenda and corrections in some cases). I find this very interesting. = It doesn't necessarily make me like the *stories* any better, or feel that I understand them better; the mini-essays are just...extras. Like getting = a DVD and watching the bonus footage or director's commentaries. Of course, the essays have to be readable in their own right for this to = be truly worthwhile. And I think I'd prefer reading the essays if the = authors and critics were writing them independently and not in response to each other (for example, an author refuting the critic's interpretation). But= I can imagine some Mormon lit works that I'm not terribly interested in reading on their own that I'd be motivated to look at in this format. Any ideas on specific short fiction you'd want to include? Existing = works, or brand-new fiction? (I'm sort of thinking of an anthology of existing works in my response above, but it would probably work either way.) 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:23:45 -0600 > This is in response to both Jacob and Darvell's posts. > > > > The biggest reason that liked the film is because it made me feel that > > Christ really does live and that he visited these people. > > Yes, I agree with that. The first time I saw it I really felt like He was > my brother, not just some invisible God somewhere. > I don't need a film to do that for me. The Holy Ghost has pretty taken care of that testimony. I already knew he wasn't an invisible god, since we've been on speaking terms (me praying to him, him speaking to my heart and mind) for about 50 years now. > Someone made an inference that crying is not a sign of the spirit. Perhaps > for the person who made that statement, it isn't. But many people cry when > they feel the spirit. I have had occasions when that has happened and it > would be wrong for someone to suggest that I didn't feel the spirit. How > could they know that? Do people cry when they fell the Spirit, or do they cry because they've heard a moving story. I can't speak in public about my wonderful children without choking up. Is that the Spirit, or just my fatherly love taking over my normally sour-puss exterior? > It seems Hollywood can't do it right. They only get pieces. Richard wouldn't get it right, either, at least not for everybody. Everyone thinks they know what Christ is like, and I'm willing to bet that no two of those concepts are the same. (For instance, I can make a good case that Christ was a radical Democrat. Others can make an equally compelling case that he was a gentle Republican.) > For instance, one movie I saw of Christ showed Mary as a cold mother and > Joseph as an old man when Christ was just a little boy. Well, Mary couldn't > have possibly been cold. Never? Why not? Wasn't Mary human? Aren't humans sometimes cold, and sometimes warm and loving? > Most show Christ being sprinkled instead of baptised. > > One showed Christs humor and had him playing with kids, but later had him > angry and pushing people away. Was Christ laughing when he kicked people out of the Temple. Was he kind and considerate when he called the Pharisees sepulchers of dead-men's bones. > > One had Satan, during Christ's temptation, dressed in a suit. Well, Satan > might appear to men in a suit now, but in Christ's time I don't think he > would. That could be an artistic decision. Unless you were to insist that the only way to tell Christ's life is to be absolutely historically accurate, this shouldn't make much difference. > Most have Christ not accepting of his role, and not knowing who he is. He > comes across as a victim, unable to make choices. Christ grew line upon line. He didn't know who he was from the start, and even appeared to doubt at the very end. "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani," He cried on the cross. "God, God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" What is that, if not a temporary loss of faith? -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Re: Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:35:49 -0600 > Actually, I agree with your premise. I think most stories do end up > with at least some positive aspect. But I also think it's become > popular to emphasize the negative or dark parts of the resolution. > > Still, I'd like to see your take on a couple of films. > > _Jacob's Ladder_ In movies like this, it is important to not make the mistake that the ending is the final scene. The true ending in these kinds of films is what the audience member takes away with them. In the case of Jacob's Ladder, it's the theme that is the happy ending: Redemption is good for the soul. > _Seven_ The happy ending, again, is what the film tells us about life. With regards to religion, the film tells us that fanaticism leads to horrible actions. The film also shows the danger of obsession. > _War of the Roses_ > > On this last one, I don't think it's fair to have put that little > frame story on it, and that's where the positive resolution comes > from--the frame. The actual story of the war between the Roses ending > with the chandelier scene was pretty darned close to a perfectly > hopeless ending. I don't think it's fair to judge a movie entirely by its ending, but by it's entirety. This film shows us ONE couple for whom reconciliation wasn't possible. Even without the frame story (I would have like the film better without it, BTW), we should come away with the commitment to never be like these two people. > >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Sat Jun 16 12:38:56 2001 > > Old Yeller. All dogs go to heaven. > Message in a Bottle. (I've seen that many men think that the hero dying > bravely and the heroine mourning for him thereafter is a happy ending. It > isn't.) Never seen it. > Okay Thom, I've got one. Thelma and Louise. > > So, are you going to say that Thelma and Louise driving off a cliff is a > happy ending because they got to avoid the consequences of their actions? > Or maybe it's a happy ending because they got to go out in a blaze of glory. The moment of their death is not happy. No death is. But I came away uplifted (first of all by the great performances) , with a renewed desire to treat all the women in my life better than I had been treating them up to that time. The ending of such movies act more as catalysts, than wrapping up points. Unlike film where the man and woman marry and all is happy at the end, movies like Thelma and Louise don't have endings, but continue to live on in the minds of the audience members. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Richard Dutcher interview (Deseret News) Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:42:38 -0600 At 08:06 PM 6/17/01 +0000, you wrote: >Deseret News, Sunday, June 17, 2001 > >Richard Dutcher, Mormon moviemaker When I saw God's Army, one reaction I had was a very maternal one: "Those boys need a grownup in there to take care of them and make them be nice to each other!" That was after the greenie's confrontation with a major practical joke (which I never like, but I think it's a guy thing). The second reaction I had was to feel grateful that I was kind to the two young men who knocked on my door in the middle of a drab housing complex thirty-some years ago. I had no idea how tough it was for them. I took them in, listened to their discussions, fed them--and how did they pay me back? By ducking me under water! One of my elders was not known for his tact. When I agreed to be baptized, he asked me if I had a white dress and I told him no. He called the bishop's wife and said, "Is there a lady in the ward fat enough to own a dress Sister Hume can be baptized in?" HIs companion turned beet red (as he was constantly doing), but I laughed and laughed. I loved it that God uses regular people to do his work. I was resisting everything those two young men told me, even though it all seemed wonderful, until they made me pray about it and I got a definite answer. Thank heavens young men are willing to go through all they do in order to bring the gospel to those of us in need of it. I love what Richard Ducher has done as a filmmaker. He's not too shabby an actor, either! 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: [AML] re: Mormon Visual Trappings (comp) Date: 19 Jun 2001 00:20:42 -0500 >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Fri Jun 15 13:35:18 2001 I haven't said anything on this topic. I thought it would pass quickly. But here it is. My husband has a full beard and mustache. Has for years. He simply looks better in it. It hides his double chin.:-) And I think that's why he wears it. No psycological explanation other than he likes the way he looks in it and his wife does too. I don't understand why there would be such controversy over facial hair. To me, it's just a personal style. I would be upset if the church decided that all women had to wear their hair a certain length and a certain style. It would be stepping on my identity. It would be an attempt to take away my free agency although I would still have the free agency to follow the dictate or not. Frankly I have trouble telling the GA's apart. They all have the same hairstyle (or no hair), all clean shaven, all old and all dressed alike. Someone said somewhere in one of these posts a quote along the lines of "if the prophet doesn't have facial hair, then we shouldn't either". That isn't the real quote, I can't remember what it was. Anyway, does that mean if the prophet is bald then all men should shave their heads? This ear peircing thing bothers me too. I only have one set of piercings, but I don't consider someone with two sets on their way to damnation. And frankly for all those single women out there, it might be a good idea for every man to get an ear peircing, - then you can know what side he plays for. I can understand counsel against tatoos and piercings all over the body. I can understand counsel on modest clothing (although I don't think a girl showing her knees and upper arms is being immodest). But sometimes things go overboard. Forcing YW to kneel down to see if her skirt touches the floor before she gets into the dance, is just wrong. If she has to kneel down to prove her skirt is long enough, then it probably covers her quite well. A real miniskirt doesn't require the wearer to kneel on the floor to prove it's too short. Yet at the same time, no one blinks when young men take off their shirts to play basketball. I've also read some of the rantings from BYU men on their website. Blaming the women because these men can't keep their own thoughts moral. One young man complained about one strap book bags that the women wear across their bodies which happen to emphasize their breasts. I remember an incident when I was in YW. At that time the YW had to wear dresses to every dance. Someone brought a non member friend who happened to show up in pants. The dance was stopped, and one of the sisters stood in the middle of the floor, and ranted about dress standards. I wonder what was accomplished by that. If I had been that girl who showed up in pants I would have been mortified and never stepped into an LDS church again. What did happen for those of us who were also in YA. (I was straddling both at the time.) Is that we decided that girls were allowed to wear pants at every dance. The rule got thrown out the window for YA and no one complained. The church as it grows, becomes filled with those of us who are rebellious souls. Why? We must rebel to join the church. We rebel against parents, those who are anti-mormon, a drinking society, etc. We choose, by joining to be non-conformists. And then we wonder why the church asks us to conform. Anna Wight >From jerry.tyner@qlogic.com Fri Jun 15 17:36:52 2001 Or Pioneer Day from what I have heard in the past. It has been several years since I have been to Utah during that week. This year we will be since my son is entering the MTC on July 25th. Twenty years ago they would pretend to lock you up if you didn't have a beard or facial hair. Jerry Tyner - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Manipulative Endings (comp) Date: 19 Jun 2001 00:20:52 -0500 >From eileens99@bigplanet.com Mon Jun 18 14:25:44 2001 >>Jacob Proffitt wrote: >> So my question is: if that is manipulative, then please explain how any >> story depicting sacrifice and hardship, that ends with true reward, can >> not be manipulative? >This is how to tell the difference. Have someone kick a dog on screen. Tears >well up in the viewers. That's manipulation. >Have someone kick Hitler. If tears well up for the pain Hitler feels, that's not >manipulative. >Thom Can't we find examples between these two extremes that give an idea of manipulation or not manipulative? Something a little more subtle? Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com >From jsavage@smartshop.com Mon Jun 18 14:32:03 2001 Thom, you have used this type of analogy several times, and I want to be sure I understand what you are saying before I choose to agree or disagree with you. So, for clarification, are you saying that literature is only non-manipulative if it evokes an emotional response that you would not normally feel toward a given scene or character? And if this is what you are saying, would that mean that a book like "Where the Red Fern Grows," that I always cry at the ending of, is manipulative because I am feeling the pain of a young boy about the loss of his dogs, and everybody loves kids and dogs? -Jeff [Savage] >From Jacob@proffitt.com Mon Jun 18 15:03:57 2001 How does that have anything to do with realistically showing sacrifice, hardship and true rewards? I don't think that Testaments is emotionally manipulative just because they show a blind father being healed. In fact, showing the coming of the savior to a believing people would be dishonest if it didn't show him healing the afflicted. Further, my familiarity with the story of the father, with how much he looked forward to seeing the savior and how he is content with his sacrifice when it turns out he can't see Him, deepened a spiritual moment that spoke deeply of sacrifice and blessings. I appreciated this internal look into Christ healing the blind because of the meaning it gave that phrase and the new realization of a miracle's human impact. So if this scene is dismissed as manipulative, I honestly want to know how you could show a reward for sacrifice that isn't manipulative? Is "manipulative" a label that we use to dismiss any time the just are rewarded? It seems to me that we should be trying to find ways to show how the just can find reward for their very real sacrifices. Jacob Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: [AML] Re: Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:52:30 -0600 Thom, What a service! You could set up a booth outside theaters and help folks through the steps of mourning (denial, acceptance, anger, intense quilting, etc.) after heartbreaking movies, sending them home with a song in their hearts and cash in your pocket. Just last night Johanne and I watched "Amadeus" and I'd LOVE to hear about that happy ending. :-) Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ skperry@mac.com http://StevenKappPerry.com "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana." -Groucho Marx - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd Date: 18 Jun 2001 19:04:24 EDT Thanks to all of you for your response to my comments on "Testaments." I already regret having voiced my opinion in such a public way. My comments would be more appropriate in a private conversation with the director and producers. There is such power in the story of Christ, in his words and teachings. They shine through and, for many viewers, compensate for any failings in the storytelling. I am grateful for this. But how much more effective would our major church films be if the central theme was supported by expert storytelling? I pray that we LDS filmmakers are someday artistically worthy of the great stories we've been given to tell. Richard - 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] Re: Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 18 Jun 2001 23:22:59 -0600 Steve Perry: > >Just last night Johanne and I watched "Amadeus" and I'd LOVE to hear about >that happy ending. > In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it _is_ ending. Eric D. Snider - 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] Re: Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 18 Jun 2001 23:50:44 -0600 Thom Duncan wrote: > > _Jacob's Ladder_ > >In movies like this, it is important to not make the mistake that the >ending is the final scene. The true ending in these kinds of films is >what the audience member takes away with them. > >In the case of Jacob's Ladder, it's the theme that is the happy ending: >Redemption is good for the soul. We could quibble about whether that's actually a happy ending or not. I'm not convinced that an end to pain is the same thing as a happy ending, and I'm not entirely sure that endings beyond the end of the film are fair game for your challenge (though I happen to believe strongly in the concept of endings that point toward future happiness without necessarily showing immediate happiness). But this raises a different issue for me. I've been accused of writing some pretty dark stories that spend most of the text with the character descending to the bottom of his own psyche and the story concluding with the moment where POV comes to some understanding about his context that he didn't have before. I always end my stories with what I consider to be an upturn, though I would tend to stop short of saying that my stories end happily. I shoot more for hopeful than happy, with a sense that POV has now learned what he needs to know to find and/or create some future happiness (or at least find peace). So... What constitutes a happy ending? And at what point does that happy ending intersect with the dreaded manipulative ending? For the most part, our religion teaches that positive resolution is always possible (with a very short list of exceptional cases). Does that not suggest that Mormons are almost required to tell stories of hope, or at least leave hope open as a real possible resolution beyond the bounds of the story? > > _Seven_ > >The happy ending, again, is what the film tells us about life. With >regards to religion, the film tells us that fanaticism leads to horrible >actions. The film also shows the danger of obsession. And ends with the POV character, the guy we're supposed to feel for and identify with and hope for, giving in to the inevitable force of sin and becoming the embodiment of the seventh deadly sin. In other words, while the story may have illustrated the unhappy result of fanaticism, it also suggests that we are unable to escape either the fact or the result of it. The bad guy wins in pretty much every way, and illustrates his superiority over the rest of us. Which is hardly a happy ending in my book. I can choose to impose a happy ending by interpreting one out of my own philosophy, but I would argue that such an interpretation comes completely independent of the text, not as a result of the text. (Now had he chosen to walk away and live with the pain of not getting his revenge, that would have been happy, IMO. But he didn't. To me, he failed utterly.) > > _War of the Roses_ >I don't think it's fair to judge a movie entirely by its ending, but by >it's entirety. This film shows us ONE couple for whom reconciliation >wasn't possible. Even without the frame story (I would have like the >film better without it, BTW), we should come away with the commitment to >never be like these two people. Right. The film shows us two people that were so selfish that they couldn't let the other win on a single point. With his dying breath he tries to communicate a concept of love to his wife; with hers last breath she rejects his overture. No redemption, no positive resolution, no happiness in sight. I can't argue with you that the couple is not shown as a model of good behavior, but I'm still not sure that showing evil people coming to evil ends is the same thing as a happy ending. Again, I'd very much like to hear your (and others') opinion on the differences between a happy ending, a positive ending, an illustration of good through vivid presentation of the bad, and any other flavors people can come up with. Are they all versions of the same thing? Or are they fundamentally different? I think they are, but I've already taken up too much space. I'll let someone else talk now. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yeechang Lee Subject: [AML] Mormon Studies Makes _The New Yorker_ Date: 18 Jun 2001 16:09:06 -0700 (PDT) >From pp. 63-64 of the 11 June _The New Yorker_ (with a cover every present or past New Yorker will instantly appreciate), in the midst of a profile of Stanley Fish, former bigtime bad boy of the Duke English department and current dean at the University of Illinois at Chicago: At 9 A.M. on a recent Monday, seven people clustered at one end of a long table for the weekly deans' meeting . . . The first topic on the agenda was a literature professor who Fish was anxious to lure to Chicago to head the Afro-American Studies department . . . There were a few other items of interest. Jewish Studies wanted to hire a lecturer who proposed to commute to Chicago from Budapest. Fish had heard about a donor who might be interested in funding a program in Mormon studies. He had also heard, from a former student, about a scholar whose specialty was Mormonism and homosexuality, and he had spent some gleeful moments speculating about what the reaction of the donor might be should such a professor be appointed. Yeechang "One of the ways I keep in touch with civilization" Lee -- Yeechang Lee | I am a child of God Goldman Sachs | Columbia | Bronx Science | And he has sent me here | Has given me an earthly home | With parents kind and dear - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 19 Jun 2001 02:28:10 -0400 > > > > Reader response can be infinitely > > > varied and all absolutely true, despite opposing conclusions. > > > >For some reason I despise these kinds of statements. Sorry. I don't think > >reader response can be infinitely varied, first of all. Try it. How many > >responses can you imagine to Mitchell's work? Suppose I say that I thought > >it possessed a striking similarity to Macbeth. Now wouldn't that be a little > >odd? A great treatise (non-metaphoric) on elephants. Huh? But this is beside > >the main point of our discussion. > > Infinite variation doesn't require infinite digression from the text. > The reader that thought it strikingly similar to Macbeth might have a > point if he explains why. The reader who thought it was a treatise on > elephants was just plain wrong. > > Despise to your heart's content. That's your reader response, wrong > though I may feel it to be as the author whose text you critiqued > with it. But I think it is possible to read Mitchell's work and have > completely opposite opinions on the same text. I never said opposite opinions weren't possible. I wouldn't have to > work very hard to justify a reading of Danube that showed the author > to be a mystic who placed as much value on German folklore as on > revealed religion, arguing that the failure to show the missionary > program as in any way noble proved the author's disaffection with the > organization of the church. I would find such a contention opposite > to my reading of the story, but I can see the elements of the story > that support it. If you can find two dozen plausible readings, markedly different, you'd win me over to the reader response crowd. I'm convinced that in any given cultural system, there are only so many meanings possible in a given text. There are many cultural systems, sure, but not an infinite amount. Kubla Kahn has about ten markedly different interpretations, but not ten thousand. > I was at a tax seminar the other day I'm sorry. >learning about how to compute sales and use tax in the state of Utah I'm very very sorry. >It turns out there are 7 specific points of distinction that require an evaluation by the > preparer and could lead to a different tax rate. That means > approximately 5000 potentially different (though not always > exclusive) tax rates. > > I thought there were significantly more than 7 potential points of > reader divergence in _Angel of the Danube._ What is the difference between a "variation" and a "digression"? Don't both of these nouns imply a displacement from a previous point? And I wasn't advancing the idea that there couldn't be 7 or 5,000 different readings of Mitchell's text, only that an infinite amount was not possible. Not possible because I have established--by your agreement--that an elephantine reading of the text would be implausible. If that reading is not possible, and that reading exists somewhere within the infinite possibilities of readings, then the number of readings of the text is not infinite. > > > > >I also believe the writer is one of those readers who's allowed to express a > > > response to his own work. > > > >Yes, everyone has their rights of expression, but I wouldn't trust a > >writer's reading of his own work. The writer is too steeped in his own > >intentions to see more objectively what is actually written. The writer > >often desires to see his own intentions succeed--I remember Mitchell's > >response just one week ago, "I had thought his desire to 'get through' to > >the Austrians was quite pronounced." What if you define art as "the > >unintended something that happens between point A and B" (David Plante). If > >you accept this curious statement about unintentions, then unless the author > >has an incredible sense of distance (or the work is far behind him), it is > >difficult for him to see past what he wanted his work to be, and to the > >actual art he has produced. > > Another point of simple disagreement. I think the author's intentions > and opinions of their own work matter. I think the narrative intent > of a story is instructive in understanding how and why scenes were > chosen and specific POVs constructed. I think knowing what the author > intended provides an even more interesting context in which to > discuss other meanings in the text. It also gives me a whole separate > area of analysis where I can argue how well the author reached his > own narrative goals. Where did I say that understanding the authorial intent didn't matter at all? I said that in interpreting a text, the author's criticisms are tainted by his own experience of writing the text, and those experiences distort his reading. Sure an author's perspective is useful in terms of understanding what he was aiming for, how he did what he did, what his technique was, but when it comes to interpreting what is actually on the page, the meaning that is there, one needs an outsider point of view. It's like traveling. When you visit a foreign place for the first time, you can often see it with greater clarity than those who have lived their all their lives. > > As a would-be author, I like to believe that my choices have > something to do with the success of the story, otherwise storytelling > becomes little more than shouting out some vague plot outlines and > letting all the details be filled in by the individual readers. If > Mitchell had just shouted out "Austria is weird! Love is good! Life > is hard! Missions are hard to interpret!" and walked away, I would > say he had failed to produce even rudimentary art, though I would > agree that the author's comments on his own text were at best trivial. > I was just reading over that Brady Udall interview, and I was struck by how much Udall felt like the story was writing itself rather than he was writing the story. Here are two excerpts: "I [originally] imagined him as a little more noble," says Udall, who expects some readers might balk at Edgar's behavior and at the cruelty inflicted upon him. "I never imagined I'd write a book in which I'd brutalize a small child for 500 pages." "I knew it would get ugly. I just wasn't prepared for how ugly," says Udall of the novel's grim Willie Sherman chapters . . . ." How much is the author in control of the text? Plante's definition of art, "something that happens between points A and B that is not intended," seems to harmonize here with Udall's construction of Mint. Udall originally intended Edgar to be more noble, but something unintended happened with that--he ended up brutalizing him. He didn't intent for the Shermann chapters to get so ugly, they just did. Surely when you wrote your cat story, it pulled you in directions you perhaps did not initially intend to go. Plante is saying that those unintended directions are crucial--they are the backbone of the art. I'm not sure I understand why you resist that so much. I'm not saying that the author need have no intentions at all, only that the realization of those intentions does not produce the art. > And if your narrative goal is to justify why criticism is more > important than the work being criticized, then I think you have to > take that with a grain of salt as well. How can you separate the two if the text exists only in the minds of the readers? > > >Elizabeth Hardwick once put it like this: Would you trust a pig's advice on > >the nutritional value of pork? > > I wouldn't inherently mistrust it. I would certainly have to put it > into a context, since I'm not convinced that being a pig makes one an > expert on nutrition. But if I wanted to find out what it's like to be > a pig, I would tend to trust a pig's opinion over that of a > nutritionist. But the question is not, "what's it like being a pig?" The question is, "what is the nutritional value of pork?" > > It depends on what you want to know. Yes, meaning is an individual > thing. But intent can be a great clarifier of texts for those of us > who want to know why choices were made and what the expected effect > of those choices was. When Udall says that Edgar Mint does not resemble David Copperfield in any other aspect than being an orphan, do you believe him? I thought the whole narrative style of _Mint_ was dripping with Charles Dickens. Do you think Udall would have a motive for not wanting Mint to be derivative? > > >Authors are hesitant to limit the interpretation of their to only their > >intentions--they'd rather have them meet those intentions and far exceed > >them. They want it to mean many different things to different people, and if > >the author steps up and says X means this and Y means that, then he'll no > >doubt put off the reader who felt so strongly that X meant other things. > >Plus, I just don't see what the author is really going to add to the text. > >It's like a car. You can have the mechanic of the engine explain how he > >intended it to run, like a racecar, idle quiet as a mouse, accelerate like > >lightening (wow, three cliches in a row!), or you can just take it out for a > >long spin yourself. Ultimately, what the mechanic intended with the engine > >doesn't amount to jack squat. (no offense to jack, btw.) This is, of course, > >the intentional fallacy. > > Again, we just disagree, though I think I see some of the reasons for > it. I agree that the author is not qualified to make absolute > pronouncements about meaning--meaning is a concept in the mind of the > reader--but I still think the author's intent goes a long way to > explaining how and why the novel was constructed and presented as it > was. But the way the novel was constructed and presented was not really the point of the discussion. The point is what the novel means. Of course "means" is an ambiguous verb. Do you agree that there is a difference between construction and interpretation? Of course a reader will be able to offer little on the construction, and more on interpretation, and yes that interpretation will be distorted by the reader's unique experiences, as will the author's interpretation be likewise distorted, but the experiences of the author are of a different variety than the experiences of the reader. The author intended something, the reader usually did not. My overall point is this: just because an author says something about his or her text doesn't mean that such a thing exists in the text. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I take your point to be something different, that authorial intention has some value. Fine, I agree with that. But it little interpretive value. > > The mechanic's intent most certainly does matter in the development > of the car. If he intended to create a speedy, powerful touring car > and instead produced a slow, underpowered go-cart, then the mechanic > failed and I have no appreciation of his skill, understanding, or > application of his craft. I will tend to view his future promises > with mistrust or open suspicion. You do not believe, then, in serendipity? > If this go-cart is marketed as a competitor to the Ferrari 308 GTS, > then I think the mechanic's intention goes a long way to explaining > the price tag and the slick ad campaign. That he failed to meet the > engineering quality of a Yugo is something he needs to explain to his > investors and buyers. > Once he finishes the car, if it's a Yugo instead of a Ferrari, of course he should sell it as a Yugo. But as much as the author wants the car to be a Ferrari, if it's a Yugo it's a Yugo it's a Yugo. Whatever the author intended the car to be is irrelevant in the interpretation of the text's meaning. And since I think unintentions are important in a text (for reasons stated above), I don't think the writer is a bad one who let's the text drive him instead of slavedriving the text. Ultimately the mechanic metaphor breaks down with the author. Building an engine is only partially analogous to writing a book--the two are ultimately different beasts. You can stretch any metaphor to its breaking point. > I agree that the fact the mechanic claims Ferrari design principles > doesn't make his car a Ferarri. But it does help me understand the > finished product in a more complete way Suppose Mitchell were to confess that he intended something much different in his book, that he didn't intend Barry to fall in love with Magdalena at all, that's just the path the book took. Does that make him an inferior artist, because the text pulled him in a way he didn't originally intend to go? That's what you're saying. Above you said, "If he intended to create a speedy, powerful touring car and instead produced a slow, underpowered go-cart, then the mechanic failed and I have no appreciation of his skill, understanding, or application of his craft." Are you saying that intention must match production to be a good artist? If so, I think many artists will disagree and say the best books resist the strongest narrative intentions. , and to evaluate more fully > how and why choices were made. Evaluating a text isn't like giving a score on a swimming dive. It's not like saying, oh, the diver attempted a triple back twist, but ended up with only a double twist, therefore the score we shall give is a 7. That's what you seem to be doing by matching up intention with production. I think we're confusing two different things here. I'm talking about textual meaning, and you're talking about textual construction. If you have to explain to me how you constructed your cat story in order for me to appreciate its meaning, doesn't that make it a weak story? I shouldn't have to learn about how the text was constructed in order to understand the text's meaning. Learning about its construction will of course alter the meaning I see in it. For example, reading Dutcher's bio in that last interview post has altered some of the meaning I now see in God's Army. I can't watch the scene with the African American missionary explaining his conversion story anymore without thinking of Dutcher in there. That I view the finished product as a > go-cart is my right, despite the $200K price tag place there by the > manufacturer. > > As a writer, I find wthe riter's intentions quite instructive because > I want to be a better writer. Of course. It's usually very interesting to read about the author's intentions, and then see what happened. The "what happened" part to those intentions is usually the most interesting part. > > Question for everyone-- > > Would an anthology of short fiction featuring short comments by the > authors and short interpretive essays by reviewers or critics be > interesting? I know I love to hear authors talk about their fiction, > and I would love to see both the author's and a critic's view of the > same text. Would any of you find that interesting? Would you pay > money to see work by some of the better-known names in Mormon lit > handled this way? I would read the author's words on how they wrote their books, their process of writing, perhaps what they intended with the work, but when the author steps in and begins to tell me what the text means, that's when I think your project will plummett. When Udall steps in and says "Edgar Mint is nothing at all like anything Charles Dickens; in fact, orphanage is the only shared element," etc. Of course Udall doesn't want to be derivative of another author; he doesn't want to be "that Dickens copy." The common reader, on the other hand, might not have such strong personal distortions. And of course there are always those Apache orphan readers, who can read Udall's book and tell him he's full of *^%^$. Tom - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] UDALL, _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ (SL Tribune) Date: 19 Jun 2001 02:42:28 -0400 I thought these two statements were interesting: A. > This past week I saw a letter that my mom received from one of the editors of > the Friend, stating that the church magazines will no longer be publishing > fiction and have been instructed to put in more articles from general > authorities and true stories. > > John Perry > B. "One of the jobs of an artist is to step across the > line and imagine the other. The last thing I wanted to do was write about > myself." (interview with B. Udall) Why is one of the jobs of an artist to step across the line and imagine the other? - 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] Critical Anthology Date: 19 Jun 2001 02:26:20 -0600 Melissa Proffitt wrote: > >Would an anthology of short fiction featuring short comments by the > >authors and short interpretive essays by reviewers or critics be > >interesting? > One of the reasons I still like Isaac Asimov's story and essay collections > is because in most of them, he provides commentary on the circumstances > surrounding the creation, sale or publication of each item (as well as > addenda and corrections in some cases). I find this very interesting. It > doesn't necessarily make me like the *stories* any better, or feel that I > understand them better; the mini-essays are just...extras. Like getting a > DVD and watching the bonus footage or director's commentaries. The thing I like best about Orson Scott Card's definitive collection of short stories, "Maps in a Mirror," are the comments about every story and the circumstances under which he wrote them. More than the stories themselves (since I'm not a big fan of short stories). -- 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] Richard Dutcher interview (Deseret News) Date: 19 Jun 2001 02:35:31 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > One of my elders was not known for his tact. When I agreed to be baptized, > he asked me if I had a white dress and I told him no. He called the > bishop's wife and said, "Is there a lady in the ward fat enough to own a > dress Sister Hume can be baptized in?" The church must be true, or the missionaries would have ruined it 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: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings Date: 19 Jun 2001 06:38:08 -0600 > And if this is what you are > saying, would that mean that a book like "Where the Red Fern Grows," that I > always cry at the ending of, is manipulative because I am feeling the pain > of a young boy about the loss of his dogs, and everybody loves kids and > dogs? Yes. Comedy is another thing that has similar extremes. An old lady trips and falls on a banana peel. We laugh. Is that excellent comedy or are we laughing at something else? The suddenness of the action? The fact that it's an old lady and we don't normally expect old lady's to go flying through the air, bloomers flying? > How does that have anything to do with realistically showing sacrifice, > hardship and true rewards? I don't think that Testaments is emotionally > manipulative just because they show a blind father being healed. It isn't. It's just the way it's done in THAT movie. Here's an example of how I think you could get the same emotion in a less manipulative way. Make Helam one helacious son-of-a-gun that no one likes. I mean, this guy is bad. He is the classic non-believer. He thinks this whole Christ coming to the Bountiful temple is so much nonsense. The audience gets the distinct impression that this guy will never convert. Well, Christ comes, Helam (who isn't blind, because that in itself is manipulative) takes one look at the glorious visage, drops to his knees, and begs forgiveness for his life of sin. I realize now that I've just in essence re-created one of the most spiritually impressive scenes in Jesus of Nazareth, when Peter realizes he's been a stupid, stupid man. He kneels before Christ in Matthew's house and begs forgiveness for having wrongly judge Matthew. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 19 Jun 2001 09:39:54 -0500 > > Do people cry when they fell the Spirit, or do they cry because they've > heard a moving story. I can't speak in public about my wonderful > children without choking up. Is that the Spirit, or just my fatherly > love taking over my normally sour-puss exterior? People cry for both. Each spiritual experience can be different. When I first discovered the gospel, I didn't cry, I flew. That is, I had so much energy I had to go and do some physical exercise to get rid of it. Other times, I've felt the spirit inspire me intellectually. Others have made me cry. Is it up to someone else to decide whether someone is having a spiritual experience or not? If I see someone bearing testimony and they're crying, is it my place to judge whether the spirit is touching them? If they say it is, shouldn't I accept that? > > Never? Why not? Wasn't Mary human? Aren't humans sometimes cold, and > sometimes warm and loving? Yes, but when she's shown in only a couple of scenes, she should be shown for the loving woman she was. Heavenly Father would not have sent Jesus to just any woman. He would have to pick a woman who would be capable of raising a God, yet still be able to discipline and love him as a boy. > > Was Christ laughing when he kicked people out of the Temple. Was he > kind and considerate when he called the Pharisees sepulchers of > dead-men's bones. I'm not talking about those instances. I'm talking about being cold and rude to his apostles and followers. > > > > > One had Satan, during Christ's temptation, dressed in a suit. Well, Satan > > might appear to men in a suit now, but in Christ's time I don't think he > > would. > > That could be an artistic decision. Unless you were to insist that the > only way to tell Christ's life is to be absolutely historically > accurate, this shouldn't make much difference. Except it can be quite disconcerting to watch and take away from the message. The viewer sits there wondering "why is Satan wearing a suit". It becomes laughable. > > Christ grew line upon line. He didn't know who he was from the start, > and even appeared to doubt at the very end. "Eloi, Eloi, lama > sabacthani," He cried on the cross. "God, God, Why hast thou forsaken > me?" What is that, if not a temporary loss of faith? He knew who he was at twelve. He sat in the temple teaching "his fathers" teachings. As for the moment on the cross. Isn't there something about God withdrawing? He withdrew so that Jesus could finish his work. So if Christ felt that, he might ask why. That's not a loss of faith. That's asking a question to someone you know exists. Bear in mind too, that although Christ was half God he was also half human, and he had a very real human body. The pain was excrutiating. He may have been calling out to His father for help. That is not a loss of faith either. Anna Wight > > -- > Thom Duncan > Playwrights Circle > an organization of professionals > > > > > - > 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: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings Date: 19 Jun 2001 09:20:29 -0500 > > This is how to tell the difference. Have someone kick a dog on screen. Tears > well up in the viewers. That's manipulation. > > Have someone kick Hitler. If tears well up for the pain Hitler feels, that's not > manipulative. Oh I see. So what you're saying is, that if we write or show bad things that happen to good people, then we are being manipulative. Well gee, there goes my writing career. So Thom as a playwrite, are you telling me that when you write about good people nothing bad ever happens to them. Or do you just write about bad people and try and make your audience feel sorry for them? Anna Wight - 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] Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 19 Jun 2001 11:20:42 -0600 Steve wrote: > > Thom, > > What a service! You could set up a booth outside theaters and help folks > through the steps of mourning (denial, acceptance, anger, intense quilting, > etc.) after heartbreaking movies, sending them home with a song in their > hearts and cash in your pocket. You write the song and I'll do it. > > Just last night Johanne and I watched "Amadeus" and I'd LOVE to hear about > that happy ending. This one requires me to elaborate on what I mean by a happy ending. I prefer the word "uplifting" ending. Just as not every film is a drama, or a comedy, not every ending is "happy" (as defined by the term "feel-good movie of the year.) Some moves may have "downbeat" endings that are nevertheless "uplifiting" because of the message on is left with, or the thought process that is engendered by virtue of the film. Amadeus doesn't have a happy ending in the traditional sense that one skips on the way home. It does, however, have an uplifting ending. For a few hours, our ears have been blessed by Mozart's wonderful music, we've seen some incredible performances, and we've been caused to think about what it means to be "loved of God." Amadeus is a perfect Mormon movie. It teaches us that being righteous is not the only thing it takes to be a great artist. One must also have talent. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Critical Anthology Date: 19 Jun 2001 12:44:48 -0600 >Would an anthology of short fiction featuring short comments by the >authors and short interpretive essays by reviewers or critics be >interesting? I know I love to hear authors talk about their fiction, and I >would love to see both the author's and a critic's view of the same >text. Would any of you find that interesting? Would you pay money to see >work by some of the better-known names in Mormon lit handled this way? I would enjoy such a work. I've been reading a book called _Georgette Heyer: A Critical Retrospective_. The book includes all the reviews and essays about this writer's work that the compiler was able to find or get permission to use. Although some of the critics make what I consider really stupid remarks, the book as a whole helps me understand and appreciate the body of Heyer's work. Even the commentaries on her mysteries, which I'm not particularly interested in, help me to understand why she makes certain choices in writing her historical fiction. I always like knowing why a writer chooses a certain POV, or creates a certain scene, or has the story end at a certain point--things like that. barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Book-Free Zones, 6/14/2001 Date: 19 Jun 2001 13:07:24 -0600 At 05:48 PM 6/15/01 -0700, you wrote: >I'm forwarding this intact as of some interest to aml members. > >Jeff Thanks for sending us that URL, Jeff, although I couldn't find the book list on the site. Haven't learned good navigation skills yet, I guess. Say, is that the Watergate Coulson? barbara hume - 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] DUTCHER'S _The Prophet_ (was: _Testaments_) Date: 19 Jun 2001 13:41:24 -0600 J. Scott Bronson wrote (of Emma): I fear that Brigham Young's opinion of her has lasted through the years and we have adopted it as doctrine. That's rather shameful I think. I hope she gets her due in Richard's new project. I really do. Speaking of Richard's new project . . . My husband and I attended a workshopped production at BYU the other day, which was an opera of Joseph's life. It was very rough in parts, but one of the biggest things that bothered my husband is that it didn't address polygamy at all. He insisted that to accurately portray Joseph's life, a production would have to at least _address_ the thing that was Joseph's biggest trial. (We also had a discussion of various trials Joseph went through, and this would definitely rank in the top three, he feels, and I agree.) My husband finished by referring to the upcoming _The Prophet_ . "If Dutcher doesn't deal with polygamy in the movie, I'll have no respect for him at all." I'm not sure what I think. On one hand, I pointed out that polygamy is a huge story in an of itself, and might overwhelm the rest of the film to do it justice. But I think he has a point, too. Joseph really struggled with the doctrine, and it devastated Emma. I hope Dutcher shows something of this issue. What do you all think? And Richard, can you answer this one without giving anything away? Do you deal with polygamy in the film? Annette Lyon - 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] Manipulative Endings Date: 19 Jun 2001 14:08:36 -0600 (MDT) > > >Have someone kick Hitler. If tears well up for the pain Hitler feels, > that's not > >manipulative. > > >Thom I would argue that would be manipulation also - since our cultural bias is to consider Hitler worthy of a kick (and much more) - in order for us to sympathize, we would have to be manipulated in some way in order to reverse our prejudices. --Ivan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Visual Trappings Date: 19 Jun 2001 14:26:09 -0600 >Someone said somewhere in one of these posts a quote along the lines of >"if >the prophet doesn't have facial hair, then we shouldn't either". That >isn't >the real quote, I can't remember what it was. Anyway, does that mean if >the >prophet is bald then all men should shave their heads? Yeah, my response to that one is always that the prophet doesn't wear a bra, but I think I'll continue to wear mine. :-) The beard issue to me has always been one of personal taste, as long as it is well maintained. When my husband and I were temple workers in Las Vegas it was the policy of the temple presidency that they wouldn't tell anyone that they had to shave in order to be a temple worker. The workers were encouraged to be clean-shaven but were equally encouraged to sincerely pray about it and make their own decision. In an "inservice" type meeting one worker with a mustache tried to really press the Temple President to make a definitive statement about facial hair and it was quite comical to watch them playfully stear clear of such a definitive statement. The worker would say, "President, I'm very attached to this stuff I've got growing on my face but if you tell me to shave it off then I will" and the word back was always "You pray about it and decide what you want to do but I'm not going to tell you to shave it off." I don't know if the brother ended up shaving, but I believe he wouldn't have been discriminated against in any way if he hadn't. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 19 Jun 2001 14:37:03 -0600 > Still, I'd like to see your take on a couple of films. > > _Jacob's Ladder_ In movies like this, it is important to not make the mistake that the ending is the final scene. The true ending in these kinds of films is what the audience member takes away with them. In the case of Jacob's Ladder, it's the theme that is the happy ending: Redemption is good for the soul. >>>> I've always though _Jacob's Ladder_ did have a happy ending, and that most of the Critics got it wrong. The woman he's living with, and in fact his entire existence through most of the movie, seems to me symbolic of clinging to the physical comforts of life. In the end, when he lets go of that, he is met at the stairs by the son who's death he mourned and walks up the stairs toward a bright light. Yes, he has died, but in doing so he has come to piece, been reunited with his family, and embraced the spiritual. What more of a happy ending could you want. The movie was scary, but I've always found it uplifting in an odd sort of way. And not just in theme, but in seeing a troubled soul come to peace. War of the Roses, however, just stunk. The only thing I came away thinking was that stupid and selfish people deserve each other. Russell Asplund p.s. Uh, hi there. I'm Russell. I've been lurking, but this is the first time I've dared dip my foot in the water and post. Maybe I'll post a greeting message sometime if anyone cares. [MOD: Hi Russell. You can run but you can't hide...] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: Re:[AML] Play the New Game: Date: 19 Jun 2001 17:00:04 -0500 > Still, I'd like to see your take on a couple of films. > > _Jacob's Ladder_ > _Seven_ > Okay Thom, I've got one. Thelma and Louise. I happened to have very much liked _Jacob's Ladder_ and _Seven_, tho there were parts of each that I didn't like. I also liked _Thelma & Louise_ but I must admit that, being a man, I didn't get the ending, tho I could see the power in it. But it felt empty to me. The ending that I'd like to understand is last scene of _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." I did like the film and thought it was worthy of four academy awards, but I didn't understand the denouement. The real ending just before that was okay, but going back to the training facility really confused me, and the flying off the bridge was just lost on me. I'm curious if a cultural gap caused this confusion, but to me, it just seemed weird. Endings in my stories rarely occur like that. My endings are usually wrapped around the story and tied up like a pretty little bow. For many films, the journey to the end is what's important, but it's hard not to concentrate on the final state of things at the last few minutes or seconds of the story. Now I'm not one to miss the significance of abrupt endings, as I understand the point of some of them more than my non-writer friends do. But on the other hand, sometimes I don't see the point, either. Take, for example, the last scene of _Brigham City_. The last scene was certainly after what seemed like the real end of the story, but the final scene made the whole story so much more powerful that just the end of the action. I'm embarrassed to say that I cried thru most of the final scen, mostly because I caught the symbolism of it all. (My wife thought my crying was "Cool.") But the fact remains that: an abrupt, confusing ending can taint an otherwise excellent story. I feel that was the case with _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." (I'd still add my recommendation to Doug Wright's to go see the film, but be prepared to read the subtitles.) 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: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Mountain Meadows Massacre (comp) Date: 19 Jun 2001 22:30:15 -0500 >From vedahale@yahoo.com Mon Jun 18 17:07:16 2001 Yes, Elizabeth, many of us have probably dealt with this and other unpleasant things. As a descendant of Lee I have dealt with it up one side and down another. Resolved? Some things never really get that way, but they can be "dealt with". Also as one who has been into the novel "The Giant Joshua" very deeply, as I am writing the biography of the woman who wrote it, and as a mother whose 30 year old son just had to "deal" with what you are now faced with, I found that it helped him to realize he had to get a setting first before making judgment. And the "Joshua" gives about as good a setting of the times as I can think of. It is not a direct hit, but it does paint how precarious survival was. Without understand much of the parifery, it is a mighty bitter pill to try to swallow. Veda Hale >From scottparkin@earthlink.net Mon Jun 18 21:22:00 2001 Elizabeth Hatch wrote: >I've been wanting to read Marilyn Brown's _Wine-Dark Sea of Grass_, >but I don't have it yet, so I went on the internet and did a search >for Mountain Meadows Massacre. [SNIP] >Can any of you recommend books I can read, or give me information, >that will help me process these things? I'm so grateful that I can >turn to all of you. I honestly don't know who else I could ask >about these things. I feel certain that many, or most, of you have >already dealt with them. Thank you so much. >[MOD: I have always heard that the most reputable place to start is >with Juanita Brooks's book, entitled, I believe, _The Mountain >Meadows Massacre_. Comments?] I've read this particular book and can heartily endorse it as a good starting point. Brooks tries very hard to tell the story straight, to include many of the incriminating bits on both sides of the issue, and to offer mitigating details on both sides as well. I don't know if it's the most accurate portrayal or not, but it raises enough questions about all sides of the event to provide some good context in which to read other accounts and handlings. There is a monument at the Mountain Meadows site in southern Utah. I saw it a number of years ago and the site was disappointingly bland and PC, with only the most veiled allusion to what happened, and no statements about who did what. I understand it's been redesigned somewhat; I'll try to make it down there this weekend and see if the new site is more informative. Scott Parkin >From althlevip@msn.com Tue Jun 19 07:32:23 2001 Yes, read Juanita Brooks' _Mountain Meadows Massacre_ and also her biography _John Doyle Lee: Zealot--Pioneer Builder--Scapegoat. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com >From LSWeber@aol.com Tue Jun 19 20:47:29 2001 In a message dated 06/18/2001 4:32:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eedh@emstar2.net writes: > Can any of you recommend books I can read, or give me information, that > will help me process these things? I'm so grateful that I can turn to > all of you. I honestly don't know who else I could ask about these > things. I feel certain that many, or most, of you have already dealt > with them. Thank you so much. > I hope this is an appropriate response to this post. It's a product endorsement, and one that I'll benefit from, but here goes. Stop me, moderator, if I'm breaking any rules! I have a very small publishing company (with a partner), called Packer Press. We published a series of three historical fiction books by John McRae in the last three years. We had hoped that we'd benefit from the huge success of TWATG serries, but we just couldn't grab onto those coattails! They've not done as well as we'd hoped, but they are selling, and we even have a movie producer interested. So, we'll see! The books are titled _Fire in the Snow_, _Fire and Fury_, and _Soul Fire_. The first book begins with a group of immigrants and chronicles their journey from England to Utah in 1856. They end up in the Martin Handcart company. (Note: I should acknowledge that this book was originally published by Deseret Book in 1993. When it went out of print the author retained publishing rights, gave them to us, and we republished the book and pubished the two sequels.) The second book covers the next year or so with the same group (the survivors) settling in to Utah territory and getting caught up in Johnston's army's invasion. Some of the characters also become involved with the Fancher train, and we see these characters involved on both sides of the massacre. I don't know if a book of fiction is something that would be of interest to you, but if I may say so, I believe that John's treatment of this episode is the most even-handed I've seen. Of course, I'm biased, but I felt much different about the event after reading his book than I did before. He captures the context of the event and brings it vividly into perspective. I felt that I understood the people of Cedar City much better and felt less willing to categorically judge them. I still think that what they did was tragically wrong, but could I say that I would've done differently if I were in their shoes? I don't know. But, I am much more at peace with the tragedy now. The third book continues with the occupation of Johnston's army of Utah territory, and only mentions Mountain Meadows in passing a couple of times, just enough to hint that the people knew that something terrible had happened, but didn't want to really know or talk about. I wish that I'd had the books reviewed on this list when they first came out. Ben suggested that I do so, but that was one thing that I didn't seem to be able to get done. The books are available at most LDS bookstores, and you can buy them together in a set now. I hope this helps. Sometimes fiction, in this case, historical fiction, helps us understand events much better than history. Lloyd Weber (no relation) Packer Press - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (comp) Date: 19 Jun 2001 22:30:26 -0500 >From OmahaMom@aol.com Tue Jun 19 00:45:07 2001 "Eli, eli,..." IS it a temporary loss of faith, or a recognition that the Father had withdrawn from the event? Karen Tippets >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Tue Jun 19 10:37:42 2001 > > If I've missed the point of a film, it's the film's fault for not > getting the point across better. That's one painful lesson I've learned > as a writer being critiqued by discerning readers: if it's not there, > it's not there, no matter how much I want to believe it was. But if other people got the point, then how is it the films fault that you missed it? Understanding is two way. No one film is going to hit every person the same way. That does not make the film a failure. Anna Wight >From cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Tue Jun 19 14:37:03 2001 Thom writes: Do people cry when they fell the Spirit, or do they cry because they've heard a moving story. I admit that I cry when I know a story well and even when I realize that I'm being manipulated. Doesn't mean I feel the Spirit, just that I'm responding to the story. It's not productive to put too fine a point on who's truly feeling the Spirit and who's not; it's just a good idea to understand that tears do not necessarily equal a spiritual experience. Cathy Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: GAs in Church Pubs (comp) Date: 19 Jun 2001 22:30:37 -0500 >From eedh@emstar2.net Mon Jun 18 15:52:16 2001 Well, it's official. I just called the Friend office and was told that they are in the process of returning all fiction pieces to the authors. It might be several months before we receive them. The Friend bought two of my fiction stories in the past year. The woman I spoke to said I could begin submitting them somewhere else. Beth Hatch >From ronn.blankenship@postoffice.worldnet.att.net Mon Jun 18 17:40:52 2001 At 03:50 PM 6/18/01, John Perry wrote: >This past week I saw a letter that my mom received from one of the editors of >the Friend, stating that the church magazines will no longer be publishing >fiction and have been instructed to put in more articles from general >authorities and true stories. So is anyone here planning to jump in and grab this opportunity to start an independent magazine to publish the kind of fiction the Church magazines used to publish? -- Ronn! :) >From thj5@columbia.edu Tue Jun 19 00:37:46 2001 Something I've often wondered about books by general authorities, apostles, etc., the hundreds that you see lining every Deseret Bookstore--does Joseph B. Worthlin get royalties for every hardbacked and published testimony of Christ he sells? Tom Johnson >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Tue Jun 19 10:37:46 2001 Since the church owns and runs the magazines, I guess we can't complain much. Sad to hear there will be no more fiction. I would like to see a magazine more member friendly. I guess I would really like to see a RS mag. One that people can actually contribute to. Is there any out there? And I don't mean online ones. I want hard copy that comes to my door. If I had money, I'd start one. Anna Wight - 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] re: Temple in Fiction Date: 19 Jun 2001 15:51:45 -0700 On 04 Jun 2001 Christopher Bigelow (for which my spell checker suggests "Billow" --when upon life's bigelows you are tempest tosst-- of course my name comes through the spellchecker as Harlot) wrote: >>>>> The temple is one of those kneejerk areas in Mormon culture where people can get pretty irrational. I once had a missionary companion get extremely upset with me for discussing the carpet color and carpet sculpture patterns of various celestial rooms.=20 >>>> This comment reminded me of my latest AML Symposium paper, so I'm including an excerpt here: While I was meditating on this the eyes of my understanding were opened and methought I saw a large white room with a stained-glass window representing the river of endless life. Great multitudes were entering the room through a veil, and in two chairs sat two ancient men in deep discussion. I leaned forward, straining to hear what they were saying. Socrates: How is it done, Ion? How is it just that the actions of one can be surrogate for the actions of another? And tell me more why you think literature and art are vicarious work of the same kind the folk in this room perform. Ion: Good Socrates, do not our bodies teach us? Socrates: And how, my dear Ion? Ion: What do we sit in? Socrates: Chairs, of course. Ion: And are our chairs the same? Socrates: The style is the same, but yours is more of a couch and mine has a high back and open armrests. Ion: And are there other chairs in this room? Socrates: There are. Ion: And are they all the same? Socrates: They are not. Ion: What makes them all chairs? Socrates: But you don't believe in the ideal realm, Ion. Ion: The ideal realm sits in the chair, Plato, as witnessed by the names we give the parts of a chair, back, seat, legs, arms. We name the chair after our bodies because the chair is a surrogate for our bodies. A chair is a chair because of how well it conforms to our bodies, not to some invisible realm. Socrates: But are we talking here, good man, of the art of making chairs or the art of making songs? Ion: We are talking of vicarious service. Certain things must be done for each person, and certain things cannot be done by every person. Not every person can emulate Jesus=97and Socrates=97because not every person has heard of Jesus, or Socrates. Socrates: Or the Beatles. Ion: Precisely, but baptism requires a body and a body of knowledge, and if you leave your body without having the knowledge to ask for baptism how can you get it. It must be done by someone in the flesh, who offers us the gift of his body for an hour or two. Socrates: Except when they fall asleep. I hear that all vicarious workers who die must give all they worked for an account of what happened while they slept through the ceremony. Ion: A rite of passage. Socrates: But surely you are not saying that the value of literature is that it channels _our_ words since we can no longer write them down? Ion: No, but that balding fellow over there is sure trying to get them down. I am saying that poetry and art perform the same function for us as does a chair, as do the people who sit in them and sleep during the film: Literature does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. Socrates: How? Ion: Not many of us have had our parents throw Thanksgiving dinner at each other, or seen our mother beaten, had a brother executed for murder, or another brother murdered, though he lived for several months afterward. Not many of us have had people tell us we should have been killed with our brother. Mikal Gilmore wrote Shot in the Heart to save his life. He begins with a dream of his brother Gary coming back and handing him a gun=97with the promise of reunion. He sticks it in his mouth and pulls the trigger. His teeth and mouth dissolve into nothing. Gary has lied. There is no one waiting for him. Socrates: It is a shattering book=97but could not someone read such a record of disaster and be overwhelmed with sorrow, or even want to live the life of Gilmore? For all the horror of his family life Gilmore is nostalgic for the early family life he missed. Ion: We all want to know how the world worked before us. Socrates: Why would I want to fill my mind with tragedy? Why would I want to yearn, with Gilmore, for the tragic family life I missed much of? Ion: Why would you not want to mourn with Gilmore that all he can yearn for in the pre-Mikal existence is a violent family? Socrates: But could not some readers be misled by the nostalgia? Ion: Only if they ignore the tragedy. Socrates: But could they not also be shocked, stunned, shaken by the unrelieved misery, by Mikal's final, terrible dream? Ion: We must contemplate the depths of sorrow people can sink in, and the depths of evil they can sink to, or the depth of eternity will be like an abyss. Gilmore takes us into the tragedy, but brings us back safely, even with that final, terrible dream. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D There's more, of course, and I hope to write more dialogues, especially one between Hester Prynne and Socrates. The Athenians would rather not have executed Socrates, and there were ample opportnities to escape or go into exile, but in the Phaedo he tells Xanthippe, his wife, that any alternative would mean living in disgrace. That, of course, is what Hester Prynne chose--life, even if it meant living in disgrace. Room for some interesting words between them. A note about Socrates' comment, "Except when they fall asleep. I hear that all vicarious workers who die must give all they worked for an account of what happened while they slept through the ceremony." I lifted that from a story I drafted a few years ago. A man's wife comes to take him to the other side, but before they get to that joyous reunion we all grew up seeing in "Man's Search for Happiness," she steps away from him,=20 "Everyone goes through this and everyone goes through it alone." A crowd of men approached him. "In the temple you are our eyes and ears. When you sleep in the ceremony we never get to find out what's going on." He listened to their questions, then said, "Well, it appears at one time or another I've slept through every part of the ceremony." I've never done anything with the story. The story implies that he talks them through the ceremony, but it doesn't say what he tells them, and I don't want it to. I'm not sure what I'll do with it. Right now it seems most promising as a frame story, something I can hang a bunch of narratives on about different times and places as each man tells his story. I probably won't say anything about carpet sculpture patterns, though. Harlow S. Clark - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Yahoo! Date: 19 Jun 2001 13:09:20 -0600 At 05:46 PM 6/15/01 -0700, you wrote: >It's a satirical editorial called "West Side Stories" that deals with the >people and places on the west side of Utah Lake, where I live. Sounds interesting! I live on the west side of Provo, but I have no idea what's happening on the west side of the lake. Do you guys feel isolated out there from the Wasatch Front in general? barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Savage" Subject: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings Date: 19 Jun 2001 21:18:21 -0700 > > And if this is what you are > > saying, would that mean that a book like "Where the Red Fern Grows," that I > > always cry at the ending of, is manipulative because I am feeling the pain > > of a young boy about the loss of his dogs, and everybody loves kids and > > dogs? > > Yes. > > Comedy is another thing that has similar extremes. An old lady trips and > falls on a banana peel. We laugh. Is that excellent comedy or are we > laughing at something else? The suddenness of the action? The fact > that it's an old lady and we don't normally expect old lady's to go > flying through the air, bloomers flying? > OK then, given your examples, I am going to disagree. I think that you are taking two very extreme examples to prove a point that is less clear cut. Unless we are dealing with 10 year old girls, who in my experience will cry at almost anything, and ten year old boys who will laugh at almost anything, as a writer you have to earn both tears and laughs. I have read many books with scenes that were intended to move the reader, but left me cold. Why? A baby died or a dog gave his life for his master. By your definition, that should have moved me. It didn't though, because the writer did not write well enough to make the character real for me. I did not feel the character's pain as my own. In the same vein, I should be laughing uproariously at everything Jim Carrey does, he seems to always be falling over something. But much of his humor is way too over the top to me. And Heaven forbid, an old lady should trip on a banana peal and then die. Do I laugh, cry, or both? The Nazi political machine wrote lots of literature that made people have strong feelings for Hitler. But that wasn't necessarily good writing, it was propaganda, one of the worst emotional manipulations of all time. I think that what we are really discussing is the talent required to make a reader or audience believe in your characters. It is what differentiates the sad scenes in "God's Army" from the sad scene in "The Mail Box." Remember that movie? I didn't think I would ever see a girl that obnoxiously happy until I saw the girl on the Welch's grape juice commercials. It is the same reason that many artists give for saying that realistic paintings are lowbrow. "Anyone can paint what something looks like, but I paint what the viewer doesn't see." Sometimes I really like interpretive paintings and sometimes I like realistic paintings. I feel the same way about pretty much all forms of art. But I don't like either variety if their are done poorly. I don't think that manipulative writing is limited to "good" or "bad" characters, but good or bad characterization. OK Thom. Fire back. I'm ready . . . I think. Jeff Savage - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 19 Jun 2001 21:52:42 -0600 > At 03:50 PM 6/18/01, John Perry wrote: > > >This past week I saw a letter that my mom received from one of the editors of > >the Friend, stating that the church magazines will no longer be publishing > >fiction and have been instructed to put in more articles from general > >authorities and true stories. > > So is anyone here planning to jump in and grab this opportunity to start an > independent magazine to publish the kind of fiction the Church magazines > used to publish? > > -- Ronn! :) Despite Ronn!'s perpetual smiley face (which always makes me question the seriousness of his comments), I think this is a great idea! In fact I've already put out my feelers in an attempt to ascertain interest in an independent literary magazine aimed at younger readers. This magazine would not compete with the Friend (which apparently will now be an exclusively "nonfiction" enterprise), but would, instead, publish quality fiction and poetry for children. I'm thinking here of something along the lines of an LDS _Cricket_ magazine. Am I nuts? Do you think there would be a market for this kind of thing? A couple of the people I have talked to have indicated that this might be more feasible as an on-line project. I don't know though. There's just something about glossy paper and the smell of fresh ink . . . 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: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Book-Free Zones, 6/14/2001 Date: 19 Jun 2001 18:42:43 -0700 You know, I don't remeber if that's Chuck Colson or not. As you may know, he's now an evangelical Christian, engaged in prison ministries. As skeptical as I am of such conversions, his seems to be genuine. I've read several of his books, and for their genre, they are outstanding. He's a very credible person. [Jeff] - 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: Movie Happy/Manipulative Endings (was: Play the New Game) Date: 20 Jun 2001 02:30:36 -0600 Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: > What constitutes a happy ending? It's always possible to play rhetorical word games and defend some hypothesis that is stated as a universal. Like the claim that all human behavior is self-serving and there is no such thing as altruism. You see, when someone does an "altruistic" act, they are really selfishly going for that feeling of being good and righteous and maybe even superior to other people. Well, such word games are a waste of time. We all know what we mean by concepts, and trying to stretch a concept thin to fit a universal assertion accomplishes nothing useful. Happy endings are not unhappy endings that we somehow can interpret a positive moral lesson from, no matter how tenuous the connection. The human mind can always contort the meaning of a piece of art into whatever he wants, just like people can read the New Testament and come away saying Jesus and the apostles were gay. A happy ending is where the protagonists are happy at the end, and the villain (if there is one) gets his just desserts, period. Anything else is not a happy ending. So instead of wasting time trying to pretend all endings are happy, we'd be better served by discussing why endings other than happy endings are valid, fruitful, and satisfying. > And at what point does that happy > ending intersect with the dreaded manipulative ending? That's purely a personal choice. The movie critic who has essentially "seen it all" will feel manipulated much more often than the occasional movie goer. This is easy to account for. All fiction stories are manipulative because they're not real, so there is an author behind every one of them carefully crafting his story to evoke certain reactions from his audience. It's all manipulative. The problem is assuming that "manipulative" is always a bad thing. What we call "manipulative" is really a story that handles the manipulation poorly so we are conscious of it and resent it. The occasional movie goer will have experienced manipulation techniques less often than the movie critic, so will find fewer occasions to notice the manipulation. The movie critic has had lots of experience with the techniques of manipulation in fiction, so it's harder for him to let the experience remain subconscious. Greater manipulative skill is required to succeed with the knowledgeable, experienced movie viewer. Therefore it's not possible to draw a line and say, "This is manipulative, and this is not." That line is different for every member of the audience. Universal jugdments of manipulation or lack thereof are possible only when extremes are achieved--either very bad manipulation that works for no one, or very good manipulation that works for everyone. Even in these cases, "no one" and "everyone" are general terms, because there's always somebody... > For the most > part, our religion teaches that positive resolution is always > possible (with a very short list of exceptional cases). Does that not > suggest that Mormons are almost required to tell stories of hope, or > at least leave hope open as a real possible resolution beyond the > bounds of the story? Nope. Our religion teaches it's always _possible_, but never guaranteed. Our fiction only needs one thing to be true to the Gospel, that the option for redemption and happiness be available to the characters. After that, it's entirely up to the characters to make the right choices. If they don't, the author is under no obligation from our religion to let them be happy at the end. -- 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: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 20 Jun 2001 04:21:09 -0600 Tom Johnson wrote: ...a bunch of stuff that clarifies something for me. It looks to me like we're having two completely different conversations, and arguing points that neither one of us appears to have made. To a very real degree, I think we're each re-arguing prior discussions with other people where we're not sure our prior points got across. I never said that the author's opinion of the meaning of a story was any more valid than any other reader's; but I also don't believe it's any less valid. I believe that once the story is offered to the public, the author becomes just another reader when discussions of meaning come along. But we often seem to be impatient with an author's attempt to explain his own intent, and I find that troubling since it's one of the many things I like in discussions of literature. I like to hear the author talk about their own works--both as creator and as interpreter. But I've also heard an awful lot of rhetoric that seems to diminish the value of the author as having done anything at all of value (no, you didn't say the author was valueless, but I reacted off of something you said to pursue this old argument; so your point is somewhat well taken that the author's intent was irrelevant to the story that blossomed in my own head; I accept--and always have accepted--that point). It seems to me that the author's intent or craft is often completely dismissed as having any value, and that rankles me as both a reader and writer. I don't hold to either extreme. All views--including the author's--have value to me in helping me to interpret the stories I read or view, be the discussion about craft, intent, or meaning. That's all I really intended to say in those mounds of (apparently ineffective) words. >If you can find two dozen plausible readings, markedly different, you'd win >me over to the reader response crowd. I'm convinced that in any given >cultural system, there are only so many meanings possible in a given text. >There are many cultural systems, sure, but not an infinite amount. Kubla >Kahn has about ten markedly different interpretations, but not ten thousand. Okay. I'm guilty of exaggeration and/or hyperbole. I do that as a way of relieving argumentative tension in the middle of a discussion and don't intend that one interpret some of my comments literally. But the core point still stands: one can read Mitchell's or anyone else's text and come up with multiple, conflicting interpretations about the text, any and all of which can be supported by the text. And if I understand correctly, all of which can also be "correct" interpretations (whatever correct means). That was kind of my point about the tax seminar--there are only about ten actual tax rates that one can apply, but there are 7*6*5*4*3*2*1 (or 5040) different ways of getting to one of those ten applicable tax rates, each of which requires a unique response to seven specific questions. No, there are not an infinite number of routes through Mitchell's story. But I think there can be a whole bunch of them. That was my only point. (And I have no idea what the "reader response crowd" is saying. It appears that I'm using terms that may have more meaning than I intended. That's what happens when you argue with the uneducated; our terms betray us.) >And I wasn't advancing the idea that there couldn't be 7 or 5,000 >different readings of Mitchell's text, only that an infinite amount >was not possible. Not possible because I have established--by your >agreement--that an elephantine reading of the text would be >implausible. If that reading is not possible, and that reading >exists somewhere within the infinite possibilities of readings, then >the number of readings of the text is not infinite. I can't help it--I have to pick this nit even though it's not productive to the conversation, and I've already conceded that my attempt at absurd overstatement failed. Mathematically, infinity plus or minus one is still infinite. In fact, until you attempt to subtract infinity from itself (not as simple an equation as you might think--you have to define a lot of terms and assumptions to even set up the problem), the answer will still tend to be infinite. (It's irrelevant to the discussion, but I knew that my wife the mathematician would never forgive me if I didn't point out that infinity is more a concept than a number, and simple mathematics breaks down real fast as we approach it.) >I said that in interpreting a text, the author's criticisms are tainted >by his own experience of writing the text, and those experiences distort his >reading. Sure an author's perspective is useful in terms of understanding >what he was aiming for, how he did what he did, what his technique was, but >when it comes to interpreting what is actually on the page, the meaning that >is there, one needs an outsider point of view. As I said earlier, we appear to just disagree on this one and I don't think we can each convert the other on this issue. Every reader distorts the text. I think we tend to agree on that more than we disagree. I just don't think the author's distortions are less valid or reliable than anyone else's. Once the text is offered to readers, the author is merely one more voice in the crowd in defining a meaning for that text. But I also don't believe that the author's closeness to the text diminishes the importance of his comment on that text. At that point, the author is only one more critic--but he should also be given the same weight as any other critic with respect to that text. In my opinion. (Which is not to be confused with saying that I think an author's attempts to defend a text or to force a particular interpretation are good or even worthwhile. I generally believe that the author should stay out of discussions of meaning except to clarify his own intent. It's up to the reader to decide how much value the author's intent should have in their own interpretive reading. I don't believe in *a* comprehensive statement of meaning for any text. There is often room for a great deal of reasonable disagreement, regardless of the author's intentions.) In my case, the question went back to whether Mitchell intended _Angel of the Danube_ to be a universal interpretation of the missionary experience. I postulate that he didn't, but that the genre and the culture tend to cause such stories to be read as attempts at the universal. I think knowing the author's intent on that point is instructive, and would end that particular discussion very quickly. But this horse is waaaay dead now, so I'll stop. >It's like traveling. When you >visit a foreign place for the first time, you can often see it with greater >clarity than those who have lived their all their lives. See *what* with greater clarity? Again, we just seem to disagree. I don't accept that the first-time visitor has greater clarity, only a different perspective from the locals. In this case, it depends on who your audience is--an audience of insiders will tend to perceive the insider's view as clear, whereas an audience of visitors will tend to find a visitor's perspective to be more instructive in answering their questions. Who is right? It depends on who the audience for the work is, and whether there is only one "true" audience or many audiences. Like the pig and the nutritionist, it depends on what the question is to decide whose perspective carries more weight. I think you and I are asking different questions, and thus our answers are tending to be different--as they should be. >I'm not saying that the author need have no intentions at all, only >that the realization of those intentions does not produce the art. Then we violently agree. Partly. I don't think art is always unintended, and I resist definitions that say that art is always or exclusively the unintended elements of creative expression. I think much of what we define as art is very specifically under the intentional control of the artist. At the same time, I accept that much of the evocative power of art lies above (or below) the author's intent, and that the author is incapable of controlling every nuance or expression. Those who try often produce overworked, sterile texts that allow little room for individual interpretation and that have little extended value. So if we define art as that which supports or enables differing interpretations, I can hang with that. If we define art as that which transcends a particular time and place, I can hang with that. If we claim that art is represented in deep symbols or concepts that the author cannot have consciously intended, I tend to agree heartily; this is what I mean by "honest" presentation. If we define art as that which happens despite the artist and exclusive of him, I start to have a problem because I believe that assumption eliminates all value from the artist himself, thus making the text (a vehicle of the author's intent) itself irrelevant. Which makes the art a construction of the critic's mind and fully independent of the text, not an interaction between the text and the reader. If there ain't no text, there ain't no art. Which makes the artist (author) an important part of the process. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm saying absolutely nothing about whether the author, the critic, or the average reader is the fount of the most correct interpretation. I think it's a dialogue among all of those people, with each taking greater or lessor active roles at different points along the line. > > And if your narrative goal is to justify why criticism is more > > important than the work being criticized, then I think you have to > > take that with a grain of salt as well. > >How can you separate the two if the text exists only in the minds of the >readers? I don't think you can or ought to separate the two. Which makes the critic neither more or less important than the text. That was my only point. >But the question is not, "what's it like being a pig?" The question is, >"what is the nutritional value of pork?" And who's to say that the pig doesn't know as much as the nutritionist about the nutritional value of pork? Pig-ness does not necessarily imply lack of nutritionist-ness. Frankly, I wouldn't trust either alone as an authoritative source--I've known too many nutritionists who disagree at important fundamental levels. I would seek the opinions of many people that I thought qualified to comment to the issue. But if the pig is qualified, why must I ignore his voice? That's my squawk. >When Udall says that Edgar Mint does not resemble David Copperfield in any >other aspect than being an orphan, do you believe him? I thought the whole >narrative style of _Mint_ was dripping with Charles Dickens. Do you think >Udall would have a motive for not wanting Mint to be derivative? Knowing that Udall didn't intentionally mimic Dickens does inform my reading of his story. It doesn't in any way discount the observations that his voice is evidently reminiscent of Dickens, but it does give me a new way to look at his text, and a new game to play while reading it. But I get very uncomfortable with the assumption that the author was somehow working an ulterior motive when he says that he didn't intend any such stylistic imitation. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I hope the author will honestly tell his intent when asked. But I don't like the assumption that denying intent somehow implies either dishonesty or incompetence. Udall can't argue that the voice wasn't Dickens-esque with any more authority that I can, but he can argue that it wasn't intentional with a great deal of authority. Having made that statement, however, in no way inhibits further debate, discussion, or analysis. And for his own good, Udall ought to sit back and let the critical dialogue continue on its own path. It will do so regardless of his input, so why make yourself angry over something you can't change? >My overall point >is this: just because an author says something about his or her text doesn't >mean that such a thing exists in the text. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. >I take your point to be something different, that authorial intention has >some value. Fine, I agree with that. But it little interpretive value. Couldn't have said it better myself. Nice summary of our non-disagreement. >Once he finishes the car, if it's a Yugo instead of a Ferrari, of course he >should sell it as a Yugo. But as much as the author wants the car to be a >Ferrari, if it's a Yugo it's a Yugo it's a Yugo. Whatever the author >intended the car to be is irrelevant in the interpretation of the text's >meaning. We're arguing a nuance here that probably isn't useful, and you're nicely stating most of my own remaining viewpoint on the matter. I tend to believe that art is both intentional and unintentional, and that little that was not intended as art succeeds as art (though the inverse is decidedly not true, IMO). (Boy, how was that for obtuse? Let me try again...authors who do not try to create art rarely succeed at creating art, in my opinion. Many who try to create art fail in the attempt, but I think the intentional attempt is a near universal prerequisite to success.) This is actually a fair criticism that's been levelled at a class of Mormon morality tale. Some authors have come out with statements about how they were inspired to write this book or develop that character. Many such authors are attempting to head off criticism of their work by claiming divine source, thus saying that rejection of any portion of their work is also rejection of the god that inspired it. I think those authors tend to misunderstand both the nature of inspiration and the necessity of craft as both a prerequisite to art and a divine requirement for success in their calling as would-be prophets. It would be unfair to make any more sweeping statements about their spiritual fitness. So yes, I absolutely agree that the author's intent is irrelevant to whether they succeeded (with the small conceptual caveat listed above). >You can stretch any metaphor to its breaking point. Yup. But taking a metaphor to that breaking point can also be quite instructive in trying to understand the related concepts. It's where we tend to find other (often unintended) meanings in texts. >Suppose Mitchell were to confess that he intended something much different >in his book, that he didn't intend Barry to fall in love with Magdalena at >all, that's just the path the book took. Does that make him an inferior >artist, because the text pulled him in a way he didn't originally intend to >go? That's what you're saying. No it isn't. I don't really accept that the author can lose that kind of control over his text, and I talk more about that in another post. One's intentions can change radically from concept to delivery, but that's not a loss of artistic control, it's just a change in intent, and is part of the craft of developing a text. If his fingers typed words against his will then I think he needs the help of a trained professional and a long-term lease of a room with very, very soft walls and a lock on the outside. More to point, if Mitchell had stated that his intent was to illustrate the importance of wooly mountain goats in the economy of ancient Rome, I would say that he failed in his intent. Would that make him an inferior artist? Maybe. It depends on how you define art. But it would certainly make him a failure as a craftsman. And since that's a huge part of why I as an individual read stories--to enjoy and analyze craft--I would consider that work to be a failure as a study in how to realize your key narrative intent. It may still be a raging success as a study in how to create a sense of nostalgia for a past time and place. It depends on what the question is. One answer does not transfer to all questions. I think a discussion of artistic success is not specifically related to a discussion of successful craft. This appears to be a place where you and I are discussing entirely different things. I thought the mechanic metaphor was one of craft, not art, so that's what I addressed. You appear to be talking about art. Different discussions. >I'm talking about textual meaning, and you're talking about textual >construction. Yup. Looks like we don't disagree after all. >If you have to >explain to me how you constructed your cat story in order for me to >appreciate its meaning, doesn't that make it a weak story? I shouldn't have >to learn about how the text was constructed in order to understand the >text's meaning. Learning about its construction will of course alter the >meaning I see in it. Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at. And your point is well taken that a deeper understanding of a story's construction should enhance the meaning, not create it. I agree completely. That's part of why I like to read what good writers have to say about their craft--it gives me more reasons to ponder the text in a new or expanded context. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Infinite Readings (was: Missionary Stories) Date: 20 Jun 2001 08:34:44 -0500 Tom Johnson wrote: >And I wasn't >advancing the idea that there couldn't be 7 or 5,000 different readings of >Mitchell's text, only that an infinite amount was not possible. Not possible >because I have established--by your agreement--that an elephantine reading >of the text would be implausible. If that reading is not possible, and that >reading exists somewhere within the infinite possibilities of readings, then >the number of readings of the text is not infinite. I mentioned this question to my wife Laurel, who is a mathematician and tends to have an interest when us humanities-types start using mathematical language in our arguments... Jonathan Hi, This is Jonathan's wife, the mathematician (I know...ew). So this is the problem: what is infinity? Infinity is how you describe a collection that is so large that it cannot be counted in a finite amount of time (assuming a fixed rate of counting). So, for instance there are infinitely many counting numbers, but there are also infinitely many even numbers (just because a lot of numbers are not even doesn't mean that there aren't infinitely many left). So, just because you exclude one reading (or a lot of readings, or even an infinite number of readings), doesn't mean there aren't infinitely many left. If you start out with an infinite number, it's awfully hard to be sure that you have gotten back down to under an infinite number. If you really want to say that there are only finitely many readings (which is hard to do--how different do two readings have to be to be counted as different? There are also infinitely many fractions between 0 and 1), you need to make some strange argument that works very well for math, but probably not very well for readings, so you say something like: There are only finitely many (say 200 or so) interpretations for every word, and any given sentence has at most 200 to the power of n readings, where n is the number of words in the sentence, etc. Which gives you a very very large, but still finite number of readings (probably not more than a googol for a 1-page essay, though I haven't checked it). Anyway, it's pretty clearly down to a matter of interpretations and opinions... Laurel And here's another one she came up with later (by the way, she was grinning when she wrote it...) 1. A reading exists only in the mind of the reader 2. Only readers of a text have reading of it 3. A given person has no more than, say 86400 readings of a text per day (one a minute, on average) This makes the number of possible readings of a text only 86400times the number of days since it was written times the number of people in the world. A much smaller finite number than the last one. Back to Jonathan again. I personally am agnostic on the question of whether there are infinitely many plausible readings for any given text--I suspect that the specific number of reasonable readings is socially and culturally constrained. But I also think that when we start using arguments from other disciplines (such as mathematics), it's important to get them right. Call it the editor in me... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself (and, perhaps, for mathematicians), but not in this case for 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: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Authorial Intent vs Narrative Control Date: 20 Jun 2001 04:21:09 -0600 Tom Johnson wrote: >I was just reading over that Brady Udall interview, and I was struck by how >much Udall felt like the story was writing itself rather than he was writing >the story. Here are two excerpts: > > "I [originally] imagined him as a little more noble," says Udall, who >expects some readers might balk at Edgar's behavior and at the cruelty >inflicted upon him. "I never imagined I'd write a book in which I'd >brutalize a small child for 500 pages." > > "I knew it would get ugly. I just wasn't prepared for how ugly," says >Udall of the novel's grim Willie Sherman chapters . . . ." > >How much is the author in control of the text? Plante's definition of art, >"something that happens between points A and B that is not intended," seems >to harmonize here with Udall's construction of Mint. Udall originally >intended Edgar to be more noble, but something unintended happened with >that--he ended up brutalizing him. He didn't intent for the Shermann >chapters to get so ugly, they just did. I don't really buy the idea that the author is not in control of the foreground elements of his text, such as violent scenes, character dialog, etc. Sure, the story evolves as the author writes, and original intentions are often changed to meet revised goals. But that's not the same thing as losing control over the text. Some authors promote a sort of mysticism about writing. "Oh, the story sprang fully formed from the mystic (or spiritual) realm and all I did was act as the conduit for the words." Maybe. In my own experience (I've written about 125 short stories to date) I can talk about stories that seemed to flow easily, that developed without a lot of explicit effort to construct them. I fairly regularly have spates where I'll sit down and write a complete novelette (about forty manuscript pages) in a single sitting. Such things usually happen on a story I've been thinking about for a while. I'll be thinking about something else when two ideas collide and the passive effort turns into an active one. The first story I sold to a national market is a short that I wrote in 45 minutes after finishing a novelette that I'd spent weeks slaving over. It just popped out. Does that mean I had no control over it? I don't think so. The idea was one I had played with for several months, but had pushed to the back burner while I completed this other story. I had explicitly considered most of the plot elements that went into it before I sat down to write. I already knew the broad structure and intent of the narrative. In other words, I had put in a lot of both active and passive thought time on it. So when I say it popped out fully formed, I'm only telling part of the story. It popped out after many hours of both structured and unstructured consideration. I think the same thing is true of Udall's experience. He'd been working on that story for a very long time--half of his life, apparently. He'd learned an awful lot in the time since he first conceptualized the story and the time he sat down to write. Yes, he was driven by that original intent from his high school days. But once you began to write, a different process takes over. You write scenes as you feel they need to be written, and your original intent is challenged as you actually begin to realize the scenes and settings and situations. If you're even a competent craftsman you'll probably do a lot of things differently than you originally intended, because the words you've now written create a new context for your story and force you to rethink how and what your own scenes mean to you, and how that changes the story you want to tell. You create a feedback loop with your own text and have a sort of active creative dialog with yourself. This is not the same thing as hearing voices or disconnecting your brain. It's not mystical, though it can be deeply spiritual. But that doesn't mean that the author is not in control of the words he writes. When Udall says he didn't intend to brutalize Edgar so much, that he wanted to retain more nobility, I accept that as a statement of his original intent. I also accept that he chose to modify that intent at some point, and to craft scenes as they ended up being presented. Maybe it's just a semantic difference, but the author's intent in starting a story is not the necessarily the same thing as his intent on completing it, and his intent in crafting parts is not necessarily the same as his intent in crafting the whole. When Udall wrote those brutal scenes, he intended to accomplish something with that brutality, even though he hadn't meant to be that dark at the start. I don't see a loss of control there. I see an evolving story and an author smart enough to follow the change and see where it ends up. Different people write stories different ways, and a single author can write using many different methods. I usually start with an opening image and a general thematic direction (with its implied general resolution). Then I sit down and write as quickly as I can, creating scenes and resolving plot points on the fly. I usually feel an accelerating push toward the end and often make decisions literally as I'm typing the words. At other times I've outlined heavily. At others I've done plot mapping. Others have started with a scene and I researched my way into plot development. Some start with characters, others with situations. But I always analyze my own text as a reader before doing heavy rewrites. ===== BEGIN LENGTHY DIGRESSION ===== (A couple of years ago I did that with a 60-page novella I was writing. I was writing it with a particular editor in mind whose editorial policy tended toward dark and hopeless stories. I find his tastes suspect, so I sat down to write a story that was so dark and hopeless that it would prove to this editor how poor dark and hopeless stories were. The problem is that I don't believe in hopeless stories--even my darkest stuff contains hope. So as I was typing madly away to meet a writing group deadline it occurred to me that I couldn't follow through on my original intent; I had to allow for hope at the end of the story. So as I'm sitting at the kitchen table typing the last page of the story I look up at my wife and say, "I can't believe it. I'm going to pull this thing out! It's going to end positively." Was that against my control? I don't think so. It was part of who I am, and for me to tell an honest story I had to end it differently than I intended. At that point I felt that the ending was supported by the other 60 pages of manuscript, so I went for it. Later on I would do several massive rewrites to bring some themes in earlier and to craft a story that met my specific narrative and artistic goals more effectively. But the fundamental structure stayed the same, and the key plot points remained exactly as I had originally written them. My intent changed from start to end, but that's okay; it happened with my permission, and by my specific effort.) ===== END OF DIGRESSION ===== My first drafts are usually an exercise in free-associative, organic plot development, where I create the story elements as I write. I'm not a big outliner--at least not on the first draft. When I finish the first draft I put the story away for a couple of weeks and work on something completely different. Then I pull the story out and read it as though I were reading someone else's story. I critique the story and write notes on the story I wish the author had told instead of the one I have in hand. I interpret the story as a reader. Then I rewrite. Often that means tossing the whole manuscript in the trash and rewriting the the story from scratch. Usually it means rewriting the existing text and saving a few sentences here and there while massively rehandling the rest. Two or three rewrite/reread cycles later, I tend to find a story that is radically different from what I started with, and that I think is a much better story. I don't claim to be a particularly good writer, but I think I am a pretty decent rewriter. So for me, original intent and final intent are almost always different. I don't think that means a failure of art, but rather a success of craft. If there's art to be found in the story, I trust that it will either survive my tinkering, or else be enhanced by it. >Surely when you wrote your cat >story, it pulled you in directions you perhaps did not initially intend to >go. Plante is saying that those unintended directions are crucial--they are >the backbone of the art. No argument about that. But being pulled in different directions during the writing process is not the same as losing control over your text. It just means that you follow the ideas that are already in your head, and that your own concepts can evolve as you apply more creative energy to telling a story. My little cat story is unlikely to ever be confused with art. It's a small, genre short story that Thom Duncan would probably decry as manipulative since I kill a furry creature (the POV cat) and expect the reader to feel sad at that loss. I can't really argue except to say that the story is true to my own concept, hope, and belief, and was told the way it needed to be told to satisfy my own narrative intent. I don't feel manipulative, but I accept that many will feel that I did manipulate. But it did change quite a bit from initial concept to final draft. A friend recently read it and commented, "Wow, you really sledge-hammered that Christ metaphor, didn't you?" Now I thought I'd been reasonably subtle with it (except for the cat's final living words which were pretty obvious, even to me). But after hearing that comment I reread my own story and discovered that the text had, in fact, at least a half-dozen clear references. I guess I did sledgehammer it. I'd claim that it was unintentional except that I had intended a Christ metaphor all along. What I hadn't intended was that certain structural elements should reinforce that metaphor the way they did. But I can't argue with the text--they're in there, specifically intended or not. If I understand your definition of art correctly, that suggests that the elements I discovered after the fact represent art more fully that the ones that served the same purpose but were intentionally placed. Is that correct? I know that from my own viewpoint they're both indicative of my artistic intent as well as my narrative intent, and I take at least a little pride in discovering my own subconscious use of those symbols. Those things still came out of my psyche, so I feel like I can take some credit for their appearance in the text. Of course I also have to accept that my art was apparently quite ham-handed, which suggests that I'm not a very good artist--at least by my own definitions. I admit to being guilty as charged. Maybe my failure comes from trying to go back and intentionally refine elements that I unintentionally included in the first place. How much in control is the author? A lot more than most people think, in my opinion. I won't claim that every element is intentional, but I do think the author intends some broad concepts that are sometimes reinforced or contrasted in unintended ways. And the successful artist is the author who trusts his own creative process and instincts, thus facilitating the hidden elements. Scott Parkin - 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 20 Jun 2001 04:54:17 -0600 Anna Wight wrote: > But if other people got the point, then how is it the films fault that you > missed it? Understanding is two way. No one film is going to hit every > person the same way. That does not make the film a failure. Speaking specifically of _Testaments_, I would say the "point" that someone said they got and I didn't was more their Rorschach-style imposition of a point from their own psyche than anything that was really in the film. When usurping a powerful story like the acts of the Savior, you're going to benefit from all the associations people already have with that story, and shouldn't claim recognition for evoking them. You should only claim recognition for that which you brought new to the story. What did _Testaments_ bring new to the story of Jesus except a baby-faced actor? Speaking of points in a film generally, according to practitioners of the branch of psychology called Neuro-Linguistic Programming, if communication doesn't occur or mis-occurs, the instigator of the communication must take responsibility, because he is the one who wants communication to take place. I agree with this. If I don't get the point of a film, it's not my responsibility. It's the responsibility of the author to make sure he gets the point across, and to decide if he cares enough to reach the part of the audience who reacts like me. The author has no moral right to go around saying, "You should have gotten this and this out of my movie, and it's your fault if you didn't." If it ain't in the movie, it ain't in the movie. -- 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: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings (was: Play the New Game) Date: 20 Jun 2001 09:29:02 -0600 Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: > > So... > > What constitutes a happy ending? If, after I've seen a film, or reading a story, I'm wondering, "No matter what happens to me, I'll never sink as low as that guy did," I consider it a happy ending. For instance, Porn, by nature, can never have happy endings, because those films wallow in their degeneracy. Even if they happen to tack on some socially redeemable ending, the fact that you have been subjected to graphic representations of sex acts for an hour or more -- and thus manipulated -- forever invalidates those kinds of films as legitimate film art. > For the most > part, our religion teaches that positive resolution is always > possible (with a very short list of exceptional cases). Exceptional cases which are outlined in the Scriptures (Lot's story, for instance). That is significant to me. That tells me that the idea that every story we create must have an uplifting, positive ending to be considered worthy is more a cultural manifestation than a "true" method of telling stories. > Does that not > suggest that Mormons are almost required to tell stories of hope, or > at least leave hope open as a real possible resolution beyond the > bounds of the story? If those Mormons are more interested in following the cultural impositions of their religion rather than the actual religion itself, then yes. Can someone please tell me what is happy ending in the story recounted in Judges 19? -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 20 Jun 2001 10:25:39 -0600 My thought is what good is a magazine for kids that they are not going to want to read because of all the dry GA articals in the Friend magazine. I for one much prefer the Mormon Journal stories in the Ensign and the magazine will not be as appealing to read with this change. Maybe we do need to start a new church magazine that will have the stories that make reading the Friend so enjoyable. We have the talent to fill such a magazine and I believe we have the know how but do we have the money? Some how the whole thing seems to be closely related to the post on the people who avoid reading at all costs even though they know how. Being a mother I often end up watching "Arthor" (Sp?) on PBS with my kids. One they watched this morning is about Buster watching a movie instead of reading a book for a book report. In the end is was a book that really caught his interest that got him reading. It wasn't because it was to hard to read or that he didn't know how but because he simply wasn't interested. So what is going to happen to the church mags when people are no longer interested in reading them? Will the publishers even know that they aren't being read? How many are going to let their subscriptions expire because of the change? Or are you going to keep it coming in because "good members have them in their house"? I for one love to watch TV. My husband says that I'm addicted. To him, who rarely watches anything, I must be because I usually have the TV on during the day. But I don't have to have it on all the time and I missed shows I wanted to watch simply because I forgot to turn on the TV. But I am addicted to reading. I love to find books I haven't read yet and consume them. We do have several in the house that I haven't read , but that is because they are of a genre that don't intrigue me. Some of my books I have read several times (mostly because I can't afford to buy more nor do I have the time or means to get to the library enough). When my magazines come I read them cover to cover as quickly as I can, usually within a day or two. If we could afford a newspaper that too would be read as quickly as possible. My point is that I just don't understand poeple who don't read something when they know how and don't have the problem of flipping letters around making reading difficult. When you read you have to use your mind more then watching TV. You have to think and imagine, with TV, unless it is a program designed to make you think, you simply have to veg out and be entertained. Maybe thats why I usually do something else while watching TV. Like check my e-mail, write my story, read something, or chores. ( Execpt when I just want a break from thinking and doing something.) This is probably my longest post ever and I had better be doing chores instead so I'll stop wandering around my thoughts and go. Konnie Enos ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: "Stephen Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd Date: 20 Jun 2001 11:30:31 -0700 Richard, I'm not sure I agree that your opinions shouldn't be expressed in a public way, but that's your choice. I always moderate myself depending on how open a forum is. Though I may say things of the same substance in a public forum, I am more casual about it in a private forum. I found your remarks to be interesting, but possibly a little too strident for public airing. It isn't helpful or informative to me to see anyone let fly with strong opinions that don't really contain any constructive points. My initial reaction to your comments about "Testaments" was to wonder exactly what you thought was so bad. It seemed like a rant more than criticism. Rants can be fun, but as a spectator, I learn nothing from them. In what way does "Testaments" fail to let the power of Christ shine through? I would like to know so I can learn how I can improve my own attempts to tell a better story. Unless you're trying to keep some trade secrets to yourself, I would much prefer an expert's analysis over an emotional outburst. The emotional outburst may help the outburster, but it doesn't do anything for me. I saw "God's Army" twice and "Brigham City" thrice and was happy to feel manipulated by both, but then I'm not one to think that being manipulated is always a bad thing. Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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] Re: Movie Happy Endings (comp) Date: 20 Jun 2001 13:59:00 -0500 >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Tue Jun 19 10:37:49 2001 > The moment of their death is not happy. No death is. No death is happy? What about the woman who has lived a long and fulfilling life and is now able to go back home to the Father and her husband who waits for her? Often death is tragic. Especially when it's senseless, or happens before we are prepared for it. However, death is just one more step on to progression. Life has no ending. There is no real death. Only a change of dimensions. Anna Wight >From Jacob@proffitt.com Tue Jun 19 22:48:42 2001 Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: >> > _War of the Roses_ [Mod snip] Scott, you'll have to come up with a different movie than _War of the Roses_ because of the frame story. You see, the movie didn't end with the Roses -- it didn't end until the young man left DeVito's character's office. The frame story was a great and essential part of the _War of the Roses_. It made it so that you have to question the premise of the whole story once it is finished. The whole untrustworthy narrator thing comes up and bites you at the end, forcing you to re-evaluate the whole story. I mean, given the context of the telling of the story, how can we be sure it wasn't all made up anyway? At the end, the DeVito character turns out to be an advocate for marriage, or at least, trying to bring his point across to the young man in his office that there is no win or lose in a divorce -- only differing degrees of losing (it also explains how DeVito had such an interesting sex life during the telling). It turned the whole movie into an extended allegory. Which you might claim weakens it, but I think it gives the characters archetypal status and makes the movie a kind of warning-myth for our day. And since the young man walked out of the office without pursuing a divorce, the ending is very happy, as far as I'm concerned. Jacob Proffitt >From dmichael@wwno.com Wed Jun 20 04:12:31 2001 Russ Asplund wrote: > War of the Roses, however, just stunk. The only thing I came away thinking > was that stupid and selfish people deserve each other. Alright, this is the second time that _War of the Roses_ was characterized as having TWO utterly selfish characters in it. I beg to differ. Michael Douglas' character was not particularly selfish. True, he didn't react so intelligently to his wife's selfishness (understandably so), but he tried often to reach out to her and patch things up. It was Kathleen Turner's character that was utterly selfish. And what made the movie stink was how pointless her selfishness was. There was literally no justification for her sudden rejection of him. Her actions were pointless, and that made the whole movie pointless. -- D. Michael Martindale >From scottparkin@earthlink.net Wed Jun 20 04:13:33 2001 Russ Asplund wrote: >I've always though _Jacob's Ladder_ did have a happy ending, and that most >of the Critics got it wrong. The woman he's living with, and in fact his >entire existence through most of the movie, seems to me symbolic of clinging >to the physical comforts of life. In the end, when he lets go of that, he is >met at the stairs by the son who's death he mourned and walks up the stairs >toward a bright light. Yes, he has died, but in doing so he has come to >piece, been reunited with his family, and embraced the spiritual. What more >of a happy ending could you want. > >The movie was scary, but I've always found it uplifting in an odd sort of >way. And not just in theme, but in seeing a troubled soul come to peace. Which is a happy ending I can accept--and did several times as I went back and watched the film ten times in the theater. In this particular case I think the happy ending was undermined for a lot of people who saw it as "Then he woke up, found out it was all a dream, then died of his previously received wounds." If you accept that interpretation of the ending, it's a decidedly less happy ending. So is an ending with POV coming to peace the same thing as a happy ending? I think so, but I suspect a lot of people don't. Acceptance often comes in the context of pain with no end in sight, which is somewhat less than happy. Scott Parkin >From ViKimball@aol.com Wed Jun 20 07:36:50 2001 In a message dated 6/19/01 10:10:50 PM Central Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: << Amadeus is a perfect Mormon movie. It teaches us that being righteous is not the only thing it takes to be a great artist. One must also have talent. -- >> How many "righteous" artists do you know? In the real world, I believe it takes more talent than righteousness. Violet Kimball >From skperry@mac.com Wed Jun 20 09:05:20 2001 on 6/18/01 11:22 PM, Eric D. Snider at eric@ericdsnider.com wrote: > In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it > _is_ ending. > > Eric D. Snider And who would know better than you? Eric, do you have a rough estimate of how many films you see a year? How many plays? You have a pretty interesting job, you know. Steve >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Wed Jun 20 09:16:18 2001 "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > > Steve Perry: > > > >Just last night Johanne and I watched "Amadeus" and I'd LOVE to hear about > >that happy ending. > > > > In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it > _is_ ending. Implying that for some reason, you didn't like this film? Please, I would LOVE to hear your justification for that. -- Thom Duncan >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Wed Jun 20 09:51:12 2001 As a woman I was disapointed in Thelma and Louise. It was sold as a woman's empowerment film. But I didn't see it that way. They understandibly have to do what they have to do to prevent a rape. I got that part, but from there it went nuts. They ran. Instead of standing up and saying "I did this" they ran. And as they ran they did a lot of unnecessary things. It didn't seem like empowerment to me. It seemed like a couple of women running and acting stupid. I'm not going to say I didn't enjoy the movie. I did. But not on the level it was intended. Anna Wight >From ap8w@virginia.edu Wed Jun 20 10:39:14 2001 Thom, sounds to me that what you are arguing has nothing to do with happiness in art or film and everything to do with art in art and film. What is good art if it does not expose us to original thought and creativity ("Mozart's wonderful music" for instance), talent ("incredible performances"), and provoke thought ("caused to think about what it means to be 'loved of God.'")? You could argue til you were blue in the face and I still would never believe that _Amadeus_, neither the play nor the film--which are very different beasts--, has a happy ending. Nor would I necessarily agree to the classification of "uplifting," particularly if discussing the play. But you could certainly expect me to concur that it is great art. On another note, I am intrigued by your statement that _Amadeus_ is a perfect Mormon movie. Do elaborate. Is it because it helps all those Mormon "artists" who lack talent but pander to the belief in all-powerful righteousness that they're wrong? or that we should accept god-given talent and revere it no matter how the possessor of that talent behaves (an attitude I have seen in Mormons towards classic art but one they are unwilling to take towards contemporary art). or perhaps that without god-given talent we should, like Salieri, recognize ourselves as mediocrity incarnate? just curious and would love an explanation. amelia parkin >From barbara@techvoice.com Wed Jun 20 11:56:35 2001 At 11:50 PM 6/18/01 -0600, you wrote: >In movies like this, it is important to not make the mistake that the >ending is the final scene. The true ending in these kinds of films is >what the audience member takes away with them. Thom, you're changing the premise of your challenge. You asked us to name movies without happy endings, not movies that give you stuff to take away with you. Not movies that teach you stuff. Not movies that have positive qualities buried somewhere inside them. Not movies that perhaps indicate that something happy may possibly occur after the final dismal, depressing scene has filled the screen and the audience has shuffled out of the theater with discontented scowls on their faces. Not movies that are dark and disgusting and dreary, yes, but have good acting in them and so actors call them good despite the fact that all the buttered popcorn and Diet Coke and choccolate-covered raisins in the concession stand are not enough to wash out the bad taste left in the viewers' mouths. I submit that several people met your challenge, and then you tried to weasel out of admitting it! C'mon, 'fess up! barbara hume >From famax@gte.net Wed Jun 20 12:06:08 2001 Okay, Thom, what about these movies: Bridge over the River Kwai Planet of the Apes And are stage dramas outside the scope of the game? Some of them have been filmed: Hamlet (either Olivier version or Branagh version) Death of a Salesman [Frank Maxwell] - 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] Critical Anthology Date: 19 Jun 2001 22:08:36 -0600 Melissa Proffitt (responding to an idea put forth by Scott Parkin) wrote: > > > >Would an anthology of short fiction featuring short comments by the > > >authors and short interpretive essays by reviewers or critics be > > >interesting? I just checked out _Ender's Shadow_ and _Speaker for the Dead_ for my 12-year-old son who finished _Ender's Game_ last week and has been on me ever since to get "something else by that Card guy." Given my other commitments and priorities (and my general disinterest in Science Fiction), I'm not sure if I will ever get around to reading these particular books. But I *did* read (and thoroughly enjoyed) Card's introductions. I have tremendous admiration for Orson Scott Card as a writer (even if his subject matter doesn't always appeal to me) and I am fascinated by the details, personal insights, and background information he provides in these introductions. So, Scott and Melissa, I guess that would be a resounding "yes!" 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: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings (was: Play the New Game) Date: 20 Jun 2001 04:21:09 -0600 MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MOVIE! I TALK EXPLICITLY ABOUT THE FINAL SCENES IN THIS POST. CONSIDER SKIPPING THIS IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE UNAWARES (which I highly recommend)... Darvell Hunt wrote: >The ending that I'd like to understand is last scene of _Crouching Tiger, >Hidden Dragon." I did like the film and thought it was worthy of four >academy awards, but I didn't understand the denouement. The real ending >just before that was okay, but going back to the training facility really >confused me, and the flying off the bridge was just lost on me. (hee, hee, hee...) I drove my wife nuts with this one. As soon as the credits finished, I started analyzing and asking her how she thought the film ended (I generated about six different interpretations in about ten minutes). She remained silent as we drove to pick up the kids. Ten minutes later I was getting a little frustrated with her complete lack of input and I pushed her on it. At which point she said in a wavering voice, "I've been trying not to cry. Leave me alone." To me the ending revolves around one question: Did she jump in hope or in despair? If she jumped in hope, then one of two things happened-- 1) The legend of the young man was true, and her wish was granted that the monk and his love (sorry, the names have completely fled my mind) were reunited either in this world or the next, and she would be reunited with her own love either in this world or the next. Or, 2) The legend was just a legend but she still found joy and power in redeeming her foolish sins with her own life. If she jumped in despair, then one of several things happened-- 3) The legend was true and though her heart was broken when she jumped, it was still pure in its desire for peace, implying the result of #1 above. Or, 4) Having decided to atone for her sin with her own blood, she discovered that she had in fact found true peace, selflessness, and enlightenment, thus she flew to her end by her own power and choice. Her boyfriend followed her down, and the monk's girlfriend had preceded them both down the night before. Or, 5) She pretty much lost it on the way down and went into a deluded dream. ---- Or at least those are all endings that I can come up with in a few moments and that I think are justified by the remainder of the film. >I'm curious if a cultural gap caused this confusion, but to me, it just >seemed weird. I think there is a cultural gap there, and that points toward an intended ending on the part of the film makers. In talking with a Chinese friend about the film he commented that all Chinese stories end that way, that the only way those characters can end is with death. He thus interprets that everyone dies (all four main characters) so that their stories are clearly capped. Whether they're "saved" in the afterlife is more or less irrelevant to the Chinese culture. Therefore, option 4 would be the most likely Chinese cultural interpretation (if you accept one 22-year old Chinese man's interpretation of his own culture). I tend to prefer option 1, and choose to believe that as the ending I find most desirable, whether that's the author's intended interpretation or not. In any case, I thought the ambiguous ending made the film better, not worse. I like the fact that we have little or no specific guidance and are forced to determine our own ending to the story. I think it tells us more about ourselves and serves better as art for the effort. FWIW. Scott Parkin - 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] Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd Date: 20 Jun 2001 12:32:32 -0600 Well let's not stop with film makers! Writers, artists, composers ALL need to reach a higher level. We can't insist on satisfying the lowest common denominator in our audience or we will never create great art--and we certainly have the talent in the Church to make great art. However, that talent is too often turned over to a committee or strained through a very strict filter. Our best stories are our most personal ones. If our audiences feel they really get to know our characters and relate to them deeply, they will respond. But when we insist on telling the huge stories, we often doom ourselves to cliches and sentimentality. We cover a desert in a sentence, and resolve a universal conflict in a paragraph. I think if the Church asked me to wrote a story about the Savior, I'd say no. I remember one speaker in a Sacrament meeting who said, "Well, I've been asked to speak about the Savior. I find that the words of Jesus are more powerful than anything I could say, so I'll just read those." He read from the Book of Matthew for the next fifteen minutes. Interesting experience, and exemplary in many ways. So often, when we write ABOUT the great and big stories, we try in our rather inept ways to improve upon them. I found this all the time when I taught critical writing. A student would write ABOUT "A Rose for Emily," for example, and try to out-do Faulkner with a flowery plot summary. I'd comment in the margins, "I prefer Faulkner, actually. Stick to your thesis." (Of course, I said it kindly and gently.) But how often do we try to out-do the scriptures by adding glitz and sentimental romances? Not a good idea. One final word, then I'll finish: I just returned from Las Vegas, where Darius [Gray] and I did a fireside. I took my kids with me to do some "fun" things. We went to Circus Circus and all the "kid" stuff--but you can't go ANYWHERE without passing through or seeing a casino with grim-faced people popping quarters into the slots. My kids felt the spirit of the places, and described it as "bad." I promised them we'd go to the temple the next day, and my nine-year-old said, "I wish we could go there tonight." When we did finally go to the temple, the contrast was profound. No fancy facades pretending to be Paris or New York--but only housing the same old thing. The words "Holiness to the Lord--The House of the Lord" were beautifully placed. The building was serene, elegant, dignified and REAL. The Spirit was powerful. And I understood in a new way the fury of the Savior when He drove away the money changers from the temple. I can imagine whipping away someone who decided to put a few gambling machines in front of the temple. I've thought about it a lot. We artists are very capable of taking beautiful material and filling it with fluff or even vulgarizing it with stereotype and romance which belies the real lives and real feelings we can be showing our audiences--and the marvelous reality that they are PART of the experience (as in the temple). They become part of it because they live it, not through manipulation, but through the realities that verisimilitude brings. My time's up now. Off to the library. RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > Thanks to all of you for your response to my comments on "Testaments." I > already regret having voiced my opinion in such a public way. My comments > would be more appropriate in a private conversation with the director and > producers. > > There is such power in the story of Christ, in his words and teachings. They > shine through and, for many viewers, compensate for any failings in the > storytelling. I am grateful for this. But how much more effective would our > major church films be if the central theme was supported by expert > storytelling? > > I pray that we LDS filmmakers are someday artistically worthy of the great > stories we've been given to tell. > > Richard - 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] Manipulative Endings Date: 20 Jun 2001 09:32:13 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation of Thom's posts on this and related threads.] REWIGHT wrote: > > So Thom as a playwrite, are you telling me that when you write about good > people nothing bad ever happens to them. Or do you just write about bad > people and try and make your audience feel sorry for them? I write about bad people and try to help the audience *understand* them. When you understand bad people, you can better tolerate them. When you can tolerate them, and understand them, you can better help them. Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > > > > > >Have someone kick Hitler. If tears well up for the pain Hitler feels, > > that's not > > >manipulative. > > > > >Thom > > I would argue that would be manipulation also - since our cultural bias is to > consider Hitler worthy of a kick (and much more) - in order for us to > sympathize, we would have to be manipulated in some way in order to reverse our > prejudices. The book Hannibal is an amazing piece of literature. It comes very close to convincing you that Hannibal is the good guy, that's how well it is written. I consider it an excellent example of how to make people feel something without using manipulation to do so. REWIGHT wrote: > > If I see someone bearing testimony and they're > crying, is it my place to judge whether the spirit is touching them? If > they say it is, shouldn't I accept that? Accept that they believe it is, certainly. But, to bring this back to a literary angle. It is so stultifyingly easy to make a Mormon audience cry that the display of tears during a play or book is hardly a sign that the Spirit is also present. Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: [AML] Re: Manipulative Endings Date: 20 Jun 2001 11:53:34 -0700 Thom, I'm having a difficult time understanding your point about manipulation. I go to movies, read books, listen to music, etc. specifically to be manipulated in some way. I wouldn't patronize any form of art if it didn't evoke emotions. What would be the point? Like your point, which I also don't entirely get, about happy endings, it seems to me that all forms or art are manipulative. All stories are manipulative. I particularly like horror because I like being scared, or at least nervous. I don't like being grossed out, so I have a hard time with modern horror which seems to have lost the ability to scare without gore. I enjoyed the new version of "The Haunting" but preferred the older version. Neither were gory. Both were manipulative. The "jump" scenes in "Jaws" were great. I saw it over ten times in the theater because it was great to get startled, and when I got too used to when the gory head came out from under the boat, I started sitting in the back of the theater so I could see the wave of people jump out of their seats. I'm very sick. The timing of those scenes seems to me to have been specifically orchestrated to cause a group reaction. It's manipulative, but why does it make for bad filmmaking? "Wait Until Dark" was one of my favorites as a kid. I saw it several times also. Many elements were intended to set me up for the coming startles. It all seems manipulative. So, help me out here if you can. What is bad about something being manipulative and when are things not manipulative? Anyone? Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 20 Jun 2001 13:40:03 -0500 > Anna Wight wrote: > > > But if other people got the point, then how is it the films fault that you > > missed it? Understanding is two way. No one film is going to hit every > > person the same way. That does not make the film a failure. > > Speaking specifically of _Testaments_, I would say the "point" that > someone said they got and I didn't was more their Rorschach-style > imposition of a point from their own psyche than anything that was > really in the film. When usurping a powerful story like the acts of the > Savior, you're going to benefit from all the associations people already > have with that story, and shouldn't claim recognition for evoking them. > You should only claim recognition for that which you brought new to the > story. What did _Testaments_ bring new to the story of Jesus except a > baby-faced actor? But that's what writing is about. Is there anything new in the world? It's about taking stories and presenting them in a way that people understand. Going into a film you bring with it your understanding, your emotions, your self. A writer, actor, director, taps into that. He doesn't present things in a vacuum. He presents things to people who already have opinions. If you watch a movie about a Nazi camp, most people will walk away horrified about what happened. Others will cheer the Nazi's for getting rid of the Jews, and some people just wouldn't care. No matter how powerful the story is, people will still walk away with different things. It doesn't mean the film was bad because it didn't touch everyone's heart. > > Speaking of points in a film generally, according to practitioners of > the branch of psychology called Neuro-Linguistic Programming, if > communication doesn't occur or mis-occurs, the instigator of the > communication must take responsibility, because he is the one who wants > communication to take place. I agree with this. If I don't get the point > of a film, it's not my responsibility. It's the responsibility of the > author to make sure he gets the point across, and to decide if he cares > enough to reach the part of the audience who reacts like me. The author > has no moral right to go around saying, "You should have gotten this and > this out of my movie, and it's your fault if you didn't." If it ain't in > the movie, it ain't in the movie. I don't buy this. You're asking for a movie to be all things to all people. Not only that, but you're suggesting that if you missed something, then it means that it wasn't there. People accept communication according to the place they are in. For instance, lets say you're at a party. Someone introduces you to a young woman. You smile politely and say Hello and nod while she speaks at length on a subject you have no interest in. In the meantime, your mind is far away thinking about something else. This young woman could take your smile and your greeting several different ways. She could simply recognize it for what it was, as polite party conversation. She could think that you're interested in what she has to say. She could think that you can't wait to take her to a motel. She might be thinking that your dull and you have an idiotic grin. If she's thinking that you can't wait to get her to a motel, who's fault is that? Is it yours? You've sent a different message which she missed. Here's another example. Let's say you have a daughter who is dating someone you don't like. One day she comes home in tears and says "John and I broke up." Your reaction is "Finally. I never did like that guy." She then gets mad at you and storms out of the room. You're left wondering what her problem is. So who's fault is it that you didn't see that she was upset about the breakup and she came to you to be consoled? Is it hers, even though she came to you in tears and told you what was wrong? How much better could she have communicated her needs? The scriptures themselves are full of messages that people don't understand, don't care about, don't see, or misinterpret. No one fully understands them or sees everything in them. That's why we are supposed to study them. It's not the fault of the scriptures if we don't see something. Jesus appearing to the Nephites, is a powerful message of love that most people are not aware of. Most don't know that the Nephites existed. Most are under the impression that the only people Jesus cared about lived in Isreal. The story of Jesus's resurrection in the bible doesn't even come close to the story in the BOM. For all the failings of the movie, it did show that Jesus loves us. To suggest that because you didn't see something because it wasn't there, suggests that anyone who did see something was fooled. Why? Do you know something that those who were touched by the movie don't? Anna Wight - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amelia Parkin Subject: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings Date: 20 Jun 2001 17:01:02 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Thom wrote in response to: > > So... > > > > What constitutes a happy ending? [posed by Scott and Marny Parkin] > > If, after I've seen a film, or reading a story, I'm wondering, "No > matter what happens to me, I'll never sink as low as that guy did," I > consider it a happy ending. > > For instance, Porn, by nature, can never have happy endings, because > those films wallow in their degeneracy. Even if they happen to tack on > some socially redeemable ending, the fact that you have been subjected > to graphic representations of sex acts for an hour or more -- and thus > manipulated -- forever invalidates those kinds of films as legitimate > film art. > Sorry Thom but your logic doesn't hold here. If a happy ending is one after which you breathe a sigh of relief because you'll never sink as low (be as degenerate?) as the character in the movie, then every porn flick out there has a happy ending. Unless some porn movies make the viewer feel badly that they are more degenerate than the porn stars, which, according to your definition of happy ending as formulated above, would be an unhappy ending. Is it, rather, that pornography involves the viewer in the degeracy that the actors/characters create? therefore negating the option of the viewer leaving the movie and being relieved that they will never be that degenerate? amelia parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: Mountain Meadows Massacre Date: 20 Jun 2001 13:33:43 -0600 > Yes, read Juanita Brooks' _Mountain Meadows Massacre_ and also her biography > _John Doyle Lee: Zealot--Pioneer Builder--Scapegoat. > > Levi Peterson > althlevip@msn.com And while you're at it, Beth, be sure to read Levi Peterson's marvelous biography of Juanita Brooks (_Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian_). I read this book in one sitting (my mother had given it to me as a birthday gift and my indulgent husband took control of the house and kids for the day, freeing me to do whatever I wanted). I don't know when I've ever enjoyed a book so much. It is a jewel. I was entertained, enlightened, motivated, and deeply moved by Peterson's telling of the life and work of this remarkable woman. 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: Steve Subject: [AML] Benefit Performances of "Polly" at UVSC Date: 20 Jun 2001 17:39:04 -0600 Hi Listers, As long as I'm bending your ear with self promotion, etc., here is something I hope will be of interest to those in the Utah area, or anyone passing through. _ _ _ _ _ Benefit Performances of POLLY at UVSC in Orem, UT Johanne Frechette Perry stars in the musical POLLY in UVSC's Black Box Theater June 15, 16, 18, 28, 29, and 30, at 7:30 pm. For tickets and info call: 801-222-8797. Tickets are $6.00 / $3.00 for UVSC students. Proceeds will benefit "Reach the Children," a non-profit organization providing food, education, and vocational training to children and families in Kenya, East Africa. (See more about Reach the Children at http://www.reachthechildren.org) Newspaper article with picture can be found at: http://www.ucjournal.com/PageSpeed.php?m=2&id=350023&s=12990&k=&a _ _ _ _ _ Thanks, :-) Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.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] Re: Movie Happy Endings Date: 20 Jun 2001 17:55:10 -0600 >---------------------------------------- >>From skperry@mac.com Wed Jun 20 09:05:20 2001 > >on 6/18/01 11:22 PM, Eric D. Snider at eric@ericdsnider.com wrote: > >> In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it >> _is_ ending. >> >> Eric D. Snider > >And who would know better than you? Eric, do you have a rough estimate of >how many films you see a year? How many plays? You have a pretty >interesting job, you know. > >Steve On average, I review about 275 movies and 100 plays per year. (Of course, 2000 was my first full year doing movies, but 2001 is shaping up to be the same. And the play count has been steady for a few years now.) That's not counting shows I see in my "spare time" but don't review. It amounts to a lot of sitting on my rear end, watching other people do stuff. >----------------------------------------- >>From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Wed Jun 20 09:16:18 2001 > >"Eric D. Snider" wrote: >> >> Steve Perry: >> > >> >Just last night Johanne and I watched "Amadeus" and I'd LOVE to hear about >> >that happy ending. >> > >> >> In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it >> _is_ ending. > >Implying that for some reason, you didn't like this film? Please, I >would LOVE to hear your justification for that. I didn't necessarily mean that I didn't care much for "Amadeus," just that some movies make one glad when they're over. My only experience with seeing "Amadeus" was when I watched it late at night and didn't even start it until 2 a.m., so in this case I was a little glad when it was over. But I liked the movie well enough. Although now, I kind of wish I HAD hated it, so you could shoot down whatever "justification" I had for that opinion. :-) 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: Steve Subject: [AML] LDS and World Religions Date: 20 Jun 2001 19:36:21 -0600 Hi, Want to know how the Latter-day Saints fit in to the current religious scheme of things world-wide? http://www.adherents.com I found it interesting that the Church of JC of LDS is listed in the "most ubiquitous" category; meaning most likely to have a place of worship in a location near you. Also that only 1 in 7 LDS live in the United States. Interesting. Is anyone aware if there is "LDS literature" other than offical church publications in any country other than the US? Just wondering, Steve - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: [AML] PERRY, _Another Testament_ New CD Release Date: 20 Jun 2001 17:33:19 -0600 Hi listers, I'm happy to announce the release of a new CD called "Another Testament." You can see the cover, read the lyrics and, yes, even preorder it (release in July) with no shipping charges at: http://StevenKappPerry.com/another.html "Another Testament--the Book of Mormon Witnesses of Christ" features live orchestra, contemporary choir, and soloists. A cassette version and songbook (with script by Brad Wilcox) will also be available soon. Thanks, :-) Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.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] LDSBA convention Date: 20 Jun 2001 16:57:47 -0600 The AML is now a dues-paying member of the LDS Booksellers Association, meaning that members of our organization can attend the annual LDSBA convention for free. If you are a current member of the AML and want to attend the convention trade show, please send your name (as you want it to appear on the namebadge) and your mailing address to Chris Bigelow at irreantum2@cs.com. For more info about the convention, which includes about 200 booths of LDS publishers and kitsch companies, see http://www.ldsba.com/convention.html. I have walked the aisles before with morbid fascination at all the junk and crassness, but I've also run into a lot of interesting editors and authors. (If you want to attend the $30 banquet, contact me for info on where to mail your check ASAP.) If we get too many responses and/or the LDSBA balks for any reason (such as allowing only AML board members to attend or something), I will let you know. Otherwise you should receive your attendance badge by mail. Thanks, Chris Bigelow - 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] Re: Movie Happy Endings Date: 20 Jun 2001 21:19:35 -0600 While I think D. Michael Martindale overstates his point in his previous comment on this thread, I think he does make a good general point--happy is in the mind of reader/viewer, not an absolutely definable quantity. That's why I switched from "happy" to "hopeful" in the previous response. But I also believe that there is value in discussing what constitutes valid assumptions or directions in literature--especially in terms of a specific cultural mindset or communal doctrine. A lot of time is spent on this list telling us that entire subsets of Mormon story are inherently devoid of real artistic or social value, and this whole question of happy ending plays into my disagreement with that premise. So Michael--I'm sorry for being annoying, but I see value in the broader discussion, and believe that it never hurts people to ask themselves questions like this. The answers people come to determine how they formulate their own powerful opinions on such matters. ===== Thom Duncan wrote: > > Does that not > > suggest that Mormons are almost required to tell stories of hope, or > > at least leave hope open as a real possible resolution beyond the > > bounds of the story? > >If those Mormons are more interested in following the cultural >impositions of their religion rather than the actual religion itself, >then yes. Just to make myself clear on the point--I said nothing about positive events or smiley faces or general frolicking. I said that hope for redemption is a point of Mormon doctrine in all but a very few cases. I don't think there's anything cultural about that; I think it's darned close to Mormon orthodox doctrine. If we believe in hope of redemption, that suggests to me that some aspect of hope is part of a Mormon mindset. If we tell stories true to our own mindset, then (with few exceptions) we will tend to tell stories that contain some hint or element of hope--or an acknowledgement that hope doesn't apply here; same effect. That doesn't mean positive resolution. And it certainly doesn't either require or preclude stories about any particular subject matter or with any particular emotional content--be it happy or sad. >Can someone please tell me what is happy ending in the story recounted >in Judges 19? Is this a rhetorical question? Your own claim is that any story can be read as having an uplifting component, so I assume that you believe this one to also contain such a component despite the disturbing violence inherent in the story. (A broad premise that I agree with, btw. Per some of Tom Johnson's comments in the Missionary Stories thread, I think meaning is found in the mind of the reader, thus nearly any interpretation is possible, including the idea that all stories can be read as uplifting. That's my point in suggesting that since Mormons believe in hope of redemption, that nearly any story informed by our religion will tend to acknowledge that hope. My primary purpose in responding to this thread is not to define what "happy ending" means, but to spur discussion about different ways that one can interpret hope or positive value out of even dark stories. And how one can intentionally include that hope.) I'd like to hear your positive reading of this story. I tend to believe that a positive reading isn't all that hard to make--especially if you go on to read Judges 20, which is the conclusion to the story. By your own definition, this story has a happy ending. 'If, after I've seen a film, or reading a story, I'm wondering, "No matter what happens to me, I'll never sink as low as that guy did," I consider it a happy ending.' Hopefully few of us will never sink low enough to rape a woman to death after first trying to rape her master. But I think there's a more directly positive reading of this story. In Judges 20 we see where the councils of the Isrealites got together and determined that they could not condone the sin of the people of Gibeah, so they went to war and destroyed both the city of Gibeah and the Benjamites who defended them in their sin. They did this despite the hardships of war, and they sought the counsel of the Lord before each attack (and received His counsel). Obeying the word of the Lord. Rooting sin out of your community even when it's hard. Showing compassion on those whose lives were devastated by the effects of sin. That's a lot of positive stuff, even in the midst of extreme violence and pain. Which is a point you've made before--violent scenes (physically or emotionally violent ones) do not necessarily embrace the violence itself as good or right or worthy of emulation, and are often useful in exposing powerful responses. I have nothing to argue about in that regard. Scott Parkin - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 20 Jun 2001 18:53:22 -0600 > If his fingers typed words against his will then I think he needs the > help of a trained professional and a long-term lease of a room with > very, very soft walls and a lock on the outside. > > More to point, if Mitchell had stated that his intent was to > illustrate the importance of wooly mountain goats in the economy of > ancient Rome, I would say that he failed in his intent. > Scott Parkin Okay Scott I'll bite. THE INTENT OF ANGEL OF THE DANUBE WAS.... (this reminds me of my years as a scientist when we would start writing up the experiment after being very excited about the results and what they mean and suggest, only to find out that the grandiose object you had was actually quite nebulous and when some pinhead editor forced you to put it in specific terms in a sentence or two, you realized that you haven't found the universal truth behind all the science in your field because your objective was just a specific question limited to experimentation in time and space, which will utimately limit your results to like conditions, and that you really can't say that you've found the science to explain all nature, like you had hoped to in the earlier drafts, but merely a couple or three years of experimentation that will sooner or later be questioned because you didn't take enough factors into account and/or it doesn't square with the generally accepted theories and with the specific theories about nature that one or two reviewers have in mind, and which theories they are certain hold the truth if you had just measured a few more things so you could have proved their theory right; until, ultimately, you end up throwing up your hands in the air and wish the pinhead editors would have done their own experiment instead of sit on their rears and pass judgement on those with enough gumption to actually do some experimentation, and end up deciding, hey, time is disposable so there is not much use worrying about water under the bridge or your past or present state in the higharchy of science, money, friends, etc., because you have to go on living and trust God will take care of your babies and hope that you grow old with half your health and all your brain (because you can't ask God for everything!) and in a few years you will probably decide thay you are just as biased as the editors and hopefully a little nearer the truth but possibly not, but did they have to be so mean about it, but we can all forgive them because what we were fighting over was temporal and temporary after all and if they decide they weren't mean just searching for truth then you can overlook that, but if they were on some powertrip then you will probably never have a discussion with them anyway, but this List has a lot of free discussion which I love very much, so at the risk of inspiring another week of post, I'll respond) THE OBJECTIVE WAS to put the life of an Austrian Missionary down on paper. Nobody would understand them otherwise. All the other things in the plot were secondary to that objective. Of course, fellow writers on the List have provided wonderfull theories of Barry's motivation, etc. and my poor attempts at getting it all right. Everybody's got a opinion and some of them contain wonderfull insights that may not have been evident to me at the time (I'm forgetful after all--"maybe, that was my intent after all.") I especially liked Cracroft's speech at the AML meeting because it convinced me that he knows Barry much better than I do and Barry is more likeable because of it. FOR THE RECORD. Scott Parkin did not inspire the Captain Scotty character, although the former confessed in one of his posts to doing the Scotty-esque behavior of staying in his Wohnung (apartment) when he didn't have the love. FOR THE RECORD II. Parkin's posts started saying that he was tired of reading missionary fiction and ended up saying he was going to have to write his own book to tell the way it really was from his POV. I have received many posts from RMs saying they were going to do the same thing. I love it. I see a great wealth of stories out there--too many for a dozen Dutchers. FOR THE RECORD III. How real were Barry's adventures? This from a post from an Austrian missionary that I received just yesterday. "everything you put in there is so true to life. I even know elders that pulled the same death bed stunt at the end of the mission just to see if anything would really happen if they went out a really preached for a day. But alas we know that even if you did get all those referrals baptisms in Austria were really by chance and not necessarily who you were or what you did. I knew elders like the ones who broke all the rules who had ten baptisms before they went home. It was a really cool mission. I go back [] from time to time. Much has changed in twenty years yet in talking to the missionaries not one thing is different in the work. I don't have any friends who had even close to the strange experiences that we had in Austria. You should write another one just like it and contact some of us who went before for some even more bazaar stories. I could tell you tales of one missionary that would make Barry and the boys look like saints." QED. Alan Mitchell, Angel of the Danube - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Authorial Intent vs Narrative Control Date: 21 Jun 2001 01:59:08 -0400 Scott said: > In other words, I had put in a lot of both active and passive thought > time on it. So when I say it popped out fully formed, I'm only > telling part of the story. It popped out after many hours of both > structured and unstructured consideration. You seem to imply here that we are always writing our stories in the unconscious hours of our mind, and when a story just "pops" out it is because it had been churning and turning deep inside us for a while, and finally emerged. I think that's tenable, sure. But what about a little different idea--what about writing by faith, and receiving as revelation the stories to tell, down to the sentences? Like Joseph Smith's translating. Surely we all sometimes feel a sentence formulate itself in our heads. For example, just tonight I was thinking and thinking about how to write a part of this narrative I'm working on, and then in the kitchen while cutting a piece of sweet potato pie, the sentence unfurled itself. Now, you could say yes, the unconscious parts of your mind finally unravelled it for you, like suddenly remembering a friend's name you'd forgotten, but could you see such experiences as revelation? You pray for writing help, and little by little the words and sentences are given to you. When things begin to naturally fit together a little too neatly, I sometimes wonder if I'm not being aided. Anyway, just a thought. We seemed to have reached an agreement on many things. > > I think the same thing is true of Udall's experience. He'd been > working on that story for a very long time--half of his life, > apparently. Exactly. >He'd learned an awful lot in the time since he first > conceptualized the story and the time he sat down to write. Yes, he > was driven by that original intent from his high school days. But > once you began to write, a different process takes over. You write > scenes as you feel they need to be written, and your original intent > is challenged as you actually begin to realize the scenes and > settings and situations. If you're even a competent craftsman you'll > probably do a lot of things differently than you originally intended, > because the words you've now written create a new context for your > story and force you to rethink how and what your own scenes mean to > you, and how that changes the story you want to tell. You create a > feedback loop with your own text and have a sort of active creative > dialog with yourself. That's all I really meant by unintentions. > > This is not the same thing as hearing voices or disconnecting your > brain. It's not mystical, though it can be deeply spiritual. Have you ever felt the burning spirit upon you as you peck and punch at the keyboard? I'm just curious how much revelation factors into the latter-day saint writing experience. either putative revelation or not. Re the mystical element, let's go back to Kubla Khan. Are you familiar with Coleridge's writing of it? Apparently he was sort of dreaming, and it all came to him, line for line, and he wrote it down (or he was on opium and it happened). How he wrote it is perhaps more important to the romantic poets than the actual poem itself. Harold Bloom seems to be a big critic of mystical poets. Wordsworth, Blake, even Joseph Smith--for him these are all inspired poets. Some people clearly have a muse while others do not. Why? If it's not so easy to explain, then why be antagonistic to mysticism? > So for me, original intent and final intent are almost always > different. I don't think that means a failure of art, but rather a > success of craft. If there's art to be found in the story, I trust > that it will either survive my tinkering, or else be enhanced by it. This difference--between the original intent and the final intent--is, for me, the most intriguing part of writing. How does language do that to me? It resists me. Resistentialist words. They won't bend--they bend me. What a fascinating dialogue with the self. >But being pulled in different directions during the writing process is not the same as losing control over > your text. Being pulled in different directions means your text is alive. It is breathing, like a new babe, sometimes screaming. > My little cat story is unlikely to ever be confused with art. It's a > small, genre short story that Thom Duncan would probably decry as > manipulative since I kill a furry creature (the POV cat) and expect > the reader to feel sad at that loss. I think the cat story sounds great. If ever one could truly penetrate the feline mind, I would love to see what is in there. (though i realize your story is perhaps more metaphoric.) > But it did change quite a bit from initial concept to final draft. A > friend recently read it and commented, "Wow, you really > sledge-hammered that Christ metaphor, didn't you?" Do you buy into Freud's take on creative writing? Basically, if you're unfamiliar with his essay on creative writers (I just read one essay years ago), creative writing is a kind of disease--the writer acts out his fantasies and gives play to those forces troubling him on the inside, the subconscious demons inside him. He writes to let these troubling subtexts out. I need to reread him to remember more accurately, but the gist of it, in reference to your sledge-hammering, suggests that when Udall brutalizes that boy, he very well *means* to do it--the text isn't pulling him in that direction, the subconscious forces of his pained inward mind are raising the sledge-hammer at the boy (is that a comma splice, by the way?). I think one could make an interesting psychoanalytical reading of that text in light of Udall's bus experience--Udall feels guilty for his white-society effect on the apaches; as he's riding away on that bus he sees the sadness in the boy's eyes, and udall desires to eradicate his own guilt. the guilt manifests itself as hate--he must brutalize the boy to get rid of him, kill the boy, actually. when the boy is eliminated, so is the guilt. I'm very convinced of this little theory of mine. Perhaps I'll develop it and send it to Udall. I think he would resist it--who wants to be told something like this? Or perhaps with your cat story, if I were to ever read it, I might find some twisted psychological force at play, and then how would you react to the idea that you very well *meant* to pound every sledge-hammer you did? My point is that perhaps the text doesn't pull us in unintended directions; the subconscious forces of our minds do, and because those directions are so different from our initial intentions, we think they are foreign, maybe mystical, or revelatory, but they really are not. Is this along the same lines as what you were saying? > Now I thought I'd been reasonably subtle with it (except for the > cat's final living words which were pretty obvious, even to me). But > after hearing that comment I reread my own story and discovered that > the text had, in fact, at least a half-dozen clear references. I > guess I did sledgehammer it. I'd claim that it was unintentional > except that I had intended a Christ metaphor all along. I'm dying to know here. Sorry, excuse my conjectulation. is the mouse christ, and the cat pontious pilate? > If I understand your definition of art correctly, hold on, this wasn't really *my* definition. I was only intrigued by the idea. I wouldn't ever be pretentious enough to tell the world what the definition of art is. >that suggests that the elements I discovered after the fact represent art more fully > that the ones that served the same purpose but were intentionally > placed. Is that correct? I don't know. I think that's what I've been saying, yes. But after straightening out what we meant by original and final intents, I think this difference somewhat complicates things. > > How much in control is the author? A lot more than most people think, > in my opinion. I won't claim that every element is intentional, but I > do think the author intends some broad concepts that are sometimes > reinforced or contrasted in unintended ways. And the successful > artist is the author who trusts his own creative process and > instincts, thus facilitating the hidden elements. Again, when we speak of unintentions, I would include the dynamic feedback loop that you hinted to earlier. The idea, I suppose (though someday I'll have to ask Plante to straighten it out for me), is that one begins thinking one thing and ends up thinking another, and that is the magic of art. Tom Johnson - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Infinite Readings Date: 21 Jun 2001 02:17:23 -0400 Laurel, I was attempting to read your post but slowed up half way through, then half way through again, then half way again--in fact, I could never seem to get to the bottom of it, always getting half way there, so that ....just kidding. Thanks for the intelligent explanation there. it always helps to have a mathematician on board. perhaps you can recommend me a non-mathematical book on infinity. i've heard that some guy went crazy studying it. anyway, ciao. Tom Johnson - 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] Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd Date: 21 Jun 2001 03:56:57 -0600 Stephen Goode wrote: > I found your remarks to be interesting, but possibly a little too strident > for public airing. It isn't helpful or informative to me to see anyone let > fly with strong opinions that don't really contain any constructive points. It was helpful to me. Helpful to know I wasn't the only one who didn't like a film I was "supposed" to like or I am a reprobate. Helpful to know that my tastes are similar to someone of acknowledged talent. Helpful to know that there wasn't just something wrong with me, that I'm just too out of tune to feel the Spirit when I'm a-spose to. To know that I have company with my demand for high standards, even when General Authorities are involved. Heck, I don't want to be excommunicated alone. -- 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: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 21 Jun 2001 02:13:31 -0400 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 6:21 AM > Tom Johnson wrote: > > ...a bunch of stuff that clarifies something for me. > > It looks to me like we're having two completely different > conversations, and arguing points that neither one of us appears to > have made. Sorry, I think I was a little careless in reading your post. They are so very long sometimes. >To a very real degree, I think we're each re-arguing prior > discussions with other people where we're not sure our prior points > got across. > > I never said that the author's opinion of the meaning of a story was > any more valid than any other reader's; but I also don't believe it's > any less valid. I believe that once the story is offered to the > public, the author becomes just another reader when discussions of > meaning come along. But we often seem to be impatient with an > author's attempt to explain his own intent, and I find that troubling > since it's one of the many things I like in discussions of > literature. I like to hear the author talk about their own > works--both as creator and as interpreter. Why don't we ask Alan Mitchell if he feels hesitant to explain his intent. If so, if you do feel hesitant, why? If not, then hey, what was your intent with _Angel of the Danube_? And what does it *mean*? > It seems to me that the author's intent or craft is often completely > dismissed as having any value, and that rankles me as both a reader > and writer. I don't hold to either extreme. All views--including the > author's--have value to me in helping me to interpret the stories I > read or view, be the discussion about craft, intent, or meaning. I think many readers are interesting in hearing the writer behind-the-scenes. It's mostly the stuffy english professors trading litcrit like kitty-litter with each other that find this stuff less instructive. For writers it's can be like a pep talk. > > > No, there are not an infinite number of routes through Mitchell's > story. But I think there can be a whole bunch of them. That was my > only point. I think it would be more interesting to discuss these different routes rather than the idea of the different routes. > Mathematically, infinity plus or minus one is still infinite. In > fact, until you attempt to subtract infinity from itself (not as > simple an equation as you might think--you have to define a lot of > terms and assumptions to even set up the problem), the answer will > still tend to be infinite. My fault. Wrong word. I should have used "total." By the way, is God's power infinite, or is it total? > (It's irrelevant to the discussion, but I knew that my wife the > mathematician would never forgive me if I didn't point out that > infinity is more a concept than a number, and simple mathematics > breaks down real fast as we approach it.) > interesting--newtonian physics breaks down as we near the speed of light, and simple mathematics breaks down as we approach infinity. What happens to the words inside our head when we near one of these extremes? surely we have our literary equivalents. Something like, words begin appearing in reverse syntax as the book .....ahhh, you know what, i just realized that i'm using this listserv as an escape for postponing my own writing. So i shall stop now. Thank you for the discussion. It has been very helpful. Perhaps I will respond to some of your other points, but I pretty much agree with what you say. Tom Johnson - 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] UDALL, _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ (SL Tribune) Date: 21 Jun 2001 06:37:36 -0700 Newsweek has also just printed a very positive review of _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ by Brady Udall. It's in the June 25, 2001 issue, p. 91 (in the U.S. edition): "A Miracle You Can Believe In: Sweet-and-sour 'Edgar Mint' is a solid success" by Malcolm Jones Also at the Newsweek website at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/588388.asp 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] Movie Happy Endings Date: 21 Jun 2001 06:55:29 -0700 Thom, do the following films have happy endings? Casablanca * Gone With The Wind * [my ex-wife thought these 2 films did not have happy endings. But I won't hold it against you if you agree with her. :) ] Somewhere in Time Vertigo The Age of Innocence Chinatown Breaker Morant (Australia, 1980, dir. by Bruce Beresford) Gallipoli (Australia, 1981, dir. by Peter Weir, starring Mel Gibson) Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings Date: 21 Jun 2001 11:14:29 -0600 Oh, I agree, Kathleen Turner's character was more selfish and stupid, but the fact that I didn't like or sympathize with either of them really undermined the movie for me. Even the frame story, which Thom holds out as the happy ending, rang hollow to me because I couldn't believe that the main story would change anyone's mind about divorce, unless they thought "Well, I guess my wife and I are both twisted psychopaths--and she's worse than I am, so I guess we better stay married." Russell Asplund russa@candesa.com >From dmichael@wwno.com Wed Jun 20 04:12:31 2001 Russ Asplund wrote: > War of the Roses, however, just stunk. The only thing I came away thinking > was that stupid and selfish people deserve each other. Alright, this is the second time that _War of the Roses_ was characterized as having TWO utterly selfish characters in it. I beg to differ. Michael Douglas' character was not particularly selfish. True, he didn't react so intelligently to his wife's selfishness (understandably so), but he tried often to reach out to her and patch things up. It was Kathleen Turner's character that was utterly selfish. And what made the movie stink was how pointless her selfishness was. There was literally no justification for her sudden rejection of him. Her actions were pointless, and that made the whole movie pointless. -- D. Michael Martindale - 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] _Irreantum_ Poetry Submissions Date: 21 Jun 2001 13:09:24 -0700 [MOD: For purposes of clarity, I had to replace Harlow's subject line, but can't resist sharing it: E-male d-zaster. Pleze rescind yur pomes for Eery Ant Hums] I had an e-mail problem at the beginning of this month, and lost some of the pomes I was working with for Eerie Aunts Hum. If you've sent me something since February that's not scheduled for the Spring issue, please resend--especially if you've sent revisions. I'll even look at new submissions for this or future issues. Thanks, Harlow Clark ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings Date: 21 Jun 2001 22:28:43 >So, help me out here if you can. What is bad about something being >manipulative and when are things not manipulative? > >Anyone? > >Rex Goode > True, the point of all art is to manipulate us somehow -- to make us feel some thing or other. When we call something "manipulative" and use that word in the pejorative sense, we mean that it got emotions out of us that it didn't deserve -- that YES, it made us cry, but it had to cheat to do it. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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] DUTCHER'S _The Prophet_ (comp) Date: 21 Jun 2001 17:52:12 -0500 >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Wed Jun 20 09:47:58 2001 Annette Lyon wrote: > > I'm not sure what I think. On one hand, I pointed out that polygamy is a > huge story in an of itself, and might overwhelm the rest of the film to do > it justice. But I think he has a point, too. Joseph really struggled with > the doctrine, and it devastated Emma. Not only that, but it was a major contributor to his martyrdom. Don't forget that at the time time of Joseph's death, the practice of polygamy was a secret doctrine. The rank and file Mormon, and some of the leaders, didn't know Joseph and others were practicing it. One of the claims of the _Nauvoo Expositor_ was that Joseph was practicing "spiritual wifery." Joseph stopping the printing of the Expositor lead directly to his being imprisoned in Carthage. And we all know what happened in Carthage. Thom Duncan >From cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Wed Jun 20 11:09:58 2001 Annette writes: Joseph really struggled with the doctrine, and it devastated Emma. On national TV with Larry King, President Hinckley stated, concerning polygamy: "It is not doctrine." I agree with Annette however that one cannot really write about Joseph Smith without dealing with polygamy somehow. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 >From RichardDutcher@aol.com Wed Jun 20 14:43:58 2001 Sorry, Annette, screenplay elements on "The Prophet" are top secret. I'll have to keep you and your husband in suspense for a while. But I don't think you'll be disappointed. Richard - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: GAs in Church Pubs (comp) Date: 21 Jun 2001 17:51:56 -0500 >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Wed Jun 20 10:06:24 2001 > >From eedh@emstar2.net Mon Jun 18 15:52:16 2001 > > Well, it's official. I just called the Friend office and was told that > they are in the process of returning all fiction pieces to the authors. > It might be several months before we receive them. The Friend bought > two of my fiction stories in the past year. The woman I spoke to said I > could begin submitting them somewhere else. This is sad. I sold my first story to them, too. Thom Duncan >From tlaulusa@core.com Wed Jun 20 21:15:10 2001 I would much rather see it in print. But I wonder how well such a venture will do? Many Mormons will see this move in the church magazines as a directive from the authorities to shun fiction all together. Magazines can't be a cheap project to put together! Tracie Laulusa > Am I nuts? Do you think there would be a market for this kind of thing? A > couple of the people I have talked to have indicated that this might be more > feasible as an on-line project. I don't know though. There's just > something about glossy paper and the smell of fresh ink . . . > > Sharlee Glenn >From thj5@columbia.edu Wed Jun 20 23:08:34 2001 Konnie wrote: "My thought is what good is a magazine for kids that they are not going to want to read because of all the dry GA articals in the Friend magazine." I think we might be disparaging this new policy when in reality we should be celebrating it. Think of all those GAs who were businessmen and surgeons instead of aspiring writers--now they've got to put pen to paper. They've got to pull up that blank Microsoft Word screen and begin *writing*. Surely this is the Lord's idea here--he's saying hey, you guys need to learn to write, so I'm going to make you do it. Yes! Yes! Think of it....what if one day an apostle actually became a novelist, or a novelist an apostle? wouldn't that be the most wonderful thing to happen to the church since brigham young? Tom [MOD: I seem to recall that Neal A. Maxwell wrote a novel...] >From dmichael@wwno.com Thu Jun 21 02:31:29 2001 Konnie Enos wrote: > So what is going to happen to the church mags when people > are no longer interested in reading them? Will the publishers even know > that they aren't being read? How many are going to let their > subscriptions expire because of the change? Or are you going to keep it > coming in because "good members have them in their house"? Shall I tell you my family's dirty little secret? We receive all three church magazines--and already no one reads them. Maybe I'll take this opportunity to not renew our subscriptions as a protest of this new policy. We go to church and receive sermons in sacrament meeting. We go to Sunday School and get lessons there. We go to priesthood/Relief Society meeting and get lessons there. We have family home evening and we're supposed to give a lesson there. We go home teaching and give a lesson everyone is already supposed to have read in the Ensign, and that has already been given in priesthood meeting to all the priesthood holders. The women visit teach and give the same lesson to each other--the same lesson they already heard in Relief Society. All of it correlated so we can go home after church and talk some more about the same lesson every one of us has already heard. Please! Give me a break! I'm considering skipping out after the sacrament and home Sunday shooling my family. Now we're going to duplicate this at the general church level. We get eight to ten hours of General Authorities talking at General Conference. Periodically at stake conference we get a General Authority speaking. There are books galore written by General Authorities that we give each other at birthdays, anniversaries, Mother's/Father's Day, and Christmas. There are already articles in the church magazines from General Authorities. Do we need more? Do they have that much more to say? How monotonic must teaching the Gospel be? > Maybe we do > need to start a new church magazine that will have the stories that make > reading the Friend so enjoyable. We have the talent to fill such a > magazine and I believe we have the know how but do we have the money? Who has the know-how? That's the most important part--even more than the money. If the know-how is there, it's not so hard to get the money to follow. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com >From annette@lyfe.com Thu Jun 21 09:33:44 2001 Anna Wight wrote: I would like to see a magazine more member friendly. I guess I would really like to see a RS mag. One that people can actually contribute to. Is there any out there? And I don't mean online ones. I want hard copy that comes to my door. If I had money, I'd start one. There used to be a RS magazine (I think that was even its name), and it had all the works, including fiction and advertisements. I don't remember when it was finally disbanded, but it was around for about half of the 1900s--at least through WWII, I think. Anyone know why the church stopped publishing it? And as for Sharlee's plans for an LDS _Cricket_ PLEASE go for it! And my vote is for paper and ink, not an e-zine. It does kids good to really read, which I don't think happens at any deep level on a screen. Annette Lyon - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] S.L. Tribune on "Saturday's Voyeur" Date: 20 Jun 2001 14:29:41 -0600 Springtime for Houston: Utah's porn czar takes center stage in 'Saturday's Voyeur' BY CELIA R. BAKER THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The annual suspense is over. At least part of it. "Saturday's Voyeur 2001," the latest edition of Salt Lake Acting Company's wildly popular parody of Utah peculiarities, returns to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," as SLAC officials are fond of saying -- and this year's "chosen ones" are now a matter of record. The story of Utah's own porn czarina, Paula Houston, won out over stiff competition from such Utah anomalies as the holy wars between Salt Lake City's rival newspapers, and the continuing gyrations of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Houston's story -- set by SLAC in the seedy world of the burlesque -- has a few bumps and grinds of its own -- at least in this version. Sharing the stage with newcomer Houston will be Johnny Lingo, a Utah institution of longer standing. (For the uninitiated, there's more on Johnny coming up later.) Also getting into the act is Gayle Guzicka, based on Eagle Forum chair Gayle Ruzicka, and a bevy of burlesque beauties. The show opens in previews Wednesday; official opening is Saturday. "Voyeur" creators Nancy Borgenicht and Allen Nevins, also the artistic producers at SLAC, find subversive glee in making people laugh at their chosen targets, but they are serious about their commitment to rousing rabble and providing an alternative voice in the community. Getting the annual show on the stage takes arduous work. All year, the two read several newspapers each day, clipping articles with satiric potential, and sorting them into piles by topic. By December, the height of the stacks begins to indicate which stories captured the public fancy. Nevins and Borgenicht go into seclusion to begin hammering out script and song-parodies, an intense process that continues right up until the show opens in June. Borgenicht crafts songs, using existing show tunes or original work by music director David Evanoff, and lyrics drawn from the year's headlines. Nevins structures the script. "The piles define the piece," says Borgenicht. "It's frightening, because expectations are so great. But the material tells us what to do." The pile of clippings about Utah's newly appointed "obscenity and pornography complaints ombudsman" wasn't this year's tallest, but the story had that special SLAC something. "The news wars are unfinished business, and that story is complicated," says Borgenicht. "And the Olympics? Like everyone else, we're sick of it. But the porn czar -- ahhhh. That has grasped the entire world's imagination, and confirmed everything they want to believe about Utah -- " "That we're weird, that we drill holes in people's heads, that we have multiple wives -- " adds Nevins. This year's show took off when the creators realized it was "a love story about porn, revenge and redemption." Burlesque was the obvious theatrical genre. News stories about "juice bars" in South Salt Lake -- they circumvent laws about stripping in clubs by not serving alcohol -- were a natural tie-in. "Burlesque is a genre with a long history of being shut down -- considered by the repressed as being evil and titillating," says Borgenicht. She notes that the style is enjoying a current vogue, evident in revivals of "Chicago" and "Cabaret," and even in the prime-time telecast of the Tony Awards, in which a clutch of male strippers showed the live audience "The Full Monty," and the folks at home saw all but what can be covered by a red G-string. SLAC's show honors the conventions of burlesque by using a proscenium stage, act curtain, Master of Ceremonies, scantily clad women and female impersonators. Nevins jokes that he followed "the 'Hee Haw' model" in writing the script: "pretty girls, fat men, fart jokes -- and a Shakespearean plot line." Playing on a news story that quoted Houston as saying she watched Disney movies with her nieces to give herself an escape from the smutty material she must examine as part of her day job, Nevins tried to imagine other things she might watch in her spare time. He hit upon "Johnny Lingo," a film produced by Brigham Young University in 1969, and used by the LDS church and other entities as a tool for teaching the importance of self-esteem. Many who grew up in Utah during the 1970s and '80s saw the campy film about a Polynesian trader and his "eight-cow woman," Mahana. For newcomers and those who missed out somehow, this year's "Saturday's Voyeur" features an abbreviated stage version of the original film as a prelude to hijinks to come. Briefly, Mahana is a marriageable maiden whose father considers too ugly to bring a good bride-price. Handsome Johnny (played at SLAC by Jim Pitts), transforms the bedraggled Mahana into a raving beauty by offering Dad the unprecedented sum of eight cows for her hand in marriage. "It's a sweet story, but it has definite political correctness questions," says Borgenicht. "The fact that you can buy a woman for eight cows -- or a lot cheaper -- is kind of disturbing," adds Nevins. "The whole idea is that it takes a man for a woman to have value." In Nevins' conception, Houston becomes romantically obsessed with the muscular islander, and eventually meets this man of her dreams in South Salt Lake City at Johnny Lingo's Naked Truth Juice Bar. Jeannette Puhich, who portrays Houston, says that what happens next is "frightening, but fun." Puhich watched Houston in televised appearances, and says she has "a persona that's likable. There wasn't some huge personality quality that was something I could spiel at all. She's very normal." So, Puhich's character starts from the known facts of a 40-ish woman, never married and supposedly a virgin, and goes from there. Knitting needles, kept handy in the hairstyle, indicate a favorite hobby, and "find new uses," according to Puhich. Houston, reached by telephone at her office, says she is "amazed" at being made the subject of "Saturday's Voyeur," but considers such happenings part of the price of a high-profile position: "Comedians look for humor wherever they can find it. It's part of being in a public position. I don't see it as being related to me. It's just a fictional story playing off my job and me. It's not really me." The basic question this year's "Voyeur" asks is whether this woman, or anyone, is qualified to define a community standard for pornography. "It's not about pornography," says Nevins. "No one endorses porn. This is not an endorsement of hard-core porn, but a look at the quaint definitions we have for the term." Borgenicht cites a news story in which youthful picketers on Utah's Capitol Hill variously defined pornography as anything from Michelangelo's "David" to "anything you wouldn't want to see with your parents." "When you are so repressed, so terrified, it can become all you think about," Borgenicht says. "It's the repressed person who gets addicted. The normal person gets bored." "It's not about vilifying any particular group," says Nevins, referencing the fact that for many years "Voyeur" played almost exclusively off Mormon culture. "We're all connected. The in-jokes are in the specific things that happened this year." Borgenicht says that burlesquing the headlines is nothing new, and points to this year's big Tony Award-winner, "The Producers," as an example. "If Hitler can be made funny, then pretty much nothing is sacred." Porno, Lingo at SLAC "Saturday's Voyeur 2001," written and directed by Nancy Borgenicht and Allen Nevins, is presented by Salt Lake Acting Company, 168 W. 500 North, Salt Lake City, opening in previews Wednesday through Friday; press opening is Saturday. The show continues through Aug. 26. Wednesday and Thursday shows are at 7:30 p.m.; Fridays and Saturdays are at 8 p.m.; Sunday shows are 2 and 7 p.m. Music director is David Evanoff; choreographer is Cynthia Fleming; set design by Keven Myhre; light design by Stephen Terry; costume design by Jennifer McGrew. Tickets to previews are $24.50 for seats or tables. Regular tickets are $29.50; $34.50 at tables. Patrons are invited to bring their own picnic dinners. Call (801) 363-SLAC or (801) 355-ARTS. For mature audiences. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] Orson Scott Card Date: 21 Jun 2001 15:24:12 -0600 > I just checked out _Ender's Shadow_ and _Speaker for the Dead_ for my > 12-year-old son who finished _Ender's Game_ last week and has been on me > ever since to get "something else by that Card guy." Given my other > commitments and priorities (and my general disinterest in Science Fiction), > I'm not sure if I will ever get around to reading these particular books. > But I *did* read (and thoroughly enjoyed) Card's introductions. I have > tremendous admiration for Orson Scott Card as a writer (even if his subject > matter doesn't always appeal to me . . . I lied! I picked up _Ender's Shadow_ just out of curiosity and read 65 pages before I set it down again. And I can't wait to get back to it. Of course, I'm still hanging out with the street urchins in Rotterdam--no high tech sci-fi stuff yet. I'll let you know if I make it through the whole book. I also started _Seventh Son_. Wow! Card is a master storyteller, ain't no doubt about it. ("Little Peggy was very careful with the eggs. She rooted her hand through the straw till her fingers bumped something hard and heavy. She gave no never mind to the chicken drips. After all, when folk with babies stayed at the roadhouse, Mama never even crinkled her face at their most spetackler diapers . . . ") I've seen a few "spetackler diapers" in my own time! :-) 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: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings Date: 21 Jun 2001 16:53:27 -0600 "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > > > When we call something "manipulative" and use that word in the pejorative > sense, we mean that it got emotions out of us that it didn't deserve -- that > YES, it made us cry, but it had to cheat to do it. You are correct, Sir. In one sentence, you've described what I mean by manipulative. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] Relief Society Magazine (was: GAs in Church Pubs) Date: 21 Jun 2001 16:54:30 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > There used to be a RS magazine (I think that was even its name), and it had > all the works, including fiction and advertisements. I don't remember when > it was finally disbanded, but it was around for about half of the 1900s--at > least through WWII, I think. Anyone know why the church stopped publishing > it? And as for Sharlee's plans for an LDS _Cricket_ PLEASE go for it! And my > vote is for paper and ink, not an e-zine. It does kids good to really read, > which I don't think happens at any deep level on a screen. I love that magazine (The Relief Society Magazine). I acquired a bunch of them in weird ways and I've been considering actively collecting them. The magazine started in 1914 and I have issues as late as 1958. I'm not sure how or why or when it folded. Jacob Proffitt - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 21 Jun 2001 16:46:24 -0700 <<< I think we might be disparaging this new policy when in reality we should = be celebrating it. Think of all those GAs who were businessmen and surgeons instead of aspiring writers--now they've got to put pen to paper. They've got to pull up that blank Microsoft Word screen and begin *writing*. = Surely this is the Lord's idea here--he's saying hey, you guys need to learn to write, so I'm going to make you do it. Yes! Yes! Think of it....what if = one day an apostle actually became a novelist, or a novelist an apostle? wouldn't that be the most wonderful thing to happen to the church since brigham young?>>> Actually, I predict about 90% of the GA-written stuff will be edited = transcripts of speeches given in various places around the Church = (especially at Ricks and BYU). One of the main duties of Ensign editors = will be to procure and review tapes or transcripts of all the words that = proceed forth out of GAs' mouths. But, with the new policy, maybe editors = will be able to assign more actual original articles (as an Ensign editor, = I wasn't privy to how often GAs were assigned to write original articles = for the Ensign, but I don't think it happened much).=20 <<< Now we're going to duplicate this at the general church level. We get eight to ten hours of General Authorities talking at General Conference. Periodically at stake conference we get a General Authority speaking. There are books galore written by General Authorities that we give each other at birthdays, anniversaries, Mother's/Father's Day, and Christmas. There are already articles in the church magazines from General Authorities. Do we need more? Do they have that much more to say? How monotonic must teaching the Gospel be?>>> I agree with these sentiments. Two full issues a year are already devoted = to general conference talks, and I bet the percentage of material written = by GAs in the other 10 annual issues was already near 30%. It already felt = like PLENTY. Chris Bigelow - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Happy Endings Date: 21 Jun 2001 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT) "Repulsion", directed by Roman Polanski (or anything else directed by the guy--"Chinatown", "Rosemary's Baby", "The Tenant", "Tess"; he must be the most despairing filmmaker alive.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.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] Manipulative Endings Date: 21 Jun 2001 19:04:58 -0700 Eric, Thanks for your comment about the idea that something is manipulative in the pejorative sense if it doesn't earn the emotions it evokes. If you or anyone would care to elaborate, I'd be interesting in why the Testaments film did not earn the emotion it evoked. Of course, that would have to come from someone who felt manipulated. I did not. To borrow a different film, perhaps the quintessential tear-jerker--the Lana Turner version of "Imitation of Life"--I can't see it without a supply of Kleenex. I'm probably more emotional than the common man, and a story about someone pretending to be someone else hits fairly close to home for me. Your comment has made me think about whether the folks at Universal earned my tears. I could easily use some of my other tear-jerker favorites, which would include "Gone with the Wind," "Field of Dreams," "Testaments," and Dutcher's "Brigham City," but I'll go with something a l know better. "Imitation of Life" is true to its title in that many of the characters are either putting on some kind of pretense or living in ways that the average person can't relate to. The actors are also well-chosen for their parts, Larger-than-life Lana Turner, Handsomer-than-realistic John Gavin, and Teenyboppier-than-you-can-stomach Sandra Dee. The seemingly main plot of Lana Turner's character trying to claw her way to the top of broadway was contrasted against her African American housekeeper's real problem of having an ultra-fair-skinned daughter who wants the world to believe she is white. I could easily get through the shenanigans of the lily-white characters without a whimper. Nothing in it makes me care whether Lora Meredith (LT's character) gets the part or the producer. Rather than feeling sorry for Sandra Dee's breaking heart when she realizes John Gavin doesn't love her, I just want to laugh, but whenever Sarah Jane Johnson acts ashamed of her sainted mother Annie, I reach for the tissues. The contrasts are so poignant, yet obvious, that I am wondering if those who found "Testaments" manipulative would also find "Imitation of Life" manipulative. How does a filmmaker earn my feelings? If "Imitation of Life" earned my feelings, how? It was long. It was expensive. It spanned lifetimes. It had a solo by Mahalia Jackson. It had a racial them that was controversial in its time. It had big-name stars. It was hyped. The tears don't sneak up on you. You know when you're supposed to cry. You know when you're supposed to be enraged. In other films, I know when I'm supposed to be enraged, scared, amused, everything. I knew all of those things about "Brigham City" too. I'm a sucker for those moments, so it doesn't take much to earn it from me. So, my continuing question is: How does a film, or book, or whatever "earn" my emotions, particularly when I give them so freely? Rex Goode As an aside, the Claudette Colbert version was interesting, but not as emotional. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MHoltTsutsui@aol.com (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Mormon Mag for Kids (was: GAs in Church Pubs) Date: 22 Jun 2001 15:08:39 -0500 In a message dated 6/20/2001 1:17:56 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 glennsj@inet-1.com writes:=20 <>=20 Especially for children!=A0 A magazine that can be savored, not just used in= an=20 upright position when no one else is on the computer..one that can go to=20 Sacrament meeting...the beach...ride in the car....=20 Marie Tsutsui=20 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Rolly & Wells & GAs & Church Magazine Writing Date: 21 Jun 2001 23:33:14 -0500 With thanks to a friend who shared the actual SLTrib article, I see that I was taken for a ride and jumped to confusions. As I mentioned, I thought I recollected that Rolly & Wells were a humorous combo. It turns out that I recollected correctly. I just didn't get it right. In reading the entire piece, I have come to understand that it consists of a number of interesting tidbits (four, to be exact--are they edible?) strewn together in a rather lighthearted way. Obviously, the portable toilet parked at the same spot for four months in a 48 hour parking zone, while funny, has nothing to do with Mormon letters. (It does have a happy ending, Thom?) Ditto, the 80-year-old with the 1980 vehicle who was offended that the motor vehicle registration fee was based on age. But, where I got taken was in the presentation of the excerpt I first saw. Important parts were missing. I feel I was intentionally misled. The memo was about an emphasis in the authorship of Church magazine articles by prophets, apostles, and other authorities in general. It was subtitled, "The Ultimate Editor." But the big headline said: ROLLY & WELLS: Old Elms Get The Ax in a Power Play So I began my misunderstanding by thinking that the Old Elms getting the Ax had something to do with prophets, apostles, and other authorities in general. My interest was immediately piqued by the inclusion in the title that there was a Power Play involved. After all, there is a lot of power here, after a manner of writing. Then, I got confused. How could the Old Elms have gotten the Ax if they were now the ones writing the articles for the magazines. Were the editors making the Power Play? The headline seemed backwards. And so, silly me, I thought it might be humorous. (Backwards, to me, is sometimes funny. Clowns taste funny, too.) And with a name like Rolly & Wells, well, what more evidence did I need. So I fired off the misleading excerpt to the AML List with a casual remark that it might be a joke. (Sometimes you just have to take what you can get.) Now, I am absolutely mortified to read confessions of a lack of interest in the writing abilities of these revered men. It's all my own fault. I caused it. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do it. I truly hope that none of you, my friends, lose faith in our leaders on account of my shortcomings, which aren't so short after all. And all because the title had nothing to do with the story about the letter from the editor to the editors. The Old Elms that got the Ax in a Power Play were six real 50-foot-high Siberian elm trees that got taken down by Utah Power and Light because they were too close to a 46,000-volt transmission line. Now there's a powerful story. Larry Jackson P.S. to Annette Lyon who said: "There used to be a RS magazine ... I don't remember when it was finally disbanded, but it was around ... at least through WWII, I think. Anyone know why the church stopped publishing it?" Dear Annette: After the end of WWII in 1970, there was a great shortage of paper, which was the result of the great shortage of trees spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The following year, 1971, the RS magazine was discontinued, along with the Instructor magazine. It was the end of the Era of Improvement as we know it. In their place, came the Ensign (complete with pronunciation instructions), the New Era (to replace the old one?), and the Friend (which we all are to each other). And that's why there are three magazines today in the Church. (I made up the part about the trees and the paper.) Larry ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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 New Products: Help for Missionaries, Young Children and Reflections on Emma Smith: Kent Larsen Date: 21 Jun 2001 22:06:08 -0500 Kent Larsen Reflections on Emma Smith: Kent Larsen 20Jun01 US NY NYC A4 [From Mormon-News] Help for Missionaries, Young Children and Reflections on Emma Smith NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- Former Provo Missionary Training Center president Ed J. Pinegar has produced a new book to help missionaries learn to succeed on their missions. "The Ultimate Missionary Companion" is meant as a guide for missionaries that will help them be more successful. That guide is joined in the new books this week by "Prayer Time" a board book on prayer for young readers and by an author's reflections on Emma Smith. Unfortunately, the board book sounds like it has missed the mark slightly. Normally, board books are meant for children that are too young to sit still for more than a few pages and who may destroy those pages, if left to their own devices. But Deseret Book has added 'advanced stories for older readers' to this one for some reason. Also new this week is author Buddy Youngren's look at the fascinating life of Emma Hale Smith Bidamon, the 'elect lady of Mormonism' whose refusal to join Brigham Young in the trek to Utah has long puzzled the average LDS Church member. Youngren attempts to dispel some of the confusion in his 'reflections.' Also new is a romance novel from Deseret Book, "Masquerade," the paperback version of Mormon historian Michael Quinn's "Same-Sex Dymanics" and a novel by Blaine & Brenton Yorgason. New and recent products: The Ultimate Missionary Companion by Ed J. Pinegar Covenant Communications CD; LDS Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Author $11.95 Former Provo MTC president Ed J. Pinegar has produced a guide for missionaries designed to lead them to success in their missions. Pinegar's "Ultimate Missionary Companion" discusses: The Purpose and Joy of Missionary Work, Preparing for a Mission, Gospel Knowledge, Continually Being Motivated, Using the Book of Mormon as the Key to Conversion, Teaching by the Spirit, The Mission After Your Mission, and more. Prayer Time by Kathleen H. Barnes and Virginia H. Pearce, Illustrated by Dilleen Marsh Deseret Book Board Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Authors $10.95 A board book with easy-to-read text for young children and advanced stories from the scriptures for older readers. This book teaches children about Jesus and why we pray in his name. It teaches how to pray and shows them that we can pray anywhere, anytime. Masquerade by Sierra St. James Deseret Book Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Author and Subject $13.95 Romance novel telling the story of a recently-divorced LDS mother who goes to work for a famous actor who has joined the LDS Church. The mother is forced to hide her divorce from the actor for fear of loosing her job, but it becomes increasingly difficult for her to maintain her masquerade. Same-Sex Dynamics Among 19th Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn University of Illinois Press Book; University Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Author & Subject $19.95 Mormon historian Quinn's 1996 book about homosexuality among 19th Century Mormons is now available in paperback. The book was controversial among Mormons when it was released but was acclaimed among national reviewers in the US. Reflections of Emma by Buddy Youngreen Maasai Publishing Book; LDS Publisher; Non-fiction; Mormon Author and Subject $11.95 Author Youngren's reflections on the fascinating life of Emma Hale Smith Bidamon, her suffering from poverty and persecution, her pain at the premature deaths of her husband and many of her children, her devotion to her posterity, and her loneliness at the close of her life. Youngreen seeks to help the reader understand and respect this elect lady. Chester, I Love You by Blaine & Brenton Yorgason Maasai Publishing Book; LDS Publisher; Fiction; Mormon Authors and Subject $12.95 The Yorgason brothers' acount of the misadventures of an obstinate, loveable, one-legged goose who is destined to become Thanksgiving dinner. The bird is raised by a youth, Travis Tilby, who soon discovers that he loves the pet. [AML-List Mod: Comment on the above: !!!!] >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] Authorial Intent vs Narrative Control Date: 21 Jun 2001 23:02:34 -0600 Tom Johnson wrote: >Scott said: > > In other words, I had put in a lot of both active and passive thought > > time on it. So when I say it popped out fully formed, I'm only > > telling part of the story. It popped out after many hours of both > > structured and unstructured consideration. > >You seem to imply here that we are always writing our stories in the >unconscious hours of our mind, and when a story just "pops" out it is >because it had been churning and turning deep inside us for a while, and >finally emerged. I think that's tenable, sure. But what about a little >different idea--what about writing by faith, and receiving as revelation the >stories to tell, down to the sentences? Like Joseph Smith's translating. I grant the possibility, but will have to admit to being very, very skeptical of it. My personal faith doesn't have that happening very often, despite some of the press releases I've seen that suggest heavenly typists. I think the Spirit can work in any number of ways, but at the core of my soul I believe that most art (fiction, non-fiction, film, painting, music, etc.) is an expression of the artist's own being--and all of what makes up that being. In the case of those with strong spiritual foundations, that may well include promptings of the Spirit. But I still believe that it's the author who does the work, who creates the conduit (and word choices, and scene choices, and settings, and structure) for expressing those promptings. I believe the Spirit prompts the fact of our utterings, not the word order of them. Whispering, not dictating. I think those transcendent moments of creation happen often (I've felt carried away in writing quite often, and I'm a spiritual toad), but I think they're the expression of the writer's own spirit, not the imposition of some other spirit. Perhaps at such moments the veil thins or the spirit rises or this barrier of clay recedes, but I believe it exposes the author's own creativity and spirit. Maybe such moments are hints of what it must be like for God to create. Or maybe it's just a chemical response, an alteration of brain chemistry that leads to a momentary euphoria. Maybe there's no significant difference (my personal belief) and one is simply the physical manifestation of the other spiritual event. As I said, I believe in the spiritual; it's the mystical (implying external or incomprehensible) that I don't hold much stock in. >Do you buy into Freud's take on creative writing? Basically, if you're >unfamiliar with his essay on creative writers (I just read one essay years >ago), creative writing is a kind of disease--the writer acts out his >fantasies and gives play to those forces troubling him on the inside, the >subconscious demons inside him. He writes to let these troubling subtexts >out. Make that a tad less atheistic, and I'll tend to buy it. Remembering that I believe miracles are what happens when faith causes people to wrest power from the hands of a willing God, I think the same thing happens in moments of extreme creativity--the artist's own spirit rises up and becomes something greater, if only for a moment. But that's awfully metaphysical for a self-proclaimed mystical agnostic. >Or perhaps with your cat story, if I were to ever read it, I might >find some twisted psychological force at play, and then how would you react >to the idea that you very well *meant* to pound every sledge-hammer you did? I do believe that. As I've said, my sense of the artistic and/or the aesthetic is pretty blunt. It's one of the hazards of being a technical writer for twelve years--subtlety is not my strength. The best I can hope to achieve in my life is to reduce the sledge to the eight-pound variety from the sixteen-pound one. As for the twists that may exist in my inner mind, I suspect I'm a great deal more twisted than most people would imagine. I think I would be entertained to hear twisted interps of my fiction. >My point is that perhaps the text doesn't pull us in unintended directions; >the subconscious forces of our minds do, and because those directions are so >different from our initial intentions, we think they are foreign, maybe >mystical, or revelatory, but they really are not. Is this along the same >lines as what you were saying? Yeah, I think so. >I'm dying to know here. Sorry, excuse my conjectulation. is the mouse >christ, and the cat pontious pilate? No mice, just other cats and a couple of people. But there is discovery, rejection, separation, willing sacrifice, and finally recognition of one cat's purest nature. I never said the Christ metaphor was well-wrought, only that I intended to put it in there and discovered even more of it in the text than I had consciously put there. Though there certainly is a cat that could be argued as a Pilate act-alike. You really should get and read the story in an earlier version of Irreantum. I'd love to hear your comments... 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] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) Date: 21 Jun 2001 23:22:28 -0600 Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: >THE OBJECTIVE WAS to put the life of an Austrian Missionary down on paper. >Nobody would understand them otherwise. All the other things in the plot >were secondary to that objective. Cool. That's what I thought. The whole lengthy digression on universality was really my own take on how Mormon culture tends to want to read such stories (myself included) and to try to create orthodox, universal interpretations of such things. I never really intended it as a knock on your story, but on how I think Mormons read missionary stories in general (again, using my own feeling as an example). Somehow the discussion ended up using your story as the punching bag, though, which was never my intent. Still, I think that's one of the many purposes of literature--to facilitate dialog about issues raised by (or near, or toward) the story in the minds of readers. I may well have got that whole universality thing wrong. You've been a real good sport to let me be a blowhard about it all this time without screaming at me to shut up. Thanks. >FOR THE RECORD. Scott Parkin did not inspire the Captain Scotty character, >although the former confessed in one of his posts to doing the Scotty-esque >behavior of staying in his Wohnung (apartment) when he didn't have the love. You say that now... ;-) Actually, the only time Alan and I have ever met was at an AML-List get-together at Quadalahonky's restaurant in Sandy, Utah about six months ago where I sat at the same table but didn't actually speak with the aforementioned Mitchell very much. If only I could go back and do that a little bit differently... >FOR THE RECORD II. Parkin's posts started saying that he was tired of >reading missionary fiction and ended up saying he was going to have to write >his own book to tell the way it really was from his POV. I still haven't changed my mind on that, either. I liked your book a lot. I liked Richard Dutcher's movie a lot. But the genre itself doesn't hold much interest for me as a whole, though I'm sure that some excellent work will be published there. As for my own memoir...I've actually been talking with another List member about a possible collaboration on a novel that contrasts our two different Berlin experiences. An attempt to do exactly what I asked for when talking about your novel. Hopefully my co-author can keep me from being hoist on my own petard... Scott Rex Parkin (and no, that "Rex" is not a joke; it really is my middle name) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: [AML] _Crouching Tiger_ etc. (was: Movie Happy Endings) Date: 21 Jun 2001 23:43:13 -0600 Repeat of the Spoiler Alert on the post I am replying to. If you haven't seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon then read no further. I have to say that I don't think it was any of those things, Scott. To me it seemed that she jumped as a way to give up everything (especially true love) and therefore attain the highest level of enlightenment. If you will recall, the monk and his girlfriend chose to keep their romantic feelings for each other even though they knew it was keeping them from the highest level of enlightenment. The girl's triumph in the movie was when she was able to give up her true love, abandon life's pleasures and truly fly because she had finally gotten it, finally reached that highest level. And, yes, I think it's a cultural thing as well. I appreciated the ending intellectually, but emotionally I wanted to say, "Stay with your true love!!!!!! That's the way movies are supposed to end!!!" Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 22 Jun 2001 02:22:33 -0600 REWIGHT wrote: > But that's what writing is about. Is there anything new in the world? It's > about taking stories and presenting them in a way that people understand. > Going into a film you bring with it your understanding, your emotions, your > self. A writer, actor, director, taps into that. He doesn't present things > in a vacuum. He presents things to people who already have opinions. Life's not binary. There isn't "everything's new" or "nothing's new" and that's the only two possibilities. If a story doesn't bring _something_ new to its subject matter, why does it exist? What did "Testaments" bring new to the life of Christ? > > If I don't get the point > > of a film, it's not my responsibility. It's the responsibility of the > > author to make sure he gets the point across, and to decide if he cares > > enough to reach the part of the audience who reacts like me. > I don't buy this. You're asking for a movie to be all things to all people. Apparently you missed the last phrase in my quote that I repeated above. A movie can't be all things to all people. So the filmmaker needs to decide if he wants to reach the audience that's like me--someone who expects more than a rehash of the same stories I've heard a million times, and will not weep yet again just because someone tells them yet again with nothing new to add. Keith Merrill apparently wasn't interested in reaching me, but if he was, he failed, and its his fault, not mine. > For instance, lets say you're at a party. Someone introduces you to a young > woman. You smile politely and say Hello and nod while she speaks at length > on a subject you have no interest in. In the meantime, your mind is far > away thinking about something else. > > This young woman could take your smile and your greeting several different > ways. I'm not talking about fleeting body language. I'm talking about a serious attempt at communication. The principle I borrowed from psychology was designed for one-on-one communication. Film is one-to-many communication, so the principle doesn't fit perfectly. That's why I added my disclaimer that the filmmaker needs to decide if the part of the audience that reacts like me is one he wants to reach. If not, then everything's fine (although I as a critic still get to say why it didn't work for me). If so, he failed, because what was needed to reach me was not there. You can tell me that the film brought the reality of Christ and his love for us to life, but it didn't for me. For me, that wasn't in the film. For you, I guess it was. If all Keith Merrill was interested in was reaching the same audience who cries at "Where the Red Fern Grows," then, by golly, he did a great job. (And I don't mean that disparagingly. If you cry at "Where the Red Fern Grows," more power to you.) But I suspect that's not the audience he was after. I suspect he was after the audience who knows little or nothing about the LDS religion and who has not a clue about Christ's visit to America. I suspect he wanted to create something powerful that would move them to investigate the religion that believes these things. If that really is his audience, I believe he failed, because that audience isn't going to cry at the same things the LDS audience will cry at. The church keeps producing reputedly proselyting films, meaning they should move the nonmember audience, yet keeps judging the effectiveness of those films based on whether they move an audience who is already converted. THAT'S THE WRONG AUDIENCE! Therefore the film is a failure. I think there's just enough of the nonmember audience that will be moved to keep the church thinking their films are a success. But what about the (in my opinion) much larger portion of that audience who "got away," because the church is using the wrong focus group to measure the effectiveness of its films? If "Testaments" was supposed to make the average Mormon audience cry, it's a success. If it was supposed to get nonmembers to walk out saying, "Well, I guess they might be Christians after all," then it's a success. But if it's purpose is to change some lives by the power of its message, it fails. Tears do not change lives--they only empty tear ducts and smear mascara. Did any of your lives actually _change_, even in a small way, after seeing "Testaments"? Or did you wipe your eyes, go out and admire the new Main Street park, drive home, and tune in to Jay Leno? I'll bet the vast majority of nonmembers did that. Maybe I'm all wrong and there is no proselyting intent behind the film. But I seriously doubt it. > For all the failings of the movie, it did show that Jesus loves us. So? Here's a very short story I just wrote: "Jesus went around loving and serving everyone. The end." Same message as "Testaments." Were you moved? Did it bring you to tears? Has your life changed? The failing of the movie is that the message "Jesus loves us" is so mundanely portrayed--except for that one scene I already praised--that I don't think it was worth bothering. If any lives were changed, it was that one scene that did it. But why couldn't more such scenes be in the movie? > To suggest that because you didn't see something because it wasn't there, > suggests that anyone who did see something was fooled. Why? Do you know > something that those who were touched by the movie don't? It wasn't in there for me. If Keith Merrill wanted it to be in there for me, he failed. If it was in there for someone else, fine. If that someone else is the someone Keith Merrill wanted to reach, great. But in my opinion, the wrong things are in there reaching the wrong people in a less effective way than could have been. When are we going to hold up our art to a nobler standard than it made us cry and told us Jesus loves us? Until we do, I guess the Legacy Theater can just keep preaching to the choir. But the accuracy of my statements depends on the accuracy of my assumption as to what audience "Testaments" was intended to reach. -- 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: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Infinite Readings Date: 22 Jun 2001 05:53:36 -0500 At 08:34 AM 6/20/01, Laurel Langford wrote: >Hi, > >This is Jonathan's wife, the mathematician (I know...ew). Hi, Laurel! >So this is the problem: what is infinity? Infinity is how you describe a >collection that is so large that it cannot be counted in a finite amount of >time (assuming a fixed rate of counting). So, for instance there are >infinitely many counting numbers, but there are also infinitely many even >numbers (just because a lot of numbers are not even doesn't mean that there >aren't infinitely many left). How odd. >So, just because you exclude one reading (or >a lot of readings, or even an infinite number of readings), doesn't mean >there aren't infinitely many left. If you start out with an infinite >number, it's awfully hard to be sure that you have gotten back down to >under an infinite number. > >If you really want to say that there are only finitely many readings (which >is hard to do--how different do two readings have to be to be counted as >different? There are also infinitely many fractions between 0 and 1), you >need to make some strange argument that works very well for math, but >probably not very well for readings, so you say something like: > >There are only finitely many (say 200 or so) interpretations for every >word, and any given sentence has at most 200 to the power of n readings, >where n is the number of words in the sentence, etc. Which gives you a >very very large, but still finite number of readings (probably not more >than a googol for a 1-page essay, though I haven't checked it). Anyway, >it's pretty clearly down to a matter of interpretations and opinions... At, say, 500 words/page, then we have 200^500 = 32733906078961418700131896968275991522166420460430647894832913680961337964046745548832700923259041571508866841275600710092172565458853930533285275893760000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or 3.273390607896141870013189696827599152216642046043064789483291368096133796404674554883270092325904157150886684127560071009217256545885393053328527589376 x 10^1150 possible readings. (Thank you, Stephen Wolfram.) Of course, a lot of the words on that page will probably be things like "a" or "the" with far fewer meanings, thus knocking the total down a bit. Perhaps even to less than a google. :) >And here's another one she came up with later (by the way, she was grinning >when she wrote it...) > >1. A reading exists only in the mind of the reader > >2. Only readers of a text have reading of it > >3. A given person has no more than, say 86400 readings of a text per day >(one a minute, on average) So which of the two of you has trouble distinguishing between a _minute_ and a _second_? 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr = 1440 min/day. 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min = 86,400 sec/day. [MOD: That would be Laurel. She's an excellent mathematician, but not a careful editor, except when she's doing math proofs...] >This makes the number of possible readings of a text only 86400times the >number of days since it was written times the number of people in the >world. A much smaller finite number than the last one. From , we have the World POPClock Projection: "According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 6/22/01 at 10:19:28 GMT (6/22/01 at 6:19:28 AM EDT) is 6,155,586,603." so that gives us 86,400 x x 6,155,586,603 = 531,842,682,499,200 x or 194,251,389,814,381,258.7424 x possible readings. So, for example, there are so far approximately 86.4 quintillion (US usage) different readings of a passage of the Gutenberg Bible (published in 1455) that takes one second to read. >Back to Jonathan again. I personally am agnostic on the question of >whether there are infinitely many plausible readings for any given text--I >suspect that the specific number of reasonable readings is socially and >culturally constrained. But I also think that when we start using >arguments from other disciplines (such as mathematics), it's important to >get them right. "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." -- Mark Twain >Call it the editor in me... "I hate editors, for they make me abandon a lot of perfectly good English words." -- Mark Twain At 01:17 AM 6/21/01, Tom Johnson wrote: >Laurel, I was attempting to read your post but slowed up half way through, >then half way through again, then half way again--in fact, I could never >seem to get to the bottom of it, always getting half way there, so that >....just kidding. Did you see Hercules and that turtle around here anywhere? >Thanks for the intelligent explanation there. it always >helps to have a mathematician on board. perhaps you can recommend me a >non-mathematical book on infinity. You might try "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker. >i've heard that some guy went crazy >studying it. There once was a student at Trinity Who counted clear up to infinity It gave him such fidgets To add up the digits That he chucked it and took up divinity. -- Ronn! :) Speaking on behalf of humor-deprived mathematicians everywhere . . . - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Mag for Kids (was: GAs in Church Pubs) Date: 22 Jun 2001 05:58:43 -0500 At 10:52 PM 6/19/01, Sharlee Glenn wrote: > > At 03:50 PM 6/18/01, John Perry wrote: > > > > >This past week I saw a letter that my mom received from one of the >editors of > > >the Friend, stating that the church magazines will no longer be >publishing > > >fiction and have been instructed to put in more articles from general > > >authorities and true stories. > > > > So is anyone here planning to jump in and grab this opportunity to start >an > > independent magazine to publish the kind of fiction the Church magazines > > used to publish? > > > > -- Ronn! :) > >Despite Ronn!'s perpetual smiley face (which always makes me question the >seriousness of his comments), You would perhaps prefer a frowny face? > I think this is a great idea! In fact I've >already put out my feelers in an attempt to ascertain interest in an >independent literary magazine aimed at younger readers. This magazine would >not compete with the Friend (which apparently will now be an exclusively >"nonfiction" enterprise), but would, instead, publish quality fiction and >poetry for children. I'm thinking here of something along the lines of an >LDS _Cricket_ magazine. But what if a _Seagull_ magazine comes along and gobbles you up? -- Ronn! :( <-- Just for Sharlee. - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 21 Jun 2001 17:29:28 -0600 On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:54:17AM -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Speaking specifically of _Testaments_, I would say the "point" that > someone said they got and I didn't was more their Rorschach-style > imposition of a point from their own psyche than anything that was > really in the film. When usurping a powerful story like the acts of > the Savior, you're going to benefit from all the associations people > already have with that story, and shouldn't claim recognition for > evoking them. You should only claim recognition for that which you > brought new to the story. What did _Testaments_ bring new to the > story of Jesus except a baby-faced actor? All communication (including art) relies on some preestablished symbol-meaning relationship and accepted syntax for stringing those symbols into a unique, ordered set. In most cases, an author does not create new symbols, but instead creates a new ordering of existing symbols. If you run a computer program through the same processor, you will always get the same result. Human symbol processors, on the other hand, do not have exactly matching symbol tables. Most human processors will agree that the symbol "chair" signifies a manufactured piece of furniture designed to elevate the human buttocks off the ground. But you can get into arguments when you get to the fringes of signification. For example, have we incorrectly named the "bean bag chair"? And at what width does a large armchair become a love seat? If you use the symbol "chair" in a story, you benefit from the preestablished symbol-meaning relationship, so why should you not use the symbol "christ" and take advantage of the same preestablished relationship. (At least where it exists. An increasing number of humans do not have a significant preestablished meaning associated with the symbol "christ".) An author creates a story by stringing together known symbols into a unique ordering. Even though all readers (or movie viewers) get the same ordering of symbols as input, each reader creates a different response output. I believe that although an author may not know the exact results a story may have on the audience, the author may rightly claim those results, in the same way a computer programmer can claim the results of a program. Author's may claim both the unique ordering and the results of that ordering on human story processors. Michael's post argues that if an author chooses to use certain "powerful" symbols, then the author can no longer claim the results of those symbols on the reader. I disagree. If I had made _Testaments_, I certainly would have chosen some different paths through the plot, but to criticize a work because it draws on established symbols criticizes all communication. Other threads have tried to define a syntax requirement for ordering symbols that prohibits using symbols with the intent to manipulate the audience. I would laugh at a computer programmer who claimed that his program did not manipulate the bit inside a computer. By reading or viewing art, readers consent to have their internal symbol-meaning tables manipulated. Once you read a story or see a movie, that ordered set of symbols forever and irreversibly merges with your internal symbol matrix. Michael didn't like the _Testaments_ because it did not significantly modify his internal matrix. I haven't jumped into the "art shouldn't manipulate" argument, because I think the proponents have no chance of ever coming up with a definition of art that does not manipulate the audience. I do not deny that for some people, a story will produce an unsatisfying emotional response. We study literature to catalog patterns of symbols and discuss some expected reader responses to those patterns in various contexts. > Speaking of points in a film generally, according to practitioners > of the branch of psychology called Neuro-Linguistic Programming, if > communication doesn't occur or mis-occurs, the instigator of the > communication must take responsibility, because he is the one who > wants communication to take place. I agree with this. If I don't get > the point of a film, it's not my responsibility. It's the > responsibility of the author to make sure he gets the point across, > and to decide if he cares enough to reach the part of the audience > who reacts like me. The author has no moral right to go around > saying, "You should have gotten this and this out of my movie, and > it's your fault if you didn't." I guess I don't understand your vehemence against _Testaments_ when you have acknowledged that the movie makers probably weren't trying to communicate with you. The NLP model only works because the receiver and the communicator must come to an agreement that communication has occurred. Communicators can only find out that they did not meet their goals when the receivers respond. You cannot communicate with an unreceptive audience. Let's take Shakespeare as an example. Many contemporary people do not read Shakespeare because his works do not communicate with them. Do we blame Shakespeare? For myself, a first reading of a Shakespeare play usually leaves me wondering why people rave about this work. But then upon the path of rereading, researching the context of the play, looking up some of the 17th century word definitions, and seeing the play enacted, I gather new insights into the text and soon I find that my opinion of the work has changed. I don't think that Michael should change his opinion about _Testaments_, just that the audience has some responsibility to the work. > If it ain't in the movie, it ain't in the movie. Most of what we experience in a movie isn't in the movie. Even more so for written fiction. Take the line "It was a dark and stormy night, and the big city shimmered like an elephant lumbering out of the mud pools." As a writer, I have to make the assumption that my audience will have preexisting concepts for "dark," "stormy," "night," "city," "elephant," "mud," etc. Each symbol comes together in the reader's head to form something more than exists on the page or screen. Perhaps the makers of _Testaments_ could rearrange their symbols to produce a particular effect in Michael's head. They certainly could if they had Michael's willing participation. But would they want to? I think the modern situation comedy displays the results of trying to reach too broad an audience. In the network producer's mind, more viewers = more market share = more advertising revenue = bigger bonus. So the network producer sterilizes the script to ensure that nothing offensive remains that might drive away any viewers. Then apply certain formulas that might draw in additional viewers: maybe add a cute precocious kid, a hot babe in skimpy swimsuit, or a cuddly pet. If I watch a sitcom, I will probably grin at the jokes, but I don't think that I have experienced great art. As broad readers in literature and as those who try to create literature for others, we have already placed ourselves on the fringe. By forcing so many literary experiences on our brains, we have vastly different symbol matrices compared with those who choose to fill their matrices with wrestling or opera or quilting (none of which prove mutually exclusive). I don't think our additional experience with literature means that we have to go lessen our criticism, but I do think that we should avoid making critical statements about those who do like a work. -- Terry L Jeffress | We are drowning in information but | starved for knowledge. | -- John Naisbitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: Re: [AML] Orson Scott Card Date: 22 Jun 2001 13:17:05 -0700 0EED4@wwno.com> <004d01c0f93e$cf734320$2c675ad1@oemcomputer> <006d01c0fa98$9e46ffc0$c5675ad1@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had to laugh, Sharlee. I'm not a big fan of science fiction either, but after reading this, I'm going to give _Ender's Shadow_ a try! (I did read _Lost Boys_ though, and I enjoyed that.) Thanks for the recommendation. Beth Hatch Sharlee Glenn wrote: >> I just checked out _Ender's Shadow_ and _Speaker for the Dead_ for my >> 12-year-old son who finished _Ender's Game_ last week and has been on me >> ever since to get "something else by that Card guy." Given my other >> commitments and priorities (and my general disinterest in Science > > Fiction), > >> I'm not sure if I will ever get around to reading these particular books. > >> . . . > > I lied! I picked up _Ender's Shadow_ just out of curiosity and read 65 > pages before I set it down again. And I can't wait to get back to it. Of > course, I'm still hanging out with the street urchins in Rotterdam--no high > tech sci-fi stuff yet. I'll let you know if I make it through the whole > book. > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Humor-Themed _Irreantum_ Date: 22 Jun 2001 12:01:17 -0600 With a special emphasis on Mormon humor, the spring 2001 issue of IRREANTUM, the literary quarterly published by the Association for Mormon Letters (AML), is now available. Information on IRREANTUM and the AML follows the complete table of contents for the spring 2001 issue. Spring 2001 Contents EDITORIAL: "He That Sitteth in the Heavens Shall Laugh": The New Mormon Humor, Edgar C. Snow Jr. News of the Association for Mormon Letters INTERVIEW: Robert Kirby ESSAYS: Surprise, Surprise! Reflections on the Oxymoronic Question of Mormon Humor, Elouise Bell MIA: Missing in Action, Ann Edwards Cannon FICTION: The Chastening, Helynne Hollstein Hansen Checkmating Elder Kirkland, Matt Crosby May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You, Donald R. Marshall For the Strength of the Hills (Part Two), Lee Allred POETRY: Missionary's Lament, Richard Johnson Untitled, Tony A. Markham Don't Say It, Beth Hatch A Father's Love, Paul W. Sexton Resurrected Spring, Linda P. Adams Wrong Way, Katie Parker An Argument, Katie Parker Educated Woman, Laraine Wilkins Mimesis Upended: A Reluctant Nod to Mr. Wilde, Sharlee Mullins Glenn Raison D'Etre, Sharlee Mullins Glenn Love's Lungs, Gideon Burton Nacho Hell, Gideon Burton Around Here All the Poets Have Already Left, Dennis Marden Clark REVIEWS: When Are We Taking Ourselves Too Seriously? Patricia T. Coleman A review of Elouise Bell's Only When I Laugh Freshly Peeled Air, Katie Parker A review of Anne Bradshaw's Terracotta Summer Whose Best-Loved Line Is It Anyway? Edgar C. Snow Jr. A review of The Best-Loved Humor of the LDS People Falling Toward Heaven, Christopher K. Bigelow A review of John Bennion's Falling Toward Heaven Sung with Vim, Vigor, and a Delicate Tongue, Harlow S. Clark A review of Edgar Snow's Of Curious Workmanship, Peggy Fletcher Stack and Kathleen Peterson's A World of Faith, and Robert Kirby's Provo Daily Herald article "Dressing Like a Mormon Guy for Only $39.93" Selected Recent Releases Mormon Literary Scene AML-List Highlights For a copy of this humor-themed issue, send $4 (postpaid). For a one-year subscription to IRREANTUM, send $12. To join the nonprofit AML, send $20 annual dues (includes IRREANTUM subscription). Make checks payable to AML and mail to AML, P.O. Box 51364, Provo, UT 84605-1364. To join the free AML-List e-mail discussion, send an e-mail message to majordomo@xmission.com that reads: subscribe aml-list. If you have any questions about anything related to the AML, see our website at www.xmission.com/~aml or e-mail us at irreantum2@cs.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] Mod Message: Thanks Date: 22 Jun 2001 15:42:34 -0500 Hi Folks, While I was reading through today's in-box, it struck me just how much high-quality stuff is being written and posted to the List these days. The last several weeks have been tough ones for me as moderator, with high list volume coinciding with work deadlines, and I've had to largely race through the AML-List part of the day without fully appreciating what I'm reading. But there's a lot of good stuff going on. This is why I joined AML-List to begin with--and why I've kept with it for, what, five years now? Anyway, it's fun to be here. Keep up the good work! 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: Craig Huls Subject: [AML] RE:(AML) Rolly & Wells & GAs & Church Magazine Writing Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:11:08 -0500 > Larry Jackson WRote: > > > > Dear Annette: After the end of WWII in 1970, there > was a great shortage of paper, which was the result > of the great shortage of trees spoken of in the Book > of Mormon. The following year, 1971, the RS magazine > was discontinued, along with the Instructor magazine. > It was the end of the Era of Improvement as we know > it. In their place, came the Ensign (complete with > pronunciation instructions), the New Era (to replace > the old one?), and the Friend (which we all are to > each other). And that's why there are three magazines > today in the Church. > > (I made up the part about the trees and the paper.) > > Larry > > > I thought that WWII ended in 1945...hmmm. I also thought the paper shortage was brought on by the spotted owl . Maybe my history needs to be re-written.... [TIC] On the other hand, I still use RS magazines to prepare talks from time to time. I also have some Improvement Eras that came to my Grandparents in early 1900's. April 1910 Edition has an advertisement on the back cover 1/4 page by Browning Bros. Co talking about their Automatic Loading Shotgun, and the back cover has a drawing of a Deere two-way Sulky Plow with explanation as to the advantages of using this plow on side hills. Geo. T. Odell the general manager..... cover says. Vol XIII April 1910 No. 6 ( 4th month number 6? unsure why that would be) The amazing part is this.... Price was $2.00 per annum.... Tell me anything else that has only gone up 5X since 1910! New item related to the topic of fiction being dropped from the Church Magazines drove me to look at network solutions to see if domain name LDSFICTION.COM was available... nope. Alvin Black of Orem has it tied up. Enterprising individual! Craig Huls dcraigh@onramp.net - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "renatorigo" Subject: Re:[AML] LDS and World Religions Date: 22 Jun 2001 18:16:56 -0300 > Steve, I don=B4t know about other Countries but here in Brazil and other South America Countries we only have oficial LDS literature. The reason is the Church is growing up yet...there are only 400 thousand members in an environment of 160 million people. And Maybe we have few writers among these members... Renato - 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] Mormon Mag for Kids Date: 22 Jun 2001 14:06:53 -0600 > But what if a _Seagull_ magazine comes along and gobbles you up? > -- Ronn! :( <-- Just for Sharlee. Dang! You stole my thunder. That was exactly the title I was going to propose for the new magazine! Think about it. It's perfect on every level. --Sharlee :( (frowning only because you beat me to the punch) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS and World Religions Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:54:28 -0500 >Also that only 1 in 7 LDS live in the United States. Interesting. Is anyone aware if there is "LDS literature" other than offical church publications in any country other than the US? This isn't a direct answer to Steve's question, but German members are very interested in LDS literature and the members in my ward were always getting books in German from somewhere--I got the idea that there was some sort of outlet for LDS materials in German (other than ordering standard church stuff from the distribution, I mean).  And of course, there are lots of LDS-related books that are published in Spanish (not just the standard works and books by James E. Talmage). Rose - 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] LDS and World Religions Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:27:58 -0600 > >Also that only 1 in 7 LDS live in the United States. Is this true? It was just a few years ago that we hit the 50/50 mark, where there were as many LDS outside the U.S. as in. Has the non-U.S. LDS population grown so dramatically since then that now it's 86/14? That doesn't sound right. Eric D. Snider [MOD: I have the same question. Is there anyone out there with a most-recent-year Church Almanac who can look this up?] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: RE: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:28:09 -0600 I want to take issue with the sentiments expressed below. I love fiction. In fact, I kept track of the books I read several years ago, and the total came to 368. Fiction had a slight edge over nonfiction. I mention this simply to show that I am not opposed to being entertained, and I simply love to let my imagination soar as I read a good tale. BUT, when it comes to Church magazines, I really desire doctrinal works, of the type the come from the General Authorities. So what if it is reprint of what was said at Ricks or BYU-Hawaii. I wasn't there to hear it, and, in the world in which I live, I probably needed to hear it. Even if several writers are addressing the same topic, they will have a different slant on it that will make it worthwhile, even if it is on just one point. Perhaps those who will be contributing to the magazines are former businessmen, lawyers, doctors, etc., and not professional writers. So what? They have been called to bear witness of Jesus Christ, and of the restored gospel. They are called to stand as watchmen on the tower, and to sound the alarm. From where I stand they do a great job, and I believe we need to hear/read more of what they have to say. And yes, three magazines, published monthly to various age groups is probably a minimum. Would I support a LDS fiction magazine publication, I would if it were well done. There are enough good writers, including several on this list to make it work. Roy Schmidt >>> Christopher Bigelow 06/21/01 05:46PM >>> <<< I think we might be disparaging this new policy when in reality we should be celebrating it. Think of all those GAs who were businessmen and surgeons instead of aspiring writers--now they've got to put pen to paper. They've got to pull up that blank Microsoft Word screen and begin *writing*. Surely this is the Lord's idea here--he's saying hey, you guys need to learn to write, so I'm going to make you do it. Yes! Yes! Think of it....what if one day an apostle actually became a novelist, or a novelist an apostle? wouldn't that be the most wonderful thing to happen to the church since brigham young?>>> Actually, I predict about 90% of the GA-written stuff will be edited transcripts of speeches given in various places around the Church (especially at Ricks and BYU). [MOD snip] - 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] Literary LCD (was: Testaments...) Date: 22 Jun 2001 01:32:19 -0600 Margaret Young wrote: > > Well let's not stop with film makers! Writers, artists, composers ALL need to > reach a higher level. We can't insist on satisfying the lowest common > denominator in our audience or we will never create great art--and we certainly > have the talent in the Church to make great art. However, that talent is too > often turned over to a committee or strained through a very strict filter. Good place to insert a message I was planning on sending anyway. Have I ever mentioned my online writers group WorLDSmiths? On our e-mail list we've been having a rather heated discussion about what the LDS market will bear as far as graphic descriptions of unsavory acts. The general consensus seems to be that it will bear some--unless it's sex, then virtually none at all. I personally have been trying to figure out why sex, of all the sins, is hush-hush while other sins are not (rf. Linda Adams _Prodigal Journey_ for an LDS book which explores all sorts of sordid acts of humanity--except sex). Language tends to be right behind sex as a no-no, and one of our members who has sold a book told about his experience with the editor who insisted the word "pee" be changed to "go to the bathroom." I declared that the LDS publishers are trying to do just what Margaret decries above: publishing to the lowest common denominator so any LDS can walk into a Deseret Book store and pick up anything and, without knowing fact one about it, feel "safe" letting it sit out in their living room where the kids have access to it. (In other words, let Deseret Book make his moral decisions for him.) SIDELIGHT: This reminds me of a billboard I saw recently about "the CLEAN murder mystery" (or however they worded it) that's out now. That was the selling point: it's CLEAN. My reaction was, "Okay, but is it GOOD?" I always wonder about an entertainment product which is promoted because it's CLEAN or WHOLESOME or yada yada. I wonder more about the public that buys by that criterion. Nobody cares if it's good? BACK TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING: Is there a market out there for books that are faithful to the Gospel, but depict the gamut of human degradation? Specifically, books that show acts of sex (not gratuitously, but when necessary and with as much detail as necessary) that may not be moral sex, but which does not glorify immoral sex or show that it has no consequences? (In addition to any other questionable acts besides sexual ones.) I'm pretty confident that the traditional LDS publishers wouldn't release such a book because they have to maintain their lowest-common-denominator reputation. But what if a new publishing company were to emerge, possibly with an add campaign like this: "Deseret Book we're not!" "Our books are faithful to the Gospel--but not all the characters are!" A publishing company that doesn't attempt to "sneak" edgier material in and slowly push the envelope with baby steps, yet doesn't go all out and print radical things that many would perceive as critical of the Gospel either. A publishing company that comes right out proclaiming loudly that they are going after the market that is tired of Deseret-Book-filtered fiction, but is not interested in criticism of the Gospel itself. A company that positions itself as the mischievous little brother of the industry whom everyone shakes their head at, but when push comes to shove, he's still a loyal part of the family. A company that Thom Duncan could love. Signature comes closest to that right now, I think, but doesn't fulfill my requirements. Fairly or not, it's got a reputation of not being entirely loyal when push comes to shove, because some of its scholarly treatises appear critical of the Gospel itself. And its literature tends to be pretty litarary--not especially geared towards the popular market. I would think, if the market is out there, such an ad campaign would draw them like flies to honey (sorry about the cliche--I save my good similes for my books). Let people keep buying doctrinal resources and presents for their mother-in-law from Deseret Book, but when they want some fascinating fiction to read for themselves, they come to our new publisher. Would it work? -- 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: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine Date: 22 Jun 2001 12:09:49 -0700 These were wonderful magazines -- sometimes very meaty with good articles. They come in to DI from time to time, and I love going through them and reading the articles. [Jeff] - 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] Manipulative Endings Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:25:09 -0600 Rex Goode: > > >Thanks for your comment about the idea that something is manipulative in the >pejorative sense if it doesn't earn the emotions it evokes. > >If you or anyone would care to elaborate, I'd be interesting in why the >Testaments film did not earn the emotion it evoked. Of course, that would >have to come from someone who felt manipulated. I did not. > ... >How does a film, or book, or whatever "earn" my emotions, particularly when >I give them so freely? > Apparently, I need to go see this "Testaments" thing. I've been putting it off for a while because of the reasons that have been discussed on this List: It seems like it's probably a bit manipulative, hokey, or whatever else, though probably rather touching, too. I don't look forward to it, and since no one's MAKING me watch it, I haven't done it yet. This isn't true of most films (even films allegedly dealing with spiritual matters), but the final scene "Brigham City" makes me cry because of the spiritual truths being taught. (SPOILERS AHEAD, FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET.) My investment in the main characters and my sympathy for their plight -- i.e., a killer in their town -- is enough to make me tear up a little when they kneel down and Peg prays vocally. ("If we're not strong enough or smart enough to stop him, please stop him for us," or words very close to that, and it's a great line because it conveys so much faith, vulnerability and child-like trust in God.) But what absolutely kills me is the final scene, with Wes taking the sacrament. There, it's no longer just my interest in him as a character, though that is significant. It's because it brings to my mind this flood of personal feelings about the sacrament, the Atonement and the Savior. Regardless of what Wes may have wrought on the town due to his carelessness, he can be forgiven of it. The Savior's love for us is very real, and that scene demonstrates it powerfully. In most cases, of course, it is just emotions that are being worked on by movies; "Brigham City" is an exception that uses emotions AND the Spirit. I think the difference between earning the emotions and yanking them out of us comes down to nothing more than a matter of skill. If the actors seem real, the dialogue sounds honest and the director doesn't beat me over the head with loud music or other tricks, then it earns it with me. But if I sense laziness -- like a screenwriter saying, "I learned in Screenwriting 101 that Cancer = Sadness, so I'll stick that in here all of a sudden" -- then it bothers me, and the movie loses credibility. I don't know that there's a clear-cut definition (at least not for me) of what's honestly emotional and what's just manipulation. Going back to "Brigham City" again, there's a scene where Wes has to tell a couple that their daughter has been killed. Both times I saw the movie, I was very impressed with how much I really believed this scene. On paper, I would cringe at the melodrama: Wes stops by unannounced, is invited in by his gracious host and hostess, says he has something to tell them, is interrupted by a phone call that tells them the news much less tactfully. Everyone cries loudly. Ugh. But in the film, it's done beautifully. Everything everyone says sounds real, particularly in the small talk as Wes first comes in. This is one of his bishopric counselors, and you can sense it right away: He's friends with the man, he knows the wife really well, too, they want him to stay for dinner, etc., etc. Then, when the emotions come after the phone call, those seem real, too, which would be thanks to the acting from these two fine actors who, as far as I know, have never appeared on film before. Dutcher didn't do any flashing editing or camera tricks; it's mostly a quiet, unobtrusive style. If there's music in the scene, it doesn't get in the way. It's a great scene. So it's skill, I guess. Let's hear it for skill! Eric D. Snider - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:32:48 -0600 It folded in 1971, along with the Children's Friend, and the Improvement Era. This was done, in part, to bring the Church publications into compliance with the Prophet's desire for a correlated program. Dan Ludlow, who served on the committee, said that the most difficult part of getting the correlation program in place, was getting the Relief Society to give up its magazine and its bazaars. Roy Schmidt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine Date: 22 Jun 2001 22:20:50 -0400 > I love that magazine (The Relief Society Magazine). I acquired a > bunch > of them in weird ways and I've been considering actively collecting > them. The magazine started in 1914 and I have issues as late as 1958. > I'm not sure how or why or when it folded. > > Jacob Proffitt It folded when all the magazines changed. In my youth, what we now call the _Ensign_ was called the _Improvement Era_, it doubled as a magazine for "youth" with a segment keyed to the MIA. The Primary published the _Children's Friend_ and the Relief Society published the _Relief Society Magazine_. The Sunday School also published a magazine (a VERY good magazine called _The Instructor_. They all had advertising till the 50's. Advertising went before the mags changed. They exact year leaves me, but the _Era_ became the Ensign_, the _Era for Youth_ became what is is and the _Children's Friend_ became the _Friend_ and the _Relief Society Magazine_ and the _Instructor_ went to the scrap heap. Richard Johnson - 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] Relief Society Magazine Date: 23 Jun 2001 02:01:41 -0600 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > I love that magazine (The Relief Society Magazine). I acquired a bunch > of them in weird ways and I've been considering actively collecting > them. The magazine started in 1914 and I have issues as late as 1958. > I'm not sure how or why or when it folded. I suppose the church still owns the rights to it? If someone puts out the new LDS fiction magazine to replace the lost fiction in the church publications, one feature should be reprinting some of the articles and stories in the RS Magazine. From the sound of it, that should be a draw for many people. -- 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] Mormon Mag for Kids Date: 23 Jun 2001 03:10:57 -0600 Sharlee Glenn wrote: > > > But what if a _Seagull_ magazine comes along and gobbles you up? > Dang! You stole my thunder. That was exactly the title I was going to > propose for the new magazine! Think about it. It's perfect on every level. Good joke, y'all, but I doubt "Seagull Book and Tape" would think it's funny if you really did it. [MOD: I doubt that any commercial entity can make any exclusive claim to use of "Seagull" in connection with Mormon publishing.] -- 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] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 23 Jun 2001 02:26:02 -0600 Terry L Jeffress wrote: > All communication (including art) relies on some preestablished > symbol-meaning relationship and accepted syntax for stringing those > symbols into a unique, ordered set. In most cases, an author does not > create new symbols, but instead creates a new ordering of existing > symbols. > so why should you not use > the symbol "christ" and take advantage of the same preestablished > relationship. The operative word here is "unique." If you string established symbols together in a non-unique way, then you have no claim to the results. If such an act is done at the word level, we call it "plagiarism." If done at a more conceptual level, we call it "unoriginal" or "derivative." None of these labels are considered particularly positive. As far as the Christ-in-Israel elements in "Testaments," they were completely derivative--nothing original. The Christ-in-America elements were not so derivative, becaue that hasn't been done much. But they were depicted sloppily, so had no emotional impact. The only effective Christ-element was the healing of Helam, and I have already called that the only effective scene in the film. And that one wasn't effective because of any unique usage of Christ symbols, but because of an original story about some Nephites/Lamanites. > I believe that although an author may not know the > exact results a story may have on the audience, the author may rightly > claim those results, in the same way a computer programmer can claim > the results of a program. Not if the programmer wrote the same program as somebody else. > Michael's post argues that if an author chooses to use certain > "powerful" symbols, then the author can no longer claim the results of > those symbols on the reader. I disagree. You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. An author can claim the results of the symbols if he did spomething new with them--strung them together in a new way. "Testaments" didn't. "Testaments" has no claim to the evocation of emotion from the Christ scenes, because their power came entirely out of a story that "Testaments" didn't create or add any new insight to. > If I had made _Testaments_, > I certainly would have chosen some different paths through the plot, > but to criticize a work because it draws on established symbols > criticizes all communication. I didn't criticize that. I hope that's clear now. > Michael didn't like the _Testaments_ because > it did not significantly modify his internal matrix. Well, you got that one right. > I guess I don't understand your vehemence against _Testaments_ when > you have acknowledged that the movie makers probably weren't trying to > communicate with you. I don't acknowledge that the filmmakers weren't trying to communicate with me. I said IF they didn't care about communicating with me, then perhaps the film succeeded. But I believe they would have liked to communicate with me, and thought they were. ("Me" meaning people who had hoped to experience something new about the story of Christ.) My vehemence against _Testaments_ comes from the assumption I make about what audience the filmmakers wanted to reach. If my assumption is wrong, my belief that the film fails is wrong. I don't think my assumption is wrong. As Richard Dutcher said, anything that appears on that screen should be the most powerful film we can make. I believe the church wants to do that and thinks it has. I say they are wrong--way wrong. If that wasn't their intent, then I guess I may have to recant. If they wanted a feel-good fluff piece about Christ, then I must admit, they succeeded. > I don't think our additional experience with > literature means that we have to go lessen our criticism, but I do > think that we should avoid making critical statements about those who > do like a work. So what have I done wrong then? I sure didn't lessen my criticism, even in the face of a fair amount of disagreement. And I tried to be careful about saying that for those people in the audience who liked that kind of film, fine with me. I'm glad they had a good experience. But from all the hype, I went in expecting something profound. IT WASN'T IN THE MOVIE! My beef is the film didn't match the assumed intent. Debate with me whether my assumption of intent is wrong, and you may convert me. Otherwise... _Testaments_ is a poor film. -- 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] Jennie HANSEN, _Macady_ (Review) Date: 23 Jun 2001 20:21:25 -0700 Review ====== Jennie Hansen, "Macady" 1995, Covenant Communications, Inc. Paperback, 235 pages, $10.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle The back cover of "Macady" asks the question, "Can two people who have been hurt by love learn to trust again?" Good question. I suppose it depends on how deep the hurt was. In the case of this fine novel, there is plenty of hurt to go around. But there is also redemption, belonging, and a sense of family that can overcome even the deepest pain. Macady Jackson is part of a large extended family, a close family with deep roots in their community. Macady has left her home to pursue her career, but when her mother turns ill, she returns temporarily to help her run the family grocery store. One day, while riding her horse in the countryside, shots ring out, pointed toward Macady. Who could be trying to hurt her? The shooter, it turns out, was aiming for a deputy sheriff who had a lead on a drug smuggling operation in the area. Both Macady and the deputy, Aaron Westerman, we're dressed similarly, and from a distance, a shooter could easily be confused. Hearing the shots, Aaron sees that it was not he who was under attack but an innocent bystander, Macady. The two had known each other since childhood. One of the most effective parts of the book is the detailed description of their grueling escape from the would-be killer, who had by now summoned help in tracking down, and killing, both Aaron and Macady. The drug trafficers begin a vicious campaign of terror against Macady, Aaron and Aaron's daughter, Kelsey. Identifying the criminals has become very difficult, since they've left few clues. But with each act of terror, Aaron becomes more determined to track them down and bring them to justice. Parallel to the mystery there is the theme of hurt and betrayal mentioned above. Macady had been disappointed by both a father who abandoned his family and by a love interest that had gone sour. Aaron had lost his wife not long before, and was vexed by her over-protective and meddling mother. Neither had any desire to become involved in romance again, until their accidental meeting that day. "Macady" is a very good book. The plot takes enough turns to keep the reader interested until the end. The author does a fine job of intertwining the dual plot lines, bring both to a satisfactory resolution. Hansen is a very good writer. She manages dialogue very nicely, and gives us a tale that challenges our assumptions about family and friends. The heroes aren't all good, the villains aren't completely evil. Some of the good guys have drifted away from the Church; some of the villains are active priesthood holders. I've long enjoyed such books. The characters are well drawn, the story fast- paced and full of surprises. Hansen is to be commended for a fine entry into the world of Mormon fiction. - 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] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 24 Jun 2001 18:22:33 -0600 We finally got to _Brigham City_ and after loving _God's Army_ and being very pro-Dutcher and pro-his-genre, I was expecting to fall in line with loving this movie. We didn't love it so much though, and spent a good deal of time trying to figure out why. Here's what we came up with: It seems uneven. There are some absolutely beautiful scenes, such as the opening autumn shots among the trees. But unfortunately there are less artistic shots. We compared the ocean baptism in _God's Army_ (I know, it's not the way baptisms REALLY are) artistically to the literal baptism in _Brigham City_. It was much less effective artistically; it looked like a clip out of a missionary movie (perhaps that's why we have had the long discussion on whether the film was proselytizing or not). Similarly, knowing it's a mystery, we get glimpses of all the suspects. However, we get many, MANY more long closeups of Wes the sheriff than of almost all the suspects put together. Artistically during the movie it made us wonder if this movie was a complex psychological study of an inscrutable criminal. In contrast we get just glimpses, almost truncated vignettes, of the other suspects, including the actual criminal himself. Why do we have so much closeup work on the sheriff? It was just a little heavy handed. We were uncomfortable with the long, literal church sequences. To have two complete sacrament prayers, for example, just didn't work for us. I wonder if there would be another way to set up the sacrament as a focal point for redemption in the movie without the long, literal shots? In contrast, the sequence where the congregation all took the sacrament and placed their cups with a click worked well because artistically it established the almost-universality of a congregation taking the sacrament in contrast with meaningful abstinence. Again, taking this film as part of the mystery genre, perhaps the scenes of the suspects with the tire iron and the shotgun could have been handled with just a little more delicacy. They just seemed imagistically heavy handed. We want to feel scared but not bludgeoned. The final sacrament meeting scene was superb. Like everybody else, we cried a lot, and we felt that the whole system of symbols worked great, including the deacon's role. Dutcher here is facing the very same challenges that LDS fiction writers have faced from the beginning: how to render the culture without the heavy hand. Perhaps that's partly what has engendered the discussion on proselytizing. The literal renderings seem pedantic, and this doesn't work artistically in a movie setting out to do other things. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] LCD Date: 25 Jun 2001 16:09:58 GMT Michael wrote: Specifically, books that show acts of sex (not gratuitously, but when necessary and with as much detail as necessary) that may not be moral sex, but which does not glorify immoral sex or show that it has no consequences? We just got back from a trip and listened to a book on tape, _Privileged Conversation_, that dealt with this very issue. The book was interestingly written in first person present ("I open the door and let myself in; I see this or that"]. The protagonist is a psychiatrist that gets into an affair that turns bizarre. However, nobody gets away with immorality, because the consequences are dramatic and clear. The book is interesting because it demonstrates that sexual acting out often originates with (usually traumatic) stuff that happened to us when we were little. Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Literary LCD Date: 25 Jun 2001 10:12:17 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > A company that positions itself as the mischievous little > brother of the industry whom everyone shakes their head at, but when > push comes to shove, he's still a loyal part of the family. A company > that Thom Duncan could love. Yes, and, sadly, would probably one of the three people in the Church who would buy their books. > Signature comes closest to that right now, I think, but doesn't fulfill > my requirements. Fairly or not, it's got a reputation of not being > entirely loyal when push comes to shove, because some of its scholarly > treatises appear critical of the Gospel itself. So would the publication company yor're proposing, believe me. Wrong or right, you have a sex scene in there, the company would get the reputation as being "against" the gospel. > I would think, if the market is out there, such an ad campaign would > draw them like flies to honey (sorry about the cliche--I save my good > similes for my books). Let people keep buying doctrinal resources and > presents for their mother-in-law from Deseret Book, but when they want > some fascinating fiction to read for themselves, they come to our new > publisher. > > Would it work? Probably, but you'd have to have a business plan that allowed for no profit-taking for the first five years or so. -- Thom Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Mag for Kids Date: 25 Jun 2001 10:45:17 -0600 I don't want to start a war, but Seagull Book and Tape, like Signature, is thought of in some quarters as not "true blue." Would the name Seagull in a fiction magazine help sales, or would it foster a pre-prejudice against the publication? Roy Schmidt - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 25 Jun 2001 09:29:25 -0600 Roy Schmidt wrote: > BUT, when it comes to Church magazines, I really desire doctrinal > works, of the type the come from the General Authorities. So what if > it is reprint of what was said at Ricks or BYU-Hawaii. I wasn't there > to hear it, and, in the world in which I live, I probably needed to > hear it. Even if several writers are addressing the same topic, they > will have a different slant on it that will make it worthwhile, even > if it is on just one point. Surely you're talking here about the _Ensign_. But what about the _New Era_ and the _Friend_? Do you really think kids are going to be interested in a whole magazine full of "doctrinal works"? > Would I support a LDS fiction magazine publication, I would if it > were well done. There are enough good writers, including several on > this list to make it work. The real need here is for a literary magazine geared toward LDS *kids.* That's what I'm interested in. The _Ensign_ hasn't published fiction for some time now anyway, and there are already several good alternative venues for adult short fiction (specifically _Sunstone_ and now, of course, _Irreantum_). But the kids need something. So do the teenagers, but I'll leave that to some other enterprising soul. 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: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher (was: Literary LCD) Date: 25 Jun 2001 11:47:41 -0700 It sounds like what you're talking about related to a new publishing = company, D. Michael, is someone to take a place on the spectrum between = Covenant (or maybe Cornerstone, with their 2-3 fiction offerings to date) = and Signature. It seems like that should be doable, but the people you = really have to convince are the retailers in the LDS Booksellers Associatio= n, since they are the gatekeepers to the LDS audience. Otherwise you will = just have to hit the independent Signature/Sunstone/Dialogue crowd, who = don't number more than 5,000 people and who are already having their needs = met. There's got to be some way to "trick" the LDSBA retailers into = accepting an edgier publisher who is still "faithful." We need a publisher = who can accomodate an LDS fiction version of Shakespeare, who I don't = think could arise today in the current LDS market, because Signature = doesn't have a big enough trusting audience and the other publishers have = too many filters to allow as much provocative, satisfyingly earthy human = material as Shakespeare trucked in. My review of John Bennion's _Falling Toward Heaven_ in the spring = 2001 IRREANTUM overlaps with your thinking somewhat. Here are some = relevant excerpts: My favorite Mormon novel-reading experience is when I'm held in some = suspense about whether the author believes or disbelieves Mormonism. It's = perhaps an unbalanced way to read, with too much emphasis on the author = pulling levers behind the curtain rather than on the work itself, but = something about our Mormon emphasis on conformity encourages that way of = reading. We can't help asking, Is this author true to the faith, on our = team, a temple recommend holder? Unfortunately, that kind of suspense is = not available very often, since most Mormon fiction is published with = battle lines already drawn by virtue of the publisher's reputation, if = nothing else. John Bennion's novel Falling Toward Heaven offered me some delicious = suspense related to what the author's real motives were in exploring = Mormon characters and themes--and I'm afraid it's impossible not to have = ulterior motives of either proving or disproving Mormonism when dealing = with such charged material. I commenced this reading experience knowing = that Bennion is an English professor at Brigham Young University--but he's = in BYU's most troublesome department, where several cultural wolves in = sheep's clothing--real or imagined--have already been ousted. In addition, = I was fully aware that the publisher is Signature Books, which is not = known for publishing fiction as propaganda to affirm the faith.=20 [ . . . ] This is a novel for those who seek spiritual adventure in their = fiction rather than spiritual security--in other words, it's a literary = novel as opposed to a popular novel. Readers of faith-affirming popular = Mormon fiction have their reward, but in both word and deed Bennion = champions the moral value of more complex, challenging, open-ended = fiction. In a 1997 BYU Studies article, he wrote: "The literary novel is = an experiment in existence, in being. It is moral, not because it spells = out answers and defines abstract principles, but because it requires moral = decisions in a fictional universe that approaches the complexity and = ambiguity of the universe we find ourselves in." Bennion is a believer in = Mormon doctrine, but he is obviously not a believer in the aspects of = Mormon culture Allison helps save Howard from.=20 [ . . . ] While this is probably not the literary novel that will finally crack = into the Mormon fiction mainstream currently dominated by Deseret Book and = Covenant, I hope it's another step in the right direction. A believing = Mormon can walk away from this novel with inspiring, even faith-promoting = ideas about how life's excruciating dilemmas allow us to fall toward = heaven, like Adam and Eve did. Though "literary," the novel is a pleasure = to read, with swift, economical prose, lively pacing and dialogue, and = colorful images and events. My only quibbles are with some comma usage and = with some dialogue that seemed a little too self-aware and elliptical. = Frankly, I wish a publisher as culturally polarized as Signature hadn't = published this novel--I wish it had been published by some new Mormon = publisher carving out territory for intelligent, faithful readers = dissatisfied by both the foregone conclusions of popular Mormon fiction = and the excessively nonplussing fiction of the literary elite. Irreantum = Books, anyone? Chris Bigelow ---- For a sample copy of IRREANTUM, the literary quarterly published by the = Assocation for Mormon Letters, send $4 to AML, P.O. Box 51364, Provo, UT = 84605-1364.=20 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 25 Jun 2001 13:21:47 -0600 At 06:22 PM 6/24/01 -0600, you wrote: >We finally got to _Brigham City_ and after loving _God's Army_ and being >very pro-Dutcher and pro-his-genre, I was expecting to fall in line with >loving this movie. > >We didn't love it so much though, I had the opposite reaction. Not being a fan of murder mysteries, I expected to dislike the movie. But I thought it was great, and I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why I liked it so much! >We compared the ocean baptism in _God's Army_ (I know, it's >not the way baptisms REALLY are) artistically to the literal baptism in >_Brigham City_. It was much less effective artistically; it looked like a >clip out of a missionary movie. I liked it. The man went into the water, and came out smiling. He knew what he had just gained. I loved it. I wasn't thinking "artistic"--I was thinking "spiritually clean." >Similarly, knowing it's a mystery, we get glimpses of all the suspects. >However, we get many, MANY more long closeups of Wes the sheriff than of >almost all the suspects put together. One reason I liked the movie, I think, it that it wasn't just another stupid murder mystery. It was about this man. What he went through and what he learned was more important, IMO, than the solution to the crimes. He was irrevocably changed by the events in the film. >We were uncomfortable with the long, literal church sequences. Didn't bother me at all. It showed Mormonism at work, an important element of the film. It showed a people living their religion, which was a major aspect of the setting the story took place in. That FBI chick was pretty smirky at the beginning of the movie, but not at the end. (I do wonder, though, why the last shot was one of her going out the door of the chapel. People less literal-minded than I am probably grasped the significance of that.) > In contrast, the >sequence where the congregation all took the sacrament and placed their cups >with a click worked well because artistically it established the >almost-universality of a congregation taking the sacrament in contrast with >meaningful abstinence. I loved the way that worked in the final scene. It was set up beautifully to work for non-Mormons when they saw that the woman who'd had to confess and had been released from her calling did not take the sacrament. I LOVED the way the congregation supported their bishop and showed their love and understanding. BTW, I didn't think about this until later, but. . . .aren't bishops required to be married? You know, so they can identify with anguish and pain? >Taking this film as part of the mystery genre, perhaps the scenes of >the suspects with the tire iron and the shotgun could have been handled with >just a little more delicacy. They are good examples of the way a filmmaker can take something ordinary and make it ominous. The tire iron scene played on the fact that big men are often perceived as dangerous, even though they may be sweethearts. BTW, I loved the way that what he told Wes about learning to check references played into the confrontation with the villain (whose identity completely surprised and shocked me!) >The final sacrament meeting scene was superb. Like everybody else, we cried >a lot, and we felt that the whole system of symbols worked great, including >the deacon's role. I agree--it was marvelous! The layers of meaning in the film raise it far above your standard mystery. >Dutcher here is facing the very same challenges that LDS fiction writers >have faced from the beginning: how to render the culture without the heavy >hand. I thought he did a wonderfully effective job! He showed us in regular lives--some good, some bad, some courageous, some a bit ridiculous. I enjoyed seeing Utah scenery on the big screen. Another thing that struck me was the different look Dutcher had in the two films. In God's Army, he looked gaunt, like a guy with cancer. In Brigham City, he looked like a man who'd had a gimpy leg for a few years and couldn't get the exercise he used to. Is this an example of a dedicated actor changing his entire being to fit a role? I am totally impressed with these two films, in particular the acting. BTW, I saw Scott Bronson's name in the credits, but didn't see him in the movie. Who was "Carpenter"? I guess he just acted so well I couldn't see the person I knew! Also noted Ivan Crossland's name in the credits, but don't know who "John" was. Well, add me to the Richard Dutcher fan club. Barbara R. Hume barbara@techvoice.com (801) 765-4900 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] LDS and World Religions (comp) Date: 25 Jun 2001 10:04:50 -0600 [MOD: Thanks to all who replied, including some whose posts are not included here because they duplicated information posted by others.] on 6/22/01 4:27 PM, Eric D. Snider at eric@ericdsnider.com wrote: >>> Also that only 1 in 7 LDS live in the United States. > > > Is this true? It was just a few years ago that we hit the 50/50 mark, > where there were as many LDS outside the U.S. as in. Has the non-U.S. > LDS population grown so dramatically since then that now it's 86/14? > That doesn't sound right. > > Eric D. Snider > > [MOD: I have the same question. Is there anyone out there with a > most-recent-year Church Almanac who can look this up?] I posted that number since I saw it on the website I was referring to, but I mentioned it particularly since it seemed so out of whack with everything I had heard from the church. Sorry to cause confusion--I would trust the church's own numbers. Steve skperry@mac.com >From lauramaery@writerspost.com Mon Jun 25 10:06:07 2001 >>Also that only 1 in 7 LDS live in the United States. I think the writer meant for that sentence to read 1 in 7 live in the United State of Utah. The 50/50 factoid is still pretty close to spot on. --lmg >From leeallred@rmi.net Mon Jun 25 13:51:57 2001 The 2001-2002 Church Almanac (pg 576) states that as of Dec 31, 1999 LDS Church membership as follows: Worldwide: 10,752,986 US/Canada: 5,270,692 Outside US/Canada: 5,482,294 ...so roughly 50%/50%, with outside the US/Canada having a slight edge. --Lee Lee Allred leea@sff.net www.leeallred.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MHoltTsutsui@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Facial Hair Date: 25 Jun 2001 16:19:25 EDT For a different, multi-level twist on 'noncomformity,' there is only one man in this Texas ward who has visible facial hair. He is the beloved, quiet young bishop himself. Could it be some men are so independent that their hair is just their hair? Or a romantic fantasy of their wives that must be fulfilled? When we can evoke that thought in a writing, dodging all the cultural expectations of time, geography and position, we will have really accomplished something as writers and as a society. Marie Tsutsui - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: Call for _God's Army_ Writers Date: 26 Jun 2001 14:45:58 EDT Thank you to all the great writers that submitted their work for the "God's Army" spin off novel. We have chosen a writer so submissions are no longer needed. Thank you again for your responses and support. Keep up the good work! Emily Pearson Managing Director Zion Films - 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] LABUTE, _The Shape of Things_ (pt 2) Date: 25 Jun 2001 13:59:42 -0600 Anyway, that's the relationship. Adam is changing; he looks better, he's = more confident, he also looks very different. Evelyn gives him an = ultimatum; permanantly drop your friends, or lose me. He drops the = friends. He proposes to her; he gives her a ring. She says she'll give = him her answer after her graduate show is over--her art project that acts = as her MFA thesis. =20 SPOILER ALERT: I'M NOW GOING TO GIVE AWAY THE ENDING. IF YOU DON'T WANT = TO READ IT, SKIP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH So, we see her art project. Two easels, covered. She unveils the first = one; it's a before picture of Adam. She unveils the second one--it's the = after picture. He's been her art project. His body was her clay, her = canvas. She's transformed him, and that transformation is her work of = art. Turns out, everything she's said to him, every confidence, every = detail, was a lie. And she doesn't apologize for any of it. She's an = artist, she says. That's what artists do. And if you don't like it. . . = . and at that point, she gives the audience the finger. F U. The students in my program absolutely loved it. It was the highlight of = the trip, as far as many of them were concerned. And yet, a bunch of them = said to me afterwards, "it feels so Mormon. It's a Mormon play." Why? I agree; it does feel very Mormon to me too. But why? After all, = there's a bit of harsh language in it, quite a bit, I guess. It's a play = about a sexual relationship between people who aren't married. It's dark = in tone. Why does it feel so Mormon? First and foremost, the play is informed, as all his plays are, with the = strongest possible moral sense. He's often described as a modern = naturalist (indeed, that's how I've described him). But this play = persuades me that what he's really doing is creating parables. He wants = to propose to us certain extreme moral positions, and then invite us to = compare our own behavior with those he depicts. As an artist, I certainly = have never mistreated anyone as badly as Evelyn mistreats Adam, but I have = mistreated people, to my ever living shamem and Neil invites me to = re-examine my own behavior in that regard. And the focus is on moral = behavior. Neil, as a Mormon, believes in moral absolutes, and that's the = focus of his work. Whatever we may feel about the inherent subjectivity = of art, something within us recoils from Evelyn's actions. Whether a work = of art is good or bad surely must be subjective, but whether her actions, = even while declaring herself an artist, are moral or immoral is less = debateable. And by comparing the subjective value of art with moral = relativism, Neil raises some very uncomfortable issues for those of us who = think of ourselves as artists. =20 Neil's work also feels Mormon precisely because his focus is moral, and = not political. Serious drama in London (and also, I think, in the US and = the rest of the west), is almost by definition political. I think of the = best and most powerful plays I saw in London, and almost without exception,= they talk of human behavior in political terms. The secular world tends = to see issues of morality in political terms, while Mormons (and many = Americans) tend to see political issues in moral terms. That's an = oversimplification, but I think it's also valid. (It also helps explain = why Europeans were so baffled by the Clinton impeachment, for example.) = Well, Neil is a moralist. I think that's why the play felt so Mormon to me, and I also think that's = why it's so popular, so cool. Because to London theatre-goers, Neil's = play feels very fresh and unusual and different. It's sort of unique. And = thus the cool venue and the very cool review by a very cool magazine. =20 Plus, the characters in Neil's plays, for all their swearing and bed = hopping, feel very Mormon, very innocent and naive. Adam says he's not a = virgin when he meets Evelyn, but we don't believe him for a second. The = university setting for this play is essentially BYU--the bad language = feels a bit forced, really. =20 I think it's about time we Mormon artist types re-embrace Neil. He's very = talented, and he's very hot right now, and his plays, I'm convinced, do = good in the world. In a lot of ways The Shape of Things does not break = much new ground for Neil--he's always been interested in objectification = as the heart of immorality, and he's still writing about college kids. = And the play doesn't bear close scrutiny, I think. (What kind of screwy = art program doesn't require close faculty mentoring of their MFA students' = thesis projects?) But it's thought-provoking, and tightly structured, and = quite fascinating. I, for one, applaud his success. And am thrilled to = consider him a brother LDS artist. 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: [AML] LABUTE, _The Shape of Things_ (pt 1) Date: 25 Jun 2001 13:26:00 -0600 Hi all, I just got back from seven weeks in London, on a major theatre binge with = a group of BYU students. Officially, I was directing a Study Abroad = program; actually, I was seeing how much theatre I could cram into seven = weeks. Anyway, one of the shows we saw there as a group was The Shape of = Things, Neil Labute's new play, and I though y'all might want to hear = about it. Neil is a very hot writer right now. He's also very cool. Here's how = cool he is; The Shape of Things opened at the Almeida. =20 In London, there are officially three kinds of theatres: West End, = Off-West End and Fringe. That's a little arbitrary. There are the West = End houses where the long-running hits play, the Les Mis house and the = Phantom house and the Cats house. These are all essentially vacuum = cleaner theatres, where large amounts of money are sucked out of the = pockets of American tourists, and into the pocket of Andrew Lloyd Webber. = He owns something like fifteen West End theaters right now, and of course, = still has shows he wrote playing in five of them. And those shows are the = ones that it's very easy to be really snobby about, and also snotty about, = as, for example, I'm being here. Those big touristy shows--The Lion King, = Buddy, Blood Brothers, Cats, Les Mis, Chicago, Phantom, Starlight Express, = The Graduate--are, by definition, not cool. You go to them knowing you're = doing something touristy and square, and cringe at all the American = accents in the lobby. =20 There's another producing entity, the New Ambassadors Group, which owns a = bunch of West End houses, but they're actually willing to take a chance on = more off-beat, less overtly commercial material; they're considered a bit = more cool. There's the National and the RSC. They're both pretty = terrific, though the National has declined badly under the artistic = direction of Trevor Nunn, and while I was there, were actually playing a = new My Fair Lady in the Lyttleton, the medium sized house of the three at = the National Theatre complex. My Fair Lady at the National; it makes you = want to weep, and in fact, the theatre professionals I met in London could = barely control their anger over it as a symbol of the sharply commercial = turn the National has taken. But Nunn was fired while I was there, and = his replacement, Nicholas Hytner, directed a terrific new Winter's Tale in = the Olivier, which is regarded as a hopeful sign. The RSC is still = phenomenally good, and fairly cool, but the National just isn't cool = anymore at all, though the future is brighter. =20 Now, the Fringe shows can be pretty amazing, and I saw some great stuff on = the Fringe. But the houses are often tiny. I saw a Dracula in a house = that couldn't have seated more than twenty, with a stage barely ten feet = square. I saw a remarkable production of Tadeuz Rosewicz' absurdist = classic The Card File in a theatre which was basically just the back room = in a pub. Great show, with an audience of maybe forty. And some Fringe = shows are also pretty dreadful. The Fringe is cool, but not really cool, = and of course, they don't make much money. =20 Okay, then there are the theatres that are REALLY cool. Off West End = houses, with a capacity of 400-500, doing the most daring, cutting edge, = tough minded, really really cool kind of stuff, and actually making some = money at it. These theatres--The Donmar, the Tricycle, the Royal Court, = the Bush--consistently are the toughest tickets to get in London. (The = Lion King, in comparison, is a breeze.) The audiences are younger, and = very cool looking. The shows are almost always either new plays or = revivals of terrific plays from the '70's and '80's that no one else would = dream of doing. Those of us who dream of a Mormon Theatre, dream of = something like the Donmar. And the coolest theatre of all those Off-West = End houses, far and away the coolest of the cool, is the Almeida.=20 So, The Shape of Things is at the Almeida. Time Out, the Bible of London = theatre, gave it a rave review the likes of which no other show in London = received. "This is the one show in London that you absolutely must see" = is what Time Out said of it. It stars--Paul Rudd. Not a movie star, = really, something better, a talented young actor who was the lead in = Clueless, who has been a very good actor in very cool movies without = becoming a movie star. It stars--Rachel Weisz. Not really a movie star; = better, a sort of movie star, the female lead in The Mummy Returns, where = she gets to do ancient Egyptian martial arts with a sword. =20 You walk into the Almeida. Their old theatre was this ramshackle former = warehouse; they're renovating it, and found another space, in a theatre = just off King's Cross. The roof is made of grass. On the corner by the = theatre is a genuine London head shop, advertising various goods made of = hemp. I'm waiting for one of our kids to show up; I watch limos pull up = to the theatre. Alan Rickman gets out of one limo. Emma Thompson gets out = of another one. You go inside. It's a thrust configuration (of course it = is. No stodgy old proscenium for the Almeida). Smashing Pumpkins is = playing, loud enough to render conversation impossible. The rumor is that = Neil (who also directed), found out what the local noise ordinance was, = how loudly he could play the music, and cranked it up to the exact decibel = level permitted by law. The play has some 8-10 scenes, and between each = one, the curtain closes, and we hear very loud rock music, mostly by the = Smashing Pumpkins but also some Radiohead. =20 Then the play started. And it's a Mormon play. It's Mormon through and = through. Adam (played by Rudd) is a somewhat nerdy graduate student at an unnamed = (but obviously culturally conservative) American university. He works at = a video store and has a second job as a security guard at a campus art = museum. Scene One, Evelyn (get it? Adam and Evelyn?), an MFA art student = at the same school, is preparing to deface a statue. Adam tries to stop = her, and a conversation ensues. She's very weird, but also pretty, and = Adam kind of falls for her, especially when he asks for her phone number = and she spray paints it on the inside lining of his jacket. =20 Subsequent scenes show their relationship. She moves in with him, and, at = her suggestion, he starts working out, loses some weight, changes his hair = style, changes his clothing style. He becomes more hip. Their relationshi= p, we gather, is pretty intensely sexual. He has two close friends; an = engaged couple. Evelyn doesn't like them, and his relationship with them = deteriorates. And she persuades him to go to a plastic surgeon and have a = nose job. =20 This post is going to take some time, so I'm going to send this one out = and start a Part Two. Bear with me. =20 Eric Samuelsen=20 - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _Macady_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2001 15:13:09 -0600 At 08:21 PM 6/23/01 -0700, you wrote: >Review >====== > >Jennie Hansen, "Macady" >1995, Covenant Communications, Inc. >Paperback, 235 pages, $10.95 > >Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle I consider Jennie Hansen one of the best fiction writers in the LDS market. She certainly knows how to use the techniques that were under discussion on this list not too long ago. I like her characterization, her sense of scene, and her storytelling ability. barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Date: 25 Jun 2001 14:41:33 -0600 On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 02:26:02AM -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: > The operative word here is "unique." If you string established symbols > together in a non-unique way, then you have no claim to the results. If > such an act is done at the word level, we call it "plagiarism." If done > at a more conceptual level, we call it "unoriginal" or "derivative." > None of these labels are considered particularly positive. _Testaments_ lies clearly outside the realm of plagiarism, so I would argue that _Testaments_ does present a unique organization of symbols. So let's deal with your term "derivative." Unless you want to begin making up scenes from Christ's life, any story involving Christ will have to derive from existing works. I doubt that the Church wants to present anything that they cannot substantiate with scripture, so they have to limit themselves to existing material. I agree, that when we read stories, we want them to have sufficient uniqueness that they do not bring to mind other works. But this uniqueness threshold differs from person to person. Some people don't care that the establishing scenes in Israel add nothing to the story. I wanted to communicate this subjective nature inherent in evaluating _Testaments,_ but I seemed to have failed in my attempt. > You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. An author can claim the > results of the symbols if he did something new with them--strung them > together in a new way. "Testaments" didn't. "Testaments" has no claim to > the evocation of emotion from the Christ scenes, because their power > came entirely out of a story that "Testaments" didn't create or add any > new insight to. I think we have intended different things by the terms "new" and "unique." I used the term "unique" to specify a work that had not previously existed. No one had made _Testaments_ before, therefore it represents a unique ordering of symbols. To me, the creators of _Testaments_ get to claim any response a viewer has to their work. The get to claim the emotional responses, the spiritual responses, and the disenchanted responses like yours. You want _Testaments_ to create some new synapse in your understanding of the symbols. I propose that as an LDS writer, you have a highly established matrix of symbols regarding Christ, doctrine, and art. A movie like _Testaments_ probably cannot add anything satisfying to your understanding of those symbols. But I also propose that you represent a minority among those who see (and probably enjoy) _Testaments_. Most people I know do not read anything (other than the scriptures -- and then only rarely) on a regular basis. The interesting question, for me, becomes: if the makers of _Testaments_ had deliberately made a film that would appeal to Michael, would it still have power for other viewers, or would a lot of people left the theater asking, "What just happened?" > My vehemence against _Testaments_ comes from the assumption I make about > what audience the filmmakers wanted to reach. If my assumption is wrong, > my belief that the film fails is wrong. I don't think my assumption is > wrong. As Richard Dutcher said, anything that appears on that screen > should be the most powerful film we can make. I believe the church wants > to do that and thinks it has. I say they are wrong--way wrong. If that > wasn't their intent, then I guess I may have to recant. If they wanted a > feel-good fluff piece about Christ, then I must admit, they succeeded. Because of the position the Church has created for itself as the correlating monitor of educational entertainment suitable for its saints, I don't think the Church can make the movie you want to see. Richard could make the film, but the Church has created so many self-limiting rules for what can and cannot appear under the official name of the Church, that it cannot produce anything interesting. I think the Church looked at the bell curve of saints, and tried to make a film that would pass correlation and communicate with all saints within two standard deviations of the mean. I believe that the very nature of the participants on AML-List puts most of us outside the Church's target audience. [Note: This does not imply that I believe AML-List participants have some sort of superior position above average saints. But the majority of us do have extensive literary experience that the common saint does not have. (In the same way that the majority of saints have significantly more experience with internal combustion engines than I have.) This body of experience causes us to react differently to works of art than most other people.] > So what have I done wrong then? I sure didn't lessen my criticism, even > in the face of a fair amount of disagreement. And I tried to be careful > about saying that for those people in the audience who liked that kind > of film, fine with me. I'm glad they had a good experience. > > But from all the hype, I went in expecting something profound. IT WASN'T > IN THE MOVIE! My beef is the film didn't match the assumed intent. > Debate with me whether my assumption of intent is wrong, and you may > convert me. Otherwise... I reacted to my inference that you were criticizing the viewers who did get something positive out of _Testaments_ -- which you have explicitly stated you did not intend. I also reacted because you seemed to say that filmmakers cannot take credit for the reactions a audience has to a film. No matter how "derivative" a work, the creator of that work can still claim the responses to that work, but I would argue that the filmmakers must also claim their failure to reach particular individuals. Such a failure comes either through choice ("We don't plan on communicating with this person") or by true failure ("We want to communicate with Mr. X" but Mr. X doesn't get the message). I believe that under the current production system, the Church has produced "the most powerful film we can make." I don't want you to lessen your criticism of the film; I had a similar reaction, just not as strong. Because of its size and continued growth, the Church's attempts at communication will probably only move away from the direction that we would like -- toward a more general, least-common-denominator message. So let's hope that independent artists can fill that void. -- Terry L Jeffress | A creative writer must study carefully | the works of his rivals, including the | Almighty. -- Vladimir Nabokov - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Subject: [AML] BESTOR, CONNORS _Saints on the Seas_ Date: 25 Jun 2001 15:21:10 -0600 Here is the second installment of a series of articles wherein Kurt Bestor describes his current project done with singer/songwriter Cori Connors in commemoration of the early saints who set sail across the sea to Zion. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/music/010612bestor.html Hope you enjoy his description. Steve -- skperry@mac.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] _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Sneak Preview of Movie Trailer) Date: 25 Jun 2001 22:09:26 -0500 Promo Alert -- delete if you are not interested: (Well, this did come from marketing. I won't get to see it until I get to work, but there's no reason any of the rest of you should have to wait on me, if you have an interest in this film. Larry Jackson) _____ Begin message _____ Thank you for your continued interest in our film, "The Other Side of Heaven." I wanted you to be among the first to see our movie's trailer. To see the trailer, log on to www.othersideofheaven.com Once you have seen the preview, I encourage you to email it to any number of your friends and associates. This movie has a mission. By helping promote the movie, you become part of our team, helping fulfill that mission worldwide. Thanks for your commitment and companionship. Ofa Atu -- Mitch Davis Writer, Director Executive Producer _____ End message _____ ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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 BJ Rowley's New Novel "Sting" Released: BJ Rowley Press Release Date: 25 Jun 2001 21:52:07 -0500 Release 24Jun01 US UT Prov A2 [From Mormon-News] BJ Rowley's New Novel "Sting" Released OREM, UTAH -- Author B J Rowley is very happy to announce the release=20 of his brand-new adventure novel, "STING!" This is an exciting,=20 action-packed adventure about a young man who carries an electrical=20 charge around in his body and shocks people all the time. Then he=20 becomes supercharged, learns to control and direct his electrical=20 impulses, gets himself into a fair amount of trouble in the process,=20 and even turns a sports car invisible! Stephen Ray Fischer, otherwise known as Sting, has a very annoying=20 little 'thing' about him. He can't seem to touch anyone without=20 shocking them--literally. Even with rubber-soled shoes and standing=20 on plain dirt or cement, everybody gets zapped. It's not serious, of course. Kids do it all the time. But not ALL the time. Now, as a junior in his small-town high school, Sting's schoolmates=20 have long since learned to keep a wide berth, and as a result, true=20 friends are hard to come by. The taunting and teasing are relentless,=20 especially when Sting's little 'stings' start getting a little out of=20 hand. After a curious incident with a high voltage power line, Sting finds=20 he's suddenly becoming more and more electrically charged. Lights=20 turn off and on, clocks spin like wall fans, radios and TVs change=20 channels. Something VERY weird is happening, and Sting has no idea=20 what it is or what to do about it. There's even talk of having him=20 put away! Only one girl, a newcomer named Connie Phillips, has compassion for=20 the walking, human lightening bolt. And her father, a retired=20 scientist with a very mysterious past, takes the supercharged Sting=20 under his wing and into his confidence as he works secretly on his=20 'project' in the garage. Then life gets complicated. Sting's jolted and electrocuted peers decide to teach him a lesson=20 he'll never forget. Some unnamed government agencies from the big=20 city want Sting locked up for scientific study. Church member want=20 him 'Ex'ed. And a smooth talking businessman=97with bodyguards=97wants to=20 'employ' Sting for reasons he can't even begin to imagine. And as if that weren't enough, Mr. Phillips' project--a top secret,=20 uniquely modified, VERY supercharged Corvette Stingray--has suddenly=20 disappeared. Vanished! And all fingers point to Sting Ray Fischer. It's a guaranteed, page turning, good time. Cover art and sample chapters of Sting are available on Rowley's=20 website:=20 http://www.bjrowley.com/Sting.html . Rowley says he is also planning to release another book, "Sixteen In=20 No Time," (It's a Time-Warp kind of thing.) in mid-August of 2001.=20 And book Four of his Light Traveler Adventure Series is tentatively=20 scheduled for release in early Spring of 2002. Source: BJ Rowley's New Novel "Sting" Released BJ Rowley Press Release 24Jun01 A2 >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: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Humor-Themed _Irreantum_ Date: 25 Jun 2001 20:57:43 -0600 Chris Bigelow wrote: > With a special emphasis on Mormon humor, the spring 2001 issue of IRREANTUM, > the literary quarterly published by the Association for Mormon Letters > (AML), is now available > POETRY: > Missionary's Lament, Richard Johnson > Untitled, Tony A. Markham > Don't Say It, Beth Hatch > A Father's Love, Paul W. Sexton > Resurrected Spring, Linda P. Adams > Wrong Way, Katie Parker > An Argument, Katie Parker > Educated Woman, Laraine Wilkins > Mimesis Upended: A Reluctant Nod to Mr. Wilde, Sharlee Mullins Glenn > Raison D'Etre, Sharlee Mullins Glenn Oh dear. My poems are not meant to be *funny.* I hope no one tries to read them that way or they'll think my attempts at humor are pretty pitiful! 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: Rosemary Pollock (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN The Life of Groundbreaking Film Maker Richard Dutcher: Date: 26 Jun 2001 04:02:44 -0500 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com The Life of Groundbreaking Film Maker Richard Dutcher PROVO, UTAH -- Looking back at his life, film writer,director and producer Richard Dutcher, 37, can say it has been like a movie. Telling the story of a young boy who fills his long hours alone at home by writing his own novels, working long days in hot oil fields, holding multiple jobs in pizza joints and nursing homes, coupled with a father who chased women and worked in bars and a step father who ultimately found himself behind bars, Dutcher had only had to reflect on his life for stories he has put on the screen. Best known for "God's Army" and "Brigham City," Dutcher, a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't afraid to talk about his religion. "There were four new gay-themed films opening in L.A.," Dutcher said. "I was so frustrated. Why do they get to make movies, and I don't? Why can't Mormons do the same thing? Each film doesn't have to be for the whole world." "I drew on my own experiences. I took two years and condensed them. They tell you to write about what you know. I knew this was absolutely right." "God's Army" was largely a husband-wife production. Gwen, who is a talented sculptor in her own right and mother to their four children was a line producer for "Girl Crazy," Dutcher's first film that he calls 90 minutes of fluff that took five years to make. She helped with costumes, marketing, sets and publicity for "God's Army." "She would use her maiden name so we wouldn't sound like a mom-and-pop outfit," Dutcher said. "It was just Gwen and I until a couple of weeks before the movie actually opened. I was working constantly. We were in over our heads." Ultimately, "God's Army" has played in 240 different cities nationwide, grossing $2.6 million at the box office before being sold to video. This paved the way for "Brigham City," another of Dutcher's films that went mainstream, but was not as successful as "God's Army." Dutcher has used the difficult experiences of his youth to portray parts of his life and various characters in "God's Army." The missionary with the pedophile father is Dutcher with his stepfather. The missionary who had the emotional religious-conversion experience is Dutcher again. "I've had some dark, ugly kinds of experiences I'd rather not experience again," he says. "He has succeeded through an incredible force of will," say wife Gwen. "Like pushing a huge boulder up a hill." "He's so free of baggage for someone who went through what he went through. It astounds me. He's got confidence. He had to be independent at an early age. At 14, if he wanted clothes he bought them, and if he wanted meals he cooked them. I admire him for how he was able to come out of it without resentment and with a positive outlook on what he can achieve." Dutcher has aspired to make movies since he was a young teen in Mount Vernon, Illinois but the new mix of Mormonism and movies has proved touchy. "There are tons of Mormon filmmakers who are telling Mormon stories and then take Mormonism out of it. It's cowardly and greedy. They do it because they think they'll make more money at it, but they're doing a disservice to their own people." "I never considered doing anything else," Dutcher said. "It would be either films or novels." At the age of 13, Dutcher was profoundly moved by an article he read in the Ensign, a Church published magazine, in which church President Spencer W. Kimball urged LDS artists to tell the Mormon story. It wasn't until he was 14 that Dutcher said he was truly converted. "I had read the Book of Mormon a couple of times, as well as the Bible, and I had been very active, but I never felt that experience of having personal revelation that it was true," he said. "I was at a crossroads, if I was going to keep going. I was sitting in the Carthage jail where Joseph Smith was martyred, and I bowed my head and asked if it was real. I began sobbing and I couldn't stop. Everybody was looking at me and wondering what was happening. It was powerful and wonderful. I was just filled with light. It didn't come from within, it came from without. I was just a participant. It is still something I draw on and go back to," Dutcher explained, not knowing this experience would prove to be the main thrust of one of his movies. Dutcher's high school senior year found him living in his car, being active in the student body and editor of the school newspaper. After high-school, Dutcher spent a year at BYU and then took a series of jobs to pay for his mission. During this time he never stopped writing stories and sending them off to publishers. "I thought the only way to get one of those jobs was to publish a book or sell a script," he said. After his mission, Dutcher returned to BYU and began to audition for locally produced movies. After his 1988 graduation, he and wife Gwen moved to Los Angeles. "We certainly got to see what it was like to struggle financially, but they were incredibly happy years," Gwen said. " "We lived paycheck-to-paycheck occasionally. The worst it got was when we maxed all our credit cards. All we had was our gas card, so we'd get our groceries at the gas station." Waiting for the big break that never came, Dutcher decided to make his own movie. "That's where I learned how to make films," he said. "That was my graduate school." It took five years to complete and Dutcher sold the movie to HBO, but didn't make enough to cover his costs. He was told that he must add nudity every seven or eight minutes. "It was at that moment that I wondered what am I doing here," he said. "I knew I wasn't going to do that. I walked out really in despair. I thought there is no way I can be LDS and be a successful filmmaker. It was a real turning point." "I was lying in bed one night and saw where I was heading and it wasn't a good place. I was really going down the wrong path." It was at this time that Dutcher considered leaving the business and going into teaching. While barbecuing hamburgers in his backyard, Dutcher's eye fell on the L.A. Times movie section and he was disgusted with what he saw. It was then that he decided to be a voice for the Mormon story. Currently, Dutcher has put his energy into another Mormon-movie project: "The Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith Jr." It will be his biggest financial undertaking so far at $10 million. It will use "recognizable actors" and this time he will play only a minor role in the film. "I feel peaceful about it," he says. "There's something very fitting, going back to that experience in the Carthage jail. It feels right. I'm surprised nobody has beaten me to it." "Most of us don't really know that much about Joseph Smith. I found that out myself." "If the Lord can use flawed people to do his work, there's hope for all of us," Dutcher concluded. Source: Richard Dutcher, Mormon moviemaker Deseret News 17Jun01 A2 http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,280007247,00.html By Doug Robinson: Deseret News senior 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: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Mag for Kids Date: 26 Jun 2001 19:44:06 >I don't want to start a war, but Seagull Book and Tape, like >Signature, is thought of in some quarters as not "true blue." Would >the name Seagull in a fiction magazine help sales, or would it foster >a pre-prejudice against the publication? > >Roy Schmidt > Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I live right here in Happy Valley and hear very little about Seagull Book & Tape. I mean, I know they're here, and they have several locations in the valley, but I don't have an "image" of them one way or the other. I don't hear a lot about them, either. I don't think they're well-known enough to make people think of them when they hear of a magazine called "Seagull," especially considering the seagull's place in Mormon folklore. I would just assume "Seagull" had to do with Mormons, and I doubt I'd make the connection to the chain of bookstores. By the way, for what it's worth, I would whole-heartedly support an all- (or even mostly-) LDS fiction magazine. It's a brilliant idea. Someone with some money (i.e., not me) should start one. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 26 Jun 2001 13:52:53 -0600 Sharlee asks: Surely you're talking here about the _Ensign_. But what about the _New Era_ and the _Friend_? Do you really think kids are going to be interested in a whole magazine full of "doctrinal works"? Roy responds: Well, yes. When my children were little they loved to have me read what Presidents Kimball and Benson had to say. When those prophets had something to say to young children, they wrote on a level the children could understand. If the brethren write on that level, the kids will enjoy it, I think. Even though my oldest is 39, I have a son still at home who will turn 17 next week. Getting him to read anything is tough, and the first place he turns when the New Era arrives is to the jokes and to the Mormon poster. The next stop is to read what the brethren have to say, particularly if it is President Hinckley, Monson or Packer. Again, these leaders address the youth in language they understand. I do, however, believe, that publications featuring good fiction, articles, jokes, etc. aimed towards youth and children is needed, but I do not necessarily believe the Church needs to publish such periodicals. Roy Schmidt - 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: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 26 Jun 2001 13:23:51 -0700 (PDT) --- Christopher Bigelow wrote: > It sounds like what you're talking about > related to a new publishing company, D. Michael, is > someone to take a place on the spectrum between > Covenant (or maybe Cornerstone, with their 2-3 > fiction offerings to date) and Signature. It seems > like that should be doable, but the people you > really have to convince are the retailers in the LDS > Booksellers Association, since they are the > gatekeepers to the LDS audience. Otherwise you will > just have to hit the independent > Signature/Sunstone/Dialogue crowd, who don't number > more than 5,000 people and who are already having > their needs met. There's got to be some way to > "trick" the LDSBA retailers into accepting an edgier > publisher who is still "faithful." What I find fascinating about the Mormon publishing scene is the fact that this 'spectrum' exists. I don't know that it is necessarily a unique phenomenon. My guess is that any 'movement' that has a decent sized buying public ends up with publishing houses that fit the attitudes of various members---for example, envirommentalism, feminism, the anarchist/socialist crowd, or any right wing counterparts (I can't think of any at the moment). I wonder how the 'mid-stream' example from these movements fares. What lies between the Sierra Club and Earth First!? As I try to wrap my mind around this idea (and I try because it's an idea I'd love to see come to fruition), I see a few major obstacles---I'm sure we all do. But let me also express some optimism. I think a potential readership is out there. My sense of things is that the kind of Mormons who might be attracted to works offered by a mid-stream publishing house doesn't read much Mormon literature. These are folks who generally buy doctrinal titles from the LDS booksellers---people who may go and see _God's Army_ and may just read _The Work and the Glory_, but on the whole read 'gentile' fiction---either li-fi lite (Ann Tyler, Jane Austen, C.S. Lewis, John Irving) and/or quality genre stuff (Stephen King, Michael Crichton?). In other words, they are only going to get interested in a work of Mormon art if it is of sufficient quality and enough of an event in the Mormon world that it hits their radar screen. The question is how to reach this readership. I don't know many folks who buy fiction at the LDS bookstore, and yet I know that a lot of them read novels. Is there a mythical untapped market out there? If so, how can it be reached? And if it can be reached, will it be able to handle the kind of work D. Michael suggests, or at least will enough folks be able to handle it that they can then educate other more 'orthodox' readers, or at the very least get them to try it? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - 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] Literary LCD Date: 26 Jun 2001 14:48:56 -0600 D. Michael: > I declared that the LDS publishers are trying to do just what > Margaret decries above: publishing to the lowest common > denominator so any LDS can walk into a Deseret Book store > and pick up anything and, without knowing fact one about it, > feel "safe" letting it sit out in their living room where the kids > have access to it. (In other words, let Deseret Book make his > moral decisions for him.) [snip] > Is there a market out there for books that are faithful to the > Gospel, but depict the gamut of human degradation? > Specifically, books that show acts of sex (not gratuitously, > but when necessary and with as much detail as necessary) > that may not be moral sex, but which does not glorify immoral > sex or show that it has no consequences? (In addition to any > other questionable acts besides sexual ones.) [snip] > Would it work? No. I mentioned this some time back, but I will mention it again: I polled my wife's reading group on this very thing. Not incerdibly scientific, nor was the scope very broad or deep in the market, but within this one group the scope was broad enough I think. They had recently read "Remembering Blue" by Something, Something Fowler, one of those Oprah-type books. It had the type of "content" you're talking about; swearing, sex and stuff like that. These ladies all really, really liked it. It was terribly "romantic." I asked them if they would buy the same type of book if it were by and about Mormons. Absolutely not. Why not? It took me awhile to get them to boil it down to a single reason, but what it turns out to be is: We expect more from Mormons. We don't want them to be like the rest of the world. So, you're telling me that it's okay for you to identify with non-mormon sinners, but not mormon sinners? That's not what we're saying. It was what they were saying, but they couldn't see it. They don't see the hypocrisy in their thinking, so there is no way to get around it. This wasn't the attitude of all the women in the group, just the most vocal women in the group. And that's the way things go out in the market. The most vocal minority gets their way. So, D. Mike, I like your idea, but I don't think it will work ... yet. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 26 Jun 2001 16:24:48 -0700 >> BTW, I didn't think about this until later, but. . . .aren't bishops >> required to be married? You know, so they can identify with anguish and >> pain? The answer to that is a definite yes but I had the distinct impression he had not been a widower for that long and was still in the grieving process. I'm sure he could fully relate to the anguish and pain of his flock. Jerry Tyner - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 26 Jun 2001 16:47:08 -0700 Sharlee Glen wrote: >> The real need here is for a literary magazine geared toward LDS *kids.* >> That's what I'm interested in. The _Ensign_ hasn't published fiction for >> some time now anyway, and there are already several good alternative venues >> for adult short fiction (specifically _Sunstone_ and now, of course, >> _Irreantum_). But the kids need something. So do the teenagers, but I'll >> leave that to some other enterprising soul. I really have to agree with this. Youth tend to be taught through parables and stories with interpretations. Especially at the _Friend_ level. Even teenagers need to have you come to their level and make sure they are listening to you and you are listening to them. Let's all hope and pray that if this is an experiment and it doesn't work at all levels that some changes will be made and not just an attitude of _they will get used to it_ happens. Jerry Tyner - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: inthenews (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] Court Sides With Writers On Electronic Reuse of Work Date: 26 Jun 2001 14:42:28 -0500 The following roundup of science stories appearing each day in the general media is compiled by the Media Resource Service, Sigma Xi's referral service for journalists in need of sources of scientific expertise. [MOD: Forwarded, of possible interest to AML-List members:] For accurate instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe to the listserv, follow this link: If you experience any problems with the URLs (page not found, page expired, etc.), we suggest you proceed to the home page of "Science In the News" which mirrors the daily e-mail update. IN THE NEWS Today's Headlines - June 26, 2001 COURT SIDES WITH WRITERS ON ELECTRONIC REUSE OF WORK from The Boston Globe Not necessarily science-related, but possibly of interest to readers of "Science In the News": WASHINGTON - Siding with the nation's independent writers, artists, and photographers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that freelancers have a right to be paid extra when publishers reissue their work on electronic databases or Web sites. In a case targeting several publications, including The New York Times, the justices ruled 7-2 that a newspaper or magazine publisher's initial right to an article, drawing, or photo does not carry with it the right to re-publish those works in a digital version without getting permission from and compensating the individual who created it. The court stressed that publishers remain free to try to persuade freelancers to waive their rights before their work is purchased - a move that many publishers already have begun to make. The decision heralds sweeping changes in the world of publishing and the contest over the ownership of creative works. With publishers having to negotiate separate payment for works available in electronic form, Web sites may face challenges in assembling content, and print media may face financial challenges to stay competitive in an online, global market. Please follow these links for more information about Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society: Sigma Xi Homepage http://www.sigmaxi.org Media Resource Service http://www.mediaresource.org American Scientist magazine http://www.americanscientist.org For feedback on In the News, mailto:inthenews@sigmaxi.org - 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] Relief Society Magazine Date: 26 Jun 2001 20:55:44 -0400 At 04:54 PM 6/21/01 -0600, you wrote: > > >I love that magazine (The Relief Society Magazine). I acquired a bunch >of them in weird ways and I've been considering actively collecting >them. The magazine started in 1914 and I have issues as late as 1958. >I'm not sure how or why or when it folded. > >Jacob Proffitt =============================== It didn't fold. It was simply discontinued...about the same time the GAs also took away the RS's checkbook. I had an uncle who became a millionaire printing wedding invitations for LDS woman who saw his ads in the Relief Society Magazine. Merlyn Clarke - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 26 Jun 2001 20:59:49 -0400 What if a GA or two took to writing fiction? Think they'd get published? After all, a few GAs have written hymns. Merlyn Clarke - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] Relief Society Magazine Date: 26 Jun 2001 18:21:16 -0700 Richard Johnson wrote: >>They exact year leaves me, but the _Era_ became the Ensign_, the _Era for Youth_ became >>what is and the _Children's Friend_ became the _Friend_ and the _Relief Society >>Magazine_ and the _Instructor_ went to the scrap heap. If I remember correctly the date of the name changes was sometime in the early 70's (71 or 72). When I served my mission in Montana and Wyoming in the mid-70s there were still some people upset about the name changes. Makes you wonder sometimes if the Lord inspires odd change just to shake the trees and bushes and see what may fall out (or away). Jerry Tyner - 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] Jennie HANSEN, _Macady_ (Review) Date: 26 Jun 2001 17:26:06 -0700 Agreed. She is very good. Thanks for the good note! ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 2:13 PM > At 08:21 PM 6/23/01 -0700, you wrote: > >Review > >====== > > > >Jennie Hansen, "Macady" > >1995, Covenant Communications, Inc. > >Paperback, 235 pages, $10.95 > > > >Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle > > > I consider Jennie Hansen one of the best fiction writers in the LDS > market. She certainly knows how to use the techniques that were under > discussion on this list not too long ago. I like her characterization, her > sense of scene, and her storytelling ability. > > barbara hume - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] LDS and World Religions Date: 26 Jun 2001 21:13:25 -0700 (PDT) --- Rose Green wrote: This isn't a direct answer to Steve's question, but German members are very interested in LDS literature and the members in my ward were always getting books in German from somewhere--I got the idea that there was some sort of outlet for LDS materials in German (other than ordering standard church stuff from the distribution, I mean).  And of course, there are lots of LDS-related books that are published in Spanish (not just the standard works and books by James E. Talmage). ---------- This isn't a direct response to Rose's indirect answer to Steve's original post, but here it is: When I was in Romania as a missionary, I met a man who collected books. He wasn't that interested in the Church (although he did politely allow us to present the 1st discussion), but when he found out that not only was I Mormon, but I also knew German, he scurried off, dug around in a few stacks of books and then presented me with a German language book that was about Mormons. I tried to refuse to take it, but that's not how things work in Romania, so I brought it back with me to the states. I had no idea what it was, but now that I look at it, it turns out that it is a translation of Vardis Fisher's _Children of God_. In German it's called _In der Wueste ein Reich_ (_In the Desert, a Kingdom_ ). I had never looked at the title page, so it hadn't clicked until just now. Plus I had never heard of Vardis Fisher until a year or two ago. So that's one piece of Mormon lit. that's available in German. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] Manipulative Endings Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:49:35 -0700 On 30 May 2001 Anna Wight (WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review)) said, > Emotion on the other hand is honest. On 04 Jun 2001 the recently affianced Jim Picht (congrats Jim. Very good.) replied, > Sometimes I've been manipulated into feeling them. Sometimes emotion > blinds us to the truth, which is why we shouldn't often make important > decisions in the heat of strong emotion. On 05 Jun 2001 ([AML] Emotional Honesty) Anna replied: > Isn't that what writers do? We manipulate emotion. We put sad scenes in > stories to make people cry, we put funny scenes in to make them laugh. We > put exciting scenes in to make them feel adventurous, or romantic scenes in > so that they fall in love. If you cry over a novel, that's because the > writer wanted you to. If the writer didn't manipulate emotion, then the > writing would most likely be dry and dull. It's tempting to just say, No, I don't manipulate emotion. I testify, and what I want to read is testimony, but such brevity would be out of character--I have to say something so harlowicient that even Hollow Cluck can't figure out what I'm trying to say. Ten years ago I decided it was time to start presenting papers at the AML Symposium, so I rewrote a grad scull (if you've seen Lake Union in the early morning you know) paper comparing Terry Eagleton's marxist theories of value with Marden Clark's Mormon theories of value, and threw in an intriguing comment from Lionel Trilling. >>>>> I do not know how other teachers deal with this extravagant personal force of modern literature, but for me it makes difficulty. Nowadays the teaching of literature inclines to a considerable technicality, but when the teacher has said all that can be said about formal matters, about verse-patterns, metrics, prose conventions, irony, tension, etc., he must confront the necessity of bearing personal testimony. He must use whatever authority he may possess to say whether or not a work is true, and if not, why not; and if so, why so. He can do this only at considerable cost to his privacy. ("On the Teaching of Modern Literature," in Beyond Culture: Essays on Literature and Learning, New York, Viking Press, 1965, p. 9) <<<<< What Trilling doesn't say, but surely implies, is that if the reader must bear personal testimony, so must the writer. So here's a question. Would you say that when the bishop stands up every third month and starts off testimony meeting with his testimony he's manipulating the congregation, the warmup act working the audience so they'll be more receptive to the manipulation of the other ward members? That's a provocative sentence, and I hope it provokes somebody. I hope I'm not the only person offended by the suggestion that a testimony meeting is a manipulation-fest. Of course, given on-going discussions in the missionary threads, what I hoped to accomplish by the sentence doesn't matter--I'm dead. (Hmm, this turned out short. I was hoping for mind-numbing length. Have to save that for another post.) Harlow S. Clark - 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Chris, I absolutely agree with everything you said about the kind of publisher we need. I especially agreed with your words about John Bennion's book. I feel so strongly about the need for such a publisher and for these kinds of books. Why don't you do it? Irreantum Books sounds great. How can I help you? I'd do it myself if I knew anything about publishing. I don't. But the very thought makes my pulse quicken--this is exciting. Why couldn't it be done? We've got enough knowledge and desire among us in this AML group. There's got to be someone ready and willing to step in and create such a thing. Anyone? ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - 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 Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Fiction Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:58:54 -0700 The temple, as others have said, is a sensitive, problematic issue, problematic because though we covenant not to say much about it we don't covenant to say nothing. I don't know what missionaries show now, but in the late 70s we showed a filmstrip called "The House of the Lord," with pictures of various rooms in various temples, particularly the murals, and a bit of comment on the dramatic content of the ceremony. One reason people want to write about temple experience is that it's an important rite of passage. Armand Mauss said once that within Mormon culture those who attend the temple are a kind of elite--which is why any Christian bookstore with a half-decent anti- section has at least one book whose cover proclaims, "Written by a former temple Mormon." But we're never told exactly what we can or cannot say, which makes it difficult when a writer wants to explore what the temple means to a character. My parents' one time bishop and twenty-year neighbor (till he and Bea built a new house at the mouth of Rock Canyon) Edward Kimball wrote a letter to Sunstone or Dialogue once about leaders in the church and what they felt comfortable saying. He said that some leaders, people he respected, felt comfortable saying a lot more than he felt comfortable saying. Other leaders, people he respected, felt comfortable saying a lot less than he felt comfortable saying. The standard I use in deciding if I'm comfortable reading about the temple is Brigham Young's statement in Journal of Discourses 2:19: "Let me give you a brief definition. Your _endowment_ is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels . . . and gain your exaltation in spite of earth and hell." Elder John A Widtsoe felt comfortable enough with the statement that he included the whole statement in Discourses of Brigham Young (416), but I suspect a lot of people would not feel comfortable reading that part I cut, would feel the things it mentions are only to be had in the temple. (Ok, how many of us as children were fascinated by Facsimiles 1, 2, and 3?) Let me suggest, briefly and parabolically, why someone might want to mention the temple in a story, or set part of a story there. I have been turning over in my (very strange) mind for several years a story about a missionary approaching Dump Day who becomes aware that his mother and step-father very deliberately set out to destroy his relationship to his father (who he considers a first name rather than a parent). Several things happen at once. Among them, his mother calls the mission and asks to have him fly in to the airport nearest his father, the mission president tells him he has to make his peace with his father, and someone in a Gospel Doctrine class brings up an article I saw in BYU Studies, I think, with a title like "Prayer Circles in Early Christian Worship." (Memory says it's a Hugh Nibley article, but I don't see it in the bibliography in the back of _Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless.) All these things cause him to confront something he has tried to keep at arm's length (or further) his whole mission because it is so painful, a moment of intense anger he felt when he went through the temple and his (step)father gestured for his (non)father and step-(non)mother to join them in worship. He has a buried worry and guilt his whole mission that his anger and resentment offended the Spirit, and ruined that session. I don't have to say anything more about the temple than I've just said. LDS readers who have been there will understand my highly coded (to use Wm. Morris's phrase from 6/7/01) text. People unfamiliar with the temple will have some idea from the Gospel Doctrine class discussion (which ends up being of the Mass and how sacred it is to Catholics) of what it means to feel that you've violated a sacred moment through your anger. I'm more interested in people understanding the emotions the elder's sense of having violated the sacred produces, than in the specifics, but I do need my readers to understand that the incident which pains him took place in a sacred space. (I suppose I could have a memory of him and his sister reducing their father to tears because they wouldn't stop fighting, even as the family pulled into the parking lot at the Sacred Grove, but that's a different matter.) Part of the reason I want to use the temple is that the story explores the way parents violate the covenant of parenthood when they use their children to wound other people. Placing the scene in the temple suggests that destroying a child's relationship to a parent is as serious as violating temple covenants. I suspect that when when the step-father and mother invite the other parents into their worship they are trying to make peace, without understanding that you can't make all kinds of subtle and open disparagement of a parent, implying or even saying he's unworthy, for 10 or 15 years and expect a child to simply disregard that when you invite the other parents into your worship. So it's very confusing to the missionary, who can't help but wonder if his parents were lying in telling him his father was unworthy, and if they were, are they lying now, and if they weren't, did his father repent, and what does his understanding demand he do--since he's never really wanted a relationship with his father, but that's because his parents taught him not to want one. Und so weiter. (Imagine Yul Brynner saying it, dressed as the king of Siam.) I don't know how the story ends yet, just that understanding what happened redefines his relationship to his parents, and to the two parents he has been taught not to regard as parents. One other thing I just remembered. Part of what triggers his understanding is an investigator family, the Fibonaccis (ages 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, and 55--I'll probably write a companion novel, _Fibonacci Numbers_ narrated by Andrea Fibonacci, the 13-year-old "and the worst part of this year was, I had a religious conversion--not like I always thought it would be when I finally gave in to God, going up to the mourners' bar, and weeping and shouting glories to Jesus and giving my life to Salvation--but it was bad enough."). Bro. Fibonacci tells the elders one night how he investigated the Church several years earlier, but his ex-wife had just joined, and he couldn't understand how Jesus could take someone like her. "I tell you, Elder, the truth will make you free. But first it will make you hurt." (Great line from Elouise Bell.) The little clock in my lower right hand corner says 10:57 pm, not too late, but I have a play to work on. "The Mass is ended. Go in peace." Harlow Soderborg ("soderborg who? I soderborg but it flew away" -- Matthew's knock knock from a few years back, but he didn't get it when his cousin (mother of the cousin he told the joke to) mentioned it a couple weeks ago) Clark - 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 Mag for Kids Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:39:21 -0600 > By the way, for what it's worth, I would whole-heartedly support an all- (or > even mostly-) LDS fiction magazine. It's a brilliant idea. Someone with some > money (i.e., not me) should start one. > > Eric D. Snider I'm way behind reading posts, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but a few years ago (1993 or 94 I believe) there were at least two magazines, Latter-day Digest and Cameo, published by Larry Barkdull, funded by a grant through the Latter-day Foundation for the Arts. As I recall, there was some fiction, poetry, and a variety of articles and interviews with LDS personalities. I remember my delight at finding them, and my dismay when they disappeared. They were, at least in my opinion, well balanced with mass appeal and exactly what I imagine many LDS readers are looking for - a variety of short pieces that were not exactly fluff, but also not as highbrow as a "literary" magazine might seem. A tad pricey, something like $4 or $5, but they were sturdily constructed and had the feel of an actual book. I find parting with cash painful, but I was happy to pay the price and felt I got my money's worth from them. I seem to remember another very short-lived effort to launch an LDS fiction magazine, but the details escape me. It seems like there was exactly one issue of whatever it was, and I remember being fairly irked by that as the main feature was a 'to be continued' story I got involved in. Isn't that always the way it goes. I'd certainly welcome a resurrection of this type of thing, both for adults and youth. But I think it would be a tough sell to the masses for a variety of reasons, all the same reasons that keep the big LDS publishers cranking out the same old same old. Someone would have to have a lot of patience (and the money to be patient) to tackle this, because I bet it would take a minimum of three years before word got around that it was safe to have such an unsanctioned publication on your coff--er, postum table when the hometeachers drop by. 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: [AML] Institutional Art (was: _The Testaments..._) Date: 27 Jun 2001 02:24:48 -0600 Terry L Jeffress wrote: > The interesting question, for me, becomes: if the makers of > _Testaments_ had deliberately made a film that would appeal to > Michael, would it still have power for other viewers, or would a lot > of people left the theater asking, "What just happened?" Yes, it would have power for others. They may not come out sniffing and say, "Wasn't that nice?" They'd come out with deer-in-the-headlight eyes and say, "Wow!" That's how it plays out in my fantasy anyway. I'm no literary snob. I'm on the AML board, and I'm considered by my colleagues there to represent the populist approach to art. If I were in London right now, I'd be letting Andrew Lloyd Webber vacuum the money out of my pocket for _Les Mis_ and _My Fair Lady_ because I think they are two of the greatest musicals of all time, and to heck with the twenty-seat theaters. I like to merge populist material with artistic quality and produce something that appeals to the masses, but challenges them. I believe that's entirely possible to do, and if it's possible, it ought to be done. Even a light comedy ought to attempt to be the greatest light comedy the filmmaker can produce. A film projected onto the Legacy Theater screen certainly ought to strive for excellence, because the purpose of its very existence is to affect lives. _And_ it represents the church, which represents Christ. Why do we think representing Christ with mediocrity is a good thing? > Because of the position the Church has created for itself as the > correlating monitor of educational entertainment suitable for its > saints, I don't think the Church can make the movie you want to see. > Richard could make the film, but the Church has created so many > self-limiting rules for what can and cannot appear under the official > name of the Church, that it cannot produce anything interesting. Now I think we're getting to the crux of the issue. Has the church dug itself into a pit so deep it cannot escape? If you were around for the latest discussion on nudity, you know my position there. I don't want to resurrect that discussion; I merely want to use a point from it as an illustration... One of the reasons people give for having such rabidly anti-nudity legistation in America is because nudity would be shocking to many people. Yet the laws themselves are what keep nudity shocking, because they force everyone to never see it except in shocking situations. The law _causes_ what it's supposedly protecting us from. I think the same effect is going on with the church's overall efforts to "protect" the members. This can easily expand into a criticism of the church generally (NOT the Gospel), so I will try hard to circumscribe my comments entirely within the realm of art. Because the church has been so careful not to offend or cause misunderstanding when it comes to art and literature, many members of the church have come to believe that art and literature must always avoid offensive or misunderstanding--they think it's an eternal principle. So when someone like Richard Dutcher (or even Neil LaBute) comes along and tells a story, these members of the church don't say "I didn't like it," or "There were things in it I personally wouldn't want to watch." They say, "What's wrong with Richard Dutcher? Why is he doing these PG-13 things in a Mormon film? Bad, bad Richard." I won't even try to imagine what they say about LaBute. But why does it have to be that way? Why do the members of the church have to be trained to need bland art or they freak? Make no mistake, they are being trained that way--by default. These days, if the church doesn't actively endorse something, many members assume they actively condemn it. I don't want the General Authorities publicly endorsing Richard Dutcher films, but it would be nice if they made it clear that viewing challenging films "told from a faithful point of view" can be a positive thing and is okay. I believe the church, artistically speaking, is raising a bunch of children who don't know how to think for themselves. I'll never forget the day I was hawking my opera to some retail stores and one guy asked me, "Is it approved by the church?" Where on earth did this fellow get the idea the church _ever_ endorses art? The rules are in place because the church put them there. The church can remove them. The rules are there because the lowest common denominator complained or misunderstood something once upon a time. Now we have a bunch of rules to protect them from themselves. And the rules have become a breeding ground for lowest-common-denominator. We're no longer catering to the LCD, we're creating it. Why, instead of catering to the lowest common denominator, can't the church _educate_ the lowest common denominator and raise it to a higher level? We've been warned to death about avoiding "immoral" art to the point where no one knows how to deal with any kind of art anymore. One time a president of the church counsels (not commands) youth to avoid R-rated movies, and now the whole church thinks the Prophet told everyone never to see R-rated movies--even grown adults who ought to be able to make responsible moral decisions on their own. We all cower in the corner, paranoid we might catch a glimpse of a sinful act on the screen, afraid to taint ourselves with anything but Disney movies. This is eternal progression? I don't believe the leaders of the church wanted this to happen, or are actively encouraging it to happen. But I believe they are facilitating its occurrence by remaining silent on the positive aspects of art, and by giving in to the expectation that everything they do needs to be "lowest common denominator." No, it doesn't. > I think the Church looked at the bell curve of saints, and tried to > make a film that would pass correlation and communicate with all > saints within two standard deviations of the mean. Art by committee. Yeah, that'll change lives. By the way, wasn't "correlation" supposed to organize things in the church and give direction to it? When did correlation come to mean "water everything down to the lowest common denominator"? The English word "correlation" doesn't even mean that. > I believe that the > very nature of the participants on AML-List puts most of us outside > the Church's target audience. I'm nothing special. I didn't get any kind of literary degree in college. I don't belong to any English faculty anywhere. I think Bennion's _Falling Toward Heaven_ was too literary, even though it's not all _that_ literary. I don't get into discussions like Scott Parkin had with several people over what Mitchell's _Angel of the Danube_ really meant. I just thought it was funny. When people wax scholarly about literature and criticism on this list, I don't even know what they're talking about half the time. I'm still trying to decipher the term "post-modern." (Mostly I don't care enough to research it.) I'm not all _that_ far away from the masses. I'm just not afraid to think new thoughts. And if we're going to participate in eternal progression, we're all going to need to think new thoughts. Is the church's approach toward art teaching its members to think new thoughts? > Because of its size and continued > growth, the Church's attempts at communication will probably only move > away from the direction that we would like -- toward a more general, > least-common-denominator message. I fear you are right, but I fear it is also a mistake. How did a church which encourages the "pursuit of excellence" get into the business of incubating mediocrity like a festering disease in a Petri dish? (How's that for an image?) I also can't help but wonder if, as the church becomes more and more international, cultural backlash will reverse the trend, as other nationalities object to having a watered-down, correlated American culture overlaid onto their own. And I wonder if the whole phenomenon isn't mostly a Utah thing. It seems like, the further you get away from the incestuous culture of the mega-Mormon mountain west, the more members of the church are willing to think new thoughts--without having their testimonies fall on the floor and roll away. > So let's hope that independent > artists can fill that void. They could a whole lot easier if the Brethren would show even a rudimentary approval of independent art. It wouldn't have to be much. Just a "Relax, it's okay," kind of attitude. Or as Bart Simpson puts it in the poster hanging on my wall: "Don't have a cow, man!" -- 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] Literary LCD Date: 27 Jun 2001 03:39:50 -0600 "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > > Would it work? > > No. > Why not? > > It took me awhile to get them to boil it down to a single reason, but > what it turns out to be is: We expect more from Mormons. We don't want > them to be like the rest of the world. > This wasn't the attitude of all the women in the group, just the most > vocal women in the group. And that's the way things go out in the > market. The most vocal minority gets their way. > > So, D. Mike, I like your idea, but I don't think it will work ... yet. The "yet" changes by someone taking the chance and doing it. William Morris called it a "mythical market." I suspect he doesn't mean the colloquial meaning of mythical: nonexistent with a hint of derision behind it. I suspect he means something more along the line of "hypothesized." I hypothesize it exists. Some of these readers know they exist--like me. Some are part of the market and don't know it yet because it never occurred to them it could exist. These are the people we'd be targeting, and I feel confident they exist. The only question is, are there enough of them, and how can we reach them? The vocal minority matters to the established publishers who make conservative decisions. A new publisher targeting a new market won't care about them. -- 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: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 27 Jun 2001 07:54:28 -0600 On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:21:47 -0600 Barbara Hume writes: > That FBI chick was pretty smirky at the beginning of the movie, > but not at the end. (I do wonder, though, why the last shot was > one of her going out the door of the chapel. People less > literal-minded than I am probably grasped the significance of > that.) She knew that she didn't belong there. This is one of the reasons the first sacarment scene HAD to be in the film. She stayed for that one. She observed the culture of the indigenous folk and got the information -- ah, the mormon version of communion, interesting, very interesting. At the end, she was there -- not for any detached, sterile reason -- but because she actually had some kind of affection for the sheriff and wanted to see how he was going to move on with his life. As the scene progresses she realizes that there can be no cool observation of this event, that something profound and very private is happening, and that she simply doesn't belong. Following in my mother's footsteps, who creates scenes in her head to fill out the movies she likes that don't quite end the way she hoped they would, it's kind of nice to imagine that perhaps the "FBI chick" just waited in the foyer until the meeting was over and met with the sheriff again to give him a little hug ... or something encouraging like that. :-) J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com - 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] Re: Institutional Art (was: _The Testaments..._) Date: 27 Jun 2001 08:29:58 -0600 On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:41:33 -0600 Terry L Jeffress writes: > Because of the position the Church has created for itself as the > correlating monitor of educational entertainment suitable for its > saints, I don't think the Church can make the movie you want to see. > Richard could make the film, but the Church has created so many > self-limiting rules for what can and cannot appear under the > official name of the Church, that it cannot produce anything interesting. > > I think the Church looked at the bell curve of saints, and tried to > make a film that would pass correlation and communicate with all > saints within two standard deviations of the mean. [snip] > Because of its size and continued growth, the Church's attempts > at communication will probably only move away from the > direction that we would like -- toward a more general, > least-common-denominator message. So let's hope that > independent artists can fill that void. I'm sure that you're right about this and it baffles me. Since when does the Church try to NOT offend people. Doctrinally, the Church doesn't give a fig if you like the Church's postion. In fact, the Church has seemed to make a habit out of sending Elder Packer out with the express purpose of offending people. And if people are complaining to them on doctrinal matters, their position (and rightly so) is: Well, the doctrine is not going to change. We're not going to get in line with you; you'll have to get in line with the doctrine. Get educated and get a testimony of it. But with Church sponsored art, the policy seems to be the exact opposite: Most of you seem to be too stupid to get anything from masterful works of art so we will produce stuff as bland as possible so that you can be mildly entertained while you think you're learning great lessons of a spiritual nature when in fact you're not being made to think, you're just being made to cry because Beautiful Scenery + Swelling Violins + Any Depiction of Jesus = True Emotion. Is it truly beyond the scope of imagination to expect that a church authority can say: This is good for you. It may hurt you a little, but it will change you if you will open yourself to the spirit. Some of you anyway. We can't really expect that all works of art will be as effective on all people, and that's okay. If this doesn't work for you maybe ... this will. Or this. Or this. How would that damage the mission of the church? J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.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] Literary LCD Date: 27 Jun 2001 12:09:33 EDT In a message dated 6/25/01 11:00:07 AM Central Daylight Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << Language tends to be right behind sex as a no-no, and one of our members who has sold a book told about his experience with the editor who insisted the word "pee" be changed to "go to the bathroom." I declared that the LDS publishers are trying to do just what Margaret decries above: publishing to the lowest common denominator so any LDS can walk into a Deseret Book store and pick up anything and, without knowing fact one about it, feel "safe" letting it sit out in their living room where the kids have access to it. (In other words, let Deseret Book make his moral decisions for him.) >> I have a comment from a young Mormon pioneer in my book on young pioneers which describes a little Indian with a "red ribbon tied around his peepee." I also talk about pioneer men who shot young men "for making too free with their daughters." I know these would not have passed the censors at Deseret Book. I find it amusing that they will not publish things with even a hint of sex, yet they will carry these books in their stores. If young people in the church are watching ANY television, they are seeing sex everywhere, even on the news, and in commercials. Violet Kimball - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Literary LCD Date: 27 Jun 2001 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT) --- "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > > It took me awhile to get them to boil it down to a > single reason, but > what it turns out to be is: We expect more from > Mormons. We don't want > them to be like the rest of the world. > > So, you're telling me that it's okay for you to > identify with non-mormon > sinners, but not mormon sinners? > > That's not what we're saying. > > It was what they were saying, but they couldn't see > it. They don't see > the hypocrisy in their thinking, so there is no way > to get around it. > This double standard is something I've encountered as well. I think it stems from something that Linda Adams mentioned in a post a while back about people thinking the author has to experience everything that is portrayed in their works because otherwise the portrayal wouldn't be so effective. Oh yeah, it must have been in the thread that was started in response to Excel Entertainment's request for a female writer to do a _God's Army_ novel spin-off. At any rate, even if LDS readers don't think that the author has actually experienced whatever it is they're objecting too, they still seem supsicious of where that knowledge comes from---somehow evil or sin in a text reflects a dark shadow onto its author, implicates him or her. Tom J. might bring up Brian Evenson at this point ;). However, despite this obstacle (which Scott and I both seem to believe exists), I think that what D. Michael has in mind could possibly work. Here's one reason why: I periodically check the fiction top 10 on the Deseret Book site. A recent romance title had a user review (Amazon.com style, or whatever they call it) attached to it. It was brief and informal like they usually are, but in it, the reader said that that particular romance title was okay, but if people were really interested in that kind of book, they should read Rachel Nunes or [can't remember other author's name]. What was evocative for me about the review was that this reader clearly was interested in and aware of a field of literature we could call 'Mormon romance' and this reader was developing a critical sense of what makes for a good 'Mormon romance' novel. Some of us in the world of Mormon art talk about educating our audience and we go back and forth about it---trying to figure out how to do that without being elitist and alienating but at the same time not comprimising a certain level of quality---but I don't know that we know how well it can work because we don't really have all the trappings that go with educating an audience. All audiences have to be educated. I don't know my literary history too well, but there are certain things (institutions and discourses) that lead to audience acceptance. These include: the concept of a founding genius, popular reviews, marketing of authors and editors as representatives of a community, a steady stream of works being published in that genre, some breakout bestsellers that attract new eyes and legitimize that genre, official histories and studies, awards and events, anthologies (canon formation), and finally representative works being taught in school. Now I'm drawing my examples from the creation of 'national' literatures and/or the strong literary movements inside of 'national' literatures, but it seems to me that somewhere in that mess (including our own literary history) are models for success and failure that could help in the development of a midstream publishing house. But I don't think it can happen just by publishing a few works of fiction, or at least not in the long run. I think that any publisher entering the scene is going to need a serious multi-dimensional, across several media branding/marketing plan in order to break down initial barriers and reach the 'untapped' mainstream Mormon audience. If that could be combined with one or two breakout hits (rare but possible), followed by a rise of authors who are closely identified with the scene, then it could just work. I think that the double-standard falls away if people think something is a must-read, big event kind of book. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - 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] Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 27 Jun 2001 13:05:08 -0700 Thom, where are you? Is the game still on? I think it's your turn. Is this thread going to have a happy ending? Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Savage" Subject: RE: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 27 Jun 2001 12:02:41 -0700 >My sense >of things is that the kind of Mormons who might be >attracted to works offered by a mid-stream publishing >house doesn't read much Mormon literature. These are >folks who generally buy doctrinal titles from the LDS >booksellers---people who may go and see _God's Army_ >and may just read _The Work and the Glory_, but on the >whole read 'gentile' fiction---either li-fi lite (Ann >Tyler, Jane Austen, C.S. Lewis, John Irving) and/or >quality genre stuff (Stephen King, Michael Crichton?). > In other words, they are only going to get interested >in a work of Mormon art if it is of sufficient quality >and enough of an event in the Mormon world that it >hits their radar screen. I sense two directions here. One that I can get fully behind, and one that really concerns me. I love the idea of seeing more high-quality LDS fiction. I also would like to see other genres break out from LDS publishers. Imagine an LDS SF series that sold as well TWATG. Or how would it be to discover an LDS Stephen King? And I also think that an important part of making that happen is finding ways to get LDS fiction on the radar screen that William talks about. When an LDS publisher is happy to have a book sell 20k copies, (which at a 8.5% commission and a selling price of $20, translates to a royalty of $34k for a book that sold very well) it is going to be tough to make that happen. Why did Richard D. go to Hollywood first? Because that's where he felt it was possible to make a living making movies. Now you could say that there just aren't enough Mormon readers to make that happen. But we know that isn't true. God's Army, TWATG, Heimerdinger's Tennis Shoes books, some of Weyland's books prove that the audience is there. We just have to figure out how to get to them. I think that every time a book or a movie sells extremely well, we get closer to that goal. A publisher is willing to spend a little more on promotion if the book can gross more. More press gets more people into the LDS bookstores. If a reader really enjoyed TWATG, maybe they will try another piece of LDS fiction. I also agree completely with many of the comments on raising the bar for LDS literature. When I finished my book, I gave it to many Mormon readers to get their opinions. One of the things that I heard often was comments like, "You need to send this out to LDS publishers right away. So much of the LDS fiction I read is so poorly done, you'll get published right away." Now, I hope that what they were really saying was that they felt that my book was an improvement over some of what they had been reading, and not that they felt that my book was just as poorly done. I do think that over the past ten years we have seen some big improvements in the quality and breadth of LDS fiction (DBs decrease in Bookcraft's fiction aside.), but I would still love to get to the point where we had dozens of the best LDS writers able to pursue their craft as a full time career, without living in a trailer on the salt flats. The direction that concerns me, is that somehow allowing more profanity and sex in LDS fiction is an improvement. I think it was Bronson that talked about the reading group who loved the "Oprah" type of book with lots of sex and swearing, but who expected more from their Mormon writers. (Or less in this case.) I can completely identify with that. I absolutely love Stephen King's writing. I think that he is one of the best of our popular story tellers. Do I buy all of his books? Yes. Do his books have profanity and sex? Yes. But do I buy them FOR the profanity and sex? NO! In fact I often find myself thinking how unfortunate it is that he feels that he needs to put that in there. It is obvious that he has the skill to write without those, but it is equally obvious that he has no intention of doing that. It can certainly be done. There are many great novels and movies that manage to tell amazing stories without any of that, but the popular trend is to add extra sex and profanity, just as tobacco companies add extra nicotine to their cigarettes. I really hope that as LDS artists, we focus on showing that outstanding art can be created without profanity and sex. I cheer every time I see a movie like The Truman Show, blow out amazing box office receipts. And like a lot of Mormons outside of Utah, I was amazed and delighted when God's Army showed up in a local movie theater. It may not be the majority, but I really feel like it is a signal to the people who say that you can't make money with morally clean media. Instead, it sounds like we are focused on seeing how much of that we can get into LDS novels. To me that sounds an awful lot like lowering the bar. Jeffrey Savage CEO, Smartshop P 408-778-8331 F 408-782-0761 - 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] Literary LCD Date: 27 Jun 2001 13:08:42 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Is there a market out there for books > that are faithful to the Gospel, but depict the gamut of human > degradation? The gamut of human degradation? Don't you mean the gamut of human experience? It's one thing to hope for a Mormon Shakespeare. It's something else to hope for a Mormon Marquis De Sade. Regards, Frank Maxwell - 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] Humor-Themed _Irreantum_ Date: 27 Jun 2001 14:19:34 -0700 The issue's emphasis is on humor, but certainly not all its material is = humorous. -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:57 PM Chris Bigelow wrote: > With a special emphasis on Mormon humor, the spring 2001 issue of IRREANTUM, > the literary quarterly published by the Association for Mormon Letters > (AML), is now available > POETRY: > Missionary's Lament, Richard Johnson > Untitled, Tony A. Markham > Don't Say It, Beth Hatch > A Father's Love, Paul W. Sexton > Resurrected Spring, Linda P. Adams > Wrong Way, Katie Parker > An Argument, Katie Parker > Educated Woman, Laraine Wilkins > Mimesis Upended: A Reluctant Nod to Mr. Wilde, Sharlee Mullins = Glenn > Raison D'Etre, Sharlee Mullins Glenn Oh dear. My poems are not meant to be *funny.* I hope no one tries to = read them that way or they'll think my attempts at humor are pretty pitiful! 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: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 27 Jun 2001 15:27:26 -0600 Merlyn J Clarke wrote: > > What if a GA or two took to writing fiction? Think they'd get published? > After all, a few GAs have written hymns. > My cynical opinion would be, yes, they would get published even if their fiction was dreadful. Does anyone really think, for instance, that "I Believe in Christ" would have ever seen the inside of the LDS hymnbook if it hadn't been written by Bruce R. McConkie? Thom (waiting for people to respond by saying they love the hymn. That isn't the point. It's still maudlin verse) Duncan - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 27 Jun 2001 15:26:13 -0600 At 07:54 AM 6/27/01 -0600, you wrote: >Following in my mother's footsteps, who creates scenes in her head to >fill out the movies she likes that don't quite end the way she hoped they >would, it's kind of nice to imagine that perhaps the "FBI chick" just >waited in the foyer until the meeting was over and met with the sheriff >again to give him a little hug ... or something encouraging like that. >:-) J. Scott Bronson I like that. I think Dutcher was wise not to dilute his story with an extraneous romance, but for her to do that would be really nice. And I do the same thing your mom does with movies and books. If I have to put down a book to go do something tedious, such as washing dishes (well, okay, loading the dishwasher), in my mind I continue the story where I left off. Then when I get back to the book, I find that the writer has got it all wrong! I think a lot of writers do that--its the inherent storyteller in us. Barbara R. Hume, Editorial Empress Complete range of writing and editing services High-tech a specialty TechVoice, Inc. (801) 765-4900 barbara@techvoice.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 27 Jun 2001 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT) --- Darlene Young wrote: > Chris, I absolutely agree with everything you said > about the kind of publisher we need. I especially > agreed with your words about John Bennion's book. I > feel so strongly about the need for such a publisher > and for these kinds of books. > > Why don't you do it? Irreantum Books sounds great. > How can I help you? I'd do it myself if I knew > anything about publishing. I don't. But the very > thought makes my pulse quicken--this is exciting. > Why > couldn't it be done? We've got enough knowledge and > desire among us in this AML group. There's got to > be > someone ready and willing to step in and create such > a > thing. Anyone? Darlene's enthusiasm is infectious. (Brief aside: We were both in the Berkeley ward for awhile. Your husband may/may not remember some of my Elder's Q. lessons). I can't step in and create such a thing, but I am willing to be the Northern CA pr guy/literary agent/cheerleader for such an endeavor. (Or at least until the cost of living forces me and my wife to move to Fresno). In fact, I was thinking of asking if the LDS booksellers in Northern CA carry _Irreantum_ because if they don't, and I could get a list of them, I'd be happy to make some calls and pitch it to them. What do you think Chris, et al? It'd be a small step, but it's what I can offer right now. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] Institutional Art Date: 27 Jun 2001 15:50:14 -0600 "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > > I'm sure that you're right about this and it baffles me. Since when does > the Church try to NOT offend people. Look no further than the current Priesthood and RS study manuals. References by Joseph F. Smith to polygamy and Adam-God have been carefully edited out of certain talks. > Doctrinally, the Church doesn't > give a fig if you like the Church's postion. In fact, the Church has > seemed to make a habit out of sending Elder Packer out with the express > purpose of offending people. But who talks to the public media: the acerbic, sometimes controversial Elder Packer or the genial President Hinckely? -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dallas Robbins" Subject: [AML] Cornerstone Publishing Query Date: 27 Jun 2001 22:13:20 -0000 Does anyone know the address for Cornerstone Publishing? Who is the owner? Any info would be helpful. Thanks. Dallas Robbins cloudhill@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 27 Jun 2001 16:26:13 -0700 I wouldn't know how to pursue capital for a publishing venture on any kind = of medium to large scale, but I would know how to start small using the = AML as a nonprofit platform. With print-on-demand (POD) technology, it = wouldn't be too hard to start releasing some decently packaged novels and = short story collections and trying to get LDS bookstores (including the = Mormon sections in national retailers) to start carrying them. Or maybe = the AML could make a distribution deal with someone already established in = the LDS marketplace.=20 My experience with Irreantum has shown that we have plenty of volunteers = in this little community who are willing to do things like read and edit = manuscripts, prepare mailings, and maybe even do some telephone follow-up = with retailers (we would also need volunteers to design effective book = covers). I've sort of got my plate full with Irreantum, but it would be = great to have a can-do person on the AML staff to start developing some = fiction manuscripts. Things that start small can grow steadily and really = become something. But maybe Marilyn Brown has already got a good-enough = start with her Salt Press, which is now affiliated with Cedar Fort. =20 I don't think there would be any financial risk for the AML to start = releasing 1-4 books per year via POD, which would eliminate the need for = print runs or inventory. Then we rely on Irreantum, word-of-mouth, and = some overtures to retailers to start building sales. If you are interested = in volunteering, let me know. I started Irreantum because I sensed enough = of a critical mass on AML-List of worthwhile material and capable = volunteers to sustain it (although, while content has kept up with = expectations, the magazine has gotten bigger in page count than the dues = and subscriptions pay for and seems stuck in circulation at about 500). = Maybe if I sensed the same critical mass in a book publishing effort, I = would get motivated to head that up too. Or maybe someone else would. Chris Bigelow ---- For a sample copy of IRREANTUM, the literary quarterly published by the = Assocation for Mormon Letters, send $4 to AML, P.O. Box 51364, Provo, UT = 84605-1364.=20 -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:02 PM Chris, I absolutely agree with everything you said about the kind of publisher we need. I especially agreed with your words about John Bennion's book. I feel so strongly about the need for such a publisher and for these kinds of books. =20 Why don't you do it? Irreantum Books sounds great.=20 How can I help you? I'd do it myself if I knew anything about publishing. I don't. But the very thought makes my pulse quicken--this is exciting. Why couldn't it be done? We've got enough knowledge and desire among us in this AML group. There's got to be someone ready and willing to step in and create such a thing. Anyone? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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: "Marji" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Mag for Kids Date: 27 Jun 2001 15:57:44 -0700 I like the idea of having an LDS magazine that aspiring writers (like my daughter) can submit works to for publication, and in the process be mentored by experienced and prolific writers such as yourselves. If anyone were interested in such a venture or an iteration of it, I would be willing to host it on my website. If an electronic version became well-enough established, then a print version could spin off from it. Courage! Marji [Meyer] www.SchoolofAbraham.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marji" Subject: RE: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Date: 27 Jun 2001 15:48:18 -0700 >>>I do wonder, though, why the last shot was > one of her going out the door of the chapel. >>>She knew that she didn't belong there. At the end, she was there -- not for any detached, sterile reason -- but because she actually had some kind of affection for the sheriff and wanted to see how he was going to move on with his life. As the scene progresses she realizes that there can be no cool observation of this event, that something profound and very private is happening, and that she simply doesn't belong. J. Scott Bronson ------------ Hi, I'm new to the list. Marji from Seattle. I've been listening in for a while and reading the archives. Hello to a few familiar "faces." I wrote a (casual) review in April for Brigham City that I'll share below. Just a comment on the FBI agent leaving from the sacrament meeting. My take was that she had "felt" something in a way she couldn't define. Between the time of the "first sacrament meeting" and the conclusion of the movie, the people, the sheriff, the off-the-beaten-track experience of a small Mormon town so different from her own experiences, the tragedies had moved her (iow, "she realizes that there can be no cool observation of this event" due to her own emotional responses). I think the moment "of decision" when she walks out was more about how _she_ was going to move on with her life, than about wanting to see how the sheriff was going to move on with his life. If the tray had reached her, she would have had to make a choice whether or not to partake. The first time the tray passed her, that was a simple choice. But the events which transpired had challenged her existing paradigm(s). By leaving, that inner change was left hanging, neither confirmed nor denied. Symbolically, the FBI agent represented the "good people of the world," in my opinion. So without further ado, here is my little unedited review, with the disclaimer that it was written for an egroup, not a literary gathering such as AML. Nice to meet you all. >>>Do you know any one who's seen Brigham City? I think I'm the biggest critic I've heard of yet. Still, in spite of the violence -- too much! and I believe unnecessary - it was a good movie. =} Sharon ---------------- Dear Sharon, We saw it. Of course, you know I am a Dutcher fan, and yes, I did like it. I thought a lot about it, too. I think that with the movie Brigham City, Dutcher has created a morality play, full of symbolism. Some of the reviews I've read picked up on that, but others have not. The most critical reviews I've seen are from LDS reviewers, who focused their criticism too much, I think, on the portrayal of the Church in action. I'd like to give a better thought-out answer to your query, but here goes: The Church and the people of the church in the movie represent "good". This is part and parcel of the message Dutcher is portraying to the world. The "serpent" in "Paradise" represents evil-- great evil. And the reason that evil seems so shocking to us is that it happens to people we "know," the folks down the street who go to the other ward, the funny, idiosyncratic, silly, bothersome, precious, headstrong folks we meet at church on Sunday and at Stake Conference. Thus, when evil stalks "among us," it strikes so close to home we are uncomfortable with it. We relate to these people and their suffering. It is not sanitized suffering, or sanitized murder like on TV. We know those plots are fictitious, and that the good guys will win, and that the bad guys deserve to lose. When murder happens so close to home, to people we can emphasize with, then the emotional impact is the greater. The film's effective use of our own imaginations is what makes the horrible events seem so horrible. The portrayal, in absolute terms, was fairly benign. But because so few details were actually shown on screen, our minds make up the differences, and there is nothing so horrific to us as our own worst fears. Dutcher doesn't make it easy for the good guys to win in this show. Although the good guys do win, it is with considerable personal sacrifice, struggle, betrayal, and suffering. In the end, when the line is drawn, only raw courage and single-minded devotion to the good of the community can overcome the serpent. To overcome the serpent, the sheriff has to "fall" from grace (lose his innocence, leave Eden) in order to precipitate the eventual "redemption" of the town. The suspicion that permeates the show is powerful. For the first time in their lives, the people of the town are living in literal fear for their lives. As a hint to one of the symbols in the film, think of that sense of fear in a spiritual sense, rather than the real physical threat to life that it was. How high are the stakes in the battle against spiritual danger? To what ends will we go to preserve our children or our friends from spiritual destruction and drive evil away? I liked the portrayal of the church. Hey, if we can't find people who will come to church with us, let's take the church to them. The conversation on the porch with the FBI agent was Dutcher at his best, sharing his personal convictions for all the world to see. I had no problem at all with the ordinances being shown on the screen, although I have seen a few negative comments on this. The baptism was not performed by a man holding the priesthood, so what is the problem? Show folks what we believe, I say! Dutcher has described the movie as a portrayal of the "loss of innocence." In that portrayal, we see the very real and insidious nature of "evil among us," the wolf in sheep's clothes. I think there could have been more dialogue which would have shown up the inner conflict and turmoil of the Sheriff, due to his personal tragedies, his utter commitment to safeguard his idyllic town, his anguish, and sense of helplessness against the onslaught of crime. A more thorough development of his character throughout the film, I think would have elucidated more clearly many of the emotions so well portrayed in the last scenes. This is a film that parents will want to talk about with their children if they choose to take them. We took our two oldest to see the movie. At issue are the significant themes of life, death, atonement, forgiveness, mercy, guilt, integrity, faith, honesty, friendship, duty, loyalty, and above all, the consequences of comparatively minor choices which lead to paths from which we inexorably cannot return. Thank you, Dutcher! You've done it again. And this time, you made us think even more. Courage! Marji www.SchoolofAbraham.com PS I have notes from a Dutcher fireside two years ago that give some interesting background, if anyone is interested. - 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] Re: Mainstream Mormon Publisher Date: 27 Jun 2001 18:42:04 -0600 On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:26:48 -0700 (PDT) William Morris writes: > However, despite this obstacle (which Scott and I both > seem to believe exists), I think that what D. Michael > has in mind could possibly work. You may be right. And one entity that could be on the cusp of doing this is Excel Entertainment. They're distributing Richard's films and have taken on the venture to publish the God's Army novels. So, if they market those books well and sell a bunch, moving into the direction we're talking about is not such a great leap. The story of God's Army is already leaning in that direction, and I have every reason to think that the spinoffs will as well. Sounds like a good idea to me. Who wants to write up the proposal? J. Scott Bronson -- Member of Playwrights Circle --- "The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do." Galileo - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Humor-Themed _Irreantum_ Date: 27 Jun 2001 19:05:54 -0500 At 04:19 PM 6/27/01, Sharlee Glenn wrote: >The issue's emphasis is on humor, but certainly not all its material is >humorous. > > > > > POETRY: > > Mimesis Upended: A Reluctant Nod to Mr. Wilde, Sharlee Mullins Glenn > > Raison D'Etre, Sharlee Mullins Glenn > >Oh dear. My poems are not meant to be *funny.* I hope no one tries to read >them that way or they'll think my attempts at humor are pretty pitiful! When I _try_ to write funny poetry, people pretty much say the same thing . . . -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Literary LCD Date: 27 Jun 2001 19:22:52 -0500 I know I'm slow sometimes (ALL: "Sometimes?!") but after reading every message in this thread I am still unclear what this has to do with the topic of Liquid Crystal Displays . . . -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Play the New Game: "All Movies Have Happy Endings!" Date: 27 Jun 2001 19:56:13 -0500 At 03:05 PM 6/27/01, you wrote: >Thom, where are you? Is the game still on? I think it's your turn. Is >this thread going to have a happy ending? > >Frank Maxwell I'm still waiting for him to explain the ending of "Electra Glide in Blue." Anyone else? (No fair making cheap shot references to the star's current difficulties. That kind of humor is _my_ job.) -- Ronn! :) - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Mag for Kids Date: 22 Jun 2001 03:54:09 -0600 I too was thrilled in 1993 when I subscribed to _Cameo_ and _Latter-day Digest_, but I was extremely disappointed in _Cameo_ and somewhat disappointed in _Latter-day Digest._ Occasionally something good was published and I jumped on it like a bug. Do any of you remember James E. Faulconer's _Selt-Image, Self-Love, and Salvation_ or William Nixon's _Art of Truth_? It is funny how good stuff stays in your mind. In the last 10 years (and since AML-list), Mormon Literature has come a long way. That is the good news! Nan McCulloch - 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] Where to Advertise? (was: Relief Society Magazine) Date: 28 Jun 2001 01:35:54 -0600 Merlyn J Clarke wrote: > I had an uncle who became a millionaire printing wedding invitations for > LDS woman who saw his ads in the Relief Society Magazine. I understand the mindset that says advertising shouldn't appear in a church-sponsored magazine. But that mindset seems to carry with it the sense that commerce is a sordid thing. Honest, fair commerce that doesn't overwhelm the business person's life (especially spiritual life) is a perfectly honorable thing. What troubles me is, where is the medium of advertisement that can reach the entire church population, now that church magazines won't do it? One might be tempted to argue, why should we help businesses get rich off church members? I look at it as, why shouldn't members everywhere find out what's available to them, like some far-flung members of AML-List have complained that they have a hard time finding out what LDS literature is around? -- 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 28 Jun 2001 01:41:45 -0600 Darlene Young wrote: > Irreantum Books sounds great. > How can I help you? I'd do it myself if I knew > anything about publishing. I don't. But the very > thought makes my pulse quicken--this is exciting. Why > couldn't it be done? We've got enough knowledge and > desire among us in this AML group. There's got to be > someone ready and willing to step in and create such a > thing. Anyone? I'd be willing, except I've never run a magazine and wouldn't know where to start (mainly with the marketing side). Not that I have the money, either, but there are ways to raise money if you're determined. Maybe Larry H. Miller, hmmm... -- 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: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Art Date: 28 Jun 2001 03:37:18 -0600 I'm going to tie this in with other official artistic endeavors and not just Institutional Art because I think this ties in with the shift away from publishing fiction in the Friend. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of J. > Scott Bronson > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 8:30 AM > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: [AML] Re: Institutional Art (was: _The Testaments..._) > > I'm sure that you're right about this and it baffles me. > Since when does the Church try to NOT offend people. > Doctrinally, the Church doesn't give a fig if you like the > Church's postion. In fact, the Church has seemed to make a > habit out of sending Elder Packer out with the express > purpose of offending people. And if people are complaining > to them on doctrinal matters, their position (and rightly so) > is: Well, the doctrine is not going to change. We're not > going to get in line with you; you'll have to get in line > with the doctrine. Get educated and get a testimony of it. > > But with Church sponsored art, the policy seems to be the > exact opposite: Most of you seem to be too stupid to get > anything from masterful works of art so we will produce stuff > as bland as possible so that you can be mildly entertained > while you think you're learning great lessons of a spiritual > nature when in fact you're not being made to think, you're > just being made to cry because Beautiful Scenery + Swelling > Violins + Any Depiction of Jesus = True Emotion. That is because there is a fundamental difference between "doctrine" and "art". The Church will always take a stern stance on doctrine. They just don't bend there and we know they aren't afraid to hold to it even when it is unpopular (like their political efforts in California). But art is, well, art. It isn't worth the danger of offending somebody. We are happy to offend people for the sake of the Gospel, but we *don't* want to offend for the sake of anything less important. The thing is, when you talk about people and the gospel, you are dealing with eternal consequences. You can't dilute the gospel without potentially damaging the eternal destination of the very people you want to bring to God. But you can kill a book, play, or even a genre, with an official-seeming policy if you feel that doing so will enhance the chances that someone will accept the gospel (or not reject it or fall away). Which means that the Church actively softens things for the easily offended as long as they don't compromise doctrine. Hence the official policy against facial hair on GAs and Bishops. And killing fiction in official Church magazines. And commissioning things that are, well, simpler than they might be. It isn't lowest common denominator as it is least likely to offend. At least, that's the logic that makes sense to me based on what I see. > Is it truly beyond the scope of imagination to expect that a > church authority can say: This is good for you. It may hurt > you a little, but it will change you if you will open > yourself to the spirit. Some of you anyway. We can't really > expect that all works of art will be as effective on all > people, and that's okay. If this doesn't work for you maybe > ... this will. Or this. Or this. > > How would that damage the mission of the church? If just one person takes that advice and the effect is to irreparably harm their eternal progression then there is all the damage you need to justify squelching exactly that message. The worth of souls is great, after all. Would they fall anyway? Maybe, but maybe not. So they keep their pronouncements doctrinal, they stay on message, they correlate curricula and they kill fiction in Church magazines. Personally, I hate the effect that this reality has on some members. Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." I'm afraid that this is only the beginning of the inevitable fallout. It sets those of us who love fiction back years in the progress we have made with our friends. We'll have to fight the impression that the Church discourages its members from reading fiction. We'll not only fight the accusations that we are wasting our time, but we'll also have the added accusation that we're disobeying the brethren. Ugh. I think it would be much more useful to teach the principles of their decisions while they implement them. By implementing a no fiction policy at Church magazines on the sly (by simply not publishing any more) and not explaining the reasoning that led to the decision, they imply things that they probably don't mean (that fiction is bad). That means that a member might not grow in understanding and maturity, leaving them to puzzle everything out in an information vacuum. But then, explaining things is hard. And dangerous. I mean, it takes time and work to craft an explanation in the first place. The risk is that you give wiggle room when you explain your decisions--you risk someone disbelieving in your calling and your message because they disagree with your reasons (i.e. people will attempt to reconcile the reasoning instead of gaining direct testimony). It's much easier for people to believe that there is a direct line to divinity if they don't know how you come up with policies. But I think that is a much different risk than the risk of giving offense. We actively work to have a testimony of official policies. It is expected by us that we will seek to understand what we are taught or at least to learn that official pronouncements are endorsed by God. Which leaves me without any real response (which is just as well because criticizing the brethren is off topic and not really something I'm prepared to indulge in). Frankly, I don't know if giving explanations would work--as much as I'd prefer them. Our leaders aren't called to teach literary criticism or basic symbolism or useful film techniques. They might not have the time to craft the responses I want to see for their Institutional Art and publication emphases. It would be impossible to give fully detailed reasons on every move they make so rather than draw an arbitrary line, they might just choose to keep it simple and not explain anything that isn't direct or immediate. Just because it would make me feel better, doesn't mean it is worth taking the time away from their official calling to preach the gospel to all the world. Which brings me back to my first point that art isn't as important as teaching the gospel--no matter how good or True it might be. Jacob Proffitt - 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] Literary LCD Date: 28 Jun 2001 04:01:10 -0600 Frank Maxwell wrote: > The gamut of human degradation? Don't you mean the gamut of human > experience? No, because we already have LDS publishers who are willing to depict that gamut of human niceness. Add the two together and you get all of human experience. -- 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: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 28 Jun 2001 10:08:32 -0600 I disagree a bit--without evidence of any kind to support my disagreement--= with Chris' comments about=20 > that independent Signature/Sunstone/Dialogue crowd, who don't >number = more than 5,000 people and who are already having their needs >met.=20 I think the potential audience for serious LDS fiction (for the Mormon = Shakespeare) is far larger than 5,000. I just think that there are a = tremendous number of potential readers who don't know about Signature. I = think that Signature has been quite poorly marketed up to now, primarily = to a Utah readership. Utah is a very conservative state, in almost every sense of the word. I = suspect that there may not be more than 5,000 or so people in Utah who = want Sunstone or Signature. But I grew up in Indiana, and I would have = loved to have known about Sunstone or Signature. But the only LDS = publishing I knew about back then was the Improvement Era, which became = the Ensign, and the odd Deseret Book catalogue. I literally did not know = Sunstone existed until I came to BYU. =20 I hope the Internet can change all that. But it may take a little = while.=20 Eric Samuelsen - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 28 Jun 2001 06:29:40 -0700 My take on a midstream Mormon publisher is that the General Authorities and the great mass of church members who take their advice on all matters would quickly identify it as disloyal. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] re: Mormon Mainstream Publisher Date: 28 Jun 2001 13:15:59 -0600 At 03:39 AM 6/27/01 -0600, you wrote: >William Morris called it a "mythical market." I suspect he doesn't mean >the colloquial meaning of mythical: nonexistent with a hint of derision >behind it. I suspect he means something more along the line of >"hypothesized." I hypothesize it exists. Some of these readers know they >exist--like me. Some are part of the market and don't know it yet >because it never occurred to them it could exist. These are the people >we'd be targeting, and I feel confident they exist. The only question >is, are there enough of them, and how can we reach them? You have to do the market research up front--find out whether or not your audience exists, and if they do, whether or not they will pay for what you want to offer. I remember how shocked we were on this list a year or so ago when someone asked what Mormon fiction we've been buying and reading. Turned out that even within this group, people bought it mainly to give as gifts. Did the recipients read it? Who knows? I have quite a few works of Mormon fiction in my TBR stack--I bought them because they looked interesting, or because I know and like the author, or because people on lists like this one called them to my attention. But once I've bought your book and presented you with the meager amount of money you make on the purchase, I don't usually feel in a big hurry to get around to reading it. Or else it finds its way into the dark center of my Book Room along with a couple of thousand other interesting-looking books. Truth is, based on my experience, I don't really expect most Mormon fiction to engage and compell me. But Richard Dutcher, along with a couple of other artists, has shown me it can be done! barbara hume - 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] Sex in Literature (was: Midstream Mormon Publisher) Date: 28 Jun 2001 03:52:06 -0600 Jeffrey Savage wrote: > The direction that concerns me, is that somehow allowing more profanity and > sex in LDS fiction is an improvement. > There are many great novels and movies that manage to > tell amazing stories without any of that, but the popular trend is to add > extra sex and profanity, just as tobacco companies add extra nicotine to > their cigarettes. > > I really hope that as LDS artists, we focus on showing that outstanding art > can be created without profanity and sex. > Instead, it sounds like we are focused on seeing > how much of that we can get into LDS novels. To me that sounds an awful lot > like lowering the bar. I resent this characterization. No, we're not trying to cram as much sex and profanity into our stories as we can. We just want to be able to tell stories that may include things like that as an integral part of them. I don't care so much about profanity, but sex is another story altogether. I'd truly like to understand this. Why is sex so taboo? Sex is not evil. Sex is a part of life, an integral part of life, a powerful emotional force that motivates much of human behavior. Boyd K. Packer gave a famous speech where he calls it "the very key" of the plan of salvation. And we're supposed to pretend in our fiction that this vital aspect of human beings doesn't exist? Fiction that does that is a lie! I don't think I'm lowering the bar; I think I'm raising it. I want to show that sex is not dirty, shameful, evil. I want to show that it's okay to talk about it, celebrate it, as the wonderful gift from God that it is. I want to show that abuse of this precious power can bring about terrible consequences, and proper use of it can bring about great joy. That's what literature is for, to experience and explore all these facets of the human experience. The world sends the message that sex is fun, so do it. The only message we send is negative--don't do it! It's bad to do it! Stay away? Pretend it doesn't exist! But our kids aren't buying it, for one very simple reason. They know we're lying! Sex is fun! I was a teenager once; I know whereof I speak. Why on earth can't we teach chastity with a positive message, if we really believe so much that that positive message is there? What good are we doing the world--or ourselves--by conceding to the world all statements about sex? If we remain silent about sex, we allow the message of the world to dominate. If we don't depict sex in our literature according to our understanding of it, we lose by default to the world. The sexual message of the world grows more and more powerful as we cower deeper and deeper in the corner, until there is no corner left to cower in. (We are quickly running out of corner right now.) By then, no one will remember how to confront the enemy head-on. I think we've already forgotten how. In my opinion, people who want to purge sex from all LDS literature are lowering the bar. They are lowering the bar in real life where it counts, not in mere 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: William Morris Subject: [AML] Re: Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 28 Jun 2001 13:55:21 -0700 (PDT) [MOD: Apologies. I've messed up the subject line on some posts I've reassigned to this thread.] --- "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > William Morris called it a "mythical market." I > suspect he doesn't mean > the colloquial meaning of mythical: nonexistent with > a hint of derision > behind it. I suspect he means something more along > the line of > "hypothesized." I hypothesize it exists. Some of > these readers know they > exist--like me. Some are part of the market and > don't know it yet > because it never occurred to them it could exist. > These are the people > we'd be targeting, and I feel confident they exist. > The only question > is, are there enough of them, and how can we reach > them? Thanks. Yes, what I meant by "mythical" was "hypothetical." I think the question of "are there enough of them?" is critical. We don't really know for sure until somebody tries. But some work on that end has to be done before we can think about how to reach them---especially since a big part of the whole process is the need to convince LDS booksellers to stock the tiles produced by a midstream publisher. One of the questions that comes up for me is: how do the hypothetical members of this new market react to the idea of Mormon literature on an abstract level? There's no real way to answer this question (focus groups?), but what I'm trying to get at is: would Mormon readers of non-Mormon fiction ever consider buying and reading fiction by a Mormon author if it a) matched their genre/topic interests and b) was of a quality similar to the books they now read? If folks are at least willing to expend brain time to listen/read about a work of Mormon literature, then you just have to figure out how to make the pitch. If they aren't---if it has no appeal as a category at all---then that makes things difficult. However, even that barrier can be dropped if someone they trust constitutes it as a valid category for them. One of the theories of institutional change is that you find the 'opinion leaders' for that particular institution and convince them to help you 'sell' your message to the rest of the institution. It can be a difficult process, but it's the only way that change actually works. Could we make that work in the Mormon world? Probably not. The brethren aren't going to start an Oprah-style book club. Maybe viral marketing would work better. The one thing we do know about the Mormon market is that word of mouth works. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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] Cracroft's Book Nook Date: 28 Jun 2001 22:18:07 -0000 The Summer 2001 BYU Magazine is out, and with it another of Richard Cracroft's Book Nook columns. Cracroft mentions three novels. _Dad Was a Carpenter_, Kenny Kemp, 1999, which has been purchased by HarperCollins for national distribution. _Burial in Beirut_, by Orin D. Parker, Writer's Showcase Press, 2000. Parker spent his career in the Middle Eastn, and this novel is political thriller about an American student in 1975 Beirut falling for a Palestinian activist, and getting involved in terrorism and the civil war. (Kemp and Parker are both noted as BYU alums) Cracroft is most effusive about Dory J. Peters' _Winds of Change_, Cedar Fort, 2000. I'll quote him. "Finally, I recommend a moving and memorable first novel . . . In this engaging, insightful, and culture-bridging novel, Dory J. Peters becomes the first Navajo LDS returned missionary to tell, in first-rate fiction, how it is to grow up in both Navajo and LDS families; how it is to be torn from a cherished, familiar, organic, inward, image-centered, and deeply traditional way of viewing the world and thrust into a vastly different, mechanistic, word-centered society, every bit as deep and traditional; how it is to become and remain part of both Navajo clan and Mormon family; and how he struggles to identify and cultivate the best of each, while remaining an Other in both cultures. Peters' story, grounded in his own experience but recounted by the fictional persona of Victor, a returned missionary visiting his reservation home on business, it poignant, powerful, enlightening and well told--a triumphant fictional first in Mormon literature, an important book which gently but movingly teaches racial and cutlural toleration, inclusion, and understanding. Every Latter-day Saint will enjoy this novel." Andrew says--It looks like this is the third quality novel that Cedar Fort has put out in 2000 (also Angel of the Danube and Wine-Dark Sea of Grass). They still put out a lot of hokey adventure stories, but someone over there seems to be on the look-out for quality. Cracroft also mentions several non-fiction works, most written by BYU alums: _Near Cumorah's Hill: Images of the Restoration_ (Covenant, 2000), by Paul Gilbert and Douglas Powell. _The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History_ (Deseret, 2000), by Arnold Garr, Donald Cannon, and Richard Cowan. _Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations_ (Deseret, 2000), by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig Ostler. _Printing in Deseret: Mormons, Economy, Politics, and Utah's Incunabula, 1849-1851_ (U. of Utah Press, 2000), by Richard Saunders. (What's an incunabula?) _All Things Restored: Confirming the Authenticity of LDS Beliefs_ (Covenant, 2000), by Matthew Brown. _Three Degrees of Glory: Joseph Smith's Insights on the Kingdoms of Heaven_ (Covenant, 2000), by Lawrence Flake. _The History of Joseph Smith, by His Mother_ (Covenant, 2000), edited by George A. Smith and Elias Smith. _I Don't Have to Make Everything All Better_ (Penguin, 2000), by Gary and Joy Lundberg. _Gift of the Whale: The Inupiat Bowhead Hunt, A Sacred Tradition_ (Sasquatch Books, 1999), by Bill Hess. Andrew Hall _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amelia Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 28 Jun 2001 10:18:16 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Jeffrey Savage wrote: "The direction that concerns me, is that somehow allowing more profanity and sex in LDS fiction is an improvement. . . There are many great novels and movies that manage to tell amazing stories without any of that, but the popular trend is to add extra sex and profanity, just as tobacco companies add extra nicotine to their cigarettes. I really hope that as LDS artists, we focus on showing that outstanding art can be created without profanity and sex. . . Instead, it sounds like we are focused on seeing how much of that we can get into LDS novels. To me that sounds an awful lot like lowering the bar." I'm sure that many will jump at this one but I couldn't let it pass without comment. I agree that it is possible to tell amazing stories without sex and violence and profanity. However, I don't think the issue here is telling amazing stories. that's only one part of the issue. I think what most of the people who have commented on this thread are after is literature which can address serious issues. art which makes us stop and think about our ideas and beliefs, ideas and beliefs that we have accepted for truths for so long that we are dangerously willing to never think about them as being imperfect. And I see a desire in what has been said to create such art which is, while challenging, not so stringent or radical that it completely alienates its readers. And, I hope I am correct here, the desire for a midstream Mormon publishing house is not a desire to sell thousands and thousands of books to a wide Mormon audience in order to make money but rather a desire for a way of publishing the kind of art I spoke of above. I think the comparison to Stephen King fits in nicely here. King is a mass-market author. A good one, but still a mass-market author. Mormons have theirs, too. Where King puts sex or violence or profanity into his novels as an addictive element (added nicotine), Mormon mass-marketers put in their own forms, things I can't even describe well but generally call "warm fuzzies". the romance about a young Mormon girl who falls in love with a non-Mormon but remains true to the faith and he ultimately converts. the parallel tale of two young Mormon girls and two young Mormon boys: one couple remains good and meets at 22 and marries; the other screws around and then misses out on the perfect life they could have had. I suppose I'm thinking of all the ways I was manipulated through the Mormon lit I read as a teenager (I must admit I don't read much now because I was so turned off by it; although yesterday, because of things I've read on this list, I bought _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_ by Brady Udall and tried to find a copy of _The Shape of Things_ by Neil LaBute). It's wonderful that Mormon authors try to represent things Mormon: the happiness that can result from leading a good life; healings coming through priesthood blessings; the trials and struggles of the pioneers. But I do think that it is time to represent those realities along with other realities, realities that are less faith-promoting in a superficial way because they involve things that are questionable, like sex or violence or intentionally petty, vicious behavior towards family or neighbors. I want to read Mormon literature that makes me examine how it is that I, as a Mormon, can deal with the challenge of being Mormon but also being an educated, American, single female living not inside Mormon culture only but inside an amazingly beautiful but also incredibly problematic intersection of American culture and Mormon culture. I want to be made to stop and think about all the assumptions I've been basing my life on to this point. Right now I read contemporary literature to do that, people like Toni Morrison and Julian Barnes and A.S. Byatt. They make me stop and question my assumptions. But they can't help me figure out the Mormon side of my life. I would love to read good literature (and by that I do not mean high-brow, post-modern, literary novels though I vastly enjoy such works; I mean only well-written and provocative works which I do believe have a mass appeal) which explores the intersection of Mormonism and the world "outside" Mormonism. I put that "outside" in quotes because, really, there isn't a lot outside Mormonism. We just like to think there is. And that is really the problem. When the Mormon literature available creates a dichotomy between acceptable Mormon problems (any problem you can point to in a Jack Weyland novel) and unacceptable because un-Mormon problems (more than incidental sex, drug addiction, the kind of hypocrisy that comes with calling ourselves a chosen people which results in drawing lines of love--those we will love and those we won't, etc.), then there is a serious problem. It's like what happens in Disney movies. Where the traditional fairytales they are based on almost always create a heroine who contains the seeds of her own downfall (Beauty, in Beauty and the Beast, for instance, chooses to not return to the Beast knowing that her choice will kill him), Disney takes all of the evil impulses or the problems and personifies them outside of the heroine in a clearly despicable form (Gaston, in _Beauty and the Beast_, locks Belle up and then goes off to try to kill the Beast). Such representations teach girls (and I suppose boys, too) that there should be nothing remotely bad in them. Rather they should be perfectly good, and perfectly beautiful, and ultimately perfectly unreal. Mormon lit that does not address reality, even though it may address some problems, creates an image of what a Mormon is and should be and it's a false image. It's time to change that. To acknowledge what problems there are and to address them so that we can begin to change. To recognize that along side all of the good and beautiful parts of Mormonism there are problems, sometimes horrifying problems. To finally find the courage to admit that inside of us there lies the potential to do horrible evil things. It's only when we recognize that potential that we can battle it. I think that art and literature are one of the most powerful ways we can do so and it saddens me that those of us who want to do that while taking into account Mormonism do not have the forum in which to do so. [Amelia Parkin] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jana Remy (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Email Addresses Needed Date: 29 Jun 2001 16:46:29 -0500 Jana Remy, AML-List's book reviews coordinator, had her computer crash and lost some email addresses. She would appreciate email addresses for the following individuals: Morgan Adair Sam Brunson Andrew Hall Please send replies to janaremy@juno.com. 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: "Jeff Savage" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature (was: Midstream Mormon Publisher) Date: 28 Jun 2001 19:56:38 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I don't care so much about profanity, but sex is another story > altogether. I'd truly like to understand this. Why is sex so taboo? Sex > is not evil. Sex is a part of life, an integral part of life, a powerful > emotional force that motivates much of human behavior. Boyd K. Packer > gave a famous speech where he calls it "the very key" of the plan of > salvation. Maybe you are reading me wrong here. I am a big fan of sex. I think that it is good, fun, and hey it doesn't even make you gain weight! I feel that many characters in our stories, as in real life, use profanity and have both moral and immoral sexual experiences. I also think that those experiences can be a part of wonderful stories. I just don't think that good (and here I am using good in the quality sense, not the moral one) LDS writers need to have profanity or explicit sexual encounters in their books. I am not saying that our characters need to sleep in separate beds or walk around saying "Frick"or "Son of a Biscuit," But I am saying that I don't need to know what position my protagonist favors to understand that he/she is sexually avtive. > And we're supposed to pretend in our fiction that this vital aspect of > human beings doesn't exist? Fiction that does that is a lie! Agree completely. > The world sends the message that sex is fun, so do it. The only message > we send is negative--don't do it! It's bad to do it! Stay away? Pretend > it doesn't exist! But our kids aren't buying it, for one very simple > reason. They know we're lying! Sex is fun! I was a teenager once; I know > whereof I speak. Hey it's been almost twenty years since I could call myself any kind of teen and I still think it's fun. But that doesn't mean that I would encourage my teens to be sexually active before they are married. Can't we say in a novel, "Sex is a blast, but save it for your wife or husband?" > In my opinion, people who want to purge sex from all LDS literature are > lowering the bar. They are lowering the bar in real life where it > counts, not in mere fiction. Michael, I'll bet you didn't think we would agree on anything. But I wholeheartedly back your conclusion. I don't want all Mormon literature to be Disney. But I don't think that any Mormon literature needs to have graphic sex scenes or profanity to be good. Amelia Parkin wrote: >I think what most of the people who have commented on this thread are after >is literature which can address serious issues. art which makes us stop >and think about our ideas and beliefs, ideas and beliefs that we have >accepted for truths for so long that we are dangerously willing to never >think about them as being imperfect. And I see a desire in what has been >said to create such art which is, while challenging, not so stringent or >radical that it completely alienates its readers. Amen sister. Challenge me, stop me, make me think, question, ponder, and if you are really good, maybe even change. But don't tell me that I have to know the details of Dick and Jane's sex life or have every other word out of their mouth be four-letters to do it. Are you really suggesting that if a book doesn't include explicit sex or profanity it can't be deep? >And, I hope I am >correct here, the desire for a midstream Mormon publishing house is not a >desire to sell thousands and thousands of books to a wide Mormon audience >in order to make money but rather a desire for a way of publishing the >kind of art I spoke of above. The publisher that doesn't make a profit on it's books is not going to be able to publish very many books. (Unless it is owned by someone who is willing to back it herself.) The publishers that print Stephen King's books also take chances on less mainstream books. But they can afford to because they make it up on the big sellers. If a publisher barely makes a profit on its mainstream books, how many chancy books is it going to try. (And how many really promising new writers will it take a chance on?) >When the Mormon literature available creates a >dichotomy between acceptable Mormon problems (any problem you can point to >in a Jack Weyland novel) and unacceptable because un-Mormon problems (more >than incidental sex, drug addiction, the kind of hypocrisy that comes with >calling ourselves a chosen people which results in drawing lines of >love--those we will love and those we won't, etc.), then there is a >serious problem. Have you ever read a Jack Weyland novel? I did a quick scan on his themes over the Internet and came up with, bulimia, drug use, a girl disfigured by burns, immorality, & drug use. I'll admit that my first novel is more like "The Firm" than "War and Peace" (although there is a scene where a guy shoots a gun at his home teacher, does that get me out of the Disney movie rights?), but my second novel "Job" which I fully expect to be published by Covenant, examines a "perfect" Mormon family torn apart by drugs, backbiting, mistrust, depression, etc. I honestly believe that LDS publishers are much more open to these types of themes than they were ten years ago. I think what is missing is for more writers that are good enough to get published in the "outside' world to write for these publishers, and as I stated earlier, I think that a big part of this is economics. >Mormon lit that does not address reality, >even though it may address some problems, creates an image of what a >Mormon is and should be and it's a false image. It's time to change that. >To acknowledge what problems there are and to address them so that we can >begin to change. To recognize that along side all of the good and >beautiful parts of Mormonism there are problems, sometimes horrifying >problems. To finally find the courage to admit that inside of us there >lies the potential to do horrible evil things. It's only when we >recognize that potential that we can battle it. I think that art and >literature are one of the most powerful ways we can do so and it saddens >me that those of us who want to do that while taking into account >Mormonism do not have the forum in which to do so. Amelia, I disagree. I think that there are always outlets for high-quality fiction. I am not saying that Deseret would have published "Saints" the way that OSC wrote it. But it WAS published. I have a good friend who was very close to a young man who lived a very worldly, very hard life. Eventually he realized that what he was doing was wrong, but by then he had contracted AIDS and although he was a changed person at the end of his life, he died. He left her his journals that he started keeping at the age of 10, and asked her in his will, to publish his story so that others would not make the same mistakes he did. His story would undoubtedly include sex both homosexual and heterosexual, drug use, questioning his faith, etc. But I think in its own way it could be very uplifting. I am encouraging her to write his story and I have full confidence that if she writes it well it will be published. But I think his story can be told, and told very well, without graphic sex scenes or bad language. I guess that is where we differ, if we do. [Jeff Savage] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? Date: 28 Jun 2001 21:05:08 -0700 I agree. I really miss the advertisements that used to be in the BYU Today (was that the title then?) magazine. It was the only way I knew what LDS products were available. I enjoyed reading them. And I miss the ads that I used to get when I had the BYU Daily Universe mailed to me. I don't get the ads in the online version. Beth Hatch D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I look at it as, why shouldn't members everywhere find > out what's available to them, like some far-flung members of AML-List > have complained that they have a hard time finding out what LDS > literature is around? > - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Art Date: 28 Jun 2001 21:29:07 -0700 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." Boy, we knew that was coming! It brings back nightmare memories of that Young Women president in Utah who told her Young Women that reading fiction was wrong. Yikes!! Beth Hatch - 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 Artist's Shakespeare Sketchbook Called "Cliff's Notes with Pictures": Salt Lake Tribune Date: 28 Jun 2001 23:54:57 -0500 with Pictures": Salt Lake Tribune 24Jun01 US UT StG A2 [From Mormon-News] LDS Artist's Shakespeare Sketchbook Called "Cliff's Notes with Pictures" SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Well-known LDS artist James C. Christensen's collaboration this year with the Utah Shakespearean Festival has now yielded a book, in addition to the two large paintings Christensen already created for the Festival's 40th anniversary. Christensen and author Renwick St. James have produced "A Shakespeare Sketchbook," leading Melinda Miller in the Salt Lake Tribune to write, "If Cliff's Notes came with pictures, they would aspire to be what 'A Shakespeare Sketchbook' is." The book was created as a companion to the festival, including short, enlightened summaries of each of Shakespeare's plays, all illustrated with Christensen's fantanstic artwork. Christensen told the Tribune's Miller that he wanted the book to reach everyone, "I just want regular people to say 'Okay, Shakespeare isn't as elitist or difficult as I thought.' I learned a ton (working on the paintings)." The book marks the festival's 40th anniversary as well as the festival's most recent major achievement--producing every one of the Bard's 37 plays. The festival, which is still led by its visionary founder, LDS Church member Fred C. Adams, was last year given a Tony Award for best regional theater, solidifying an already solid reputation as an important theatrical institution. The Tribune's article also mentions that Christensen is currently working on murals for the church's new Nauvoo Temple. Source: Utah Artist Hopes His 'Shakespeare Sketchbook' Draws People to the Bard Salt Lake Tribune 24Jun01 A2 http://www.sltrib.com:80/06242001/arts/108192.htm By Melinda Miller: Salt Lake Tribune LDS Impresario's Shakespearean Vision Honored http://www.mormonstoday.com/000730/A4Adams01.shtml LDS Theater Producer's Festival Wins Tony Award http://www.mormonstoday.com/000514/A2Adams01.shtml Hallmark Adapts LDS Artist James Christensen's 'Voyage of the Basset' for TV http://www.mormonstoday.com/010202/A2JChristensen01.shtml >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: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 22 Jun 2001 06:16:14 -0600 We have a friend who, when he became a GA, quit taking _Dialogue_ and _Sunstone_ because he felt that it wouldn't look good for him to be a subscriber. His wife would occasionally borrow _Dialogue_ from me when there was something they were particularly interested in reading. I don't think this is uncommon. There are probably more *closet readers* out there than we think. Nan McCulloch - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "mjames_laurel" Subject: [AML] Fiction in Church Mags (was: Midstream Mormon Publisher) Date: 29 Jun 2001 00:29:36 -0600 > My take on a midstream Mormon publisher is that the General Authorities and > the great mass of church members who take their advice on all matters would > quickly identify it as disloyal. I think this fiction "ban" is metamorphosing into something a lot more sinister and large than it deserves to be. I've not been a reader of The Friend or the New Era for a while, but may I respectfully say the quality of fiction in those publications has frequently been--ahem--lacking. This is not a phenomenon limited to LDS magazines - a friend who was editor of a well-respected national magazine will tell you in spite of the flood of manuscripts received, good, publishable material is sorely lacking in the national magazine market as well. The universe of potential writers for church magazines is significantly smaller than that available to big nationally prominent publications so it stands to reason it's even harder for church magazines to attract top notch submissions. Could it be that the GA's were just sick and tired of lousy material showing up in the magazines and finally yelled Uncle? Or maybe they are like me, and find a great deal more lasting impact in the well written account of a spiritually moving true story, rather than in a story made up solely to prove or preach a point. (Come to think of it, the true story doesn't even have to be that well written to have lasting impact--although it helps.) I think we're going a little far when we extrapolate from this administrative policy decision that the General Authorities are denouncing fiction. And I think we're making a far too sweeping generalization when we assume they'd have any objection to a non-church subsidized effort to make a different type of literature available to the LDS market. Unless it was riddled with gratuitous filth, violence, and glorification of evil, I doubt they'd take any kind of stand at all. Personally, I would expect them to be a lot more offended by the shameless commercialization of the gospel that is erupting at LDS retail outlets as of late - sometimes I think I've wandered into a theme park souvenir shop when I step into a certain bookstore. Maybe the GA's would find it an improvement if a new crop of literary offerings succeeded in taking over shelf space from all those Temple and Book of Mormon themed socks, baseball caps, neckties, license plate frames, mugs, stationary, backpacks, knick knacks, pens, watches, and probably cookware and personal hygiene products for all I know. Laurel Brady - 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 01:00:30 -0600 > There's no real way to answer this question (focus > groups?), but what I'm trying to get at is: would > Mormon readers of non-Mormon fiction ever consider > buying and reading fiction by a Mormon author if it a) > matched their genre/topic interests and b) was of a > quality similar to the books they now read? This is the crux of the whole thing, and the reason why there is very little "midstream" Mormon fiction being published by the big boys of LDS publishing - they are convinced it won't sell. If I'd kept the letter, I'd quote it--but one prominent LDS publisher put it in writing: regardless of the quality of the work, unless it is historical fiction or a romance novel fitting their format, they will not publish it because their research indicates it won't sell. Period. The publishers that could afford to change things are not willing to go out on the limb to do so. More than one upstart has tried to rock this boat, but for a variety of reasons so far have not succeeded (and mostly not even survived the attempt). The reality is, it will not take a new publisher or a new batch of great books to bring about the change. It will take somebody who knows how to (and can afford to) market the heck out of a new kind of LDS book. If the LDS people could be exposed to good writing and good books, if you could get them to try them, I think they'd kick themselves for wasting all these years on what's out there now. At least, I hope they would. Of course, there's always the danger they STILL won't get it... Laurel Brady - 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 Brady Udall's New Novel Looks at an Indian in Mormondom: Salt Lake Tribune Date: 28 Jun 2001 23:27:40 -0500 Lake Tribune 17Jun01 US UT SLC A2 [From Mormon-News] Brady Udall's New Novel Looks at an Indian in Mormondom SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- LDS author Brady Udall's new novel "The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint" was called a "A witty, wise and heartwrenching tale of a naive orphan's struggle to survive an often unforgiving world" in the Salt Lake Tribune last week. The novel tells the story of an indian youth as he moves through an Arizona reservation into an LDS foster family and into adulthood. But Udall, who says he is an active LDS Church member, says he didn't write the novel for the Mormon audience, and that some Mormons may be uncomfortable with it. The story's main character, Edgar Mint, is the bastard son of a rebellious Apache girl. Edgar is severely injured when a mailman's jeep runs over his head at age 7. While his mother abandons him for dead, a doctor at a local hospital revives him, and Edgar is put into a reservation boarding school. There two LDS missionaries meet him and find him an LDS foster home in Utah. The doctor who revived him later finds Edgar and helps him meet the mailman, who is still in anguish over the accident, believing he killed Edgar, but after relieving his anguish, Edgar still has a difficult life with his foster Mormon family. He discovers that the family also has it problems, from marital infidelity to a sexually curious teenage daughter, and is himself troubled, lying, stealing and even committing a murder, although the Tribune's Brandon Griggs calls it "an arguably merciful one." The novel has received critical praise in early reviews, including Kirkus Reviews, which called the book "a remarkably assured debut novel that brings to life a unique world. A bit of a miracle in its own right" and from novelist Tony Earley who said, "If Dickens had been born in Arizona, he might have written a book like this." Udall says, however, that he is uncomfortable with the comparison to Dickens, "That's a little much for me. I think that's just because there's an orphan in it." But the reviews have also led to an option purchased by the Hollywood film production company owned by REM lead singer Michael Stripe. Udall comes from a Mormon background, growing up in rural St. John's, Arizona as part of the well-known family that included Arizona politicians Morris and Stewart Udall. He traces his writing career to winning a poetry contest at age 12. A BYU graduate, he went on to attend the prestigious Iowa Writers Workshop and in 1998 published his first book, "Letting Loose the Hounds," a short-story collection that won him a job at Franklin and Marshall College in Southeastern, Pennsylvania. He will start a teaching position at Southern Illinois University this Fall. But Brady doesn't want to be pigeonholed as a Mormon author, "This is not because I am embarrassed by my faith and culture, but because I am working hard to create the kind of art my culture seems set on rejecting," he says. "We, as a people, have always been a bit immature when it comes to art. We have always been threatened by anything that doesn't fit squarely within our system of belief. Good art will always be complex, contradictory and will resist easy judgment -- all things that would make any good Mormon nervous." And he admits that at least some Mormons may be offended at the way Mormons are portrayed in "The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint," "I can see a lot of Mormon people might be upset by the way that family is portrayed. I don't mean to offend anybody, but I think sometimes it's kind of necessary. It's high time somebody out there, if not me, wrote about Mormons in a real and honest way." But Griggs says that readers are more likely to root for Edgar Mint than get offended at the failings of Udall's Mormon characters, "it will make them root for the scruffy boy with the lumpy head and a profound longing for a home he has never known," writes Griggs. And Udall believes that in the end his novel is redemptive, "It sounds corny, but this book has some spiritual aspect to it. There's power in accepting who you are, in finding the place you belong instead of the place people tell you that you belong." Source: Udall Mints a Dickens of a Tale in 'Miracle Life' Salt Lake Tribune 17Jun01 A2 http://www.sltrib.com/06172001/arts/106266.htm By Brandon Griggs: 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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 02:23:49 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > With print-on-demand (POD) technology, it wouldn't be too hard to start releasing some decently packaged novels and short story collections > we would also need volunteers to design effective book covers). Barnes & Nobles iUniverse: a ready-made print-on-demand operation. For $99 you can have virtually anything published as POD. They will design the four-color book cover and assist with marketing. They'll provide an ISBN number for the book (very expensive to get your own set of numbers set up). The books are as orderable as any other book through normal wholesale channels. Downsides to this: virtually anything can get published, therefore the whole industry does not respect books published through iUniverse (reviewers won't review them; bookstores won't carry them). The books are trade paperbacks and carry a higher price than mass market paperbacks (but that will be true no matter what POD route we go: mass market format isn't cost effective using POD). The only money available from sales would be the royalty Barnes & Nobles pays to the author--we'd have to divvy that up between author and Irreantum Books to see any revenue. Overcoming the downsides: whatever money is available is available--everyone will have to understand that, and be willing to take whatever cut is worked out. In return for sacrificing some of the royalty, the author will have a means to rise above the usual iUniverse publication, because it will have been selected and edited by editors, thereby assuring better quality. I'm wondering if an arrangement can be struck with iUniverse: they insist on having their imprint on the book, but I'm wondering if they'd share an imprint with us, so we can get our books to stand out from the iUniverse crowd. The $99 does not cover their costs of producing a book, so they have an interest in seeing books sold. Since this arrangement should help books get sold, they might go for it. And we'd need to arrange having the royalty paid to Irreantum, and have Irreantum pay the author. Why bother: The only reason I would even consider iUniverse as our POD source is because of the added value of book cover design and an ISBN number (I question how meaningful their "assistance in marketing" would be). Those two things are not trivial financially. Otherwise we could go directly through Ingram's POD service (that's what iUniverse uses) or some local company. -- 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: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 29 Jun 2001 01:34:04 -0500 At 04:27 PM 6/27/01, you wrote: >Merlyn J Clarke wrote: > > > > What if a GA or two took to writing fiction? Think they'd get > published? > > After all, a few GAs have written hymns. > > > >My cynical opinion would be, yes, they would get published even if their >fiction was dreadful. Does anyone really think, for instance, that "I >Believe in Christ" would have ever seen the inside of the LDS hymnbook >if it hadn't been written by Bruce R. McConkie? > >Thom (waiting for people to respond by saying they love the hymn. That >isn't the point. It's still maudlin verse) Duncan Would anyone have bought Jake Garn's space novel if the name on the cover had been, oh, say "Thom Duncan"? -- Ronn! :) - 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] Institutional Art Date: 29 Jun 2001 02:54:55 -0600 Hot button alert! Mine have just been pushed. Jacob Proffitt wrote: > But > art is, well, art. It isn't worth the danger of offending somebody. We > are happy to offend people for the sake of the Gospel, but we *don't* > want to offend for the sake of anything less important. > > The thing is, when you talk about people and the gospel, you are dealing > with eternal consequences. > Which means that the Church actively softens things for the easily > offended as long as they don't compromise doctrine. > If just one person takes that advice and the effect is to irreparably > harm their eternal progression then there is all the damage you need to > justify squelching exactly that message. The worth of souls is great, > after all. The fallacy in this argument is assuming that softening things doesn't offend anybody. The church isn't decreasing offense--it's shifting it. The church is tacitly stating that easily offended members who don't like to think for themselves are more inportant than members who think. The church is telling artists and lovers of art that they are not important. And guess what! These kind of people are falling away in droves. So here's my summary in my usual crude, offensive way: "The worth of an ignorant soul is great in the sight of God. As for the rest of you--you're on you own." That's what the church's attitude as you postulate it says to me. > Personally, I hate the effect that this reality has on some members. > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." > I think it would be much more useful to teach the principles of their > decisions while they implement them. > But then, explaining things is hard. And dangerous. I mean, it takes > time and work to craft an explanation in the first place. The risk is > that you give wiggle room when you explain your decisions--you risk > someone disbelieving in your calling and your message because they > disagree with your reasons An explanation gives wiggle room, but silence and a lack of information doesn't? Silence gives _maximum_ wiggle room. At least with an explanation, they have to wiggle within a well-bounded region. Silence gives free reign to roam anywhere. Explaining is hard? Let me try... "We've decided that the purpose of church magazines is to disseminate doctrine, not fiction. Therefore we are discontinuing fiction in church magazines. But this in no way suggests that we think something's wrong with fiction. We encourage our members to continue reading good fiction, and would like to see some independent sources for fiction move in to replace that which the church magazines used to carry." Didn't seem so hard. I don't think there's anything doctrinally problematic in the statement. I don't know where you'd find much wiggle room to get it wrong. Seems like a pretty benign statement to me. And wouldn't that be a great shot in the arm to LDS fiction! > Just > because it would make me feel better, doesn't mean it is worth taking > the time away from their official calling to preach the gospel to all > the world. Which brings me back to my first point that art isn't as > important as teaching the gospel--no matter how good or True it might > be. Why can't art be _equivalent_ to preaching the Gospel? Do we really think General Authority speeches are going to reach the hearts of every person on earth? -- 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 03:00:47 -0600 Levi Peterson wrote: > > My take on a midstream Mormon publisher is that the General Authorities and > the great mass of church members who take their advice on all matters would > quickly identify it as disloyal. We may need to take Hugh Nibley's approach. We need to make our loyalty ao obvious and unassailable that our arrows of cultural criticism don't sting so much. -- 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: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Joseph Smith Project Date: 29 Jun 2001 08:47:44 -0700 Back in May, Thom responded to William's and D. Michael's thoughts on cinematizing the First Vision: > "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > > > William Morris wrote: > > > > > I think that if I was making the film, I would leave > > > the first vision and the translation of the Book of > > > Mormon alone---I mean, they'd get referenced somehow > > > to set up the opening of the film, but I'd do the bulk > > > of the film from, say, Zion's camp to the martyrdom. > > > I just thing that that part of the story is too iconic > > > to deal with easily. I'm not saying that it's 'too > > > sacred' and shouldn't be portrayed for propriety's > > > sake or anything like that. Perhaps it's because I > > > think that that period of Joseph's life is too firmly > > > pre-conceived in people's minds. > > > > I'm just the opposite. I'd rather concentrate on the beginnings, the > > iconic stories, precisely because people have firmly preconceived > > notions about them. I'd like to make them less iconic and remind people > > that they were real events that really happened. Which probably means > > people would accuse me of treating them irreverently, because I didn't > > depict them "iconically." > > In my never-to-be-produced screenplay on Joseph Smith, I battled over > this exact thing until ultimately settling on portraying the First > Vision (though not the standard one; my scene depicted the earlier > accounts of the Vision with angels -- there was no Father and Son saying > "Do not join other churches." -- I felt this was historically accurate > because all the evidence shows a gradual unfolding of the significance > of the Vision. Joseph didn't walk out of the Sacred Grove at the age of > 14 with a complete understanding of the nature of God and of other > churches, despite what we teach as missionaries.) Since my script's > audience all along had been the general public, I struggled with how to > make the Joseph Smith story appealing to non-members. Seeing Malcolm X, > where Malcolm has a very matter of fact vision of his religions founder > convinced me that the best way to do such scenes for non-members is just > to do them. > There are advantages and disadvantages to the approach you suggest, Thom, of filming the earlier accounts of the First Vision. One advantage is that it would seem "fresh", since it would be different than the Church-produced film of "The First Vision" which is based solely on Joseph's 1838 account in "History of the Church" (now included as Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price.) ("Freshness" and "originality" being qualities that we artists want our works to have.) However, the disadvantage of your way of dramatizing the First Vision would be that some people would construe it as disproving or devaluing the 1838 account. They would say that you didn't dramatize the 1838 account because it is less accurate than the others (even though it's longer and more detailed). They would construe it as having dramatized their alternative version of Joseph Smith's story: that he only saw angels, and that he later made up the stuff about seeing Deity. I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of being "fresh". I don't understand what you mean by saying "the evidence shows a gradual unfolding of the significance of the Vision." Yes, the later accounts are longer and more detailed. But the fact that not all the details were immediately written down doesn't prove that those details weren't part of the original experience. I would suggest 2 other ways to cinematize the First Vision: 1. Dramatize the Vision in a way which includes details from all of Joseph's written accounts (none of which contradict each other, by the way). James Arrington did this orally for a conference of the Mormon History Association years ago, when they met in the Kirtland Temple. I think his "combined" account of the First Vision was published in Dialogue. This version would include both Deities, and angels, and everything else that Joseph described. 2. Dramatize each of his accounts in flashback format, but in a way that tantalizes the audience into wanting to see the next flashback. For instance, start off when he's writing down in his personal journal his earliest account of the Vision, the one in which he writes that Jesus told him that he is forgiven of his sins.* Then show a quick flashback of that part of the Vision experience. Then let the movie go forward with other parts of Joseph's life until it chronologically gets to the point where he wrote or told his next account of the vision. Then show more. By the time the movie gets to 1838, the audience would be intensely interested in what really happened back there in that sacred grove. This approach would show the essential unity of Joseph's Vision experience, at the same time acknowledging that he wrote down what happened only a little bit at a time. * A photograph of this page of Joseph's journal, showing in his own handwriting that Jesus forgave his sins, was included in the original edition of "The Story of the Latter-day Saints" by James Allen and Glen Leonard. I was moved when I first saw it. Regards, Frank Maxwell - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris ANDERSON" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 09:48:57 -0600 Paris Anderson parisander@freeport.com wrote: Wow--I've been trying to get on this liist for a week and what I finally get on--boom--the first message is about small time publishing . . . THAT'S MY GIG, MAN! That's what I do! I'm a stay-at-home dad and a massage therapist, and in my free time (which isn't nearly enough) I print and hand-bind (hardcover) my own stuff.. With a hardcover the finished product is too expensive to sell in bookstores, but you can docutech the books and have them done in a soft cover with a perfect bind--just like most books in a bookstore. I'm doing a children's chapter book about the Mormon Battalion that way, It's coming out this summer (Thank heaven for credit cards). I noticed Chris Bigelow was looking for volunteers to work on that proposed Irreantum Books. I'll do it. I don't think I could do more than one title a year (I am dyslexic and that slows me down a lot). But I'll do my best. One big advantage to hand binding is that you can see the book before you actually go to press. You can also have a copy or two for archives or private collections. You can use them for pre-marketing or display. I'm excited about the prospect. Paris Anderson - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 29 Jun 2001 09:51:16 -0600 (MDT) >Does anyone really think, for instance, that "I > Believe in Christ" would have ever seen the inside of the LDS hymnbook > if it hadn't been written by Bruce R. McConkie? > > Thom (waiting for people to respond by saying they love the hymn. That > isn't the point. It's still maudlin verse) Duncan I'm going to say that I like the hymn - I don't consider it great poetry, or even art. There are hymns with better lyrics, and there are hymns with worse lyrics - it's really in the middle as far as that standard goes. But I consider it a fairly decent outpouring of love and respect for Christ that coems across as almsot spontaneous and worth more because of its artlessness. (Now - the music that was written for it needs to be changed, I will agree. One of the most bland melodies and harmonies in the hymnbook. But that's my opinion, and the hymnbook wasn't created with me specifically in mind. I rather enjoy 95% of the hymnbook, even if I wish there was more variety). --Ivan Wolfe - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Date: 29 Jun 2001 10:22:48 -0600 Hi guys. I'm back, and you're talking about my favorite subject. I've been lurking. PROPER SEX, as Michael Martindale puts it, is my favorite subject, and I'm WAY discouraged. O'Reilly, the conservative guy on FOX, just comes right out and says "We can't preach." And of course, that's right. NOBODY is listening. We can't tell them not to have it. Because Michael is right. It IS FUN. There are also 26 more diseases people can get from it, not to mention Aids, and the habits we have of focusing on sex instead of the REALLY IMPORTANT things that help our lives to be joyful and last a long time. Oh well, I say to myself, Babylon had the same problem and look what finally happened to them. I liked what Michael said about "confront" it. That's the ticket. I think our "romance" writers ARE trying to confront it, don't you think? How are they doing? I don't think we are completely lacking in "telling stories that include sex as an integral part." But alas! I'm not sure we can turn the minds of these hot teenagers much. Anybody have any suggestions? Maybe it's not literature, anyway. (P.S. I'm glad to be back, and I had a wonderful time in Boston--our daughter bought a lovely old 1915 mansion on the waterfront! And I was also THRILLED that Richard Cracroft and Andrew Hall mentioned our book done by the Indian fellow, which I helped through the publication process! Thanks for all you do, Andrew! And Richard too!) Marilyn Brown - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] _Peculiarities_ Tonight? Date: 29 Jun 2001 10:23:21 -0600 I saw an ad that said Eric Samuelsen's play _Peculiarities_ was playing now at UVSC's Black Box theater, but when I called the number they didn't know anything about it. Does anyone know if this play is being staged, and if so when and where? - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 10:45:49 -0600 Hi, Chris! I'm back, and I've been lurking. Thanks, Chris, for mentioning my little Salt Press! One reason I joined up with Cedar Fort is that there are SO MANY DETAILS to publishing--details that I'd just as soon have someone else spend time and money on: advertising, printing, mailing, billing, etc. My feeling about the whole thing is to get better product through a press like Cedar Fort. They are very open and amenable. They are good people! (Thanks to Andrew Hall for the comment about the Native American fellow's novel! Yes, we worked hard on it!) Why not take the operation that already exists and run with it? Do we really need another LDS publisher? Or can we use Evans Books, or Cornerstone, or Aspen, or Cedar Fort and develop them? There are a lot of people who start up publishing companies because they want to do it their way. They either want to "express themselves" or make a lot of money. It's not that easy. (Ask Richard Hopkins.) Salt Press? I haven't seen one red cent yet. (By the way, as an aside, when I got home my funny mother-in-law who wrote the FABULOUS book I CANNOT TELL A LIFE died just when I got home. That was Salt Press's first book (that Lavina Anderson and Harlow Clark read--did anyone else see it?) and I nearly got sued. But it was WONDERFUL, I promise! (Two readers do not a reading public make.) So absolutely no money for me. Hopefully that will change. I am THRILLED to be with Cedar Fort, and they have given me the go ahead--that anything I feel is literary quality I can do with the Salt Press label. We almost did a book of short stories by Todd Peterson, except that I was in the middle of too much to give it the attention it needed and I told him to try again on the national market. I felt sad. Cedar Fort can't sell short stories. The economics of the thing definitely RULES! You have to watch it so that you don't lose your shirt! How much good are you going to do sitting out there in the dirt with no shirt, getting sunburned? Hopefully you can see the wisdom in BUILDING UP some struggling entity rather than feeling "it's got to be your way." You are all talented and brilliant. I would LOVE to see your stuff at Salt Press, 925 N. Main, Springville, Utah. The God's Army press might be the answer, also, but they will soon buck up against the market, too, and start rejecting literary work! Anyway, keep trying! (Nice to be back) Marilyn Brown - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? Date: 29 Jun 2001 12:20:59 -0500 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I understand the mindset that says advertising shouldn't appear in a > church-sponsored magazine. But that mindset seems to carry with it the > sense that commerce is a sordid thing.... One might be tempted to argue, why should > we help businesses get rich off church members? I have no objection to advertising. I love advertising. It keeps some of my favorite publications free, it tells me where I can find goods and services and at what price, it amuses and titillates me, and it tells me how I can find joy in my refrigerator and romance over the phone. It's a window on culture, giving me hints of the hopes, desires and fears of whichever strange land I find myself in. It's the sole reason I watch the Superbowl. I channel surf to find good ads. Did I mention that I love advertising? Aside from molding tastes, advertising sends signals - "I exist; you can buy me in four easy installments over the phone; my quality is X." Alas, when signals contain useful information, someone will take advantage and send noise - a signal that contains spurious information. The cost is relatively low and the potential gain is large. And that's why I dislike the idea of advertising in church publications. I know the publishers are decent, well-intentioned people, but they have to navigate an informational mine-field laid by wolves. How to be certain of the accuracy of ads in your paper? How to ensure that your good name won't induce your flock of readers to trade with a commercial predator? In the world of commercial publishing, publishers typically disavow responsibility for the ads they carry. I don't think the church can so easily do that. And given the trusting nature of many Mormons, the appearance of an ad in an LDS publication will surely be seen as evidence that the advertiser is of good report. And when it happens, as it inevitably will, that the advertiser is a wicked opportunist, I suspect many LDS will feel betrayed, even seek compensation from the publisher for abbetting the fraud. I know, I know, people need to grow up. That doesn't obviate the fact that a religious publisher is subject to reputational effects that are different from those for Hurst or Murdoch. And even an organization affiliated with the church only by virtue of a primarily LDS audience will experience those effects, though not as severely (I imagine _This People_ carried ads for engagement rings and wheat grinders with some regularity). In short, I think it's a bad idea for the church to allow advertising in its publications, and I think the rest of us need to be mighty careful if we identify ourselves with the church and take ads. Jim Picht - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? Date: 29 Jun 2001 12:42:29 -0600 On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 01:35:54AM -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: > What troubles me is, where is the medium of advertisement that can reach > the entire church population, now that church magazines won't do it? One > might be tempted to argue, why should we help businesses get rich off > church members? I look at it as, why shouldn't members everywhere find > out what's available to them, like some far-flung members of AML-List > have complained that they have a hard time finding out what LDS > literature is around? Because you would then offer direct competition for the Deseret Book Club. Much of the products advertised would offer some product that competes with what the church already offers through Deseret Book on the Church Distribution Center. (A cynical answer, but one I believe has more than a grain of truth -- perhaps even a whole sandbox.) Also, if the Church magazines accepted advertising, that creates the implication that the Church endorses those advertisers or products over similar companies that choose not to advertise in Church magazines. The Church could place a huge disclaimer -- "The Church does not endorse these products or companies" right on the advertising pages, but the implication still exists. Because too many saints look to the Church for the guidelines of "this is OK, this is not" instead of seeking the spirit for the guidelines for their own situation. The "dumbing-down of America" has infected the Church members as much as almost everywhere else. We want our religion spoon fed in pre-masticated servings. When something comes along that seems to challenge our worldview, we don't look for answers from within, we look to the Church leaders ask, like a three-year-old dipping his toe in the swimming pool but looking over his shoulder at mom -- but it's the looking over the shoulder that causes the boy to fall in. I have to say to myself: "We live in the last days. The scriptures tell us that many of the saints will not make it to the Celestial kingdom. I just have to do my part for myself and my family." Without this mantra, I would get really depressed. [P.S. Signing off for a week. I leave tomorrow for Pennsylvania and other points East for a short vacation.] -- Terry L Jeffress | No book is really worth reading at the | age of ten which is not equally (and | often far more) worth reading at the age | of fifty and beyond. -- C. S. Lewis - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 29 Jun 2001 13:47:49 -0500 Thom Duncan wrote: > My cynical opinion would be, yes, [GAs] would get published even if their fiction was > dreadful. Does anyone really think, for instance, that "I Believe in Christ" would > have ever seen the inside of the LDS hymnbook if it hadn't been written by Bruce R. > McConkie? I think they'd get published, but I don't think the potential awfulness of a Faust spy novel or a Packer romance is really relevant, nor is this view cynical. People with proven audiences or drawing power get published in a commercial market. I imagine Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey would both have an easy time getting a novel published, however awful, simply because publishers know that there'd be a large and eager audience for them. The hymnbook is a somewhat different beast. Every ward buys them, whether they contain hymns by McConkie or not, and McConkie's hymn inclusion seems almost an example of vanity-press printing rather than the market-driven acceptance his SF trilogy would have received (had he ever finished it). The latter would actually sell, if not in the numbers of Clinton's bodice-ripper, hence wouldn't be picked up by the publisher just to make nice with a GA, but in expectation of profit. I don't see why we should be bothered by the effect of fame or notoriety (however local) on the decision to publish a new author's book. Publishing isn't about art, after all, it's about commerce, and acceptance or rejection by a publisher isn't necessarily a comment on the artistic worth of a book. Jim Picht http://vic.nsula.edu/scholars_college/picht/home.html - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Art Date: 29 Jun 2001 14:27:23 -0500 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > That is because there is a fundamental difference between "doctrine" and > "art". While that difference is clear to me, the line between the two is not. Doctrine would be well-served by great art, and for a much larger community over a longer time than by the safe and simple art that's now preferred. I think that the evaluation of art-in-service-of-doctrine by the brethren is extremely difficult, requires judgements that they aren't always willing or able to make, hence they prefer the use of iconography - set patterns and symbols that often strike us as bland. > But art is, well, art. It isn't worth the danger of offending somebody... > The thing is, when you talk about people and the gospel, you are dealing > with eternal consequences. You can't dilute the gospel without > potentially damaging the eternal destination of the very people you want > to bring to God. You seem to forget that there's a trade-off. If bland art doesn't offend, neither does it engage, and an opportunity to present the gospel is lost. Rather than turn someone off to a particular eternal destination, you may fail to get him on it in the first place. That also ignores the fact that "safe" art may not be safe at all. There are clearly people on this list who find it at the very least irritating, if not offensive. It might be nice to do an eternal cost-benefit analysis of our homogenized art, but we can't. We can see, though, that there are costs as well as benefits, and those costs are measured, as are the benefits, in the welfare of souls. Hence the argument that follows doesn't make much sense to me: > If just one person takes that advice and the effect is to irreparably > harm their eternal progression then there is all the damage you need to > justify squelching exactly that message. Either way, there will be damage. You'll lose at least one either way, I think, so I perceive the course the church takes to be the easier one, since its costs are lower in terms of institutional decision-making. That is, since we can't measure the costs of our policy in souls, we choose to reduce more easily discerned institutional costs. Rules are easier to administer than a policy of discretion, and simpler art is more easily evaluated according to rules. I don't think we need put this in terms of lost souls at all. > Personally, I hate the effect that this reality has on some members. > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." I'm afraid that > this is only the beginning of the inevitable fallout. It may be, and it illustrates the potential for offense and lost souls as a cost of the "no fiction" policy. The attitude of the Primary president is offputting to me, to say the least. I won't leave the church over it, but we all know people who might. On the other hand, a no-fiction policy is much easier to administer than a good-fiction policy. > By implementing a no fiction policy at Church magazines on the sly..., > they > imply things that they probably don't mean (that fiction is bad). I think that making the reason for the policy explicit is possible only if the brethren can articulate it to themselves. I'm not certain that they can, since most of the cost-benefit analysis we do in life is done at an intuitive level, without a clear understanding of why we do what we do, only a feeling that it's right. As you say, > But then, explaining things is hard. And dangerous. I mean, it takes > time and work to craft an explanation in the first place. It also means clarifying the issues to yourself, and we sometimes shy away from that instinctively. It is, as you say, dangerous. > Which brings me back to my first point that art isn't as important as > teaching the gospel--no matter how good or True it might be. I agree with you to a point. The tool isn't as important as the product. Art is the tool, spreading the gospel message is the product. If there are better tools than art, we should use them. But aside from direct learning through the spirit, the message is spread through words, symbols, images - elements of art, if not art itself. A better use and understanding of that tool can have a tremendous impact in getting the product out, but only with some risk. Life is a risk, and the Plan of Salvation entails enormous risk. Why should church leaders shy away from risk? Jim Picht http://vic.nsula.edu/scholars_college/picht/home.html - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _Macady_ (Review) Date: 29 Jun 2001 13:18:59 -0600 (MDT) I read Jeff Needle's recent review of this book with interest. I read _Macady_ a few years ago, and I remembered feeling differently about it. So I pulled out my notes that I'd made on it, and I thought it would be fun to post my own review on it. (Note to Jeff and Barbara (Hume): This is not meant to discredit your positive comments on the book!) My notes are dated March 15, 1998, and since I checked it out from the library I no longer have the book. So I don't feel that I am now qualified to comment much further than this, or to make any revisions on what I wrote, but here are the VERY hasty notes I jotted down after reading it then: I don't like horse stories (the cover shows a young woman on a horse). I don't like action-adventure. I ended up liking this one anyway. The writing is not great. It succeeds, though--it tells a story, and even makes it interesting. But the characters are all stock-romance-types--the perfect hero and heroine (who are even battling internal problems of forgiving someone they loved), loving mother, evil grandmother, etc. But the writing is disjointed; these things about trust and forgiveness are almost an aside, brought up abruptly at times and left just as fast. Sure, the issues of forgiveness, of Macady's dad leaving their "forever family" for another woman, and of Aaron's (dead) wife being selfish and immature and always running to her mother, are very real and deserve exploration. But they're just asides, and not really part of the story, except to hang over our heads in the form of "Can they ever love and trust again?" and because of this, they have trouble getting together. Also briefly mentioned is Macady's ex-fiance, Brian, who she caught cheating on her. He was mentioned three times and this is all we know. Why bother? What was the point?? Also Hansen has to keep reminding us how desirable her hero and heroine are, and they occasionally think things about each other that should have been on a greeting card. ("Macady had a knack for making everything around her a little more real, a little more vibrant" (p. 56, Aaron's POV); "The way he looked in the smartly tailored black and gray uniform made her pulse accelerate" (p. 53, Macady's POV).) I feel like I'm expected to care about these characters because they're perfect. They don't have real thoughts, except about how right it feels to brush against the other's leg, etc., or how hurt they were because of this or that experience. One overdramatic quote that drove me crazy on p. 39: <<<<< Macady cast Aaron an amused glance as Kelsey (Aaron's 4-year-old daughter) tried to decide which kitten should be her very own. His answering smile told her he approved of the gift he'd given his child and that he appreciated the avoidance of a problem with Denise. >>>>> I'm not sure exactly what bugs me about the second sentence here, but it's just so eloquent, and Macady knew the perfect thing to do, and she instantly understood the exact words his smile was telling her. She must be psychic, on top of being perfect. ******* My additional comments, June 2001: I didn't say much in my notes about what I liked in the story (griping is sometimes much more fun). But I remember that I eventually became very involved in the plot, in spite of myself. After all, the hero rescues the heroine from a sniper and a burning barn, and later there's a kidnapping and a drug ring. Also, the plot revolving around Aaron's dead wife became more interesting as we find out what a witch she really was, and how her equally witchy mother continues to try to stay involved in Aaron's life and make him miserable. Later we learn that his wife had told other people that he was cruel and abusive to her. There's a lot here (most of which I don't remember, and I wouldn't remember any of it if I hadn't written it down) and it gets pretty interesting. I just didn't like some of the writing, and I wanted to see more realistic characters with more exploration of some of the issues brought up. But I suppose this isn't the point of the story. The story isn't meant to be a character study, but an action-packed romance. If this is what you like, then I recommend it highly. What I remember of it, anyway. [Katie Parker] - 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] GAs in Church Pubs Date: 29 Jun 2001 16:15:51 -0600 (MDT) The title worries me - has the church started endorsing the consumption of alchohol, since we are apparently spotting GAs in apparently church owned pubs? (I though the rumors about owning Coke and Pepsi were crazy - but the church owns pubs?) ;) --Ivan - 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 03:21:12 -0600 William Morris wrote: > I think the question of "are there > enough of them?" is critical. We don't really know > for sure until somebody tries. But some work on that > end has to be done before we can think about how to > reach them---especially since a big part of the whole > process is the need to convince LDS booksellers to > stock the tiles produced by a midstream publisher. It's always distribution that gets in the way of good ideas. I think we need to take a page form the Gospel According to Richard Dutcher and figure out a way to bypass the traditional distributioon channels. It's easier to drag a spaghetti noodle with than to push it ahead of you. > One of the questions that comes up for me is: how do > the hypothetical members of this new market react to > the idea of Mormon literature on an abstract level? > There's no real way to answer this question (focus > groups?), but what I'm trying to get at is: would > Mormon readers of non-Mormon fiction ever consider > buying and reading fiction by a Mormon author if it a) > matched their genre/topic interests and b) was of a > quality similar to the books they now read? I was very eager to read _Disoriented_ when it came out, specifically because it was an LDS science fiction book. So there's your existence proof of the market. > However, even that barrier can be dropped if someone > they trust constitutes it as a valid category for > them. One of the theories of institutional change is > that you find the 'opinion leaders' for that > particular institution and convince them to help you > 'sell' your message to the rest of the institution. "The Orson Scott Card Book Club of LDS Science 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: Steve Subject: [AML] "Zion" Domain Names Available Date: 29 Jun 2001 08:30:13 -0600 No, there is not a new lds internet suffix ".zion," but I have a cousin who once registered these various domains for an idea he was working on which has never come to pass. >A few years ago I registered the domain names ZionsBook.com, ZionsArt.com, >and ZionsMusic.com. He is interested in selling them for the same price as registration to someone who may be interested. Please forward to any book/music/art types who might be interested? Thanks, Steve -- skperry@mac.com - 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 10:56:32 -0700 <<< In fact, I was thinking of asking if the LDS booksellers in Northern CA carry _Irreantum_ because if they don't, and I could get a list of them, I'd be happy to make some calls and pitch it to them. What do you think Chris, et al? It'd be a small step, but it's what I can offer right now.>>> William, that would be great. Let me know if you need some sample copies = to show people (or we could mail a sample directly to whomever you = indicate). For California retailers, see http://deseretbook.com/other-books= ellers/stores.tcl?state=3DCA (not sure how up to date or complete that = list is, but it's a starting place). Chris Bigelow - 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] Midstream Mormon Publisher Date: 29 Jun 2001 15:41:08 -0700 I tend to agree, Levi. The only two non-LDS-owned book publishers that = have had any lasting success with the LDS fiction market are Bookcraft and = Covenant. Bookcraft started as a house to publish GA books, and Covenant = started as a scripture tape company. Both gradually eased into fiction = after having their reputations established for literally decades. They = proved their loyalty, and as far as I know they haven't done anything to = disturb that perception by publishing anything too challenging. They're = not correlated by the Church, but they self-correlate to the same = tunnel-vision cultural standard.=20 It was interesting to watch Aspen flounder, and it's interesting to watch = Cornerstone, which unsuccessfully tried to merge with long-time orthodox = publisher Horizon, try to carve out a fiction audience from its apologist = base. Cedar Fort is kind of an unknown quantity to me. Other than that, = haven't most of the fiction publishers come and gone, even if they've = self-correlated like Bookcraft and Covenant? I suppose it's also a = function of economics. Chris Bigelow -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 6:29 AM My take on a midstream Mormon publisher is that the General Authorities = and the great mass of church members who take their advice on all matters = would quickly identify it as disloyal. Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.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: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] re: Fiction in Church Mags (was: Institutional Art) Date: 29 Jun 2001 15:54:51 -0600 ---Original Message From: Elizabeth Hatch > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." > > > Boy, we knew that was coming! It brings back nightmare memories of that > Young Women president in Utah who told her Young Women that reading > fiction was wrong. Yikes!! Actually, it wasn't as bad as I quoted it above. It was distressing, but she didn't actually say that fiction was "wrong". It is certainly a sign of what is coming, but not as tragic as I made it out. Jacob - 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] Fiction in Church Mags Date: 29 Jun 2001 16:04:24 -0600 ---Original Message From: mjames_laurel > I think we're going a little far when we extrapolate from > this administrative policy decision that the General > Authorities are denouncing fiction. And I think we're making > a far too sweeping generalization when we assume they'd have > any objection to a non-church subsidized effort to make a > different type of literature available to the LDS market. > Unless it was riddled with gratuitous filth, violence, and > glorification of evil, I doubt they'd take any kind of stand > at all. I don't think anybody has tried to say that the GAs are denouncing fiction. At least, I went to great lengths in my post to point out that I doubt they are doing anything of the kind. I think it is a legitimate fear, though, that people will take the removal of fiction from Church published magazines to *mean* that the GAs are denouncing fiction. Just as people take the absence of beards on GAs to mean that facial hair is inappropriate on men. Jacob Proffitt - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Craig Huls Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Art Date: 29 Jun 2001 22:36:39 -0500 "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > Explaining is hard? Let me try... > > "We've decided that the purpose of church magazines is to disseminate > doctrine, not fiction. Therefore we are discontinuing fiction in church > magazines. But this in no way suggests that we think something's wrong > with fiction. We encourage our members to continue reading good fiction, > and would like to see some independent sources for fiction move in to > replace that which the church magazines used to carry." > While the Church may never get around to saying anything LIKE what Brother Martindale wrote I think he is right on track. I don't think they are trying to shutdown the LDS FICTION market. I choose to think they are getting some really good true stuff that can be gracefully shared. I don't worry about strange attitudes of auxillary leaders or even P.H. leaders trying to second guess the reasoning. I would like to add a few things to this thread. 1. Join SPAN and buy some books on self-publishing it is not rocket science. DO it yourself. or consider the following: 2. I have been an entrepreneur for 40 years. Some things worked well others didn't but the joy of the dream and the fun of trying has kept me young! 3. Paper is never going to go away, but please realize that the digital age is taking over in many arenas. I have been involved in computer science since we wired boards to take impulses from one counter to another. E-books are not moving as fast as the Industry wants, but they will. I sit in PEC meeting and all but the Bishop has a PDA (Palm Pilot or a look alike) going as the meeting is progressing. One HP in my group flips to chapter and verse on his PDA faster than we can find it in the scriptures, soon it will speak to you too! In fact does for the right amount of $. 4. My first novel 'JUST WAIT' (re-written after reviews by Rex Goode and Terry Jeffress and some others) is about to be sent to Frankfurt Germany as a WinEbook in a contest they have going with a $50,000 first prize. Will it win? I doubt it, but it will get some exposure and as a book about a subject seldom covered, it is going to get talked about by somebody. BTW it is about SEX but could be read by a 12-13 year old, in fact should be in my opinion. But I'm the author! 5. Being an entrepreneur. I bought LDSFICTION.NET & LDSFICTION.ORG If any of you have fiction that is positive, uplifting, minimal profanity a d....n or h..l, would be alright drop me an email. Even some implied heterosexual sex.[ no kinky stuff]. I like it off screen, off stage, get me thinking that is where you are headed and then let me go there on my own, I don't need a descriptive guide.. In the not too distant future HAPPY ENDING PRESS will be accepting manuscripts where POD and reasonable commissions will be paid. No advances but good accounting records paid monthly not quarterly, most marketing will be online. When Amazon and B&N get wind they will want in. There will be Ezine's which initially will offer exposure, but little money for articles, but once the readership is up and they can support advertising dollars, then at that point there will be payment for articles. I 6. LDSFICTION about real life experiences, problems with kids, kids who go astray some to return others not. I do not believe anyone really believes that all is well in ZION. I just left a hospital where a 19 yr old Priest tried to hang himself last night. I offered him an opportunity to write something positive that I could get published for him. In summary folks I am going to try to do something about it. Business I understand, marketing I understand, writing I am still studying and bying manuals. But I am a believer and I am also a dreamer. I have made and thrown away a lot more money than a lot of people have ever made. It is the journey that is fun folks, and I have it on good authority that we ain't taking it with us! So ..... Anybody interested? Craig Huls dch@happyendingpress.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] _Peculiarities_ Tonight? Date: 29 Jun 2001 16:26:53 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > I saw an ad that said Eric Samuelsen's play _Peculiarities_ was playing now > at UVSC's Black Box theater, but when I called the number they didn't know > anything about it. > > Does anyone know if this play is being staged, and if so when and where? > > - > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm Eric had to cancel the production of the play at the Blackbox theatre. It was going to be the third offering in the Playwrights Circle Summer Theatre Season at UVSC, but we couldn't work out the logistics. In its place, we offered Polly, by another member of the Circle, Steve Kapp Parry. -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - 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] Cornerstone Publishing Query (comp) Date: 30 Jun 2001 18:35:49 -0500 >From dmichael@wwno.com Fri Jun 29 03:58:35 2001 Dallas Robbins wrote: > > Does anyone know the address for Cornerstone Publishing? Who is the owner? > Any info would be helpful. Thanks. Richard Hopkins owns it, or co-owns, I'm not sure. E-mail address: cornerstone@xmission.com The office in Utah is in Bountiful--don't have the address with me. The main office is in Chandler, Arizona. D. Michael Martindale >From wwbrown@burgoyne.com Fri Jun 29 10:42:32 2001 I have an old number for Cornerstone. However, the scuttlebutt is that they were having an UPSET. If you want to find out, you're welcome. Richard Hopkins, 5427 S. 560 E. Murray, UT 84107, 1-801-293-0734. This info may be totally obsolete. Maybe let us know after you find out? Good luck! Marilyn Brown >From scottparkin@earthlink.net Sat Jun 30 13:17:26 2001 >Does anyone know the address for Cornerstone Publishing? Who is the >owner? Any info would be helpful. Thanks. The AML web site has a list of LDS and related publishers (see http://www.xmission.com/~aml/resources/publisher-links.htm). Cornerstone is owned by Richard Hopkins. Here is the contact info: Cornerstone Publishing 5427 South 560 East Salt Lake City, UT 84107 phone: (801) 261-2342 fax: (801) 685-6206 e-mail: rrhopkins@utah-inter.net web: http://cornerstonepublishing. com [Scott Parkin] - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] High List Volume Date: 30 Jun 2001 18:38:31 -0500 Folks, Just a warning that List volume is running high, and it's still the weekend. So let me recommend again that you limit yourself to a couple of posts a day, and that if possible, you compile your responses on a single thread into a single post. Please also be patient if I'm slow getting things out. Jonathan Langford - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm