From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 25 Feb 2003 02:04:19 -0700 ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale >=20 > I could look at Jacob's astounding coding techniques and say, "Wow!=20 > That's a work of art!" But it would be a metaphor, not a literal=20 > statement. I can tell the distinction because his program=20 > will never be=20 > displayed as art or discussed among artists for its aesthetic=20 > merit or=20 > receive artistic grants so he can create more. It's the INTENT, the=20 > PURPOSE for which it's created, that matters. Again, as with other forms of art that also serve a utilitarian purpose, most people might not consider it art, but those in the business can and = do do so. Not all, sometimes a building is just a building and a program = is just a program, but there are those of us who admire an elegant = subroutine or new way of approaching common problems. Frankly, there are a number = of GUI interfaces that I think are brilliant and the fact that people don't notice them is proof of their artistic, aesthetic design. Tamaguchi is = one such. It's a couple of buttons and a grainy screen, but the interface = is so intuitive that people are drawn right past the interface and into the experience without even realizing it. Software *does* present a face to = the world--it *is* art. And that's not even getting into the graphical = design aspects of programming--wedding graphical design to functional programs = is always a stretch and one that is directly artistic. Finally, I'd hate to think that the existence of patronage is the = defining characteristic of art. Particularly since in the case of software, commercial gain is sufficient that direct patronage is hardly necessary. > Frank Zappa was right when he said art is whatever someone=20 > puts a frame=20 > around. He said it was because it created boundaries where art can be=20 > distinguished from real life. But I say there's one more step=20 > involved=20 > in the framing process. A frame implies the intent to display. Saying=20 > "Hey, this is art," is not putting a frame around it. In=20 > fact, it sounds=20 > more like an afterthought to me than anything. The intent to=20 > define the=20 > boundaries of the creation AND DISPLAY IT AS ART is putting a frame=20 > around it. >=20 > No one puts a frame around a picture unless they expect at=20 > some point to=20 > hang it up so people can see it. Putting a frame around it means removing it from any other use. By your criteria, architecture isn't art. Car design isn't art. Apparently art = can only exist if it doesn't have any useful purpose. I disagree with this definition. Frankly, your "frame" definition has to be metaphoric to = accept literature, theater or film. I don't see the utility in such a definition... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pdhunter@wt.net Subject: [AML] Box Office Report Feb. 21 03 Date: 25 Feb 2003 14:28:20 -0600 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 21, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 11 Final Destination 2 2,994,241 1,518 24 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 40,320,642 53 The R.M. 39,794 16 24 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 418,314 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 55 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 38,515 9 745 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,050,202 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 56 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 27,972 4 1025 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,995,660 66 Jack Weyland's Charly 11,780 14 150 Adam Anderegg (director) 761,341 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 82 Galapagos 2,843 4 1214 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,938,905 90 China: The Panda Adventure 1,280 1 577 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,999,085 96 The Slaughter Rule 227 1 45 Ryan Gosling (top-billed actor) 11,716 AML AWARDS: The 2003 Association for Mormon Letters Annual Meeting took place last weekend. The AML Awards were presented during the Saturday luncheon meeting/award ceremony. The awards are presented for works published during the previous calendar year, so this year's awards are referred to as the 2002. "Roots & Wings", written by Mexican-born Latter-day Saint Agustina Perez (Maria Perez) and directed by Austrian-born Latter-day Saint Christian Vuissa,, has been given the AML Award for Film. This award has only been given once before to Richard Dutcher's "God's Army." The AML Award is a prestigious award only given to works of literature (and some film) which exhibit artistic excellence and contribute significantly to Mormon Arts and Letters. "Out of Step", directed by Ryan Little, and "The Snell Show", directed by Andrew Black, were cited for Honorable Mention in the film category. Janine Whetton Gilbert was given an AML Award for Film Adaptation, for writing the screenplay adaptation of Jack Weyland's popular novel "Charly." Playwright Reed McColm, the co-producer of the TV movie "Cab to Canada" (1998), and the writer of the documentary video "Set Straight on Bullies" (1988), was given the AML Award for Drama this year for his play Hole in the Sky and for hs body of work. Film director and playwright Melissa Leilani Larson was cited for Honorable Mention in the Drama category, for her play "Wake Me When It's Over." Tim Slover, who has written a number of screenplays but is best known as a playwright, was also cited for Honorable Mention in the Drama category for his play "Hancock County." Other AML awards given this year: Novel: Chris Crowe, _Mississippi Trial 1955_ Young Adult Novel: A.E. Cannon, _Charlotte's Rose_ Picture Book: Rick Walton, _Bertie was a Watchdog_ Short Fiction: Susan Palmer, "Breakthrough" Poetry: Kimberly Johnson, _Leviathan With a Hook_ Lifetime Membership: Lavina Fielding Anderson * * * * * COOK PASSES KIMMELL - Over the weekend the box office total for the horror movie "Final Destination 2", starring Latter-day Saint actress A.J. Cook, topped $40 million, putting the movie past the horror movie "Friday the 13th Part 3: 3D", starring Latter-day Saint actress Dana Kimmell, which grossed $36.2 million in 1982. Obviously Kimmell's movie is still far ahead if the totals are adjusted for inflation. A.J. Cook is currently the box office champion among practicing Latter-day Saint actresses who are currently working in movies. THE R.M. PASSES LITTLE SECRETS - With last weekend's take the box office total for Kurt Hale's "The R.M." is at $418,314, meaning it has passed the box office performance for "Little Secrets." "Little Secrets" is on sale on video/DVD all over the country right now. I saw large crates of the DVD at Target, Sam's Club, and Walmart, and they're all gone now. So from my limited perspective it seems to be selling well. Thomas Baggaley actually liked "Little Secrets" better than he liked "The R.M." (he reviewed both for Meridian Magazine). But clearly both are among the 10 best movies released in theaters by Latter-day Saint filmmakers during the past 12 months. BAGGALEY'S LITTLE SECRETS REVIEW - LDSFilm.com correspondent and film composer Thomas C. Baggaley has a new review in Meridian Magazine of Blair Treu's feature film "Little Secrets", now out on video/DVD. If you're looking for a movie to watch this weekend, you can't go wrong with "Little Secrets." Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars. Check out Baggaley's review at: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/030221little.html NEW THIS WEEKEND: Critics eviscerated most of the new movies opening in theaters this weekend, including Ted Turner's tedious Civil War movie/southern slavery apologetic "Gods and Generals" (RT.com: 9% positive with 88 reviews counted) and "Jungle Book 2" (21% positive with 73 reviews counted). But "Dark Blue" did a little better with critics (51% positive with 95 reviews counted). The movie is NOT an LDS-made movie, of course, but it is interesting to note that it stars Kurt Russell, who got his start starring in Disney live-action movies such as "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes", "The Strongest Man in the World" and "The Barefoot Executive" (Russell co-stars with a chimpanzee). All of these were made by Mormons working at Disney (they were produced by Smithfield, Utah native Bill Anderson and scored by famed Latter-day Saint composer Robert F. Brunner). BYU GRAD IN MIDDLE OF SHUTTLE CONTROVERSY - Latter-day Saint actor Aaron Eckhart, a graduate from the theater department at Brigham Young University and a frequent collaborator with fellow graduate, film director Neil LaBute, is the top-billed star of the upcoming big-budget, high-concept feature film "The Core." One of the opening scenes of the movie features the space shuttle crash landing in the middle of Los Angeles. In the wake of the recent space shuttle disaster, studio heads considered whether they should delay release of the planned tent-pole pic. But they decided to go ahead and release the movie on schedule. "The Core" was already delayed far past its earlier announced December 2002 release date so that additional special effects could be added to the movie. Paramount has also said they have no plans to change the film in light of recent events. Obviously any similarity is unfortunate and unintentional, as this movie was for the most part already complete long before the recent shuttle disaster. Also, the downing of the shuttle in "The Core" is a largely tangential element, and is not at the core of the film's plot, which is about Eckhart's journey to the center of the planet to set off an explosion which will re-start the Earth's core so that the planet will not be destroyed. Paramount did, however, pull movie trailers for "The Core," as the trailers feature the film's shuttle crash prominently, and the trailers would have been shown much sooner after the real shuttle crash. "The Core" is still scheduled for a March 28 nationwide release. SUSPECT ZERO FUNDING - I found this tidbit from movies.yahoo.com interesting, about a major source of funding for "Suspect Zero": Production on "Suspect Zero," which stars Latter-day Saint actor Aaron Eckhart ("Possession", "The Core", "Erin Brokovich") started on August 5th, 2002 in Albuquerque, New Mexico (and surrounding areas) and wrapped up in late September, 2002. The budget was $27 million, of which $7.5 million came from the state of New Mexico through an interest-free loan. In return, the state gets 2.5% of the box office, until it makes $90 million, at which point they get 3% of the gross (if it does). SHeDAISY / DUSHKU ON VIDEO - New on video/DVD this week is "City by the Sea," featuring Mormon actress Eliza Dushku in the 4th-billed role. The nation's "Top Rentals" list this week was topped by non-LDS movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." In the #2 spot was "Sweet Home Alabama," which features a song by Latter-day Saint singing group SHeDAISY, and a music video by the Utah country music sensation as well. TROY THROUGH A WINDOW SCREENING - A reminder about BYU film student Brad Barber's new documentary "Troy Through a Window," premiering on March 1st. There will be a special one-time screening of Brad Barber's documentary film "Troy Through a Window" at the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake City (876 East 900 South) on Saturday March 1, 2003 at 1pm. Admission is $5. (Admission may be paid using cash or check only.) A Question and Answer session will follow. More info at: http://www.ldsfilm.com/docu/Troy.html THURL - The Deseret News has an in-depth article about Latter-day Saint actor Thurl Bailey. See http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,460030429,00.html? Bailey is best known as a professional basketball player. The last team he played for was the Utah Jazz. A convert to the Church, Bailey has recently had something of a singing career, putting out a number of CDs sold in LDS bookstores. On screen Bailey was most recently seen in a cameo appearance in Kurt Hale's "The Singles Ward." Bailey also had a role in the Disney TV movie "The Luck of the Irish" (2001). He starred in the inspirational video "Thurl: Forward with New Power," directed by Eric Hendershot. Hendershot's latest releases are the feature-length family films "Message in a Cell Phone" and "Horse Crazy," both on sale in LDS bookstores and other locations on video and DVD. Bailey is one of the principle people behind the Salt Lake City-based production studio FourLeaf Films, which is in pre-production on an inspirational prison-based feature film titled "Ripple Effect," in which Bailey is slated to star. FLYBOYS - Many people are interested in Latter-day Saint filmmaking prodigy Rocco DeVilliers' upcoming feature film "Flyboys." It should be noted that this is NOT a children's film. It's sort of a cross between "Stand By Me" and "North By Northwest". Although it is a coming of age/adventure story about two 12-year-olds, it's not a children's movie. It would probably be categorized as Adventure. The film stars Tom Sizemore (Saving Private Ryan) Stephen Baldwin (The Usual Suspects) Jesse James (As Good As It Gets) Reiley McClendon (Pearl Harbor) and Harrison Young (Saving Private Ryan). If you have not seen Rocco DeVilliers' film "Only Once" (now available on a double-feature DVD along with "Christmas Mission," starring Corbin Allred), then you have missed one of the most artistically accomplished, inspiring independent Latter-day Saint-themed films ever made. DeVilliers' "Pure Race" was made with a smaller budget and lacks the same degree of polish found in "Only Once," but it is exceptional film, with lots of action and nothing objectionable. "Pure Race" features Marvin Payne doing a great job as a neo-Nazi leader, and a man trying to be a good father. "Pure Race" stars none other than Utah-based African-American film director Gregory C. Haynes, the director of films such as "Cowboys and Angels" and "Heaven or Vegas" (1997). ("Heaven or Vegas" stars Yasmine Bleeth and Sarah Schaub in a story about a Latter-day Saint family.) The lead actress in DeVilliers' "Pure Race" is Latter-day Saint actress Katherine Willis, who has a small role in "The Life of David Gale," which opened over the weekend. Anne Rose, the costume designer for Gary Rogers' upcoming Book of Mormon feature film and for Richard Dutcher's "The Prophet" feature is the costume designer for "Fly Boys." No release date has yet been set for "Fly Boys." IN THE SERVICE OF GOD - John Lyde's new Latter-day Saint-themed direct-to-video/DVD release, "In the Service of God" will be in stores in about a week. The film is about "love, adventure and home teaching." The cast and crew is largely the same that was used by Lyde in making his first commercial release a year ago, "The Field is White." An interview with John Lyde about this latest video release can be found at: http://www.ldsfilm.com/videos/InTheServiceOfGod.html JOSEPH SMITH CAST FOR BOOK OF MORMON FILM - In a surprise move, Gary Rogers has cast none other than Dustin Harding in the role of the young Joseph Smith Jr. in his upcoming Book of Mormon feature film. Harding previously played Joseph Smith in the new "First Vision" film which premiered this year at the Church's visitor's centers in Palmyra and another Church history location. Harding also had a major role as "Michael" in the video "Star Child," the musical sequel to Doug Stewart's "Saturday's Warrior." Harding was recently seen on the big screen in Blair Treu's feature film "Little Secrets" (distributed by Samuel Goldwyn Co., now on video/DVD from Columbia Tristar). In "Little Secrets," Harding played "Jordan," who is the boy that shows up at the door and Caitlin Meyer's character Isabelle tells him that her older sister (who he is expecting to be visiting) has died. (No, she hadn't really died. She was just away at camp. You'll have to see the film. It's a very funny moment.) SNELL SHOW IN ASPEN COLORADO - The "Snell Show" is featured in this years' U.S. Comedy Arts Festival, taking place in Aspen, Colorado. "The Snell Show" is part of the Film Discovery 2003 Program and will play on Thurs. Feb. 27 at 12 p.m., and Sat. Mar. 1 at 10 a.m. Both screenings are at the Isis Theatre (406 E. Hopkins, Aspen, CO). For more information visit: http://www.hbo.com/comedy/uscaf/index.html "The Snell Show" won the Grand Jury Prize for the Best Short film at this year's Slamdance Film Festival. The short film was also recently given an Honorable Mention in the Film category of the Association for Mormon Letters Awards. "The Snell Show," made by Scottish Latter-day Saint BYU film student Andrew Black, is largely thought to have won the top award at Slamdance not only because it is a perfectly executed and beautifully realized film, but also because of the unearthly way in which it perfectly captures the tenor of the times. "The Snell Show" is a timeless tale set in a wholely alternate reality, yet it somehow is THE FILM which comments on current U.S. preparations for war in Iraq and the country's fight against terrorism at home and abroad. SAINTS OF WAR WRAPS - According to a new update on the official Saints of War website, principal photography on the movie wrapped on February 19, 2003. "The Saints of War," inspired by the non-fiction book "Saints at War" (and a DVD/video documentary by the same title), is directed by controversial Canadian Latter-day Saint filmmaker Ryan Little, the director of "Out of Step." Little's previous short war film "The Last Good War" (available on the "Treasured Stories of the Golden Rule" videotape), won numerous wards in Utah and around the nation. Many critics regard Little's feature debut "Out of Step" as the best entry in the LDS Cinema genre, aside from those directed by Dutcher. ANDERSEN PD FOR A PIONEER MIRACLE - We have learned that the production designer for the upcoming T.C. Christensen film "A Pioneer Miracle" is none other than Darin Andersen. Andersen, of course, was the production designer for the feature film "Handcart" and the feature-length video release "Y2K", both directed by Kels Goodman. "A Pioneer Miracle," which has been completed and is slated for a June 1st release on video and DVD, stars Caitlin E.J. Meyer ("Little Secrets"). LOVE LOGS ON UPDATE - Tucker Dansie, the movie's director has asked us to forward the following: "Love Logs On" is in it's final stages of assembling it's crew, and while the crew is coming together nicely, there are still a few positions open. We are still looking for another camera assistant and camera operator. And still desperately looking for 2 sound operators. Anyone with interest is welcome to apply, no experience necessary, but is helpful, except for camera operator. Sound operator is an easy job that can be learned quickly, looking for enthusiastic people. This is a non-union/non-paying job. Also, seeking production assistants. OPEN AUDITIONS - Casting call for "The Collectors." Open additions to be held March 1st from 12:00pm to 6:00pm in the American Fork Library Community Room (131), 64 South 100 East, American Fork, Utah. (It is right off Main St. at 100 East by the American Fork Tabernacle). AVAILABLE PARTS include lead roles and many smaller roles for people with martial arts experience, as well as smaller roles for people without martial arts experience. More details are on the LDSFilm.com audition page and JKL Entertainment's official "The Collector's" webpage. Filming will take place from March 15th to March 29th. Most parts will only be needed for one day. NEW JOSEPH SMITH FILM: Seasoned Actors with professional experience: Desert Media Productions is producing a new film based on the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Auditions for lead roles will take place throughout March and April. If you are a serious actor and would like more information about these high-demand roles, please see Elizabeth in D-581. Resume and headshots must be sent to the Church office building by March 3. SLC FILM FESTIVAL: Gloria International Film Festival is looking for quality films and screenplays for the 2003 Film Festival in Salt Lake City. For entry forms and info visit www.gloriafilmfest.org WAR IN HEAVEN INFO - Wolf Productions Presents: War In Heaven 1) Short Film 2) Shot On Digital 3) Non-Union Organization 4) Needing 300-400 Extras. I need Caucasian men and women for the film. 5) Non-paid (Volunteer) 6) Requirement for Extras are: all white clothing and Black clothing. No logos. No shoes. Extras will play spirits as part of the hosts of heaven. 7) Shoot date will be on July 12th, 2003 from 6:30 AM-6:00PM. Location, details later. 8) Please bring own food, sunscreen, and other forms of clothing for all types of weather. 9) Contracts will be sent out via e-mail in June when you contact director by e-mail. 10) No acting required. You will learn how to act when you join this production! 11) Production is good for resume builders, people learning acting/production, and others to just have fun! Main Cast Parts available: Jesus Christ: Male ages 25-35. Must be around 6'. Heavenly Father: Male ages 35-40. Must be around 6'. Eve: Female ages 20-30. Must be 5'5 or more. ArchAngels: 4 Male roles left. Muscular built ages 20-30. Main Cast members will be required to be fitted. Small fee for their fabric. Discount available. If you want a main role out of these choices, you must be in the general area for cast rehearsals. Contracts will be issued sooner than June. Auditions will be held either March 22nd or April 5th... more details later. If interested, please e-mail the Director Stephen Groo at: film99@juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Covell" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward Date: 26 Feb 2003 10:33:43 +1100 Well, it arrived on Monday. The Singles Ward DVD. Made it all the way to lil ol' Sydney, Australia from the good offices of Deseret Book's online store. Let me say firstly that I have avidly followed the discussions about The Singles Ward, and especially the more passionate opinions of Eric Samuelsen, Richard Dutcher et al (both on mymost-admired-people-in-the-world list, by the way). I was prepared to cringe, sit stony-faced throughout (this being a comedy) and feel like resigning my Church membership. I think I must have watched a different movie. In fact, I did; we can get all post-modern about this and say that from the perspective of a decidedly non-Utahn, non-North American Australian, the movie that this viewer constructed in the act of viewing was really quite different from what y'all saw over there. So what, then, did I think? OK, OK, I suppose I have to admit that I agreed with some of the general comments and criticisms. Let's get this out of the way. The actual comedy (ie funny stuff) was unevenly distributed throughout the film. It did display many of the hallmarks of a first-time feature (cliches, longeurs, silly ending). And the cameos were simply not that funny. I admit that as an outsider to Utah culture, most of them went straight over my head. I only really got the Steve Young bit because I knew who he was and what the gag was about. I think I recognised LaVell Edwards, although the scene he was in was a mystery to me. Any other scene that didn't work for me I just assumed involved a cameo, and I wasn't in the loop. The TV salesman scene was especially baffling - it looked like he had some shtick going on that the viewer was supposed to recognise, although I didn't. But aside from the cameos, I fully recognised the scenes, situations, characters and devices. I met my wife at a singles ward (well, branch) in Sydney, and I've heard enough Utah folklore to get nearly all the jokes. I have no real criticisms based on the cameos or the amount of in-jokes or the lack of explanation for outsiders. That's not the point of the film. I accept that much. My big confusion, and I'm prepared to admit it is confusion rather than saying everyone else is wrong, is over the supposed train-wreck scene, the confrontation in the car park after the comedy gig. I had all sorts of ideas about this scene well in advance. I was waiting for it. I fully agreed with Eric's and Richard's reasoning and analysis that I'd read. And yet, I read this scene entirely differently. I suppose I came to the scene with two main preconceptions, based on my reading (or mis-reading) of the comments aired on AML-list: that Cammie hadn't yet seen one of Jonathan's stand-up gigs, and that until this scene Cammie's priggish side was not revealed in all its glory. Clearly I was wrong on the first supposition; the falling-in-love montage showed Cammie and friends whooping it up at one of Jonathan's earlier gigs. No problems there, no awkward car-park scenes following. It would scarcely have been possible to make Cammie more priggish and unlikeable than she was in the first part of the movie. I suppose, though, that's part of the usual dramatic arc for this kind of romantic comedy: one of the two leads has to start off being unbearable. And yes, Cammie certainly did this, and became a lot less unpleasant as time went on. The sparks flew (a bit) and there was at least an honest attempt at chemistry between her and Jonathan. So, the car park scene. Nobody seems to have made a big deal of the context for this scene - she'd just got her mission call (to Sydney, of all places), and she was on a big spiritual buzz. Jonathan's having a bad night with his audience and feels he has to dip into his Mormon joke bag. Basically, she's zigging and he's zagging. She wants to share her big spritual moment with him, and at that moment, that particular special moment, he seems to be heading off in an unwelcome direction. I didn't get in any of her reactions that she was exhibiting the same no-sense-of-humour response she certainly had at the start of the movie. She felt cut off from him at a particularly emotional time for her. His spirituality was inaccessible at a time when she most needed it. This is not priggish Cammie. Priggish Cammie is gone. This is emotional, needy Cammie. People, I just don't see a train-wreck here. I also don't see an all time great scene, but I honestly didn't find it less bearable than the rest of the movie. Actually, by far the worst scene, and this was a very serious lapse of taste, was the "revelation" scene where Jonathan gets socked in the face with the temple. Cheesy, ugly shot. But it was soon followed by my favourite scene, the bit where he gets all emotional himself, and it's about to get unbearable, when his buddies bust him. "Sounded like a seminary video!" My other favourite bit is where he's dishing out music in the nursing home until he gets to the one the old lady wants, Pink Floyd. She underplays it beautifully and steals the scene. Yes, overall I really did like the movie. Sorry, but it's true. I'm sure someone has already said that this film had to be made. Cornballed, cliched, but absolutely necessary. It had to be made so someone could get all the obvious jokes out of the way, and a true, sophisticated comedy can one day get made. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath, but one day it will come about. And one final word, from an outsider's perspective. I really think many of you are far, far too close to the subject matter to be anywhere near objective. The movie is really no different from a lot of other non-mainstream comedies out there. And I really must say that this movie is more "Utah" than anything I've ever seen before. I was in the Beehive State for a couple of weeks back in 1996, my one and only visit, and nothing has brought back more flashbacks since than the Singles Ward. It's the good, the bad and the ugly. Let me flesh out what I'm saying. I'm an Australian. In general, I loathe Australian comedy, cinema or TV. And I loathe it for all the same reasons everyone here has given for detesting the Singles Ward - it's crass, unrepresentative, panders to the worst possible taste, and most of all it's something I wouldn't want the rest of the world to see. Most of you wouldn't have seen much of what I'm talking about. Thank goodness. But one such movie made a big enough splash that you'd know what I mean: Crocodile Dundee (and its unwelcome sequels). It was a worldwide hit. It wove together all sorts of hackneyed stereotypes that are well known to Australians, and served it up for all to see. I can't tell you how much I hated that movie. But somehow, the rest of the world watched it without immediately thinking any worse of Australians (although at the same time acquiring a very unhelpful set of misconceptions about the country). It's not a perfect comparison with the Singles Ward, since Croc Dundee _was_ clearly made for a general, non-Australian audience in mind. So there. Don't worry, folks, about what the rest of the world will think. Let me finish with this uplifting thought. No matter how bad an impression you think the world at large will get from this movie, it's truly a lot better than the prejudices the world (at least the world outside America) already has about Mormondom. Jason Covell ******************************************************************************************************* This e-mail, and any files transmitted, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and must not be resent by the recipient unless the permission of the originator is first obtained. It may contain confidential or privileged information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately destroy the original transmission and its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this e-mail do not represent the views of the Sydney Catchment Authority unless otherwise stated. ******************************************************************************************************* -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] High School Literature Curriculum Date: 25 Feb 2003 18:01:39 -0700 Cathy, Anyone who is trained in teaching Reading Strategies will be able to tell you the importance of reaching those students for whom tactile and kenestetic learning strategies are vital to their understanding of the novel. Visualization is a key element to reading comprehension for us all. I'll send you a copy of my column on this very thing to your direct email rather than the list. Books reports are boring, can be easily copied, and don't allow the student to interact with the text, much less prove they actually read the book or understood it. For any of you one this list who are also interested, you might find Mosiac of Thought by Ellin Keene and Susan Zimmerman helpful. Just so you know, I'm the president of the Utah Council of Teachers of English, McAulliff Fellow, and former English Language Arts Teacher of the Year, so your message also struck a little close to home with me. cathrynlane@cs.com wrote: > When did they start teaching English teachers that they had to do non reading and writing things to help students connect with reading and writing? I just helped my 7th grade son make a "totem" sculpture for reading class. What did that piece of art do for understanding the story they read? I really long for the return of the book report and even essays, which, if done well, can lead to a student learning literary critisim or perhaps developing the ability to write a thought or two on paper in a way that others can follow. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] SAMUELSEN, _The Way We're Wired Date: 25 Feb 2003 18:17:56 -0800 (PST) BYU NewsNet has a nice article on the Nauvoo Theatrical Society's current production of the play, "The Way We're Wired": http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/42545 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Mormon Lit 2002 in Review: Short Stories Date: 26 Feb 2003 03:35:45 +0000 I am back from traveling for a while, and will try to finish this thing this week. Here are the short stories, next will come one on theater. Short Stories No new short story collection or anthology by a Mormon author was published in 2002, only the second year since 1986 that has happened. Two paperback versions of previously published hardback collections were released, however, Darrel Spencer's 2000 collection Caution: Men in Trees and Brian Evenson’s 1994 collection Altmann's Tongue. The Spencer collection is identical to the hardback version, but Evenson's contains a few additions, including his 1997 story "Two Brothers", which won the O. Henry award, a new introduction, and a postscript by Evenson in which he describes the reaction at BYU to his work, which lead to his resignation from the university. Orson Scott Card edited a science fiction anthology, although it included no stories by Mormon authors. Sunstone and Dialogue appear to be back to full strength after difficult transition periods around 1999-2001. For the first time in quite a while both published four issues in 2002. Dialogue, in its effort to catch up with its publishing schedule, released two double issues, although one was made up entirely of previously published material, and the other was only slightly larger than a normal issue. Irreantum, Sunstone, and Dialogue published a total of 18 stories in their 2002 issues. I thought the overall level of the stories was quite high. Dialogue published only two stories, both of them excellent. Sunstone published five stories, and Irreantum published eleven. I especially enjoyed the Spring Irreantum, which included five excellent stories, almost all of which explored the spiritual lives of Mormon women. I had a hard time tracking down references to stories published by Mormon authors in literary journals, much less reading any of them. I found a few by Brian Evenson, one by Robert Hodgson Van Wagoner, and one by Brett Alan Sanders, but I am sure I have missed several others. Is there a good database which tracks literary journals out there? Because of the Church's decision to no longer publish fiction in The Friend and The New Era, the juvenile short story genre has completely disappeared. The number of stories published by Mormon speculative fiction authors was down slightly in 2002. M. Shayne Bell continued his prolific publication rate, with three stories published in 2002, one of which was nominated for a Hugo award. Orson Scott Card published two stories in hard-to-find venues. Susan J. Kroupa and Melva Gifford also published stories. I was especially impressed by the poignant stories by Bell and Kroupa. 2002 Short Stories Adams, Linda Paulson. "First" Irreantum, Spring 2002, 4:1. A powerful story about childbirth. Bell, M. Shayne. "The Thing about Benny" Originally in Vanishing Acts, ed. Ellen Datlow, 2000. Republished in Irreantum, Summer 2002, 4:2. Future plant-finding savant uses ABBA in his work. -----, "The Pagodas of Ciboure" In The Green Man: Tales from the Mythic Forest, ed. Ellen Datlow and Terri Windling. Viking, June. A collection of YA stories, all about mythical beings who protect the natural world. Bell’s story was nominated for a Hugo. ------, "Flower Children of Mars" with Mike Resnick. In Mars Probes, ed. By Peter Crowther, DAW, June 2002. "A delightfully silly confrontation between a conservative, manly Burroughsian hero and hippy culture." Bushman-Carlton, Marilyn. "Muddying the Font" Sunstone Oct. 2002, #124. 2000 Brookie & D. K. Brown Fiction Contest Winner. A well-written short-short story about a child's theft. Cantwell, Steven. "Keepsakes" Dialogue 35:2, Summer 2002. Good story about a girl who leaves the Hildale polygamous family that adopted her. Card, Orson Scott. "50 WPM" In the Shadow of the Wall. Cumberland House, 2002. Stories about the Vietnam War generation. ------, "Angles" Published on his website for a while, and made available in a special Christmas book for fans. Card edited Empire of Dreams and Miracles: The Phobos Science Fiction Anthology. Phobos, September. Caudle, Bill. "Who Needs Salt Lake?" Irreantum, Winter 2001-2002, 3:4. Cozzens, Darin. "Vigil" Irreantum, Summer 2002, 4:2. Teaches at Surry Community College, NC. -----, A story published in River Oak Review, Spring 2002. Downing, Lisa Torcasso. "Room for Solomon" Irreantum, Spring 2002, 4:1. A LDS girl becomes pregnant, decides to give the baby up for adoption. Very moving. Evenson, Brian. Altmann's Tongue. University of Nebraska Press/Bison Books, April. Paperback, originally published in 1994. Added the O. Henry winning story "Two Brothers", a new introduction by Alphonso Lingis, and a postscript about the fallout from the book which led to him leaving BYU. ------, "The Progenitor" in Leviathan 3. Forrest Aguirre and Jeff VanderMeer, ed. Ministry of Whimsy Press, 2002. Bizarre fantasy story, in a literary fantasy collection. ------, "House Rules" 3rd Bed. #6, Spring-Summer 2002. ------, "Virtual" Prairie Schooner, 76:4, Winter 2002. ------, "Lupe Varga, Deceased" In Angel Body and Other Magic For The Soul. Chris Reed and David Memmott, eds. Wordcraft of Oregon, 2002. Gifford, Melva. "Cinder-Relic" Irreantum, Winter 2001-2002, 3:4. Speculative fiction about a robot-teacher. Harris, Lisa R. "Topless in Elko" 2002 Sunstone Brown Fiction Sunstone winner, not published yet. Hogan, Edward. "The Salvation of Audrey Johnson" Irreantum, Spring 2002, 4:1. A funny story about a woman in the Celestial Kingdom. Kroupa, Susan J. "Harden Times" Irreantum, Spring 2002, 4:1. Originally appeared in Realms of Fantasy 7, April 2001. About Utah Valley survivors of a worldwide plague. ----, "That Kem May in Safe Pastures Feed" In Beyond the Last Star: Stories from the Next Beginning, ed. Sherwood Smith. Plano, Tex.: SFF Net, September, 2002. A sweet story about the discovery of music from another planet. Jorgensen, Mari E. "The Angel in the Pin-Striped Suit" 2002 Sunstone contest winner, not yet published. Palmer, Susan. "Breakthrough" Sunstone, Jan. 2002, #122. 1999 Brooke and D. K. Brown Fiction Contest winner. A very funny, well-written story about a woman's struggle with her instincts. Peterson, Todd Robert. "The Sad Truth of His Desire" Sunstone, July 2002 #123. About an African member in Kigali going to dedicate a grave of a member who was killed in Hutu/Tutsi violence. ------ "The Impeccable Driver" Utah Arts Council Original Writing Completion: Short Story 2nd Place. ------ "Redeeming the Dead" Sunstone, Dec. 2002, #125. 1998 Brooke and D. K. Brown contest winner. Remy, John Dewey. "Ojiichan's Funeral" Sunstone, Oct. 2002, #124. 1999 Brooke & D. K. Brown Fiction winner. Rosenbaum, Karen. "Habits" Irreantum, Spring 2002, 4:1. About an inactive woman, very well written. -------, "Out of the Woods" Dialogue Spring 2002, 35.1. Good story about an inactive mother with debilitating arthritis seeing her daughter's play. Sanders, Brett Alan. "Last Loves" Spectacle 4.2, Winter 2002. Set in Argentina. Staheli, Julie West. "Desideratum" Irreantum, Summer 2002, 4:2. Van Wagoner, Robert Hodgson. "Swin" Bellingham Review #51, Fall 2002. Young, Darlene. "Companions" Irreantum, Winter 2001-2002, 3:4. A very good story about the lives of two visiting teaching companions. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] YOUNG, _Heresies of Nature_, KIMBALL, _The Marketing of Sister B_ (Review) Date: 26 Feb 2003 05:37:10 +0000 Title: Heresies of Nature Author: Margaret Blair Young Publisher: Signature Books Year Published: 2002 181p, $15.95 Title: The Marketing of Sister B Author: Linda Hoffman Kimball Publisher: Signature Books Year Published: 2002 154p, $14.95 I rode a few planes last week, and took the opportunity to read the two excellent novels by three-named female authors published by Signature in 2002, a tragedy (or at least problem play) and a comedy. Margaret Blair Young walks a fine line in her fiction, producing works which appeal to me more than any other Mormon author today. She consistently goes to the edge of Mormon cultural respectability, ultimately affirming her faith in the Gospel and her allegiance to the Church, but also exploring the pain and doubt felt by Mormons who have been cut to the core by other Mormons or God Himself. In her Standing on the Promises series, coauthored with Darius Gray, she explored the struggles of black members of the Church who faced as much racism from Mormons as from society as a whole. In Heresies of Nature, she turns to an equally difficult subject, the devastation caused by multiple sclerosis, which takes the life of Merry, the central figure, "by millimeters", and which comes close to destroying Merry's entire family. Each of the three daughters turns in varying degrees to self-destructive behaviors in response to the pressure and despair. In one scene, one of Merry's daughters reacts violently to the sight of a fish caught on a hook, seeing it as representative of her mother's struggles, caught like a fish on God's hook. Merry's husband, Ben, worn down by the decade-long sacrifices of caring for an invalid wife, turns against God and violates his temple covenants. In the end the family members repent of their rebellions, and pin their psyches on God-centered hope--hope for grace, forgiveness, and an afterlife blessed by eternal family bonds and a release from physical imperfections. It is a tattered kind of hope, which does not erase the pain of the disease and the sins, but does keep the family together. It is not, therefore, a true tragedy in the Shakespherian sense, it is more like A Winter's Tale, one of Sheakesphere's "problem plays", which acts as a story-within-the-story. (Young wrote a theatrical version of this story, called Dear Stone, which was produced at BYU in 1997. For some reason she used the mirror story of A Winter's Tale much more in the play than in the book.) Merry (often called "Mer") is a lover of the sea, and her husband Ben is a geologist. The symbols of water and stone are repeated throughout the book. Merry's body is turning to stone, at about the same rate Ben's soul turns to stone. There is probably more too it them I am getting. Water=female and stone= male is a common symbolic trope in Chinese paintings. This is not a book which stays in the shallow waters of pro- or anti-Mormon romances with their easy conclusions. It has some sharks. I recommend it to everyone. After the emotional upheaval of Margaret Young's tragedy, one might be in the mood for a comedy. I recommend Linda Kimball's gentle but very funny farce The Marketing of Sister B, about a Boston-area woman catapulted to national fame by the reaction to a perfume she created for a Relief Society event. Unlike Heresies of Nature, it has unbelievable situations, stock characters, and a tidily wrapped-up ending. None of these things are liabilities in the service of the comedy, however. Kimball pokes fun at Relief Society traditions and mannerisms, the Mormon obsession with good publicity, the celebrity-centered media, and marketing campaigns. I found it to be a very fun, zippy read, but with lots of interesting, serious questions and situations in the background. Kimball frequently introduces interesting supporting characters who inhabit a scene or two, but whose stories are left behind while the main story chugs ahead. They help make the story fuller, and left me wanting more. So, it is a very fun novel, somewhat reminiscent of Kathryn Kidd's great farces. Kimball's first novel, Home To Roost, was published by Orson Scott Card's Hatrack River in 1995, which also published Kidd's novels. Thanks Margaret and Linda, thanks Signature. More please. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 26 Feb 2003 16:32:47 -0700 At 05:51 PM 2/24/03 -0700, you wrote: >That's the best synopsis of that movie I've ever read. I was so annoyed >about that movie that I attempted to have it banned from being seen by my >nieces & nephews--rotten dreck was all. I didn't walk out, though--I was on >a date at the time and I was vague about my distaste afterwards. It still >rankles that I didn't say flat out how much I hated it. In a seminar I attended this past weekend, the leader said that we are unhappy only when we have "sold out"--that is, acted in a way that is not consistent with our truth. What you've said is an example. Whenever we say "yes" when we mean "no," we're selling out. Makes sense to me. I can see that I was unhappy in my marriage not only because he was a domineering jerk, but because I sold out by permitting him to treat me as he did. What a concept. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 26 Feb 2003 15:31:51 -0700 . Kari Heber wrote: " >From a literary standpoint, what do all of you writers feel about writing= =20 based on memory? Particularly, as a reader (and definitely a non-writer) how= =20 much should I believe when I read any form of literature that is primarily= =20 based on someone's memory of events? Or should it even matter since what=20 they are relating is their perception, whether factually acurate or not? " Kim Madsen referring to something said by Judith Freeman: " She expressed mild disdain and confusion at why people would ask her what parts of her book (CHINCHILLA FARM) were "true"=20 and which parts were fictionalized. Since the entire story is published as= =20 fiction, it should be taken as such, enriched perhaps by the author's=20 experiences in life. " I would say Ms. Freeman's statement is great when you are writing fiction,= =20 but what about when we are talking about nonfiction? I recently finished a= =20 book of nonfiction that deals extensively with my experiences. In order to= =20 make the stories as personable as possible, I included dialogue and detail= =20 that, quite frankly, I can't be sure are true. I wasn't carrying a tape=20 recorder about with me for later transcription, and I could be mixing up the= =20 various visual cues. SO how do I justify saying I am telling the truth? First, I am honest to what happened. Perhaps I can't get it down exactly,= =20 but what I have said is close enough that I doubt any of the participants=20 will find room to complain. (Although we'll find out for sure when it goes= =20 into print.) Second, and this is not a liberty all nonfiction storytellers have, it's=20 funny. There is enough obvious hyperbole that slight iacurracies are=20 expected and more easily forgiveable. (For a bestselling example see, for= =20 instance, Bill Bryson.) But never do I suggest that I am making it all up. = =20 I'm having fun in the telling just as when I tell a story verbally. And=20 that's the key: in my case, the style is very verbal, and so the same rules= =20 applied to telling a story verbally can be generalized to my book. Incidentally, focussing on dialogue, we can find some obviously not=20 precisely accurate dialogue in the Book of Mormon. For example (note--I=20 copied and pasted off the Church's website, so there are a few extra dots=20 and letters): Mosiah 5:1-5 " 1 AND now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had thus spoken to his=20 people, he sent among them, desiring to know of his people if they=20 believed=95 the words which he had spoken unto them. 2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words= =20 which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth,= =20 because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty=20 change=95 in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do=20 evil=95, but to do good continually. 3 And we, ourselves, also, through the infinite agoodness=95 of God, and the= =20 manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and= =20 were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things. 4 And it is the faith which we have had on the things which our king has=20 spoken unto us that has brought us to this great knowledge, whereby we do=20 rejoice with such exceedingly great joy. 5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant=95 with our God to do his= will,=20 and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command= =20 us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a=20 never=95-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel=95, that we may not= =20 drink out of the cup of the wrath of God. " Are we really expected to believe that this huge congregation--some of which= =20 is receiving Kind Benjamin's massage delayed (they had to write it down=20 because everyone could not hear him, the crowd was so big)--simultaneously= =20 said this rather grammatically complex statement of faith? I doubt it. =20 Yes, with God all things are possible, but Occam's Razor folks. Either this= =20 was the gist of it or they prepared a written reply or something. I doubt= =20 they all yelled verses 2-5 at once. Example 2, the men sent to see if Nephi's prophecy regarding the murder of= =20 the chief judge is true: Helaman 9:1-2 " 1 BEHOLD, now it came to pass that when Nephi had spoken these words,=20 certain men who were among them ran to the judgment-seat; yea, even there=20 were five=95 who went, and they said among themselves, as they went: 2 Behold, now we will know of a surety whether this man be a prophet and God= =20 hath commanded him to prophesy such marvelous things unto us. Behold, we do= =20 not believe=95 that he hath; yea, we do not believe that he is a prophet;=20 nevertheless, if this thing which he has said concerning the chief judge be= =20 true, that he be dead, then will we believe that the other words which he=20 has spoken are true. " Okay, they're running as fast as they can and they say this? Between pants?= =20 No. This was the essense of their thought as they were running, but I=20 doubt this is exactly, word-for-word what they said to each other. My point is that these things do not make the Book of Mormon untrue. And I= =20 suppose if Mormon can get away with it so can we. Just a thought, -----th.jepson _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.=20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 28 Feb 2003 12:58:16 -0500 > >He can claim all day that, in addition to making his programs utilitarian >and effective, he also wants to make them artistic, and I'll buy that. He >can claim that, SECONDARILY, his programming could be looked at as art. >But if he writes a marvelously artistic program that doesn't work for the >purpose it was written, nobody is going to admire the artistry. They're >going to toss it in the recycling bin. The utilitarian purpose is the >purpose for its existence. The artistic design is of secondary importance >and relatively irrelevant to the existence of the program. There's probably an obvious difference that I'm missing, but what about architecture (as an art that incorporates utility)? The recently approved design for the World Trade Center site seems to have at its root both utility and art (assuming, that is, and it's a big and fairly recent assumption, that art can't be primarily utilitarian/instrumental). How about the Holocaust memorial in Boston, near Faneuil (sp?) Square? The monument is art, I would say, but also very utilitarian in a sense as it is also a historical document: on the sky-reaching clear panes of which it is composed are etched millions of numbers which correspond to those people killed in concentration camps. Do we have to say that something is either art or utilitarian, one or the other--or even, maybe, both but not at the same time? In the case of Jacob's program, it's true that no one is likely to admire its artistry if it doesn't work for the purpose it was written. But neither is anyone going to read a novel that doesn't "work for the purpose" it was written or look at a painting that doesn't "work for the purpose" it was painted. If it's written or painted poorly, no artwork is going to be looked at as such. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 28 Feb 2003 11:30:59 -0700 (MST) Eric S. wrote: > Beyond that, what stuff happens to him? For starters, he comes home from his mission, and his family has moved without telling him, and also forgotten when he's coming home. I mean, seriously? What kind of bizarre sociopathic family does this dude come from? They're not portrayed as bizarrely sociopathic; they're supposed to be normal everyday LDS people. And they forget to tell their missionary that they've moved? > > This doesn't happen. It may be the punch line to a joke, and it may > be some paranoid fantasy shared by a few kids on missions, but it >doesn't happen. Well, here's a slight connection to reality: I doubt this has ever happened either, but it was a common urban legend among missionaries. I heard about a dozen different variations on the movies premise while on mu mission. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] WILCOX/PERRY "From Cumorah's Hill" (BYU Newsnet) Date: 28 Feb 2003 11:42:31 -0700 On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 01:52 PM, Paynecabin@aol.com wrote: > < awesome," Sherman said. "It's bringing the scriptures to life for > me. The music really brings the Spirit into the room." >> > > So far, so good. > > << After that, Rachel and Jared said they spent 10 hours altering > the script to fit their needs. >> > > Hmm... > > Steve, you wanna take the bait? (remembering what often happens to the > fish > that does) > > Marvin Payne They contacted me, I put them in touch with Brad Wilcox, the scriptwriter ( I did the music and lyrics) and he talked with them, found out what they wanted to do, and said, "Okay, if the program specifies that the script is freely adapted by so-and-so, from the original, with permission." I compliment them for A) having the vision and energy to pull it off and B) for seeking permission for the use of copyrighted material. I haven't seen the script so I can't comment and I am therefore, I hope, off the hook... S. -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gideon Burton Subject: [AML] New Mormon Lit Database at BYU Date: 27 Feb 2003 09:46:41 -0700 After several years and the work of many scholars, librarians, and = others, the Mormon Literature Database has come online at the Harold B. Lee = Library at BYU: http://mormonlit.byu.edu Although there is significant data entry yet to be done in the = database(and we consider it to be in a "beta" stage), the Mormon Literature Database = is fully functioning, including the feature by which authors can submit biographical information about themselves and a complete list of their publications. To quote from our purpose/overview statement: "The Mormon Literature Database is a scholarly resource to literary = writings and associated artistic works by and about Mormons. It is intended to = serve students, scholars, library patrons and the general public by providing current and historical information about Mormon authors, playwrights, critics, filmmakers, and other creative personnel involved in the = literary, cinematic, or theatrical arts. Within these artistic fields the database provides bibliographic data for published works by or about Mormons in literary genres such as fiction, the short story, poetry, and drama = going back to the nineteenth-century, as well as in film, and such genres such = as sermons, hymns, literary biographies, and literary writings found in = Mormon periodicals." We invite AML-List members to explore the database in its beta form, to provide feedback that the MLDB committee can use to improve the = database, to suggest works or authors not yet entered, and (if they are authors) to = use the author submission form to have their personal information and publications included in the database. Gideon Burton Mormon Literature Database Committee Gideon_Burton@byu.edu -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Elizabeth Walters Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 27 Feb 2003 20:48:28 -0800 I've never heard The Little Mermaid spun that way before, but with all the various schools of criticism you can make the most well intentioned story seem morally repugnant. I think a lot of us seem to overanalyze simplistic warm and fuzzy stories like Mermaid to bring out interpretations that in my opinion just aren't there. I can see where Mr. Bronson is coming from on his cynical evaluation of the Disney flick, but I guess I saw a different movie than he did. The Little Mermaid is actually a story about a young heroine stuck in a world/society bound by centuries of unquestioned social protocols and an urgency by its rulers to keep the status quo. The heroine decides to push the limits of her curiosity by looking for answers to questions her father or others never give her. Frustrated and upset by her father's unwillingness to understand the joy she's found, she is seduced and swindled to sign her life away to fulfill her own selfish desires. The redemption of her character comes when she realizes the grave mistake of her choice and she goes about doing all in her power to set things right. The result is a team effort on everyones part to give "the devil" her due with a great sacrifice on her father's part. Naturally, the spell is broken and the father realizes that all he wants is his daughter's happiness and grants her, her wish to live with her man. So in the end, the consequences of her "rule breaking" and "rebellion" are a stronger relationship between father and daughter and a new found alliance with a civilization previously thought of as evil and dangerous. All for lust? Well, it's not like she started the movie going out on an anonymous tip that there are some hot hunks lurking in the outer limits. I still have yet to hear of any special study or news report that teenage rebellion is the direct result of kids watching The Little Mermaid and let's not bring up the urban legend of the castle resembling part of the male anatomy. I guess you could bring up her outfit resembling stuff worn by Britney Spears and Shakira. Uh oh! That's it! The movie is banned. Never mind. [Elizabeth Walters] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 28 Feb 2003 12:14:15 -0700 Melissa Proffit: Sometimes books are just badly written, but it's perfectly reasonable for two people to read the same book, and one of them will figure out the ending and the other won't. Case in point: I recently gave a novel of mine to two friends for a critique. Not fifty pages into it, one wrote in the margin, "Let me guess, blah blah blah" -- and she was right, but the item wasn't revealed until close to the end of the book. At the point it is revealed, my other friend said it was a bombshell and that I needed to add a clue earlier to make it believable. Both very intelligent writers and readers, and completely different readings. Go figure. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 28 Feb 2003 12:17:53 -0700 On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:10:12 -0700, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >> Seriously, the assumption that because a reader isn't surprised by a >> surprise ending, it was poorly done, makes very little sense to me. > >Your comment makes very little sense to me. If the ending was supposed=20 >to have an element of surprise, and a lot of readers were not surprised,= =20 >surely that means the surprise ending was poorly done. But that all depends on who you talk to, doesn't it? If all the readers = *I* talked to *were* surprised (true), then does it mean that the surprise ending was correctly done? You can't depend solely on the reaction of readers to extrapolate quality. If you give a science fiction novel to a bunch of readers who have no grounding in the conventions of science fiction, and they think it's crap, that might not really mean anything = other than that they thought it was crap. For _Ender's Game_, maybe what it = means is that readers with a certain level of reading experience picked up on overly obvious clues, and other readers didn't. Of course, that raises = the question of whether it actually was done well as long as some readers = were surprised, but that's more philosophical than I want to get right now. On the other hand, if you can say "here is where the surprise was telegraphed in Novel A, and here and here," then you have some basis for claiming that Novel A was poorly done. It may still mean that a lot of readers saw the same things, but it's no longer a question of making a subjective assessment (lack of surprise) about an objective quality = (whether it's the book's fault). Or maybe I'm just overreacting because I seem to spend half my life explaining that books aren't bad just because people die at the end.... Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 28 Feb 2003 15:01:51 -0500 All the original Grimm's and Hans Christian Andersen tales are more brutal, or maybe honest, than their modern counterparts. I remember reading someone's thesis discussing how Disney, among others, have created a questionable morality and increased nightmares among children all by making the stories less black and white. Tracie ----- Original Message ----- > > Ah, but that's the Disney version of it. The original animated story that I > saw as a child has always stuck with me--because she dies at the end, > becomes the foam washing up on the seashore. > > Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 28 Feb 2003 18:37:25 -0500 J. Scott Bronson at bronsonjscott@juno.com wrote: > > (snippet) > > > 1. The Little Mermaid (g) > > > > > > This is a story about a teeneage > > > girl who carelessly endangers her > > > community by breaking the rules > > > and when she gets caught she rebells > > > by signing a pact with the Devil. When > > > someone else saves her scaly little > > > butt, she doesn't repent and still inherits > > > eternal glory. All for lust. Give me a > > > stinking break. and Susan responded: > >Ah, but that's the Disney version of it. The original animated story that I >saw as a child has always stuck with me--because she dies at the end, >becomes the foam washing up on the seashore. > as per usual, Disney warped the original tale, robbing it of its value as an instructor of morals and giving it instead a shallow message of "just be utterly beautiful and do what you want and you will find happiness in the end, the consequences be damned." pretty typical of Disney. Just my personal opinion but I believe that Disney, with its apparently benign, beautiful little tales of the simple battle between good and evil, does more harm (because their danger is mostly invisible and therefore more insidious) than most other films out there. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Online Writing Groups Date: 28 Feb 2003 16:54:39 -0700 Dallas Robbins wrote: > Does anyone > know of any online writing groups - that is the > primary purpose it to post work, and have it critiqued > - in speculative fiction? Critters Workshop, which focuses on science fiction, fantasy, and horror. http://critters.critique.org/ -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: workshop@burgoyne.com Subject: [AML] Re: Online Writing Groups Date: 28 Feb 2003 19:31:17 -0700 Quoting Dallas Robbins : > I know this has been posted before, but I seem to not > be able to find what I am looking for. Does anyone > know of any online writing groups - that is the > primary purpose it to post work, and have it critiqued > - in speculative fiction? Any help would be > appreciated. Thanks. I organize writing groups on Orson Scott Card's website http://www.hatrack.com/writers/writers/index.shtml and I'm trying to get something going for people who want online groups for Mormon literature through the AML website. Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com This mail sent through Burgoyne Webmail - http://popmail.burgoyne.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] re: D. Michael's Film Lab Date: 28 Feb 2003 17:01:50 -0700 We appear to have five people so far who are interested in attending the first D. Michael's Film Lab. I've set up a web page for it which includes instructions for attending, a schedule of all the labs for the rest of the year, and a description of each lab and the films involved. Please check it out and consider joining us: http://www.wwno.com/filmlab/ -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 28 Feb 2003 22:29:04 -0700 ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > > Are you exhibiting your programs as art somewhere, Jacob? Is there a > "frame" around them anywhere? If not, they may be > artistically designed, > but they are not art. If that's your definition of art, then sure. But I think that's a pretty silly definition of art. By that definition, books aren't art. Theater isn't art. I dare you to frame the last performance of "The Way We're Wired" tonight. Frankly, a lot of modern art is stuck in parks or looming over multi-story office lobbies. Frankly, the frame of a computer monitor stacks up better than any frames for those do. Did Dutcher frame "God's Army"? Are you going to say there's no art there? Your definition removes the term "art" from anything we can discuss on this list. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Date: 01 Mar 2003 18:42:05 -0700 If I had to say something good about Singles Ward it would be this: I brought people together. It created a moment when we felt part of an ethnic group. For some people that was good. For some it was bad. But whatever it felt like--a moment like that is a good thing. BUT I DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT ANYTHING! So I'm not going to. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 01 Mar 2003 23:26:53 -0500 I liked The Little Mermaid...I was the targer audience, I suppose. Being the little girl I was, I did not see all the paralels with Life, the Universe, and Everything, but I did know (I think. Subjective memory and all that) that Ariel did a very stupid thing signing the agreement with Ursula, and that she was very lucky to have her friends to pull her out of the mess she'd gotten herslef in. Give the little kids some credit. [Jamie Laulusa] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] WILCOX/PERRY "From Cumorah's Hill" (BYU Newsnet) Date: 02 Mar 2003 13:33:57 -0500 Oh, fun! I participated in a performance of "From Cumorah's Hill" about a year ago. They wouldn't let me read the parts of Korihor, Laman, or Lemual because I was a girl. But they were the best parts! ><< After that, Rachel and Jared said they spent 10 hours altering >the script to fit their needs. >> > >Hmm... > >Steve, you wanna take the bait? (remembering what often happens to the fish >that does) > >Marvin Payne Wouldn't that be nessesary? They're changing a contata into a musical play, correct? ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] LUND, _Fire of the Covenant_ (Review) Date: 27 Feb 2003 04:36:56 GMT Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Title: Fire of the Covenant Author: Gerald N. Lund Publisher: Bookcraft Year Published: 1999 Number of Pages: 762 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-685-0 Price: $25.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle I have always enjoyed stories of heroism and courage. As a devout coward myself, I wonder at the lengths to which some will go to follow that inner guidance, or in the case of the handcart pioneers, the "Fire of the Covenant." Lund has enjoyed wide success with his fiction work. His earlier books, fewer in pages and less polished, have been resurrected by the publisher as they try to capitalize on this author's popularity. And, of course, "The Work and the Glory" has sold very well. I've spotted the series at non-Mormon bookstores, too! "Fire of the Covenant" tells the harrowing and gruesome story of the ill-fated Willie and Martin handcart companies. The members of these companies were immigrants from Europe who, moved by the words of Brigham Young, and motivated by the inner witness of the spirit, set out from their homelands to settle in far away Utah. The prospect of spending the rest of their days among fellow Saints was both pleasing and motivating. Lund's design is to take us from one stopping place to another, chapter by chapter, first of the handcart companies themselves, and then of the rescue parties, and finally of the entrance into the Salt Lake Valley. These places are located on maps found on the inside back and front covers. It should be noted that the list of characters occupies the first seven pages (!) of the book. I nearly abandoned the reading before I started -- I don't do well keeping track of so many characters. But then I thought, if these people can pull handcarts 1500 miles across the wilderness, I can bear up under reading more than 700 pages that purport to tell their story. By keeping the story centered on two fictional families, Lund assists the reader by maintaining a continuity that is fairly easy to follow. The central characters of the present work are the McKensie family from England, and two young boys, Eric and Olaf Pederson from Norway. Mary McKensie is a widowed member of the Church who announces one day to her children that they are going to Zion. They are very excited at the news, except for Maggie, who is the eldest child and is involved with a young man, a non-member. She ultimately decides to make the journey, but not until receiving an inner witness that this is God's will for her. Eric and Olaf Pederson are sent to Zion ahead of the rest of their family. Lacking sufficient funds for the entire family to travel at the same time, the Pedersons send their children on the migration, promising to follow, with their other children, in a year. Other families, from England and from Scandinavia, join in the journey, consisting of a rough ride aboard ship to the eastern coast of the United States, followed by train and boat rides to the furthest point of the railroad. And then they would begin their trek, pushing and pulling handcarts all the way to Zion. Why handcarts? It all has to do with finances. Under normal circumstances, the Perpetual Emigrating Fund would have been able to finance better transportation for the emigrants. But, according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: The PEF used Church assets and private contributions to assist individuals commensurate with their inability to pay. With limited funds, fewer individuals could be assisted than wished to participate. Those receiving priority included individuals with skills urgently needed in the West, those whose relatives or friends had contributed to the PEF, and those with longest membership in the Church. Cost-cutting measures, including group contracting, doubling up families in wagons, and organizing handcart companies, were also adopted to make the available funds stretch as far as possible. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, entry for "Perpetual Emigrating Fund") Now, under normal circumstances, this would be a difficult trip. The old and inform would likely not survive. But these immigrants have an addition burden or two. First, they're starting out late in the season, meaning they'll encounter colder, and more treacherous, conditions along the trail. And second, it appears that the friends in Salt Lake City never received word that the settlers were on the way, and thus preparations, such as re-supply wagons, had not been made. Lund takes us through the difficult trek, writing in a readable and entertaining style. Along the way, there are births and deaths, friendships developing and romances blooming. Maggie McKensie and Eric Pederson become a "couple" along the way, and their romance forms a backbone to much of the story. Now, the Willie and Handcart companies really did exist in history. Sufficient writing exists to document the story. But how much of Lund's book is really history? Admittedly, he invents the families that form the core the book, and this is an acceptable literary device. We all recall Scott Card's "Saints" and the amalgamation of several women into the one central character. Lund muddies the literary waters in his preface when he states that, while the "story" is not fiction, the book itself is a "novel." Well, I guess that clears things up. He emphasizes that the events actually happened, but perhaps not to the people who are named in the book, and not in the order in which they are presented in the book. His list of characters separates those who are fictional from those who are historical, but footnotes to the historical characters make clear that it is possible that the events as related in the book may not have happened as he describes. Here's an example: John Jaques: Having Brother Jaques as one of the check-in agents for the *Thornton* group is a device of the author to to introduce Brother Jaques to the readers. He was not actually there for that sailing... (footnote on p. 107) How many of his readers will actually read the abundant footnotes? Not many, I'm guessing. And I admit that this is not a major point. Misunderstanding the role of John Jaques does not affect the story as a whole. But was this "device" really necessary? I didn't find it added anything to the story. And that's essentially how I felt about so many of the diversions throughout the book. I actually read the notes! I realized that those who skip the notes and retain certain details of the book will be ill-served in the effort. Subsequent studies will be affected by what they read in Lund's book. But how does the book fare as a work of fiction? As a novel, the book succeeds well. I will admit that, about half-way through the book, I was feeling the fatigue of the pioneers. My feet were not bleeding, but my mind was already full of the story. So much death, so much sickness. And, worse, so much guilt. I found myself disturbed by Lund's depiction of the attitude of the Saints toward those who either dropped away during the trek, or elected to wait until the spring to make the journey. These folks are depicted as lacking faith, of disobeying their priesthood leaders, of denying the prompting of the Spirit. Given how much death there was along the trail, I wondered if perhaps these vilified Saints didn't have the right idea after all. A purely secular viewer of the experience might be tempted to ask, "Whose hare-brained scheme was this? To pull handcarts through snow and sleet across 1500 miles of wilderness? To suffer disease and death? Why would *anyone* do such a thing?" Removing the sacred from the equation, the whole notion of such a trek seems reckless and irresponsible. Lund infuses his people with a sense of purpose and direction, but these same people lack a sense of sympathy for the "weaker ones" who opt out of the trek. And even among those who continued, any questioning or doubt was met with condemnation. I don't know how historically accurate this is, but I wondered that Lund wasn't willing to extend his fictionalization of history in a more compassionate direction. To his credit, Lund tells his story in a way that emphasizes the importance of community and selflessness, whether it be among those on the trek, or those sent out to rescue the immigrants. In the midst of all the sickness and death, friendships and romances thrive, courage and strength are found among the weakest, and the will to live triumphs over nature's best efforts to destroy. My feelings about Lund have not changed. I think he's a good writer. He can tell a good story, and he gets better as his perpetual writing machine grinds out one massive work after another. I only wish he would pay more attention to historical detail. I like the idea of creating fictional characters around which to spin a tale. I dislike having to play a shell game with history to make the story more entertaining. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward Date: 03 Mar 2003 09:15:32 -0700 What a great post from Jason Covell about Singles Ward. His main point, = which would be that those of us living in Utah right now are likely to = have a very different opinion of the film than those living outside Utah, = is absolutely valid. Point well taken. As far as the train wreck Cammie scene goes, Jason's reading of the scene = would have some validity if ever, over the rest of the film, the film had = agreed with him. I personally wouldn't have the slightest problem with = that scene if sometime later Cammie had said "hey, I just got my mission = call, you caught me at a bad time. Sorry, I overreacted." One moment, = taking twenty seconds film time, and the scene and moment and to a large = extent the movie would have been saved. As it is, the film agrees with = her. That's why I hate the scene.=20 It is, however, likely, that those of us living in Utah are overreacting = to a movie that maybe isn't so offensive. Quite true. I thought = Crocodile Dundee was a fairly lousy movie, myself, but I remember laughing = at it. (Oddly enough, I hated the girl in that movie too.) So maybe = those of us who live in Utah should get over ourselves? Good advice. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 04 Mar 2003 15:33:06 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jacob Proffitt >books aren't art. Theater isn't art. I dare you to frame the >last performance of "The Way We're Wired" tonight. Well, when people stopped coming in, we started the play. By ten o-clock that night, we stopped. Isn't that a frame? Why would think "Wired" couldn't be framed? Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: [AML] Article by Elder Ballard Date: 03 Mar 2003 17:54:57 EST I just received an article via LDS-GEMS. It's entitled "In the Language of Eternity." It's all about the Latter-day Saint artist - and I appreciate that Elder Ballard points out that there is an artist of some kind in each of us. Maybe the rest of you are familiar with it; I found it to be a succinct treatise of the vision of Latter-day Saint art. It's in the New Era, Aug. 1996, pp. 4-7. Linda Hyde -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Thanks to AML People Date: 04 Mar 2003 06:00:00 -0700 I'm glad someone corrected it to Thom. I was there and he should get the credit--not only for the volume of the snore, but for the timing (in the middle of one particularly long whispy poem at 4:10 in the afternoon.) He may have done it out of his age, but age also brings a sense of timing, position (he was in the center of the audience), and appropriateness. BYW, out of fear of my own snoring at the AML reading that Saturday night, I went to "The way we're wired," and had a most enjoyable time. Everyone was laughing and crying. The kiss was good, that is, natural and long. I took my sister-in-law who spent a decade in Young Adult groups between her marriages, and she loved it. Bravo Eric and Scott and cast. What's the next play? Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Lit 2002 in Review: Short Stories Date: 04 Mar 2003 11:05:20 -0700 A few more: Bell, M. Shayne. "Anomalous Sturctures of My Dreams." _Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction_ (January 2002). Hickman, Tracy. "The Anvil of Time." In _The Best of Tales, Volume Two_, ed. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman. Wizards of the Coast, 2002. Originally published in _Dragon_ magazine. Lickiss, Alan. "Alternate Marketing." _Analog Science Fiction and Fact_ (January 2002). Lickiss, Alan. "Legal Action." In _Star Trek Strange New Worlds_, ed. Dean Wesley Smith, John J. Ordover, and Paula M. Block. Vol. 5. New York: Simon and Schuster/Pocket Books, 2002. Also, Shayne Bell hasn't been nominated for a Hugo Award since 1995 (for "Mrs. Lincoln's China") but is currently on the preliminary ballot for the Nebula Awards for "Refugees from Nulongwe" (published in _Sci Fiction_ [May 2001] available at http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/bell/). Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 04 Mar 2003 11:40:12 -0700 (MST) Also, don't forget that it *is* a comedy, not a realism piece. We decided in the mid-1800's or so that realism wasn't working out so well. So we stopped writing fiction works that depicted reality and went with stuff that was entertaining and lighthearted, because reality was too boring. :) ~bryan loeper -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Des News on Samuelsen's Film Paper Date: 03 Mar 2003 10:16:07 -0700 Big Fat Mormon Wedding? By Sharon Haddock Deseret News staff writer PROVO - It's a Sunday afternoon somewhere in Utah, and all of the relatives - some of them rather quirky people - want to meet the new beau. Everybody has a bit of advice and an embarrassing story to tell about the bride. There are snoopy questions for the groom, especially after the bunch discovers he didn't serve an LDS mission. Or - gasp! - isn't even a member of The Church. Could such a scene work on the silver screen? Yes - and it might work well, says Eric Samuelsen, a Brigham Young University drama professor who dabbles in theater with Mormon themes. Samuelsen says Mormon culture could work effectively in crossover films just as Greekness worked in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," a surprise hit at the box office. The movie, scripted by and starring Nia Vardalos, has - at last count - taken in more than $240 million for its makers, who spent only $5 million to produce it. A spin-off/sequel TV series, "My Big Fat Greek Life," debuted this week on CBS, starring Vardalos and many others from the movie's cast. In the movie, the leading lady, Toula, is part of a big, noisy family full of crazy characters. The family struggles to deal with her engagement to Ian Miller, a non-Greek man. A similar formula could generate a crossover Mormon movie, says Samuelsen, who spoke at the recent conference of the Association for Mormon Letters. And it's more than departing from the standard boy-meets-girl, girl-and-boy-fight, girl-and-boy-kiss-and-makeup conflict pattern used in so many movies. "The key . . . is to focus on the inclusiveness and cultural negotiation that goes on in a social structure like the LDS culture," Samuelsen said. "I'd like to suggest that cultural negotiation is the key to the film's extraordinary success. Greek culture, as portrayed in this film, seems loud and boisterous and earthy, but we can also see how confining it is. And yet, in the film's finest moments, the film reveals a culture confident enough to open itself up to redefinition." Samuelsen said he saw the film knowing little about Greek-Ameri-can society - but it intrigued him. "The story really is about this woman's gentle rebellion as she attempts to carve out a place for herself" in a loving but controlling family. "It's comparatively conflict-less. Toula is mature, sensible. When she's told she can't see Ian, she sees and marries him anyway, recognizing that she's 30, old enough to make her own choices." Samuelsen said LDS-centric movies such as "RM," "Singles Ward" and "Charly" tend to take the opposite approach to what he sees as a more workable and joyful tack. "They seem to say you need to fit into the culture, like a bunch of square pegs into neat little round holes," he said. Samuelsen said his ideas went over big at the Mormon Letters conference. He wasn't intending to write a screenplay when he began his scholarly paper, but the response now has him considering it. Maybe not "My Big Fat Mormon Wedding" - perhaps "My Big Fat Mormon Funeral." "It could work," he said. "I actually think Mormon culture is more inclusive than we get credit for. We know, in our hearts, we're as big - and as fat - as any Greek." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] FYI Sheri Dew Date: 04 Mar 2003 09:57:36 -0800 Sheri Dew, former second counselor in the Relief Society general = presidency and current CEO of Deseret Book Company, has been asked by = the White House to serve as a White House delegate and private-sector = adviser to the Commission on the Status of Women, an international = commission. She will be participating in the 47th session of the = Economic and Social Council Commission on the Status of Women, to be = held in New York, New York, from 3-14 March. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,465030313,00.html -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] LDS TV Sitcom Class? Date: 04 Mar 2003 11:02:16 -0800 So what happened with... The tv sitcom class someone was teaching? I remember a discussion of it awhile ago but don't have any email saved from back then. Just curious how it turned out. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 04 Mar 2003 14:28:49 -0500 Jacob wrote: >If that's your definition of art, then sure. But I think that's a pretty >silly definition of art. By that definition, books aren't art. Theater >isn't art. I dare you to frame the last performance of "The Way We're >Wired" tonight. Frankly, a lot of modern art is stuck in parks or looming >over multi-story office lobbies. Frankly, the frame of a computer monitor >stacks up better than any frames for those do. Did Dutcher frame "God's >Army"? Are you going to say there's no art there? Your definition removes >the term "art" from anything we can discuss on this list. The Zappa quote I posted that used this "frame" definition of art explicitly uses the word as a metaphor -- the "frame" is a declaration of intent, separating the "art" from the rest of the world that surrounds it: The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively--because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that s*** on the wall? If John Cage, for instance, says, "I'm putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and that's my composition," then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a frame around it and said so. "Take it or leave it, I now will this to be music." After that it's a matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it's a guy swallowing carrot juice. Note the phrase "For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively" -- the "frame" is an explication of the boundaries of the art, and those boundaries can be as simple or as complex and detailed as necessary. Even if you ultimately discard the definition, everything you mention above -- books, theater, film -- fits this "frame" definition of art, since the frame is figurative. An artist wills his creation to be art by envisioning some type of distinction (however thin and malleable it might be) between the artwork and the surrounding world; so it is art. Whether it's "good" art is a matter of taste, or maybe competing critical theories. D. Michael thinks this "frame" definition, though workable, should be constricted to include only works that are intended for some type of public display -- works that will have an audience. Personally, I think that if a creator has only herself as an audience for her work, this doesn't invalidate her defining her creation as art. Eric D. Dixon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Value of Fairy Tales (was: Why Not PG?) Date: 04 Mar 2003 12:33:12 -0700 Ah, the return to Disney bashing. =20 ___ Tracie ___ | All the original Grimm's and Hans Christian Andersen tales are=20 | more brutal, or maybe honest, than their modern counterparts. | I remember reading someone's thesis discussing how Disney, among=20 | others, have created a questionable morality and increased=20 | nightmares among children all by making the stories less black=20 | and white. ___ I think the original folk tales that the Grimm brothers collected were much more archetypal. I don't know that makes them more "honest." (I mean, how can we call fairy tales honest? Its fantasy!) I think they do play more to our fears. Personally I don't think I'd be telling many of the original fairy tales to kids. Just because a bunch of primitive, violent, uneducated folks in the 14th century thought they were great to scare kids with doesn't mean they are. Having said that though, I think that from a psychological and mythic level the original fairy tales work better. They fit the overall "fear." With most modern retellings the underlying fear or angst is averted at the last minute. =20 However with kids I think that the fear is a little overbearing. It is much more appropriate for adults. (IMO) I mean there still is a legitimate fear of strangers today, even if the dangers aren't quite what they were in the 14th and 15th centuries. But do *you* go through a tale of all the horrible things a child molester and murder will do to your kids to scare them into not talking to strangers? I think that psychological putting a bit of concern into them is wise. Making them feel like they are in a battlezone isn't. That carries with it its own psychological trauma. So I guess it all depends upon what you see the point being. Disney certainly isn't being completely true to some of the archetypes or psychology. However one could argue that no story ought to be beholden to such matters. Further in real life most fears aren't fully realized. Typically we have friends and also have the opportunity to try and correct our mistakes. Is a myth or story somehow more true because it only deals with worst case scenarios? One could even say that the whole point of community and the atonement is to try and help keep consequences from being too brutal. So perhaps the fairy tales were much more true in a day and age when there were few safety nets and even your family had few resources? I also think that the "danger deferred" is an important point of myth. The clich=E9 of the hero stopping the bomb just before it goes off has = its basis. We want to have the danger, the fear, and so forth, but have it averted at the last minute. Such last minute averting certainly is an ancient literary tradition. We ought remember it with Abraham and Isaac, if no one else. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: Little Mermaid (was: Why Not PG?) Date: 04 Mar 2003 12:53:56 -0700 Elizabeth Walters wrote: > The Little Mermaid is actually a story about a young heroine stuck in a > world/society bound by centuries of unquestioned social protocols and an > urgency by its rulers to keep the status quo. I vote for Elizabeth's interpretation. There was definitely some serious bigotry going on in those societies--just the sort of thing that causes the Middle East crises or the on-going conflict between Ireland and Great Britain in our real world. The authoritarian and information-depriving parenting approach of King Titan is something I philosophically oppose. I also like that Ariel was quite nude in front of two male creatures without anyone making the slightest deal out of it, either by being scandalized or sexually titillated. Just the sort of reasonable attitude toward nudity our society should have. > let's not bring up the urban legend of the castle resembling > part of the male anatomy. I've never heard that one, and I never noticed such a comparison. I may have to go back and look. > I guess you could bring up her outfit > resembling stuff worn by Britney Spears and Shakira. Uh oh! That's > it! The movie is banned. Never mind. At least she had shells on. Compared to other films with fantastic creatures like Fantasia and Splash, that's quite modest. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 04 Mar 2003 13:04:05 -0700 Melissa Proffitt wrote: > For _Ender's Game_, maybe what it means > is that readers with a certain level of reading experience picked up on > overly obvious clues, and other readers didn't. Of course, that raises the > question of whether it actually was done well as long as some readers were > surprised, but that's more philosophical than I want to get right now. But if the overly obvious clue was unnecessary and easily fixed, then that is a litarary sin. As I wrote my book _Brother Brigham_, I feared the surprise ending would be too obvious too early. (It turns out that for some readers it was, and others it wasn't.) But there was little I could do to fix it, because the very nature of the story made it difficult to disguise the surpise too heavily and keep things sufficiently true and believable. So I had to do my best and hope that plenty other things in the book would make it worth reading, even for those who got the surprise early on. _Ender's Game_ had plenty of other thigns to nake the book worthwhile even for those who saw the surprise ending coming a mile away, so that part Card did right. But fixing the telegraphing of the ending would have been a snap, so he failed there. He even knew there was a problem with the way he handled it, because between the short story and the novel, he changed the part of the story that did the telegraphing. But his change didn't fix the problem. > On the other hand, if you can say "here is where the surprise was > telegraphed in Novel A, and here and here," then you have some basis for > claiming that Novel A was poorly done. I've tried to avoid mentioning specifics so I wouldn't make the problem worse for anyone who hasn't read the book yet, but I certainly can point out exactly where the problem occurred. It was fixable by a very simple trick: remove the part completely--it added nothing beneficial to the book and could easily be cut. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 04 Mar 2003 13:07:42 -0700 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > >> Are you exhibiting your programs as art somewhere, Jacob? Is there a >> "frame" around them anywhere? If not, they may be >> artistically designed, >> but they are not art. > > > If that's your definition of art, then sure. But I think that's a pretty > silly definition of art. By that definition, books aren't art. Theater > isn't art. I dare you to frame the last performance of "The Way We're > Wired" tonight. I was using the word "frame" metaphorically, like Zappa did. Thus the quotes around the word. Surely don't think I was suggesting a physical wooden frame needs to be constructed around each book or stage. Books and plays certainly are "framed" as art for the consumption of an audience. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 04 Mar 2003 13:14:35 -0700 >If that's your definition of art, then sure. But I think that's a >pretty >silly definition of art. By that definition, books aren't >art. Theater >isn't art. Putting a play on stage "frames" it. Screening a movie "frames" it. The very presentation of a book "frames" it. Not that I'm ascribing to the "frames" definition of art, but I just wanted to clarify what a frame is. Ostensibly if I were to say, "What you are about to witness is a work of art" I have just created a frame. Personally, I don't think I'd say that the act of framing something makes it art but I could go with the idea that the act of framing something indicates that a person is attempting to create art. Whether or not one succeeds....well we'll just keep arguing that one now won't we? Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] _Stones_ at Center Street Theatre Date: 04 Mar 2003 13:21:44 -0700 NEWS FROM CENTER STREET THEATRE - Tuesday, March 04, 2003 50 West Center Street - Orem, Utah 84057 - 801-225-3800 - Opening of Stones=20 - How to Get Tickets - About the Play - What the Reviewers Say - About the Cast - About Center Street Theatre - Producer's Note Opening of "Stones" ------------------- CENTER STREET THEATRE, 50 WEST CENTER STREET, OREM, announces the = opening of its latest production, the award-winning "Stones," written = and directed by J. Scott Bronson. The production, which is actually two = one-act plays performed in repertory during the same evening, opens = March 13, 2003 and runs every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday = through April 19. The first play, "Altars," is closely based on the = scriptural story of Abraham and Isaac, presenting an up-close look at = the concept of sacrifice, both in the literal, Old Testament sense, and = in the day-to-day giving up of one's self as a parent or family member. = The principle action of the play takes place at the top of Mt. Moriah, = the place of Isaac's Binding. The second play of the evening, "Tombs," is an exploration -- a frank = inquiry -- into the relationship between the Son of God and his mortal = mother. While the situation here is invented, Bronson feels that the = emotions connected to it must be as real as the people who surely felt = them. The principle action of this play takes place in Joseph's tomb as = Mary, the mother of Christ, prepares it for her husband's body. How to Get Tickets ------------------ Ticket prices are 10 dollars General Admission, 9 dollars Senior = Citizens, and 8 dollars for students. Groups rates are 6 dollars for = groups of ten or more. No children under 12 will be admitted.=20 To reserve tickets, call the theatre box office at 801-225-3800 during = regular business hours. Tickets may also be purchased at the theatre box = office 50 West Center Street, Orem, between 4 and 6 PM Monday through = Saturday. PLEASE NOTE: As of this production, the Center Street Theatre will no = longer be presenting plays on Monday evenings. About the Play -------------- "Stones" premiered at the Little Brown Theatre in 2001 and subsequently = won the Association for Mormon Letters Award for Best Play. Playwright = Bronson says: "I have a mission in life. That is to spread the word of = the gospel of Jesus Christ -- to build the kingdom of God on Earth -- by = writing and directing and acting in plays. The fact that I want to = spread the Gospel should not be surprising to anyone who knows anything = about Mormons. The fact that I want to spread the Gospel through = theatrical means should not be surprising to anyone who knows me. = Theatre is the only thing I'm any good at to any degree. And as far as = I'm concerned the Gospel and theatre are a pretty good match. After = all, the temple ceremony, as originally conceived, is a theatrical = event. This doesn't mean, however that I'm conventional in my = approach." In awarding "Stones" its Drama award, the Association for Mormon = Literature said in its citation: " 'Stones' is a perfect example of the = three keys to playwriting: Story, Character, and Dialogue. Both acts, = thousands of years apart in real time, appear outwardly to tell two = different stories. But the similarities in the themes of faith and = family reach across the years to bind the play into one coherent story = that is relevant today and will always be as long as humans walk the = earth.... "Stones" sets a new standard for Mormon drama in the = universality of its theme, the depth of its characterization, and the = poignant beauty of its words." What the Reviewers Say ---------------------- "The emotional intensity is palpable, and 'Stones' is a cathartic, = enriching experience." -- Eric D. Snider, of the Daily Herald. "What wonderful, powerful plays you have written in 'Stones'!... they = were emotionally electrifying and emotionally challenging. Everyone = should see these!" -- Tim Slover, author of "Joyful Noise." About the Cast -------------- Kathryn Laycock Little: Before starting her family, Kathryn, a native of Orem, Utah, lived in = New York City for several years where she performed Off-Broadway as a = charter member of the Manhattan Theater Ensemble. Kathryn has also = performed leads at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, The = Capitol Theater, Abravanel Hall, and Sundance Theater. She has been a = guest artist with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Utah Valley Symphony, = and the Utah Valley Choral. Some of her favorite stage credits include = the leading roles in "Camelot," "The King and I," "Kiss Me Kate," "Into = The Woods," "The Sound Of Music," and "The Music Man." You will also = hear her as narrator and/or soloist for numerous television and radio = commercials, films, books on tape, and CDs. Elwon Bakly: Elwon, being a native to Montana and an eight-year Washington tourist, = is fairly new to the Utah region. Elwon has been performing for well = over eight years in all aspects of the performing arts -- stage, film, = voice, etc. Recently Elwon has been seen in performances at the Hale = Center Theatre as the bitter Scot in "The Hasty Heart," and the = bewildered Englishman, Norman, in "Cash on Delivery," as well as in = "Deathtrap" for the Provo Theater Company. He can also be seen in the = DVD, "The Basket." Elwon loves his new family first and foremost and = misses them very much thanks to all the acting going on. Someday he = will be gifted the simple luxury of kissing his wife and children before = they sleep ... someday. J. Scott Bronson: A native of San Diego, where his love for theatre was also born, Scott = came to Utah twenty-one years ago so that his friend, John, would have a = room-mate while schooling at BYU. Scott soon got himself going to = school at BYU as well and continued his studies in theatre. After a few = years Scott fell in love with the incomparable Lynne Davis and got = married and got kids (five) and got stuck. While in Utah he has = performed in scores of stage and small screen productions. Scott is also = Artistic Director for the Nauvoo Theatrical Society. About Center Street Theatre --------------------------- This production of "Stones" is presented at the Center = Street Theatre, 30 West Center Street, Orem, by the Nauvoo Theatrical = Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to the creation and = preservation of Mormon culture as found in the theatrical arts.=20 Producer's Note --------------- I read the first act of "Stones" in Sunstone years ago and was = immediately stuck with its lyrical beauty, not all that common in plays = meant to be performed. As a work of two-dimensional art, "Stones" holds = its own with the best in Mormon literature -- it scans well, its = dialogue almost poetic in rhythm and content. When seeing it performed, = however -- as I was privileged to do two years ago -- one is transformed = beyond the beauty of the words to the living wonder of the lives those = words illuminate. It is with great pleasure that the Nauvoo Theatrical Society presents = the 2003 performance of "Stones." C. Thomas Duncan Executive Director The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" ---- Thom Duncan Nauvoo Theatrical Society in residence at the Center Street Theatre "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Lit 2002 in Review: Short Stories Date: 04 Mar 2003 14:56:38 -0700 Thanks to Andrew for another remarkably thorough year-end review. Just one comment. Andrew wrote: > Because of the Church's decision to no longer publish fiction > in The Friend and The New Era, the juvenile short story genre has completely > disappeared. Actually, the juvenile short story genre is alive and kicking. Happily, the genre's well-being was never dependent on the church periodicals. :-) Many of us LDS writers of juvenile fiction are publishing in magazines such as _Cricket_, _Ladybug_, _Cobblestones_, _American Girl_, and _Highlights for Children_. Thanks, Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG, _Heresies of Nature_, KIMBALL, _The Marketing of Sister B_ (Review) Date: 04 Mar 2003 11:37:5 -0800 Hello, Andrew Hall, Right on -- both books are wonderful in their own areas. The presence of such good literature makes all the effort worthwhile. Thanks for your thoughts on these books. Best regards. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com 2003-03-04 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] YOUNG, _Heresies of Nature_, KIMBALL, Date: 04 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0700 [MOD: On Margaret's query... I'm reluctant to allow through posts on political questions, since this is the area, I've found, that pulls us off-topic fastest. But if anyone can find/use a Mormon literary tie-in, I'll entertain it.] I am always honored to be reviewed by such generous and brilliant folks as Andrew Hall, and to be paired with some of my favorite people--such as Linda Hoffman Kimball. Thank you, Andrew. Someday, when there's time (next year?) I'll write a report for the AML list about what Darius and I (and sometimes my foster son, Tyrece) did during our February "vacation." We hit Chicago, Houston, and DC. During our week off, my daughter had her gall bladder removed (with some complications) and I got to spend a couple of nights with her in the hospital. During that same week, Darius's computer went down and he did a genealogical seminar. You know, it's nice to have March here. Now a non-AML related question--unless someone can come up with a literary tie, in which case, I'd love to see it on list. The "Hate Crimes" bill got pulled from the Utah State senate. I have very deep feelings about this and simply don't understand WHY. I'm assuming it has to do with lobbyists afraid of gay rights, but the implications of not having the bill pass are pretty serious and extend far beyond the gay community. (And why would anyone think we shouldn't have a bill which protects gays from hate crimes?) If anyone out there has some insights into why it was pulled (I believe the Church even supported the bill), please e-mail me personally. If you can find a literary link (can I be it, having authored books about African American pioneers?) please post online. (Jonathan, this is your call.) Finally, please, all of you, mark the week of June 8th on your calendars. That is when Genesis will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the priesthood revelation. I can't give more details yet, but I promise, you won't want to miss it! ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 04 Mar 2003 15:30:57 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Amelia Parkin >harm (because their danger is mostly invisible and therefore >more insidious) >than most other films out there. If something ins invisible, how can it even affect us? I have a tough time with this idea that media has messages that affect us even if we don't know about it? Can you explain how something that is not noticed can be harmful? Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] WILCOX/PERRY "From Cumorah's Hill" (BYU Newsnet) Date: 04 Mar 2003 17:07:46 -0700 On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Jamie Laulusa wrote: > Wouldn't that be nessesary? They're changing a contata into a musical > play, correct? Not really. Instead of readers facing the audience, they wanted the stories told to be acted out -- still not much longer than in the first place, but dramatic rather than presentational. S. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 04 Mar 2003 18:03:30 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >thedemiurgus@xwizards.com >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:40 AM >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ > > >Also, don't forget that it *is* a comedy, not a realism piece. This implies that comedies don't have to be believable. But the best comedies are always based on reality exaggerated for comedy sake. Farces don't have to be believable but again, there are rules for farces which was must also be followed. From what I've read, The _RM_ doesn't appear to be a farce. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 04 Mar 2003 17:27:48 -0800 Memo: A Letter Of Introduction Well, howdy, ya'll. I finally did it. After years (yes, years) of = dancing around the idea, I have finally joined the AML and begun = faithfully reading The List. (Go ahead: laugh that I capitalized it.) = Yes it's true: I paid my dues, I have copies of Irreantum sitting around = on my desk, I download 30 e-mails a day, and I am frequently distracted = from the work of writing by the fun of reading. Actually, I already know many of you on the list. I have a lot of = friendships here and, of course, a lot of personal connection to much of = the work going on by AML members, both from my time at BYU and from my = work in LDS-related arts. I'm also vastly opinionated, infuriatingly = obstinate with many of those opinions, quite verbose, prone to = spontaneous expostulation, and otherwise seemingly very qualified for = the gab-fest which the AML-List so often is. So it might seem natural that I would have been a long-time subscriber. = But I have not been. No, in fact, several times over the years, I would log onto the archive = and just scan around, see if any particular thread caught my eye, and = far from being attracted, I have been, for the most part repelled, and = not wanted to be a part of a majority of the conversations happening on = your fair forum.=20 But then, recently, I began to detect a change. Perhaps the change was in myself. (Most likely it was.) But the story = I'm gonna stick with until they torture it out of me is that the LIST = changed (and not me). Yes, even though I suspect it might be a softening = of my own heart, a greater capacity for compassion towards the opinion = of others, etc., I'm gonna say that it was YOU guys that just started = getting smarter! Kind of like my dad (to steal from Mark Twain): when I was 7, dad was = pretty smart; when I was 17, dad had lost it!; when I was 37, the old = man seemed to have picked up a thing or two. Anyway, the list has started to get really entertaining! Whereas, in the = past, I got a sense that the List was just a bunch of whining by a lot = of wanna-bees, that holy (holier-than-thou?) opinion has had to be = modified of late. Yes, lately, I have read some wonderfully thought-out = remarks, laughed out loud at some deliciously ascorbic retorts (I love = intellectual debate, but I love a good comedic come-back even more!), = and followed some very interesting threads.=20 So, I have been entertained, enlightened and have begun (sneakily) to = feel a sense of community with the List (even with some of those whose = opinions I violently disagreed with) so that I could no longer simply = read like a ghostly voyeur: I had to join in. Of course, joining as a subscriber didn't mean that I would actually = participate.=20 For many weeks now (as a bone fide "Member"-Ooooooo!), I have read = posts, had violent reactions and comments to them, shouted my responses = out loud to the screen, then deleted the post and gone on with my work. = But I have never, until now, introduced myself to the group, nor have I = posted any comments to various threads. There are many reasons for this.=20 Frankly, one of the reasons is that I have a track record of a lifetime = of leaving bodies in my wake with my wicked tongue. And a wicked tongue = is bad enough. But at least when you've only said something out loud, = you can always deny it later. Saying something IN PRINT is very = dangerous. It sticks with you. Like-well, you know what like. This is = why the CIA owns stock in paper shredder companies. (Actually, shredding = is what you do with things you are proud you wrote! Real plausible = denial requires arson and hit men!) One of the things that I am trying to learn in this slow, slow toil = towards some kind of personal enlightenment and the achievement of a = modicum of grace, is that I am much better off when I shut up than when = I speak. My dad used to say, still does, I guess: Keep your mouth shut, = They'll think your crazy. Open it, they'll KNOW you are. Not that my family has noticed a difference in my personality, but I = think generally, as I age (and by the way, unlike many actors, I embrace = my ageing with relish) I am getting more mellow, more tolerant, more = easy-going. Again, my family would disagree, so I am talking about a = very relative scale change on a geological time-scale! But I have been charmed by following the thoughts and quips of the many = people on the List, many whom I respect, but also respectfully disagree = with, and I have begun to think that, in the proper forum, among the = right kinds of people, a certain dialogue can be healthy--especially = when moderated with as much tact as the List seems to be.=20 So I may begin to stick in my toe. (Actually, I already did, for the = first time, today.) Another mystery regarding my reticence to write in, is the fact that I = love the medium of the personal essay as a form of expression. I have = written essays for years, often times publishing them in private = circulars sent only out to the captive members of my family circle ("Him = AGAIN," I can hear them saying when they open the mail); and since my = marriage (over 10 years ago, now), I have published extensive Annual = Reports as part of our family history, which are really ill-disguised = excuses to publish essays, since they are only about 8 parts family = history and 2 parts (sometimes 3 or 4 parts!) introspective musings. So if I'm such an instinctual introspective muser anyhow, why not splash = some about the internet while I'm at it? I've asked that of myself, but = this I must enter slowly, testing the waters and trying not to offend.=20 So, as I said, I posted my first public response today, and I really = TRIED to be nice. It wasn't easy, and I think I may have failed. But = perhaps this little breaking of the ice will begin the flood (like that = Danish kid with the sore finger). Perhaps I will begin to feel = sufficiently comfortable enough to become an active member of your = august ranks. Until then (or as that happens): hello. My name is Jongiorgi ("Jon") Enos and I live in Northern California with = my wife and three kids. I am currently (and perhaps only temporarily) = blessed with the tenuous financial ability to be able write (plays, = screenplays and novels), act (once a twice a year) and produce (more and = more of that in the very recent past) on a full-time basis. We'll see if = it lasts.=20 One of my old missionary companions recently sent a "catching up" e-mail = after several years absence and asked: "Are you part of the LDS Brat = Pack?" I guess I am. Richard Dutcher and I were friends at the Y and = both moved down to LA at about the same time. I made out with his wife, = Gwen (on stage) and he made out with my sister (on the living room = floor) before he and Gwen even met, so I guess you could say we go back = a ways. (Yes, I was there every second of the shooting of Girl Crazy, = but No, I won't talk to you about it, either!) But can I say? (and this may sound corny, because in the midst of = intellectual discussion, joking around and the restrictions on propriety = created by a public forum, we don't get a lot of testimony-bearing = happening here) but I'd just like to stray briefly into the spiritual, = if I may:=20 I have a real testimony of the intensely important role of artists in = the Church. I have carried this testimony with me since I was twelve = years old. I have fought and struggled every year of my life since then, = and the changes we are seeing now are nothing short of miraculous-but we = have such a long way to go, too.=20 I believe that this forum can provide a very important training ground, = helping each of us learn to analyze, constructively critique, explore = and hone our discernment. And we can fortify one another for the = tremendous work we are engaged in: to use our skills in the arts to = (occasionally) help move forward the Kingdom of Zion, as Richard says: = one soul at a time.=20 This isn't our only goal, of course, and I do a lot of non-LDS stuff, = too. But another thing is happening to me as I age: I am writing more = and more LDS themed material and working more and more towards shifting = my career goals towards participating with greater and greater vigor in = the growing market of LDS Belle Lettres.=20 And this attraction isn't about money, its about a nagging urgency that = won't let go of me. There is a change in the wind, and our generation = has to be there to fill the need. Anyway, enough of that. Thanks for letting me join your group. Thanks to the unsung heroes who = organize, moderate and run this organization for no money, no glory and = with nothing to show for it but putting up with the likes of clowns like = us! I'm having fun, and I hope to have even more.=20 I'm a committed artist, and I know that the Gospel is true. I believe that you can fit into both of those categories and compromise = neither.=20 As a final note, I just want to say to Jeff Needle: "Get baptized, = Dammit!"=20 And to the rest of you: "Hootie-Hoo!" Ciao for now, Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 04 Mar 2003 20:32:06 -0700 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > > >books aren't art. Theater isn't art. I dare you to frame the > >last performance of "The Way We're Wired" tonight. > > Well, when people stopped coming in, we started the play. By > ten o-clock that night, we stopped. Isn't that a frame? > > Why would think "Wired" couldn't be framed? If you want to claim theater is framed, sure. But similar metaphor was rejected by D. Michael in his insistence that programming can't be art. If you look at frames metaphorically, then the whole "frame" definition of art becomes murky enough to have little meaning. A frame that separates art from "other" seems to me to be moving backwards--since most art is designed to connect rather than separate. Most art deliberately breaks framing down... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: [AML] re: _Singles Ward_ Date: 05 Mar 2003 10:27:03 -0700 Well, I finally saw Singles Ward last night. After all the chatter on the AML list I was anxious to see it and hate it for myself. :-) I was somewhat disappointed on that point because although I didn't find much to redeem the movie I wasn't able to muster up any passionate hate for it. Maybe that's because I'm somewhat removed (geographically) from the daily dramas of the Mormon Arts Family. Anyhow, the movie didn't transport me back to my own singles ward days (as I was assured it would by the person who lent me the DVD) and it didn't make me regret being a Mormon (loved that review, BTW, Eric). It was just a badly badly written film. And it felt like they filmed their first draft as a singles ward activity. Seriously, I am sure the filmmakers had more fun sitting in the local Hogi Yogi thinking up the film than anybody will ever have watching the film. It distinctly reminded me of a singles ward activity...the video scavenger hunt. FYI for the uninitiated: this activity consists of groups of singles running around Provo with video cameras and a list of things they must do at certain places in town (not the mall, as the mall has specifically banned such frivolity). Then you gather at a certain time to view the videos. No video would be complete without the random, goofy antics of the guys looking to impress the girls who are alternately shunning & participating in the goofy antics. Singles Ward, to me, was similarly random. Almost none of the jokes landed for me, esp. the cameos (and it's not because I didn't know who the people were...I knew). The cameos stopped the forward motion of the movie and were entirely random. Like they had to check it off on their video scavenger hunt. The goofiness was simply for goofiness' sake and though I'm sure they had fun filming it and I'm sure *they* had fun viewing it, the rest of us are not amused. Which is one reason why video scavenger hunt tapes don't get widely distributed. Two other observations: 1. The cruelest Mormon joke they could come up with is "7 brides for 1 brother"??? Didn't Pres. Hinkley make that joke in Conference once? (hyperbole here, folks....don't head to your Ensign shelf to find the reference) And this makes Cami cry? 2. I did actually love the pointed shot of Cami drinking a decaffeinated Coke. She's prudish *and* edgy at the same time :-) (for those without a Utah background: the truly prudish would eschew any form of the evil drink...and by prudish I do mean conservative because some of my best friends would rather smoke a cigarette than drink a Coke and I still love them. And they still love me (the sinner) while hating the sin.) Needless to say, I won't be seeking out The RM. Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: YOU HAVE WON - CALL NOW TO COLLECT Date: 07 Mar 2003 01:40:26 +0100 MAIN EVENT PROMOTIONS PTY LTD SYDNEY AUSTRALIA WHOS WHO PROMOTIONAL LIST SYDNEY AUSTRALIA PLEASE CALL SOPHIA RINALDI OR CAREY LANG ON 02 93103011 SYDNEY AUSTRALIA YOU HAVE WON A DINNER DATE WITH A CELEBRITY MODEL THIS IS FOR REAL - VIP INVITE CALL ASAP TO ARRANGE YOUR PRIZE INTERNATIONAL NUMBER 0011 61 2 9690 0652 PLUS CALL LUKE SMITH RE THE WORLDS LARGEST HEDONISM EVENT SYDNEY AUSTRALIA HEDONISM 2004 02 9310 7044 MAJOR COUPLES/SINGLE EVENT SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PLUS 24 EROTIC EVENTS IN AUSTRALIA/SYDNEY FOR 2003 HURRY WHILST TICKETS LAST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report Fe. 28 03 Date: 04 Mar 2003 22:32:21 -0600 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 28, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 13 Final Destination 2 1,892,344 1,204 31 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 43,0030,540 27 Poolhall Junkies 301,856 179 3 301,856 54 The R.M. 37,943 14 31 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 471,548 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 57 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 35,307 10 752 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,095,268 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 61 Handcart 26,103 1 143 Kels Goodman (director/DP) 111,406 David Greenslaw Sapp (producer) Mark von Bowers (screenwriter) Eric M. Hanson (composer) Actors: Jaelan Petrie, Stephanie Albach Chris Kendrick, Shannon Skinner, Gretchen Condie 65 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 19,827 4 1032 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,025,965 78 Jack Weyland's Charly 7,684 12 157 Adam Anderegg (director) 775,742 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 84 Galapagos 4,171 5 1221 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,945,214 92 China: The Panda Adventure 1,095 1 584 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,001,280 HANDCART FINISHES #1 IN PER THEATER INCOME - Kels Goodman's epic pioneer film Handcart had an exceptional weekend at the theater. Playing in only one theater, the film grossed $26,103, easily giving it the highest per-theater average posted this week by any movie playing nationwide, including big studio films with multi-million dollar ad campaigns as well as new films playing in only one theater. Handcart's nearest competitors were "The Lawless Heart" with $10,749 in one theater and "Fassbinder" with $9,804 in one theater. "Handcart" played only in Virginia this weekend, in the area where director Kels Goodman grew up, so there may have been something of a hometown crowd. But not to be dismissed is the large Latter-day Saint community in the area and the presence of Southern Virginia University (an independent Latter-day Saint college). The film's attendance was no doubt boosted by Kels speaking at Southern Virginia University and at a bi-stake fireside. "Handcart" will continue to play in the area for a couple more weeks, and several youth groups are planning to go during the week, so the movie's total box office gross will continue to climb. Also worth noting, the weekend's take brought Handcart's box office total to $111,406, which means it finally broke the $100,000 mark, and also means it is no longer on the bottom of the Christian market box office total chart. A Protestant movie, "The Ride" (1997), is now the lowest grossing movie on that chart. "Handcart" has moved up to be second from the bottom. Handcart's theatrical run will be concluded soon, and it probably will not climb up another notch on that chart. It probably will not surpass "Mercy Streets" (2000), which has a total box office gross of $173,599. However, plans are in the works for the film to hit Dallas and Las Vegas before moving into distribution via DVD and video. The Christian market box office chart is at: http://www.adherents.com/movies/christian_box.html Also, "Jack Weyland's Charly" continues to go head to head with "Time Changer", also currently playing in theaters. The two movies are only within about $3,000 of each other. And the production budget and P/A for both is believed to be roughly the same. Quite a contest. Handcart's strong showing in Virginia was also helped by a very positive article in the Times-Dispatch, a Richmond, Virginia area newspaper. The article touches upon Goodman's background, the historical background for the movie, and the film's distribution. If you are interested in the subject of independent film distribution and promotion, definitely read this article, which can be found here: http://homes.timesdispatch.com/flair/MGB5UWAEPCD.html * * * PRESS RELEASE: JSI CREATIVE ANNOUNCES COMPLETION OF "ROADSHOW!" SCRIPT - From a press release from JSI Creative: J. Scott Iverson, writer, producer and owner of JSI Creative, today announced the completion of his latest, LDS-themed, full-length motion picture screenplay, ROADSHOW! The storyline follows members of the Yorgason family during the production of the "Gilmer Park Ward" roadshow in the summer of 1965 - a time of war, personal turmoil and new assaults on family values, which arose during that decade. The screenplay celebrates the LDS roadshow genre and creative process, which draws from events in people's lives and weaves them into works of art: sometimes simple, sometimes profound; always impactful on the lives of those who participated in the act of creation. ROADSHOW! contains both dramatic and comedic elements that will appeal to a broad range of moviegoers. "We were able to weave excerpts of an actual roadshow from the era into the script, which give it a much more authentic feel," said Iverson. "And while the roadshow production is important to the story, the central theme is how each of us must endure the hardships life throws at us to gain our own personal testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." The film is currently in the financing and development stage. Iverson, perhaps best known for his story credit on the ever-popular LDS film, Mr. Krueger's Christmas, starring Jimmy Stewart, as well as his Emmy and Iris Award-winning kids' TV series, ZiNj-TV, recently served as Vice President of Acquisitions, Development and Productions for Bonneville Worldwide Entertainment. More information on JSI Creative is available at: http://www.jsicreative.com * * * SMOOT MILESTONES - "Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man" passed $15 million mark while "China: The Panda Adventure" passed $3 million mark this weekend. Both films feature Reed Smoot as the cinematographer. Last weekend, another Smoot film, "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure" passed the $14 million mark. All told, films with Reed Smoot as the cinematographer have grossed over $420 million in the U.S. -- and this only includes those films where gross receipt totals are available. As a large number of his films are IMAX films, many of which do not report box office totals, it can be assumed that the actual total may be much higher even. AML AWARDS FOR FILM - "Roots & Wings", written by Agustina Perez and directed by Christian Vuissa, has been awarded the AML Award for Film. This award has only been given once before -- to Richard Dutcher's "God's Army." The AML Awards prestigious, juried awards given each year by the Association for Mormon Letters only to works of literature (and some film) which exhibit artistic excellence and contribute significantly to Mormon Arts and Letters. Awards are not given in a given category if the AML finds that no works during the year merit receiving an AML award. Last year no Film Award was given for works released in 2001. Editorial note: We have seen "Roots and Wings" and feel that it is very deserving of this high honor. More information can be found on the AML website: http://www.aml-online.org Also honored by AML this year: "Out of Step", directed by Ryan Little, and "The Snell Show", directed by Andrew Black, were cited for Honorable Mention in the film category. "Charly" screenwriter Gilbert was given an AML Award for Film Adaptation. POOLHALL JUNKIES - "Poolhall Junkies" opened in a fairly wide "limited release" this weekend, grossing $301,856 in 179 theaters, good enough for the #27 spot nationwide on the total gross chart. Mars Callahan was the writer, director and star of the movie. The biggest name actor in the movie is probably Christopher Walken. The 5th-billed star in the movie is Rick "Is he or isn't he?" Schroder (star of "Silver Spoons" and couple seasons of "NYPD Blue"). The movie was filmed in Salt Lake City, and features such Utah and/or Latter-day Saint actors as Frank Gerrish ("Brigham City") and Shannon Engemann ("Wildest Dreams"). As for whether he is or isn't, we think we know, but we're not saying. POOLHALL JUNKIES REVIEWS - Salt Lake Tribune gives it 2 out of 4 stars. The movie will still be opening in many additional markets, but as of this writing, RottenTomatoes.com currently has counted 22 reviews and shows a 22% positive rating for it. Slant Magazine and a couple of others gave it largely positive reviews. Deseret News reviewer Jeff Vice didn't like "Poolhall Junkies" very much. Quoting from his review: "...the cinematic equivalent of a train wreck... Because the film was almost completely shot in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas, it's an embarrassment for Utah as well... Perhaps the film's only saving grace is that it's overwhelmingly hilarious in its ineptitude... The film's four-letter-word-peppered, tough-guy dialogue pegs it for what it is: another Quentin Tarantino wanna-be, albeit one that's nearly 10 years too late." If you actually read his review or watched his show, you know that Ebert gave "Poolhall Junkies" a somewhat tepid "thumbs up." In his Chicago Sun-Times column he gave it 3 out of 4 stars. Ebert said: "One of the things I like best about 'Poolhall Junkies' is its lack of grim desperation. Its characters know that pool is a game and do not lead lives in which every monent is a headbutt with fate... 'Poolhall Junkies' has big moments of inspiration, like the Walken speech and a couple of other monologues. It has movie-fan moments... There is an innocence at work here that reminds me of young Sylvester Stallone... Did I feel afterward as if I had been dragged through the blood and grime of the mean streets? No, but I felt like I had a good time at the movies." GLORIA FILM FESTIVAL - This is a reminder that submission deadlines for the Gloria Film Festival are March 15th, only about 11 days away. If you haven't submitted your film but have been planning to do so, please do so soon. Also, there are still opportunities to serve as a volunteer. Remember this is a VERY family-friendly and faith-friendly film festival. Last year's winners include Mark Goodman's "Someone Was Watching" feature and Scott Tiffany's "Forgotten Voyage" documentary. See http://www.gloriafilmfest.org/ for more information. ECKHART MAY STAR IN PAYCHECK - Latter-day Saint actor Aaron Eckhart is in talks and favored to co-star with Ben Affleck in "Paycheck." Directed by John Wo, the director of "Mission: Impossible II" and "Broken Arrow", both filmed partially in Utah. The sci fi action film based on a story by Philip K. Dick is looking at an April 3 start date, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "Paycheck" would be Eckhart's 3rd movie with Paramount, after the sci fi drama "The Core" and the recently wrapped New Mexico-filmed thriller "Suspect Zero." Set in the future, "Paycheck" is about on a man (Affleck) who has had part of his memory erased as he begins to find clues to what he has been doing for the past two years. Eckhart would play the second-billed role of Rethrick, a man who persuades Jennings to give up two years of his life. The script was adapted by Dean Georgaris ("Tomb Raider 2") from Philip K. Dick's story. The last Philip K. Dick adaptation to hit the screens was "Minority Report," directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Latter-day Saint movie producer Jerry Molen. For the record, Philip K. Dick's story "Paycheck" does NOT have any LDS characters or Utah references, although about half of of Philip K. Dick's books DO have Latter-day Saint characters or references to Utah. PKD stories/books with Latter-day Saint and/or Utah references include: The Game-Players of Titan; Puttering About in a Small Land; The Broken Bubble; Time Out of Joint; In Milton Lumky Territory; Deus Irae; The Game-Players of Titan; Valis; Radio Free Albemuth; "Orpheus with Clay Feet"; The Dark-Haired Girl; The Man in the High Castle; Ubik; "The War with the Fnools"; Time Out of Joint; The Golden Man; The Zap Gun; The Penultimate Truth; "Precious Artifact"; Now Wait for Last Year; Our Friends From Frolix 8; Mary and the Giant; The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. But PKD himself was a faily active Episcopalian. In fact, he frequently wrote extensively about his visits to his Episcopalian clergyman. "Paycheck" doesn't really refer to any religious groups, except for an oblique reference to the Catholic Church. AVID EDITORS NEEDED - We have been asked to forward the following request: We are a busy production company looking for freelance AVID editors. If you know of anyone looking for work will you please e-mail Tyler Measom at tyler@telosproductions.com, or have them e-mail Tyler his/her resume ASAP. Thank You. Telos Productions 1 East Center Street Suite #300 Provo, UT 84606 Ph: 801-852-8356 Fax: 801-373-4243 DESERET NEWS ON RACHEL KIMSEY - Article in Deseret News about Latter-day Saint actress Rachel Kimsey, who is currently starring as "Daphne" in the nationally touring stage production "Scooby-Doo in Stagefright Live on Stage" Kimsey previously had major roles in Clay Essig's independent film "Fortune Cookie" and the Disney movie "Don't Look Under the Bed." SAMUELSEN AT THE AML CONFERENCE - Deseret News article reporting in BYU drama professor and frequent commentator on/critic of LDS Cinema Eric Samuelsen's address at last weeks Association for Mormon Letters conference. Samuelsen discusses "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and compares the movie to LDS movies such as "The R.M.", "Singles Ward", "Charly." Samuelsen thought "his ideas went over big at the Mormon Letters conference." According to the article, Samuelsen "wasn't intending to write a screenplay when he began his scholarly paper, but the response now has him considering it." Samuelsen has written critically acclaimed stage plays. He has received the AML Award for drama three times: for "The Way We're Wired", "Gadianton" and "Accommodations: a Play in Three Acts ." AMERICAN IDOL: VOTE TONIGHT - Last week, it was announced on the TV show "American Idol" that Carmen Rasmussen, a 17-year-old from Bountiful, Utah, was brought back to the show after being cut from the top 200 or so. She was chosen as one of the judges' nine favorites to be on the "wild card" show next week. The top four from those on that show will be placed in the Top Twelve. In her profile on idolonfox.com, she says that she is "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The "American Idol" episode featuring Rasmussen aired on Tues. Mar. 4 at 8 PM/7 central on Fox. Simon didn't like her performance much, and neither did Paula Abdul or Randy. But it's the votes that count! For two hours after the show (9-11/8-10 central), America was able to vote for the contestants by calling the toll-free number. The results show were shown the next day, on Wed. Mar. 5 at 8:30 PM/7:30 central (which is tomorrow). Detailed articles about Rasmussen were published in the Utah County Daily Herald, BYU Daily Universe, Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune. CHRISTENSEN'S LATEST FILM SCREENED - Legendary filmmaker T.C. Christensen screened his latest film, the short film "A Pioneer Miracle" (14 min.) to a by-invitation-only audience on Tuesday, Feb. 25th. LDSFilm.com representatives were invited but due to prior obligations we were regrettably unable to attend the screening, which took place at the North Visitors Center on Temple Square. The film stars Caitlin E.J. Meyer ("Littl Secrets) and the production designer was Darin Andersen ("Handcart", "Y2K"). Christensen is the director of numerous Church films, including the new "The First Vision" and Kirtland Visitors Center films, as well short films such as the beautifully filmed "The Touch of the Master's Hand" and the classic "The Pump." He has directed the direct-to-video feature films "Bug Off!" (which is hilarious, and a wonderfully made low-budget movie) and "The Penny Promise" (which I haven't seen). But Christensen is better known as a Director of Photography, and has shot more than 50 Church films, IMAX films and other films. ACTORS ACADEMY - We are forwarding the following notice. We have no additional information about the event or the Actor's Academy, but contact information is provided for those with questions. The Actor's Academy OPEN HOUSE Thurs. March 6th 6-9 p.m. Join the class and see our works in progress. Audition for the Spring '03 workshop. 5282 S. 320 W. B-227, SLC Cedar Park Complex. B-228 faces freeway. 801-392-1973 Rick Macy, Director/Instructor 801-969-8764 Dawn Kalana, Assistant [Macy, as you already know, is one of Utah's most prolific screen actors, and has had starring or supporting roles in films such as Someone Was Watching, Little Secrets, Bug Off!, Brigham City, Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd, Message in a Cell Phone, Return to the Secret Garden, and Secret of Treasure Mountain. Kalana was one of the producers of "Out of Step."] * * * FROM MICHELLE WRIGHT AT ACTION ACTOR'S STUDIO: For all actors, Utah is the third biggest state for film production. We have a Hallmark film coming soon and a SAG Feature Film that I will be casting - also, "Ecto" is casting this week for their project - and I just sent out 4 audition notices to those on my casting database. TMACCESS - 27 Feb. 2003: FORUM: The BYU Animation Program presents TOM SITO, Animation director of "Osmosis Jones" and former President of the Animation Union, who will be discussing the state of the animation inustry on Friday, Feb. 28 from 1-3 p.m. in the MOA Auditorium. Tom's credits include: The Lion King, Aladdin, The Prince of Egypt, Antz, Shrek, and Spirit. Final Cut 2003: Mini DV are due March 3. Contact Roxanna Boyer with questions. Final Cut 2003 will be held March 18-22. Long venues will be shown separately but will not be judged. Brad Barber's "Troy through a Window" wil be presented at a special one-time screening at the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake (876 E. 900 S.) on Saturday afternoon, March 1, at 1 p.m. Admission is $5 cash or check and there will be a Question and Answer session to follow. The film explores a Latter-day Saint family's attempt at understanding the homosexuality of one of its members. Final Cut 2002 DVDs are available to students for a $5 donation to the Dean's discretionary fund. Donations will be matched 5 times by outside donors. Your $5 becomes $30! Donations accepted in the TMA Office, D-581 HFAC. Student Production Agency is looking for production crew members for current and future projects. Contact Juston Rindlesbach is interested (378-8454). Production Assistants needed at the Waterford Institute in Sandy, Utah, to help with video production over the next two months. For information, contact Kelly Fisher at 801-576-4981 or email kelly.fisher@waterford.org. Park City Television is producing a new show called Wild Wild Sports and are looking for Wild Sports Videos, Extreme Sports, Videos of Crashes or Bloopers, Fun Sports and most any Action Sports Video that are professionally shot and edited. Call 435-649-0045 with questions. 2003 Pearl Awards is accepting applications for interns in Camera/Video, Audio, Lighting, Set/Production Design, Production, and Post-production. Find out more info from Elizabeth in D-581. "The Collectors" will be holding auditions on March 1 from noon to 6 p.m. in the American Fork Library (64 S. 100 E., American Fork). This is a low budget martial arts film written and directed by John Lyde. Looking for actors and fighters to participate in the film. For more information, go to www.jklentertainment.com * * * SUMMARY OF ARTICLE IN CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL ABOUT LDS CINEMA - There is a great 3-page article about LDS Cinema in the Protestant-run Christian Research Journal, Vol. 25, Number 2, in the News Watch section beginning on page 6. The article begins by recounting how ads for "The Other Side of Heaven" appeared in Protestant-run publications, such as San Diego's "Southern California Christian Times" and 3 other Southern California papers owned by Exalt Inc. The ads featured pictures of Latter-day Saint missionaries, but didn't explicitly identify that the movie was about Latter-day Saints. Some readers complained to the publication after going to see the movie and finding out it was about Latter-day Saints. (The article doesn't mention this, but according to letters to these publications, other readers went to the movie and loved it). The Christian Times apologized for running the ad, and said they would check out movie ads more carefully in the future. The article in the Christian Research Journal goes on with comments from an interview they conducted with "Other Side of Heaven" director Mitch Davis. Davis points out, "One of my specific desires was to make an ecumenical film. We don't preach any Mormon doctrines, although we make it clear that he's a Mormon missionary." Davis points out that when he was growing up many of his closest friends were evangelicals, and he says that he thinks relations will improve between Latter-day Saints and Protestants over the next few decades: "We will look back on this era [of bigotry from Evangelicals toward Latter-day Saints] with as much disdain and disgust as we look back on the treatment of blacks in the South." The article also quotes Mary Jane Jones, P.R. person at Excel Entertainment: "While 'The Other Side of Heaven' does tell the story of one missionary of a particular faith, the experiences he has and the lessons he learns are accessible to all people. This movie is no more a Mormon film that 'The Mission' was a Catholic film." The article points out that "The Other Side of Heaven" garnered a positive review from www.PreviewOnline.org, an online film review service distributed through Gospelcom.net and other Protestant sources. There are more comments from Davis about how he tried to depict Protestants in his movie positively, and how the movie's lead character has universal problems that Protestants can relate to. The article then quotes Bill McKeever, a representative of an anti-Mormon hate group called Mormon Research Ministry. McKeever says: "While I would defend anyone's right to produce a film taht is favorable to his or her worldview, there is a problem with how this film is being marketed. Whoever was in charge of the promotion of the film was very determined to makeit difficult for the general public to know of its Mormon themes. Some might call that good marketing strategy; however... I just can't help but think that this was a bit of, for lack of a better word, deception." Whatever. Since the day the movie was announced a websearch would have found ample information on LDSFilm.com that the movie was written, produced, and directed by Latter-day Saints, and that it is also about a Latter-day Saint missionary. The article further quotes Davis, who says he doesn't regret taking out the ads, but he regrets how those people reacted. Davis says, if people reject the film because of its sympathetic portrayal toward Latter-day Saints, "that's just 100 percent bigotry, and there's no other way to describe it... If I had one wish, it would be that we focus less on who is right and more on what is right." Then the article features a detailed description of Excel Entertainment Group, the biggest name in independent LDS music and film distribution. It describes how Jeff Simpson formed the company. The article also talks about how Simpson has managed to distribute Protestant-made CDs and videos to LDS bookstores. The article has much more about Simpson, and Excel, and then discusses Richard Dutcher, and how he came to make "God's Army." And there's quite a bit about "God's Army" and "Brigham City." The writer of the article seems to like "Brigham City" quite a bit, but had theological difficulties with "God's Army." The article says that "God's Army" was pretty negative toward Evangelicals. I didn't think it was, but it points out that one of the most negatively portrayed characters (according to the article's writer) is Elder Kinegar, who reads anti-Mormon hate literature published by Evangelicals, and then slinks off into the night and "eventually slinks off into the night and abandons his mission." The article talks about Dutcher's movie "Prophet," and says that one of it's major characters is apostate Latter-day Saint Robert Foster, and describes what Foster did. More quotes from interviews with Dutcher, then the article says: "Despite [Dutcher's] clear theological differences with evangelical Christians, Dutcher believes niche filmmaking could be a means of dialogue between evangelicals and Mormons. 'There seems to be a real bridge there that people don't even try to cross. I see some of the bigger Christian films out there and find myself just wishing that they had caled me for help on their script,' he says, citing the multiply flawed 'Omega Code' as an example. 'If we could share work with one another, I think it would be mutually beneficial.'" Which is a nice way of saying that Dutcher thinks "Omega Code" and most of the other Christian market films such as "Left Behind" stink. Which they do, and most Evangelical writers also think they stink. To be fair, Dutcher also thinks that many of the LDS Cinema films stink as well, although newspapers have quoted him saying that he likes "Out of Step" a lot and that he likes "The Other Side of Heaven" more and more now that he's seen other movies in the niche. Really, I thought it as a well-written, interesting article. I didn't find the article offensive, although it dealt with some potentially prickly subjects. [Many thanks to Mary Jane Jones of Excel Entertainment for letting us know about this article. The opinions and synopsis expressed here are totally those of LDSFilm.com.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Correction: Handcart's box office weekend Date: 05 Mar 2003 07:25:02 -0600 We previously reported that Handcart had a box office gross of $26,103 in one theater last weekend. Actually, it's box office gross was $2,613. The $26,103 appeared on both www.the-numbers.com and boxofficemojo.com, our main sources of box office data. But apparently there was an extra zero in there. This means that "Handcart" was NOT the #1 movie in the country on the per-theater charts. - LDSFilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 05 Mar 2003 16:49:23 -0500 Jacob Proffit said: > >If that's your definition of art, then sure. But I think that's a pretty >silly definition of art. By that definition, books aren't art. Theater >isn't art. I dare you to frame the last performance of "The Way We're >Wired" tonight. Frankly, a lot of modern art is stuck in parks or looming >over multi-story office lobbies. Frankly, the frame of a computer monitor >stacks up better than any frames for those do. Did Dutcher frame "God's >Army"? Are you going to say there's no art there? Your definition removes >the term "art" from anything we can discuss on this list. > >Jacob Proffitt > > But the "frame" isn't a physical box made of wood. In the Zappa passage, the example he gave of a frame was just a spoken sentence, "I'm going to gargle juice and that's my composition," or something like that. So, yes, "God's Army" can be framed framed ("A movie about missionaries, and that is the composition"), "The Way We're Wired can be framed ("A play about Single Adults"), and your programs can be framed. By that definition, anything can be an art. You could say, "I'm going to pick my nose, and that's art," and people might not like it, but they couldn't use Frank Zappa's definition to argue with you. However, using Oscar Wilde's definition of all art as "quite useless", then picking your nose could not be art because there is a purpose, namely clearing your nasal passages of those pesky boogers. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] William BUCKLEY, _How the Right Was Won_ Date: 05 Mar 2003 14:56:54 -0700 Listers familiar with William F. Buckley Jr., of National Review, Robert = Welch, founder of the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand, author of _Atlas = Shrugged_ may be interested in Buckley's new book _How the Right Was Won_. Here = is a paragraph from the review that I read in NR. =20 "The story begins with Woodroe Raynor, a Mormon from Utah who upon = finishing Princeton becomes a spokesman for the John Birch Society. = Along the way he meets comely Leonora Goldstein, the daughter of Jewish = immigrants, who earns a job doing paperwork for Ayn Rand after reading = _Atlas Shrugged four times_. Becoming disenchanted with their = respective idols, they fall out of favor with Welch and Rand, fall in = with the National Review crowd, and also fall in love, thereby joining = anti-Communism and libertarianism in romance just as NR did in = politics." The Mormon character Woodroe was drawn to Welch because he had witnessed = firsthand the Communist conspiracy while a missionary in Eastern Europe. = The Jewish character Leonora "found voice in Rand to the reasons that = her parents had uprooted their family to come to a land of boundless = opportunity." =20 Buckley knows how to write fiction. This book should be a historical = romp. Nan McCulloch=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] re: _The Way We're Wired_ Date: 05 Mar 2003 16:16:55 -0700 Can't tell you how great it is to have The Nauvoo Theatrical Society = presenting meaningful LDS plays. I have heard all positive comments = from the friends that I have sent to see the play. Having been an LDS = single for a couple of years when I was 48, I relate to the scene. = Being an older single has its own special challenges. I have written = extensively about what it was like in my personal history (some of it = poignant and some of it humorous). In my case, things turned out well. = I married a bishop and found him to be the love of my life. At the time = we married, we had both been through the refiners fire and neither of us = were looking (I had stopped looking and he just wanted freedom after = lovingly caring for a wife with MS for 17 years.) This is the third = Eric Samuelsen play I have seen about singles. He seems to have an = affinity for the subject. The play was good, well directed and I liked = the set and the characters. Scott Bronson was great as Andy and Lynne = Bronson was very appealing as Katie. Thanks to Thom and Scott and = others for making this possible. Keep on writing and producing good = plays. As I said, if you write them and produce them I will come. =20 Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 05 Mar 2003 19:43:06 -0800 Actually this definition preceded Frank Zappa. I have not been able to find the original source, but I have been teaching that basic concept for forty years. I believe I cadged it from GB Shaw but I am not sure. It may well have been from one of my graduate school professors. I am still sorting through notes, texts etc., but when one retires as thoroughly as I retired one frequently donates to the university library, Department reading room or local charter school all of the information that one later wants to search out. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bryan Loeper" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 05 Mar 2003 22:25:26 -0500 What of classics such as _The Princess Bride_ and _Monty Python_? They had an even more tenuous hold on reality than what I've heard about _RM_, but yet noone is upset that they never could happen. [Bryan Loeper] > >Also, don't forget that it *is* a comedy, not a realism piece. This implies that comedies don't have to be believable. But the best comedies are always based on reality exaggerated for comedy sake. Farces don't have to be believable but again, there are rules for farces which was must also be followed. From what I've read, The _RM_ doesn't appear to be a farce. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Value of Fairy Tales Date: 05 Mar 2003 21:11:29 -0700 On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > So I guess it all depends upon what you see the point being. Disney > certainly isn't being completely true to some of the archetypes or > psychology. However one could argue that no story ought to be beholden > to such matters. Further in real life most fears aren't fully > realized. > Typically we have friends and also have the opportunity to try and > correct our mistakes. Is a myth or story somehow more true because it > only deals with worst case scenarios? One could even say that the > whole > point of community and the atonement is to try and help keep > consequences from being too brutal. So perhaps the fairy tales were > much more true in a day and age when there were few safety nets and > even > your family had few resources? > I disagree and think the "original versions" are truer and more useful to children than to literal minded adults. They are a way of dealing with fear, not invoking it. Example: The big bad wolf eats the first two little pigs and only the 3rd and wisest escapes. How horrible? How terrifyingly violent? Nope. Kids aren't interpreting this literally; this is a story about a child who tries a couple of times and fails, but learns from his/her failures and finally succeeds. Bruno Bettelheim has more to say about this much better than I can say it in his book "The Uses of Enchantment." This is also why I worry about policies such as Deseret Books recent announcement to "clean house" of any impure--by whatever standard they determine--books, or stories where we don't get a nasty reward for our deviance. Stories function on many different levels. When the metaphor of the piggies representing something else comes into play--we are moving into the realm of art and a spiritual (with small "s") story or experience. There is a reason these stories get told and retold through the generations even though the tellers aren't always aware. And there is a reason kids ask for them to be told again. Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: Validity of Memory Date: 05 Mar 2003 13:20:08 -0800 Here's a theory: All writing is fiction. Kari Heber began a fascinating topic string by asking about the validity = of memory and its impact on non-fiction. "How much should I believe when = I read any form of literature that is primarily based on memory," she = asks, among other things. And Kim Madsen quoted Judith Freeman saying = that all her stories are fiction, even the autobiographical ones. Then = Th. Jepson mused on the application of memory and fictionalized = inventions (artistic liberty) upon memoir and strictly non-fiction = literature.=20 Of course, I've already given away my own opinion on the subject with my = little sound-bite above: All writing is fiction. Here's another theory: All good fiction is true. It begs the question: What is truth? I suppose if we are asking if memory in and of itself is sufficient to = recreate an accurate representation of reality, the question becomes: is = "reality" truth? Or is truth a more nebulous concept surrounding and = erupting from experience. Then, we are forced to ask, what is "reality." = Is memory ever actually "real"? Is experience of any kind, even in the = moment, actually real? Which brings us to Kari Heber's final question: = "Should it even matter [how accurate literature is when it is based on = someone's memory] since what they are relating is their perception, = whether factually accurate or not?" (emphasis added) Heber's question is very astute and thought-provoking. If writing, in any genre, fiction or non-fiction, is a quest for the = attainment or the understanding of some form of truth (objective, = subjective, experiential, didactic -- whatever) then the nature of = language itself, and how the brain establishes memory, coordinates its = retrieval through the various symbolic methods such as sensory memory, = language memory, emotional memory, etc., any question about memory and = art eventually takes us into the physiology of the brain and the = philosophy of consciousness, two huge and fascinating topics which tend = to animate scientists more than artists, but apply to the artist just as = well. My late, great teacher, Tad Danielewski (whom many of you may have known = from his time at the Y in the 1980's) taught acting, writing and = directing very much from the standpoint of fusing explorations into the = science of human experience with explorations in the artistic = representations of the same. He had us reading books about memory, = emotions, and at the very end of his life, before leaving this mortal = coil under the ravages of cancer, had us looking into particle physics = - all on a quest to make us better actors! The topic has continued to fascinate me all of my life, particularly = since my youngest son, Arjan, suffered massive brain injury during a = bout with a virulent Group B Streptococcal meningitis. Learning about = the brain, neurology, memory, perception, has all suddenly become more = than an actor's hobby: it suddenly has visceral application in my real = world. But again, what is that real world? Th. Jepson talks about his struggle with writing non-fiction literature. = "I included dialogue and detail," he says, "That, quite frankly, I can't = be sure are true. I wasn't carrying a tape recorder about with me for = later transcription." Of course, all of us, whether writing non-fiction = or fiction, have confronted the same dilemma. But in that sentence, = "true" means simply "factually accurate"; he later goes on to suggest = what I also believe, that there is a greater Truth (can I give it a = capital "T"?) that rises above factual accuracy.=20 Non-fiction, in the form of Memoir is certainly different than objective = History. Journalists and scholars have a more difficult issue as they = approach this blurry line of demarcation than do what I shall call = "Non-Fictionists," writers of what might be defined by this list a = "belletristic" (a term which got a lot of flack recently! - I don't want = to get into that, but stick to the nature of memory). I just read an applicable quote from Mark Twain, featured in Wendy = Lesser's book on memory and remembrance with respect to literature = "Nothing Remains The Same: Rereading and Remembering" (Houghton Mifflin, = 2002). Twain quips in a letter to William Dean Howells in 1887: "People pretend = that the Bible means the same to them at 50 that it did at all former = milestones in their journey. I wonder who they can lie so. It comes of = practice, no doubt.Nothing remains the same. When a man goes back to = look at the house of his childhood, it has always shrunk: there is not = instance of such a house being as big as the picture in memory and = imagination calls for. Shrunk how? Why, to its correct dimensions: the = house hasn't altered, this is the first time it has been in focus. Well, = that's loss. To have house and Bible shrink so under the disillusioning = corrected angle is loss - for a moment. But there are compensations. You = tilt the tube skyward and bring planets and comets and corona flames a = hundred and fifty thousand miles high into the field. Which I see you = have done and found Tolstoi. I haven't got him in focus yet but I've got = Browning." Twain, while comic, also brilliantly addresses the issue at hand.=20 Now, if I as a non-fiction writer am attempting to convey the Truth of = the childhood house, especially if I am attempting to write the truth = from the perspective of the child, trying to put the reader into the = mind and life and memory of the child (his Truth), then I must expand = the house. I must make it as big as it was in memory. Now, that house, = the childhood one is not actually true, is it? Small "t" this time: = factually actuate truth. But it is perfectly accurate to the child. And = that, for the sake of art, for the sake of the function of literature in = our lives, is the Truth. Now if I'm writing the straight history or dry = biography, I have to say, the house was so big and no more: truth. But = non-fiction allows us to explore subjectively accurate fiction, which is = True (capital "T"), as far as human perception and experience go. We all know memory is inherently faulty when it comes to factual = accuracy. But this is the way we human beings are wired (to steal Eric's = line!). And the more that I learn about the brain, the more I realize = that it is absolutely essential that it is so. Memory must not be so = dryly accurate, and it must be deeply intermeshed with the experience of = emotion, or we would not survive. We cannot be Vulcans, truly, it would = kills us. And if I am correct, and memory and emotion are inextricably = bound, then suddenly we, as artists, have our reason for being, and = perhaps our fictions are more important (or at least as important) in = the life of the soul as any factual experience (which is absolutely = subjective anyway). It is also interesting to note, among those authors such as Norman = Mailer, who really do carry tape recorders around with them and really = do offer us long, verbatim transcriptions of interviews, phone = conversations, letters, etc., how very often they are infinitely more = powerful and moving as writers (and therefore more effective?) when they = break from that form and more freely "interpret" the events. I'm = thinking of Harlot's Ghost, for example, a Mailer tome of about 800 = pages of transcription and 200 pages of pure fiction: the fiction sings = and is masterful; the other is snores-Ville. Then, of course, there is the issue of language itself, and the symbolic = conveyance of ideas. Jepson cites some wonderful examples from the Book = of Mormon to make his points, so I'll continue the same. BOM writers = complain about the clumsiness of their language in conveying ideas, = saying that their written symbols are more difficult and less able to = convey emotion, spirit (accuracy?) than their speech. Mormon notes that = for the Brother of Jared (writing in Adamic, I suppose), his writing was = as powerful as speech: to the overwhelming of a man to read them. The difference is not just their choice of words, not just their = choosing of which facts to include, which to ignore, what dramatic = license to take. This is a factor of the actual medium of communication, = the physical symbolic structure of the language involved.=20 So where does truth and memory come into play there? Is a love scene in = French more true than one in German? Of course the Book of Mormon is = true, but its writers wanted it to be Truer, and couldn't get it with = the tools they had, so it will have to do. The tools we have (memory, language) are inherently faulty and are = impossibly inaccurate for the conveyance of factual reality, which it = might also be argued, is subjective anyway, and can never be shared.=20 What can be shared, however, is a sufficiently congruent approach to a = common ground of reality, that both speaker and listener (reader and = writer) are edified. I would propose that this can be accomplished by the act of writing that = achieves that Truth with the capital "T", regardless of its actually = accuracy. Belletristic non-fiction has different goals than history and = to truly achieve its desired effect, must engage every tool in the = writer's arsenal, which will include dramatic license (Hemingway called = it "lying"!), and the use of memory, which is in and of itself a = subjective falsehood. So, as Heber concluded, or at least suggests with her question, perhaps = it does not matter. I know when I write non-fiction, I use memory, I also use notes, = journals, interview with others who were there, etc. But when it comes = down to the writing, I just let it flow. This is about experience and = emotion, the fluid river of memory itself, and readers know that it is = not exactly true, but they are looking for a different Truth. If they = experience something, in reading, that is recognizable to them, a shared = common ground in the field of memory, that childhood house, for example, = which, the moment Twain mentions it, we all know what he is talking = about, then that is REAL, and it genuinely does not matter that it is = factually accurate or not.=20 In my memoirs (I write a new installment annually of somewhere between = 15,000 and 30,000 words) I am saying, sometimes literally, always = metaphorically, that these are my memories, not that this is the = absolute truth. I certainly edit and abridge, share perceptions, = mistakes, misunderstandings, emotions, none of which are objectively = factual, but I certainly consider them True (or at least some portion of = the overriding Truth). And I think that audiences understand that.=20 Memory is not designed to be factually accurate, and we, as humans, are = not designed to receive factual accuracy with the same degree or = condition of common perception. In a way, everything we do is from = memory. Even if we have notes, tapes, transcripts, video, the act of = putting any of this into writing shapes it, shifts it, devolves it into = the realm of memory where it is digested, converted, spit out, = reabsorbed, re-digested, reconverted, each phase or pass or exchange = acting as a filter on reality, a mutable cone or wave of reality that = becomes subjectified regardless of accuracy or fact. In the end, it must = be memory, for that is all there is. So, my thoughts come full circle. I believe the act of writing something = automatically removes it from the arena of factual experience and places = it in the domain of subjective experience, and therefore: all writing is = a kind of fiction.=20 And yet, all really good fiction (be it disguised as memoir, = belletristic biography, non-fiction, essay, editorial, etc., or not) is, = by its quest, by its achievement of some connection with some portion of = its audience, by its frankness, by its discoveries, by its = hard-to-define quality which makes it work (at least for some) as "art": = then it has found Truth, or some portion thereof, and the details of = faulty memory have no relevance. So we must seek Truth in memoir, and we must seek Truth in fiction. As = an act of transforming ethereal experience into the medium of writing, = both memoir and fiction are fiction. But if you do it well: both of them = are True. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: Programming as Art Date: 05 Mar 2003 00:42:55 -0800 Jacob Profitt's comments about the recently proffered Zappa definition = of art motivated a number of responses in my mind. Actually, I was less = concerned with taking a side on the debate in question, than in = responding to the actual internal logic of the argument as such. The = post states: > If that's your definition of art, then sure. But I think that's a = pretty > silly definition of art. By that definition, books aren't art. = Theater > isn't art. I dare you to frame the last performance of "The Way We're > Wired" tonight. Frankly, a lot of modern art is stuck in parks or = looming > over multi-story office lobbies. Frankly, the frame of a computer = monitor > stacks up better than any frames for those do. Did Dutcher frame = "God's > Army"? Are you going to say there's no art there? Your definition > removes the term "art" from anything we can discuss on this list. Obviously the concept of a "frame" around art is a metaphorical one, but = there's also some pretty obvious literal "frames" that might have been = missed by these comments. For example, with respect to live theatrical performances, I think that = the proscenium arch is one of the biggest physical "frames" there is! = The proscenium arch is a huge, literal frame. It's not even a = metaphorical one, such as the very good example Thom Duncan later = mentioned. The physical proscenium arch is so visible in fact, and such = a literal frame around the physical space of the play, that it is = understood to be one of the "conventions" of theater about which we must = specifically suspend our disbelief, a category which also includes = curtains, lights, the programs we hold in our hands and use as fans, = etc. This precise question (the physical conventions of the stage that = pull us out of the created reality and which partially require our = suspension of disbelief) is studied in depth in various works on theater = history. To take another example, the post cites works of art that are "stuck in = parks or looming over...office lobbies". But in these cases (the = sculpture, for example) the pedestal is the "frame." And for a mobile or = hanging art, the string suspending it is the "frame." Other literal = spatial frames include the lawn around the art in the park, the wall of = the building, the architectural lobby space, etc. All are uniquely = crafted "frames". Finally, it is quite startling to mention books as being in a category = "without frames." This statement might cause us to overlook some of the = most obvious frame metaphors in our world: the page itself! Take, for = example, the white borders all the way around the words. A frame, no? = What about the covers on both sides of the book? Other conventions = abound: the titles; the advertisements: the entire industry which holds = the book up literally and metaphorically within about a dozen "frames." These conventions are not just figurative, they are literal. Any aspect = which sets the work apart from the surroundings can be considered a = frame. Zappa's "sound-bite" statement is so simple, punchy and seemingly = superficial, that it actually belies a very thought-provoking and = surprisingly inclusive definition of art.=20 Jacob worries that Zappa's definition might not allow us to discuss = anything as art on this list, but I would beg a reconsideration. While = it might not be the best definition, while we might argue that it is = even correct, it is certainly not limiting, but mind-bogglingly = inclusive. It just forces us to think about things a little more deeply = and from different directions. Which is, after all, one of the goals of = intellectual exchange. To continue the thought, Zappa's definition could certainly include = architecture, gardening, bonsai trees, flower arrangements, and on and = on. They are all very clearly "framed." It is ironic that Frank Zappa = came up with this interesting tid-bit, because I met his daughter Moon = Unit Zappa at a little party she threw in LA several years ago at a = little art gallery I frequented at the time. Her art was a collection of = amazingly detailed rag dolls which she had hand made and then placed = inside shadow boxes (their frames) and hung on the wall. Strange, = amazing, interesting. I liked them. They were out of my price range. = Sharon Stone bought one (apparently). Anyway, does this definition limit = us? No, it's very liberating, actually. Hilariously (or obnoxiously, I can't tell which) the post asks = rhetorically: "Did Dutcher frame "God's Army"? Of course he did! Every = shot was framed: physically, literally, meticulously, and with a great = deal of thought. Cinematographers actually use that word "framing"! = Actors ask "Am I in frame here or out of frame?" The gaffer yells, = "Dude, that 10K is in frame!" This word is used on set all of the time! = Nothing is more replete with "frame" metaphors than film itself, the act = of shooting it, then the act of projecting it. Consider that the physical medium of film must be projected through = frames (have you ever looked inside a projector? There is a little metal = square in there, a perfect little frame!); and then the image is = actually viewed on a giant screen (a frame) or a TV (which the post = brings up), which is obviously a frame.=20 Even the video box sitting on a shelf in the store is a tiny frame. A = neat package of speciality. Getting back to the ubiquitous boob-tube: of course the TV screen is a = frame. Perhaps it is the penultimate frame of our generation, for better = or for worse. However, in these cases, be it TV or computer, it is interesting to ask = ourselves, what is it that is "framed"? It is the ultimate result of the = work of the artist, but not necessarily the process or underpinnings of = the creation of that work. For example, a programmer creates code which creates, ultimately, the = image that is framed on the screen. But what is it that is being held up = (framed) as art? What is actually IN the frame? Is it the image created = by the function of the programmer's code, or the code itself? That is an interesting question. If I say a house is the architect's = art, are the framing timbers beneath the skin the art? Perhaps they are. = I am prepared to accept that programming is art, but I don't think this = thought has yet been conclusively defended or denied.=20 But Zappa's Frame Definition is certainly as interesting and = thought-provoking a concept as one could wish, and has certainly not = been exhausted. One axiom to the Frame Definition is that we are not, by this = definition, made party to the actual work which lead up to the art in = the frame. We are not typically not shown the bits of film on the = cutting room floor; we don't usually pay to see the first read-through; = we don't print all those awful, awful first drafts. These things are the = underpinnings of various modes of art which are eventually turned into = the result which we then "frame."=20 Does programming fulfill the role of stud within the wall? Is it the = wall itself? Is it both? This is an interesting debate, which I do not wish really to enter at = this time, but I must respectfully beg to differ that there are not both = literal and metaphorical "frames" which "surround" such things as = theatrical plays, books, statuary, etc., etc., etc. A careful discussion = of the concept of art should not ignore a deeper exploration of the = thought model proposed. Ultimately, I think, a discussion, or even if you want to call it an = "argument" (which I must define using the classic Monty Python = definition: "an argument is a connected series of statements intended to = establish a proposition". to which you then reply: "No it isn't!") must = follow the Golden Rule ("Do unto others.then split!). No obviously, you = want people to consider your ideas with the same respect and depth of = thought that they naturally want theirs considered with, even if you = ultimately end up disagreeing. So I must throw up a flag of caution when I hear someone calling someone = else's ideas or definitions as "silly." Perhaps it is silly, but to call = it such creates the responsibility in the caller of showing how it is = silly, of arguing the point with a connected series of statements = intended to establish the proposition of silliness. And this has not = been done by the post above, not even remotely.=20 A careful consideration of the Frame Definition, even a casual = consideration of it, reveals it to be quite interesting and actually far = from silly, but quite inclusive and deep. That does not mean we all have = to agree with this definition. But in attempting to refute the position = we should consider all sides of the issue. I guess I'm more interested = in saying that than anything else. Perhaps programming is art, but it needs to be argued carefully as such. = Every one of the examples used in the above post as being "art without = frames" can easily be argued to be well within the Frame Definition. And = perhaps programming will ultimately be shown to be within it, too.=20 At any rate, I think that none of us need fear that we will ever be at a = loss for things to discuss on this list, no matter what definition of = art we finally agree upon. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: [AML] Re: Little Mermaid Date: 05 Mar 2003 21:57:24 -0500 >> let's not bring up the urban legend of the castle resembling >> part of the male anatomy. > >I've never heard that one, and I never noticed such a comparison. I may >have to go back and look. It was just on the original video artwork, and for the record, the resemblance is accidental: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.htm There was another phallocentric "Little Mermaid" myth -- the minister in a wedding scene appeared, to a few overexcited prudes, to be a little too happy to see the bride and/or groom. But it was just his knee: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/minister.htm Eric D. Dixon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 05 Mar 2003 22:30:30 -0700 I've never heard/read such an interesting intro before. Makes me wonder how many other fascinating lurkers there are out there. C'mon...speak up... My favorite part was to Jeffrey Needle. "Get baptized, dammit" may be the new door approach of the 21st century now that they've done away with memorized discussions. I'm writing my son in Louisiana to suggest it to him right now. (He's depressed, finishing out his mission in heavily Cajuncatholic Lake Chuck, LA where he can buy fresh Gulf shrimp $15 pounds for $10, but investigators ain't to be had for love nor money. Hey, he might not make much headway in teaching the people, but he's gonna come home King of Gumbo.) Welcome, Jon. I can't believe you have an Italian sounding first name and a Book of Mo last. How cool is that? Kim Madsen, of the pedestrian first and last names. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] _Prodigal Journey_ on Clearance Date: 05 Mar 2003 23:05:04 -0600 Hi all, Due to a complex set of circumstances, I have managed to purchase the remaining 2000 copies of my book, _Prodigal Journey,_ and I'm very interested in recouping my investment as quickly as possible. I consider all of you my friends, and so I am offering AML-List members my "Friends & Family Discount" of $3.99 per copy plus actual shipping charges, for as many copies as you'd like to order. Contact me off-list if you're interested. (That way if nobody responds, no one has to publicly feel bad for me either! :->) I'll personalize and sign them however you want. I will also have a limited number of copies available to distribute free as review/promotional copies, but you have to promise to review or promote it somewhere! Just ask. Also, and more important for the list to know, I *AM* the *SOLE* [<--great big letters] rights owner at this point, therefore I am the ONLY person with the legal right to sell and distribute this work. I can't do much about what's currently stocked at bookstores, but in the future, all orders should be getting filled by yours truly. If any of you should hear of its being distributed or sold by any individuals or companies that do not trace directly back to me, I will sincerely appreciate being informed. There are just over 2000 copies left, which will arrive on my doorstep in Kansas City, I am told, sometime Tuesday the 11th. Yep, just my idea of a fun afternoon, unloading 83 boxes of books off a truck and finding somewhere to put them. I will not print this identical edition ever again, so this is it if you want a potential family heirloom! Here's hoping they won't end up as my 15-year emergency TP supply. If they do sell out, and I choose to print more on my own, it will go through an editorial overhaul, change format, and get an all-new cover. I am still searching for a NY agent and publisher to take over this series, reprint the book (maybe) and (at least) continue with the second. I have one solid lead on an agent, with a few others still out. Ace SF is also looking at it. The major LDS publishers didn't bite, busy with projects of their own. Cross your fingers for me! I also finally bought a domain name, so you may reach my website here: www.alyssastory.com (If you already have it bookmarked, don't worry about changing the bookmark, because the site hasn't moved. This is easier to tell your friends, that's all.) Thanks for all your support over the years. I truly could not have come even this far without your combined encouragement. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Re: _Little Mermaid_ Date: 05 Mar 2003 22:16:42 -0600 >I can see where Mr. Bronson is coming from on his cynical evaluation of >the Disney flick, but I guess I saw a different movie than he did. Nah, I saw Scott's version, too. Your analysis was interesting and different though, something to think about. >The redemption of her character comes when she realizes the grave mistake >of her choice and she goes about doing all in her power to set things right. . . . But in the original fairy tale, she died. No happily ever after. King Triton also insisted on secrecy from the humans because, don't forget, he's been watching the whalers and other brutalities at sea and he knows what most sea-going humans were like back then. If humans find out mermaids are real, they will be hunted, very likely to extinction. She endangered her whole society with her curiosity. What she was doing *was* incredibly dangerous, and his shallow response only made the situation worse. He should have sat down and had a calm, rational talk with her about what humans do to things they don't understand, and maybe this particular human is okay, but as a group, they're dangerous, and we don't want everything we have down here ruined by your romantic silliness. And if she still persisted, just give her the stupid old legs she wants and let her go. So it's as much a story about how *not* to parent as it is all the things Scott wrote. >I still have yet to hear of any special study or news report that teenage >rebellion is the direct result of kids watching The Little Mermaid I doubt that too. I refuse to own it, but my kids have all seen it, and it does have some classic fun parts. But my kids all, also, think Ariel was pretty stupid. >and let's not bring up the urban legend of the castle resembling part of >the male anatomy. Not a legend. I don't have my mother's VHS case available right now to prove it, but on the original edition cover, one of the spires definitely resembles, no, *is,* a large tall golden. . . yep, it's there. I imagine the newer-edition covers have taken care of the problem. I heard that happened due to a disgruntled employee. Anyway, I'm awfully tired and I hope I'm not as incoherent as I feel. The Little Mermaid has always been one of my pet peeves too, and not because I haven't given it any thought to it. Now if anyone wants to diss "Caillou" I'm game for that too. But I let my children watch it ; it's on three times a day and hard to avoid. But it's another interesting example of new-age let-the-child-win parenting that obviously has created a monstrously behaved four-year old. So I talk to my six-year old son about my goodness, what a tantrum. Wow, Caillou is really whiny, isn't he? (One of the reasons it's so annoying is that I hear enough of it all day without the television adding to it.) And I'd really like to know why the kid is bald. I have no idea. A young version of Charlie Brown? Everyone else on the show has hair. . . it's just a little creepy. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 05 Mar 2003 23:03:59 -0700 [MOD: I would like to revise Melissa's request. Michael: Please send your analysis TO THE LIST, with a clear label that there's a spoiler in process. This is completely appropriate AML-List fodder; I don't want to have it taken away from us! Waah!] On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:04:05 -0700, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Melissa Proffitt wrote: > >> For _Ender's Game_, maybe what it means >> is that readers with a certain level of reading experience picked up = on >> overly obvious clues, and other readers didn't. Of course, that = raises the >> question of whether it actually was done well as long as some readers = were >> surprised, but that's more philosophical than I want to get right now. > >But if the overly obvious clue was unnecessary and easily fixed, then=20 >that is a literary sin. I agree with you about this. What I'm getting at is how one determines whether it's a problem with the book or with the reader. Which is why = your further comment here: >I've tried to avoid mentioning specifics so I wouldn't make the problem=20 >worse for anyone who hasn't read the book yet, but I certainly can point= =20 >out exactly where the problem occurred. It was fixable by a very simple=20 >trick: remove the part completely--it added nothing beneficial to the=20 >book and could easily be cut. is so important, because it makes the analysis specific and not just a matter of one person's reading preferences and abilities. You should tell me privately what the relevant part is, so as not to = spoil anyone. I've always wondered about what people are seeing when they say they figured out the plot well in advance. Melissa Proffitt ----- English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other = languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head and goes through = their pockets for loose vocabulary. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 05 Mar 2003 23:16:22 -0800 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: >Memo: A Letter Of Introduction > > > Jon, Welcome to The List. I've enjoyed seeing you on the screen, and look forward now to hearing you on The Screen. (and a mutual acquaintance says Hi. Mary Kay Kelly xxxxx [junk ... can't remember her married name now ... sorry]) Anyway, welcome aboard. -Brent "BJ" Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 06 Mar 2003 07:45:28 -0700 Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > Personally, I don't think I'd say that the act of framing something makes it > art but I could go with the idea that the act of framing something indicates > that a person is attempting to create art. Whether or not one > succeeds....well we'll just keep arguing that one now won't we? Which I think is the foundation of this discussion. When is it art, and when is it merely pretention? The Art vs. Entertainment argument is an old one. One argument suggests that Entertainment isn't Art, though it may exhibit some art (artifice) in the way it's produced or presented. Entertainment may contain artistic elements, but it is entertainment after all, whereas Art is art because the producer frames it as such. I think there are some useful elements in that definition. It allows electrical engineers to earn a BA at some universities instead of a BS--the art of applying known science to issues of design is considered an art, though the finished products are rarely presented as Art. (Though for me looking at a microchip under a microscope is actually quite a moving experience that illustrates the grandeur of human imagination. There's an enormous elegance and even beauty to the way the functional design is visually rendered.) It seems like the basic question is who is allowed to call their work Art, and what validates that claim. Artists, like everyone else, want to claim a certain elite status. They want to close the doors against every juice gargler who claims creative regurgitation should be viewed as artistically equivalent to the Mona Lisa or the Taj Mahal. They want to protect their own status against the unwashed, the unititated, the uninvited. Tough question. I could argue that open source programmers are both technicians and artists because the nature of open source requires making both the uncompiled code and the binary available. It means you're explicitly exposing not just the finished functionality, but the *way* that functionality was created. It's a form of public performance--albeit for a small audience who isn't paying royalty to the creator. As opposed to proprietary coders whose code never reaches outside the private community of co-creators. Is it the royalty that makes a difference? The expectation that the artist is being paid for each and every performance by the viewer rather than some private patron? I'm not sure all programming is art, but some of it is offered as such. Which makes it no less artistic than an awful lot of what I see proudly proclaimed as art by painters, sculpters, performers, and authors around the world. Almost nothing as a class qualifies, but there are instances of pretty much everything that can and should be called art. Zappa's frame seems a little too easy to me. It only defines intent, not execution. In the end, I think the success of the execution matters--even if it means that many self-proclaimed artists suddenly find that their work no longer qualifies as Art. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Bill SHIRA, _A Truce with Death_ (Review) Date: 06 Mar 2003 01:30:30 -0600 Bill Shira's short film "A Truce with Death", starring Marvin Payne http://www.ldsfilm.com/short/TruceWithDeath.html "A Truce with Death" is a remarkable, interesting, inspirational yet challenging short film. Based on a true story, it depicts a pioneer couple which stays behind after its company moves forward because their baby is sick. When the baby stops breathing the husband and wife mourn her death in different ways, but must quickly abandon her half-buried in the brush because of the danger of Indians that surround them. I won't give away what happens next, because it really is an amazing story and it makes for a very compelling film. Frankly a friend of mine said he had seen this and didn't like it. I'm wondering if we saw the same film, because I thought this was quite good, and deserves greater attention. This is a relatively low budget production, but I liked the rich colors and semi-classic look achieved by co-D.P.s Grant Williams and Mark Taft. The sound mix is completely mangled during the first minute, which is just opening credits shown over a painting. But once the body of the film begins the sound is mostly fine, except form some spots with poorly matched ADR. One of the highlights of "A Truce with Death" is Marvin Payne's performance as the weary, low-on-faith pioneer husband who abandons his daughter in the wilderness. The film also stars J. Scott Bronson, who does a great job as a somewhat bigoted Gentile. Payne also did the musical score, which ranges from perfunctory to mediocre. But this doesn't detract much from film overall. All in all, I really liked "A Truce with Death." I was interested in watching it mainly because of Shira's upcoming feature film. Seeing what he did 10 years ago makes me even more certain that his upcoming feature film will be one that critics and serious audiences will be pleasantly surprised by. Shira is the director of the upcoming feature film "Where Rivers Meet", a movie starring most of Utah's top film stars, including Jaelan Petrie ("Handcart"), Tayva Patch ("Brigham City", "Out of Step"), Rick Macy ("Brigham City", "Testaments", "Out of Step"), Jan Felt (Disney's "Poof Point", "Little Secrets", "Everwood" Sariah in Gary Rogers' Book of Mormon movie), Bruce Newbold ("Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd", "How Rare a Possession", "The Lamb of God"), Connie Young ("The Singles Ward"), Julie West, and Joan Mullaney. Marvin Payne ("Pure Race", "Saturday's Warrior"), the top-billed star of "A Truce with Death", is also one of the stars of "Where Rivers Meet." Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Des News on Samuelsen's Film Paper Date: 06 Mar 2003 08:55:35 -0700 One quick and deeply embarrassed response to this: I dabble? Seriously, = that's what 17 produced plays in 10 years adds up to? Dabbling? Argghh. At the end of the interview, she asked if I wanted to write something like = this, and I said, 'sure.' So all I need now is a story, characters, a = situation, dialogue, a mise en scene. . . . Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 06 Mar 2003 08:57:16 -0700 Hey Jon. Welcome. How are Mireille and Veronique these days? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS TV Sitcom Class? Date: 06 Mar 2003 08:59:03 -0700 We made the sitcom, and it is currently in post-production. It turned out = pretty well, and was astounding more work than any of us anticipated. Of = course it's student work, but it holds up pretty well, and is quite funny. = I'll let you know when and if it will air. Oh, it does air during Final = Cut, our student film festival, at BYU. I'll pass on time and date info = later. Eric Samuelsen=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] YOUNG, _Heresies of Nature_, KIMBALL, Date: 06 Mar 2003 09:31:07 -0700 (MST) > Now a non-AML related > question--unless someone can come up with a literary tie, in which case, > I'd love to see it on list. The "Hate Crimes" bill got pulled from the > Utah State senate. I have very deep feelings about this and simply > don't understand WHY. I'm assuming it has to do with lobbyists afraid > of gay rights, but the implications of not having the bill pass are > pretty serious and extend far beyond the gay community. (And why would > anyone think we shouldn't have a bill which protects gays from hate > crimes?) > Margaret Young here's a possible literary tie: I took a writing workshop from ORson Scott Card once (and he's written this in his other non-fiction as weel, so it's not a new concept). He said the great strength of fiction is that it allows us to see what motivates characters - why they actually do things. In real life, it's not that easy, as we can't read other people's minds, and we even lie to ourselves about why we do things. In real life, it is nearly impossible to figure out WHY someone did something. In fiction, we can give our characters reasons, and because the authors are in charge, no one can really argue with it (unless the author deliberatley makes the motivations ambiguous). OSC said one of the main reasons people read fiction is to figure out why people do things, since in real life we can't really figure that out. (This was usually followed by attacks on psychology and sociology as bogus, but that's neither here nor there). I think that's why the legislature is hesitant to pass it - to be truly effective, it would require mind reading. We can have evidence that strongly points in a direction for a motive, but if there's enough evidence that the guy shot someone and the fact of his actions are beyond a reasonable doubt, why is there a need to go further? Another non-literary tie in would be my concern that, having been attacked by someone who claimed he did it because I was white, would that guy be charged under hate crimes if they existed. Likely not, the way they are enforced elsewhere. In other words, Hate crime laws provide unequal protection. FWIW. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] League of Utah Writers Date: 06 Mar 2003 09:45:18 -0700 The Utah County chapter of the League of Utah Writers is having the following meeting: We have our March speaker confirmed. John Moyer will speak to us on March 26th at 7:00 p.m. in the Provo Library. He is the screenwriter for the popular local movie productions, "Singles Ward," and "RM". He will speak about how he began his career and will give us useful information on the fundamentals of screenplay writing. In April we'll hear from Ann Cannon, humor columnist for the Deseret News and Young Adult novelist. Thanks, Heather Moore Utah Valley Chapter President -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tyler Moulton" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 06 Mar 2003 10:26:54 -0700 "Hootie-Hoo!" to you, too, Jon. And welcome aboard. Tyler Moulton -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? Date: 06 Mar 2003 14:50:15 -0700 Thom Duncan wrote: > If something ins invisible, how can it even affect us? I have a tough > time with this idea that media has messages that affect us even if we > don't know about it? Can you explain how something that is not noticed > can be harmful? Two words: carbon monoxide. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] UVSC Forum on Children's Literature Date: 06 Mar 2003 15:27:03 -0700 I'm forwarding this announcement for those interested. Marny Parkin The information for the UVSC/SCBWI FORUM ON CHILDREN'S LITERATURE is now on the website at http://www.uvsc.edu/conted/seminars/childlit/. For your convenience, I'm including all of the information--Presenter info, schedules, Gallery of Illustration info, and Registration information--below. Feel free to pass this information on to anyone you think might be interested. FORUM ON CHILDREN AND LITERATURE MARCH 21-22 KEYNOTE Janie Bynum (March 21, 2003) GENERAL SESSION Chris Crowe KEYNOTE Kathleen Duey (March 22, 2003) GENERAL SESSION Susan Kochan GUEST SPEAKERS Aaron Aldridge Vera Bakker Janie Bynum Kathryn Collins Chris Crowe Kathleen Duey Sharlee Glenn Janice Graham Mette Harrison Kimberley Heuston Jim Jacobs Susan Kochan Gabi Kubitz Julie Olson Nancy Peterson Carol Lynch Williams Sherry Meidell Julie Olson Nancy Peterson Paul Pitts Rick Walton Randall Wright And others, too! SPECIAL FEATURES WORKSHOPS FOR: EDUCATORS LIBRARIANS WRITERS ILLUSTRATORS BOOK LOVERS! NATIONAL SPEAKERS BOOK SIGNINGS Friday, March 21, 2003 KEYNOTE Janie Bynum Her desire to create more meaningful and satisfying work launched Janie's career in children's books. She owned and operated a successful graphic design studio for many years, but a personal connection to her work was missing. So, Janie explored her options by moving to Chicago to immerse herself in big city culture and opportunity. That's where she discovered her desire to create art and stories for children. She attended the School at the Art Institute of Chicago for a couple of semesters, taking Children's Book Illustration. She was introduced to Writing with Pictures by Uri Shulevitz and SCBWI-where she connected with other authors and illustrators. Through such networking, Janie obtained her agent who sold her first picture book to Harcourt in the fall of 1997. She is the author and illustrator of a long list of books, including Altoona Baboona, Otis, Altoona Up North, and Pig Enough. The Spaces Between Picture book author and illustrator Janie Bynum discusses the power of the space between the words and how visual "voice" is developed in that silence. GENERAL SESSION Chris Crowe Chris is a professor of English at BYU where he teaches courses in Adolescent Literature and English Education. He is past president of the Assembly on Literature for Adolescents and editor of the Young Adult Literature column for English Journal. In addition to many articles and books, he is the author of Presenting Mildred D. Taylor and Mississippi Trial, 1955, an ALA 2003 Best book for Young Adults and winner of the International Reading Association's children's Book Award in Young Adult Fiction. Blending Historical Fact and Fiction: Emmitt Till and Me Chris will discuss his work on his historical novel, Mississippi Trial, 1995. Schedule for March 21 FRIDAY, MARCH 21 8:15 Continental Breakfast 9:00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS The Spaces Between Janie Bynum 10:20 WORKSHOP SESSION A The Other Half of the Job: Business and Art, the Uneasy Marriage Kathleen Duey Illustrating Picture Books Sherry Meidell Read Alouds in the Secondary Language Arts Classroom: A Killer of Time or an Engaging Teaching Strategy Karen Brown Kathryn Collins From A to Z: A Survey of Utah Children's Book Writers and Illustrators Gabi Kupitz 11:30 GENERAL SESSION Blending Historical Fact and Fiction: Emmitt Till and Me Chris Crowe 12:30 LUNCH AND NETWORKING 1:15 BOOK SIGNING 2:10 WORKSHOP SESSION B Accessing the Write Brain Aaron Aldridge Be Wise, Revise Carol Lynch Williams Writing for Magazines Panel Vera Bakker Sharlee Glenn Janice Graham What's Good About 'Bad' Books? Chris Crowe 3:20 WORKSHOP SESSION C The Survey Says: Editors and Authors Working Together Susan Kochan The Visual Voice Janie Bynum Welcoming Diversity: Bridging Culture & Language with Books Paul Pitts 4:30 Closing and Door Prizes Saturday, March 22, 2003 KEYNOTE Kathleen Duey is in love, full of purpose and happy. She has published more than 50 books for children. In 2003-2004, fifteen more titles will be released. These include upper YA, edgy/dark fantasy for Atheneum, historical novels (with horses!) for Dutton/Puffin and more 3rd grade chapter book fantasy titles. One of Kathleen's books is being developed into TV animation to be aired Fall 2004. Her American Diaries books have been excerpted for the California Department of Education curricula models. Her SURVIVAL service has been translated into five languages. The Unicorn's Secret, her most recent series, is gathering kind reviews and generating 3-6 readers' emails a day. Kathleen believes that literacy is the glue that holds the human race together. It will be the light that leads the whole human family into the future. Literacy: The Human Legacy Kathleen Duey talks about literacy, its importance in our ancestor's lives, in all our lives, and its future in the age of video. Schedule for March 22 8:15 Continental Breakfast 9:00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS Literacy: The human Legacy Kathleen Duey 10:20 WORKSHOP SESSION D Picture Book Perfect, the Process of Creating a Picture Book Susan Kochan and Rick Walton Book Buyers Panel Moderator: Jennifer Heldenbrand Kids Writing Like Writers Sarah Hacken Working Through a First Novel Publication Panel Mette Harrison Kimberley Heuston Randall Wright 11:30 GENERAL SESSION How to Grip Kids On The First Page Susan Kochan 12:30 LUNCH AND NETWORKING 1:15 BOOK SIGNING 2:10 WORKSHOP SESSION E Grounding Fiction in Fact-Researching a Novel Kathleen Duey Contemporary Issues Jim Jacobs "The Tax Man Cometh": The Business of Your Profession Julie Olson It's Not the End: Answers to Your Questions for a New Beginning Rick Walton & Carol Lynch Williams 3:20 GENERAL SESSION Our Favorite Books - That We Didn't Write or Publish Moderator: Shauna Bigham Janie Bynum Chris Crowe Kathleen Duey Susan Kochan Nancy Peterson 4:20 Closing and Door Prizes THE GALLERY OF ILLUSTRATION This year we will be having a new addition to the conference: "The Gallery of Illustration." For an additional registration fee of $5, illustrators enrolled for the conference can expose their work to those in the Children's Book Market. Copies of the artwork must be mounted flat to a surface measuring no more than 18"w X 24"h. Contact julie@ipartner.net with "Gallery" in the subject line for further information. Artwork should be color copies mounted on a board of some sort (foam core, colored cardboard, etc.) and can be no more than 18 inches wide by 24 inches high by 1.5 inches thick. Nothing three dimensional should be mounted to the board. Make sure to have your name and contact information on the board somewhere. You must provide your own table easel or attach an easel or self-standing device to your board for display purposes. This is your chance to promote your work, so make it eye-catching. You will set it up right after you register on Friday morning and will leave it up for the remainder of the conference; or until you are ready to take it (all displays must be picked up by 5pm Saturday or they will be discarded). You are welcome and encouraged to place business cards or postcards in front of your work for interested persons to take. If you have any other questions, email julie@ipartner.net and include the word "Gallery" in the subject line. GENERAL INFORMATION AND REGISTRATION FORM To register by mail, print and send this registration form and payment: UVSC Seminars & Workshops 800 W. University Parkway, MS241 Orem UT 84058-5999 To register by phone using a purchase order or bankcard number, call: (801) 863-8894 -- VISA, MasterCard, or Discover To register by FAX using a purchase order or bankcard number: (801) 863-8968 Registration includes continental breakfast and a lunch. Check-In at 8:15 a.m. in the UVSC main foyer. Refunds accrue at $25 fee and may be granted until March 12. No refunds will be given after February 26. Refunds will not be granted in the event of inclement weather. Substitutions are accepted. Please call (801) 863-8894 to arrange a substitute registration. FORUM ON CHILDREN AND LITERATURE MARCH 7 - 8, 2002 Name _______________________ Home Phone (_____) ____ -______ Address _____________________ Work Phone (_____) ____ -______ City ________________________ PO #_________________________ *Social Security # ____ - ____ - _____ PO Contact Person___________ *Birthdate _____/____/_____ Contact Telephone (___)____-_____ [ ] $99 Early Full Conference Registration by March 12 [ ] $69 Early One-Day Only Registration by March 12: [ ] Friday [ ] Saturday [ ] $119 Full Conference Registration after March 12 [ ] $79 One-Day Only Registration after March 12: [ ] Friday [ ] Saturday [ ] SCBWI Member Discount $5 One-day/$10 Full (Early Registration only) * Student Discount Available with Instructor Signature (call 801-863-8894) # _______-_______-_______-_______ Duplicate this form to register additional participants. *Required to receive Continuing Education Units (CEU) Mail form to: UVSC Seminars & Workshops 800 W. University Parkway MS241 Orem UT 84058-5999 (801) 863-8894 FAX (801) 863-8968 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Armand MAUSS, _All Abraham's Children_ Date: 06 Mar 2003 16:02:00 -0700 Armand Mauss's All Abraham's Children is coming out in a couple of weeks. Benchmark Books is going to have a signing & discussion on Wed., Mar. 19, from 5-7 pm. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] The Role of LDS Writers Date: 06 Mar 2003 17:22:12 -0700 We see talented art of all kinds everywhere. Elder M. Russell Ballard = has pointed out: The artist expresses himself or herself in universal symbols, images, = sounds, and feelings. The spiritually successful artist has the unique = opportunity to present feelings, opinions, ideas, and perspective of = eternity in symbols that can be universally understood. As a writer I desire to reach out to the world and show my readers that = Heavenly Father loves all of us as His children, and He wants us to come = to Him as souls, clean and pure from our many sins, ransomed by the = atonement, sacrifice and resurrection of His only begotten Son, Jesus = Christ.=20 As a reader I have read many great books that have inspired me. These = books from the Holy Scriptures to Dark epic novels of human degradation = depicting human struggle to rise from the pits of despair and triumph = over evil, are all good. If a book or story teaches moral strength, = integrity, in the face of adversity and opposition, and shows me that = Goodness, mercy and truth can overcome wickedness and evil, then I feel = these literary works are suitable, no even desirable, reading material. I do not think a writer needs to include all the sordid, gory details of = the sins of his characters, but I certainly don't think the message can = be delivered if the sins aren't at least mentioned or alluded to = strongly enough for the reader to understand the nature of the = transgressions and that they have taken place, and had their effect on = the character. Even in the Holy Bible, God gives us examples of sinful activities such = as murder, rape, incest, adultery, theft, lying, cheating, and deceit. = He has allowed these to be depicted so as to show us how they drag the = souls of men down to the pits of Hell if not repented of. If I, as an writer ,want to persuade sinners to seek out the saving = ordinances and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then I must = write about the sins of humanity which Jesus can redeem all of His = children from, and in some way show the steps that lead the way to = eternal life and joy in God's Kingdom. This is why I do not see why the Deseret Book stores, now do not allow = even the most benign of social indiscretion to be portrayed in their = books. If we as readers shun books that contain sinful or inappropriate = behavior, yet show that these things can be overcome and in the end the = perpetrators can be redeemed and have the blessings of eternal life and = triumph over evil, how can we hope to bring the sinners of the world = back into the fold. How many prodigal sons are we going to let slip = through the cracks in the floorboards of life, and fall into the pits of = Hell? Can't we in our writing show these lost souls that there truly is = a way back? By banning books that show the sins of the world and the way to be = redeemed from these sins through proper choices, and repentance, we are = telling the sinners, who need the gospel, that we will not accept them = either. We are all sinners, and no one can be redeemed without the = forgiveness and atonement of our Lord and savior. I would like to use the metaphor of smell and equate it to sin. If all = sins had smells associated with them that were equivalent to the = magnitude of the sin, and sins associated with the consumption of = tobacco and alcohol smelled just the same way these substances do in = reality, then when we attended the majority of our church meetings none = of us would be able to stand the stench, and the smell of the members of = the congregation who only were breaking the word of wisdom would be the = most wholesomely fragrant members in attendance. Our church is for = sinners, it is the place where we can learn and gain the spiritual = strength we need to overcome our sinfulness. If we had to be perfect to = attend church then all of our buildings would be utterly wasted. The = church would probably only need one very small room for sacrament = service each week.=20 Elder Ballard says in his comments about art and artists, and the role = of the LDS artists in contributing to God's work,=20 "No one can gaze on the art of Michelangelo and not see the hand of God. Michelangelo said, `The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine = perfection.' " Much of Michelangelo's work is of the human form in various stages of = dress. Yet, at BYU they summarily ban any works of art that show the = unclothed human form. We all know that beauty is in the eye of the = beholder, so why aren't we giving the eyes of our members and our = students the benefit of their agency to determine what is and isn't = beauty? I think that most of the students, at BYU and the members of the = church over the age of 21 know the difference between art and = pornography, if they don't, or don't care, then that is their choice, = and they will have to suffer the consequences. The same can be said = about our literary choices, both in reading and writing. For that matter = the same principles and logic pertains to our choices in movies, and = television programing. So why do the GA's waste time and energy that = could be more fruitfully spent reviewing and rating our literature, art, = music, and TV, and movies?=20 I'm probably going to get in trouble if my Bishop reads this, but I'm = willing to accept the consequences if I am called up to defend my words. Regards, Bill Willson, writer -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Memory, Words & Truth Date: 07 Mar 2003 09:44:06 -0800 I just stumbled across another quote that related to the concept of = memory and the struggle to convey the human experience in the realm of = non-fiction.=20 Essayist and Francophile Julian Barnes has recently translated portions = of the belletristic journals of French novelist Alphonse Daudet = (1840-1897) regarding his experience of suffering debilitating pain = during a disease. The collection of loose journal ideas, metaphors and = observations is called "In The Land Of Pain" (Knopf, 2003).=20 Descriptions of the extremes of emotional experience are of course, = particularly challenging. We attempt to translate actual experience into = a written experience that is then understandable as a mirror of reality = to a given audience. This man, Daudet, experienced both emotional and = spiritual devastation while suffering profound physical pain in the = tertiary stages of syphilis. To quote the Publisher's Weekly reviewer: = "Daudet's descriptions of his physical ailment are palpably horrifying, = and the feelings of isolation and inadequacy that result give readers a = new understanding of the psychology of illness.of the "sheer torture" of = his pain." In struggling to write about such an extreme of human experience, Daudet = observes that this is ultimately impossible to describe using words. = "There are no words," he says, "only howls."=20 And then the quote which caught my eye: "Words only come when everything is over.... They refer only to memory, = and are either powerless or untruthful."=20 And yet in my mind, Daudet achieved a certain truth and was in many ways = a revelation to me, who have never suffered to the extend that he did. = Many writers daily achieve some kind of truth, even thought I might = agree that their tools, Memory and Words, are often, individually, = "powerless or untruthful."=20 The totality of the whole of the written experience can create a new = truth and understanding which has power, at least the power to move = another to a synergy of sympathetic sharing of experience which is = ultimately valuable, if nevertheless, imperfectly truthful. The challenge is particularly sensitive for us, in LDS genre literature, = readers and writers of experiences that often enter the realm of the = spiritual.=20 Just as the subjective experience of pain is inherently indescribable = (but then, perhaps not really), so the deeply personal confusion and = struggle with sin are indescribable; the euphoric joys of the sense of = conversion; the mind-rocking power of profound revelation; the subtle = spiritual ripples of the bearing of testimony; and on and on. Each of = these are aspects of life that most writers avoid, but which we in LDS = literature must come to again and again in our little sub-genre and try = to deal with truthfully.=20 And yet all we have are words and memory. Howls and mutters and finally: = falling down. For "Yea his joy was such as to exceed his strength. Now = is not this exceeding joy?"! Perhaps this is at the heart of why I very often have problems with much = of our own literature. Because the very nature of describing the = spiritual life is as challenging as it is, I fear that it is often = avoided by our writers. Either that or glossed over in manner which has = the net effect of trivializing the experience of the profound.=20 There is also the constant fear by LDS writers, that when they enter the = realm of the sacred they have to shut up because "sacred" must mean = "secret" or because they fear "we can't throw pearls before swine," etc. = This understandable reverence, then, does not translate into reverent = yet still deeply searching writing. More often than not, it translates = into no writing at all, as sacred subject are systematically and = studiously avoided.=20 And so, as a culture, we tend to miss the exercise of the artistic = struggle to convey the profound, whether that be profound physical pain = or supreme spiritual joy. I think this avoidance is beginning, slowly, to change, but hope I that = it changes even faster. If not, our genre of either fiction or = non-fiction will never achieve the greatness that our prophets have = ultimately foreseen for us, comparing our works with the works of the = greatest writers in our language. Perhaps words and memory are ultimately powerless and untruthful, but in = the anxious struggle of the artist to convey truth we can achieve a = certain power despite the inadequacy of our tools. Nephi's complaints of = not having adequate tools to write with power do not make his attempts = any less moving to me. He shares his prayers and laments, his = revelations and soaring joys, his momentary horror over divinely = prescripted murder, etc. And none of it need be graphic, gratuitous, or = cross the bounds of propriety.=20 Of course, his journals are ultimately edited and restrained to become = appropriate for the needs of canonized scripture, whereas our struggles = are more humble.=20 And yet, is not our struggle to create a Mormon literary tradition as = equally important?=20 Shall we not endeavor to create a home literature of such resonating = power that it is accepted by the world as a category of art as relevant = to the human experience as any other category on the earth? Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Value of Fairy Tales Date: 07 Mar 2003 16:51:20 -0700 I like fairy tales. I like them a lot. I just finished "retelling" a Japanese fairy tale called "The Stonecutter." A friend asked me to do it so he could illustrate it. As it was translated it was nothing more than a cute story. But when I read it I knew it was a tale intended to illustrate the Taoist teaching "desire is the root of unhappiness." I believe that is also a Buddhist teaching. That is the value I see in fairy tales. They illustrate profound teachings. I'm working on a juvenile novel with American Book Publishing right now. When I wrote it I was intending Magical Realism" like Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but I'm sure some well meaning individuals will refer to it as a fairy tale. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Lit 2002 in Review: Short Stories Date: 07 Mar 2003 14:49:45 -0700 >Also, Shayne Bell hasn't been nominated for a Hugo Award since 1995 >(for "Mrs. Lincoln's China") but is currently on the preliminary >ballot for the Nebula Awards for "Refugees from Nulongwe" (published >in _Sci Fiction_ [May 2001] available at >http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/bell/). I hate when my information is incomplete. Shayne's story "The Pagodas of Ciboure" is on the final Nebula ballot. (It was not on the preliminary ballot but was added to the final as a juried selection.) "Refugees..." did not make the final ballot. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantum Romance Issue? Date: 07 Mar 2003 16:52:59 -0700 Hey, I was thinking Irreantum should do a special issue on LDS romance fiction. Who would make a good guest editor who could round up some good material? I already asked Rachel Nunes, but she's too busy. The kinds of material could include: Interview Critical essay Survey essay Personal essay exploring the writing or reading of LDS romance Short story Novel excerpt Book review Etc. Please contact me directly if you want to volunteer or have any suggestions. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 07 Mar 2003 18:25:26 -0700 I have to disagree with statements that the beginning of "The R.M." where the missionary returns home to find his parents moved, etc. are not based on reality. OF COURSE it's based on reality - however, as is common in some comedies, it is an exaggerated version of reality. After two years, many missionaries return home to find that a lot of things have changed, and regardless of how often those at home write to their missionary, a lot of those things don't get mentioned in the letters, and even for those that do, those changes don't really seem real until you get home. It is a shock. Okay, so most families would mention that they are planning to move / have moved to a new house. But the concept of returning to find that things are not the same as you left them or expected them to be when you got home is a real and a common one. Thomas ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 07 Mar 2003 18:48:23 -0700 Bryan Loeper wrote: > What of classics such as _The Princess Bride_ and _Monty Python_? They > had an even more tenuous hold on reality than what I've heard about > _RM_, but yet noone is upset that they never could happen. Maybe I'm overthinking the issue here, but part of what makes those films work is their remoteness in time, situation, character, and (usually) place. They aren't immediate, therefore they aren't dangerous. Therefore we can laugh. That distance is important in both drama and comedy. If a story rings too true, it encroaches too much on the real pains we experience and risks injuring instead of amusing. Simple exaggeration is not enough to build safe distance between the subject matter and the situation--there needs to be either an outrageous gimick or a clear remoteness of the story from the audience. _Princess Bride_ is remote in time, place, and situation. The characters are all exaggerations of recognizable types. The situation is unlikely and based on a storybook. Only the tiny frame story is actually relevant in time, place, and situation--that and the core emotions explored by the story. Pretty much everything by Monty Python is remote in time and situation, if nothing else. Even John Cleese's solo films use unusual character types such as international jewel thieves (_A Fish Called Wanda_) and zookeepers (_Fierce Creatures_). In other words, characters with histories or vocations that are sufficiently exotic or remote that the vast majority of people have no real basis for gainsaying the gags by claiming personal expertise. But most Mormons either have been an RM, have welcomed an RM home, or at least know some details about someone who was an RM. The character type is not only not remote, it's extraordinarily common within this culture. Nearly every Mormon knows all about RMs--or at least thinks they do. And thus nearly every Mormon viewer considers themselves to be content experts--and thus critics. Which is not to say that the familiar can't be funny--in fact, familiarity is one of the fundamental bases of humor; if the audience doesn't identify somehow, there's nothing to laugh at. But when you're limited to pratfalls and exaggerations, the absurdity doesn't reach high enough to make people disconnect from their sense of personal expertise and just enjoy the humor. I think that's (part of) why _Singles Ward_ has had such a strongly split reaction, and why _The RM_ is likely to do the same. When humor is simply irrelevant people don't get mad, they just shake their heads and walk away. But when the humor *is* relevant to someone's own experience they can't help but interpret it through their own real experience and hope--with the result that if the humor violates their own hard-won conclusions about how and why things work, many people get mad. My grandmother hated "Hogan's Heros" because in her mind there was nothing funny about Nazis--the fact that her brother died in Germany didn't help matters. Like I said, I'm probably overthinking it. But it would be interesting to see someone take Mormon comedy completely over the top. Do missionaries in space or set an "All In the Family" style sit-com in 1860s Canada. The relevance of culture just might be made safe by the irrelevance of time and place. Or not. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 07 Mar 2003 18:39:14 -0700 Jon, Putting in a word for the musicians on the frame discussion, music is also framed - but the frame is time itself. A performance of a piece of music is set apart in time by its beginning and ending. I guess the same could be said of theater and film. I actually had this frame discussion in a graduate music class at UCLA so couldn't resist jumping in with my two cents of agreement. Thomas ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com Jongiorgi Enos wrote: >A careful consideration of the Frame Definition, even a casual = consideration of it, reveals it to be quite interesting and actually far = from silly, but quite inclusive and deep. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 07 Mar 2003 19:45:25 -0600 The difference is that those films (and other good comedies) follow an internal logic. What happens may not be plausible in real life, but within the world of the film, it is perfectly plausible, and consistent with the rules already established by the film. Furthermore, those films acknowledge their tenuous grip on reality, and in fact intentionally eschew reality. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is absurdist, self-referential stuff, with the modern world eventually intersecting with the ancient world of the movie in a jarring way. Also, there are bunnies that fly around and kill people. And people speak in an extremely anachronistic manner at times. You can get away with a lot more in your movie when you establish yourself from the get-go as absurd. The trouble with "Singles Ward" and "R.M." (and many other comedies of varying quality) is that they purport to be set in the real world, yet are inconsistent with the real world as we know it. If anything, a movie like "Princess Bride" benefits, humor-wise, by being set in a fantasy world, yet featuring characters who are far more recognizable and true than the people in, say, "The Singles Ward." Eric D. Snider -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Little Mermaid Date: 07 Mar 2003 21:31:35 -0500 > > >> let's not bring up the urban legend of the castle resembling > >> part of the male anatomy. And the "take off your clothes" message in _Aladin_, and the single frame of Porn in _The Rescuer_, and the smoke in _Mulan_ spelling the word "sex"...seriously, who is it who notices these things? Maybe I'm just a really pure little child, but I never did. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 08 Mar 2003 17:30:32 +0900 Kim Madsen said: She expressed mild disdain and confusion at why people would ask her what parts of her book (CHINCHILLA FARM) were "true" and which parts were fictionalized. Since the entire story is published as fiction, it should be taken as such, enriched perhaps by the author's experiences in life. And then, th.jepson wrote: I would say Ms. Freeman's statement is great when you are writing fiction, but what about when we are talking about nonfiction? I recently finished a book of nonfiction that deals extensively with my experiences. In order to make the stories as personable as possible, I included dialogue and detail that, quite frankly, I can't be sure are true. I wasn't carrying a tape recorder about with me for later transcription, and I could be mixing up the various visual cues. SO how do I justify saying I am telling the truth? First, I am honest to what happened. Perhaps I can't get it down exactly, but what I have said is close enough that I doubt any of the participants will find room to complain. (Although we'll find out for sure when it goes into print.) Second, and this is not a liberty all nonfiction storytellers have, it's funny. There is enough obvious hyperbole that slight iacurracies are expected and more easily forgiveable. (For a bestselling example see, for instance, Bill Bryson.) But never do I suggest that I am making it all up. I'm having fun in the telling just as when I tell a story verbally. And that's the key: in my case, the style is very verbal, and so the same rules applied to telling a story verbally can be generalized to my book. Incidentally, focussing on dialogue, we can find some obviously not precisely accurate dialogue in the Book of Mormon. For example (note--I copied and pasted off the Church's website, so there are a few extra dots and letters)... And Jongiorgi added much that I haven't completely read yet, and won't specifically comment on. ------ I agree that with fiction, it doesn't matter. I realize that when a story is presented as fiction, then I must understand that maybe some of it is based on real events, but that "truth" is not the reason it has been written (and not the reason for which I am reading). But when it comes to works of non-fiction, particularly those that are autobiographical in nature, or purport to represent the "true story" of a particular event, I often times find myself asking, "Now how did the author KNOW that?" or "How did the author remember that?" Quotations sometimes strike me this way, but mostly I know that quoatations more often than not are meant to convey the message and not exact words. What bothers me the most in non-fiction is when motivation, emotion, or thoughts are ascribed to others without a clear basis for that ascription. One of the best (or worst) examples of this, in my memory, was Fawn Brody in _Know Man Knows My History_. While I found this book fascination in bringing to light many things I did not know, it seemed that on she was often explaning the actions of Joseph or others by telling us their reason for doing something. The most egregious example was that of plural marriage explained because Joseph was a philanderer at heart. Parenthetically, my copy of this book is in storage, so I cannot give specific examples. I am relying on my memory of the thoughts I had when I read the book. And we recently learned how good my memory is during the discussion of CleanFlicks. One of the reasons I don't read much LDS non-fiction, is that I am often struck by the fact that the motivations of church members is presented as good and right, but the motivations of others is evil and wrong, no matter what. There seems to be too much concrete reasoning; I much prefer non-fiction that recognizes the complexity of the human experience and reasons for action. Having, now reviewed this a couple days after I initially wrote it, I find that none of this particulary applies to memory, per se, but more with interpretation (in the example of Fawn Brody), and presentation. So maybe we should rename this string. -Kari Heber And a p.s. based on Jongiorgi's post. I guess I really should get around to introducing myself, but it so happens, despite my name, that I am a guy and not a gal, and so I prefer he and his as pronouns. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Armand MAUSS, _All Abraham's Children_ Date: 08 Mar 2003 08:30:26 -0800 Who is the publisher? At 04:02 PM 3/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Armand Mauss's All Abraham's Children is coming out in a couple of >weeks. Benchmark Books is going to have a signing & discussion on Wed., >Mar. 19, from 5-7 pm. > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 08 Mar 2003 10:34:21 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Loeper >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:25 PM >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ > > >What of classics such as _The Princess Bride_ The Princess Bride is well-done. And actually has structure. and _Monty >Python_? Monty Python is theatre of the absurd where different rules prevail. They had an even more tenuous hold on reality than >what I've heard about _RM_, but yet noone is upset that they >never could happen. > Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Bill SHIRA, _A Truce with Death_ (Review) Date: 08 Mar 2003 18:59:36 -0700 On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 01:30:30 -0600 "Preston Hunter" writes: > This is a relatively low budget production, but I liked the rich > colors and semi-classic look achieved by co-D.P.s Grant > Williams and Mark Taft. This is an interesting comment. I didn't the think the colors were all that rich. The semi-classic look makes sense however. The colors are actually washed out and have a grainy quality. This is because a lame-brain in the LA lab where the film was developed used the wrong solution in the developing process. Bill told me that he was heartbroken about it but figured he ought to cut the thing together anyway since there was no way to reshoot it all. Some of that stuff was shot a full year after the intital shoot. Some shots of Jennifer (played Marvin's wife) are not her in reality. Some shots of me are not me. The film won a Crystal Heart award at (I think I've got the name of this festival correct) the Heartland Film Festival in Texas somewhere. People kept asking Bill how he got that really cool grainy, washed out look. > The sound mix is completely mangled during the first minute, > which is just opening credits shown over a painting. But once > the body of the film begins the sound is mostly fine, except > form some spots with poorly matched ADR. Every sound in that film was manufactured. In other words, every bit of dialogue was looped and the rest was foley-ed. When Bill was tracking down the actors to bring them in for the looping, he discovered that Jennifer was on a mission. He thought he was going to have to hire another actress to speak Jenn's role, but as it turned out, Jenn was transferring missions and was traveling through SLC in the process. Bill got permission from the Missionary Committee to use Jenn for half a day. Here's another little "behind-the-scenes" tidbit: Before the shooting of that film I had never ridden a horse. They kept yelling at me to keep my hands off the saddle horn. "You look like you've never ridden a horse before!" "I haven't!" So, when you see me ride up next to Marvin and gesture off and say, "Looks like they've spotted your missus." (or words to that effect) I want you to keep in mind that I was carrying that rifle in a particular way so as not to spook my skittish horse, while I was hitting my mark, saying my line (that had to be looped anyway) into a bush where the mic was, and keeping my horse from smashing into Marvin's horse and breaking my leg. That was one of the hardest days I've ever had on a set. But fun. Making movies is ALWAYS fun. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Words & Art Date: 07 Mar 2003 11:24:51 -0800 Thayne Wheeler, co-founder of the newly-evolving Society of Latter-day = Saint Artists (SLDSA), is quoted in the first issue of that society's = newsletter as saying: "[Speaking of the importance of art to = spirituality] Truth is synonymous with it. It is the one thing that = speaks to the spirit. I think that biology and math are essential in = this temporal world. However.I think that music, painting and theatre = speak to you spiritually. It by-passes some of the analytical thinking = and goes straight into your true being, that inner self, and it speaks = to you in words that you cannot find, things there just simply are not = words for."=20 By "it," I suppose he means "art." In continuing to muse on the function of words, memory and the = achievement of truth through art (Wheeler makes truth and art = synonymous: if you have achieved one you have achieved the other; this = is an axiom I'm not sure if I can automatically agree with -- but no = matter), his quote brings up several thoughts. Apparently Wheeler is primarily a visual artist, or at least started out = that way, and in the realms of the visual arts, it is typical to use = concepts such as art transcending words. But when we include theatre (a = primarily verbal performance art) and film (a more visual form, but = still verbal) and finally literature (which has only words at its = disposal for the creation of mental images), it becomes more difficult = to automatically separate words from the visceral experience of art. If "art" must eventually transcend words and speak "straight to the = spirit" to explore concepts which live inside our beings above the = traceries of language, then how do the artistic mediums which rely = almost exclusively upon words achieve this? It begs the question: Can words themselves transcend the experience of = words in the human heart? I believe they can.=20 Given that words are symbolic tools used by humans to share mental = concepts with each other, concepts that are wrapped up in the brain with = memory, image, smell, color, shape, and all the other ethereal = identifiers used by our neurology to express cognition in our mortal = sphere, then the image of words on a page, or the sound pictures of a = words spoken, are instantly (in a healthy brain) translated by the = receiver into mental images which could be equated to any other sensory = stimuli which does the same thing, i.e., music, picture. The flow words as used by the literate arts, either spoken aloud or = read, must be translated by the mind in order for them to become a = unique experience in the life of another person. Just as music and = visual art must be "translated" in order to be experienced as such. In my son's brain, for example, his visual cortex is uncertain what to = do with visual stimuli (although is eyes work just fine), and so it = intends to ignore the visual stimuli it receives more often than not; = hence his condition of "cortical blindness" even though his eyes, = technically, can see. Music, on the other hand, he enjoys very much, = because, seemingly, his auditory cortex is less damaged. Sometimes the failure of a given work of art to impress us may be the = fault of the act of our physical (or spiritual?) receptors. Or, it may = be a fault of translation in the same way that some expression work in = one language but not in others. In the symbolic language of art, a work = might fail to shift into our given subjective idiomatic vocabulary of = experience, and therefore means nothing to us. Or, perhaps the act of = translation works but the translated message is simply rejected by us = for a multitude of personal reasons. Is farfalla as beautiful to you as butterfly? Or does pappion work = better for you? Do none of these words conjure up in your mind an image = equivalent to a photo, painting, or mental memory of a butterfly? Did = some experience with a butterfly terrify you in the past and therefore = what might be an image of beauty to most is to you suddenly an image of = terror, regardless of the language? Does some physiological injury make = you "blind" to the idea of a butterfly, because your mind has a black = hole over that concept (which is a strange condition that happens in = many brain injuries where all other function is intact but human faces = cannot be recognized, for example, or the actual conceptualization is = impossible, or many other examples, a lot of which have been chronicled = in the works of Oliver Sacks). Then we must ask, is it essential that art transcend symbolic language = used by the temporal mind to speak to the spiritual entity which resides = in all of us, veiled by the mortal coil within which it resides? Can = spirit speak to spirit, without translation, pure intelligence, above = and beyond mortal consciousness? (I think the answer is: Of course.) I believe words can be music. Words can be pictures. Pictures, combined = with words and music and the witness of human emotion (a fusion of all = categories possibly achieved in the medium of film and some theater or = performance art), call all be used together to enhance or modify the = experience of any one of the others. (The interesting thread regarding = movie scores explored this idea, in part.) And so, even for experiences for which "there just simply are not words = for": words themselves can be used to transcend their own limitations. = If words use the power they have to cause our minds to reach into our = inner arsenal of memory to find the elements which must supplement the = language in order to achieve resonance with us, then we will, = instinctually, make up the difference, and have that transcendent = experience that words might initially, by definition, be supposedly = unable to give us. In the same way Grace makes up our salvation after the inadequacy of = "all that we can do". So, suspension of disbelief, the human desire to be moved, causes us (or = at least the sensitively-attuned) to experience something different, = even potentially much greater, than a work of art, of what ever medium, = might in and of itself have the power to deliver.=20 This may be how I visualize the "by-pass" concept that Thayne Wheeler = talks about: the ability of a work to by-pass analytical thought. Perhaps this is why each individual reacts so differently to any given = work, and why this discussion is so alive with divergent opinions = regarding the same films or books. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 07 Mar 2003 07:45:25 -0700 Jonny boy is leaving out a couple critical pieces of introduction that will help a lot of you recognize him. He played Ed Gray in _Brigham City_, fiance of Peg, and the one who got baptized in the film. He also played John the Baptist in _Testaments_. One other tidbit will not help you recognize him at all, because Richard Dutcher is being so obstinate about the film: he played "The Womanizer" in _Girl Crazy_. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 07 Mar 2003 14:25:16 -0700 SPOILER ALERT FOR ENDER'S GAME! SURPRISE ENDING WILL BE RUINED (EVEN MORE THAN IT IS)! Do not read on if you care. In the excerpts I'll be quoting, I have done a lot of editing, leaving only the essential details in, otherwise the excerpts would be even more lengthy than they already are. Because I assume most of you reading this have already read one or both of the two versions (short story and novel), and because both versions are readily available to read, I won't be marking any of the portions I left out with ellipses or anything. I'll be merging them together as if they were quoted whole. Who wants to wade through a bunch of ellipses? In Orson Scott Card's definitive collection of short stories, _Maps in a Mirror_, you can find the original "Ender's Game." The handling of the surprise ending in this short story was downright dumb. Ender is in battle school, and he thinks he's playing simulation games on the computer for training. But he's actually commanding real space ships in real battles against the alien enemy. He's unknowingly on his way to the last big battle, and receives some quick instruction from his teacher: ==== Maezr began his explanation. "Today's game, boy, has a new element. We're staging this battle around a planet. The ansible can't detect anything on the other side of it--so there's a blind spot. Also, it's against the rules to use weapons against the planet itself. All right?" "Why, don't the weapons work against planets?" Maezr answered coldly, "There are rules of war, Ender, that apply even in training games." ==== Ender goes to his computer, wondering why so many military observers are behind him. Just a page later, shortly after the "simulation game" begins: ==== The enemy outnumbered him a thousand to one, the simulator glowed green with them, and Ender knew he couldn't win. Ender waited, waited for the flash of insight that would tell him what to do, how to destroy the enemy. And finally it was obvious to everyone that Ender didn't know what to do, that there was nothing to do. Then Ender heard Bean's voice in his ear. Bean chuckled and said, "Remember, the enemy's gate is _down_." Ender smiled, and realized that if he broke this rule they'd probably kick him out of school, and that way he'd win for sure: he would never have to play a game again. He whispered into the microphone. His six commanders each took a part of the fleet and launched themselves against the enemy. Ender took off his microphone, leaned back in his chair, and watched. The observers murmured out loud, now. Ender was doing nothing--he had thrown the game away. Of the six fleets only two were able to get to the planet, and those were decimated. But those tiny groups _did_ get through, and they opened fire on the planet. The weapons that blew up little ships didn't blow up the entire planet at first. But they did cause terrible explosions. And on the planet there was no space to dissipate the chain reaction. On the planet the chain reaction found more and more fuel to feed it. Soon the surface gave way in an immense explosion that sent light flashing in all directions. There were no longer two rows of dignified military observers. Instead there was chaos. Some of them were slapping each other on the back; some of them were bowed, head in hands; others were openly weeping. Captain Graff came to Ender, and to Ender's surprise he embraced the boy and whispered, "Thank you, thank you, thank you, Ender." Then the crowd parted and Maezr Rackham walked through. He came straight up to Ender Wiggins and held out his hand. "You made the hard choice, boy. But heaven knows there was no other way you could have done it. Congratulations. You beat them, and it's all over." ==== Not only does the first excerpt immediately telegraph what Ender will decide to do, so that when he does it, it's hardly a surprise at all--in other words, a big let-down--but the whole thing makes no sense. He's forbidden to do something, then everyone's thrilled and grateful that he does it. What is this--some bizarre and unrelated analogy of the Garden of Eden? How to fix this problem? Just remove the rule against attacking a planet. Don't even mention anything about attacking a planet. Ender never wondered if the weapon could work against a planet until Maezr put the idea into his head in the first place, so there's no substantial change to the story. Even the hint that the weapon _could_ destroy a planet was very subtle and hardly necessary. The explanation during the battle makes it clear how the weapons could do so. The novel treats these scenes differently, a tacit admission that they didn't work in the short story. (There's also a tacit admission that the teacher's name, Maezr, was spelled dumb.) The novel, being a novel, had more room to do what it needed to do. Mazer introduced the weapon that could blow up a planet at the beginning of Ender's series of "simulations" that were real battles: ==== We've only got two things going for us, Ender. We don't have to aim particularly well. Our weapons have great spread." "Then we aren't using the nuclear missiles from the First and Second Invasions?" "Dr. Device is much more powerful. Nuclear weapons, after all, were weak enough to be used on Earth at one time. The Little Doctor could never be used on a planet. Still, I wish I'd had one during the Second invasion." "How does it work?" "At the focal point of two beams, it sets up a field in which molecules can't hold together anymore. Electrons can't be shared. The field spreads out in a sphere, but it gets weaker the farther it spreads. Except that where it actually runs into a lot of molecules, it gets stronger and starts over. The bigger the ship, the stronger the new field." "So each time the field hits a ship, it sends out a new sphere--" "And if their ships are too close together, it can set up a chain that wipes them all out. Then the field dies down, the molecules come back together, and where you had a ship, you now have a lump of dirt with a lot of iron molecules in it. No radioactivity, no mess. Just dirt. ==== Then we reach the same point in the novel that coincides with my first excerpt of the short story: ==== "Today's battle introduces a new element. It is staged around a planet. This will affect the enemy's strategy, and will force you to improvise. Now, how will you deal with the planet?" "I have to get someone behind it, or it's a blind spot." "True." "And the gravity is going to affect fuel levels." "Yes." "Does the Little Doctor work against a planet?" Mazer's face went rigid. "Ender, the buggers never attacked a civilian population in either invasion. You decide whether it would be wise to adopt a strategy that would invite reprisals." ==== What reprisals? The aliens would all be dead. Ender may not have known that, but Mazer certainly did. And the novel's counterpart of the second excerpt: ==== The enemy formation appeared, and Ender's weariness turned to despair. The enemy outnumbered him a thousand to one. He heard his squadron leaders breathing heavily; he could also hear, from the observers behind him, a quiet curse. It was nice to know that one of the adults noticed that it wasn't a fair test. Not that it made any difference. Fairness wasn't part of the game, that was plain. The observers behind him began to cough, to move nervously. They were beginning to realize that Ender didn't know what to do. I don't care anymore, thought Ender. You can keep your game. If you won't even gice me a chance, why should I play? Like his last game in Battle School, when they put two armies against him. And just as he remembered that game, apparently Bean remembered it, too, for his voice came over the headset, saying, "Remember, the enemy's gate is _down_." It was funny. The adults taking all this so seriously, and the children believing it too until suddenly the adults went too far, and the children could see through their game. Forget it, Mazer, I don't care if I follow your rules. If you can cheat, so can I. I won't let you beat me unfairly--I'll beat you unfairly first. In that final battle in Battle School, he had won by ignoring the enemy, ignoring his own losses; he had moved against the enemy's gate. And the enemy's gate was down. If I break this rule, they'll never let me be a commander. It would be too dangerous. I'll never have to play a game again. And that is victory. [After making the same strategic move as in the short story] The enemy sees now, thought Ender. Surely Mazer sees what I'm doing. Or perhaps Mazer cannot believe that I would do it. Well, so much the better for me. Then he whispered a command and the ships dropped like rocks toward the planet's surface. They were focusing their Little Doctors on one thing only. The planet itself. Then the surface of the planet began to bubble. Ender tried to imagine what was happening inside the planet. The field growing and growing, the molecules bursting apart but finding nowhere for the separate atoms to go. Within three seconds the entire planet burst apart, becoming a sphere of bright dust, hurtling outward. Ender took off his headphones, filled with the cheers of his squadron leaders, and only then realized that there was just as much noise in the room with him. Men in uniform were hugging each other, laughing, shouting; others were weeping; some knelt or lay prostrate, and Ender knew they were caught up in prayer. Ender didn't understand. It seemed all wrong. They were supposed to be angry. Colonel Graff detached himself from the others and came to Ender. To Ender's surprise he embraced him and whispered, "Thank you, thank you Ender. Thank God for you, Ender." The crowd parted and Mazer Rackham walked through. "You made the hard choice, boy. All or nothing. End them or end us. But heaven knows there was no onther way you could have done it. Congratulations. You beat them, and it's all over." ==== It's clear Card realized the arbitrary rule of not attacking a planet didn't work, because he removed the rule. Interestingly, he didn't remove it entirely. Legacy references to the rule that no longer exists remain in the story. That needs to be fixed. But more importantly, what Card replaced the rule with, although a better approach, telegraphs the surprise even more than the rule scene in the short story. The question, which Ender initiates himself this time rather than as a reaction to something Mazer says, and Mazer's ambiguous response, makes it quite obvious that that's exactly what Ender will do--especially when he is shown to be outnumbered and concludes that he can't win. That question, "Does the Little Doctor work against a planet?" needs to disappear entirely. Maybe an intelligent commander would think to ask it in real life--maybe he should or he'd be negligent--but events are zipping by fast enough that precious few readers would notice the absence. And it ruins the surprise, so a touch of verisimilitude license is acceptable. If you want foreshadowing for the ending, there is foreshadowing aplenty in the first excerpt I gave from the novel. That hints to us that the Little Doctor can indeed destroy a planet, but doesn't come out and tell us. We have to figure it out from inference, even if that inference is subconscious. And the hint occurs many pages before the climax, giving us plenty of time to forget the hint until the planet is actually destroyed, which is how good foreshadowing should work. One could argue that Card decided he didn't want the climax solution in the battle to be a surprise in the novel. If that's true, then how he handled things (except the archaic references to the rule) was just fine. But everything about how the scene played out makes it real obvious that he _was_ still trying to make it a surprise. Ender gets depressed that he can't win. Bean says the thing that makes him think of the solution, and he begins to enact the solution. But not until the ships actually shoot at the planet is the solution explicitly stated. That means Card _was_ trying to keep it a secret and let even those who may have guessed the climax wait with anticipation to see if their guess was right. All Card had to do was take out that question: "Does the weapon work against planets?" and massage whatever needs massaging with the removal, then the correct amount of foreshadowing would have occurred. Some readers would have guessed the surprise, some not. But even those who guessed it would have been sufficiently uncertain to not feel a let-down when the climax occurs. In fact, they'd probably feel gratified that they figured it out. It occurs to me that the "surprise ending" others in the discussion are talking about may not be the battle climax after all. That's the surpise I meant all along. Perhaps others thought of the surprise as learning that the "simulation games" were real battles. That's a surprise that many could have guessed in advance. But there's no let-down on that one. In fact, I'm not sure Card wanted it to be a big surprise to anyone but Ender. Knowing Ender was commanding real battles instead of simulated ones, without Ender knowing, only increases our pathos for the poor guy. If there's a let-down when the surprise is revealed, it's replaced by a deeper concern for Ender and a deeper dread of how it will affect him: more than sufficient compensation for the spoiled surprise. But the botched surprise of the planet-busting moment has no comparable compensation. It was just botched. Now--anyone interested in hearing how J.R.R. Tolkien blew his climactic moment in Mordor? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ALDER, _Sons of Bear Lake_ (Deseret News) Date: 10 Mar 2003 02:22:22 +0000 Deseret News Friday, March 7, 2003 Books: Leisure reading 'Sons of Bear Lake' By Douglas D. Alder Salt Press, $16.95. Alder, former president of Dixie State College and former history professor at Utah State University, has written his first novel. This paperback is about the LDS culture at the grass-roots level and is set in the Bear Lake Valley. It focuses on two generations of 20th-century Mormons as they live their lives with a special emphasis on their religion. Harriet Proctor, 20, becomes a widow after only one year of marriage. Having staked her future on this marriage, she must face the possibilities of a new future - whether it be raising her yet- unborn son on her own or going to college and directing her life anew. The issues considered are those of belonging or breaking away - not only for women but for young adults. The book reveals startling diversity within a tightly-knit community. In telling his story, Alder discusses missionaries, "Jack Mormons" (those Mormons who are "inactive"), bishops, patriarchs and other familiar aspects of the Mormon culture. But he also throws in a number of real historical figures to mix with his fictional characters. J. Golden Kimball, legendary Mormon leader, gives a talk that inspires young people. David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, Spencer W. Kimball and Henry D. Moyle are all featured as LDS leaders offering guidance to young Mormons. This is an interesting approach to the Mormon novel that may have major influence on the burgeoning genre. - Dennis Lythgoe Copyright 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ARNOLD, _Fields of Clover_ (Deseret News) Date: 10 Mar 2003 02:25:11 +0000 Deseret News Friday, March 7, 2003 Books: Leisure reading 'Fields of Clover' By Marilyn Arnold Salt Press, $16.95. Arnold, a retired English professor at Brigham Young University, has written three other novels - "Desert Song," "Song of Hope" and "Sky Full of Ribbons." Her new paperback book deals with a particularly sensitive topic, that of placing aging parents in a rest home and facing the potential of their deaths. It also deals with Alzheimer's disease from the standpoint of the one affected by it: "Oscar wondered what Everett and Edith =97 he thought she was Edith, though he couldn't be sure =97 were talking about. Maybe she wasn't Edith, maybe she was his mother. Or maybe Edith was his mother. And where had Stella gone? Was Stella his daughter, or was she his sister? Or was she Edith's sister? He knew Everett was Everett. His son. But he didn't know if Everett was married. It seemed to Oscar he had at least one more son, but it was hard to say. He thought maybe Edith - the white-haired woman sitting in the chair =97 and Everett were talking about money. He was worried about paying for all this, and he wanted to go home. He had always been in charge of things, and now people didn't even consult him." This is a compelling, disturbing book written with sensitivity and warmth. Arnold is especially gifted with dialogue. - Dennis Lythgoe Copyright 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online =20 http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3D3963 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] NICHOLS, _Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power_ (SL Tribune) Date: 10 Mar 2003 02:41:01 +0000 Salt Lake Tribune SUNDAY March 09, 2003 A Scholarly Approach to the Earthy Details of the Oldest Profession BY MARTIN NAPARSTECK Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power By Jeffrey Nichols; University of Illinois Press; $34.95 While the lives of prostitutes in Salt Lake City in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were much the same as those of prostitutes elsewhere, their existence within a polygamous culture shaded the debate in different tones. Jeffrey Nichols, who teaches history at Westminster College, traces that debate in detail in Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power, Salt Lake City, 1847-1918. Much of the book will not seem new because prostitution is among the most written-about professions and polygamy is the most written-about aspect of Utah history. Nichols does not give us flesh-and-blood portraits of prostitutes and does not present them as full human beings, as a good novelist might have done, but that was not his job. He is an academic who has written a scholarly study about a profession that has survived centuries of efforts to eradicate it. The abundance of details -- gleaned largely from contemporary newspapers and interspersed with observations from other books on prostitution elsewhere in the country -- is the strength of Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power. Unfortunately, that is also its weakness. There are 1,027 endnotes filling 48 pages, plus 29 pages of bibliography and index, reducing the 247-page book to 169 pages of reading copy. For some readers, that will be thoroughness. For others, it will be overwhelming. The most original thesis in Nichols' study provides the undercurrent of his awkwardly titled first chapter, " 'Celestial Marriage' Vs. 'Polygamic Lascivious Cohabitation.' " In the decades-long and bitter debate over polygamy, Nichols demonstrates, each side repeatedly made references to prostitution to strengthen its position. The Salt Lake Daily Tribune, which Nichols calls "the voice of the most determined and discontented gentiles in Utah for four decades," in 1872 "declared that the only difference between polygamy and prostitution was that the former involved multiple women and the latter multiple men." When federal officials arrested Apostle Lorenzo Snow in 1885 for polygamy, Mormon officials retaliated by arresting a U.S. deputy marshal for "lewd and lascivious conduct." Brigham Young Hampton, the "city license collector," hired prostitutes to entrap other federal officials, an effort that failed and embarrassed church leaders. When the state Legislature in 1903 elected Reed Smoot, a member of the Quorum of Twelve, the second-highest ranking church body, many non-Mormons feared the church would directly control Utah politics. One result was formation of the American Party, which was openly anti-Mormon and controlled Salt Lake City government from 1905 to 1911. Smoot's election, Nichols writes, was accompanied by "revelations of continued Mormon polygamy." That "allowed the Americans to claim to be the champions of morality and the home." The most potentially heart-wrenching parts of Nichols' rendition are details about how little money most prostitutes made (although madams sometimes became wealthy), and how they were often subjected to violence, disease and social scorn. Many were driven into the profession by poverty, alcohol or drugs. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. Polygamy, Prostitution and the Fight for Political Power BY CHRISTY KARRAS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Like any other city of its time, 19th-century Salt Lake had vices -- not limited to gambling, drinking and drugs. But in a town dominated by a culture that shuns sexual adventure, prostitution was something of a curiosity. Some people now know where the prostitution districts were and what some famous people did, but probably no one knows them as well as Jeffrey Nichols. For anyone not familiar with Salt Lake City history, Nichols' book Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power may serve as a social and political primer, touching on political, religious and social wrangling that makes today's arguments seem tame by comparison. As the book's title indicates, Salt Lake was unique because prostitution and polygamy were weapons in power struggles between the dominant LDS Church and gentiles, including their mouthpiece newspapers and political parties. The American Party, made up of non-Mormons and briefly in power at the turn of the century, protected prostitution while condemning polygamy as immoral. Some argued that men who kept multiple wives were prostituting themselves. "The 19th century has this reputation as the so-called Victorian Era, very straitlaced, but there was always an interest in sex. Both topics were ways to talk about sex," Nichols said. "People who opposed Mormon political dominance purposely latched onto the issue of polygamy. It was fun, and it was about sex." Mormons believed polygamy was godly but prostitution was evil. The American Party's reluctance to crack down on prostitution eventually helped lead to its downfall, Nichols said: "It was as if they handed their enemies the most potent club possible" to attack them. From his background, Nichols, now a history professor at Westminster College, seems an unlikely chronicler of Utah's seedy side. He was raised in upstate New York and attended the State University of New York before serving in the Navy for nine years. Oddly, it was the Navy that brought him here and the military that got him interested in Utah's social history. His last Navy posting was as an ROTC instructor at the University of Utah. He became absorbed in history and left the Navy to pursue graduate school. At first, his main interest was in the 24th Infantry Division, a cohort of black soldiers stationed at Fort Douglas. He wanted to know how the townsfolk, almost all of them white, reacted to the black soldiers. "I started reading all these old newspaper stories, and here were all these references to prostitutes and brothels," Nichols said. "They wrote about these people as if everyone knew them." In the 1890s, papers talked about Japanese, black and Latina prostitutes, at a time when the official census declared there was not a single ethnically Japanese resident in all of Salt Lake County. Nichols used government records to determine who lived where and did what. Although he used an array of sources, including the LDS Church's family history library and the Salt Lake City Police Department Museum, he was frustrated by the lack of primary source material. "The danger with all those sources is that they're outside sources -- people talking about the women, not the women talking themselves. My ultimate dream was to find a diary kept by one of these women, or business records, which someone like Belle London undoubtedly kept," Nichols said. He never did. Even police records rarely recorded the names of prostitutes' customers or contained photographs of small-time offenders. The book presents an overall picture, but the details of the women's lives are forever lost. The most enduring red-light district was where the Gallivan Center is now. There, in "Block 57," some women ran brothels for decades. Politicians and police knew the houses of ill repute existed, but rarely shut down the places. Instead, there was an understood agreement that if the madams paid regular fees to the city, they could continue operating. Regular roundups of "fallen women" resulted in more fines, but they were so predictable the madams built them into their budgets and sprang their employees almost immediately. In one of the more bizarre episodes in Salt Lake history, the city hired a successful madam, Dora Topham, a k a Belle London, to move the main prostitution district to a new site on the city's west side, where the Gateway development is now. The Stockade, as it was called, centralized operations and was meant to keep prostitutes out of places where decent folk might stumble upon them. "In a way, it was a logical extension of the regulated prostitution that had been around for a long time," Nichols said. "The American Party thought it would make economic sense for all the prostitutes to move away from downtown and move into a new purpose-built location." The plan backfired when it not only failed to reduce numbers of prostitutes downtown but also became embroiled in a scandal after Topham allegedly lured an underage girl into her employ. "Regulated prostitution" was the general rule nationwide at the time; it came to an end with the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, when activists cracked down on society's ills and prostitution was driven underground. Despite all the fierce rhetoric, townspeople still found a way to live civilly together. "If people really were such mortal enemies, there would have been a lot more violence," Nichols said (in an exception, one Salt Lake City Daily Tribune editor was beaten with brass knuckles). "It was quite a common opinion, among men especially, that it was not a big deal." Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantum Proofers Needed Date: 10 Mar 2003 11:33:55 -0700 Once again, the AML is looking for some volunteer proofers to scrutinze the winter 02-03 issue for typos and errors. This is a special issue focused mostly on Mormon-related literature for young readers. We will send you a PDF file of the issue, and you would send back any corrections within 7 days. The PDF will probably be reading about March 20 or so. This is a very valuable service to the AML, and you can claim it as editing experience. (In fact, the AML will provide a reference for competent proofers.) If you can help, please contact me directly at chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com. Thanks! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeffress@xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 10 Mar 2003 12:14:42 -0700 Quoting Jongiorgi Enos : > Finally, it is quite startling to mention books as being in a category > "without frames." This statement might cause us to overlook some of the > most obvious frame metaphors in our world: the page itself! Take, for > example, the white borders all the way around the words. A frame, no? > What about the covers on both sides of the book? Other conventions > abound: the titles; the advertisements: the entire industry which holds > the book up literally and metaphorically within about a dozen "frames." Lines of code share the same frames as most of the art cited. Lines of code printed on a page have the same white border. In fact, most code listings appear in Courier, the same font requested by many publishing houses for book and story manuscripts. Code on the screen has the same frame as television. In fact in most cases, code on the screen has a double frame. It has the frame of the monitor, and it has the frame of the operating system window displaying the code. You can find many online discussions by programmers about the proper aesthetic display of code. Huge discussions have issued forth about the proper way to inden code, the placement of the opening brace, and the use of white space within the line of code. Looking at code listings evokes the same emotions as looking at art. Some code evokes admiration at the sheer elegance of both the presentation and function. Other code evokes disdain at its poor formatting or inability to communicate function. Almost all art requires some education in order to appreciate the art itself. Very few works of art do we just appreciate right out of the box. We generally need some education in order to appreciate the art. Code presents the same situation. To many people, code has no artistic value. In the same way that a Pollock has no artistic value to many people. But in each case, Pollock and computer code, a small group of people appreciate the asthetic value of the object. > Perhaps programming is art, but it needs to be argued carefully as such. > Every one of the examples used in the above post as being "art without > frames" can easily be argued to be well within the Frame Definition. And > perhaps programming will ultimately be shown to be within it, too. Why do we have to use caution when looking at any particular item? With the ease that many have listed examples of framing, I would propose that everything has a frame. And in many cases, the frame has a frame. When you go to a museum of art, not only does the work have an individual frame, but usually the room or set of rooms has a themed frame, and the museum itself is a frame. All human visual experience is framed by the human eyeball. We don't have 360-degree vision. Instead, we can only experience a small portion of our environment at once. All human experience exists inside a frame. Thus, we come back to "life is art." Which makes sense since we call the place we exist, "God's creation." I think any argument aimed at proving "X is not art" will ultimatey be refuted by "Well, maybe X isn't art to you, but there's a group of people that think it is art, so it must have some artistic value." I don't think it's possible to name a thing that doesn't ultimately have some artistic value in someone's eyes. Of course we won't convince everyone that lines of programming code are "art," but then I probably won't convince everyone that the Toy Dolls make music -- but I like it. I think all this really does is refute the possibility of a universal definition of art, which was probably a given in the first place. -- Terry Jeffress -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Value of Fairy Tales Date: 10 Mar 2003 13:03:26 -0700 ___ Steve ___ | I disagree and think the "original versions" are truer | and more useful to children than to literal minded | adults. They are a way of dealing with fear, not | invoking it. | [...] | Kids aren't interpreting this literally; this is a story | about a child who tries a couple of times and fails, but | learns from his/her failures and finally succeeds. ___ I don't think the line between who is more literal minded is quite as clear cut as you suggest. Adults tend to be far more appreciative of metaphor than children. Children can't think as abstractly as adults - it arises with language use and skill. (Not to mention other uses such as with mathematics) A lot of allegorical senses arise out of this. Yet at the same time clearly we have an instinct towards teaching abstractions in stories - an instinct that all cultures practice. Thus one could argue that in a more "unconscious" sense this gets developed fairly early on. The question thus becomes not abstraction but whether the distinction between abstraction and reality is recognized. And there I'm not quite sure I agree with you. Certainly kids recognize that talking bears, witches living in gingerbread houses and so forth aren't real. However that distinction becomes more blurred in film, where a pseudo-reality is imposed on the story. (Even in animation) Do kids cry at Bambi's mom, even though it isn't real? Do they get scared at the dragon in Sleeping Beauty? I agree with what you are getting at. However I think that the literal contaminates the allegorical more than you admit. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Little Mermaid Date: 10 Mar 2003 13:17:38 -0700 ___ Michael ___ | I also like that Ariel was quite nude in front of two male | creatures without anyone making the slightest deal out of | it, either by being scandalized or sexually titillated. | Just the sort of reasonable attitude toward nudity our | society should have. ___ Count me as one who decries the de-sexualizing of the human form as just as perniciously dangerous as pushing the sexualized form in all of our media. (Not to mention rather unbelievable) To me they are simply two sides of the same phenomena. To me the underlying cause is the loss of the sacred. ___ Linda ___ | But my kids all, also, think Ariel was pretty stupid. ___ One shouldn't neglect this. Sometimes unintentional messages are just as useful when they form a springboard for discussion. Which is, in one sense, the point of great art. It ought to cause reflection and change and not necessarily have a single "obvious" message. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory Date: 10 Mar 2003 13:23:51 -0700 ___ Jongiorgi ___ | Then, we are forced to ask, what is "reality." ___ The typical answer is that which exists when I'm not thinking about it. The more philosophically careful definitions are all variations on that theme. Truth, as typically spoken of in literature is either "things we socially like," "patterns we agree with," or "psychological structures." Only the latter typically is truth in the sense most philosophers or scientists view it. I should add that this is the cause of a lot of tension between the humanities and the sciences. Those more scientifically inclined tend to pull their hair out when they hear discussions of "truth" in literature. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Armand Mauss's Book Date: 10 Mar 2003 13:51:29 -0700 For Levi and all other interested folks (which should be everyone), here is the official blurb on Armand Mauss's book: Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, March 2003. Hardbound. 360 pages. $36.95 This book sums up four decades of Mauss's research on the changing understandings found among LDS leaders and members about the spiritual importance of special lineages. Early in the history of the Church, Joseph Smith and other leaders came to understand themselves, their relatives, and most other early converts as literal descendants of the Israelite tribe of Ephraim. This process was given powerful impetus by the growing influence in America and in Mormonism of the intellectual currents of British Israelism and Anglo-Saxon triumphalism imported from Europe during much of the 19th century. On the basis of the Book of Mormon, meanwhile, Smith and his converts attributed to the North American aboriginal peoples ("Indians") a similar and literal Israelite descent from both Manasseh and Ephraim. As "Lamanites," these peoples were the focus of the earliest missionary endeavors of the Mormons. Then there were the world's Jews, descendants of the tribe of Judah, who were also recognized as Israelites, of course, but it was not clear to the early Mormons what responsibility they had for the conversion of Jews. Finally, there was one lineage, definitely not Israelite, that labored under a divine curse even from its premortal existence; this was the lineage of Cain, attributed to people of black African origin. During the first century or so of LDS history, the sermons and writings of early leaders arranged these lineages in a single, collective ranking according to presumptive degrees of divine favor, with the pure Anglo-Saxon Ephraimites at the top, followed by Lamanites, Jews, and other Israelites, then the various "Gentile" peoples, and finally the cursed lineage of Cain at the bottom. This categorization of the world's peoples was nourished by the strongly racialist surrounding environment in America, and ironically it existed side by side in Mormonism with the original Christian teachings of the New Testament, especially of Paul to the Galatians, that all who embrace the gospel of Christ would become the children of Abraham. This book contains an account of how and why these racialist ideas developed, what consequences they have had in the history of Mormonism, and how they have gradually been abandoned in Church discourse, doctrine, and policy. In large part it is the story of how the global LDS proselyting program exposed the Church members and leaders to missionary experiences that made the traditional racialist ideas increasingly ridiculous and untenable. Church members in the 21st century rarely hear themselves described in Church discourse as literal descendants of Ephraim or their non-Mormon friends described as "gentiles." Neither black peoples nor other "lineages" are any longer under divine curse. It is no longer clear what people are described by the term "Lamanite," and in any case that is not relevant in the missionary endeavor. Jews have never been responsive to the periodic and half-hearted LDS conversion efforts, so these have been entirely deferred until some indefinite future point in the divine timetable. Yet an enduring residue of racialism remains among the Saints at the grassroots and in some of their favorite "classics" among books written by early LDS leaders. This residue presents the unfinished business still to be completed before the Mormons and the rest of the world can truly become "all Abraham's children." ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Enoses Date: 10 Mar 2003 14:46:42 -0800 Eric, Thanks. Fun to be aboard. Veronique and Mireille are both in NYC. Vero is currently working for Michael J. Fox. She helps the MJF Parkinson's Foundation raise money to fund research. They are doing really remarkable work. In fact, the Foundation is truly changing the process by which research gets funded, and are being tremendously instrumental in accelerating the process of getting funds directly to researchers. Congress is starting to pay attention. While Mr. Fox may not be around to see his disease cured (although there is certainly hope of that), he may ultimately be seen to have benefited humanity much more than we may know, just from his ceaseless campaigning to streamline some of the insanity out of how government appropriations committees work with respect to government's dealings with science. I was tremendously impressed with him and his selflessness when my wife, Santia, and I were able to speak with him last year in Napa at a fundraiser Vero helped to organize. But while Vero's work is fulfilling, and she works closely with many industry personalities, what she really wants to do is act and direct. And so she has recently completed an audition tour to apply for graduate programs around the country. She's holding out for two in particular, and will know one way or another by April, I think. I've got a couple of parts written for her in features if I can ever get financing off of the ground, and I also wrote her a play for her birthday last year which I'd love to see her star in (or direct; her notes as a dramaturge are immensely insightful) and so I am certain we will be seeing more of the V-girl as time goes by. We 'll all have to wait and see. I'll keep the list posted. As for Mireille, she sits poised on the brink of international stardom. Seriously. At 27, her work has reached a level of depth and intensity that I believe (quite objectively) puts her in the ranks of the A-list. She's doing work now as strong as anything Nicole Kidman or Julianne Moore are doing (and I'm just mentioning the A-list red-heads!). She could hold her own opposite anybody working in the industry today. Jane Alexander told me she considers Mireille one of the most talented young actresses she's ever worked with (and obviously the list of people Ms. Alexander has worked with includes Meryl Streep, etc.). Of course I have some bias, but I'm also a pretty fair judge of things, so mark my words: five years from now, Meems is a household name. I kid you not. She's had a busy year: after closing in Tom Stoppard's The Invention of Love at the Kennedy Center, doing a show at Yale, and a stint as a briefly recurring character on the short-lived Richard Dreyfuss series, The Education of Max Bixford, she jetted over to Seattle for an amazing stint with Jane Alexander at the helm of a brave new cutting of O'Neil's Morning Becomes Electra. She did another show briefly back East and then Electra traveled to Connecticut for a second run. There is some talk that it may move into New York some time next year. (If it does, she'll get a Tony: she rules that show; it's her vehicle and she commands it, playing the role Jane Alexander played 20 years ago, now playing opposite of Ms. Alexander playing the mother. The two of them together are a force to reckoned with. Very exciting theater.) Currently, Mireille is opening this month on Broadway with Hillary Swank in the much publicized revival of The Miracle Worker. Meems plays the mother (but once Hillary goes back to Hollywood, she could kill as Annie - and there has been some quiet rumblings to that effect if the show gets extended.) The show may close early (6 month run) if these war fears continue to cramp Broadway ticket sales as they have been doing. We'll see. I have several scripts in development for Mireille to star in. One of them had LDS themes and I struggled for two years to get LDS investors to smell the magic and fund it, but that didn't happen. (Certain people will be kicking themselves at some point.) Eventually, I stripped out the LDS themes and sold (an option in) the script to an LA company. They have until July of 2004 to produce it. If not, I'll try again, but Mireille will be too old to play the part by then. But Meems is slated to star in my LDS pioneer epic The Long Walk Of Patience Loader, if ever I can get that funded, as well as several non-LDS features we have cooking for her. I suspect I may have to stand in line with everybody else who wants her as her availability starts getting booked farther and farther out. Oh well. Not to bad for a couple of BYU graduates, ne'est pas? I like bragging on my sisters, of course, but there are more and more successful LDS artists in every aspect of the industry, and this is a trend I see not only continuing, but growing. The generations you and your colleagues (such as my beloved Barta, etc.) are training up at the "Y" are and will be the voice of our collective future. Thanks for your inspiration and your work with all of us. Your work is changing the world. Jon Enos ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:57 AM > Hey Jon. Welcome. How are Mireille and Veronique these days? > > Eric Samuelsen > > > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 10 Mar 2003 17:14:35 -0700 Okay, a few comments about Mormonism and politics and literature, which I = hope can stay on-topic. My favorite daily reading is the letters to the editor page in the Deseret = News. I really can't get enough of it. I think I like it precisely = because it provides such an untrustworthy look at Utah Mormon culture. = For example, a very large percentage of letters deal with guns, with the = Utah concealed weapons permit law, and with other gun related issues. = >From the DN, one would gather that an absolute monolith of opinion opposes = all gun control legislation, that the 2nd Amendment is universally = understood by Utahns to prohibit all attempts to regulate the private = ownership of firearms. In fact, this isn't true; every poll on the issue = suggests that most Utahns favor gun control. But you'd never get that = from reading the letters section of the DN. =20 The current session of the Utah legislature just concluded was very = interesting. To name just a few issues, the legislature did not pass hate = crimes legislation, did not restrict concealed weapons permit holders from = bringing guns into schools and churches, did not raise education spending, = or raise taxes so schools could be adequately funded. These were the hot = issues of the day. Now here's what's interesting. An opinion poll inthe = DN during the session asked Utah citizens what we thought on each of the = above issues, and in each case, a large majority supported the measures = the legislature opposed. For example, a Utah majority favored increasing = spending for education, even if it required a tax hike. The polling = numbers surprised me, because the letters to the DN all took the opposite = position; all supported, in fact, the action taken by the legislature. = So, a poll says increase ed spending. But you'll be hard pressed to find = a letter to the editor that agreed. And the legislature voted with the = letters. Why? Because the Church also opposed increased education spending. =20 What? The Church took an official stand on that issue? Of course not. = When I say 'the Church opposed this measure,' I don't mean that official = entity, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I mean my ward = opposes it. I have no evidence that anyone in my ward favored increased = education spending, because the only people who spoke up on the issue in = Church (inappropriately, in my mind), opposed it. So, you're a legislator.= You go to your ward. You listen. Everyone who mentions it says 'don't = increase spending.' So the voice of the culture becomes the voice of that = minority willing to speak up. And it speaks loudly enough to drown out = opinion polls. =20 We have no forum in Mormonism to talk about any of these issues. We tend = to experience the world at the ward level, and the only people who speak = up on political issues in Church are those with extreme views, who = therefore aren't bothered by the inappropriateness of speaking up on = political questions in Church. So a warped perspective emerges, in which = we're seen as lunatic fringe conservatives. And the DN reflects that = warped perspective. =20 So, there's a war coming up soon. In my opinion, it's the very definition = of an unjust war. The best argument that can be made for it seems to be = something like this: President Bush is Governor Lachoneus. Saddam is = Giddianhi. So we need to launch a pre-emptive strike against him, or else = he's coming to attack us. Even at that level, it's unjust, and that's = even without--as I do--seeing Bush as closer to Gadianton than Lachoneus. = What do we hear about the war in my Mormon neighborhood? Not much. What = we do hear is something like this: we should support our leaders. I don't = even know what that means. =20 And then someone comes up to you, and whispers quietly, 'what do you = think? I think it's awful." And quickly sidles off. After nursery last = Sunday two guys cornered me in the lobby. All quiet, looking stealthily = around. "Do you think . . . I don't believe what Bush is saying about . . = . " Then the door to the bishop's office opened, and they left. So Emma Lou Thayne wrote a short anti-war poem, which the DN letters page = published. Great poem, and of course, I agreed with it. And a few = respondents have attacked her for it too, which is their right. But is = that it? Is the DN letters page the only forum in which we can talk about = this war? =20 The war has been raised in Priesthood, I understand, by one of our = resident right wing kooks, who was very quickly shushed by the instructor. = I wasn't there; I was helping my wife in the nursery. Certainly no = dissenting opinion was heard, nor will it ever be. Not publically. But = quietly, in whispers, a little. =20 And so it goes. We're heading to war, and it feels like a production of = Endgame, cruelly absurd. The overwhelming conservative bias of the = national media, the absolute impossibility of a liberal voice being heard, = has led to the absurdity of celebrities protesting on talk shows, because = they're the only liberals who can get booked on those shows. (The idea of = a 'liberal bias' in the media is so preposterous, it barely deserves = acknowledgement, and yet it's a surprisingly pervasive myth.) In the DN, = the Sunday opinion page had five editorials about the war, all by = conservatives, all favoring it. And yet, again, opinion surveys show a = far more ambivalent body of opinion. So we have two realities. What people are really thinking and feeling, = which we only find out in whispers. And the party line, the official = line, which only feels official because it gets spoken with some force. = It's Culture-Voice, which says rock music is evil, and so are R rated = movies, and voting Democratic, and women working, and Not Supporting The = President. And then, whispers, saying 'but what if that doesn't work for = me?' And every once in awhile, you get people alone, and people start talking. = Quietly, where no one can see them. And what they say is: I'm troubled. = I'm having a hard time sleeping right now. We're wrong to do this. I got a long email from a friend, full of capitalized words and exclamation= points, desperately asking if I had any cogent arguments, any, against = the war, which her gut told her was wrong, but she could find nothing, not = a single article anywhere, making a rational, informed argument against = it. Nothing but propoganda, anywhere. =20 The France bashing quite amazes me; one restaurant in Provo now offers = 'freedom fries,' instead of 'french fries.' Sickest of all is the humor: = how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? We don't know. It's = never been tried. So that's where we are. Dishonoring close to two = million French soldiers who died defending their capital in WWI and II. = Dishonoring our oldest and dearest ally. And those jokes have an edge to = them, an edge of desperation, as though people are making strongly = partisan arguments they don't really believe in. I think all this has larger implications in our culture. A friend told me = about a high council speaker in her ward who made the following argument: = thinking leads to questioning, questioning leads to murmuring, murmuring = leads to apostacy. Why do you say that, if you're not afraid? Afraid of = the thoughts, perhaps, you hear whispered in corners, perhaps even in = corners of your own head. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Aitken, Neil" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 10 Mar 2003 18:30:37 -0800 I'm not certain if anyone has done much in this vein, but another example of taking Mormon culture and religion to a whole new place was definitely Battlestar Galactica. Here again, culture is made safe by the distance implied by place and time. See the following link for a more complete discussion on this: http://www.proaxis.com/~sherlockfam/art5.html A change in circumstance or situation can make a comedy or drama so much more appealing. A few ideas I think could be interesting: * missionaries in Russia under surveillance by the Russian mob (this actually happens, the Russian mafia keeps tabs on missionaries and tries to keep them out of trouble). Imagine the conversations, misunderstandings, and weird situations that could arise out of this odd linkage. * missionaries teaching a mob family * Mormon family living in Saudi Arabia (where all non-Islamic churches are underground organizations) Neil Aitken ========= Scott Parkin wrote: >Like I said, I'm probably overthinking it. But it would be interesting to see >someone take Mormon comedy completely over the top. Do missionaries in space or >set an "All In the Family" style sit-com in 1860s Canada. The relevance of >culture just might be made safe by the irrelevance of time and place. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 10 Mar 2003 20:03:18 -0700 My mission zone leader was headed home, but his parents had moved from southern California to Iowa while he was gone. So he was catching the plane to Iowa. I joked with him about his parents not leaving a forwarding address (Rodney Dangerfield, when I was a kid my parents moved around a lot, but I alway found them), and how cool the locals would think he was when he got to Iowa, and how well his milking the bull story would be received there. He didn't think it was funny. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Knudsen family Subject: [AML] LDSWorld Website Query Date: 10 Mar 2003 20:33:22 -0700 Does anyone know what happened to the LDSWorld.com website? I loved their section on LDS Urban Legends and have referenced in often, including at the year's AML Conference. Now it seems to have disappeared! Any idea where or who the owners of this site are/were? Thank you, Ronda Walker Knudsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab #1--New Development Date: 11 Mar 2003 01:09:13 -0700 Well, I had a great time at the first lab. For various reasons, those that RSVP'd didn't show up. Disappointing, but not too surprising. I've lived long enough to know things like this happen. So I watched the two Dutcher films myself with director's commentary. Fascinating stuff. I was going to move on, planning for next month's lab. But a sudden development made it worthwhile to reschedule the first lab. This is all still tentative--I'll give you confirmed information the minute it's available. It turns out one of the main stars of _Brigham City_ (who lives out state) wanted very much to attend the first lab, but was going to be in Utah the week after. He's still finalizing his schedule, but will likely be here Saturday the 15th and, if so, will attend, ready to provide lively discussion, including stories the director's commentary doesn't include. As soon as he knows he's coming, he'll also invite the director himself to attend (very up-in-the-air possibility at the moment). We'll view the two Dutcher films with director's commentary, since most everyone has seen them already, then _Out of Step_ normally. So here's another chance to not only view the films scheduled for Lab #1, but also to meet one of the stars, and possibly (fingers crossed) maybe even have a chance to discuss the first two films with the director/producer/author. Instructions for attending are at: http://www.wwno.com/filmlab -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] Michael WILCOX, _Who Shall Be Able To Stand?_ (Review) Date: 10 Mar 2003 05:55:37 GMT Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Title: Who Shall Be Able To Stand? Author: S. Michael Wilcox Publisher: Deseret Book Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 338 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-870-5 Price: $19.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle The full title of this book is "Who Shall Be Able To Stand? Finding Personal Meaning in the Book of Revelation." It is, in effect, a devotional commentary on the last book of the Bible. Wilcox has a good record of producing quality books on gospel topics. He focuses on giving readers a way of discovering their own individual connection to his subject. One of his previous books, "House of Glory," is likewise subtitled, "Finding Personal Meaning in the Temple." In both works, Wilcox succeeds in bringing the subject closer to the hearts and minds of his readers. Finding personal meaning in the Temple is an easier goal than doing so in a book written two thousand years ago and is, by general agreement, a mystifying and confused work of apocalyptic. How does Wilcox attain his goal? The method is simple -- stay clear of too many literal interpretations, too many parallels between symbols and historical events, relegate them to the musty study halls of theologians and end-timers, and focus on the message of hope and salvation in John's words. More than a decade ago, I was asked to teach a seminar on the book of Revelation at an Episcopal Church in southern California. Given the audience, I thought the preterist view was most appropriate. I was right. Such a view liberated me from the assumptions of the Christian fundamentalist worldview and allowed me to focus on the personal symbolism contained in Revelation. My first task was to disabuse the entire class of calling this book "Revelations." My next was to figure out just what the class thought about the book. One fellow, an imigrant from England, suggested that John had been smoking hashish while writing the book. I doubted this was the case, but, given the wild visions, the animals and fires and trumpets, I couldn't blame him for thinking so! Wilcox begins his book by describing what he sees as the "key" to a proper understanding of the book of Revelation. Lest we think there's just one item on his list, he explains that he prefers to use a single "key" with many "notches" to describe how all of the factors work together. I'm not clear why this made much of a difference, given the list of notches and their use throughout the book. But the list, at least to me, proved very revealing. Here they are, in his order: 1. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible 2. Modern scripture (the Book of Mormon, the D&C, etc.) 3. Old Testament allusions 4. Poetic imagery 5. Parallel images (within the book of Revelation) 6. Moral warning or encouragement This list provided for a few surprises: First, the placement of the JST of the Bible as "notch" #1. When one considers that the work, as a whole, was never canonized, it seems that, while it might provide a source of enrichment and explanation, it would not occupy the first slot. My own sense is that one would look either to the Old Testament allusions (after all, John depended heavily on Daniel and other Old Testament prophets for his imagery), or at least on canonized scripture as his primary source of direction. Also, there seems to be an element missing in his list, and one which I consider a very important piece of knowledge -- a familiarity with the Greek text that underlies the book. In at least one place, a knowledge of the Greek would have given him a better read on a text in the gospel of John, and would have served his overall purpose better. Consider the following: We can follow the morning star or the fallen one. Sadly, though, Jesus is "the light [that] shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5) (p. 24) Wilcox clearly misses the meaning of the word "comprehended" here, thinking it means "to understand." In fact, the word, as it is used nearly always in the New Testament, means to seize, take by force, extinguish. And this is how most newer translations of the Bible render the word. In other words, the statement is one of the triumph of the light over darkness, not one that ought to be preceded by the word "sadly." I hope the author will research this and, perhaps, correct it in a future edition. Wilcox's design is to take us through the book of Revelation chapter by chapter. At every turn, he cautions the reader to avoid over-literal interpretations of the text. He is careful not to set timelines or rock-solid identifications for many of the symbols. And he displays a generosity for those who are loathe to take even the numbers in this book too literally. As an example, in a section titled "The Half Hour," discussing Revelation 8, Wilcox makes a case for a less-than-literal reading of the text: The time period of half an hour should not be taken at face value. It represents a short period of time offered to man to repent before the final cleansing preparations begin. A Book of Mormon example might serve as an illustration. The new star and the day-night-day of light told the people without equivocation that Christ was coming; still, things went along as usual for the next thirty-four years. Then the destruction of the wicked occurred and Jesus appeared in glory to usher in a reign of peace. This can be viewed as a shadow for the Second Coming, as the chronology is similar. The half-hour corresponds to the thirty-four year period. (p. 109-110) In similar ways, Wilcox makes his case for the openness of the symbols in Revelation, and draws parallels to similar *situations,* rather than similar *numerical values,* to enlarge and expand on the text. And this is basically what the author achieves in this fine volume. He accomplishes two worthy goals: 1. He opens the book of Revelation to the reader as a personal word of comfort and support. By avoiding strict literalist interpretations of the text, he leaves the text open for the reader to enter into the experience of both the writer and the recipients of the letter. He correctly sees the ultimate purpose of the letter as an expression of hope amid chaos. Such an approach is badly needed, and nicely executed here. 2. He pulls together the wealth of information available in other Restoration sources, showing parallels and enrichments, giving the reader a wonderful path for personal study. And he does this in a way that every reader may comprehend. No complex theological discussions here, only a pastoral view of the book of Revelation. I'm certain I won't offend the author by saying that textual scholars need not rush to purchase this book. If you're looking for insights into the Greek text, or if you're wanting to exegete the text as would a linguist, then this isn't the book for you. Of course, there is no shortage of resources for the scholar. Christians have been producing scholarly texts for generations. And most of them are not understandable by the average reader. This book is for the person who seeks to find meaning in the whirlwind of life in which we live today, the person willing to invest some time in reading, praying, and understanding the Biblical witness and the further witness of Restoration scripture. "Who Shall Be Able To Stand?" is well executed, eminently readable, and a great resource for the Latter-day Saint community. It is highly recommended. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 10 Mar 2003 15:21:19 -0800 Thanks Kim, nice to meet you. Yes, a French/Italian mother and a Texan father of possible Irish/German/Greek ancestry makes for quite a mix. You know, you can tell your son that I served five months in Cannes, on the French Riviera, and taught NOT ONE SINGLE discussion in that entire time! I even had a guy look me straight in the eyes and tell me "Don't talk to me about Jesus, I'm on vacation!" So I can sympathize. Of course, I would also like him to send me about 20 pounds of gulf shrimp! Half of my gene pools is from the bayou and a good gumbo from time to time bubbles my soul. I was in that neck of the woods around Thanksgiving and do love it, despite its challenges. With respect to my joking comment to Jeff, I hope he takes it in the jovial spirit of fun it was extended. I have since read the List guidelines and realized that even mild language, even in jest, is discouraged, so I apologize now for my use of it. As a door approach, however, I would argue that it may have merit! Actually, I have many friends, particularly of the intellectual variety, who have much contact with the church, even love much about it, but have no interest in joining. I can relate. I have my own love-hate relationship with the church as it finds itself manifested in our modern culture. Many days I wish, I just WISH I could just be a Buddhist! I really do. But for me, while I explore and study all religions, that is just not an option for me. I have received too powerful and intense of a personal testimony to deny Christ and His restored gospel. The church is calculated to work for the least strong and the most strong, and so we find all types in it and all kinds of examples of behavior, etc., we are ashamed by. But I like the comments that somebody made here a while back about types of "mormonisms" (culturally speaking), and this has to be taken into account. Intimately, as you know, a personal testimony is available to anyone who asks. I don't know why someone would find themselves truly interested in LDS culture without having a testimony of it. And perhaps making that statement is just fishing for interesting debate. It's a funny opinion, since I write about our culture, and I am interested, as a businessman trying to make a living in it, by creating the ephemeral "cross-over appeal." From the outset, we suspected that Brigham City would appeal more to non-members than members, but for me, personally, I just don't think we are that fascinating a culture. I think we are fairly bland as a culture, actually, and all of these comparisons to "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" just don't work for me. There are insufficient ubiquitous cultural traits to identify. The truth of the matter is, we are a faith which is superimposed over other cultures. Greeks, Jews, French, Africans, Chinese, Utahans and New Yorkers are all LDS, but they do not share the same culture, per se, only the same faith. Even saying I am Greek Orthodox-American is not the same as saying I'm LDS-American. I think the most successful works will ultimately those which are universal (be it in their comedy or their drama) in theme while the LDS background is the spice. "Greek Wedding" tricked us into thinking it made us laugh at Greek American culture, when in fact we laughed at universally humorous events, and were charmed by the universal love story. This may be why there is such a lack of polarization in the Halestorm products. I don't know if my recent comedy (written with David Howard), "The Trek" will ultimately prove successful in this regard (if it get's produced, time will tell), and we are still tinkering with the story for the next six months or so, but that's the goal, at any rate. "Brigham City" is a story that can only work when set in a small mostly-LDS community, but it is the story and the characters which work, not the "Mormonness" of it. You are either compelled by Wes Clayton and his entourage, or you are not. The concluding sacrament scene is about universal themes of forgiveness and community, regardless of your faith in the symbols of Christ, and that scene has, interestingly, always tested extremely well with non-LDS audiences. Anyway, I got WAY off track with my little hello-and-thanks letter! But I tend to do that. I'm a master of digression! Great meeting you, Kim. Ciao for now. Jon ----- Original Message ----- > I've never heard/read such an interesting intro before. Makes me wonder how > many other fascinating lurkers there are out there. C'mon...speak up... > > My favorite part was to Jeffrey Needle. "Get baptized, dammit" may be the > new door approach of the 21st century now that they've done away with > memorized discussions. I'm writing my son in Louisiana to suggest it to him > right now. (He's depressed, finishing out his mission in heavily > Cajuncatholic Lake Chuck, LA where he can buy fresh Gulf shrimp $15 pounds > for $10, but investigators ain't to be had for love nor money. Hey, he might > not make much headway in teaching the people, but he's gonna come home King > of Gumbo.) > > Welcome, Jon. I can't believe you have an Italian sounding first name and a > Book of Mo last. How cool is that? > > Kim Madsen, of the pedestrian first and last names. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bryan Loeper" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 10 Mar 2003 22:43:34 -0500 Granted, I haven't seen _RM_, but I have seen _Singles Ward_, and I have a hard time supporting your claim that it purports to be "real world." >From the introduction to himself, the main character sets the tone of absurdity with at least by the time you finish with his dismissals of the reactivationists, if not sooner. Also, rarely do people motion for cameras, and 'lecture' the audience in reality. And as for the benefit of "truer" characters in _Princess Bride_, it is my opinion that the movie suffered from that, as compared to the book, which only contained two-dimensional characters. That's just me, though. Sincerely, Bryan Loeper -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Recent Web Book Reviews Date: 11 Mar 2003 06:00:28 +0000 Here are some book reviews of Mormon lit that have recently popped up on the web: Bound by Honor By Virginia Weldon Published by Covenant Communications. Reviewed by Jennie Hansen http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/030306bound.html George Q. Cannon: A Biography, by Davis Bitton and Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life, by Boyd Jay Petersen. Reviewed by Orson Scott Card http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2003-03-03.shtml Dark Property, by Brian Evenson Reviewed by Alex Paozols http://www.rockymountainbullhorn.com/Archives/January%202003/reviews_0103.html (This is the first review of Evenson's book that I have seen. It sounds even more grusome than his Altmann's Tounge, if you can believe it). Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan http://www.rockymountainbullhorn.com/Archives/January%202003/reviews_0103.html _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 10 Mar 2003 23:21:18 -0700 Eric D. Snider wrote: >Furthermore, those films acknowledge their tenuous grip on reality, and in fact intentionally eschew reality I agree completely. The error in "The R.M." is not that it starts out with some pretty ridiculous things happening to the main character but rather that it fails to consistently maintain that throughout the film. Thomas ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Theater Date: 11 Mar 2003 05:52:20 +0000 2002 Year in Review-Theater The main stories of the year are the establishment of a theatrical company dedicated to Mormon plays, a string of notable premiers in Utah and Idaho, two plays becoming staples of regional theater outside of Utah, and the premiers of more harrowing works by the one really famous Mormon playwright on Broadway and the West End. I was in the United States only very briefly this year and only attended one play by an LDS playwright. I received most of my information on the Utah plays from reviews in the Utah newspapers, comments on AML-list, and scuttlebutt from Players Anonymous, an active message board about Utah theater. Although existing on a smaller scale than some of the other works I will mention, perhaps the most significant event in Mormon theater in 2002 was the establishment of the Nauvoo Theatrical Society by Scott Bronson, Thom Duncan, and Paul Duerden. They also constructed the Center Street Theatre as part of the effort, a small 130-seat black box theater in Orem. The company and theater were created with the express purpose of producing plays by Mormon authors or with Mormon themes. Over the past three decades Brigham Young University had provided a training ground and performance space for young Mormon playwrights and directors, which has resulted in the production of a significant body of plays about Mormons. Those who did not return to BYU to teach, however, have struggled to find performance space for Mormon- themed plays. The creators of the Nauvoo Theatrical Society aim to fill this niche. In its first season the company is producing a series of revivals of works by LDS playwrights over the last twenty five years. They began with two plays in 2002, Carol Lynn Pearson and Lex de Azavedo's 1977 musical "My Turn On Earth", and Tim Slover's 1996 play "Joyful Noise", both of which received excellent reviews. The Nauvoo Theatrical Society has scheduled four plays so far for 2003. There were a large number of premiers by LDS playwrights in 2002. Perhaps the most noteworthy was Tim Slover's BYU production of "Hancock County", which was the university’s entry in the State Cultural Olympiad. Slover based the play on the historical record of the 1845 trial of five men accused of conspiring to kill Joseph Smith. He said he hoped the play would take the audience beyond the historical story to illuminate the nature of inter-cultural conflicts between neighbors. Reviewers raved about both the script and the production. Eric Snider from the Daily Herald said, "It is a clear, rich drama that is satisfying even when it doesn't go the way we want it to." R. W. Rasband said it was "an intelligent, thrilling, tightly-drawn courtroom drama/tragedy that unfolds into a meditation on America, violence, and forgiveness." It is the production I most regret missing from 2002. Also, as mentioned above, Slover's 1998 drama "Joyful Noise", about Handel and his creation of "The Messiah", was produced by the Nauvoo Theatrical Society later in the year, again to rave reviews. Eric Snider said, "The script is brimming with fantastic dramatic conflict, but it also is so rife with great lines that it is nearly Oscar Wildean . . . wit, emotion and loveliness abound in this stellar production." It was hoped that a production of "Joyful Noise" in Lancaster, PA early in the year would lead to a Broadway production, but a poor review in the New York Times put an end to that momentum. Still, there were at least three other regional productions of the play in 2002, and more in the works for 2003, so the play may be on its way towards becoming a regional theater standard. It would be one of the first times a play produced originally for a Mormon audience has moved beyond that audience to find a place in the national theatrical world. Slover also created a screenplay version, which won a writing award early in the year. BYU campuses were the sites of two other important premiers, both tragic in nature; LeeAnne Hill Adams' "Yellow China Bell" (in Provo), and Reed McColm's "Hole in the Sky" (at BYU-Idaho). Adams, a BYU graduate student, made quite an impact with her first play about the life of an Armenian who as a 15-year old girl was raped, kidnapped and forced to marry a Russian man. Genelle Pugmire from the Deseret News and Eric Snider both strongly praised the work ("one of the most provocative and passionate plays ever to hit a BYU stage", "intense and cathartic"), while recognizing that many in the audience would struggle with the harrowing events portrayed. In a postscript to his review Snider said "the joke was that this show was performed without intermission because they knew no one would come back if they gave them a chance to leave . . . [particularly] after the initial rape scene." In 2003 BYU will present a second Adams play on the main stage, "Archipelago", about a group of imprisoned Soviets, based in part on selections from Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. In "Hole in the Sky", Reed McColm took on the September 11th tragedy, creating a story about fifteen people stuck on an upper floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center from the time of the first impact until the tower's collapse. The two-week run was sold out and was held over for three nights. I have not seen any reviews, but the play was awarded the 2002 AML Drama prize, so at least one person thought it was a high-quality work. "Together Again for the First Time", a comedy McColm originally produced in 1985, also appeared at BYU-Idaho earlier in the year. The peripatetic Eric Samuelsen had his finger in several pies, as usual. "Peculiarities", a tragi-comedy about Mormonism and sexuality, was directed and performed by BYU students at the Villa Playhouse in Springville. The Salt Lake Tribune said it was "a brave exploration of what often bubbles just underneath a seemingly virtuous society." The majority of AML-list reviewers spoke very highly about the work, calling it a "thoughtful" and "fearlessly honest" look at loneliness and sexual frustration among young single Mormons. Samuelsen also adapted the script of "Magnificence," a medieval morality play, which was performed at BYU in tandem with "Everyman". I attended the plays, my first taste of the genre, and was deeply moved and highly entertained by both. I have never seen religious devotion and raucous humor mixed so well in my life. Finally, he presented another new play at the BYU Writers, Directors, and Actors workshop. Titled "Mount Vernon", it imagined a meeting between an aging George Washington and a (time-traveling?) African-American history professor from the 21st century. One of Sameulsen's students at BYU, Melissa Larson, premired her play "Wake Me When It's Over" in July, which received strong reviews from AML-list readers. Other premiers included Tony and Karrol Cobb's Book of Mormon musical "The Promised Land" at the SCERA in Orem, George Nelson and Daniel Larson's musical comedy "Soft Shoe" at BYU, about an aging vaudevillian and his family, Doug Stewart and Merrill Jenson’s 1940s-style musical comedy "Almost Perfect" at UVSC, and Bill Brown's comedy "Throwing Stones" at the Villa. Except for some positive words I heard about the music in "The Promised Land," I do not get the impression that any of these works are headed for theatrical immortality. Several plays which premiered in Utah over the last few years returned in refashioned productions in 2002. The most successful was a Thanksgiving Point production of Michael McLean and Kevin Kelly's musical "The Ark", based on the story of Noah and his family, which premiered in 1998. After a small string of productions in Utah the authors took the play to the prestigious Festival of New Musicals to be critiqued, which resulted in a simplification in the plot, focusing on the relationship between Noah and his doubting son, Ham. Eric Snider said, "this is a show of great humanity and beauty. It is sometimes uproariously funny, and other times uncommonly moving . . . go by any means necessary". Ivan Lincoln from the Deseret News placed it in his top ten semi- professional plays of the year. Following in the footsteps of "Joyful Noise", it appears that "The Ark" has some legs. There were two productions late in the year outside of Utah, one at Eastern Arizona College, another at the Starlight Mountain Theater in Idaho. There is also a production scheduled at the Village Theater in Issaquah, Washington in the Spring of 2003. Two other plays reappeared on Utah stages after a period of adjustment, although that is the only point of similarity between them. The pageant-like Tuacahn musical "Utah!" returned, the fifth version to appear so far, after a hiatus of a few years. The author of the current script (following versions by Robert Paxton, Reed McColm, and Tim Slover) was "Stallion Cornell", the pen name of Jim Bennet. This version retained the previous music by Kurt Bestor and Sam Cardon and lyrics by Doug Stewart. It focused on Joseph Hamblin's efforts to act as mediator between the Mormon settlers and the local Native Americans, avoiding the emphasis on polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre found in some earlier versions. Ivan Lincoln gave the production a fairly good review. On the other end of the spectrum, Steven Fales brought his one- man show "Confessions of a Mormon Boy" back to the Rose Wagner Center in Salt Lake City, where it appeared in 2001, after appearances in New York City, San Francisco, and Las Vegas. Through monologue, comedy, song, and dance Fales tells the story of his struggle with and eventual acceptance of same-sex attraction, which resulted in his excommunication. The most recent version, which he hopes to eventually take to an Off-Broadway theater, includes more about his life in New York City since his decision to come out. From the oversized and the unconventional, three revivals of small, familiar plays received warm reviews from the press: the Nauvoo Theatrical Society's "My Turn on Earth", "Joseph and Mary: A Love Story" at the Bountiful Performing Arts Center, and "The Educated Heart" at the Hale Center Theater. Viewers of "My Turn On Earth", one of the first of the popular-but-frequently-mocked 1970s Mormon musicals, were reminded that it contained some of the best songs and most engaging premise of the genre. Ivan Lincoln said the late Ralph Rogers Jr.'s semi-musical "Joseph and Mary" was a "heartfelt Christmas story . . . [which] more than any other show encapsulates what Christmas is all about." Eric Snider said Ruth and Nathan Hale's "The Educated Heart," was by far the most enjoyable of the nine plays by the Hales he had seen. "Unlike most of the other plays written by the godparents of Utah community theater, the characters . . . are not sitcom-inspired smart- alecks . . . the humor here comes, gently and unforced, from natural situations and believable characters." Margaret Blair Young's AML award-winning historical play "I am Jane" also was revised in productions in Provo and Los Angles over the course of the year. Several theatrical events were scheduled to coincide with the Olympics in February. The Church put on its own pageant at the Conference Center, "Light of the World." It was a big, impressive production, with over 1000 people in the cast. The script tried to cover all the bases of Mormonism, Olympic history, and universal brotherhood, which resulted in a bit of a muddle. Still, it was a lot of spectacle for only $5 a ticket, and it was without a doubt the most well attended Mormon theatrical event of the year. Down the street the Salt Lake Acting Company put on its own event called "Cabbies, Cowboys, and the Tree of the Weeping Virgin:, an omnibus of short plays with Utah settings. They included Mike Dorrell's "The Dome", about pioneers building the church house which now serves as the SLAC's theater, "Eager", by Mary Dickson, about a young LDS woman with a departing missionary boyfriend who has spread rumors about her, and "The Unsettling," by Pete Rock, about a young LDS girl drawn into drug use and possible madness. Neil LaBute continues to make a name for himself as both a creative force and an unsparing moralist in theater as well as film. While his most recent films (which he directed but did not originally write) have shown some rays of hope through the gloom, he continues to write and direct some of the most depressing, misogynistic plays ever to reach the big-time. His 2001 play "The Shape of Things" was performed in at least four regional theaters in North America in 2002, and his film version will be released in 2003. He premiered three new plays in 2002. The first, "The Distance from Here", at the Almeida on London's West End, told the story of "six young Americans trapped in a suburban wasteland, on the brink of revolt." One young man, believing he has been sexually betrayed, kidnaps a baby and uses it as a means of extorting the truth from his girlfriend. John Lair in The New Yorker wrote in his review, "There is no playwright on the planet these days who is writing better than Neil Labute . . . LaBute, in his most ambitious and best play to date, gets inside the emptiness of American culture, the masquerade of pleasure and the evil of neglect. . . . a new title to be added to the short list of important contemporary plays." A reviewer for the Guardian was less complimentary, commenting that it was "a dismayingly cold piece: a vision of the spiritual emptiness of American suburbia recorded with the scientific detachment of a zoologist. LaBute presents the evidence without analyzing the causes of the U.S.'s descent to the abyss." The play was to be produced on Broadway in 2002, but it was replaced by another new LaBute play, "The Mercy Seat", and will appear in the 2003-2004 season instead. "The Mercy Seat", staring Liev Schreiber and Sigorney Weaver, played on Broadway in December 2002-January 2003, and was held over for four performances. It told the story of an adulterous couple on the morning of September 12th, who had just missed being killed because they were in her apartment instead of at their offices in the World Trade Center. LaBute "casts the couple's narcissism and moral abdication into relief," according to Tom Sellar in the Village Voice. New York reviewers for the most part strongly praised the actors and direction, but felt the script lacked direction. Ben Brantley in the New York Times wrote, "Ultimately you feel he's not digging any deeper than the tabloids that made heroes out of everyone who died in the terrorist attacks . . . 'The Mercy Seat' feels lazy. It doesn't build, breathlessly but carefully, in the way of each of the transfixing monologues in 'bash'. Thus the play's stars must constantly invent new ways to tread water." LaBute also wrote a one-act play, "Land of the Dead", which was performed at Town Hall in New York City on September 11th as part "Brave New World", an omnibus three-day memorial benefit for the victims of the terrorist attacks the year before. It stared Kristin Davis (Sex in the City) and Liev Schreiber, and told the story of a man who tries to force his girlfriend to have an abortion. Unlike his 1999 play "bash: latter- day plays", none of his 2002 plays appear to contain any reference to Mormons or Mormonism. So, there you have it, from the sweet to the harrowing. It is quite a large number of works, considering that in 1970 probably even the most aware Mormon critic could not name more than five original plays penned by a Mormon author. Now, if I could just get to see some of them. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 11 Mar 2003 00:34:22 -0700 Scott Parkin wrote: > My grandmother > hated "Hogan's Heros" because in her mind there was nothing funny about > Nazis--the fact that her brother died in Germany didn't help matters. Fascinating how people react so differently to the same thing. I saw a news feature on Werner Klemperer, who played Colonel Klink in "Hogan's Heroes." He's Jewish, and his family was definitely impacted by the Third Reich. He said he was willing to play a German officer only if the Germans were depicted as buffoons. His pound of flesh, I suppose. What enraged your grandmother was exactly what Klemperer needed to be willing to take part in the series. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature (was: YOUNG, _Heresies of Nature_ etc) Date: 11 Mar 2003 01:19:06 -0800 [MOD: Hm... I'm not convinced that Harlow remains entirely away from a=20 political focus here--but as always, I'm baffled by the task of trying to=20 untangle the threads of a Harlow-post. And I think he says some interesting= =20 things about how we are in some ways a conflicted culture, pulled between a= =20 variety of texts and messages, and how that provides fruitful ground and=20 subject matter for our literature. So I guess the moral is that it's okay to= =20 stray into politics a little, here, if (a) you can do it without disrespect= =20 for the opinions of others, and (b) you can continue to convince me that the= =20 focus really is largely literary and cultural, not on politics per se.=20 Thanks...] On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0700 Margaret Young writes: > Now a non-AML related question--unless someone can come=20 > up with a literary tie, in which case, I'd love to see it on list. Oddly enough, I was just thinking about the legislative session in relation to AML today. The connection I see is cultural, and the way culture effects law and law affects and reflects culture. There is also a literary connection because the two best statements I know about love overcoming hate are from sermons, which are a literary form. > The "Hate Crimes" bill got pulled from the Utah State senate.=20 > I have very deep feelings about this and simply don't understand=20 > WHY. I'm assuming it has to do with lobbyists afraid of gay=20 > rights, but the implications of not having the bill pass are pretty=20 > serious and extend far beyond the gay community. (And why=20 > would anyone think we shouldn't have a bill which protects gays=20 > from hate crimes?) If anyone out there has some insights into why=20 > it was pulled (I believe the Church even supported the bill),=20 Now this is the part I was thinking about. For all that we say about the Church affecting politics in Utah, there is a certain segment of politics where it simply has no influence--or seems to have no influence. Despite strenuous objection from many institutions including the Church, in years past, to allowing guns in schools, the legislature approved a bill this year allowing people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns in schools.=20 As a part of American culture and Mormon culture, the belief in the sanctity of guns faxcinates me (hmm, interesting typo. What does vaccination have to do with guns? Well, there was that e-mail recently warning about forcible vaccination with armed sherrifs standing by). For a certain segment of Americans the 2nd Amendment is sacred writ, easily the most important piece of modern revelation ever penned. A gun represents the ability and right to kill in defense of your family, self, or property, and the perception that we have a right and responsibility to kill in such defense has a profound influence on our art.=20 One of the oft-recurring archetypes in tv and film thrillers and cop-shows is the villain so evil and implacable he (usually, sometimes she) has to be killed--there is no safety outside the villain's death. My favorite example of this theme was Fred Dreyer's series, Hunter. I saw a variant on this theme recently in an episode of The Agency (March 1, 03), which begins with a suicide bombing at an amusement park. Like most cop shows and thrillers this gives the lie to the idea that Hollywood is full of political liberals, as the show's politics are quite conservative (in contrast to, say, The District, which is more liberal, but still fairly conservative). The episode argued in favor of profiling Arabs and people of Arab descent, though the suicide bomber was white. Lynn Gardner's novels also have a lot of casual violence. In one, Allison the narrator is about to kill someone and wonders if she should spare his life then decides her sympathy is misplaced and kills him anyway. Lynn's violence is not well-thought out, and I was gratified to see an e-mail on AML-List sometime before the Gardners left on their mission wherein Lynn said she was rethinking the violence in her novels. (I keep waiting for her to sign back on. Maybe Elder and Sister Gardner have re-upped.) I was gratified partly because Allison's sense that some people just don't deserve to live has tragic echoes in real life. Maybe 15 years ago there was a short-lived LDS tabloid, published in Arizona, I think. My mother sent us all a subscription (my sisters called it The Latter-day Enquirer).=20 I remember a particularly distressing article about a teenage boy who had shot and killed an intruder climbing in his window at night. In investigating the killing police turned on his radio to see what station it was tuned to, and it was a wholesome LDS station, and they checked to see what books he was reading, and they were wholesome LDS books and he didn't have lots of unwholesome grungy music posters around or anything related to unwholesome drugs. The most distressing thing about the article was that he said he had absolutely no remorse about killing the intruder. Hadn't rattled him at all. I wonder if he thought the lesson of Nephi and Laban is kill and don't think about it. ("Hey, don't ever look back, don't ever look back, Your yesterdays are behiiiiiiiiind you.") (Several years later I read that scene in Thomas Harris's _Red Dragon_ where Will decides he'd best teach his wife how to shoot a pistol and someone watching him gets the sense that part of Will's soul has died. I wonder, though, is that a cliche? I don't know. I read Red Dragon because one of the first posts I read on AML-List was Rex Goode talking about the breathtaking compassion of Silence of the Lambs, but a page or so into it I realized I ought to read Red Dragon for background. I'd like to know what Rex meant by that phrase, because I didn't find the ending to be breathtakingly compassionate. Several men are killed in what seems like a semi-paean to Hannibal Lecter's murderous ingenuity.) In contrast to casual violence as a solution, Jack Weyland's novel _On the Run_ starts out as a thriller with an implacable villain, the kind you can run but not hide from because he has all kinds of electronic surveillance equipment, so if the missionary tries contacting his family the villain can find him. But rather than have his protagonists use electronic methods to destroy the villain (like Sandra Bullock in The Net) Weyland creates an environment where they can be without electronic communications. The woman the missionary is fleeing with is Lakota so they make their way to her reservation and hide. At this point Weyland does something remarkable. He begins to explore what it means to be isolated. It means the missionary and his companion have a great deal of time for introspection, and the last half of the novel is more a meditation on time and silence and scripture and meditation and conversion than a spy thriller. The meditation sets up the final section, where Weyland poses the question what if a man about to commit murder were to hear the Gospel preached. What effect would it have? Intriguing story, though it probably needs to be longer. But, to get back to the hate crimes bill, I suspect part of the opposition, maybe a gut level part, is the feeling that we should handle our own problems, fight it out gun to gun, not always go running for mommy and daddy. I also suspect it's similar to the primal opposition many Americans express toward international war crimes laws, which--they say--might ensnare American soldiers. (I was looking through Time and Newsweek a few weeks ago for a story from 1971 about a Pakistani military commander who came into a village in East Pakistan (after it had proclaimed itself a Desh for the Bengalis) and told the villagers he needed blood for transfusions. He strapped several young men down and drained all the blood from their bodies. I didn't find the story but I did find William Calley.) Again, I'm interested in this from a literary standpoint. There's a lot in both Mormon and American culture that glorifies violence, and not so much that offers alternatives. I remember the BofM-in-French teacher who paused in the middle of the lesson one day, said something like, "Why am I feeling so sick," and went over and threw up in the garbage can. About a year later, I think, I learned that his wife was a refugee from Indochina. Her family had been brutally killed by the Vietcong (Khmer Rouge?) and she had been able to summon the spiritual strength to forgive the murderers. We don't see that kind of story often in our literature, and maybe that's because, as Spencer W. Kimball said in that great essay and magnificent sermon about False Gods in the Hands of Angry Sinners, >>>>> We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel--ships, planes, missiles, fortifications--and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan=92s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior=92s teaching: =93Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; =93That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.=94 (Matt. 5:44=9645.) <<<<< Hmmm, I love these words so much I think I'll continue the quote a bit longer. Now, why was I quoting him in the first place? Oh yes, my sense that the war-like culture we belong to often trumps the words of our prophets. >>>>> We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us--and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)--or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, =93Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?=94 (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha=92s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, =93Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them=94 (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, =93And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.=94 (2 Kgs. 6:17.) Enoch, too, was a man of great faith who would not be distracted from his duties by the enemy: =93And so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch.=94 (Moses 7:13.) What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies. (Spencer W. Kimball, =93The False Gods We Worship,=94 Ensign, June 1976, 6) <<<<< The last time I read that through I was struck by how literally Pres. Kimball takes God's promise to fight our battles for us, and I love the idea of taking the gospel to our enemies so they are no longer our enemies.=20 And, of course, there's that other great sermon about love overcoming hate, delivered far, far away on Judea's non-plains, and so important the koheleth delivered it again a few years later in another life. The odd thing is that If I think about the peace invoked in both sermons I begin to wonder if the reliance on punishment implied by a hate crimes bill is wholly compatible with the mission of spreading the Gospel. I love the idea of giving legal protection to people who are the targets of crimes motivated by hatred for their ethnicity or sexuality or race, gender or religion, but the hate crimes bills I've heard about talk about "enhanced penalties" for such motivation, and I feel we already rely as a culture too heavily on punishment and don't seek diligently for more effective ways to solve problems and deal with uncivil or inhumane behavior.=20 (This may sound like I'm veering into politics, but resistance to our cultural reliance on punishment was one of the main motivators to write my most recent AML essay, "Cities of Refuge." My concern, as always, is literary.) I have another concern when I stop to think that a certain percentage of the people likely to suffer the enhanced penalties of a hate crimes bill will be too young to competently assist in their own defense. Much of the rhetoric of hate is quite idealistic, as are young people, and I worry about how we treat young people who commit or wander or blunder into crime. I saw an article in the Monday, March 3 Daily Herald (page 1) about a study from the MacArthur Foundation about juveniles tried as adults. The study said that "many children under the age of 16 had as much difficulty grasping the complex legal proceedings as adults who had been ruled incompetent to go to court." A story on NPR's Mar. 4, 2003 Morning Edition said the study was a little broader, and found that even some young adults as old as 24 had difficulty qualifying as competent defendants.=20 (For an abstract or to hear the story go to http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=3D1182246) The deep irony for me though, is that people who are most likely to oppose a hate crimes bill are also fairly likely to favor trying juvenile offenders as adults. Surely that's an invitation for someone to contradict me, but please (for our poor moderator's sake--not a poor moderator, of course, but let's not pour the coals of politics on discussions of literature, though Frederick Jameson's critical credo is, "Always Politicize") keep the contradiction literary, focused on the evidence within our art and literature that we are not a punitive war-like people, or some other literary foci. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _The RM_ Date: 11 Mar 2003 10:24:12 -0700 I very strongly object to the notion that The Princess Bride or Monty = Python have 'a tenuous hold on reality.' Holy Grail and Princess Bride = are anything but tenuous in their connection to reality. A stylized = setting is not the same thing as un-real. Princess Bride is about twoo = wuv, for example, and the absurdities and excesses and also genuine warmth = and human goodness that twoo wuv inspires. Holy Grail is a sharply barbed = commentary on violence, power, and religion. Both are as relevant and = real as any satire. They've just been set in places and times that are = long long ago and far far away. Brecht may have argued for vehrfremdungsef= fekt, but that doesn't mean he argued for works grounded in anything but = concrete reality. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Re: _Prodigal Journey_ on Clearance Date: 11 Mar 2003 12:16:10 -0600 Thank you to all those who have responded! I'm posting this here just so I don't miss telling anybody. Calculating shipping is giving me headaches, but it looks like USPS Media Mail is cheapest, and the rates go like this: One book $1.81 Two books $2.26 Three books $3.10 Five books $4.24 Ten books $6.64 . . . based on my estimate that they weigh about 1.5 lb. each. A box for 1-2 costs me $1, and bigger boxes at least $2. So a one-book order totals $6.80, 3 books totals $17.10. Round the pennies down if you want so it's not a pain. Send payments by check or money order to: Linda Adams 425 SW Ward Rd. PMB #136 Lee's Summit, MO 64081 (I just rented that mailbox yesterday, I couldn't send an address out any sooner.) If you haven't done so already, those interested may please send an email to adamszoo@sprintmail.com with your shipping address, the quantity ordered, and any names I should sign on the books. You may also use PayPal, accessible from the order page on my website. (I'm trying to log in and make sure it allows you to fill in your price & shipping, but my dial-up is giving me problems today.) Thanks so much everyone! I've presold about 40 books so far, not counting the two cases my Dad wants. The books will not be arriving until Friday after all; the incoming truck got delayed and they missed the delivery truck today. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Armand MAUSS, _All Abraham's Children_ Date: 11 Mar 2003 13:40:51 -0700 University of Illinois Press (Urbana). Hi Jeff. Howzit goin'? ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Needle Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 9:30 AM Who is the publisher? At 04:02 PM 3/6/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Armand Mauss's All Abraham's Children is coming out in a couple of >weeks. Benchmark Books is going to have a signing & discussion on Wed., >Mar. 19, from 5-7 pm. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Memory, Words & Truth Date: 11 Mar 2003 13:58:32 -0700 At 09:44 AM 3/7/03 -0800, you wrote: >Just as the subjective experience of pain is inherently indescribable (but >then, perhaps not really), so the deeply personal confusion and struggle >with sin are indescribable; the euphoric joys of the sense of conversion; >the mind-rocking power of profound revelation; the subtle spiritual >ripples of the bearing of testimony; and on and on. Each of these are >aspects of life that most writers avoid, but which we in LDS literature >must come to again and again in our little sub-genre and try to deal with >truthfully. Jongiorni, I am so glad you have joined the list! This post offers a great deal of material to think deeply about. Not being a profound thinker myself, I enjoy essays like this one, in which you address an issue that has seemed somewhat murky and do a good job of clarifying and refining it. I agree that LDS writers back off from the deepest concepts, and that's why so much LDS fiction is bland and insipid. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Value of Fairy Tales Date: 10 Mar 2003 19:01:56 -0700 That sounds pretty accurate, that "desire is the root of unhappiness," but it even the partial fulfillment of desire seems quite amazingly wonderful. So what do we do about such rooted unhappiness? Do we learn to live with what is and not desire? I admit I tell myself a fairy tale at night while I try to fall asleep. How different is that from prayer? Gratitude--is that the answer to the unhappiness of desire? Do testimony meetings, public expressions of gratitude teach us to rewrite desire as fulfillment? My father almost always leaves church in an ecstacy of gratitude and thanksgiving. Can he be my real father--I'm so different! But no, I know he's my real father because why else would tears come to my eyes every time I hear his wonderful feelings expressed? Gae Lyn Henderson -----Original Message----- I like fairy tales. I like them a lot. I just finished "retelling" a Japanese fairy tale called "The Stonecutter." A friend asked me to do it so he could illustrate it. As it was translated it was nothing more than a cute story. But when I read it I knew it was a tale intended to illustrate the Taoist teaching "desire is the root of unhappiness." I believe that is also a Buddhist teaching. That is the value I see in fairy tales. They illustrate profound teachings. I'm working on a juvenile novel with American Book Publishing right now. When I wrote it I was intending Magical Realism" like Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but I'm sure some well meaning individuals will refer to it as a fairy tale. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jenn & Jason Covell (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Lance LARSEN, _Erasable Walls_ (Review) Date: 12 Mar 2003 18:25:50 -0600 Lance Larsen. _Erasable Walls_.Publisher: New Issues Pr Poetry Series; 1 Ed edition (May 1, 1998) Paperback: 64 pages (hardback also available) ISBN: 0932826601 Reviewed by Jason Covell. If Richard Dutcher is the Mormon Spielberg, and Sam Cardon the Mormon John Williams, then I have found the Mormon Derek Walcott. I had him there, briefly, six years ago, and then lost him. But now he's found, and his name is Lance Larsen. I won't be losing him again. Way back in December 1996, I made my first (and so far only) trip from Australia to the United States and stayed with good friends in Alpine, Utah. I had only been baptised six months and was full of a new convert's excitement, and there I was in Utah breathing the same air as the prophet. I was pretty light-headed. One day I picked up the Deseret News (or the Church News, I was too new to tell the difference) and found a poetry section. Read the first poem that stood out to me. Wow. Amazing verses, refined, subtle. About a man bringing a young boy into a dry font, showing him how he is going to be baptised one day. I read through it once, twice. A prickle ran down my back. This is the real thing, I said out loud to whoever was there in the room. Stabbed the paper with my finger, saying, you've got to read this. A real poem by a real poet. I had no expectation of finding such a thing. But there it was, jackpot first time. Then, in my haste to make sure that everyone read it whether they wanted to or not, the paper got mislaid. What was the poet's name, the name of the poem? I had no idea. Never mind, I'll find another copy. Except I never did. Six years passed, and I never forgot that poem. In that time, I discovered AML-List, Eugene England, Richard Dutcher, Eric Samuelsen, Margaret Young and others. Mormon lit, Mormon cinema, even Mormon belles lettres. Every time I heard of a poet, I tried to find out, is it him? It never seemed to be so. And then a week or so ago, I found something. A poem on the internet, under an article in Meridian Magazine. It wasn't the same one I had read before, but within a few verses I knew this was the guy. The voice, diction, everything- it was unmistakably him. Lance Larsen is his name, and the subject of the article is his first collection titled _Erasable Walls_. (Article at http://www.meridianmagazine.com/poetry/030108exaltingprint.html) The article gives three poems from the book in their entirety, and a quick Google search later, I had a fourth from Lance Larsen's BYU website. Bingo. It was the same one I had read six years before, titled "Water". I read it again, a happy reunion, but the happiest thing was that I liked its siblings from the Meridian article even better. This is therefore an odd review. I haven't read _Erasable Walls_.It's on order from Amazon (deseretbook.com has no record of the title) but I am so entranced by the four poems I do havefrom it that I just can't wait for it to arrive. I have to talk about these poems, and why I think Larsen is the real thing, the biggie. First, a sampling, from "Funeral Home": To his left, scalpels fanned out like silverware. Behind him, a power drill with industrial bits. Even then I knew this was not about careers. But who cared? He was explaining the slow dissolve of the body, how it unlocks itself to the blade. The lines are creepy yet oddly comforting. The gut-wrenching power of the medical examiner's tools (I especially like the industrial bits) is nonetheless subordinate to the skill and steady hand of experience. And pitch-perfect images in those last few lines. There is no blood or guts, sawing or scraping. This is a master's hand. Or indeed the Master Himself. (I speak from some contrary experience here. In a human anatomy class, in another lifetime, I had the opportunity to dissect an untouched human leg. The experience was drawn out, frustrating, and culminated in my completely severing the sciatic nerve, the thing I was supposed to preserve, in a last fevered bit of cutting.) The immediate theme of the poem is the inner self. The physical discoveries inside corpses left behind by their owners are all moral revelations. The poem's very first lines contrast the healthy lungs of an 84-year-old woman with the brown, vile lungs of a middle-aged heavy smoker. The ME mentions the drunks, junkies and deadbeats he has known. "Draining them, he said,you feel / this energy, either good or bad... It's a matter of accumulation, / what you take in." The poem ends with these lines: His voice lifted me straight onto the table. Razored me open. He was reaching in. My stomach. My liver, my kidneys. Lifting one organ at a time. I wasn't afraid. I wanted it this easy - The heart something you could weigh in the palm, goodness as simple as turning down a smoke. I can't do justice to the deftness, the lightness of touch, the sizzle of these lines. But then suddenly there's that very last phrase. At first glance, it seemed to convey a whiff of didacticism, a glib, too-easy moral summation. Then I re-read it, carefully this time, and found much more delicacy. Straight to mind also came Derek Walcott's "The Light of the World", another meditation on aspects of goodness, which climaxes on a similar note of naked, almost embarrassing openness: O Beauty, you are the light of the world! Derek Walcott's ferns obligingly curl themselves into question marks, frigate birds fly to the beat of scansion. The substance and material of life runs seamlessly into the substance of the page. Larsen's viscera on the slab are part of the fleshly table of his poem, and they are weighed in the balance, hopefully not found wanting. Easy? Simple? As easy as writing a poem about how the most frail, fallible, decaying flesh leads to that which is exalted. In another poem, "Errand", he writes: Your errand, tongue, to know the exact savor of the world's flesh. Then to translate beyond it. ... What nourishes. What sometimes rots. How even worms prepare us. Explaining why a poem takes the breath away is rather like explaining why a joke is funny. The subject is dead before it leaves the table. I'm a poor critic of poetry; in fact, I'm no critic at all. I just adore what poetry, new-minted language, can do. (OK, I have to admit, I'm also a hopeless Walcott fan... I could go on about him, but that isn't really on topic.) All I can really say, be it clumsily or not, is that Larsen's poems speak for themselves. Read them, and be amazed. Jason Covell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Sam PAYNE, _Railroad Blessing_ (Music Review) Date: 08 Mar 2003 12:29:26 -0500 Sam Payne. _Railroad Blessing_. (CD). Produced by Steve Lemmon and Sam Payne Mastered at Spiral Studios, St. George Utah. All copyrights held by Sam year 2002 It can be ordered via a link on Sam's website: www.sampayne.com, or wherever CDs are sold in Southern Utah. Reviewed by Tracie Laulusa. I hesitate to call this a review. I am a musician--classical flute. And though I listen to a variety of musical genres, I am not knowledgeable enough to write an educated review of folk music. All I can do, then, is give a listener's opinion. Music has been a topic of limited discussion on AML, but I first met Sam Payne as a writer, not a musician, on the MPL (mormon poets list). Over the last few years he has posted many of his lyrics there. As poetry, they work. They are varied, thought provoking, readable, rythmic without cliche. While reading them, I have looked forward to eventually hearing the whole sound. I was fortunate enough to hear a little bit of a sneak preview once when out in UT for a CES symposium. Meeting Sam and hearing some of his music--just him and his guitar, has probably influenced how I listen to his CD. I've found that I enjoy reading books and listening to music by people that I sort of know, perhaps a degree more than I would have if it was someone I had no connection with. It feels a little bit like visiting with a friend. I have the same response to works I visit after hearing or reading an indepth interview with the artist/writer. First--my gripe. The shipping! I don't know about the rest of you, but $5 for shipping seemed a bit much. I have heard that CDs are overpriced to begin with, since they cost less than tapes to produce, and then $5 shipping! I have a feeling Sam's not the one raking it in either--unfortunately. And then the first shipment somehow went astray. On the positive side, once I notified the company handling the cd, they shipped another one promptly, and then followed up to make sure I got it. So, on to the music. Many singer/songwriters seem to write from personal experience. If you know about their life you can trace the beginnings of many of their songs. Or they are about the ever present pop themes of love and sex. Railroad Blessing's lyrics run a gamat of experiences that I doubt Sam has personally had--being in space, sending a son off to war, climbing Everest, being a mother......yet, he writes convincingly. An astronaut might not come home and write the same song Sam wrote, but he could have. And, though it wasn't an Ohio farmer who wrote Ohio Son, and stood in his fields thinking of other fields, I can picture him standing there. (BTW, I may be interpreting some of these songs not as intended. I'm giving you the how-I-read-them). These two songs in particular also touched a cord with recent events, though they were written before the space shuttle blew, and we started seeing some of our friend's units called up in preparation for war. Not all the lyrics make total sense to me. But that's ok, even a plus. More to think about the next listen. I like the sound of this CD. The musicians do an absolutely fine job. And they sound like they had a great time doing it. There is a good mix of background sound. Just piano to a pretty full sound. That said, one perhaps draw back of the cd for me is that there isn't much change of pace. But then, I haven't taken the opportunity to just sit and listen and analyse. I put it on, then am off doing all the things that need doing, with kids usually talking my ear off. So, from a casual listen, a bit more tempo variety would probably been a plus. Congrats Sam. This will be one I wear out. Hope some other listers take the opportunity to give it a listen. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Theater (pt 2) Date: 11 Mar 2003 06:13:18 +0000 Here is an alphabetical list of the 2002 plays, including a few I didn't=20 mention in the review. I annotate them with some of my notes. Adams, LeeAnne Hill. Yellow China Bell. BYU, May-June. Author a BYU Masters' student. Snider said it was good, well-acted, disturbing. A. Equally strong Deseret News review. Arrington, James. Streetwise. UVSC One-act festival, 2002. ------, J. Golden. Jan, Trolley Square. Brown, Bill. Throwing Stones. Villa Little Brown Theatre, April- May. Comedy about a rock star buying a house. Eric Snider did not review it, but did write a mocking column about it in August. Clearly he thought it was pretty bad. Cobb, Tony (book, lyrics), Karrol Cobb (Music). The Promised Land. SCERA Showhouse II, Sept-Oct. Lehi and his family. Reviews on Players Anonymous were split on it, they especially like the music. The Brothers Cobb also wrote "Robin Hood: The Musical", which was performed twice in Utah Valley in 2000-2001. The Cobbs also worked on Savior of the World. Cornell, Stalion. Utah! Tuhancan, September. Music by Kurt Bestor and Sam Cardon, lyrics by Doug Stewart. Cornell the nom-de-plume for Jim Bennet, a former administrator at Tuhancan and a Sandy City official. Son of Bob Bennet. The fifth version of the play. Back after being on hiatus for a few years. Shorter, refocuses on Hamblin and his dealings with the Indians. Avoids Paxton's focus on polygamy and MMM. Threlfall directs. DN says it is pretty good, but the script still needs work. Peachiness cut down, but still there. Too many plot lines, the comic relief goes too long. Choreography rips off other plays. Fales, Steven. Confessions of a Mormon Boy. Twice in SLC in 2001. NYC actor Fales' show about his struggle and eventual acceptance of his same-sex attraction, resulting in his excommunication. Monologue, comedy, sings, dances. 2002: New version including more about his life in NYC directed by Tony-award winner Jack Hofsiss. NYC in June, three city tour in September: San Francisco, Las Vegas, and SLC back at the Rose Wagner Center. Hoping to do an off-Broadway run. Hale, Ruth and Nathan. Educated Heart. Hale theater, July. Snider says it is his favorite Hale script, gave it a B. Good production. Handcart Ensemble. The NYC theater company took 2002 off. Next season starts Winter 2003 with The Brome Cycle, a series of short, medieval plays that dramatize the Book of Genesis Helps, Louise. The Day After. Won the 2002 3rd Villa Arts playwriting contest. Jessica Woodbury and Jaren Hinckley won second and third places. Honorable mention was given to Jeff Bierhaus, Loren Lambert, Alan Mitchell and Bonnie Vernon. LaBute, Neil. bash: latter-day plays. March, Dallas. ----, The Shape of Things. Premiered in 2001. Laguna Playhouse, Laguna Beach CA, June. Can Stage, Toronto, Sept-Oct. Aurora Theatre Company, Berkeley, CA, Sept-Oct. LSU, Oct. Published by Faber and Faber, 2001. ----, The Distance From Here. Premiered at the Almeida, London. May-June 2002. UK tour in July. Was to be performed on Broadway in 2002, but it was replaced by The Mercy Seat; it will be produced in the 2003-2004 season. ----, Land of the Dead. September 11, NYC. A one-act play, part of the three-day Brave New World memorial benefit for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Stared Kristin Davis (Sex in the City) and Liev Schreiber. A man tries to force his girlfriend to have an abortion. ----, The Mercy Seat. Acorn Theater, MCC production (on 42nd street), New York City, Dec 2002.-Jan. 2003. Added four performances. NY Times reviewer thought it was monotonous, had little of the energy of Bash. Good acting, though, from Liev Schreiber and Sigorney Weaver. Similar review from the Village Voice. The Distance from Here and The Mercy Seat were both published by Faber and Faber, 2003. Larson, Melissa Leilani. Wake Me When It's Over. July, Where?? Larson is a BYU student. Eric Samuelsen and Nan McCulloch highly recommended it. She rented the theater, the first production there. About a couple, he suffers from chronic fatigue. Relationship struggles, and he meets another women in an internet chat room. AML 2002 Drama honorable mention. Also appearing was a ten-minute play by Amy E. Jensen, Variations on a Theme of Cinderella. A funny but slight feminist reshaping of the fairy tale classic. ----, A Play About A Movie. BYU WDA workshop, Oct. (Title will change). A comedy about female film directors in the silent film era. LDS Church. Light of the World. Conference Center Theater, February, for the Olympics. Big, impressive production, muddled script. Over 1000 person cast. "Massive song-and-dance sequences, scenes of handcart pioneers stranded on the plains of Wyoming, snatches of Mormon theology and stories of Olympic medalists." Pantomimed to a pre-recorded soundtrack. Tries to cover the bases of Mormonism, Olympic history and universal brotherhood. A bargain at $5. ----, Savior of the World. First appeared in 2000. Conference Center Theater, Nov. =96 Dec. Big spectacle, bland script. McColm, Reed. Together Again for the First Time. BYU-Idaho, Jan-Feb 2002. Previously at BYU, 1985, Ricks, 1986, Playmill Theater, ?, Comedy, two divorcees try to build a new family. Gideon Burton spoke highly of it. ----, Hole in the Sky. BYU Idaho, November-December. About the World Trade Center on September 11. 15 fictionalized individuals on several upper floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center after first impact and how they try to survive and cope with their situation. Its two-week run was sold out, and was held over for three nights. 2002 AML Drama award. McLean, Michael and Kevin Kelly. The Ark. Thanksgiving Point, May. Revised version, it has been around since 1998. Enlargement of part of Celebrating the Light, a Young Ambassadors show by McLean. Was strengthened by its participation in the 12th Festival for New Musicals. Also at the Village Theater in Issaquah, WA in 2001, where it will return in 2003. Snider gave it an A. Strong Deseret News review as well. Ivan Lincoln rated it #5 in his top ten of 2002 semi-professional plays. Eastern Arizona College, Oct. Starlight Mountain Theater, Garden Valley, ID, Dec. Nelson, George D. and Daniel Larson. Soft Shoe. BYU, October. Book, lyrics and direction by Nelson, a faculty member, and additional lyrics, music and musical direction by Larson, an undergraduate. Musical comedy set against the backdrop of vaudeville's fading days, a story of hope and young love blossoming among the thorns of the secret past of an estranged father. Three actors, including Marvin Payne. Oviatt, Joan. The Sixth Wife. Off Broadway Theater, SLC, June. BYU Nelke, Sept. Oviatt also acts in the one-woman show. She has written several books about heroic Mormons. It was first produced at BYU, and later had a 24 1/2-week run at the Edinburgh Festival of Arts. Based on the life of Emmeline Wells, the fifth president of the Relief Society. June was a private production, directed by James Arrington, not part of the Off Broadway Theater season. Pearson, Carol Lynn and Lex de Azevedo. My Turn on Earth. Center Street Theatre, Sept-Oct. Premiere of the new Nauvoo Theatrical Society and Center Street Theatre. Directed by Bronson. Very good reviews by Parkin and other AML and Players Anonymous viewers. Originally produced around 1977. Roberts, Laird. Last Dance in the Heartland. Screenplay read at BYU WDA workshop, Oct. About a small farming town facing a wave of foreclosures from the local bank. To be directed by Kirk Strickland. Roberts is a photographer and writer who has also worked on the technical crew of several Utah films. He published a novel with Cedar Fort in 2002. Rogers, Ralph, Jr. Joseph and Mary: A Love Story. Music by K. Newell Dayley and John Morgan. The Bountiful Performing Arts Center, December. Managed the Pages Lane Theater, PVT, and Polynesian Culture Center. Mission Prez in Somoa:1970s. Acted, directed, and wrote plays and church films. Died in 1996. Good review in the DN. Salt Lake Acting Company. Cabbies, Cowboys, and the Tree of the Weeping Virgin. February, for the Olympics. Short plays, about 10 minutes each, several with Mormon references. Including: Mike Dorrell, "The Dome" about pioneers building the church house the SLAC now uses as a theater, Julie Jensen, "Water Lilies" David Lee's "Incident at Thompson's Sough," a narrative poem set in a rural Utah community, "Eager" by Mary Dickson, about a young LDS woman whose departing missionary boyfriend has spread rumors about her, "The Unsettling" by Pete Rock, a mysterious and chilling monologue about a young LDS girl drawn into a hallucinogenic world of methamphetamine and possible madness. The scripts were also published and sold at the theater. Included in the publication, but not performed, were Wendy Hammond's "The Story of Thaddeus Dopp", J.T. Rogers' "Seven Lies of an Unbeliever", about an incident at Temple Square, and Terry Tempest Williams' "The Promise of Parrots." Samuelsen, Eric. Magnificence. March, BYU Margetts. Adapted (a lot) this Medieval play. Together with Everyman. Snider gave them a B, I'd say it was better than that. ----, Peculiarities. October, Villa. Mormonism and sexuality. Young couples making bad decisions. Good review in the SL Tribune, "a brave exploration of what often bubbles just underneath a seemingly virtuous society." Mostly good AML-list reviews, except for Parkin, who said he couldn't see the point. ----, Mount Vernon. BYU WDA workshop, Oct. About the last day in the life of George Washington. He's visited by a modern African- American history professor, who promises Washington a few more years of life in exchange for . . . Slover, Tim. Joyful Noise. 1996. Handel composing The Messiah. 1996 AML drama prize. Lancaster PA Fulton Opera, Jan. Willows Theater Company, Concord, CA. April-May. Manchester College, Manchester IN, May. Bus Barn Stage Theatre, Los Altos, CA, Nov- Dec. Nauvoo Theatrical Society, Center Street Theatre, Orem. Nov.-Jan. Snider gave it an excellent review, A-. Playing to small crowds at first, improved over time. Lots of excellent AML- list reviews. Good DN review. Bad New York Times review of the Lancaster production ruined its chances at an Off-Broadway run. Slover's screenplay version won second place in the 2002 International Screenplay Competition, sponsored by the American Screenwriters Association and Writer's Digest. ----, Hancock County. BYU, Feb. 2002. Cultural Olympiad. The Carthage martyrdom and the trial of five men a year later. Snider gave it an A-. 2002 AML Drama honorable mention. Stewart, Doug. Saturday's Warrior. Music by Lex DeAzavedo. Draper Historic Theater, Aug. ------, Almost Perfect. Music by Merrill Jenson. UVSC, Nov. Premiere of a 1940s style big band/swing musical, set in 1941. Con man falls in love. No LDS characters. Cute but cheesy. Very bad reviews in the Deseret News and Herald, they said the script was very derivative and generally flat. Snider gave it a D+. Sundgaard, Arnold. Promised Valley Old Social Hall, This is the Place Heritage Park, July. Deseret Dramatic Association. Music by Crawford Gates, originally produced in 1947. Part of the Pioneer Festival, pared down considerably from the original, cast- of-hundreds spectacle. Young, Margaret Blair. I am Jane. Feb. 2002, BYU Varsity Theater. Thom Duncan directing. July, Southern California. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: WORLDWIDE TRAVEL + AUSTRALIA TRAVEL FREE Date: 14 Mar 2003 00:19:44 +0100 WORLD WIDE TRAVEL - FREE FIND OUT HOW YOU CAN GET TO SYDNEY FROM ANYWHERE IN AUSTRALIA FREE AIRFARE - MAJOR AIRLINE FREE LIMO TRANSFER - MERCEDES PLUS CHAUFFER FREE HOTEL ROOM - EXECUTIVE SUITE FREE DINNER - TOP SYDNEY RESTAURANT SYDNEY RESIDENTS LIMO TRANSFER FROM RESIDENCE TO HOTEL ROOM CALL MISS PENELOPPE GRAY SYDNEY EVENT TRAVEL PTY LTD IN CONJUNCTION WITH MODEL ENTERPRISE PTY LTD SYDNEY AUSTRALIA 02 96900652 INTERNATIONAL - 0011 61 2 96900652 INTERNATIONAL CLIENTS ---- FIND OUT HOW YOU CAN GET FREE AIRFARE FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ALSO ENQUIRE ABOUT FIRST CLASS - FREE TRAVEL 5085guzO6-789CMMl15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: [AML] Frederick Wiseman Event in SLC Date: 11 Mar 2003 11:19:56 -0700 -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday March 11, 2003 10:08 AM Hey listserve moderator :^) Don't know if this is AML-worthy or not, but I thought some folks interested in film/documentaries/etc. in Utah might be interested. Violence I & II on PBS on March 18th & 19th Details at bottom. Way to go Bill. FREDERICK WISEMAN For thirty years, filmmaker Frederick Wiseman has created a body of work that has examined American institutions. Over time these films have become a record and put on record basic principles of our "work in progress" democracy. He started his career with the still controversial film Titicut Follies, a film about a Massachusetts hospital for the criminally insane. The film was banned for over twenty years. He then turned his attention to one institution after another: a high school, a racetrack, a seminary, a city's welfare system, military basic training camps, a slaughterhouse that allows us to have meat on our tables. Wiseman will be in residence for a weeklong retrospective of his work teaching masterclasses everyday from 4-6pm at the new City Library and exhibiting films and lectures with Q&A every evening March 23rd-27th in venues throughout the community. This is an unparalleled opportunity for educators, social workers, students, filmmakers and thinkers to examine a body of work and dissect it together with Wiseman. Director, editor, visual poet, social critic and ironist, Wiseman's regard for the ordinary and often invisible voices in our large and complex nation put him in the company of Raymond Carver and Studs Terkel. He is a storyteller who confounds social scientists with an unflinching eye and patient ear. Wiseman's recent films Domestic Violence 1 and Domestic Violence 11 will be broadcast nationally on PBS on March 18th and 19th. All events are free and open to the public. Mr. Wiseman's visit is made possible by the Salt Lake City Film Center and the College of Humanities at the University of Utah who will be co-sponsoring many evening events as well as the David P. Gardner Lecture in the Humanities and the Fine Arts and related events. For a complete schedule of events as well as descriptions of master classes and each film go to www.slcfilmcenter.org and www.hum.utah.edu/humcntr EVENING PROGRAMMING WITH FREDERICK WISEMAN Monday March 24th: City Library Auditorium, 7pm UNDERSTANDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A COMMUNITY EXPLORATION. Wiseman will show excerpts from his films DOMESTIC VIOLENCE I and II and then encourage a community discussion that will be jointly hosted by The Salt Lake City Film Center, KUED, The YWCA and the Peace House. Leaders from shelters, academia, law enforcement and social services will be invited to come and share their experiences. Panel participants at the discussion include Bill Matson and Julie Epperson, both members of the CTTN-IW. The public is invited and encouraged to watch the PBS broadcasts on March 18th and 19th. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] R.M. #s & General Box Office #s Date: 11 Mar 2003 12:52:27 -0800 Thomas Baggaley reported on R.M.'s numbers, commenting: >"The R.M." brought its total box office gross to $527,847, well over the $500,000 that is its reported production and initial P&A budget. > While I know that you know this, Thomas, your box office reports periodically imply that box office equates to how much the MOVIE ITSELF (the moviemakers, investors, etc.) has made. You and I both know this is not true, but your readers might mistakenly understand this to be the case given the verbal "spin" of your report. As Mark Potter's recent post on the state of LDS Cinema makes clear, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, Mark does not even paint as bleak a picture as it really is. He suggests that a distribution fee is about 10% of gross after exhibitor's fees; but the fact is that the industry standard is 35% (studios take 45% and Excel might, maybe, if they love you and they have to, take only 25%). So, the filmmakers themselves only get about 15 to 25% of box office with which to pay off all of their costs and then after that to begin lining their pockets. So, while the people who read the AML list, and who subscribe to your own LDSFilm list probably all know this in the back of their heads, it gets overlooked so often that I think it is important to point out the facts clearly from time to time. The box office amount earned is, in absolutely the best case scenario, about double what the film actually made, and in most cases about four times what the film actually made. If the negative cost and P&A budget were $500,000, the film does not break even until the box office is between 1 and 2 MILLION (depending on the distribution deal). By suggesting that the box office gross of "R.M." is already "well over" the $500,000 cost is simply purveying a financial falsehood which does not report accurately the filmmakers success or the investor's happiness, nor does it give a clear picture of the state of well being of our burgeoning genre. Nothing about the R.M.'s box is "well over" anything. The film is still deeply in debt. If the box office is $527,847 and the exhibitors take 50% and the distributors take 25% and there are no other hidden costs, then the filmmakers have just made about $131,961. If they spent $500,000, they still have $368,038 to go before they break even. So nobody breaths easy until we get to about $2 Million Box. Thankfully, box office is not the only way we make our money back, as we all know. So, when box starts reaching $1.2 to $1.5 million and when soundtrack sales and DVD sales kick in, then the film will be profitable. Halleluiah! I suspect that Halestorm will do well financially in the long run, or at least do well enough to continue making films. But they are not getting rich, and R.M.'s box to date does nothing for those of us desperately trying to raise money to produce others. we have a very long way to go, and frankly, I'm scared. I must agree fully with Mark Potter's observations. Our box office numbers are way too weak to predict the long-term health of LDS Cinema. [Jongiorgi Enos] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 11 Mar 2003 12:55:45 -0800 Thomas, Yes, indeed! There is also the literal framing of the disc itself, the jewlbox, the packaging, the fact that there is silence at beginning and end; and then in live performance, the stage and proscenium also apply to music as they do to theatre. Jon ----- Original Message ----- > Jon, > > Putting in a word for the musicians on the frame discussion, music is > also framed - but the frame is time itself. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Validity of Gender! Date: 11 Mar 2003 16:09:54 -0800 I understand that I wrongly assumed Kari Heber to be female and = therefore tended to use "she" when commenting on his fascinating topic = string rather than the infinitely more appropriate "HE"! How embarrassing on my part! =20 Sorry Kari! My apologies. Sheepishly yours, Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Role of LDS Writers Date: 10 Mar 2003 17:41:05 -0800 Bill Willson wrote an impassioned essay about the above topic-line = recently, and I basically agree with everything he says. One important = point at issue, however, is the role of the "institutional" church and = its various official and directly related off-shoots, such as BYU and = Deseret, and the "cultural" church, which includes the AML, each of our = various companies and all of the plethora of businesses, schools, = organizations, web-sites, etc., which have no direct or formal = affiliation with the Church. I think there is a necessary distinction = between the two which often gets overlooked. We are fond of quoting various general authorities and their comments = about artists. One category which often gets overlooked, however, is the = concept of "appropriateness" as dwelt upon by Spencer W. Kimball in his = long and famous speech on the topic of LDS arts. While I believe Brother Willson is generally correct in saying that = there is a place for all works which show the eventual redemption from = evil, or the consequences from not being redeemed therefrom, I do not = necessarily think that all of these works need be exposed or promoted by = all venues.=20 For example, while I love rock music, I do not think I want to hear rock = music in sacrament meeting. I don't think I'm wicked to go to a rock = concert, nor do my rock buddies think I'm square (to use the = old-fashioned term) because I got to church on Sundays. When I go to a = rock concert, I do not were my white shirt and tie and stand around with = a long face making my fellow revelers feel like lowlifes. But when I go = to church, I do not wear my rock tee-shirt, jeans and sneakers, either. = There are issue of reverence and appropriateness with time and place. Also, I must respect (from the vantage point of the official church) all = different kinds of tastes. There are active members of the church, good = people, who genuinely think I am wicked to listen to rock. I'm not going = to put my personal choices of what I listen to at home in their face. If = they are not open to it, it is simply not going to come up in = conversation. And so there is a kind of conservitavism that exists in = the official organs of the church, which may have nothing to do with the = gospel, per se, or even any official teachings of the church, per se, = but must exist for the fact that the official church must account for = the needs of all and, frankly, broad exposure to the arts is just not = one of its goals or priorities. So when an organization is directly and officially affiliated with the = church, such as BYU or Deseret Books, a blurry line gets approached. = While it is fine for BYU to teach, perhaps, War and Peace, with its = battle scenes, love scenes, infidelities, murders, passions and = magnificences, it might decide not to display a nude statue. This in no = way states that the church is against or does not promote art of all = kinds or that it does not know the difference between porn and art. But = the church is simply (perhaps) not interested in discussing the = distinction at all, and if anyone might be offended, they pull the plug. Furthermore, Brother Willson suggests that general authorities are = wasting time reviewing books, etc., and from my experience this is = almost never happening. Any kind of official "censoring" is almost = always done by "middle management" officials and General Authorities = almost never make any specific statement whatsoever about anything = commercial or artistic regarding merit or not, except in the broadest of = terms. I may not like Deseret's guildlines, but what is the matter with = allowing them to have them, as long as we have Covenant, Irreanteum, = Sunstone, etc., etc., and any number of other outlets for appropriate, = but perhaps not Officially Sanctioned, works. To each their own. BYU (an = institution I have supported, loved and hated all at the same time!) has = its reasons, but as an official institution, I must allow them certain = restrictions that I might perhaps privately mock, but I don't feel the = need to actively force some kind of sea change therein. I write works which contain elements which I defend as artistically = justified, but I don't attempt to publish them as "Deseret appropriate." = I just look for a different outlet, and trust that my audience will find = me. And while I don't necessarily think Deseret represents the = mainstream of tastes in the church, they just might, and why try and = offend or force-feed something down the throats of those that don't want = it? I'm not hampered as an artist, but I must find my best marketing medium = for any given work. That marketing medium may be MTV, or it may be = Deseret Media! I'm producing both, but I'm not trying to sell my MTV = stuff on Deseret, and vice-versa. The official church does what it does, supports what it feels = appropriate, and those guildlines change. Railing against it is = inefficient, I feel. We simply develop outlets where various artistic = constructs ARE appropriate and market them as such. I think we should = leave the official outlets of the church alone, give them a break, = because, quite frankly, they are leaving us alone and letting us do just = about anything we want in our own venues. The church is not there to = create a standard of art; it has already done so with Article of Faith = 13. The rest is up to us. Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report March 3 03 Date: 11 Mar 2003 19:41:24 -0600 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of March 3, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 18 Final Destination 2 1,034,114 881 38 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 44,616,117 46 Poolhall Junkies 76,534 119 10 504,507 53 The R.M. 42,547 21 38 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 527,847 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 58 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 32,033 9 759 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,138,393 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 79 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 9,979 4 1039 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,043,783 95 Jack Weyland's Charly 3,173 9 194 Adam Anderegg (director) 783,993 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 96 Handcart 3,094 1 150 Kels Goodman (director/DP) 91,327 David Greenslaw Sapp (producer) Mark von Bowers (screenwriter) Eric M. Hanson (composer) Actors: Jaelan Petrie, Stephanie Albach Chris Kendrick, Shannon Skinner, Gretchen Condie 98 Galapagos 2,971 5 1228 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,957,655 116 China: The Panda Adventure 310 1 591 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,000,805 RASMUSSEN ROCKS PLANET EARTH: Stepping into shoes previously filled by Julie Stoffer (star of MTV's "Real World: New Orleans") and Neleh Dennis (star of CBS' "Survivor: Marquesas"), a 17-year-old Latter-day Saint singing sensation from Bountiful, Utah has come from nowhere to take over the megapopular FOX TV show "American Idol." Carmen Rasmusen, singing a country western song on the "Wildcard" episode of "American Idol," drew scathing comments from surly judge Simon Cowell. Yet it was Simon who picked her from the night's 12 competitors to move onto the next round. This makes Rasmusen one of only twelve finalists (from an original pool of hundreds of thousands of people) left competing in the show, and assures a spot in the show's popular touring show. LDS INVENTOR OF CDs/DVDs PASSES AWAY: A detailed article in the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/mar/03072003/utah/35959.asp) notes the passing by heart failure of the 54-year-old inventor of CD/DVD technology which has revolutionized the music and film industry. Robert B. Ingebretsen, a Latter-day Saint and Utah resident, invented the technology that translated analog sound into a digital format -- a discovery that eventually led to the development of compact discs. In 1999 he received an Academy Award for his contributions to the entertainment industry. Funeral services were held March 7th at the LDS Ensign Fourth Ward in Salt Lake City. LaBUTE/ECKHART MOVIE CHOSEN FOR EBERT'S FILMFEST: Neil LaBute's 2nd feature film, "Your Friends and Neighbors," starring fellow BYU grad Aaron Eckhart, is part of the lineup for Roger Ebert's prestigious annual Overlooked Film Festival. Roger Ebert, the nation's most popular film critic, organized the annual festival to draw attention pay tribute to great but under-appreciated films. Of the 14 films at this year's festival, "Your Friends and Neighbors" is the only one directed by a Latter-day Saint. The festival will take place in Ebert's hometown of Champaign, Illinois from April 23-27. The other movies in this year's lineup include: "The Right Stuff" (1983), "Singin' in the Rain" (which features the late Latter-day Saint actress Joi Lansing had a small part), "13 Conversations About One Thing," "Blood and Wine," "Charlotte Sometimes," "L.627," "Medium Cool," "Shall We Dance," "What's Cooking?", the 1932 Japanese silent classic "I Was Born, But..." and "The Black Pirate" (1926). GROBERG'S NAUVOO TEMPLE FILM IS BEING SHOWN ACROSS NATION: Meridian Magazine has published a detailed article about acclaimed Latter-day Saint documentary filmmaker Lee B. Groberg's latest feature-length documentary, "Sacred Stone: Temple on the Mississippi." The article tells how this film, and Groberg's previous Latter-day Saint-themed independent documentaries, have overcome obstacles and ended up being shown acros the country. The full article, with a schedule of PBS stations scheduled to play "Sacred Stone", can be found here: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/030311sacred.html HEIMERDINGER MOVIE NEWS: Popular author of Latter-day Saint Young Adult fiction Chris Heimerdinger (best known for his "Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites" series of books) is now selling a softcover published edition of his screenplay for his planned feature film "Summer of the Nephite" from his official website at http://www.cheimerdinger.com. He is still writing the novelization, which he plans to finish in about six weeks. The first few minutes of the movie have been completed as a short demo reel which the author is showing to investors in order to raise money to film the full movie. If he raises the money needed for the movie's production (about $600,000), he plans to shoot it this summer. DIMMITT HEADS BACK TO THE FUTURE: Latter-day Saint newspaper publisher James L. Dimmitt, publisher of the Chico Enterprise-Record June 1990 through the end of 1998, passed away on February 15th, 2003 at his home. He was 69 and had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig's disease). Dimmitt had published the Enterprise-Record and eight other newspapers owned by the Donrey Media Group. Dimmitt was well known for his collection of vintage cars. His vintage Packards 1941 convertible appeared in the movie "Back to the Future." Dimmitt was a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. SMALLVILLE, BY BYU GRADS: A detailed article in the Deseret News (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,465031249,00.html) describes the contributions that three recent Latter-day Saint BYU film school graduates are making to the popular TV series "Smallville", which features a young Clark Kent before he becomes Superman. Clint Carpenter is the show's script coordinator. He directed the short film "Iscariot" (starring Richard Clifford) while at BYU. His wife, Yvonne Carpenter, works as a writer's assistant for "Smallville." Jake Black was a an intern for the show and writes for the show's official website. 12th ANNUAL UTAH HIGH SCHOOL FILM FESTIVAL: From the Deseret News (10 March 2003): The 12th annual Utah High School Film Festival will be Wednesday, March 19, in the Grand Theater of the Salt Lake Community College South City Campus, 1575 S. State. More than 350 students representing at least 27 schools will are expected. The day begins at 8 a.m. with a keynote address by Leigh von der Esch, director of the Utah Film Commission, followed by workshops. After lunch are screenings and award presentations for winning student filmmakers. For information see www.xmission.com/~jmprince/filmfest or call Sue Tice at 484-4343, Ext. 229. WARD SCREENS NUMBER 9: Latter-day Saint filmmaker Dustin "Spanky" Ward hosted a free screening of his short film "Number 9" at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, March 11th at the new Salt Lake City Library, 400 south 200 east, in the auditorium. After the film was shown, a 10 minute behind-the-scenes documentary was shown. "Number 9," which Ward wrote and directed, competed in the 2002 LDS Film Festival, where it received the Audience Choice Award at the Festival, one of only 3 such awards given in a field of 36 competing films and a larger number of films submitted. The film is described thus: "A young psychology student meets a young man with a phobia of the woods. She convinces him he needs to face his fear and return to the woods." Ward was the first assistant director for the Latter-day Saint-themed feature-length film "Day of Defense" (2003), worked as the locations assistant for the big-budget feature film "The Core" (2003), and has many other film credits to his name. PIGLET EYES THE COMPETITION: The nationwide premier of "Piglet's Big Movie," starring Latter-day Saint actor Ken Sansom as "Rabbit," is just ten days away. Will "Piglet" trounce the competition that week and emerge as the Number 1 film in the country? It has a good chance of doing so. The only other animated feature/kids movie out there right now is the critically lambased sequel "The Jungle Book 2," and that's been playing now for weeks and is completely out of steam. Unfortunately, the kid-oriented "Agent Cody Banks" opens this weekend, and there may be a some overlap, although it's more for the pre-teen and young teen set, and may not draw many of the younger tykes likely to be going to "Piglet." On the plus side, the movies opening in the same weekend as "Piglet" have very little buzz, so they may all be felled by the Little Pink One and his Responsible Yellow Friend. Here's the competition: "Dreamcatcher", based on a Stephen King novel, may be the biggest competition. It stars Morgan Freeman, who is respected but not a huge box office draw. Horror flicks are popular, and King's name is a draw, even though this isn't among his best books. "A View from the Top": Even the trailer is said to stink, but with popular stars Gwyneth Paltrow, Christina Applegate and Kelly Preston, this movie about Paltrow's dreams of becoming a flight attendent might have wings before sinking to the bargain video bins. "Boat Trip": A movie for GLBT couples without kids, I guess. Once promising actor Cuba Gooding Jr. schleps with "Saturday Night Live" star Horatio Sanz as a down-on-their-luck pair of straight men tricked into taking a vacation on an all-gay cruiseliner. IMDb predicts it will "go down as one of the worst Hollywood productions of the year." "Down and Out with the Dolls": Nothing to worry about. Starring people people you've never heard of in a Portland, Oregon story about the rise and fall of an all-girl rock band, this one will be gone faster than you can say "WOW." ****** DESERET BOOK CURRENT TOP SELLING CDs, WEEK OF 9 MARCH 2003: 1. The R.M. Soundtrack 2. The Singles Ward Soundtrack 3. True North by Jericho Road 4. Love Is a Journey: Reflections on Marriage 5. Women of Destiny: Songs Celebrating the Declaration of the Relief Society 6. Jericho Road by Jericho Road 7. Charly Soundtrack 8. Greater Than Us All: 10th Anniversary Edition by Kenneth Cope 9. Twenty-Five Beloved Hymns of Christ on Acoustic Guitar by Michael Dowdle 10. The Ocean in Me by Cherie Call All of the CDs on the Top 10 list are movie soundtrack CDs, or feature music by recording artists with movie credits. The top 2 slots and the #7 slot on Deseret Book's top-selling CDs chart are filled by LDS Cinema soundtrack CDs. Deseret Book-owned boy band Jericho Road shows up in the #3 and #6 slots. Jericho Road makes a cameo appearance as a prison band in the movie "The R.M." Michael Dowdle (whose solo guitar album is at #9) performs the song "St. Angelos" (written by Rodney Strong) on the "Charly" soundtrack CD. Kenneth Cope (whose album is #8 on the chart) sang "Far Longer Than Forever" for the soundtrack to the movie "The Swan Princess: Escape from Castle Mountain" (1997), directed by Richard Rich. Popular Latter-day Saint recording star Cherie Call (whose newest album is at #10) wrote and performed two great songs on the "God's Army" soundtrack CD ("Snow" and Restless Soul"), and she wrote and performed two songs on the "Charly" soundtrack CD ("Restless Soul" and "A Heartbeat Away"). "Love Is a Journey: Reflections on Marriage" (#4 on the chart) features a number of artists: Jenny Frogley, Jericho Road, Jeff McLean, John McVey, Katherine Nelson, Brett Raymond, and Doug Walker. Brett Raymond's music is featured on the "Charly" soundtrack. John McVey's music is featured on the "Out of Step" soundtrack CD. "Women of Destiny" (#5 on the chart), includes music by various artists, including two songs by Gladys Knight, who sang the title song for the James Bond movie "License to Kill" (1989), Michael McLean (who wrote the songs for the FFFF video "Rigoletto" and numerous Church videos, including "What Is Real?", "Our Heavenly Father's Plan", "Together Forever", "The Prodigal Son", "Labor of Love", "Nora's Christmas Gift", and "Mr. Krueger's Christmas." "Women of Destiny" also features music by Tyler Castleton and Stacy Peters, two of the composers for the Church's Winter Olympics Conference Center extravaganza "Light of the World." ****** MOYER TO SPEAK IN UTAH COUNTY: The Utah County chapter of the League of Utah Writers is having the following meeting: John Moyer has been confirmed as guest speaker for the group's meeting on March 26th at 7:00 p.m. in the Provo Library. Moyer is the screenwriter for the popular Latter-day Saint-themed feature films "Singles Ward," and "The R.M.". He will speak about how he began his career and talk about the fundamentals of screenplay writing. ****** BOWMAN AND LITTLE ON DVD: Two hot short films are coming out on a combined DVD from Candlelight Media Group, the same company that publishes the "Treasured Stories of the Golden Rule" and "The Wrong Brother" video. The DVD (also available as a video) contains two great films which are really nothing alike, but they are packaged together under the title "About Brothers." The two films are "Freedom on the Water" and "The Wrong Brother." The DVD features a director's commentary for both films. "Freedom on the Water" (2002) was directed by Ryan Little (director of the Latter-day Saint-themed feature films "Out of Step" and "Saints of War", and cinematographer for the Latter-day Saint-themed feature films "The R.M." and "The Singles Ward"). "Freedom on the Water" garnered Little the "Best American Director" Award at Windsong Film Festival in Indiana for this film. The film stars Lincoln Hoppe, but then, what Ryan Little short film doesn't? Mike Tanner, the star of Martin Patch's short film "4:53," has the 2nd billed role in "Freedom." Chris Bowman's hilarious short film "The Wrong Brother" is also on the DVD, just in time for the 100th Anniversary of the Wright Brothers' historic flight at Kitty Hawk (1903). "The Wrong Brother" won the top awards a the BYU "Final Cut" film festival, and went on to win 1st place at the First International Young LDS Film Festival. It tells the not entirely factual story of young Hector Wright, the lesser known brother of Orville and Wilbur Wright. Chris Kendrick (one of the stars of "Handcart") does a hilarious turn as a Wright Brother. Bryan Summers is wonderful in the title role. Clint Carpenter, script consultant for the WB series "Smallville" (about a young Superman) is the first assistant director. Ryan Little was the producer of "The Wrong Brother." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: Programming as Art Date: 11 Mar 2003 21:46:03 -0800 Terry Jeffress has sold me. Well reasoned, excellent examples, = satisfying conclusion. Bravo. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 12 Mar 2003 09:40:50 -0500 Three or four months ago, I wrote a post that connected the war, Mormonism, and literature, by reference to a graphic novel based on Starship Troopers that featured Mormons in space being eaten by giant bugs because they were unwilling to use violence to defend themselves, and based their behavior on a quotation of Joseph Smith, published verbatim. I was proud of that post because I didn't violate any of the list guidelines and made, I felt, an important point. Yet when it was published, the moderator inserted a heading on it with a strongly expressed personal stand forbidding any list discussion on the war. >From now on, I think I'll sign all my posts "Eric Samuelson," whose distant cousin I am proud to be, so that I can write without being slapped down for no reason. Tony Markham, er, make that Eric Samuelson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Value of Fairy Tales Date: 12 Mar 2003 08:08:20 -0700 On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 01:03 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > I agree with what you are getting at. However I think that the literal > contaminates the allegorical more than you admit. Certainly you are right--it's not as clear cut as I stated it, and children aren't usually consciously aware of metaphor. Still, they keep asking for the "Big Bad Wolf," and the Troll under the bridge, etc. I've tried whitewashing a few of these stories for my own kids and they'll have none of it. Maybe they are sociopaths in the making? :-) Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 12 Mar 2003 08:30:59 -0700 On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 05:14 PM, Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: > I got a long email from a friend, full of capitalized words and=20 > exclamation points, desperately asking if I had any cogent arguments,=20= > any, against the war, which her gut told her was wrong, but she could=20= > find nothing, not a single article anywhere, making a rational,=20 > informed argument against it. Nothing but propoganda, anywhere. For a Mo-Lit tie-in, how about a quick rereading of Captain Moroni's=20 words on the Title of Liberty? "And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a=20 piece thereof, and wrote upon it=97 In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom,=20= and our peace, our wives, and our children=97and he fastened it upon the end of = a=20 pole. IMHO Al Qaeda has trespassed against this in a big way, but neither the=20= government nor the people of Iraq have come even close where the US is=20= concerned. If we were actually attacked, well, that might be a horse=20= of a different color. As cultural comment, I think Eric brought up an interesting point. =20 Since as LDS folks we try to stay apolitical at church it can seem that=20= either A) no one cares about politics or B) that everyone must think=20 the same way _we_ do, since _we_ are obviously right. Also, for the record, I'm still eating French Fries and Brie, but not,=20= of course, at the same time. Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 12 Mar 2003 08:21:09 -0800 << The overwhelming conservative bias of the national media, the absolute impossibility of a liberal voice being heard, has led to the absurdity of celebrities protesting on talk shows, because they're the only liberals who can get booked on those shows. (The idea of a 'liberal bias' in the media is so preposterous, it barely deserves acknowledgement, and yet it's a surprisingly pervasive myth.) >> A web board I frequent recently had a discussion about whether the media is more liberal or more conservative. I think the consensus reached was that those who are more liberal than the media think it's slanted conservative, and those more conservative than the media think it's slanted liberal. It's all relative. I think one of the biggest problems we have (and I don't mean "we" as in the church members, but "we" as in everyone) in political discussions is that too many see things as sheer black and white, when it's much more complicated than that. << So we have two realities. What people are really thinking and feeling, which we only find out in whispers. And the party line, the official line, which only feels official because it gets spoken with some force. It's Culture-Voice, which says rock music is evil, and so are R rated movies, and voting Democratic, and women working, and Not Supporting The President. And then, whispers, saying 'but what if that doesn't work for me?' >> Call me lame, but I really don't care very much about that. Maybe cuz I'm so far outside the culture--I frequently go to bars to see rock bands play, I work fulltime, I rarely hang out with church members outside of church--but I don't watch rated R movies--whatever, I don't expect to fit in. It *doesn't* work for me--so what? :) Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 11 Mar 2003 05:44:26 -0700 jeffress@xmission.com wrote: > I think any argument aimed at proving "X is not art" will ultimatey be > refuted by "Well, maybe X isn't art to you, but there's a group of people > that think it is art, so it must have some artistic value." I don't think > it's possible to name a thing that doesn't ultimately have some artistic > value in someone's eyes. > I think all this really does is refute the possibility of a universal > definition of art, which was probably a given in the first place. No, what it does is dilute the very concept of art into meaninglessness. You are saying that everything is art. That means nothing is art, because art becomes a meaningless concept. Most certainly you can stretch the frame definition of art to include everything. That's why I think the frame definition is incomplete. That's why I add the requirement that the artist intends to display the framed art for an audience. Not that it actually has to be displayed, but that the intent to display it, somewhere someday, exists--or at least the wish to display it if the artist only had the courage to do so. (This makes the definition include those who claim their art is only for themselves, which I consider a cover-up for lack of courage. Can you imagine anyone creating a work of art and not enjoying having someone see it and express positive feedback about it? They're just afraid the feedback will be otherwise.) Yes, you can stretch the frame definition to include everything, but you can do that with any definition. You can stretch any concept a human being thinks up beyond the point of uselfuness. A definition of art that says "Art is everything" is useless. Just because we have a hard time agreeing on where the boundaries of art are does not mean we should give up and declare there are no boundaries. Otherwise we should be discussing the aesthetic characteristics of cooking Cream of Wheat. It's framed by the pot, after all, and it takes a certain amount of cooking skill to avoid lumpy or burnt cereal. You should have seen the last batch I made. It was smooth as silk--a work of art! Things can be artistically created, but unless the artist intends or wishes it could be displayed as art, it ain't art. I stand by that definition. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Little Mermaid Date: 11 Mar 2003 05:49:02 -0700 Clark Goble wrote: > Count me as one who decries the de-sexualizing of the human form as just > as perniciously dangerous as pushing the sexualized form in all of our > media. (Not to mention rather unbelievable) To me they are simply two > sides of the same phenomena. It's your extreme, not mine. I didn't suggest desexualizing human bodies. I'm suggesting combatting the intense brainwashing our society gives us that keeps us from ever viewing human bodies as anything but sexual. > To me the underlying cause is the loss of > the sacred. Being conditioned so that you can't even view a human body without sexual thoughts intruding is loss of the sacred. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Michael WILCOX, _Who Shall Be Able To Stand?_ (Review) Date: 12 Mar 2003 14:54:49 -0800 > Title: Who Shall Be Able To Stand? > Author: S. Michael Wilcox > Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle > class thought about the book. One fellow, an imigrant from England, > suggested that John had been smoking hashish while writing the book. I > doubted this was the case, but, given the wild visions, the animals and > fires and trumpets, I couldn't blame him for thinking so! > Yes, I know Hunter S. Thompson is a reprobate, and no, I don't agree at all with his hedonistic worldview. However, it is impossible to ignore him, when you consider crunchy grains like this that can be found after winnowing away his chaff: That is when I start bouncing around the room and ripping drawers out of the nightstands and bed-boxes and those flimsy little desks with bent green blotters that they provide for traveling salesmen -- looking for a Gideon Bible, which I know will be there somewhere, and with any luck at all it will be a King James Version, and the Book of Revelation will be intact at the end. - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine \ If there is a God, I want to thank Him for the Gideons, whoever they are. I have dealt with some of His other messengers and found them utterly useless. But not the Gideons. They have saved me many times, when nobody else could do anything but mutter about calling Security on me unless I turned out my lights and went to sleep like all the others.... - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine \ I have stolen more quotes and thoughts and purely elegant little starbursts of *writing* from the Book of Revelation than anything else in the English language -- and it is not because I am a biblical scholar, or because of any religious faith, but because I love the wild power of the language and the purity of the madness that governs it and makes it music. - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine \ I wanted to have another look at the Book of Revelation. Which is a serious piece of work, a thunderhead mix of Bolero, Sam Coleridge and the ravings of Cato the Elder. I was awed, once again, by the fearful intensity of the language...and also by the idea that this, the genuinely hideous Revelation of "St. John the Divine," is generally assumed...to be the long-range personal blueprint [for] Ronald Reagan.... - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine \ There is language -- in the King James Version, at least -- that will peel the skin off your back. There was no Miranda Rule, back then; *everybody* was guilty, and punishment was swift and terrible. - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine, on the Book of Revelation \ Just thought y'all might appreciate this different take on Revelation. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too You see, it's just that his brain is so tiny that the slightest movement can dislodge it. - Monty Python's Flying Circus --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2003/02/25 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] re: _The R.M._ Date: 12 Mar 2003 15:04:29 -0800 (PST) I haven't seen _The RM_. But I did receive a call one evening (or was it morning?) about four months before I was to return home at my fabulous missionary apartment in Bucharest's Sector 1 (really---this was a great apartment, and it was only two blocks away from the only French-style bakery in the entire country). It was my mom and dad. They wanted to tell me that they had moved to Sacramento. I wasn't entirely shocked that they had moved (my dad had been out of work for some time), but the fact that they didn't tell me until after the move had been made threw me for a bit of a loop. It made it seem more sudden and out of the blue. For all of my missionary compatriots who were going to ship off (or return) to BYU (and that was most of them), such a move wouldn't have been as big of a deal, but I had been planning on living with my parents when I got back. I was all set to attend the local community college. And I wanted to return to the Bay Area---Sacramento didn't appeal to me one bit. Of course, it's my own fault for not writing home for three months. ~~William Morris, who is still in the Bay Area but to whom Sacramento home prices are looking pretty attractive at the moment __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory Date: 11 Mar 2003 06:15:58 -0700 Clark Goble wrote: > ___ Jongiorgi ___ > | Then, we are forced to ask, what is "reality." > ___ > > The typical answer is that which exists when I'm not thinking about it. > The more philosophically careful definitions are all variations on that > theme. > > Truth, as typically spoken of in literature is either "things we > socially like," "patterns we agree with," or "psychological structures." > Only the latter typically is truth in the sense most philosophers or > scientists view it. The scriptures say that truth is knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. This is a clear endorsement of the objective reality model of truth, along the lines of Ayn Rand, who erred mainly in denying the objective existence of the spiritual realm. As Mormons, this verse seems to require us to adopt the objectiveness of reality, so the source of any fuzziness we find in truth can only come from indivual perceptions of imperfect mortals. This makes me wonder how much individuality there can be among exalted beings. If perfect knowledge results in identical opinions and perceptions, that sounds like a pretty boring existence. Everybody thinks the same. I have to believe that there is more than concrete truth, even in a perfect society. There has to be a category of characteristics for which there is no single "perfect" answer. I think we might identify that category as "art." Another possible definition, to cross-reference with a certain other list topic? Art is that over which beings with perfect knowledge can still have divergent viewpoints. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 11 Mar 2003 07:18:15 -0700 [MOD: Advance reply: For what it's worth, I think it's highly worthwhile to discuss, from time to time, what is and what isn't appropriate for AML-List, given current guidelines--and how those guidelines could and should change. Obviously, my take on Eric's post--and my interpretation of AML-List guidelines--is somewhat different from Michael's, or I wouldn't have allowed Eric's post through. But it's all worth discussing, and I'm certainly open to having my opinion changed. Not to mention the fact that in the post below, Michael makes a number of other points, highly worthwhile in their own right.] Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: > Okay, a few comments about Mormonism and politics and literature, > which I hope can stay on-topic. I felt like it didn't. In fact, I made my one and only protest to a list moderator in the history of my list membership, because I thought this message went way over the line. Way over the line meaning, it's impossible for me to respond effectively without violating list rules. So it should never have gone through in the first place. Not that there wasn't a lot in the message worth reading. In fact, I agree with Eric on the alarming increase in idea censoring that's going on in Mormon culture. But he could have expressed that same concept by using examples of ideas that members feel they can't utter in anything louder than whispers, without constantly declaring with absolute judgments and inflammatory words how wrong the people are who don't believe like him. Now that I've got that off my chest, I'll respond to things I can respond to without violating list rules. > My favorite daily reading is the letters to the editor > page in the Deseret News. I really can't get enough > of it. I think I like it precisely because it > provides such an untrustworthy look at Utah Mormon > culture. > I got a long email from a friend, full of capitalized words and > exclamation points, desperately asking if I had any cogent > arguments, any, against the war, which her gut told her was wrong, > but she could find nothing, not a single article anywhere, making > a rational, informed argument against it. Nothing but propoganda, > anywhere. All she had to do was read the Salt Lake Tribune's editorial section. The environment there is the exact opposite of the Deseret News--all we get there are anti-war columns and letter. > We have no forum in Mormonism to talk about any of these issues. We > tend to experience the world at the ward level, and the only people > who speak up on political issues in Church are those with extreme > views, who therefore aren't bothered by the inappropriateness of > speaking up on political questions in Church. So a warped > perspective emerges, in which we're seen as lunatic fringe > conservatives. And the DN reflects that warped perspective. So let's us all make a pact that we'll speak up in more than whispers. Certainly others will be emboldened by that. After all, we're only following the example Chieko Okazaki in the AML Annual meeting a while back, where she spoke the thought many women would think anytime the lesson topic was Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac: "He must not have told Sarah, because no way woould she have let him. I wouldn't have." And the whole rest of the available time was spent discussing that issue. > Sickest of all is the > humor: how many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? We don't > know. It's never been tried. So that's where we are. Dishonoring > close to two million French soldiers who died defending their > capital in WWI and II. Dishonoring our oldest and dearest ally. > And those jokes have an edge to them, an edge of desperation, as > though people are making strongly partisan arguments they don't > really believe in. No, it's clever, biting satire. Certainly no sicker than the political cartoons Pat Bagley has been doing lately dishonoring President Bush, which to me seem to have their own edge of desperation. Or Eric Samuelsen calling Bush Gadianton. > So we have two realities. What > people are really thinking and feeling, which we only find out in > whispers. And the party line, the official line, which only feels > official because it gets spoken with some force. It's > Culture-Voice, which says rock music is evil, and so are R rated > movies, and voting Democratic, and women working, and Not > Supporting The President. And then, whispers, saying 'but what if > that doesn't work for me?' Which is a condition that disturbs me as much as you. Which is why you're defeating your own purpose when you outrage me by putting in all the inflammatory judgmental stuff, all that ridicule you heap on conservatives, which I am, therefore I must assume applies to me. I agree with your main point completely, but your insults aimed toward me, albeit unintentionally I'm sure, get in the way. I then have to perform a herculean effort at restraint to be able to read through the crap to divine your point. > A friend told me about a high council speaker in her > ward who made the following argument: thinking leads to > questioning, questioning leads to murmuring, murmuring leads to > apostacy. Why do you say that, if you're not afraid? Afraid of > the thoughts, perhaps, you hear whispered in corners, perhaps even > in corners of your own head. That high councilor acted in an evil fashion at that moment. There has been so much damage caused by such bogus doctrine stated as if it were official, when all that's going on is personal bias elevated with absolutely no authority to the status of divine commandment. This high councilor was as much a part of the statement of Jesus when he said, "I never knew ye. Depart from me," as any other Christian minister acting in the name of God. He was speaking for God things that God never authorized him to speak. Last I checked, it was a sin to make up doctrine--an excommunicable sin in the right circumstances. There, I did it--I spoke against one of the Lord's anointed. I, like Eric, don't understand what it means to support your church leaders either. It certainly can't mean what so many members of the church think it means, because such a concept violates my conscience and my understanding of official doctrine. Actually, I believe I do know what it means. But if I told certain members of the church, I would be classified as a heretic, if not apostate. This situation will never change until someone stands up and speaks out against it. A leader is what we need. Then the more timid can feel better about joining in the protest. And if we artists can't fulfill that role (which is one of the most important roles of art), who will? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Date: 12 Mar 2003 18:35:45 -0600 Who will write this book, and will it be truth or fiction? CNN, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Sandy Police Department, and others are reporting that Elizabeth Smart was found alive Wednesday afternoon and apparently in good health. Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 12 Mar 2003 20:37:16 -0800 I feel an intense need to respond to Eric's essay even though I am having some difficulty even figuring out why or how. I don't read the Deseret News, the letters to the editor, and I certainly can't judge the way politics functions in Utah. I can't even figure out how politics functions in Georgia and I have been at least peripherally involved in it for more than thirty years. I can figure out my own response to some of the issues involved in Eric's early discussion. Hate crime legislation, the right to carry arms "to school?", adequate funding for education etc. I also note that in my part of the country, the ward reaction to these issues is not muted nor inhibited by culture. My ward is made up of old time Georgians, a very strong population of educators (both at the college and community level), a number of law enforcement officers and a fair population of people who have been drawn here by graduate school, new industry, and whatever. Everyone pretty much has a clear view about how everyone else feels about major issues. I am relatively rare in my opposition to hate crime legislation because it seems redundant to punish an assassin or an "assaulter" differently if a prosecutor can make a case for hate. The villain should be adequately punished no matter what the motive. I get a lot of grief over that one. Certainly, in our ward, there has been, is now, and will be major agitation for adequate funding for education (A certain amount of real self interest here.) I do hear, and even voice occasional protest at the weapons policy in the schools. Having been raised during the second world war, and engaged with all the propaganda of the time the fact that a student can be expelled from school for drawing a picture of a gun seems beyond the pale, but I assure you that allowing a permit carrying student (or for that matter anyone else except a policeman) to enter the school with a firearm would be met with parental rioting at the door, legislature or any appropriate venue. Says Eric+ >> We have no forum in Mormonism to talk about any of these issues. > We tend to experience the world at the ward level, and the only > people who speak up on political issues in Church are those with > extreme views, who therefore aren't bothered by the > inappropriateness of speaking up on political questions in > Church. So a warped perspective emerges, in which we're seen as > lunatic fringe conservatives. And the DN reflects that warped > perspective. I assure you that WE do have such a forum. It frequently is called Priesthood meeting but could be almost any other meeting including member night to clean the church. > > So, there's a war coming up soon. In my opinion, it's the very > definition of an unjust war. The best argument that can be made > for it seems to be something like this: President Bush is > Governor Lachoneus. Saddam is Giddianhi. So we need to launch a > pre-emptive strike against him, or else he's coming to attack us. > Even at that level, it's unjust, and that's even without--as I > do--seeing Bush as closer to Gadianton than Lachoneus. What do > we hear about the war in my Mormon neighborhood? Not much. What > we do hear is something like this: we should support our leaders. > I don't even know what that means. Skip> And so it goes. We're heading to war, and it feels like a > production of Endgame, cruelly absurd. The overwhelming > conservative bias of the national media, the absolute > impossibility of a liberal voice being heard, has led to the > absurdity of celebrities protesting on talk shows, because > they're the only liberals who can get booked on those shows. > (The idea of a 'liberal bias' in the media is so preposterous, it > barely deserves acknowledgement, and yet it's a surprisingly > pervasive myth.) In the DN, the Sunday opinion page had five > editorials about the war, all by conservatives, all favoring it. > And yet, again, opinion surveys show a far more ambivalent body > of opinion. > > So we have two realities. What people are really thinking and > feeling, which we only find out in whispers We have many more than two. Perhaps as many as we have people in the church and on the list. As a self identified Conservative I certainly perceive a liberal bias in the media (Well, not talk radio, or much of the commentary on Fox News). But then I perceive the world through the paradigm which I have taught myself and which I have received from the stimuli and forces which affect (or perhaps effect) me, and if I had taught myself like Eric, I would perceive things differently. I have mixed feelings about the run up to war. My opinions are colored by the fact that one of my sons (National Guard) is sitting down at Fort Stewart Georgia expecting momentarily to get on a plane bound for Kuwait, and that one other who would much prefer continuing to do quality control on printers made by Sharp labs, (reserves in Washington State) has been notified that he will probably be called up in mid-April. (He has already spent a year in Bosnia and some months in Kosovo) This doesn't make me either a hawk or a dove but the rhetoric about the war makes me furious. Most of the rhetoric in opposition is unsubstantiated opposing assertions linked with name calling (Note the link above between the President and Gadianton). The rhetoric in support is very similar except the name calling is linked to Sadaam or to the French and Germans. I personally find myself so irritated that, after the last gulf war, we left in office a megalomaniac (Name calling alert) who considers the Kurd population of Iraq to be enemies and the Shiia population to be an expendable resource and who has proven that he will do almost anything to stay in power. So little on either side is supported by evidence. I share a priesthood teaching assignment in our high priest's group with Mike Neilson, who, in the last Sunstone magazine wrote a plaintive but well researched opposition not only to this war but to all war. In our meetings we discuss! (I confess that when he led the last student protest he slipped into platitudes and name calling, but then I just did that too). Of all the so called celebrity liberal opponents to the war, I did hear Tim Robbins (I think!) making real points on CNN this afternoon, and I do enjoy reading Orson Scott Card in his well reasoned support of the President's policy. As I said, I have mixed feelings but do feel that without the run-up to war the world would be a much more dangerous place. Unfortunately I am not sure that if war starts it will begin, again to be a much more dangerous place. I pray for peace. And at my ward, we discuss the issues trying hard not to get angry. > Eric Samuelsen Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Theater Date: 12 Mar 2003 23:46:55 EST andrewrhall@hotmail.com writes: << There were a large number of premiers by LDS playwrights in 2002. Perhaps the most noteworthy was Tim Slover's BYU production of "Hancock County"...It is the production I most regret missing from 2002. >> It's coming out on video. I'll make some noise on my web site when it does. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 12 Mar 2003 22:46:52 -0700 A comment on the hate crimes bill in Utah, I wanted this to be part of a larger post responding to Eric Samuelsen, but I'll wait for Jacob Proffitt to file one. My observation on the bill was that the House passed it and sent it to the Senate, where it died. (I could have these missed up.) In two years, the Senate will pass one and send it to the House, where it will die. Each rep will claim they supported it. The reason this happens is a self-righteousness that politicians need. In other words, they need to look righteous. Deep down, I suspect they never want to pass a hate crimes bill because (and they would be unrighteous if they said this) 1. They believe all crimes are hate, 2. They don't think singling out a specific hate makes much sense, 3. They don't think it is the business of the state to read the mind of criminals or other citizens. 4. They don't particularly like the groups that want protection from hate. Some of these beliefs may have a small degree of merit. For example, Eric S. cuts loose from time to time. I like it, but what if a group like Charley-lovers claimed he hated them. What if they picked a fight with him as he stood in a movie line to watch Chicago one more time. What if he was charged with a hate crime for hating Mormons and beating them up? So, getting back to self-righteousness and the literary tie-in, what about stories that tell how PC has not only made our society afraid to discuss certain topics, it also has encouraged a moral dilemna between what a person is and what he pretends to be. This is a recipe for a Pharisee that sets up his own laws but misses the point of the law. He may be for Hate Crime legislation but lacking love. He may be falsely accused of a crime, but rightly accused of a hate, and correctly accused of a lie. I feel a character coming on.... Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] re: Elizabeth Smart Date: 12 Mar 2003 23:01:10 -0700 The standard comment, heard from thirty people, has been 'what a miracle.' = It certainly feels like a miracle. When my wife heard the news from her = sister, she whooped so loudly I wondered if we'd won the lottery. We = didn't, but Ed and Lois Smart did, and the whole state feels like we're = sharing in the bounty. =20 I was home sick in bed, which gave me time and leisure to catch the = coverage on all the local stations, plus CNN and MSNBC. Astounding how = compelling it can be to watch what passes for news in a situation like = this. Nobody on any of the stations knew anything initially, and yet, = once again, television sort of created this kind of pixel McLuhanesque = village, boundaries shrunk and differences minimized. I haven't had a TV = experience like this since 9/11, but of course that was sickening and = pornographic, while this was joyously addicting. (Nobody reads McLuhan = anymore, and yet at times like these he seems frighteningly prescient.) = And nobody gets to diss TV in my presence for at least six more months, = and that's even WITH The Bachelorette. And, of course, joy doesn't sustain well. A few random thoughts intervened= . In no particular order. . . . Ed Smart reiterated once again that the story, in this case, had nothing = to do with class or race. He's a good enough man that he had to say that, = but it's not true, unfortunately. The kidnapping of a bright, attractive, = blonde young woman from a wealthy family is news. The kidnapping of a = bright, attractive African American young woman from a lower-middle class = family is not news. This is surely not anyone's fault, particularly; it's = just where the culture is, right now. And that's a sobering thought. But = Ed Smart did speak with some anger and passion about the need for Amber = legislation (creation of a national datebase for information on kidnapped = children), and that was interesting; he's attained a certain unwanted = celebrity for this, and he's going to be using it to lobby. Good for him. KSL really just wanted to celebrate. KUTV was asking the tougher = questions. They had an exclusive with the guy who took the party photo; = the photograph of a man and two women dressed in Biblical robes crashing a = SLC party last September. The guy in the photo is almost certainly Brian = Mitchell, which would make the other two his wife, Wanda Barzze, and = Elizabeth. Which means Elizabeth was at a party, surrounded by other = people, six blocks from her home, six months ago. It's an uncomfortable = photo, an ugly intrusion into what should be a celebration, but they're = right to lead with it. Okay, Elizabeth was probably a Stockholm syndrome = victim. No question she didn't feel safe pulling off her veil or saying = something at that party. The big question that photo raises for me is, = what's with all those other guys we see in the photo, all those hardy = partiers who never even thought for a second about this very strange = situation? Come on, I know the Miller Genuine Draft was flowing, dudes, = but you've got two weirdos with a little girl and it fazed you not at all? = Or the other dude, who rented them all a room for a week? I mean, = Elizabeth's photo is literally everywhere. He didn't even stop for a = second and wonder who the little girl was hanging out with these utter = nutbags? =20 The really shocking footage (and again KUTV got this), was of this little = camp under a footbridge where Mitchell and Barzze kept Elizabeth. That's = where they were, at least some of the time, at least recently, sleeping in = sleeping bags with a tarp over them under this bridge. Come on, nobody = noticed? Hard to imagine; it was a very public campout. =20 Best smile of the night could very well be Angela Ricci's. The woman must = have gone through hell, with her husband publically declared the number = one suspect, then he dies before he can clear his name? Everyone I talked = to thought the location of Elizabeth's body went to the grave with Richard = Ricci. And then this sweet vindication. Standing in front of the trailer = court where she lives, she was class personified, taking the high road = throughout, praising the Smart family and, with great dignity telling the = world that she had always believed in her husband's innocence. Great = drama. The cop press conference provided comic relief. The SLC police chief = wouldn't answer any questions about anything (properly so, of course, in = the early hours of an investigation that will end up in a very public = trial), and yet the reporters wouldn't let him go; they howled in outrage = when he tried to wind things up, and so he went on for another ten = minutes, with this bemused smile on his face, giving ten more minutes of = non-answers. And then some bozo asked this wonderful question: "knowing = what you know today, would you have focussed on Emmanuel (Mitchell's stage = name) earlier and more strongly?" The chief looked at the reporter = dumbfounded, and said, "seriously, are you asking me, if I knew then what = I know now, would I have focussed on Emmanuel? Yes!" Great comedy. Yes, = if I knew he was, in fact, the kidnapper, I certainly would have concentrat= ed on him. Brother. That wasn't the best, though. The best was the interview one reporter had = with the woman who spotted Mitchell walking down the street, remembered = seeing him on America's Most Wanted, and pulled out her cell phone. The = reporter pointed out that there was a two hundred and fifty thousand = dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the kidnapper. = Was she aware of that reward? What was she hoping to do with it? The = woman who had called in (who quite properly was referred to as 'a hero' by = several talking heads) looked at this reporter like she was something = she'd just gotten on her shoe, and said, quietly, but with real dignity, = 'a fifteen year old girl has been restored to her family. The money = doesn't matter.' =20 So, okay, it's a miracle. How? Where do we see the hand of God here? I have a nine year old daughter, same age as Mary Catherine Smart. I love = her with all my heart. But she's nine. Miss Short Attention Span = Theatre. And yet, somehow, six months after the event, Mary Catherine = Smart was able to properly and accurately identify a photograph of a man she had seen only once before in her life, six months earlier, a man = who had been working on the roof of her home. Don't tell me God is not a = God of miracles. Eric Samuelsen =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 12 Mar 2003 23:46:21 -0700 ---Original Message From: Harlow S Clark >=20 > Now this is the part I was thinking about. For all that we=20 > say about the Church affecting politics in Utah, there is a=20 > certain segment of politics where it simply has no=20 > influence--or seems to have no influence. Despite strenuous=20 > objection from many institutions including the Church, in=20 > years past, to allowing guns in schools, the legislature=20 > approved a bill this year allowing people with concealed=20 > weapons permits to carry guns in schools.=3D20 I think what we have here is a failure to communicate . . . :) Harlow, you misread the culture and ascribe attributes that don't exist. = A part of that is your own assumptions and assumptions of motivation. = Take the "strenuous objection" the Church supposedly made to allowing guns in schools and churches. The statement I read didn't advocate a political bill. The statement I read asked members not to bring their guns to = church. It was addressed to the members as a course of action. It was not, as = far as I could tell, a call to political action. Also, you need to read the bill closer. The bill did *not* allow guns = in churches if the church didn't want their congregation to bring them. In fact, the bill outlined a very simple procedure the church can follow to make it *illegal* for members of the congregation to bring a gun (even a licensed conceal-carry weapon) to church with them. And it even left = the potential for the church to allow some to carry firearms on a = case-by-case basis if that was the wish (probably an important "security guard" = clause). If the church said anything about guns in schools, it did so in a very narrow forum that I never saw, and I'll bet they didn't couch it as a = call to political action. Which would seem to explain why our members aren't aware of it and don't act accordingly. Personally, I don't see why we should guarantee unprotected photogenic innocent victims to any = psychopath wanting headlines. It isn't so much that I *want* guns in schools. I = just think that we benefit from the potential that there *might* be an armed response to an attack so that schools don't become a de facto target for = any criminal willing to perform a basic risk analysis. > One of the oft-recurring archetypes in tv and film thrillers=20 > and cop-shows is the villain so evil and implacable he=20 > (usually, sometimes > she) has to be killed--there is no safety outside the=20 > villain's death. I think you misread the culture again. Movie villains don't die because there is no safety outside their death--they die because a court battle = and 25 to life isn't a cinematically satisfying climax. > Like most cop shows and thrillers this=20 > gives the lie to the idea that Hollywood is full of political=20 > liberals, as the show's politics are quite conservative (in=20 > contrast to, say, The District, which is more liberal, but=20 > still fairly conservative).=20 Hahahahahahahaha. You slay me. Since when does a single example = disqualify general propensity? And I'd be interested in your definition of conservative if you can make that claim seriously. Particularly when = 80% of the entertainment industry and 90% of the media are voting Democrats = trying to pull the party further left than it already is. The only thing = keeping our media and entertainment from veering entirely liberal is the free = market and rule of law... > I remember a particularly distressing article about a teenage=20 > boy who had shot and killed an intruder climbing in his=20 > window at night. In investigating the killing police turned=20 > on his radio to see what station it was tuned to, and it was=20 > a wholesome LDS station, and they checked to see what books=20 > he was reading, and they were wholesome LDS books and he=20 > didn't have lots of unwholesome grungy music posters around=20 > or anything related to unwholesome drugs. >=20 > The most distressing thing about the article was that he said=20 > he had absolutely no remorse about killing the intruder.=20 > Hadn't rattled him at all. I wonder if he thought the lesson=20 > of Nephi and Laban is kill and don't think about it. I rather suspect that he was thinking of the lesson taught by Captain Moroni, Mormon, Ammon and other spiritual military leaders in the Book = of Mormon--people willing to defend their freedom and the lives of their families. I'd like to read the article, because I'd be surprised if he = was quite as callous as you depict here. For myself, if I were in his = shoes, I might be sad for a life wasted but it wouldn't throw me into a = guilt-spiral ending in a tear-ridden confession of my own worthlessness to live. I wouldn't need therapy or anything. The intruder died as a result of his own decision. Defense of life and liberty is a good thing and can be more important than the life of a criminal. There are times when the defense is more important. There = are times when defense must bow to other more important values. It might be different if I were single and lived alone, for example--for one, my decision would only affect myself and not innocents unable to decide for themselves. Remorse is one thing, but sometimes it *is* better for the wicked to die than for them to be able to continue in their goals (whether those goals = are preventing you your ancestral records or destruction of liberal civilization). So it doesn't surprise me that a good Mormon boy = wouldn't express regrets about his own actions when killing an intruder. If = asked, I bet he'd express regret that a criminal made the choice to break into = his home, though. > But, to get back to the hate crimes bill, I suspect part of=20 > the opposition, maybe a gut level part, is the feeling that=20 > we should handle our own problems, fight it out gun to gun,=20 > not always go running for mommy and daddy. I also suspect=20 > it's similar to the primal opposition many Americans express=20 > toward international war crimes laws, which--they say--might=20 > ensnare American soldiers. Again, that isn't the reason at all and the two cases aren't even tangentially or sub-etherally related. =20 There's nothing gut-level about opposition to hate-crime legislation. = You seem to assume that there can't be a rational reason to oppose = hate-crime legislation. Opposition is plenty defensible through our theology. It starts with all men are created equal. Why is it more illegal to commit = a crime against one man than it is against another? Designating special victim groups is a bad precedent to set, particularly in something so ossified as law. Then you have the First Amendment which most artists are happy to cling = to when people object to *their* speech, so I'm a bit confused to find so = many of them dismissing it so casually here. It's *already* illegal to beat people up, kill them, burn their property or whatever hate-crimes are designated. Is it going to be *more* illegal just because you're too = stupid to keep from bragging about your depredations (before or after)? Hate-crime enhancements is one step too close to thought crime--God = punishes sins, we can only punish actions. This isn't perfect (there's a = difference between first and second degree murder for example), but so far our distinctions between crimes are supposed to be based on the actions of = the criminal, not the attributes of the victim. If people engage in an = attempt to suppress a minority and they commit crimes in so doing, then it seems = to me that what you're really talking about is conspiracy and RICO prosecutions, anyway. If it doesn't rise to conspiracy and/or RICO then = it should probably fall under free speech and everybody should shun the perpetrators for ignorant fools, but I don't see making it a law to put = them away longer for it. Opposition to an International criminal court is *entirely* different. *That's* based on our distrust of those in charge to actually hold to = the agreements they make, too many signatories lack any concept of the rule = of law, and every proposal for one so far violates the Constitution of the United States and would give foreign governments the right to search = without warrants, confiscate property, violate due process, and impose laws = which we couldn't repeal based on Constitutional guarantees. And it isn't = *might* ensnare American soldiers--that's a dead certainty. Such courts are = *not* being built on a foundation of legal justice nor do they contain = important protections for freedoms we consider basic and important. Different principles than for hate-crimes and it's only coincidence that there's a union (speaking set-theory-wise) between the groups. > Again, I'm interested in this from a literary standpoint.=20 > There's a lot in both Mormon and American culture that=20 > glorifies violence, and not so much that offers alternatives.=20 American culture may glorify violence (though I'd have to have more than what you've given here to justify that claim--I've never even *heard* of = a nation with so much power that is so reluctant to wage war, for = example). I'm not at *all* willing to paint Mormon culture as glorifying violence, though. We are more *comfortable* with violence than much of our surrounding culture. That's probably true. It isn't surprising in a = people who study the Book of Mormon closely, though. The BoM is an excellent = tract on the appropriate and moral application of violence and contains case = study after case study of violence (good and bad) with explorations of cause = and motivation. But that isn't at all the same as *glorifying* it. And we offer plenty of alternatives. We *do* know when to turn the = other cheek (by not camping on the banks of the Mississippi for decades and sending our children into Illinois strapped to explosives, for example) = and have done so periodically when called upon to do so. We also know how = to defend ourselves when called upon with an absence of fear and a = frightening absence of remorse (though plenty of regret). Consider that most of us = grew up hearing war stories from our cherished religious leaders (and not = just Paul H. Dunn, either). And remember that a number of General = Authorities are ex-military and not ashamed of it. But again, that doesn't mean = they or we glorify violence--only that we believe in some principles that = require active defense. I'll never forget reading John D. Fitzgerald's "Papa married a Mormon". = Two interesting quotes (or paraphrases) about our pioneers: "It's said that when two 'gentiles' meet in the desert, the get together = and build a saloon. When two Mormons meet in the desert, they get together = and plant a tree--along with a dam and irrigation to see it grow." "As a people, Mormons could work harder, dance longer, and shoot = straighter than any others in the region." We're happy planting trees. Leave us alone and we'll build and nurture = and love and so on. But. We demand the freedom to worship God as we see = fit. And we're happy to fight for our right to worship God as we see fit. = And, most amazingly, we're happy to fight for the right of someone who = disagrees with us to worship God as they see fit as well. > (Spencer W. Kimball, =3D93The False Gods We Worship,=3D94 Ensign,=20 > June 1976, 6) <<<<< >=20 > The last time I read that through I was struck by how=20 > literally Pres. Kimball takes God's promise to fight our=20 > battles for us, and I love the idea of taking the gospel to=20 > our enemies so they are no longer our enemies.=3D20 You've brought this up before and I think it requires some context. For one, it was delivered at a time when our soldiers were returning from = Viet Nam and there was a pronounced tendency by Mormons to praise the = soldiers and scorn the peace-niks. That needed to stop so that we could = reconcile the internal wounds that were engraved so deeply by that conflict. For another, he has a very important point and one that was important to = remind our saints--that we trust God, not the arm of flesh. I think of this = when I see our people scramble for three months salary in the bank and hefty life-insurance. It's good to be prepared, but it's important to be = prudent and not cultivate the pride that says our safety is wrought by our own hands. And he was speaking to the saints in the church and calling on = them to remember the gospel and their responsibility to be advocates for = peace. He wasn't speaking to a nation, he wasn't suggesting national policy, = and he wasn't asking us to do so, either. He is reminding us of our = responsibility as men of God and helping us re-align our values that had become skewed. An equivalent message was delivered last October. It reminded us that = as saints we are concerned with spreading the gospel of God--and that the = cause of the church is to spread the gospel to all who want to receive it. = And again, it was a message delivered during a time of deep chasms in our community when we need to be reminded not to rely on the arm of flesh = for our security and, again most importantly, he wasn't speaking to a nation = or suggesting national policy nor asking us to do so. We advocate peace. = And we sympathize with the down-trodden and bear messages of glad tidings to them when we can. But that doesn't mean adopting Sharia and worshipping Allah so people will stop attacking us.... > I feel we already rely as a culture too heavily on=20 > punishment and don't seek diligently for more effective ways=20 > to solve problems and deal with uncivil or inhumane behavior.=3D20 Of course we seek diligently for more effective ways to solve problems = and deal with uncivil or inhumane behavior. How can you say we don't? Do = you really mean this accusation against our LDS culture that we don't care = about helping others reform? We care deeply about others and that includes criminals. We'd *love* for there to be a better way. We just haven't = found any yet. I'd rejoice to find a way to rehabilitate criminals without = having to lock them away for years and years with others who are uncivil and inhumane. I'd be willing to bet most in our culture would as well. But = we haven't seen one yet that manages to protect innocent people as well as locking people up does. To paraphrase: Incarceration is the least effective way to deal with criminals--except for all the others. > (This may sound like I'm veering into politics, but=20 > resistance to our cultural reliance on punishment was one of=20 > the main motivators to write my most recent AML essay,=20 > "Cities of Refuge." My concern, as always, is > literary.) And I'm challenging your perception of our culture. I don't think that = we have a cultural reliance on punishment. We *do* have a cultural preoccupation with protecting freedom, rule of law (no respecter of persons), and innocent victims. If we could find a way to protect the public from violence without having to lock criminals up, we'd pursue it = in a heartbeat. Give us an alternative that works, or even the *hint* of a working alternative, and we'll give it a try. Mormons believe in compassion. But our compassion is married to realism and can be trumped = by other principles that are more important. > The deep irony for me though, is that people who are most=20 > likely to oppose a hate crimes bill are also fairly likely to=20 > favor trying juvenile offenders as adults. I can see that. The principles behind those positions aren't = contradictory, though. Treating criminals based on their actions lies behind both positions. A murder is a murder and, unfortunately, a murderer is = likely to murder again unless faced with certain consequences. To protect = innocent people, we want people who have shown a propensity to murder to be = locked away. And we want to do it in a way that doesn't denigrate a victim = just because they happen to be the wrong social minority. > Surely that's an invitation for someone to contradict me, but=20 > please (for our poor moderator's sake--not a poor moderator,=20 > of course, but let's not pour the coals of politics on=20 > discussions of literature, though Frederick Jameson's=20 > critical credo is, "Always Politicize") keep the=20 > contradiction literary, focused on the evidence within our=20 > art and literature that we are not a punitive war-like=20 > people, or some other literary foci. How about this--you prove that we *are* a punitive war-like people from = our literature and art. So far, you haven't made your case that we are. = You have made assumptions about motivation that I don't think apply. How = can any argument you've made apply to us without applying to Captain Moroni? How can any argument you've made apply to us without applying to the = last Moroni--the one on top of all our temples? Or Mormon--the one we take = our nickname from? If they are war-like and punitive, then it is little = wonder if we are as well. And if they are war-like and punitive, then why shouldn't we be? "If every man were as Moroni, the very gates of hell = would fall asunder" or something to that effect... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 13 Mar 2003 00:29:55 -0700 Spoiler space.... On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:25:16 -0700, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >It occurs to me that the "surprise ending" others in the discussion are=20 >talking about may not be the battle climax after all. That's the surpise= =20 >I meant all along. Perhaps others thought of the surprise as learning=20 >that the "simulation games" were real battles. That's a surprise that=20 >many could have guessed in advance. But there's no let-down on that one. Uh, YEAH. How on earth could the destruction of the planet be a = surprise? I'm talking about the revelation that the games are real. The climax of = the battle is dramatic irony, not a surprise; Mazer's comment about whether = or not the Little Doctor can be used against a planet is practically reverse psychology. I don't think that was ever intended to be a truly = surprising result. (When I'm feeling really cynical, I read the whole setup as the military using Ender as their scapegoat, their Xenocide, because none of them had the nerve to do it.) Melissa Proffitt ----------------- If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible = warning. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 13 Mar 2003 03:05:05 -0700 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen >=20 > Okay, a few comments about Mormonism and politics and=20 > literature, which I hope can stay on-topic. Not very well. > My favorite daily reading is the letters to the editor page=20 > in the Deseret News. I really can't get enough of it. I=20 > think I like it precisely because it provides such an=20 > untrustworthy look at Utah Mormon culture. For example, a=20 > very large percentage of letters deal with guns, with the=20 > Utah concealed weapons permit law, and with other gun related=20 > issues. >From the DN, one would gather that an absolute=20 > monolith of opinion opposes all gun control legislation, that=20 > the 2nd Amendment is universally understood by Utahns to=20 > prohibit all attempts to regulate the private ownership of=20 > firearms. In fact, this isn't true; every poll on the issue=20 > suggests that most Utahns favor gun control. But you'd never=20 > get that from reading the letters section of the DN. =20 I'd like to see those polls. I'd particularly like to examine the methodology because it runs counter to every experience I've had here. Maybe polls in shopping malls or downtown Salt Lake... I dunno, it = seems implausible. This is like a comment made by a Utah journalist that = everyone he knows is against the war in Iraq. It seems to me that one of us is = in a different and segregated sub-grouping of Utah because our experience couldn't be more opposite. Not that I will defend the Deseret News. I despise both Utah newspapers = and can't read either without disgust. They're both goofy parochial publications with weird biases I can't stomach. I used to read the Trib = but only for Kirby. > The current session of the Utah legislature just concluded=20 > was very interesting. To name just a few issues, the=20 > legislature did not pass hate crimes legislation, did not=20 > restrict concealed weapons permit holders from bringing guns=20 > into schools and churches, did not raise education spending,=20 > or raise taxes so schools could be adequately funded. These=20 > were the hot issues of the day. Now here's what's=20 > interesting. An opinion poll inthe DN during the session=20 > asked Utah citizens what we thought on each of the above=20 > issues, and in each case, a large majority supported the=20 > measures the legislature opposed. For example, a Utah=20 > majority favored increasing spending for education, even if=20 > it required a tax hike. The polling numbers surprised me,=20 > because the letters to the DN all took the opposite position;=20 > all supported, in fact, the action taken by the legislature. =20 > So, a poll says increase ed spending. But you'll be hard=20 > pressed to find a letter to the editor that agreed. And the=20 > legislature voted with the letters. >=20 > Why? Because the Church also opposed increased education spending. =20 >=20 > What? The Church took an official stand on that issue? Of=20 > course not. When I say 'the Church opposed this measure,' I=20 > don't mean that official entity, the Church of Jesus Christ=20 > of Latter-day Saints. I mean my ward opposes it. I have no=20 > evidence that anyone in my ward favored increased education=20 > spending, because the only people who spoke up on the issue=20 > in Church (inappropriately, in my mind), opposed it. So,=20 > you're a legislator. You go to your ward. You listen. =20 > Everyone who mentions it says 'don't increase spending.' So=20 > the voice of the culture becomes the voice of that minority=20 > willing to speak up. And it speaks loudly enough to drown=20 > out opinion polls. =20 Well duh. You see, legislators don't represent Utah. They don't care = about Utah polls. They aren't elected by Utah. Legislators are elected by = their district--a good number of whom are probably in their ward. Further, they're elected by those few people who vote for them in their = district--a good number of whom are probably in their ward. That's the point of a representative democracy. All of Utah can oppose their action as long = as a significant enough group of their individual districts favor their = action. And even that's not entirely true. They only have to worry about it if their action will actually alienate significant portions of their constituents without attracting enough to offset the loss. All of which assumes an entirely mercenary legislature without any personal = philosophy to determine policy stance. And personally, I have an intense dislike for Utah politicians of all = breeds and was pleasantly surprised that they showed some sense in this recent round of legislature. > So, there's a war coming up soon. In my opinion, it's the=20 > very definition of an unjust war. The best argument that can=20 > be made for it seems to be something like this: President=20 > Bush is Governor Lachoneus. Saddam is Giddianhi. So we need=20 > to launch a pre-emptive strike against him, or else he's=20 > coming to attack us. Even at that level, it's unjust, and=20 > that's even without--as I do--seeing Bush as closer to=20 > Gadianton than Lachoneus. What do we hear about the war in=20 > my Mormon neighborhood? Not much. What we do hear is=20 > something like this: we should support our leaders. I don't=20 > even know what that means. =20 I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make straw-man arguments on list, = Eric. I resent the characterization and being painted into a corner in this way. = If you want to hear my best argument, ask. This is not it, it is a mischaracterization, and an irresponsible one. This issue is too = serious to dismiss so off-handedly. If you want to call it unjust, that's your prerogative, but if you're going to do so, you'd better define what you consider a just war and how this situation doesn't match up. I've found that too often those who oppose this war can't or won't articulate what = just war is. If you can't define it, I don't want to hear about how this = isn't a just war. > And then someone comes up to you, and whispers quietly, 'what=20 > do you think? I think it's awful." And quickly sidles off. =20 > After nursery last Sunday two guys cornered me in the lobby. =20 > All quiet, looking stealthily around. "Do you think . . . I=20 > don't believe what Bush is saying about . . . " Then the=20 > door to the bishop's office opened, and they left. And I dislike the connotation here as well. If you're against the war, = then it is your responsibility to articulate why in as reasoned a manner as = you can. This implication that there's some kind of underground majority = who are against the war is insupportable at best. > So Emma Lou Thayne wrote a short anti-war poem, which the DN=20 > letters page published. Great poem, and of course, I agreed=20 > with it. And a few respondents have attacked her for it too,=20 > which is their right. But is that it? Is the DN letters=20 > page the only forum in which we can talk about this war? =20 I'm willing. In any forum that doesn't have a strong structural bias. = If there's an intelligent reason not to go to war, I want to hear it. > The war has been raised in Priesthood, I understand, by one=20 > of our resident right wing kooks, who was very quickly=20 > shushed by the instructor. I wasn't there; I was helping my=20 > wife in the nursery. Certainly no dissenting opinion was=20 > heard, nor will it ever be. Not publically. But quietly, in=20 > whispers, a little. =20 And neither approach is appropriate. Politics don't belong in = priesthood, we probably all agree with that. But quiet anti-war whispers is a disservice to your fellow citizens as well and if it is happening, it's = time to knock off the adolescent he said/she said and get it out. If you = have thought of something that nobody else seems to have, then it is time to speak up. It isn't possible to physically suppress ideas in this age in this country, so don't act like that is what is happening. Our culture should be AT LEAST strong enough to handle honest discussion of weighty matters. That's what it is FOR. > And so it goes. We're heading to war, and it feels like a=20 > production of Endgame, cruelly absurd. The overwhelming=20 > conservative bias of the national media, the absolute=20 > impossibility of a liberal voice being heard, has led to the=20 > absurdity of celebrities protesting on talk shows, because=20 > they're the only liberals who can get booked on those shows. =20 > (The idea of a 'liberal bias' in the media is so=20 > preposterous, it barely deserves acknowledgement, and yet=20 > it's a surprisingly pervasive myth.)=20 What?!? It is so pervasive because a) it's true and b) liberals refuse = to acknowledge it by calling it preposterous and making unsubstantiated = counter accusations--as if those accusations automatically discredit the claim. Perhaps instead of calling it preposterous, you could give some basis = for your belief? I can document mine. Can you document yours? -A 2001 survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates found that of 301 media professionals, "liberals" outnumbered conservatives by 4 to 1; and "moderates" outnumbered conservatives by 10 to 1; the survey found that members of the media were more than seven times more likely to identify themselves as "Democrat" than as "Republican:"=20 -A national survey of the Washington-based media commissioned by the = Gannett media organization showed that in 1992, by 89-7 percent, they voted for = Bill Clinton over George Bush; that by 50-14 percent they see themselves as Democrats over Republicans; and that while 61 percent describe = themselves as liberal, only two percent dare call themselves "conservative". (seen significant changes or turnover in the Washington-based media in the = last 10 years? I haven't). -Seen any pro-war rallies in the media? Makes you assume they aren't happening doesn't it. Fact is, they are, and they're bigger than the anti-war rallies, and they don't even have the experienced communist agitators helping to organize them. -The pro-America rally in South Korea last week *dwarfed* the anti-war = one the previous week--which did you hear about on U.S. media? -Don't believe me, how about Bernard Goldberg in 1996 "The old argument = that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so = blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around = in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. = We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters." -The New York Times--enough said. > In the DN, the Sunday=20 > opinion page had five editorials about the war, all by=20 > conservatives, all favoring it. And yet, again, opinion=20 > surveys show a far more ambivalent body of opinion. Define ambivalent. The most recent ABC poll (Monday - http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq030310_poll.html) shows that = 59% of Americans support war with Iraq (35% opposed--a 5 to 3 ratio). Significantly, strong supporters outnumber strong opponents 2-1. = Further, the U.N. has plummeted in significance--61% of Americans don't believe = U.N. approval is necessary, that jumps to 71% if you add "if allies = participate". Most interestingly, "while support for war is highest among those who = expect a short, low-casualty war, supporters do outnumber opponents even among those who expect a long conflict or a high-casualty one." Now, with = that information, you have to assume that Americans LIKE death and = destruction and don't mind dying and killing for a dubious cause OR they actually believe we have good reason to go to war. This isn't jingoism or = following for the sake of following. It's not "all favoring it", but then, I'm not disputing that DN is a = lousy newspaper. And consider that the DN readership is largely conservative = so it isn't much of a surprise that the letters are conservative. And = since 86% of Republicans support a war, it'd wouldn't be outside the realm of = a random sampling if DN came up with all five of five turning out pro war. > So we have two realities. What people are really thinking=20 > and feeling, which we only find out in whispers. And the=20 > party line, the official line, which only feels official=20 > because it gets spoken with some force. It's Culture-Voice,=20 > which says rock music is evil, and so are R rated movies, and=20 > voting Democratic, and women working, and Not Supporting The=20 > President. And then, whispers, saying 'but what if that=20 > doesn't work for me?' I'm glad I don't live in your ward. My ward is much more realistic. We disagree with one another but we're honest about it and we have no hard feelings. Had an interesting experience last month, though. My largely inactive Home Teachers expressed surprise that I'm a conservative. They = had assumed that because I'm interested in intellectual pursuits that I must = be liberal. That's indicative of something, but I'm not sure what, yet. = Also interesting, a recent political candidate (Cory Rushton) lives in my = ward. And he's a DEMOCRAT (He lost but only barely)... > And every once in awhile, you get people alone, and people=20 > start talking. Quietly, where no one can see them. And what=20 > they say is: I'm troubled. I'm having a hard time sleeping=20 > right now. We're wrong to do this. If they stay quiet about their misgivings, then no wonder they're having trouble sleeping. If you feel it is wrong and don't speak up in = appropriate forums, then you are abrogating your responsibility. Whispering about = it to one another is wrong, IMO. But be ready to give an actual reason. I'm troubled is not going to cut it. > The France bashing quite amazes me; one restaurant in Provo=20 > now offers 'freedom fries,' instead of 'french fries.' =20 > Sickest of all is the humor: how many Frenchmen does it take=20 > to defend Paris? We don't know. It's never been tried. So=20 > that's where we are. Dishonoring close to two million French=20 > soldiers who died defending their capital in WWI and II. =20 > Dishonoring our oldest and dearest ally. And those jokes=20 > have an edge to them, an edge of desperation, as though=20 > people are making strongly partisan arguments they don't=20 > really believe in. FRANCE is our oldest and dearest ally? I'll concede oldest, but how did = you come up with dearest? France has actively opposed us for the last = decade in everything we've done (militarily, economically, and politically). = France has made public statements that their purpose for the E.U. is to oppose = the United States. That's the *purpose*. It'd be one thing if they = happened to disagree with us on some issues (even most), but the actual purpose is = to disagree with us on ALL issues. Particularly where military action is concerned. They are not an ally at all and it's time we realized that simple fact. The edge you hear isn't that we don't believe our = arguments. It's the shock of betrayal as we learn more of France's true = international policy and vision for itself. I've been surprised at the depth of my loathing for the French government. As more and more detail seeps out = about French support for Saddam Hussein, I'm sickened that we pay them any attention at all. Here's a poser--the only nations who oppose our war in Iraq have = specific, vested interest in the current regime. France, Germany, and Russia = (China is a perennial enigma) all have significant oil or trade agreements with Iraq. All three have wanted to lift the embargo for years. France and Germany have both been caught IN THE LAST MONTH breaking the trade = embargo with militarily significant parts and supplies. The more I learn of = these ties, the more their claim of the moral high-ground looks cynically self-serving. They're willing to support the continued freedom of a = viper because he's facing US and not THEM and they kinda like snake eggs. > I think all this has larger implications in our culture. A=20 > friend told me about a high council speaker in her ward who=20 > made the following argument: thinking leads to questioning,=20 > questioning leads to murmuring, murmuring leads to apostacy. =20 > Why do you say that, if you're not afraid? Afraid of the=20 > thoughts, perhaps, you hear whispered in corners, perhaps=20 > even in corners of your own head. =20 If he's afraid of people thinking then he's a fool. And I'd like to see = a script of that talk. I'd be willing to bet it wasn't as clear-cut as = you present. And if it *is* true, then it needs to be elevated as a concern that someone over the pulpit just told all the impressionable youth (and not-so-youth) that thinking is bad. That is so counter to the gospel = that it deserves and needs challenge. And that's a predictable conservative response, I'll point out. Like when Trent Lott made racist comments--he = was dog-piled by his own party until he resigned his leadership position. Compare and contrast to Jim Moran's recent racist comments and reactions from his party... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 13 Mar 2003 06:14:52 -0500 Did you really mean a testimony of the "culture'? Personally, I question the strength of anyone's testimony that seems to be based either on the church, as in "this is the perfect church", or the culture. Tracie ----- Original Message ----- > > I don't know why someone would find themselves truly interested in LDS > culture without having a testimony of it. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab #1--New Development Date: 11 Mar 2003 18:58:50 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: Our star guest will not be making his trip to Utah until April. So we'll be looking at doing a special lab then on the Saturday he's in town. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Theater (pt 2) Date: 13 Mar 2003 20:43:59 -0700 Andrew Hall wrote: > ----, Peculiarities. October, Villa. Mormonism and sexuality. > Young couples making bad decisions. Good review in the SL Tribune, > "a brave exploration of what often bubbles just underneath a > seemingly virtuous society." Mostly good AML-list reviews, except > for Parkin, who said he couldn't see the point. I was going to argue that I didn't say I didn't see the point, except that I suppose that's exactly what I said. Still, I want to clarify. Rather than saying I didn't see the *point,* what I meant to communicate was that *I* didn't see the point. I don't doubt for an instant that the point was in there and that it was very powerful; I just came away feeling ambivalent because it didn't raise the kind of strong reaction in me that others seemed to be having, and that I myself had felt with Eric's other plays. I don't know why I felt a need to clarify that, and heaven knows I've ended up sounding far more critical of Eric's play than I ever meant to sound. Still, like anyone, I want to be understood for what I meant--even if it's not quite what I said. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 13 Mar 2003 23:30:53 -0700 On Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003, at 02:19 America/Phoenix, Harlow S Clark wrote: > On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0700 Margaret Young > writes: >> Now a non-AML related question--unless someone can come=20 >> up with a literary tie, in which case, I'd love to see it on list. > > Oddly enough, I was just thinking about the legislative session in > relation to AML today. The connection I see is cultural, and the way > culture effects law and law affects and reflects culture. There is > also a > literary connection because the two best statements I know about love > overcoming hate are from sermons, which are a literary form. > >> The "Hate Crimes" bill got pulled from the Utah State senate.=20 >> I have very deep feelings about this and simply don't understand=20 >> WHY. I'm assuming it has to do with lobbyists afraid of gay=20 >> rights, but the implications of not having the bill pass are pretty=20 >> serious and extend far beyond the gay community. (And why=20 >> would anyone think we shouldn't have a bill which protects gays=20 >> from hate crimes?) If anyone out there has some insights into why=20 >> it was pulled (I believe the Church even supported the bill),=20 I believe hate crimes laws have an enormous impact on literature and art in general. Essentially they punish thought. The fact that somebody murders somebody requires life in prison or the death penalty. But the fact that they shouted some racial or bigoted epithet while doing so means what--tack on 12 years to that life sentence? Turn the electric chair on just long enough to give em a shock then hit them with the full charge to kill em? Shoot em in the knees before execution by firing squad? Thought crime laws are really a horrible idea because of the very effect they'll have on literature. It is a limitation on not just free speech but free thought. Some of the hate crimes laws in other states don't even require overt spoken hatred--they can prove it via literature owned, and sometimes even (otherwise excluded) hearsay. I own a copy of _Mein Kampf_ and though disagree with it entirely, it could still be used to prove I was a racist in some states. This is of a piece with Mark Twain being banned despite the intention of his work. He was anti-slave and anti-racist, but used racist terms in his books. So we ban his books. How much farther can we go before we have to create the Thought Police _1984_ style or (my favorite) the Mental Hygiene Police? The tendency of these nifty new laws is to make it a crime if the person on the receiving end perceives it as racist or whatever. There have been several recent controversies about "niggardly," which has people resigning from their jobs because somebody misunderstood. Examples abound and those who write above all others must be vigilant against encroachments on free thought. Fear that somebody will call you a racist for opposing a thought crime law will only get you into a concentration camp that much faster. Next thing somebody will get thrown into prison because they played a racist on TV. John Wayne is routinely called a racist because he played on in the movies a few times. I checked into it when I heard this lie about 10 years ago. Pure hogwash. It doesn't matter, though, in a few years it'll be in textbooks. While I disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of "free expression" I don't want limits on freedom of press and speech above all other things. These days while protecting kiddie-porn they're denying political speech in several ways. The impact of this on literature could be disastrous. It is a multi-front attack, too. Extending the copyright to 100 years (which was thankfully defeated), campaign finance "reform," hate-crimes, and hate-speech rules at universities are all intolerable encroachments on freedom of the press. The "fair speech" doctrine that has been attempted twice in the last decade is another such, and one thing EVERYONE should agree on is that we really really really don't want to have a lawyer edit a novel (or political essay) for potentially actionable speech before it gets published. Making tolerance the only virtue makes criticism that much harder, which weakens the social stigma and public disapproval that used to curb and marginalize the more vile kinds of literature. With protections extended to the worst while curbing everything else what we'll end up with is just the worst. The First Amendment isn't an unalienable right, it is a shield that protects the rights of critics from the powerful criticized. Hate-crime laws are a direct affront to the rights protected by that shield. It'll only be a crack, but a cracked shield is not battle-worthy, and can be broken that much the easier. I don't know how anybody could think that this political issue is not related to literature, and particularly Mormon literature. In case somebody has forgotten Mormons are one of those formerly persecuted presently tolerated minorities. No other group, not even Lakotas or Manchurians, were legally ordered to be exterminated in this country. Fortunately it was a weak-kneed Democrat in the presidency then--a tough one would've cheered Boggs on, maybe extended the order to Illinois. Despite the destruction of the press of the _Nauvoo Expositor_ Mormons have always been friendly to the freedom of speech and press. After all, it's still illegal to proselyte in all Islamic nations (and Israel as well). Free speech is kinda important, hmmm? Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 14 Mar 2003 17:49:43 -0800 (PST) [MOD: I'll reply in a separate post.] --- Tony Markham wrote: [snip] > >From now on, I think I'll sign all my posts "Eric Samuelson," whose > distant cousin I am proud to be, so that I can write without being > slapped down for no reason. > I, too have sent in a couple of posts about the war, only to have them be rejected. I think there is a certain amount of "Michael Jordan Rules" with AML-List. That is: the superstars of the list (like Eric Samuelsen) get away with saying stuff that we lesser players get "slapped down" for. I have yet to be excerpted at all in the "AML-List Highlights" that appear in "Irreantum." In the latest issue I noticed that there are lengthy excerpts from the recent "Choose The Rock" thread, and even an inclusion of the web address where the original "SL Weekly" article can be found. But no mention of the guy who found that article and posted it on the List. Sour grapes, I know. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 14 Mar 2003 21:44:23 -0600 R. W. Rasband wrote: >I, too have sent in a couple of posts about the war, only to have them be >rejected. I think there is a certain amount of "Michael Jordan Rules" >with AML-List. That is: the superstars of the list (like Eric Samuelsen) >get away with saying stuff that we lesser players get "slapped down" for. That's certainly a fair comment to make, if that's your perception. And I've never claimed that my judgments as moderator are infallible. Still, that said... As moderator, I have noticed that I allow more political content through from some list members than others. Typically, that's because those list members are highly adept at integrating political comments with observations about Mormon culture, communication, and literary issues. To put it another way: there's political content there, but it's so tightly woven with stuff that I think is valuable to AML-List discussions that I can't bring myself not to let it through. Not a matter of "does this cross the line?" so much as "Does the overall effect of this post offer the promise of a good discussion that's relevant to AML-List topics?" It's a balance, in which the value of the post--as I see it--is weighed against its potential for pulling us off-topic. I also try to take into account the current feelings of the list and the condition of the conversation. If a post that I thought was innocuous enough to let through quickly starts provoking posts that prove me wrong, I'm likely to shut down the conversation, or come down fairly hard on the part of the thread that seems to me to be causing the problem. I'd rather not be unfair to anyone; but frankly, once things start escalating in that way (e.g., when personal feelings are clearly becoming involved, or when the literary element starts vanishing entirely), fairness is no longer my prime consideration. Preserving the conversation forum is. In the case of Eric and Harlow's recent post, several excellent responses providing differing viewpoints have in fact gone through the list, which did a good job of presenting those viewpoints while at the same time preserving the discussion of communication and culture and perspectives among Mormons that was my reason for allowing those posts through to begin with. Perhaps allowing them through initially was a mistake--I find that I can't decide one way or the other at this point. On the other hand, it has led to some excellent conversation that *is* on-topic for AML-List, without--so far as I can tell--offending anyone enough to want to quit the list. So, in terms of results, I would have to say that this was a largely successful experiment--due in great part to the quality of responses I received from many of you. I would also point out that the only moderator edits most AML-List members see are the ones directed toward themselves. What you don't see are the messages sent to others. Without naming names, I can say that many of the most prolific posters on AML-List have encountered my "moderating" influence from time to time. I have close personal friends and highly respected colleagues on this list; I think that I have sent back comments to almost all of them from time to time regarding something they posted that needed to be changed. When Ben was moderator, I received messages of the same sort from him. (FYI, there does exist a moderator board who are copied on many of my moderator messages. They assist me at times in making difficult decisions and are in training to assume some of the moderator duties so that I can spread the wealth around in terms of volunteering. If this is something anyone is interested in helping with, please let me know.) Finally, I'm concerned about the perception of AML-List "superstars," because it has the potential to feed into the feeling that AML-List is meant somehow to be an official voice of AML, or that certain people own this forum in a way that others don't. That's certainly not my intent--and I don't think it's the reality either, except to the degree that some people post more often or at greater length and therefore are heard more thoroughly. Ironically, my own voice as a contributor has been largely stilled since I became moderator--something I regret, if no one else does. So in a sense I feel that I "own" the list less than I used to before becoming moderator... I'd like to close with the observation that more than once in the time I've been moderator, I've received private messages from both sides of a heated discussion, each expressing the feeling that he or she was in the minority and felt that his or her view was not welcome, or that I was being unfair in my treatment of his or her side. What I have taken from this experience is the observation that each of us seems more attuned to the voices criticizing us than to the voices in agreement; that we see more clearly how our own views are sometimes denigrated by others than the ways that what we say may hold a note of scorn. And mistakes happen, and miscommunication takes place. Well, that's probably more than either Tony or R. W. wanted in reply to their comments. But I felt that as moderator, it was my responsibility, since a question had been publicly raised about my moderating practices, to explain them as fully as I could. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Ron CARTER, _The World Turned Upside Down_ (Review) Date: 12 Mar 2003 14:58:15 -0800 Title: The World Turned Upside Down (Prelude to Glory, Volume 6) Author: Ron Carter Publisher: Bookcraft Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 513 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-841-1 Price: $25.95 Reviewed by Robert Slaven I'd forgotten that I enjoyed reading historical fiction. I haven't read such a novel for many years, so _The World Turned Upside Down_ was a pleasant revelation for me. Now, I suspect I'm not one of Ron Carter's intended audience. After all, this book is the sixth in his 'Prelude to Glory' series, and I haven't read any of the five previous novels. As well, as a Canadian, I have a slightly different take on the American Revolution than would a reader south of the 49th. These caveats aside, I remembered that I do enjoy reading about historical events fleshed out with personalities and comprehensive descriptions of the settings of those events. I find, as I'm sure do many others, that the events stick with me much better than by simply reading about the names, dates, and places in a boring history textbook. Carter's copious notes tell us that he's certainly done his homework. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of the events that he's described in the windup of the Revolution, from mid-1778 to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in October 1781. The song famously played by the British band at the surrender provides the author with the perfect title. His detailed descriptions of the battles and their geography really do bring the Revolution to life, especially when interspersed with very realistic portrayals of historical figures including Washington, Arnold, Lafayette, Cornwallis, and so many others. Especially touching is the manner in which Carter demonstrates the faith in God that drove Washington and so many others to endure the revolutionary struggle and succeed against all expectations. The editing is wonderful; the worst of the very few clunkers I found was a reference to someone's "powered wig", which led to some very un-18th-century mental images. But it's a masterful job for such a work. Now, don't mistake all this praise and think that I'm calling this a perfect book. If you're a fan of historical fiction, if you love the story of the American Revolution and those who lived in that epic time, and if you're not that picky, you may very well call it perfect. Reviewing a novel, however, seems to me a job that demands pickiness, so I will now describe why the book isn't perfect. First, let me confess that I'm not personally a big fan of adjectives. I like a quick description of the background, and then let's dive into the story. So Carter's florid and dense settings, which remind me so much of 19th-century authors like Thomas Hardy, is probably the cat's meow for many readers, so this is merely a matter of taste. However, I do wish he was more consistent. The first half or so of the book is replete with chapters that begin with paragraph after paragraph of descriptive prose. But the farther along we get, the quicker the chapters move into the action. While I appreciated the change myself, I still prefer it when a writer picks one way of doing things and then generally sticks with it. The biggest flaw I found in the work, ironically, stems from Carter's determination to ensure that the reader knows that the author has done his homework. The chronology at the beginning is fine; the extensive bibliography at the end is wonderful. But every single chapter contains a small 'Notes' section at the end. Now, most of the notes were very useful and educational. Some of the notes, however, seemed to exist for the mere sake of existing. Chapters describing events that existed only in the history of Carter's fictional characters do not need notes saying "Sergeant Alvin Turlock, Billy Weems, and Matthew Dunson are fictional characters, as are other members of the Dunson and Weems families as herein portrayed." (p.229) Surely there is no need for such a trivial explanation. Worse, though, is the way in which the notes seem to interfere with the story. As I mentioned earlier, the joy of historical fiction is that you 'get into' the lives of the characters, that the history comes alive, and that it is *not* a boring history textbook. But with this book, you've just finished a chapter which has caught you up into the story, only to be brought down to earth with a bump by a set of 'notes' that merely recap the action in the chapter, confirming that yes, everything did indeed happen that way. If the notes had all been collected at the end, with the bibliography, it might have been different. Perhaps Carter would have seen the wisdom of leaving out the superfluous notes regarding the fictional characters. And perhaps he would have restricted the notes to merely refer to the sources for the factual details of his renditions. Unfortunately, most of the notes have a "Look at me!" quality, where the author seems determined to show us exactly what he got right. The avid reader of historical fiction will take it for granted that the author has done his or her homework. The same reader will also take it for granted that licence is necessary in creating fictional characters, condensing events, inventing dialogue, and so on. Once those givens are established, the reader is then free to enjoy the story. But Carter's end-of-chapter notes put a serious wrench into the flow of the story. I know it's a little late in the series, but if I were to give one piece of advice to the author for future works, it would be to tuck all of the notes into an appendix, and let the reader enjoy the novel as a novel. To return to my opening praises, if you enjoy historical fiction, if you're interested in the American Revolution, if you like adjectives, and if you can convince your eyes to jump over those annoying notes, this book is well worth the price. But if the kinds of picky things I've noted throw you off your reading, you may choose to spend your reading time elsewhere. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too I'm vulgar, I'm insensitive, and I fit in with my environment. - George Orwell, Coming Up for Air --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2003/02/25 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 14 Mar 2003 00:26:01 -0800 On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 MOD (AKA Jonathan Langford, not Edith Bunker's cousin)writes: > [MOD: Hm... I'm not convinced that Harlow remains entirely away from > a political focus here--but as always, I'm baffled by the task of > trying to untangle the threads of a Harlow-post. You don't think that could be deliberate do you? I couldn't resist asking that question, but it wasn't my first thought when I read MOD's comment. My first thought was to remember what Jan Shipps says in _Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition_ about her summary of Joseph F. Smith's April 6, 1918 General Conference address: "Only those who have been called on to summarize the sermons delivered extemporaneously by Latter-day Saints will appreciate the extent to which order has been imposed on President Smith's message" (p. 191 endnote 6). Typing this out I remember the time I told my students they could earn some points by going to hear Terry Tempest Williams speak and give me notes. But she doesn't speak or write any more linearly than I do. Which is the second or co-first thing I thought about when I read Jonathan's comment: I recently heard an interview on the radio (Maybe it was the Diane Rehm show, though she comes on in the morning while I'm at work and doesn't rebroadcast in the evening like Radio West, which it could have been, or maybe it was on Talk of the Nation or Fresh Air) with a guy who's been studying the difference between rhetorical discourse in Asian traditions and Greek. We big fat Greek welders like to weld our thought together in linear fashion like I-beams holding up great phallic buildings like that one on the cover of the Little Mur-muggle. Japanese or Chinese discourse tends to be more circular, with the speaker circling a point and drawing many connections and allowing the listener to infer. (I believe he said at one point that Chinese are offended by the linear style of discourse because only a stupid person would have to have everything spelled out in a straight line.) My natural way of thinking and of drawing in many many examples is closer to the Asian tradition he was describing, or closer to Samuel Johnson's description of the metaphysical poets in his life of Cowley, "The most heterogeneous of ideas are yoked by violence together; nature and art are ransacked for illustrations, comparisons and allusions; their learning instructs and their subtilty surprises; but the reader commonly thinks his improvement dearly bought, and though he sometimes admires is seldom pleased." (I especially love those last 4 clauses--5 if you allow the subject of a clause to be elliptical.) > And I think he says some interesting things about how we are in > some ways a conflicted culture, pulled between a variety of > texts and messages, and how that provides fruitful ground and > subject matter for our literature. Hey, how'd we get talking about Eric Samuelsen? > So I guess the moral is that it's okay to stray into politics > a little, here, In the words of the great Lionel Barrymore in that movie with the great screen kiss between Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed, "I'll go even further than that . . . " > if (a) you can do it without disrespect for the opinions of others, and > (b) you can continue to convince me that the focus really is largely > literary and cultural, not on politics per se. > Thanks...] Good points. For the sake of civil conversation we have agreed to an inaccurate but useful distinction between politics and literature. However, there are certain times when you can't avoid politics. Stanley Fish came to speak at the U of Warshington (my supervisor at the DI on Aurora once told me to label a box of seasonal clothes and put them way up on the top of the stack. She was not pleased with the r in washed--after her most recent divorce she had changed her name to Sahra, and one night she told me how she had seen a couple of slugs she had seen that had inverted themselves, their stomachs poking out, beautiful mother-of-pearl--she saw grace in that. Inverted like the spelling of sarah--there's a pome there.) probably in '86, but it could have been '85, and told the graduate students that their teaching stipends and the teaching load they carried was very much a political issue because it affected the way they lived and how they were able to live. There's deep irony in that comment. Fish's address to the graduate students was a free session in a communications conference with a fee of $30 or so that shut out at least one graduate student, maybe more. But though I was unable to partake of enlightenment at the rest of the conference I've found that definition useful. Any issue that affects how people live is political, because it affects the life of the polis. (That's probably what that guy who got his name on the Folderol building in downtown Skedaddle meant when he said, "All Polly's ticks are low cal ticks.") In other words (just from wondering whether the wedding's on or off (oops, sorry for the digression, the See Attle North Stake did a production of Guys and Dolls, and when the curtain went up and the guys started singing, "I've got a horse right here whose name is Paul Revere..." Donna understood what I'd been mangling for the last several weeks), a large part of literature is political, and a large part of political literature is left-wing. One of my deep, deep concerns, sometimes buried so deep you don't see it, but it's always there, is that there are a tremendous number of political and social liberals (votever dot meinz) (and a tremendous number of political and social conservatives--votever dot meinz) who are running to and fro searching for the Good Word and are only kept from it because they don't know where to find it or how it's clothed. Conservatives probably have an easier time recognizing distinctively LDS gospel-vestments and getting invested than liberals do because a lot of LDS uniform is the uniform of investors. Or, as my zone leader (or district leader) once reported after a meeting of mission leaders with a general authority, "We want our missionaries to project the image of successful businessmen." The linguistic and sartorial and rhetorical invites are less obvious to left-leaning people, but our souls are just as valuable and in need of nourishing as ours. (I left the y off the second pronoun because if that pesky comment about coming to a unity of the faith is true then we sin if we divide ourselves for more than the convenience of talking about what particular groups have in common.) Which is a long-winded way of saying that I think our culture needs some good old-fashioned political novels as a way of letting left-leaning limpers know they're welcome to ascend the mount with the other 5000 (maybe 10-2000 if you count the women and children--though I wonder how the Romans allowed such a large gathering) and eat the loaves and fishes and be healed of their/our limps. I just started reading what feels like a political novel tonight (Praise the PG library), and true to the thread title it's about a hate crime. I'll have more to say about Chris Crowe's _Mississippi Trial 1955_ when I'm finished. Harlow S. Clark <<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>> Harlow Soderborg Clark Renounce war and proclaim peace --Joseph Smith August 6 We train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot --Spencer W. Kimball June 1976 ----__JNP_000_63ed.3d5c.5df9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Singles Ward Quotes Date: 14 Mar 2003 13:00:48 -0700 Thanks to all who have given permission to me to quote their posts about "Singles Ward" in an article (and to those who may yet offer permission). I'm thanking you all together in this message because there were a bunch of you I asked and it would have taken some time to do it individually. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Date: 14 Mar 2003 12:56:59 -0700 lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu wrote: > As I've thought more about this, I can't leave the Cammie character > alone. I still just don't see how she's so self-righteous. Cammie sure seemed self-righteous to me. She took her own personal opinions of what was appropriate humor and elevated that opinion to official doctrine (or did I miss a section in the Doctrine and Covenants that spells out official doctrine on what appropriate humor is?) She didn't say, "I personally don't like humor like that." She said, "You shouldn't be doing humor that I don't like." And in my opinion, there's only one reason she would say that. Because she believes she's so righteous, that her personal opinions equate with the will of God. Self-righteousness. This is what holders of self-righteous opinions always miss. Over and over again, those who think viewing of R-rated movies (for example) is okay, say they have no problem with other people deciding for themselves that they won't see R-rated movies. The problem arises when anti-R-rating people say everyone else shouldn't either, then judging those who do as spiritually suspect. This has gone to such an extreme that some Mormons have objected to Dutcher's _Brigham City_ because it was rated--not even R--but PG-13, and he "shouldn't" have made a PG-13 movie. Self-righteousness. Defining righteousness _for others_ by the self's personal opinions, rather than by the word of God. I see Cammie as unquestionably self-righteous. I think the self-righteousness is objectively there on the screen--it's no subjective judgment call. Now there are self-righteous individuals galore among Mormons, so a Mormon film showing a self-righteous character is not a problem--indeed, it's honest. _Charly_ did that in Sam, who was very self-righteous (judging Charly's righteousness by his personal biases, in the face of reams of official doctrine about the atonement to the contrary) when he called Charly "damaged goods." But the film itself didn't accept that behavior as good--it roundly condemned it, and that's the difference. _Singles Ward_ stands merrily behind Cammie's self-righteousness as not only A Wonderful Thing, but The Defining Moment in the conversion of the wayward antihero. Assuredly, approving of and reinforcing self-righteousness in Mormons will evoke negative reactions from lost number of people. Thus the negative reactions to the film. Now I didn't have as strong a reaction to the scene as Richard Dutcher or Eric Samuelsen did, but that's only because I expect that sort of sordid thought process from a subset of the religious culture I grew up in. It disgusts me, but does not shock or surprise me. I understand the more extreme reactions to the scene, though, because that film sent away a whole lot of amused, entertained members of the church feeling justified in their self-righteous, judgmental attitudes, rather than calling them on it. In my opinion, of course. If it had been a racially objectionable scene and Margaret Young had reacted as extremely to it as Dutcher as Samuelsen did, would anybody have criticized her for her reaction? But aren't racism and self-righteousness two sides of the same coin? Why do we condemn the one and wink at the other? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Ron CARTER, _The World Turned Upside Down_ (Review) Date: 12 Mar 2003 14:58:15 -0800 Title: The World Turned Upside Down (Prelude to Glory, Volume 6) Author: Ron Carter Publisher: Bookcraft Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 513 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-841-1 Price: $25.95 Reviewed by Robert Slaven I'd forgotten that I enjoyed reading historical fiction. I haven't read such a novel for many years, so _The World Turned Upside Down_ was a pleasant revelation for me. Now, I suspect I'm not one of Ron Carter's intended audience. After all, this book is the sixth in his 'Prelude to Glory' series, and I haven't read any of the five previous novels. As well, as a Canadian, I have a slightly different take on the American Revolution than would a reader south of the 49th. These caveats aside, I remembered that I do enjoy reading about historical events fleshed out with personalities and comprehensive descriptions of the settings of those events. I find, as I'm sure do many others, that the events stick with me much better than by simply reading about the names, dates, and places in a boring history textbook. Carter's copious notes tell us that he's certainly done his homework. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of the events that he's described in the windup of the Revolution, from mid-1778 to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in October 1781. The song famously played by the British band at the surrender provides the author with the perfect title. His detailed descriptions of the battles and their geography really do bring the Revolution to life, especially when interspersed with very realistic portrayals of historical figures including Washington, Arnold, Lafayette, Cornwallis, and so many others. Especially touching is the manner in which Carter demonstrates the faith in God that drove Washington and so many others to endure the revolutionary struggle and succeed against all expectations. The editing is wonderful; the worst of the very few clunkers I found was a reference to someone's "powered wig", which led to some very un-18th-century mental images. But it's a masterful job for such a work. Now, don't mistake all this praise and think that I'm calling this a perfect book. If you're a fan of historical fiction, if you love the story of the American Revolution and those who lived in that epic time, and if you're not that picky, you may very well call it perfect. Reviewing a novel, however, seems to me a job that demands pickiness, so I will now describe why the book isn't perfect. First, let me confess that I'm not personally a big fan of adjectives. I like a quick description of the background, and then let's dive into the story. So Carter's florid and dense settings, which remind me so much of 19th-century authors like Thomas Hardy, is probably the cat's meow for many readers, so this is merely a matter of taste. However, I do wish he was more consistent. The first half or so of the book is replete with chapters that begin with paragraph after paragraph of descriptive prose. But the farther along we get, the quicker the chapters move into the action. While I appreciated the change myself, I still prefer it when a writer picks one way of doing things and then generally sticks with it. The biggest flaw I found in the work, ironically, stems from Carter's determination to ensure that the reader knows that the author has done his homework. The chronology at the beginning is fine; the extensive bibliography at the end is wonderful. But every single chapter contains a small 'Notes' section at the end. Now, most of the notes were very useful and educational. Some of the notes, however, seemed to exist for the mere sake of existing. Chapters describing events that existed only in the history of Carter's fictional characters do not need notes saying "Sergeant Alvin Turlock, Billy Weems, and Matthew Dunson are fictional characters, as are other members of the Dunson and Weems families as herein portrayed." (p.229) Surely there is no need for such a trivial explanation. Worse, though, is the way in which the notes seem to interfere with the story. As I mentioned earlier, the joy of historical fiction is that you 'get into' the lives of the characters, that the history comes alive, and that it is *not* a boring history textbook. But with this book, you've just finished a chapter which has caught you up into the story, only to be brought down to earth with a bump by a set of 'notes' that merely recap the action in the chapter, confirming that yes, everything did indeed happen that way. If the notes had all been collected at the end, with the bibliography, it might have been different. Perhaps Carter would have seen the wisdom of leaving out the superfluous notes regarding the fictional characters. And perhaps he would have restricted the notes to merely refer to the sources for the factual details of his renditions. Unfortunately, most of the notes have a "Look at me!" quality, where the author seems determined to show us exactly what he got right. The avid reader of historical fiction will take it for granted that the author has done his or her homework. The same reader will also take it for granted that licence is necessary in creating fictional characters, condensing events, inventing dialogue, and so on. Once those givens are established, the reader is then free to enjoy the story. But Carter's end-of-chapter notes put a serious wrench into the flow of the story. I know it's a little late in the series, but if I were to give one piece of advice to the author for future works, it would be to tuck all of the notes into an appendix, and let the reader enjoy the novel as a novel. To return to my opening praises, if you enjoy historical fiction, if you're interested in the American Revolution, if you like adjectives, and if you can convince your eyes to jump over those annoying notes, this book is well worth the price. But if the kinds of picky things I've noted throw you off your reading, you may choose to spend your reading time elsewhere. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too I'm vulgar, I'm insensitive, and I fit in with my environment. - George Orwell, Coming Up for Air --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2003/02/25 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 14 Mar 2003 00:26:01 -0800 On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 MOD (AKA Jonathan Langford, not Edith Bunker's cousin)writes: > [MOD: Hm... I'm not convinced that Harlow remains entirely away from > a political focus here--but as always, I'm baffled by the task of > trying to untangle the threads of a Harlow-post. You don't think that could be deliberate do you? I couldn't resist asking that question, but it wasn't my first thought when I read MOD's comment. My first thought was to remember what Jan Shipps says in _Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition_ about her summary of Joseph F. Smith's April 6, 1918 General Conference address: "Only those who have been called on to summarize the sermons delivered extemporaneously by Latter-day Saints will appreciate the extent to which order has been imposed on President Smith's message" (p. 191 endnote 6). Typing this out I remember the time I told my students they could earn some points by going to hear Terry Tempest Williams speak and give me notes. But she doesn't speak or write any more linearly than I do. Which is the second or co-first thing I thought about when I read Jonathan's comment: I recently heard an interview on the radio (Maybe it was the Diane Rehm show, though she comes on in the morning while I'm at work and doesn't rebroadcast in the evening like Radio West, which it could have been, or maybe it was on Talk of the Nation or Fresh Air) with a guy who's been studying the difference between rhetorical discourse in Asian traditions and Greek. We big fat Greek welders like to weld our thought together in linear fashion like I-beams holding up great phallic buildings like that one on the cover of the Little Mur-muggle. Japanese or Chinese discourse tends to be more circular, with the speaker circling a point and drawing many connections and allowing the listener to infer. (I believe he said at one point that Chinese are offended by the linear style of discourse because only a stupid person would have to have everything spelled out in a straight line.) My natural way of thinking and of drawing in many many examples is closer to the Asian tradition he was describing, or closer to Samuel Johnson's description of the metaphysical poets in his life of Cowley, "The most heterogeneous of ideas are yoked by violence together; nature and art are ransacked for illustrations, comparisons and allusions; their learning instructs and their subtilty surprises; but the reader commonly thinks his improvement dearly bought, and though he sometimes admires is seldom pleased." (I especially love those last 4 clauses--5 if you allow the subject of a clause to be elliptical.) > And I think he says some interesting things about how we are in > some ways a conflicted culture, pulled between a variety of > texts and messages, and how that provides fruitful ground and > subject matter for our literature. Hey, how'd we get talking about Eric Samuelsen? > So I guess the moral is that it's okay to stray into politics > a little, here, In the words of the great Lionel Barrymore in that movie with the great screen kiss between Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed, "I'll go even further than that . . . " > if (a) you can do it without disrespect for the opinions of others, and > (b) you can continue to convince me that the focus really is largely > literary and cultural, not on politics per se. > Thanks...] Good points. For the sake of civil conversation we have agreed to an inaccurate but useful distinction between politics and literature. However, there are certain times when you can't avoid politics. Stanley Fish came to speak at the U of Warshington (my supervisor at the DI on Aurora once told me to label a box of seasonal clothes and put them way up on the top of the stack. She was not pleased with the r in washed--after her most recent divorce she had changed her name to Sahra, and one night she told me how she had seen a couple of slugs she had seen that had inverted themselves, their stomachs poking out, beautiful mother-of-pearl--she saw grace in that. Inverted like the spelling of sarah--there's a pome there.) probably in '86, but it could have been '85, and told the graduate students that their teaching stipends and the teaching load they carried was very much a political issue because it affected the way they lived and how they were able to live. There's deep irony in that comment. Fish's address to the graduate students was a free session in a communications conference with a fee of $30 or so that shut out at least one graduate student, maybe more. But though I was unable to partake of enlightenment at the rest of the conference I've found that definition useful. Any issue that affects how people live is political, because it affects the life of the polis. (That's probably what that guy who got his name on the Folderol building in downtown Skedaddle meant when he said, "All Polly's ticks are low cal ticks.") In other words (just from wondering whether the wedding's on or off (oops, sorry for the digression, the See Attle North Stake did a production of Guys and Dolls, and when the curtain went up and the guys started singing, "I've got a horse right here whose name is Paul Revere..." Donna understood what I'd been mangling for the last several weeks), a large part of literature is political, and a large part of political literature is left-wing. One of my deep, deep concerns, sometimes buried so deep you don't see it, but it's always there, is that there are a tremendous number of political and social liberals (votever dot meinz) (and a tremendous number of political and social conservatives--votever dot meinz) who are running to and fro searching for the Good Word and are only kept from it because they don't know where to find it or how it's clothed. Conservatives probably have an easier time recognizing distinctively LDS gospel-vestments and getting invested than liberals do because a lot of LDS uniform is the uniform of investors. Or, as my zone leader (or district leader) once reported after a meeting of mission leaders with a general authority, "We want our missionaries to project the image of successful businessmen." The linguistic and sartorial and rhetorical invites are less obvious to left-leaning people, but our souls are just as valuable and in need of nourishing as ours. (I left the y off the second pronoun because if that pesky comment about coming to a unity of the faith is true then we sin if we divide ourselves for more than the convenience of talking about what particular groups have in common.) Which is a long-winded way of saying that I think our culture needs some good old-fashioned political novels as a way of letting left-leaning limpers know they're welcome to ascend the mount with the other 5000 (maybe 10-2000 if you count the women and children--though I wonder how the Romans allowed such a large gathering) and eat the loaves and fishes and be healed of their/our limps. I just started reading what feels like a political novel tonight (Praise the PG library), and true to the thread title it's about a hate crime. I'll have more to say about Chris Crowe's _Mississippi Trial 1955_ when I'm finished. Harlow S. Clark <<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>> Harlow Soderborg Clark Renounce war and proclaim peace --Joseph Smith August 6 We train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot --Spencer W. Kimball June 1976 ----__JNP_000_63ed.3d5c.5df9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 14 Mar 2003 22:33:12 -0800 I'm sorry, but I don't think I am self righteous at all (of course I am not a Utah legislator). As I said before we perceive things within our own paradigm but I, personally agree strongly with the first three of the four points noted below. It is, of course, possible to conclude that anyone who feels strongly about the first three points MUST fall into the category identifies in the fourth. It would be a mistake. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -----Original Message----- > The reason this happens is a self-righteousness that politicians need. In > other words, they need to look righteous. Deep down, I suspect they never > want to pass a hate crimes bill because (and they would be unrighteous if > they said this) > > 1. They believe all crimes are hate, > 2. They don't think singling out a specific hate makes much sense, > 3. They don't think it is the business of the state to read the mind of > criminals or other citizens. > 4. They don't particularly like the groups that want protection from hate. > >... > > Alan Mitchell \ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Date: 14 Mar 2003 20:04:58 -0800 It is no secret that two books could be written. One could be faith-promoting, rather like the story currently on the Meridian website. It could talk about her safe return, the prayers and hard-work of her family and friends, etc. Another book could be written about her previous attempts to run away, rebellion problems she was having with her family, her inexplicable reluctance to either escape, or ask for help of other adults, when it would have been so simple. It would ask why she said to the policeman who interviewed her, "You think I'm Elizabeth Smart, that girl who ran away." They'd want to know why she phrased it that way. And a third book, somewhere in between, would tell a story that might be close to the truth. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Framing in Art Date: 14 Mar 2003 21:12:32 -0700 Based on the responses to my objection to frames defining art, I = apparently failed to communicate my point very well. So I'll do my best to = explain. Some art is framed by things we actually call frames. They are = literally framed--paintings for example. Most things we consider art have no component that is a "frame", but have obvious frames that we can explore metaphorically. One of my points was *supposed* to be that once you = leave the realm of obvious frames and move to the metaphorical ones, there is nothing on the planet that isn't framed in some way. If nothing else, = you have time and/or atmosphere. So how can you call The Way We're Wired = framed and not, say, a program. My further point was that once you move to a metaphorical level for = frames, using frames as a way to *define* art seems, at best, unsatisfying. = Once you move to the metaphorical, there's no obvious border between The Way We're Wired and the vacuum of deep space. So while it may be = interesting to bring up frames in a *discussion* of art, it isn't useful to include = frames in a *definition* of art. My final point is that frames are inherently alienating. They are a = border, a separation. A frame marks a boundary between art and audience. As = such, do we *really* want to emphasize frames? To me, art is about = communicating. It is, hopefully, about *connecting* with your audience. It seems to me that we should not be so enamored of a feature that, while intriguing, = is working against our intent. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 14 Mar 2003 21:47:14 -0700 Although, Jon, if you are familiar with the works of John Cage, you will find that music is not always framed by a stage as he and other composers have extended music into and among the audience and in fact beyond the concert hall itself, in effect, forcing music theorists to consider new physical frames for music as art. I'm certain similar actions have occurred in theater as well. Thomas ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] R.M. #s & General Box Office #s Date: 14 Mar 2003 21:59:17 -0700 Jon, Thanks for clarifying for us. I am actually working on an article right now that tackles the financial challenges facing independent filmmakers (specifically LDS cinema), which I hope will help make these kinds of numbers clear to a larger number of people. (I intend to use it as one of my monthly articles on film in Meridian Magazine, so it will be written with a more general audience in mind.) I should also clarify that I did not actually write the specific report on the R.M.'s numbers that you responded to. That was my co-webmaster, as is the case with many of our mailings, lest anyone give me too much credit for the amazing amount of information he is able to compile. Thanks again! Thomas P.S. I welcome any data, information or thoughts that you, Richard or any other filmmakers might have that would help me in the preparation of this article. Thanks! ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com Jongiorgi Enos wrote: >While I know that you know this, Thomas, your box office reports periodically imply that box office equates to how much the MOVIE ITSELF (the moviemakers, investors, etc.) has made. You and I both know this is not true, but your readers might mistakenly understand this to be the case given the verbal "spin" of your report.... -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: [AML] RE: AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 15 Mar 2003 00:40:28 -0800 A word for the moderator. I don't think that even the most hyperbolic individual on this list would ever list me as one of the superstars of the list. Except for a couple of early citations, my reaction to the "highlights" articles in Irreantum is usually "Gee, I had some really pithy things to say about that topic. I wish I had said them." Having said that, I can say honestly that I don't think I have ever sent anything to the list that was not posted. Not always _when_ I would like to have had it posted, and sometimes after having had it returned to me two or three times for "reanalysis of the wording". (This actually happened more often when Ben was moderating the list. I know in my heart that it never happened, but I would almost swear that notes from Ben would pop up on my computer screen while I was typing that said "If you phrase it that way, I will send it back to you") I know how much time I spend just reading the list and can say vehemently that I would never be able to take that much time consistently to do the job that the moderator does. As far as I am concerned it has always seemed fair. I wonder sometimes at five consecutive posts from one member, but usually it is clear that these are all one post with new headings inserted. Jonathon HEAR! HEAR! (or is that HERE! HERE!???? If one butters up the moderator does one get better coverage?? NaaaaH!) Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jennifer Ellsworth" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 14 Mar 2003 22:40:54 -0700 This is interesting stuff - the first time in about 5 years that I've seen the process and dynamics of the list discussed -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 14 Mar 2003 22:53:06 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Eric >R. Samuelsen >been working on the roof of her home. Don't tell me God is >not a God of miracles. > I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't answered the prayers of those parents? Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 15 Mar 2003 00:31:25 -0700 Jonathan Langford wrote: > What I have taken from this experience is > the observation that each of us seems more attuned to the voices criticizing > us than to the voices in agreement; that we see more clearly how our own > views are sometimes denigrated by others than the ways that what we say may > hold a note of scorn. And mistakes happen, and miscommunication takes place. This idea came up a few weeks ago, and I think it's worth highlighting again--especially in light of both Harlow's and Eric's posts, which both seem to reflect the idea that only one voice is being heard (or at least acted upon) on a great many issues of deep personal importance. The community (religious, social, political--whatever) seems uninterested in hearing honest but opposing opinions, and unwilling to grant some ideas or hopes or fears even the most basic conceptual validity, never mind legitimacy. A sort of seige mentality based on the belief that one's opinion is not being heard. Which is my personal definition of hell: to be functionally ignored and essentially irrelevant. I remember a discussion that happened on this list just after 911. As is my wont, I expressed some hand-wringing ambivalence about what I perceived as a sudden massive war rage. I questioned whether it mattered that we were provoked, and whether it was not equally righteous to desire not to go to war (to choose forebearance, to turn the other cheek despite spiteful attack) as it was to feel right and justified in going to war (to defend both deeply held principles and to literally defend against the real possibility of attack against our homes and loved ones). As it turns out, those ambivalent pseudo-essays are my attempt to understand an issue--a sort of troll to get people to offer stronger opinions and arguments one way or another. I didn't really have a strong opinion about which answer was "most correct"--and I still don't. To this day I believe that good Mormons can live on opposite sides of that fence and be equally righteous in the eyes of the Lord. But I did have a general sense of wanting to not follow bloodshed with more bloodshed if it could be avoided. It was an emotional response. To some degree I think all responses are emotional. As the discussion progressed, I felt myself being pushed into a conceptual corner. A friend of mine on the list took the stance that if I wanted to avoid war then I must also have this other set of opinions, and must also support these other causes and ideas and conclusions for this set of reasons. I felt like the immense uncertainty and difficult struggle I felt in my heart and mind was being minimized and categorized and dismissed without really being understood. I felt like I was being changed from a complex person into an argumentative strawman for the Ghost of Arguments Past. And I began to resent it. Eventually, Jonathan called a halt to the discussion on the list; it had veered far enough off-topic that it no longer qualified as a discussion of Mormon letters. I continued the discussion in private for a few more exchanges before becoming lividly angry with one list member for what I perceived to be bitter personal attacks that were completely unfounded based on the things I had said. To this day (at this moment) my heart still races and I feel attacked afresh when I think about it. My friend says he had not intended to attack me, and I believe him. But whether he attacked me or not, I felt attacked. I felt injured. And that injury remains with me and now permanently colors how I interact with that friend. Which bothers me. A lot. I've let an argument over a topic that I believe has many valid responses alter how I treat a friend. Yet no matter how much I tell myself to stop feeling hurt, I can't seem to will myself to feel otherwise. And I do try. I see that as a sin. I haven't released my sense of injury; or in other words I haven't forgiven my brother his unintended trespass against me. I think sometimes those are the hardest to get over. Intentional injury can be resolved head-on and with a certain sense of satisfaction. But accidental injury rarely has such a satisfying moment of conclusion; if I can't condemn my brother for his evil heart in trying to hurt me, how do I transfer my pain? I think this is a broad concept that has dominated Mormon discourse for years--the belief that our ideas aren't being heard, or if they are heard they're not given fair respect. For those among the under-appreciated whose opinions diverge even from that small group, the feeling of having no safe harbor can lead to something very much like despair. Unfortunately it can lead to an inability (not just an unwillingness, but a perceptional inability, IMO) to see that our opinions are not as besieged or ignored as we believe they are. In my crankier moments I wonder what difference it makes; so what if the other guy gets more press than I do--my opinion has foundations that make sense to me, if to no one else. Forget 'em if they don't want to allow for other ideas. Except that each of us needs some sense of community, some sense that the strong beliefs we have are valid. It's the basis of faith--to believe in the reality of that which is unseen when so many people are so ready to ridicule or dismiss your deeply held opinions because they just don't share your perception. It's a trite statement, but all I can say to everyone on all sides of the discussions and arguments we have on the AML-List is this: keep the faith and don't stop seeking answers that make sense to you, even if it seems that all the world finds your faith silly or trivial. And remember both hope and charity when dealing with those who refuse to admit the validity of your ideas or your right to have them. We're all working with the best light we can find, imperfect though it may be. As it turns out, I'm on the assistant moderator list Jonathan mentioned in his post, and I've seen the nearly universal condemnation he's come under recently. I think that's a shame, because I know that Jonathan works very hard to expand the discussion as much as he can. Imperfectly, perhaps. But always honestly and without intentional bias. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AML Subject: [AML] Special Issue of Irreantum Date: 14 Mar 2003 09:48:31 -0700 (If you're already an Irreantum subscriber, please forward this message to= others who might be interested.) The new issue of Irreantum, the literary quarterly published by the= nonprofit Association for Mormon Letters, features an in-depth exploration= of Mormon writing for young readers. Following is the table of contents for this 104-page issue, which will be= mailed soon. For ordering info, scroll down. Editorials Fiction for Young People: There's Gold in This Vein John Bennion, Cheri Earl, and Carol Lynch Williams A Krill of Words Harlow S. Clark Interview Rick Walton, children's author Essays Then and Now: A Survey of Mormon Young-Adult Writers Jesse S. Crisler and Chris Crowe The True Colors of Carol Lynch Williams: Writing Ethical Fiction for New= York John Bennion Everyone Hears Voices, Don't They? Louise Plummer A Taste of the Year's Best Lu Ann Brobst Staheli "And the Moral of the Story Is?" The Ethical Dilemma of Young-Adult= Literature Jessie L. Christensen The State of Dutcher's Baby: A Report on LDS Cinema to Date Preston Hunter A Festival for Winners: A Look at the Second LDS Film Festival Ludwig Einklang Novel Excerpt The Shakeress Kimberly Heuston Stories Bliss at the Burger Bar Louise Plummer The Day We Lost Max Lael Littke Monster Lie C. B. Decker Flight Jack Harrell Memoir Natural K. L. Jackman Poetry Some Poems for Children Rick Walton Summer Journey Janean Justham Even So It Shall Be in That Day LaVerna B. Johnson Like Whales LaVerna B. Johnson Appaloosa Judith Curtis Reviews Not Just for Boys, Sharlee Mullins Glenn A review of Ron Wood's The Hero Tender Tale of Nineteenth-Century Girl, Kelly Thompson A review of Kimberly Heuston's The Shakeress Weyland's Twenty-Fifty Book Shows Promise, Jeffrey Needle A review of Jack Weyland's Cheyenne in New York Time Travel Trio, Katie Parker A review of Chad Daybell's Emma Trilogy A Spoonful of Sugar for This Medicine, D. Michael Martindale A review of the film Charly Mormon Literary Scene AML-List Highlights Rameumptom Local Waiter Serves God, Mammon Stephen Carter To order this issue, send $6 per copy (postage included) to AML, PO Box= 51364, Provo, UT 84605, and include a note asking for the winter 2002-03= issue. Or use the following PayPal link: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=3Dirreantum2%40cs.com&undefined_quant= ity=3D1&item_name=3DIrreantum+winter+02-03+issue&amount=3D6.00&no_note=3D1= =A4cy_code=3DUSD To subscribe to Irreantum or find out more about the Association for Mormon= Letters, visit us at http://www.aml-online.org. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Update your profile here: http://topica.email-publisher.com/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp Unsubscribe here: http://topica.email-publisher.com/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp.u Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://topica.email-publisher.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 14 Mar 2003 15:31:20 -0800 Banned Book I am forwarding these messages with permission of Tamy = Daybell, publicist of Cedar Fort. I think they give some insight into = this whole DB book-banning process. And, BTW, I have a review copy of = Chad's book if anyone is interested. --Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor ----- Original Message -----=20 Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 7:53 AM Jana, I don't know if you've assigned Chasing Paradise out for review yet, but = I thought you might be interested to know that the book has been banned = by Deseret Book. Despite the fact that the book has no swearing and no = sex, one buyer felt "uncomfortable" about the scene where an angel = dropkicks the wicked spirit Ruby through the wall. So, apparently comic = violence among spirits is now off limits as well. Thanks for all you do! Tammy Daybell And also a reponse received this afternoon: Jana, You are certainly welcome to forward the message to the AML list. Last = week our Sales Manager received an e-mail from the Deseret Book buyer = who made the decision. She told us that we couldn't advertise the book = in the Deseret Book club flyers. Then yesterday the buyer called Cedar = Fort to tell us that the book would be taken off the Deseret Book = website and would not be stocked in their stores. I find the whole thing a little strange, because I know Deseret Book = stocks other books that have taken far more liberties with the spirit = world than Chad did. The whole situation is almost comical. As for affecting sales, all of the Independent LDS stores that our Sales = staff has contacted have been very supportive, and they all are stocking = the book. We are contacting several newspapers with the story, and = telling everyone we can- so it should be interesting to see how = everything ends up. I will keep you posted on what happens. :) Thanks, Tammy -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: Whisperings in the Culture Date: 11 Mar 2003 22:24:02 -0800 Eric wrote an impassioned essay which I hope to be able to respond to = more fully in future.=20 Briefly though, let me say that reading it from the perspective of a = Northern Californian trying to put myself in the shoes of a thinking man = in Utah, I got the distinct impression that if you would just move your = family out here to the Sierra Nevada instead of the Wasatch Front, 90% = of your laments would simply evaporate! Switch mountain ranges, quick! While I agree that there is a conservative bent in the national media = (and the reason for it is simple, as an entertainer it is obvious: = right-wingers are more entertaining than liberals!; they say radical = things in a more ad-copy, sound-bite-sellable way; the ratings are = higher on conservative editorial programs than they are on liberal ones; = and remember, this is the same national culture that is addicted to = shows like "Fear Factor" and "Married By America", i.e., we may not = agree, but it is so fun to watch!), this conservative bent is not as = nationally pervasive as it may seem from the perspective of a region = where it is absolutely pervasive. Out here, reading San Francisco papers, Sacramento papers, tree-hugger = papers of the other Northern California cities, listening to National = Public Radio, etc., etc., there just simply is not such a one-sided = view. And that is a regional variant that gets lost in your current = location. I had more reactions to your comments than these, but for now, come live = with us in what John Muir KNEW was God's Country! Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: Value of Fairy Tales Date: 11 Mar 2003 22:53:38 -0800 I love fairy tales, think they are very valuable, and will probably have = more to say on the subject when I get a minute to draft up some of my = thoughts, but by gut instinct is to agree immediately with Chris Goble's = comment to this thread that "the literal contaminates the = allegorical..." Children are neurologically and psychologically intensely literal = beings, much moreso than adults. Not only is this opinion repeatedly = confirmed by my readings and research in the field since my son's brain = injury, but it is absolutely true in my day to day experience with my = two well daughters. They are surprisingly literal-minded creatures, a = fact which is fading as they mature. But where I might slightly disagree with Chris is in the concept that = films (even animation) have a higher factor of pseudo-reality in = childish perception than a narrated or read story. This may not be true. = The mental image created in the mind of the child hearing a graphic = description of a beheading may be infinitely more powerful than the = dragon in Sleeping Beauty. This will vary from child to child and from = example to example.=20 I may be wrong on this, of course. My children are deeply affected by an = image of blood (even very cheesy Ray Harrihousen stop-motion animation = 1950's Sinbad blood), even just a brief flash of it. We are after all = initially visual creatures, neurologically, as well as literal ones, so = it might be instinctual to argue that visual imagery is more powerful = than imagery only imagined in the mind via the medium of spoken or = written language. But I'm not sure that in more subtle examples, = narrated stories have just as profound an impact. I'm currently reading a fascinating book on the subject, Francis = Spufford's "The Child That Books Built." Very interesting. As Steve = Perry cited Bruno Bettelheim's "Uses of Enchantment," he may be = interested in Spufford's work, who both partially accepts and partial = refutes some of Bettelheim. This is a very interesting topic, both in writing for children and in = rearing children and sifting through the immense amount of material = available for them. But my suspicion is to think that Steve's argument = attributes to children certain adult-like characteristics which they do = not have. I have never narrated "Three Little Pigs" (one of their = favorite stories) with the first two pigs being eaten, so I don't know = what the reaction would be. But I am feel certain it would have a = different impact on my two girls, at least, than the version in which = the first two escape and live another day to learn from their stupidity. = I don't think they would initially and instinctively find the comforting = allegory. In the way I tend to narrate the story (replete with singing, voices and = sound effects) I do, however, tend to heighten the violence done to the = wolf to a fairly high degree, howling in that boiling water to the top = of my lungs. This always goes over very big, and, I must admit it: no = one is particularly worried about what happens to the wolf or the degree = of violence (however humorously disguised) contained therein. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Michael WILCOX, _Who Shall Be Able To Stand?_ (Review) Date: 14 Mar 2003 16:41:09 -0800 Hunter Thompson as a prophet! What a concept! I had read some of his books, and was a bit surprised when I saw him on TV not long ago. He has aged so much! I suppose his lifestyle leads toward something like that. Now, let's have someone write "Fear and Loathing Along the Mormon Trail." ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com > -----Original Message----- > Just thought y'all might appreciate this different take on Revelation. > > Robert > -- > Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Date: 15 Mar 2003 00:17:44 -0800 Uhh, point taken... no, I did not mean a testimony of the culture. My bad. I've another post in the queue that speaks to how I feel about our "culture." Tracie is right. Sorry for the confusion. What I meant is: "Why would you care about LDS culture if you did not hav= e a testimony of the gospel?" Speaking very generally, I think we have proven ourselves to be rather dismissible as a body of thinkers, as a body of artists, etc., in almost every category. If I were a non-believer, I would give Mormons maybe abou= t 1% of my attention span. (Some of our history makes for some good discussion, believer or not.) Now that I am a believer, and have studied LDS theology, I think the implications of it are very interesting and deep, especially when aspects= of physics are introduced. Multiplicity of gods and multiplicity of universe= s is now conceivable to some physicists. So, if I were a non-LDS intellectu= al or scientist, I might be interested in chatting it up with Mormons, except...ooops! Most Mormons would have no clue what I'm talking about. The point is that this List is perhaps participating in a change in that trend, and I respect most of the discussion I read here. But LDS "culture= " if I can even use that word is utterly laughable 90% of the time and of n= o interest. I recently spent some time reading some Irreantums, and I encounters some really good writing there. I was not interested in the fact that there wa= s an LDS author behind it; it was just good writing. I think when we as artists are world class, when we as thinkers are top notch, when we push ourselves as individuals to reach our fullest potenti= al, and I am genuinely humbled and excited to drink from that well, then and only then will I even be remotely interested in the aside, O by the way, that guy or gal artist/thinker is LDS. Which suddenly then gives the sens= e that we have even more in common. But if you start out the conversation with, This guy/gal is LDS, why does that in and of itself imply any commo= n ground? I may have infinitely more in common with my Jewish neighbor. I'm not sure where I'm going with this train of thought, which is dangero= us. I don't mean to imply that there should be elitism in the church, or in a sub-group thereof (say, Writers). Let me backtrack and say that I love th= e gospel and I think that I must defend the church as an having the right t= o appeal to every type of person on the earth -- including those who don't have a thought in their head! This is their gospel, too. Gotta luv um. B= ut I don't have to feel culturally connected. Eventually, the goal is for "every knee to bow," right? That will include every cultural variation on the earth, some variations of which I love, others I have nothing in common with. The church is not a culture, per se. Utah is a culture. Ghana is a culture. Christian Jordanian =E9migr=E9s in= SLC are a culture. And there are Latter-day Saints sprinkled amongst all of them. 19th Century American Puritanical Conservatism is a "culture" that has superimposed itself on the latter-day gospel. But that's not the same gos= pel Noah lived, or Nephi, either. Anyway, I got off track, but... Tracie is right. Jongiorgi ----- Original Message ----- > Did you really mean a testimony of the "culture'? Personally, I > question the strength of anyone's testimony that seems to be based > either on the church, as in "this is the perfect church", or the > culture. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature Date: 15 Mar 2003 07:07:02 -0500 Harlow: I remember a particularly distressing article about a teenage boy who had shot and killed an intruder climbing in his window at night. In investigating the killing police turned on his radio to see what station it was tuned to, and it was a wholesome LDS station, and they checked to see what books he was reading, and they were wholesome LDS books and he didn't have lots of unwholesome grungy music posters around or anything related to unwholesome drugs. The most distressing thing about the article was that he said he had absolutely no remorse about killing the intruder. Hadn't rattled him at all. I wonder if he thought the lesson of Nephi and Laban is kill and don't think about it. Then Jacob: I rather suspect that he was thinking of the lesson taught by Captain Moroni, Mormon, Ammon and other spiritual military leaders in the Book of Mormon--people willing to defend their freedom and the lives of their families. Now me: Or maybe he was thinking about a little brother sleeping in the next room, or a sister down the hall, or Elizabeth Storm and all the other missing children..................... Harlow, it appears to me that you were trying to somehow put this kid in a class with the profile of the kids who were responsible for Columbine, and other incidents. And, while it may be true that there are people who look like fine upstanding people and then go out and rampage, this was an intruder, someone entering another's space to inflict some kind of harm. In Steve Perry's post in the discussion about war he mused on the possible lack of provocation. Has Saddam actually attacked us. An intruder is attacking. Was the kid suppose to wait and see if it was just the stereo that was wanted? Really I have no idea about this particular case. There could be much more to it than what was reported here on the list. But, to tie this into literature, it is one reason we need literature. In literature we can tell the stories, many stories that will explore life experience from different perspectives. If you were writing a story about this, you might explore what brought a young man to what you obviously feel is an unfeeling position. Another writer might explore how the violence in the world has pushed a *good* kid to feel the need to sleep with a gun next to his bed. Another might explore the remorse under the bravado. Another might wonder how such a young man would feel when he found out the intruder was actually his best friend coming to tell him he was running away from an abusive father. Sam Payne would hear the story on NPR and write a song. Each writer brings to their stories their own perspectives, life experiences, and emotions. Sometimes in writing a character takes on a life of his own, and we discover things about him, and thus ourselves, that we never knew. [Tracie Laulusa] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jared Walters Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 15 Mar 2003 10:05:54 -0800 Eric, I find it interesting that you're criticizing the media for covering the early stages of the Elizabeth Smart story by their piecing together tidbits of info as they came, but yet you seem to base your suspicions on the case by these very same tidbits of info. I have to take issue with playing the racial/social class card with an incident like this. I do agree that racial bias does still exist in the media and our culture, but you're oversimplifying the Smart case by simply saying it's news only because it involved a rich white girl. One thing to remember about the media is that they can't just report every bad thing that happens to people just for the sake of being equal to all races and sexes. I mean when you write a play do you write several versions of the story to accomodate every ethnic, social, and religious group? Of course not. Sadly, child abductions happen all over the country every year. If CNN were to have a special report on each of these then they might as well have a whole channel devoted to those stories. Who would watch it though? I sure wouldn't because it would be too depressing and redundant. If I worked for CNN or MSNBC and saw all these kidnapping stories, I would sort through and pick the most intriguing one that would get people's attention. The Smart case has all the makings of a hollywood or made-for-TV movie. A "Leave it to Beaver" type family living in a wholesome neighborhood has their little girl taken right from the very safety of her own home and her own bed and vanishing without a trace. Add the bizzare plot twists from Ricci dropping dead and Elizabeth turning up in Sandy of all places. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of any kidnapping story quite like this one. The Smart family just happens to be an upper-class white Mormon family. I don't think that merits a cause for them to be a whipping boy for racism in the media. In your closing paragraphs, I had to double-check to make sure I wasn't reading some rant column from Matt Drudge. Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions that we may never know on this case, but none of us have ever been in that situation or have had their daughter vanish for months. To make groundless speculation when it's way too early in the aftermath is not unproductive, but a disservice to a family and their teenage daughter who have just experienced a psychological hell on earth. I think it's a tribute to Elizabeth who at that tender age stood tough and figured out a way to survive this ordeal early in the kidnapping. I'm sorry you fail to see the miracle in this case. Just how exactly do you define a miracle or what is the criteria that qualifies God's involvement in an incident? You're just opening up a can of worms to the age old question of why are some prayers from good people granted while others aren't? Why was Elizabeth spared while other innocent children are taken from this life too soon? Does God pick and choose favorites? Maybe you have the answers, but I don't. It would've been nice if God could spell his miracles out to us by doing something like causing some bright strobe light to confound Eliabeth's captors and then having her elevated in the air for all of Salt Lake to see and then have her lowered in a white robe into her mothers arms. All this happening while the musical score of E.T plays in the background. My sarcasm aside, I do agree that the word miracle gets used a little lightly in today's society. Whether or not you feel the story of Elizabeth was a miracle with God's intervention or that it happened by chance when certain individuals decided to exercise their free agency to do good is something none of us can change. I believe it was Einstein who once said that you can go through life either believing nothing is a miracle or believing that everything is a miracle. I'm paraphrasing of course. With all due respect to your lovely daughter, I don't think you can fairly base your suspicions of Mary Catherine on the mental traits of your own daughter. Mary Catherine is not your daughter and every child is different. When your daughter has a sister who gets kidnapped out of her bedroom in the dead of night then let us know if she is still "Miss Short Attention Span Theatre" I'd recommend reading a little child psychology on the effects of children's memory when witnessing traumatic events before passing judgment on Mary Catherine. [Jared Walters] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 15 Mar 2003 13:10:35 EST In a message dated 3/14/2003 8:48:28 PM Mountain Standard Time, jlang2@pressenter.com writes: << I can say that many of the most prolific posters on AML-List have encountered my "moderating" influence from time to time. >> I must say that one of the reasons that I am not a more prolific poster on AML-List is because I have felt the slapping hand of the moderator a few times. I don't approve of censorship in any form. The main reason I joined this list was to engage in passionate and intelligent conversations regarding LDS arts and letters. I find it ironic and frustrating to be censored in this particular forum. I believe this censorship to be destructive and unnecessary. If one of us says something sarcastic, wrong-headed, offensive, or even vulgar....well, doesn't that always happen in the course of a good conversation? Passion bears passion fruit. I'd much rather have passion fruit than canned peaches. If somone goes off on The War or plumbing techniques or Britney Spears' romantic liasons, I can simply scroll down or hit the delete button. If someone offends me, I am perfectly capable of defending myself. If that person offends another who is more meek and humble than I am, I (and other members of the list) will surely point out the fault during the course of our conversation. If we continue to practice censorship in the AML, then we are continuing a destructive tradition of censorship in the LDS community. Let's take responsibility for our own words, and let's be confident enough to stand up to the strong words of others. If there is no freedom of expression in the Association for Mormon Letters, then what's the point of having it? Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Elizabeth Smart Date: 15 Mar 2003 19:55:19 GMT Eric, I really enjoyed your post about the Elizabeth Smart story. I share many of the feelings you described. No doubt there were miracles involved. I've been trying to figure out why this story has been one of those I haven't been able to let go of since the beginning. Is it because she is from my hometown? Because the family is LDS? Maybe. (Similarly, I can't get the Laci Peterson story out of my mind either--but then I am also pregnant.) I guess it's just a matter of the more similar the victim is to me or the more she reminds me of me and mine, the more interest and sympathy I have in the story. I'm faintly disappointed to realize this about myself. But there it is. Anyway, I'm still hoping to read Peculiarities sometime. Does your offer still stand to send it along? If so, please use my yahoo e-mail address: daryoung@yahoo.com. Thank you! -Darlene Young, whom you spoke to at lunch for a very short few minutes at the AML meeting. ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 15 Mar 2003 12:46:11 -0800 (PST) > [MOD: Advance reply: For what it's worth, I think it's highly worthwhile > to > discuss, from time to time, what is and what isn't appropriate for > AML-List, > given current guidelines--and how those guidelines could and should > change. > This first part isn't realy about AML-List guidelines, but more about Mormons and political discourse in general... I'm going to include my original thoughts on Eric Samuelson's post, but with the caveat that my feelings on this are a little more complex than this suggests so please consider this post as a whole or as a progression of a thought. So first: I've been thinking a lot about LDS scripture, political discourse and expression in the U.S., and building community. The conclusion I've come to is that there are certain issues that are so divisive that it would be better if Mormons discuss them using strictly 'secular' arguments. While I realize that we all (in part) build our political views and justifications for them on scripture and the discourses by church leaders, my experience is that using LDS discourse (especially scripture) in debate on certain political issues is counterproductive. It becomes the equivalent of bible bashing. The conflict with Iraq, I think, is one of these issues. In my opinion, using LDS discourse to justify a political viewpoint on this issue can only alienate and cause straining (or even splitting) in the LDS community, including the AML-list. And, really, what's the need to bring scriptural justifications into this? America is a secular country. Sure, religious discourse is part of our national debate (and I'm sure many of us have different levels of comfort related to the extent in which it), but ultimately, our political discourse comes down to secular arguments. If you truly feel strongly one way or another, you should be able to make your case without the scriptures or quotes from President Kimball or President Benson. I'm not saying that scripture doesn't have some very profound things to say about war, peace and politics. But the problem as I see it is that we are too quick to let our scriptural justifications bleed in to our feelings about how others live the gospel---as if our political views taint our LDS credentials. I think that here on the AML-List, we're pretty good about not letting that happen (or at least I hope we are---I can't read all of your minds), but in my experience, Church members as a whole aren't very good about this. I hope I'm wrong. And I'll admit that my experiences are anecdotal, and many are second hand. And I'll admit that I have problems with making these kinds of judgements at times. But while we may not agree with Eric's political views or the reasoning behind him, I don't think you can just easily dismiss the experiences he relates. Okay, so the bottom line is that I think that it's perfectly reasonable for us to be a little schizophrenic or two-tongued here. That just because we have used scriptures to help form our views, that doesn't mean that we have to use them in our political discourse. Politicizing scripture is an incredibly emotionally charged and polarizing act. So now second: Now that I have sat down and written these thoughts, I see that they are very much at odds with one of my other desires: to legitimize Mormon discourse and fight for a stronger presence for religious discourse in American public life. While I don't have the same fears of secularization and desire for 'cultural purity' that other Mormons do, I am interested in injecting more plurality into secular discourse, of disentagling from pc-ism and bland multiculturalism, of making a place for religious thought. I also am interested in a vigorous Mormon discourse. I like that Hugh Nibley isn't afraid to use scriptural citations and the words of our early leaders to present alternative Mormon views. And while I understand and agree with the current (mostly) hands-off of politics that current LDS leadership takes, I think that, for example, Ezra Taft Benson made some important contributions to LDS thought, and I'm glad that he did, even though I'm not always pleased with some of the results. I also am afraid of what might happen if we push our LDS discourse, thought and practice strictly into the private sphere. I'm concerned by a certain 'Protestantisation' of Mormonism. I think our heavy involvement in our wards and our 'weird' doctrine helps guard against this, but the last thing I want is for us to become like the Anglicans in colonial America where making money and social position were the overriding concerns and religion was something comfortable that you did on Sunday. And what you wanted preached on Sunday was something that didn't demand too much and that justified your work week activities. I also think that it'd be great if we could continue to develop and mature LDS discourse. I think that devotional, theological, philosophical and literary discourse that draws on Mormon sources could really enrich discussion of a whole list of problems that humanity has troubled over and written about. For example, how does the Mormon view of the origins and attributes of our Heavenly Father affect our understanding of evil---its origins and effects? Or how does the importance of spiritual confirmation through the Holy Ghost affect how we read and interact with scripture and read and write Mormon discourse? What effects have the Mormon concept of eternal progression had on how Mormons have approached technology and industrialization? Etc. Etc. And finally, third: The bottom line is that I remain conflicted on this subject. On the one hand I want a vigorous Mormon discourse; on the other hand I would like an un-divided Mormon community. I think I know what the answer is: civility. But the last thing that ya'll want is a lecture on civility---not that lecturing on civility is effective anyway. And can civility really be a productive concept anyway? I mean civility taken too far just leads us into pc-ism, anyway. My conflicted feelings here also extend to any discussion of the AML-List guidelines. I think that the narrow scope outlined in the guidelines has served the list well. And I'd prefer that there be more strictly *literary* discussion. I mean, it's a little frustrating when I post some interesting items related to my work on _The Master and Margarita_ and get no response while yet another discussion of R-rated films creates a blizzard of postings. But at the same time, to be honest, I didn't expect any responses to that post and it didn't bother me (really it didn't---I like the little world I live in sometimes and don't expect others to follow me into it---but if I ever forget to come out of it, wake me up somebody), and I also think that discussions of DB decisions and _The RM_ and R-rated movies and even of Mormon discourse and war and peace, are exactly the kinds of discussions that we should be having because these are issues that are taken up in the broader world of Mormonism. And I'm very much interested in how we document, react to, and try to shape that broader world/discourse. As much fun as I would have, I don't want the AML-List to be of narrow interest and overly academic. I think Jonathan does a great job of trying to make sure that the posts that have political elements have a good literary tie-in. But I also understand how frustrating posts like Eric's and Harlow's recent posts can be. They are very good at bringing the literary connections in. I don't say this to give them kudos---I think, rather, that it's a function of how they personally relate to literature and politics. For instance, I simply don't relate to violence and literature in the same way and with the same intensity that Harlow does. However, I'm a lot more pre-occupied with meta-issues of discourse, thus my posts are more likely to bring those concerns in (and thus this post itself). The option that I think is the best is for us to be able to talk more about politics, but for AML-Listers to also make a greater effort to frame their posts better so that there is a literary tie-in. The problem is that the result will probably create more work for our moderator. And I think that we can all agree that what makes this list work as well as it does is the moderation. [And I don't think that we should expect our moderator to be perfectly consistent---and he has graciously admitted his own fallibility in this regard and his willingness to change things.]. That's my opinion. I look forward to hearing what others have to say. I also would like to hear discussion on something specific---the other option to consider is for Jonathan to tighten things up a bit and bounce back any posts that seem likely to spark political fervor whether they have a literary tie-in or not. What do ya'll think about that? I'm having a hard time thinking about if that would work or not and if that would drain too much life from the discussion. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 15 Mar 2003 18:31:33 EST A thought occurred to me today while reading Curtis Taylor's novel, The Dinner Club. I was about 80 or 85 pages into this well-written book when I realized that I was once again witnessing an interesting phenomenon in male-written LDS fiction. Perhaps it has been identified earlier and given a proper name by the academics, but I simply call it the "Woman/boy" model. In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are Women. These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no matter how old they are. The Women drive the stories. The boys follow after them. In fact, in order to get the Woman, the boy often takes whatever course and makes whatever decision is demanded of him by the Woman. A few quick examples: Although I'm only at page 85 in The Dinner Club, Curtis writes of a teenaged boy who becomes interested in the LDS Church because of a beautiful, quirky, powerful, independent teenaged Woman. He joins the Church, marries the Woman, and settles into a fairly ordinary domestic relationship. Later, when the relationship starts to go South, the Woman clearly emerges as the more powerful personality. The boy, who now has the body of a man, waits subserviently for the Woman to make her decision. I'm not even 1/3 of the way through the novel, so the pattern may fall apart, but I doubt our male hero will turn into John Wayne in the next 200 pages. Also, in Jack Weyland's Charly, we have similar representations: a powerful, quirky, intellectually independent Woman linked with a weak, awkward, spiritually immature boy. In the Church film "Testaments" we again see a self-confident, beautiful, curious Woman who, for some reason, is attracted to an immature and goofy boy. I saw similar characters and relationships in Kels Goodman's movie, "Handcart." The model is also present in "Singles Ward" and, to a more subtle degree, in "The Other Side of Heaven." Strong, idealized Women with weak, flawed men. I wonder how entrenched this model has become in our storytelling. I have read very little popular LDS fiction. Is this a common character/relationship model? Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in our personal relationships? Has the Mormon male been neutered? Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons reveal about their attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy? These are interesting thoughts, but I am starting to ramble. Any input? Anyone? Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 15 Mar 2003 20:40:01 -0700 I really enjoyed reading Eric's take on the media coverage surrounding Elizabeth Smart's return. I felt all the things he expressed. I have to add my two cents about the "live" coverage. The questions asked by reporters were inane and embarrassing, not to mention repetitive. Do media people not *listen* to the answers or do they consider themselves clever lawyer-types who will trip up an interviewee with reguritated and restated questions? They came off like a pack of dyslexic hyenas. Having ever only lived in Utah, I have nothing to compare to. Is this a Utah phenomenen or are "local" reporters like this nationwide? Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: [AML] AML List as Epistolary Novel Date: 15 Mar 2003 18:29:57 -0700 . I love when coincidences fall in my favor. I have been toying with this=20 idea of the list as an epistolary novel for some time. Then, I read a story= =20 in the Winter 2002 issue of Zoetrope: All Story that dealt with a similar=20 idea (the story, =93Literary Devices=94 by Richard Powers, is sadly not=20 available online). I had decided to start actually putting a few of these= =20 ideas together when Jongiorgi Enos suddenly appeared like Athena out of the= =20 head of Zeus, making a point of mine with much greater virility than just=20 saying =93I suppose that=85=94 could ever manage, and now, as I sit down to= catch=20 up on the list and write this essay, what do I see but R.W. Rasband=92s=20 complaint and our moderator=92s reply. If ever there was a time to consider= =20 the list as a progressive work of fiction, this is it. Rasband referred =93the superstars of the list (like Eric Samuelsen).=94 I= =20 think those of us who follow the list could quickly make a list of such=20 =93superstars.=94 But before we go further, I need to make two points: First, we need a=20 working definition of epistolary fiction, and second, I recognize that in=20 the world of online discourse, shorter is both sweeter and more widely read.= =20 I=92ll try to be brief. First: What is epistolary fiction? First and most obviously, it is stories told in letter form. It is not a=20 new form=97it dates back to Classical times; it reached its zenith a few=20 hundred years ago with Samuel Richardson=92s _Clarissa_ and _Pamela_,= Goethe=92s=20 _Young Werther_ (brilliantly homaged in the above-mentioned Zoetrope story)= =20 and dozens of other novels from _Dangerous Liaisons_ to _Frankenstein_. =20 Sometimes a novel was entirely written in letters; other times it was in=20 part. No matter. Some advantages of the epistolary form: =93=85it presents an intimate view of the character=92s thoughts and= feelings=20 without interference from the author=85.=94 (Merriam Webster=92s= Encyclopedia of=20 Literature, 1995) =93=85that delightful forbidden sensation of reading someone else=92s mail.= =94 =20 (dust jacket to _Griffin and Sabine_, 1991) Mentioning _Griffin and Sabine_ makes us realize that what was once a=20 dominant form of fiction in English and American letters has now nearly=20 disappeared. In fact (and I agree with this sentiment), =93=85twentieth-cen= tury=20 epistolary work strikes many readers as an oddity, literature encumbered=20 rather than enhanced by its structure.=94 (Bower, Anne. _Epistolary=20 Responses_. 1997. p 10) But that=92s epistolary fiction and its current problem in book form. But= the=20 appeal of reading other=92s letters, and that intimate dip into character=92= s=20 minds have not lost their draw. If we agree with Jon Enos when he proposes= =20 =93All writing is fiction,=94 then a forum like the AML list fills our needs= for=20 the type of intimate story telling epistolary fiction provides and, simply,= =20 *is* epistolary fiction. Fiction told in letter form. Another advantage to epistolary fiction is that we discover the future=20 simultaneously with the letter-writers (and presumed authors). When they=20 write a letter, they do not know where the arc of the story is taking them. = =20 They do not know any better than the reader whether they will succeed or=20 fail. For all we or they know, they could die tomorrow and others=92= letters=20 will take up the narrative. Who can tell. The AML list may have an overarching storyline, but we the reader can no=20 more tell where it is going than can the writers=97even the superstars= cannot=20 tell if Richard Dutcher has a blockbuster with Oscar nominations coming up= =20 in 2005. We don=92t know. No one knows. Before Samuel Richardson burst on the scene with _Pamela_, several books of= =20 letters had been published, whether fiction or no, it was hard to tell. =20 =93Obviously,=94 writes Natascha W=FCrzbach (_The Novel in Letters_, xiii),= =93there=20 is no hard and fast line between a genuine letter, a fictitious letter, and= =20 an epistolary narrative. Sometimes it is impossible without external=20 evidence to decide whether a correspondence is genuine or fictitious.=94 That is=97how do you know I mean what I say? How can you tell if Theric=20 Jepson is even a real person? Have you met me? How many of us can be sure= =20 that Jon Enos hadn=92t been around long before his introduction, but as The= =20 Laird Jim or Thom Duncan or Kim Madsen or Lloyd the Lurker? Unless you=92ve= =20 met him or everyone else, you can=92t. Again, the question of fiction is=20 moot=97whether the AML list is =93fiction=94 or =93nonfiction,=94 it is= impossible to=20 tell. I want to take a step backwards to the idea of the fictional author of the= =20 letter, whose ideas are distinct from the author of the novel. In the case= =20 of the list, there is no =93author of the novel=94 per se, except perhaps= the=20 moderator. But with or without a moderator, the true author of the list is you, dear=20 reader. The reader is the one who puts the plot together=97much more so= than=20 in traditional narrative. The exciting thing about the list is that writing= =20 is action, and reading is creation. We don=92t have car chases and (I= trust)=20 no serial killers eliminating those who won=92t watch R-rated movies. =20 (Although have you noticed the most firm all seem to have disappeared?) No,= =20 we have people weighing in on the topics and the reader decides what the=20 story is or should be, selects those parts pertinent, and the AML List as=20 Novel comes to life. Some characters have a great, =93superstar=94 presence. Richard Dutcher is= =20 generally acknowledged as our resident genius. I imagine there are=20 dissenting voices, but they keep to themselves. Some such as Scott Parkin= =20 and Marlyn Brown write in with some regularity, but you get the sense that= =20 they are really only known to those who know them elsewhere, off the list.= =20 But isn=92t that how most of us, in turn, come to know them? Consider Jon Enos: A couple weeks ago he was a nonentity. Not like Orson Scott Card who is oft= =20 referenced and much reverenced even though he as yet to post so much as a=20 =93Hello, how =91bout that _Singles Ward_?=94 No, Mr Enos was genuinely= unheard=20 of. Then he appeared, making his presence clear and known, and others who= =20 knew him (including superstar Eric Samuelsen) wished him welcome, commented= =20 on his comments and recognized his existence outside the list=92s= provenance,=20 and thus he was immediately part of the novel. Other characters post and post and remain vaguely anonymous. Other=20 characters make one comment then disappear back into lurking. But what is the story we are all engaged in telling? And will it have a=20 happy ending? I don=92t know. But if this is a novel, we are the= characters.=20 We must ride on to the denouement. Postmodernly, ----------------theric jepson ps: Sorry about failing on that whole "brief" thing. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 16 Mar 2003 09:47:14 -0700 On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:01:10 -0700 "Eric R. Samuelsen" writes: > Okay, Elizabeth was probably a Stockholm syndrome victim. No > question she didn't feel safe pulling off her veil or saying > something at that party. The big question that photo raises for me > is, what's with all those other guys we see in the photo, all those > hardy partiers who never even thought for a second about this very > strange situation? Come on, I know the Miller Genuine Draft was > flowing, dudes, but you've got two weirdos with a little girl and it > fazed you not at all? Or the other dude, who rented them all a room > for a week? I mean, Elizabeth's photo is literally everywhere. He > didn't even stop for a second and wonder who the little girl was > hanging out with these utter nutbags? It drives my wife crazy when ever I do this, but, I'm going to come to the defense of the hardy partiers and the other dude. Had I been at that party, even though I would have been in a much less inebriated state than the other dudes attending because I don't imbibe the MGD, I can't say that I would have been any more observant than the rest of them. For one thing, I watch very little television these days (America's Most Wanted not at all) and would not have known that I was supposed to be on the lookout for a man fitting the description of "Emmanuel" Mitchell. For another thing -- and I am tempted to single out Utah/Mormon culture as being rife with utter nutbags, but I have lived in San Diego, Atlanta and Indonesia and can state categorically that the utter nutbag contingency has infiltrated all corners of the globe -- it would be a terrible invasion of privacy to start a kind of social profiling by interrogating every utter nutbag with a child in tow. They may actually be his/her children and just as utterly nutbaggy as he/she. The sad fact is (sad in this situation because of the trauma that Elizabeth was forced to endure) that it is easy to pull the wool over our eyes. People are so easily snookered for a variety of reasons; too trusting of strangers, unimaginative, morally/emotionally/mentally isolated, etc. The most efficient method of hiding something is to not hide it at all. Who could have thought to find Elizabeth walking around in plain sight six blocks from home? The best way to lie is to tell the truth so that it sounds like a lie. Oddly enough I learned these things most powerfully from common entertainments. In the movie "Nighthawks," Rutger Hauer played an international terrorist who was being hunted by every police force in the world who told a young woman that he was an international terrorist who was being hunted by every police force in the world. Of course she laughed at him. At BYU I saw a production of Cinderella that wasn't all that great except for one particularly shining moment: The Dress. The switch occurred before the audience was expecting it. Cinderella ran out of her cottage with her Fairy Godmother to sing and dance in the garden and change rats into horses and mice into footmen and a pumpkin into a carriage. When that was all done the Fairy Godmother sent Cinderella into the cottage for her sweater. She ran in and got it and ran out again. And when she appeared from behind the wall of the cottage running into the garden, behold! she was wearing the most beautifully sparkling gown you can imagine. That moment stopped the show. What the audience hadn't been looking for was a doppleganger. The girl singing and dancing as Cinderella in the garden all that time was not the same Cinderella they had seen all evening long. The difficulty for me in all this is, just how much more suspicious do I need to be now? A UTA bus driver said that she picked up Mitchell & company in Orem at 11:30 on that Wednesday and dropped them off in Sandy shortly before they were spotted and apprehended. This means they were quite likely just a couple blocks from my home as that is where the depot is where one would go to catch a bus to Salt Lake. If, instead of being at work that day I had been out and about my neighborhood, and had seen them there's no way I would have known who they were. And I don't think it would have occurred to me to question the man's right to raise his child to be an utter nutbag. In fact, my religious upbringing leads me to respect a parent's rights no matter how freaky I judge them to be. Unless I actually am a witness to abuse, or have access to some other form of clear and incontrovertible evidence, I must wait until the child herself, or the Spirit of God, says to me that she is a prisoner. Other than a more lenient judgement of those hardy partiers and the other dude, I agree with everything you've said, Eric. Especially your conclusion: > I have a nine year old daughter, same age as Mary Catherine Smart. > I love her with all my heart. But she's nine. Miss Short Attention > Span Theatre. And yet, somehow, six months after the event, Mary > Catherine Smart was able to properly and accurately identify a > photograph of a man she had seen only once before in her life, six > months earlier, a man who had been working on the roof of her home. [for only five hours by the way] > Don't tell me God is not a God of miracles. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: LDSWorld Website Query Date: 16 Mar 2003 22:28:43 -0600 Knudsen family: Does anyone know what happened to the LDSWorld.com website? I loved their section on LDS Urban Legends and have referenced in often, including at the year's AML Conference. Now it seems to have disappeared! Any idea where or who the owners of this site are/were? Thank you, Ronda Walker Knudsen _______________ As far as I know, the site is gone. The highly successful Gems list was absorbed some time ago by the Church, and now comes from lds.org. I believe that David Kenison is still involved, and that MStar.net is used to distribute it. The LDS-Gems list and the companion LDS News list both carry the Church copyright (Intellectual Reserve, Inc.). The web sites clearly belong to the Church: LDS News Web page: http://www.lds.org/ldsnews/ LDS-Gems webpage: http://www.lds.org/gems/ I used to frequent the LDSWorld temples site. One day last year it started redirecting to www.lds.org/temples. I miss many of its excellent features. Most were not continued at the Church site. I also recall the urban legends site to which you refer. You might try to search the site, or go to the Gems web page and see if you can find it from there. Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 17 Mar 2003 10:16:39 -0700 Okay, I knew it might be considered a provocative post when I wrote it, = and I was a little surprised that Jonathan let it through. I thought as = an examination of a particular dynamic I'm observing in the culture, it = might have some value. But I have to respond to a least a couple of = points. =20 First of all, I want to apologize to anyone on the List who feels that my = post was inappropriately partisan. It probably was. It's interesting to = me to see the way the culture functions here in Utah, especially politicall= y (and I do think politics matters). I think that there's just not a = forum within Mormonism for dissent. And that leads to some very interestin= g cracks and fissures. That's the main think I was exploring. And since = those cracks and fissures tend to be in a kind of Mormon cultural monolith = which I perceive as at least 70% political, my response to them ventured = into politics as well. =20 Second of all, I hope I can dispell the notion that I get away with murder = because Jonathan (who I've met twice in my life) is a friend of mine. I'm = proud to think of Jonathan as my friend, but he bounces back inappropriate = posts of mine with some frequency, as he ought to. Sometimes, I revise = and repost, sometimes I don't. =20 Third, I'm heartsick about this war, tied up in knots, and angry about it, = and sometimes those feelings get in the way of objectivity. No excuse, = though. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 13:27:02 -0700 Jonathan Langford wrote: > As moderator, I have noticed that I allow more political content through > from some list members than others. Typically, that's because those list > members are highly adept at integrating political comments with observations > about Mormon culture, communication, and literary issues. To put it another > way: there's political content there, but it's so tightly woven with stuff > that I think is valuable to AML-List discussions that I can't bring myself > not to let it through. Not a matter of "does this cross the line?" so much > as "Does the overall effect of this post offer the promise of a good > discussion that's relevant to AML-List topics?" But as you suggested later in your message, it's not an either/or prospect. You can insist on edits, then send the post through. Eric's post said important things that directly related to the purpose of AML-List. He used political examples which were appropriate, perhaps even necessary. What was not necessary or on-topic, and therefore unacceptable, were the suggestions that Eric's views were self-evidently true and anyone who disagreed was a fool or worse. These could easily have been edited out. You have requested that I edit out things much less flagrant than what Eric posted. In fact, precious few of my posts have been out-and-out rejected. They've almost always been returned with a request to edit and resumbit. This should have happened with Eric's post. To present political ideas in tangent with literary ones, to even state that certain ideas are ones the author believes in, is just fine. But to act as if those ideas are carved in stone and belittle those who disagree--how can that be anything but unacceptable for AML-List? You have bounced many a post back to me for that very reason, whether political or not. I think that's the main reason most of mine are returned: I didn't pose enough of an "in my opinion" stance. I guess I just can't see how some of the things in my posts you've objected to, which were pretty picky, had to be fixed, while some of the egregious statements Eric make sail through without a hitch. Give that > Perhaps > allowing them through initially was a mistake--I find that I can't decide > one way or the other at this point. On the other hand, it has led to some > excellent conversation that *is* on-topic for AML-List, without--so far as I > can tell--offending anyone enough to want to quit the list. The same excellent conversation could have happened without the flagrant bits in Eric's post. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Ron CARTER, _The World Turned Upside Down_ (Review) Date: 17 Mar 2003 11:21:02 -0800 > First, let me confess that I'm not personally a big fan of > adjectives. I like > a quick description of the background, and then let's dive into > the story. So > Carter's florid and dense settings, which remind me so much of > 19th-century > authors like Thomas Hardy, is probably the cat's meow for many readers, so > this is merely a matter of taste. > > However, I do wish he was more consistent. The first half or so > of the book > is replete with chapters that begin with paragraph after paragraph of > descriptive prose. But the farther along we get, the quicker the chapters > move into the action. While I appreciated the change myself, I > still prefer > it when a writer picks one way of doing things and then generally > sticks with > it. > This is often more a matter of fatigue than anything else. As you near the end of a project, you just want to get it over with. This is something I've noticed with Heimerdinger's novels -- he takes his time at the beginning, and then rushes his conclusions. My preference is for adjectives that add to the texture of the work, not those used merely to fill space. > If the notes had all been collected at the end, with the bibliography, it > might have been different. Perhaps Carter would have seen the wisdom of > leaving out the superfluous notes regarding the fictional characters. And > perhaps he would have restricted the notes to merely refer to the > sources for > the factual details of his renditions. Unfortunately, most of > the notes have > a "Look at me!" quality, where the author seems determined to > show us exactly > what he got right. > I don't have much of a preference. I find it quite easy to skip the notes at the end of each chapter. > The avid reader of historical fiction will take it for granted > that the author > has done his or her homework. Hoop! Not me. Any "avid reader" will know that many do NOT do their homework. Thanks for the great review. To my knowledge, I haven't yet read any of the books in the series. Perhaps I'll get to them some day. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Date: 17 Mar 2003 12:19:38 -0700 lajackson@juno.com wrote: > Who will write this book, and will it be truth or fiction? I'd love to, but I have a sneaking suspicion when attempting to acquire the rights, I would be outbid by--well, everybody. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeffress@xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 17 Mar 2003 11:38:24 -0700 Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > No, what it does is dilute the very concept of art into meaninglessness. > You are saying that everything is art. That means nothing is art, > because art becomes a meaningless concept. Yes, everything is art. I think the main difference between our views lies in that you have a binary definition of art that has two non-intersecting sets of "art" and "non-art." In my view, art occupies a universe of infinite and intersecting sets. There's even a set "Things D. Michael considers art," and although that set is far from equivalent to the universe, I think the view of various sets of art more accurately describes the way art really works. To pick on another frequent poster to this thread, I'm sure that there exist objects that both Jacob and Michael would agree to call "art." But I'm even more sure that you can find objects that Jacob includes in his art set that Michael excludes, and vice versa. I would propose that "Things everyone agrees is art" is an empty set, but I would also contend that "Things no-one agrees is art" is also an empty set. Since a binary definition of art really cannot ever create a useful working set usable by large numbers of individuals, I would argue that a binary, art/non-art, definition is a meaningless concept. > Things can be artistically created, but unless the artist intends or > wishes it could be displayed as art, it ain't art. I stand by that > definition. But even if I did subscribe to your art/non-art view, I would have to disagree with your definition based on "intent." Too many objects that were never created with the intent to be displayed as art are now on display in museums. And these are not just collections of items on display for historical interest. Many everyday objects created at the time for utility, are now admired for their aesthetic appearance. I once visited a museum that had a collection of 18th century carpentry tools. These tools were aesthetically interesting, having been obviously created with great care and skill. These tools were clearly not created with the intent for display as art, but rather as tools used for a trade. It just so happens that the same characteristics that made the tools useful, also made them aesthetically pleasing to look at. Next consider the entire field of found art. This field specializes in looking at art in the everyday and even the random. I have seen a smashed cardboard box covered with tire marks on display. And a gas pump covered in barnacles recovered from the bottom of a harbor displayed as art -- this one amazingly beautiful. These objects were not created with any artistic intent. Sure, someone found artistic properties in these objects and put them on display, but the only intent was to display found items as art. There was no intent in the creation of these objects. Next consider the slushpile of any magazine that accepts unsolicited submissions. Here you have hundreds of objects all created with the intent to make art. But under your binary system, most of these objects will never get the privilege of being framed as art in the covers of the magazine. Instead, most of the manuscripts will be soundly (and deservingly) rejected. In spite of the intent to creat art, most of these objects will never be put on display, will never receive the opportunity to endure Michael's scrutiny for violations of the third-person limited point of view. Even if you were to somehow convince me to believe in your binary view of art/non-art, you would never convince me that "intent" has anything to do with the ultimate acceptance of an object as art. "Talent" maybe, but "intent," never. -- Terry Jeffress -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Date: 17 Mar 2003 17:23:01 -0700 Or someone could write a story very much like Levi Peterson did in _Canyons of Grace_. A young Mormon woman, accustomed to obeying priesthood patriarchal authority, is accosted by a self-proclaimed prophet who lays his hands on her head and seals her to him for his wife. The physical experience of the laying on of hands sends the same sensations through her body that she had experienced in her mainstream church experience. Because she has always been taught to trust emotions, physical "burnings", etc., and because she is used to complying to male authority, she is vulnerable to the power of this man who uses scriptural language and all the trappings of her regular religion. Also see Margaret Young's _Salvador_ for another very similar example. And then ask, could mainstream experience be just as controlling? Do we create our spiritual answers because we have been trained to do so? [Gae Lyn Henderson] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory Date: 11 Mar 2003 22:06:18 -0800 [MOD: I'm going to allow this post through, but have to reluctantly point out that theoretical physics per se is not actually on-topic for AML-List. If any of want to make further comments that reconnect this to Mormon letters, feel free to do so; however, if not, we need to set the physics part aside.] Yes, but now with the vaguerities of particle physics and some of the implications of string theory, the acceptable probability of multiple realities is scientifically accepted. So even scientists are having to face a breakdown between a clearly definable objective and subjective reality. "Psychological structures" and "physical structures" are getting blurry in the world of modern science. This is why you are seeing so many physicists publishing highly philosophical (even religious) meditations on their science. Ultimately, science and religion will confront the same difficulties, as there is no real division between them. Hmmmmm..... And then you bring up a fascinating point: thinking about reality changes it? Yes indeed! Jon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory Date: 17 Mar 2003 11:21:18 -0700 I'll do my best to keep the below related to literature and not descend into a philosophical tangent which I'm sure would bore most here. However some philosophical introduction is necessary to get to the literary ties. So feel free to skip this if the thought of metaphysics and epistemology bores you. ___ Michael ___ | The scriptures say that truth is knowledge of things as | they were, as they are, and as they will be. This is a | clear endorsement of the objective reality model of truth, | along the lines of Ayn Rand, who erred mainly in denying | the objective existence of the spiritual realm. ___ First off Ayn Rand made *many* errors. I can see people agreeing with her politically. But as a philosopher. . . Well she really wasn't much of one and no one takes her seriously. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "objective reality model" but given your reference to Rand. Rand takes the somewhat extreme position that not only can we know things about reality but that our reason alone is sufficient to know all reality. (Even most hard core realists suggest a strong intrinsic fallibilism in our knowledge that Rand denies) Her "objectivity" also rejects anything other than "reason" as a way to know. (i.e. feelings, direct apprehension, and so forth) Please recognize that almost all philosophers believe in "objectivity." (i.e. a reality that exists independent of our thinking of it) Even the most radical idealists, such as Berkeley, still ended up with something similar due to the nature of God. So in many ways Rand is chasing a red herring. Only the most radical skeptic or sophist would disagree with her general aim. Anyway, enough Rand. On to the scripture. The typical way of discussing truth and reality is known as "representation" or "corresponsdence." i.e. we say things that represent an external reality and our "thoughts" or "words" correspond to those external things. If our thoughts correspond then the content of the thoughts are true. If they don't then they are false. Because of this most define knowledge as justified, true belief. (i.e. you believe X, you have some justification - perhaps reason - for believing X, and X is true.) Now lets look at D&C 93. If doesn't say that we know truths. Rather it reverses this and says truth is knowledge. So in terms of literature we have the inversion of how most (including Rand) discuss things. Of course if the scriptures fit into the context Joseph asserted, we should be surprised that such revelations don't fit the "modern" way of discussing things. What does it suggest? Well there was a philosophical movement called neoPlatonism which did discuss things in many similar ways. It influenced a lot of different movements. Indeed the general approach to knowledge could be seen in neoPlatonism, hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Jewish Mysticism. It was a general approach that was behind a lot of masonry and the so called hermetic-movement that survived passed the Renaissance. Some, such as Michael Quinn in _Mormonism and the Magic World View_, have suggested it influence Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I think that rather overstated, but there are some interesting parallels. In these various movements you have a direct apprehension of "truth." These truths are eternal platonic forms or ideas. All matter arises out of these underlying 'things.' It isn't knowing the way we typically think of it, since it isn't thinking or representation. Rather there is a direct connection to these truths. (It is very hard to wrap our modern mind around, but it was a very popular way of thinking in late antiquity) Truth then, is this connection between the knower and the known in the act of knowing. It is a direct apprehension or connection. This general rhetorical approach can be seen in other surrounding texts, such as how God can be in and through all things. Now I *personally* think that pushing this rhetoric too far is dangerous. There are many, many kinds of neoPlatonism. One of the more interesting to Mormons was that of Bruno who was a major influence behind masonry and developed a materialistic form of neoPlatonism. (Quinn mentions this in passing, but without mentioning the name or his relationship) Bruno's ideas were very significant as a kind of proto-science and his approach probably significantly affected Spinoza and Leibniz. Most of his ideas arose out of reading Kabbalistic and hermetic texts. My point is, however, that if we discuss truth in this manner, we must be careful. After all it isn't truth in 'objectivity' of the sense we typically discuss. Certainly it isn't reconcilable to Ayn Rand. Indeed Ayn Rand is actively working in the opposite direction - she outright rejects what might be termed the 'mystic approach' to knowing. Yet if we read D&C 88 and 93 literally that is the approach they suggest. I don't think we should read them literally, btw - or at least ought to read them with caution. Once we must point out that there was a lot of diversity in this general "neoPlatonic" movement. So hopefully no one goes out and assumes too much. In my mind a lot of neoPlatonism is very incompatible with Mormonism. Even Bruno, who is very interesting, was not Christian and many of his ideas are opposed to our fundamental beliefs. ___ Michael ___ | As Mormons, this verse seems to require us to adopt the | objectiveness of reality, so the source of any fuzziness | we find in truth can only come from indivual perceptions | of imperfect mortals. ___ Actually I'd say the verse, if read literally, suggests that "objective reality" is in fact the result of individual intelligences knowing. Thus it reduces the objective to the subjective. Truth, normally considered the 'objective' is in fact defined not as correspondence to things, but as "know-ing" things. That is a rather radical transformation, as I suggested. It has some echoes. I mentioned Leibniz. If you are interested Leibniz had a "relational" view of physics opposed to the "objective" view of Newton. This approach of Leibniz was only fully achieved by Einstein in general relativity. (Quantum Mechanics actually adopts a more Newtonian approach) ___ Michael ___ | If perfect knowledge results in identical opinions and | perceptions, that sounds like a pretty boring existence. ___ Technically the scriptures don't say that. That arises out of a mixing of views of knowledge. A western 'representational' approach and a more near-eastern 'direct apprehension' or near-mysticism. When you interpret the texts of one in terms of the other problems arise. (I had a similar discussion on this phenomena elsewhere relative to omniscience and omnipotence) Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Date: 17 Mar 2003 12:43:31 -0700 Melissa Proffitt wrote: > Spoiler space.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, YEAH. How on earth could the destruction of the planet be a surprise? I agree--how could it be a surprise the way Card set it up? But I still maintain that Card _intended_ it as a surprise by the way he handled it. Whether that or "the games are real" was supposed to be the bigger surprise could be debated, but it still looks to me like he wanted the planet-busting to be a surprise. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 17:01:01 -0600 At 11:01 PM 3/12/03 -0700, Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: >That wasn't the best, though. The best was the interview one reporter had >with the woman who spotted Mitchell walking down the street, remembered >seeing him on America's Most Wanted, and pulled out her cell phone. The >reporter pointed out that there was a two hundred and fifty thousand >dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the >kidnapper. Was she aware of that reward? What was she hoping to do with >it? The woman who had called in (who quite properly was referred to as 'a >hero' by several talking heads) looked at this reporter like she was >something she'd just gotten on her shoe, and said, quietly, but with real >dignity, 'a fifteen year old girl has been restored to her family. The >money doesn't matter.' [Agreed!] >So, okay, it's a miracle. How? Where do we see the hand of God here? > >I have a nine year old daughter, same age as Mary Catherine Smart. I love >her with all my heart. But she's nine. Miss Short Attention Span >Theatre. And yet, somehow, six months after the event, Mary Catherine >Smart was able to properly and accurately identify a photograph of >a man she had seen only once before in her life, six months earlier, a man >who had been working on the roof of her home. Don't tell me God is not a >God of miracles. [Hopefully not too far off-topic.] As some people have asked, though, where was that God of miracles in the days following the abduction when Elizabeth was "camping out" in the hills above her home and the searchers came close enough for her to hear them calling her name? [Also, the above is not necessarily my question, but it is a question many have been asking.] -- Ronn! :) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kathy and Jerry Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 17 Mar 2003 16:35:39 -0800 A lot of us were afraid this sort of thing would happen. So one person who is "uncomfortable" with something can make such a sweeping decision? Or does this go on all the time anyway and may have nothing to do with the moral or otherwise content of a book and could simply be someone who doesn't like a certain author or subject and wants to supress it? I really like and respect Sheri Dew. I read with interest her explanation of this policy in an interview in the Jan/Feb issue of LDS Living magazine. She reiterated that they would carry books that dealt with issues of good and evil, as long as evil was not made to seem good. How does the description of the afore mentioned banned book not meet this criteria? What will she say to explain this I wonder? Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 17:33:00 -0700 I don't like the idea of censorship of things that might potentially offend, unless they are at the level of personal attack, but I do really appreciate AML-List's maintaining its focus on literary things. Otherwise it would probably just turn into an all-purpose Mormon list. I personally don't want to read a lot of off-topic stuff on this list--I have to delete enough literature-related stuff as it is because it doesn't interest me or I don't have time for it. I've heard of something called flame wars and how they have destroyed other lists, and I'm glad that AML-List has stayed pretty civil. I think overall the list manages to be pretty provocative without getting into personal attacks. I wouldn't want to have to be in the position to judge, and I think we need to be kind and appreciative regarding our moderator or we might find ourselves becoming a completely open forum that gets overrun with off-topic stuff and personal attacks. Or maybe the AML board would shut down the list before it allowed it to be unmoderated, so let's not make the moderator job too difficult or thankless. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 16:32:11 -0800 You got that right. It's pure hubris I don't know how many "testimony" type books I've read where folks claim some miraculous rescue, and credit God with the rescue, without ever mentioning the ones who weren't rescued. Was God mad at them? I don't doubt that miraculous interventions do happen from time to time, but it's better not to claim them, in my opinion. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com > -----Original Message----- > I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming > it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying > about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't > answered the prayers of those parents? > > Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Knudsen family Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 17 Mar 2003 17:49:29 -0700 Oh, I hate, abhor, find disgusting, these types of models. My 22 year-old son, returned missionary, came home yesterday from his Single's Ward. He was livid. He said that the Sunday School teacher, apparently a wife of one of the Bishopric, talked about how men and women are so different, how men are so insensitive, have only one thing in mind (and it wasn't food), and how they will do just about anything to manipulate a woman to get what they want. She said this is usually by doing something the man thinks the woman wants. She also talked about how socially and emotionally inept men are and how women need to learn how to manipulate men to get what they want! All of this in Sunday School class - aren't we supposed to be studying the New Testament in SS? I'm finishing up my thesis right now, looking at LDS women within the culture and their relationships with their children. As I've studied women's roles within the LDS culture I've discovered that there is this tendency to almost dumb down men as in - "well, men need the Priesthood because they wouldn't be nurturers without it," "men have to have the control in the church to be forced to be leaders, women automatically know these things," "men, can't count on them for anything, don't ask one to be in charge of a ward party, we'll all be out baling hay rather than doing anything civilized," etc. It's men and women who are saying these things. What are we saying about ourselves, our spouses, our brothers and sisters, our culture, and what are we saying to others, when we make statements such as this? Can't both sexes be strong, be independent, be emotional, be appreciated? Why do we always have to put down one sex to make the other look good? Why does one have to look bad, weak, stupid in order for the other to look strong, good, smart? In writing this type of stuff in novels, LDS literature, often/usually purchased and read by women, are we using models from our culture for these positions or are we modeling our culture after these characters? OK, I could go on and on. I'm worried though by what is being portrayed and what is being lived. Are they the same? Should they be the same? What does this say about our culture? Whew, Ronda W. Knudsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Date: 17 Mar 2003 15:54:50 -0700 D. Michael wrote: ? But aren't racism and self-righteousness two sides of the same coin? No, they're the same face. They're both label we use to express our own fears of inadequicy. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Read Your Own Posts Date: 18 Mar 2003 20:28:19 -0600 Folks, Just a quick comment here. Because of my method of inserting moderator notes at the beginning of some posts, it's important that you LOOK AT YOUR OWN POSTS when they come out over the list, just to make sure I didn't include something you may need to know as part of the general discussion. Sorry I can't inform you all individually when this takes place, but that just gets too time-consuming. So please, just glance at least at the top of the post to see if there's one of those sneaky little "[MOD: __]" messages there. Thanks! Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 17:50:03 -0700 [MOD: I'd like to take the opportunity to point out here one of the limitations of the electronic medium. Eric made a comment which Jared interpreted as sarcastic, or at least ironic. Eric now informs us that he meant this seriously, and not ironically at all (and I have no reason to doubt his statement). Others commenting on this post have made comments interpreting Eric's original comment both ways. This underscores, for me, the fact that (a) Nothing is so clearly written that it cannot be misunderstood; (b) We need to be cautious in our attributions of motivations to people to whom we are responding--it's better to ask, "Did you mean to suggest __?" than to assume that we know; (c) We need to not take offense when we are misinterpreted; (d) Irony and sarcasm, in particular, are very tricky to try to convey in an electronic medium, and once their presence is suspected, communication becomes all that much more difficult. Probably there are other messages that could be tacked on too, but these are the major ones. So please, let's all remember to meet each other more than halfway in our interpretations and reinterpretations and responses and all that...keeping in mind that the goal is true communication, and that communication requires effort.] Jared, Uh, what are you talking about? >I find it interesting that you're criticizing the media for covering = the=20 >early stages of the Elizabeth Smart story by their piecing together=20 >tidbits of info as they came I found the media coverage utterly addictive. I couldn't get enough of it. = I thought that the different local news stations, even that early on, = took very different approaches to how they handled the story. I was just = pointing that out. I also thought they did a terrific job, with little = information, piecing together a difficult and complicated story, and that = they mostly got it right. And I also thought, and said this in my post, = that TV gets a bad rap way too much of the time. Times like these, TV = creates a wonderful sense of community, which I really appreciated. And I = said all that. Clearly. >I have to take issue with playing the racial/social class card with an=20 >incident like this. I do agree that racial bias does still exist in = the=20 >media and our culture, but you're oversimplifying the Smart case by=20 >simply saying it's news only because it involved a rich white girl. Well, Ed Smart was insisting that this story wasn't being covered any = differently than any other kidnapping story. Cutting the poor guy all the = slack in the world, that just isn't true. =20 >If I worked for CNN or MSNBC and saw=20 >all these kidnapping stories, I would sort through and pick the most=20 >intriguing one that would get people's attention.=20 And, like CNN and MSNBC does, you would inevitably decide that the most = intriguing stories are those involving attractive upper class white = children. That's just reality. I mean, obviously what made this a = compelling story last Tuesday was the fact that Elizabeth Smart survived, = at a time when essentially everyone had given her up as dead. That's a = remarkable story and obviously worth covering. But it had been a major = news story off and on for 9 months previously, which is what I was = responding to. >To make groundless speculation when it's way too early in the=20 >aftermath is not unproductive, but a disservice to a family and their=20 >teenage daughter who have just experienced a psychological hell on=20 >earth. What groundless speculation? What are you talking about? Re-reading my = post, I didn't groundlessly speculate about anything. I said she was = obviously the victim of some sort of Stockholm syndrome psychological = state that made it impossible for her to ask for help. That's all being = confirmed now. I said that there were some serious unanswered questions = about law enforcement errors. There are more such questions today. And I = really wondered about all the people who saw her in public over the last = nine months who never put it together. That still seems to me the = strangest aspect of the entire case. =20 >I'm sorry you fail to see the miracle in this case. =20 Re read my post. I said I thought it WAS a miracle. I specifically = talked about just where I saw the miraculous element in the case. =20 >Why was Elizabeth spared while other innocent=20 >children are taken from this life too soon? Does God pick and choose=20 >favorites? Maybe you have the answers, but I don't. =20 I don't either and I never said I did. I don't know why God allowed a = miracle in this case when he hadn't in others like it. I'm inclined to = treat that entire subject with genuine reverence and humility and = gratitude. >With all due respect to your lovely daughter, I don't think you can=20 >fairly base your suspicions of Mary Catherine on the mental traits of=20 >your own daughter. =20 I have no suspicions whatever regarding Mary Catherine Smart. I did not = 'pass judgment' on Mary Catherine Smart. I believe, and I said this = clearly in my last post, that I thought that the fact that Mary Catherine = was able to identify a picture of Mitchell as the kidnapper, months and = months after seeing him for just a few hours, leading directly to his = arrest and Elizabeth's rescue, is a miracle. I think that a miracle is = something outside our normal experience, for which divine intervention is = the best possible explanation. Basing my opinion on my experience with = nine year old girls, I believe that Mary Catherine's ability to identify = Mitchell under those circumstances qualifies as a bona fide miracle. This = is not in any way an attack on Mary Catherine. Could any of us pick a guy = out of a photo array who we'd only seen once, for a few hours, months = before, and then again one more time, in the dark, in a time of extreme = emotional stress? I couldn't. I think God led her to be able to do it. = That's something for which we should all be grateful. But that's not = intended in any way as an attack on Mary Catherine. I don't attack nine = year olds, nor did I do so in my last post. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 17:49:17 -0700 I don't write much anymore, but at one time I was a prolific poster. I've had lots of posts either sent back for editing or rejected. I don't mind and I honestly think that keeping the tone is a good idea. I've been a member of lots of mailing lists since *way* back in the days of Mormon-l and Morm-Ant at BYU. (Actually I believe there is a list with the name Mormon-l still around - but I'm speaking of the original one run at BYU) One thing I've noticed is that with email it is easy to not realize what your tone is. Further I recognize that some subjects always cause heated debate without much light. The biggest problem for a list is either too much mean-spirited speech or too much noise relative to information. A moderated mailing list avoids that. Having been on many unmoderated mailing lists I can assure you that this is a much better format. It is easy to not realize how others would take your words or not realize how some subthread leads the discussion. To those who want more freedom I can just say one thing: private email. I get lots of private responses to things I've said. Some supportive. Others more "flame bait." So I'd just suggest that a little moderation may seem confining, but it is definitely better than the alternatives. You really have to see the ebb and flow of lists to realize this. ___ Scott ___ | A sort of seige mentality based on the belief that one's | opinion is not being heard. Which is my personal definition | of hell: to be functionally ignored and essentially | irrelevant. ___ The other problem is an all too human inclination that others don't understand you unless they agree with you. This all too frequently leads to "discussion by bludgeoning." I've fallen prey to that too many times in the past. It isn't a successful discussion until someone cries "uncle." I've (hopefully) matured. I now realize I can say a few things and let people take it as they will. I recognize that the majority of people on this list aren't interesting in the same sorts of aspects of literature as I am. But who cares? I recognize that not everyone "thinks" the way I do. I find that a very skeptical mind that analyzes in accordance with science and logic is best. Others prefer feeling. Others just disagree with me when we are analyzing. There's room enough for everyone. I heartedly encourage those mislead and wrong people to post. Having said that though I think we have to realize that *convincing* others tends to be secondary in a list. Make your case and then don't worry about recognizing how your case went. The responsibility is on the reader at a certain point. Not you. And if the moderator decides not to pass it through - so what? So someone may not have learned what you wanted to say. Probably they wouldn't have agree with you anyway. . . [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 18:15:58 -0700 I have to agree with Richard Dutcher when he says that censorship is destructive and unnecessary. (This does not mean I don't appreciate the hard word that Jonathan has been and is doing to keep the list within the guidelines.) But it certainly is worth asking why we have these guidelines. The AML as an organization has tried to steer very clear of anything that might be construed as criticism of the church or of the church leaders. Therefore the list is also moderated to achieve that kind of careful discussion. I worked for BYU for 10 years and experienced the same kind of censorship. I didn't realize how careful I had to be about what I said until I left. The fact that it is considered apostasy to criticize the church or its leaders is an interesting thing. Normally one doesn't get excommunicated for just saying things to their friends and neighbors. But if one published criticism of the church then one could get excommunicated. So on the list we are publishing, aren't we? I think the AML mission should be separate from the mission of the church. I think that the AML should encourage artistic expression that is HONEST. A particular artist might be full of testimony and faith or a particular artist might be full of doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be disallusioned and disbelieving. All these are expressions of what it means to be part of the Mormon culture. And I believe it is absolutely necessary for people and artists in the Mormon culture to have an avenue for honest self-expression, simply for reasons of mental health and to allow personal growth. IMHO, a culture that cannot be criticized is NOT a healthy culture and I don't think that spirituality can flourish in an arena of silence and censorship. Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 17 Mar 2003 18:08:18 -0700 ___ William ___ | I've been thinking a lot about LDS scripture, political discourse | and expression in the U.S., and building community. The conclusion | I've come to is that there are certain issues that are so divisive | that it would be better if Mormons discuss them using strictly | 'secular' arguments. ___ While I can certainly understand this relative to the list, I hope you don't mean that in general. I say that because it seems like Mormon scripture, especially the Book of Mormon, has so much to say on the subject. Further I think that LDS, while certainly adopting ones culture's politics, also adopts a uniquely Mormon perspective. Take, for instance the issue of wealth. Who can't read King Benjamin's comments and then wonder how to handle the homeless? It is a difficult issue and somewhat paradoxical. When hearing the national media criticize the Smarts for bringing home a homeless man to do work, I sincerely wonder if he wasn't trying to follow Benjamin's admonition. I recognize that, given what has appeared the past decade, picking up hitchhikers, hiring the mentally ill and often homeless, and so forth, are dubious decisions. But doesn't that mean we are relegating them off in neglect - something condemned by the Book of Mormon? I hear the debate on this when we study Mosiah and find myself fascinated by the debate. All people on all sides are sincere. I further honestly think that all sides are trying to inform their decisions via readings of the scriptures. Certainly the cultural background they bring to the scriptures inform their readings. But both liberals and conservative Mormons seem to place the scriptures first. Even with respect to war the issues are fascinating to me. Not because of what the people are arguing *for*. Rather it is *how* they argue. Harlow's discussion of literature was fascinating to me because of how different a view he has relative to my own. To me the Book of Mormon teaches not that we shouldn't fight but how we ought to fight and the dangers we encounter when fighting. What is especially interesting to me is how few easy answers there are. Take Teancum, the infamous general/assassin with the javelin. Was he a good guy or a bad guy? What about Moroni? Did he do everything *right* as general? Of course not. He made hasty decisions about his own government and then more or less engaged in an attempted coup and civil war - until he discovered his error. This is what I love about the Book of Mormon. How complex the scenarios actually are! The fact is that most controversial topics are controversial because there is no clear cut answer. Afterall, there isn't a whole lot of debate over whether murder is good. But there is about invading Iraq or dealing with the homeless because cases can be made on both sides. They are passionate to the degree we feel them important. And they are, for a Mormon, typically important because of our religious commitments. Having said all that, I recognize the danger of discussing politics. But then lets be honest. There is a great danger in discussing religion for the same reasons. There is a reason why most people say politics or religion are dangerous discussion topics. As for how to deal with them here, I think our moderator has done a good job. Perhaps he errs on caution a few times. But by and large I think he does try to keep the topics on literature and not to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of particular political positions. Perhaps we, as authors, ought to keep that in mind. Even in Harlow's post (which I enjoyed) I found lots of political assumptions that most might now accept. If there is something to keep in mind, it is to read our posts as if we were someone we disagreed with. A valuable step in reaching understanding and also in persuading others. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 17 Mar 2003 18:31:56 -0700 Richard Dutcher asked: Has the Mormon male been neutered? \ Probably because men have the priesthood they are irrevocably linked to hierarchy and the power structure. The women escape that to some degree and can therefore be curious, quirky and interesting. However, how often do the women become "converted" over to blandness by the end of the book? I'm thinking of _Testaments_ where an exciting woman becomes an appropriate woman. In Margaret Young's _Salvador_, the protagonest Julie escapes the domineering apostates but plans to go back to Utah and become a Mother. Or, another theory might be that men are biologically programmed to "spread their seed around" and women are programmed to create a nest and settle down. If, and I say if, that is true, then religion is in some ways always the domain of woman, despite the priesthood, because it protects her interests. Therefore, the males in Mormon culture are neutered in a way because they have to succumb to a system that is not to their biological advantage. Joseph Smith tried to fix this problem but of course we latter-day mormons are not nearly as sexually liberated as he was. Not to say that I think polygamy was fair for women, far from it. But some of the women in Joseph's time had more than one husband--they had their first and regular husband, and then they (under prophetic instruction) had Joseph. Of course if in the story the woman is spiritually strong and the man is weak, then it is playing into the gender stereotyping that has been around for ages--that woman are somehow more pure and that poor weak males can't help themselves because their sex drives are so much stronger. [Gae Lyn Henderson] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Date: 17 Mar 2003 20:57:34 -0500 A couple weeks ago my daughter was home with four of her friends from college. (They were eating lunch at our house before heading back to school after their stake's conference, the stake center of which is located about 20 minutes from my house, but almost 2 hours from their campus.) One is a recent convert--about six weeks. One a young man, 18-19ish. A couple of young ladies, probably 24ish, and my 19 yr-old daughter. It was interesting when the subject of Single's Ward came up. They have all seen it several times, and were a little surprised to hear I had heard some negative comments. Here are a few of the thoughts expressed by them. (Quotes are approximates.) I said that there had been some objections to Cammie. They said "Well, I know. I just couldn't believe her clothes. I mean, sleeveless and everything." I mentioned the comedy scene. Val, my daughter, said, "I was laughing at the jokes and thinking they were really funny. Then she got all hyper about it. I felt really sorry for her." The young man's main comment had to do with, I believe, the cameos. "I was watching and thinking, do they really expect me to laugh at that." But the consensus was, they all love it. They are very forgiving of the flaws that, if brought to their attention, they acknowledged, but in their own minds were willing to gloss over. The oldest student said, "It's us. And it doesn't make a mockery of anything sacred." That seemed to be the most important thing to them. They didn't feel that it made a mockery of their religion. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:19:34 -0500 I suppose on at least one level Eric's original post was outside list guidelines. Politics are off-topic unless there is a strong literary tie-in. Yet, voice in Mormon culture is, I think, a concern of those involved in its literature, especially in light of Deseret Book's new policies. It does matter who has a voice, and also who thinks they have a voice, or what they think they are able to voice. I believe it was Jacob who expressed that everyone should feel free to speak their mind, that he does, that there is a place for that in the culture. But I have personally been on the receiving end of some minorly uncomfortable behavior because of some of my views. I know of others who have had much more intense experiences. I feel that I must choose my fights, so to speak. Choose what it is that I will speak up about, and what I'll let slide by in the interest of time, or having opened my mouth too much recently, or some other moderating factor. BTW, I am not one of the list *powers*, (and, yes, Eric, I think you are one.) but I have posted many times, and had things sent back to me several times, only one of which I was fairly unhappy about. I appreciate all of Jonathan's work. And, while I agree with Richard D. about freedom of expression to an extent, I know from experience that it is far to easy to say something in the heat of the moment that can cause someone else a lot of pain that probably wasn't necessary. And sometime thoughts don't come across on email the way we intend them to. The writer knows what he is saying, but the inflection doesn't come across to the reader. I'm also very happy to know I can read an AML post without worrying about getting singed by a flamewar that I didn't even know was in progress. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:43:48 -0600 [MOD: See? I said that different list members interpreted this differently...] >From: Jared Walters >Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart >Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:05:54 -0800 >I'm sorry you fail to see the miracle in this case. Just how exactly do >you define a miracle or what is the criteria that qualifies God's >involvement in an incident? >With all due respect to your lovely daughter, I don't think you can >fairly base your suspicions of Mary Catherine on the mental traits of >your own daughter. Oh. I thought the point of Eric's post was to point out that it WAS a miracle that Mary Catherine was able to identify a man whom she'd seen in the dark while pretending to be asleep when she'd only seen him once before, during a 4-hour period when he was working on the roof. And to connect this months after the kidnapping. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 17 Mar 2003 20:46:31 -0700 Richard Dutcher wrote: "...I simply call it the "Woman/boy" model. In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are Women. These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no matter how old they are. The Women drive the stories. The boys follow after them. In fact, in order to get the Woman, the boy often takes whatever course and makes whatever decision is demanded of him by the Woman. Although I'm only at page 85 in The Dinner Club...the Woman clearly emerges as the more powerful personality. The boy, who now has the body of a man, waits subserviently for the Woman to make her decision. I'm not even 1/3 of the way through the novel, so the pattern may fall apart, but I doubt our male hero will turn into John Wayne in the next 200 pages." Richard, I haven't read enough male written LDS fiction to judge if the trend you sense holds true, but I have read THE DINNER CLUB (Curtis Taylor) and I have to tell you that the main male character, Chris, does indeed turn into a sort of John Wayne...if by that definition you mean a hero. He becomes more in touch with himself, his in-laws, his children. His wife turns out to be the unstable one. The question "can they keep it together?" or even "should they?" is the one the book explores. I really liked him by the end of the book, but I agree during the first third or so the author is setting the background. He's pretty self-absorbed (immature boy) and it's interfering with his interpersonal relationships. You could say the book is a coming-of-age story, one that explores if growing up too late causes irreparable harm to a relationship. The entire time I was reading it I kept thinking it would make a good movie. It's got a real cinematic feeling to it--I really like the scene where he loses the Mercedes Benz off his truck. You raise an interesting question about Woman/boy relationships, though. That type of relationship was certainly the case in John Bennion's FALLING TOWARD HEAVEN. So I sit here wondering if it's because men who write are more sensitive than the ordinary macho male, and maybe they are more interested in exploring the tender places of the male psyche--what keeps men stunted emotionally or why Johnny can't talk about his feelings. Perhaps male writers, being the logic driven and problem-solving half of the human race, try too hard to profile the reading public, which all the experts "say" is mostly female. Perhaps they sculpt their characters into what they think women want to see; to market to an audience instead of giving voice to a truth they feel inside. (I have a hard time believing that's the case with Bennion's work though.) Come to think about it, another interesting thing to note is that those novels written by men that do have a strong male presence are generally told from the point of view of a teenager or young boy. Is there something about the clearness of vision of the young that allows a male writer to cut through the haze of machismo to stab at the guts of how people are? I think of all the adjectives you used to describe Women: "interesting, quirky, intelligent, beautiful...confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive". Most of those could apply to Edgar Mint of Brady Udall's creation, but when we meet him he's literally a boy. We'd have to leave out beautiful (if you mean physically), confident and mature...at least until the end of the book. But the magic of THE MIRACLE LIFE OF EDGAR MINT is experiencing life with this interesting, quirky, intelligent, spiritually sensitive boy until he finds his confidence and maturity. I had a hard time remembering in the book that he has sustained physical deformity to the head--the beauty of his spirit translated to beauty of physical self for me. By the end of the novel I envisioned him like Eric Schweig playing the silent and gorgeous Uncas in the 1992 version of LAST OF THE MOHICANS. So how about it--can anyone come up with a male written LDS novel that has a strong Man/Woman relationship from the get go? Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature, Apology, Censorship, etc. Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:01:04 -0700 Richard, Sorry. The connection was not intentional. What I meant to say was that most politician have to look righteous, so they act self righteous. Even sinners for politicians (think of a former president) strive to be film at church with their pious looks, etc. Like you, I believe in the first three, and am not self righteous (take my work for it), but I also hate certain groups, although not individuals. I specifically hate groups that label my politics as unfeeling, preposterous, and ...you get my point. I'm so self-censored on this list that I often offend the people I agree with so as not to offend those that offend me. And I sense deep-down that I should be offended by Harlow, but I'm not sure what he is saying, so I let it ride. I've probably offended Dutcher beyond repair and its cold here in debtors prison. Alan Mitchell ----- Original Message ----- > > I'm sorry, but I don't think I am self righteous at all (of course I am not > a Utah legislator). As I said before we perceive things within our own > paradigm but I, personally agree strongly with the first three of the four > points noted below. It is, of course, possible to conclude that anyone who > feels strongly about the first three points MUST fall into the category > identifies in the fourth. It would be a mistake. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 17 Mar 2003 23:00:28 EST In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:26:57 PM Mountain Standard Time, RichardDutcher@aol.com writes: << I'm only at page 85 in The Dinner Club. I'm not even 1/3 of the way through the novel, so the pattern may fall apart, but I doubt our male hero will turn into John Wayne in the next 200 pages. >> I finished The Dinner Club yesterday. The male character becomes more proactive than I had expected, but the female character still emerges as (by far) the more interesting character. I'm suprised that Curtis didn't write the story from the woman's point of view. Or from an omniscient point of view. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:14:52 -0700 Scott Parkin wrote: "...if I can't condemn my brother for his evil heart in trying to hurt me, how do I transfer my pain?" I know this is completely off the subject of this thread, but I just had to whoop and holler and thank Scott Parkin LOUDLY for putting the theme of my novel into such a succinct sentence. I've struggled to summarize what it is exactly I want to tell with my story, and there it was in black and white. Epiphany for me. Thank you, Scott. Your attempt to understand your personal pain cracked open my writer's block. I've printed it out and pasted it to my monitor. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "" Subject: [AML] Re: Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:25:45 -0700 I haven't read this particular book (Chasing Paradise) yet, but if it's comparable to the author's "Emma" trilogy, I am surprised that anyone would be so offended by it. Moreover, I am stunned that DB would subsequently remove it from their shelves. It makes sense for them to remove sexually explicit material and so forth, but there is no way that they can or should remove every little thing that might offend a few people. What is this, a witch hunt? What is it about Deseret Book and LDS literature that makes readers think they should never encounter *anything* that hits them wrong? People overlook all kinds of things in national market books. I still support the idea of DB being able to remove inappropriate material from their shelves, but I really feel like this is ridiculous. The following is a message from Chad Daybell to the LDSFictionReaders list regarding his book that has been pulled by Deseret Book. There is also a message from a reader to MeridianMagazine.com. I'm forwarding both with Chad's permission. Katie Parker > Dear LDS Fiction Readers, > > Hi, this is from Chad Daybell. My wife Tammy > recently sent out an e- > mail asking for reviews for my new novel "Chasing > Paradise." Thank > you to those who responded, but we got word this > afternoon that > Deseret Book will not be carrying "Chasing Paradise" > or even make it > available on their website. > > The strange thing is they still haven't given a real > reason. The > problem all stems from one Deseret Book buyer who > felt "uncomfortable" about the scene where an angel > dropkicks the > wicked spirit Ruby through the wall. > > Apparently that buyer's word is the law, and > "Chasing Paradise" is > history at Deseret Book. It really hasn't sunk in > yet. I'm more > baffled than anything. > > One reader was pretty upset when she heard the book > had been banned > and sent a letter to the editor of > MeridianMagazine.com this > afternoon. Then she forwarded me a copy. We'll see > if they put her > letter on the website, but I'll pass along her > comments, because I > think she hits the nail on the head. Feel free to > pass this along to > your friends. > Thanks again for your support! > > Chad Daybell > > Here's the letter: > > Dear Editor: > Did you know Deseret Book has banned another LDS > novel? It > is "Chasing Paradise" by Chad Daybell. This makes me > frustrated, > because I recently read the book and loved it. I've > read all his > books and they each give a powerful message. > > "Chasing Paradise" takes place both on earth and in > the Spirit World. > The novel promotes family history work, reactivation > in the church, > temple marriage, and doesn't contain a single swear > word or sensual > scene. It left me highly motivated to do some > genealogy work of my > own. Many readers have even raved it's one of the > best LDS novels > they've read in a long time, and that the story > occupies their > thoughts for days afterward. > > But that's not good enough, according to Deseret > Book. There's a > scene where an angel dropkicks an evil spirit out of > a room during a > missionary discussion. Deseret Book considered that > "irreverent" and > is afraid it might offend some people. Apparently > minor comic > violence among spirits is now off-limits at Deseret > Book. > > The ironic thing is Deseret Book has sold thousands > of copies of > Daybell's books the past two years. His Tiny Talks > series for > children is flying off the shelves, and my children > love them. If > you've got kids that go to Primary, chances are > they've seen one of > Daybell's books. > > So what is Deseret Book up to? Despite the highly > publicized image > makeover and all the criticism the company has > faced, it appears that > not much has changed inside corporate headquarters. > An editor > notified Daybell's publisher, Cedar Fort, Inc., on > Monday that they > were "uncomfortable" about "Chasing Paradise." The > book had been > scheduled to be advertised in the upcoming Deseret > Book Club mailer, > but the editor pulled the ad, and she said the store > won't be > stocking any copies on store shelves. > > I'm sure the Mormon book-buying public can > understand. I mean, > Deseret Book needs the shelf space for all those > "Harry Potter" books > and the sex-filled New York Times bestsellers. So > while those books > are available at Deseret Book stores, "Chasing > Paradise" has been > removed from all the store shelves and from > DeseretBook.com. > > But don't despair. Seagull Book has had "Chasing > Paradise" on its > shelves since mid-February, and the book has sold > well there. Daybell > has had book signings at several Seagull locations > all along the > Wasatch Front the past few weeks, and so far no one > has reported > leaving the church over the book. > > Despite being banned by Deseret Book, Daybell has no > reason to hang > his head. Who wouldn't mind joining the ranks of > Richard Paul Evans > and Anita Stansfield? > > So what's the moral of this story? I think it's > clear. If you're > looking for "a place to come home to," maybe Deseret > Book isn't the > place after all. I think I'll cozy up to any LDS > bookstore except > Deseret Book. > > Sincerely, > > Carrie Korth of Ladera Ranch, California > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Fear and Loathing on the Mormon Trail (was: Michael WILCOX, _Who Shall Be Able To Stand?_, Review) Date: 17 Mar 2003 20:46:18 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" > > Hunter Thompson as a prophet! What a concept! > > I had read some of his books, and was a bit surprised when I saw him on TV > not long ago. He has aged so much! I suppose his lifestyle leads toward > something like that. > > Now, let's have someone write "Fear and Loathing Along the Mormon Trail." > You realise, of course, that sounds like a challenge.... I can just see it now. I scrounge some money somewhere -- Canada Council grant, if I'm really lucky -- and I go back to my hometown of Yellowknife NT. I start the trip there with my 'home' 'twig' (in people, pretty small even for a branch -- in area, the largest branch in the world at about 1M sq.mi.). I work my way south, through Grande Prairie, to Edmonton, where there are 3-4 stakes and a temple, yet AFAIK the members are still an interesting mix between the Xth-generation Mormons and newcomers. Then further down highway 2 to Calgary, with 5 stakes and even more Xth-generation Mormons. Then to Cardston, where there's nothing but. Continue on through Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and California on I-15 to San Bernardino, then west on what's left of I-10 to El Lay. All the while talking to Mormons, trying to get the flavour of where they stand, spiritually, culturally, and perhaps even politically. Drinking Mountain Dew the whole trip, of course. Given that one of my favourite beverages has no caffeine in Canada, but does in the States, suggests that the narrative and its exposition would get successively weirder the farther south I got. Only about 3600 klicks, or not much more than 2000 miles. Take my time, maybe give it a month (for at least 2 days each in GP, Edm, Cgy, Cardston, Helena, Idaho Falls, Logan, SLC, Provo, St. George, Las Vegas, San Bernardino, and LA). Or take 3 months and stay a week -- long enough for a sacrament meeting or two -- in each place. Could be fun. And once again, my sigmonster comes through! Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too If there is a God, I want to thank Him for the Gideons, whoever they are. I have dealt with some of His other messengers and found them utterly useless. But not the Gideons. They have saved me many times, when nobody else could do anything but mutter about calling Security on me unless I turned out my lights and went to sleep like all the others.... - Hunter S. Thompson, Generation of Swine --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:51:23 -0600 Richard Dutcher: I don't approve of censorship in any form. . . . If one of us says something sarcastic, wrong-headed, offensive, or even vulgar....well, doesn't that always happen in the course of a good conversation? _______________ No, that doesn't always happen in the course of a good conversation. And (IMO, of course), it shouldn't. I quite appreciate the moderating influence of Jonathan, and Ben before him, who have each kept me from making a fool of myself in public. As long as it was on topic, I have never been denied the opportunity to present any point I wished. I have, however, been required to present it in a decent and respectful way. And I personally feel that conversations here have been deeper, more fulfilling, and more valuable because of it. Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Little Mermaid Date: 17 Mar 2003 11:42:21 -0700 [MOD: This is an interesting topic, but it's only marginally related to issues of Mormon letters. I'd like to see any further posts on this thread develop a stronger Mormon lit connection.] I know we've discussed the below here before, so I'll make a few comments and then leave the topic. Just for those recent list members you perhaps hadn't heard the similar discussion last year. ___ Michael ___ | I'm suggesting combatting the intense brainwashing our | society gives us that keeps us from ever viewing human | bodies as anything but sexual. | [...] | Being conditioned so that you can't even view a human | body without sexual thoughts intruding is loss of the | sacred. ___ The basic criticism I make is that it confuses the meaning something has with how we act on the meaning. Thoughts may come into my mind. What counts aren't the thoughts but how I react to them. If I see a beautiful woman there is nothing wrong with recognizing her as beautiful and desirable. However if I am in a relationship it is wrong to entertain such thoughts. What I see some doing is saying that the only way to avoid entertaining such thoughts is to eliminate the meanings that give rise to them. (i.e. if a naked breast has a sexual meaning we ought to remove its ability to create sexual thoughts) To me this is akin to saying that we can read the sentence "this is blue" without thinking of the concept blue. So I see the above two sentences as mutually incompatible. We can't say we can remove the conditioning that makes a body sexual and simultaneously say we don't want to de-sexualize it. If an entity has a meaning it has that meaning. To be able to see something as sexual entails that it has been sexualized. We can't remove that meaning. We can't simply choose not to act on the meaning when it arises in our mind. Thus to do what you wish requires changing the meanging of body parts - de-sexualizing them. Now first off I think this is doomed to failure. Too much of it is hardwired. (Not all by any means, but a lot) Secondly I feel that de-sexualizing it is to really loose the nature we are given. Yes a lot of sexuality is arbitrary and a result of social structures. A hundred years ago a bared ankle was sexual. Now it takes a bare midriff and even that is becoming de-sexualized due to over-exposure. (Forgive the pun, I mean both meanings and don't intend it to be a pun) What I see many doing, including a recent "nudist" movement among Mormons, is this "hope" that by making the body open we can remove the sexual nature. First off I don't think sexual nature is bad. The issue isn't sexuality but rather entertaining sexuality appropriately. Unlike some movements, Mormonism doesn't consider sex bad, but good. That would include, in my opinion, the sexualization of actions, body parts and environments. What Mormonism requires though is that this sexualization occur within the bounds the Lord requires. And of course the place this is fully taught is in the temple. Allow me to end by quoting a post on this very topic I'd made elsewhere. I think that this attempt at de-sexualization, while well motivated, actually ends up being removing the sacred (or at least downplaying the sacred). This post makes my point and hopefully people see the imagery of the body as a temple. ------ In traditional Judaism (along with many other religions) there were gradations of holiness. (Often three main divisions, but this was sometimes divided into many more) You can see this in our own temples. You have the temple proper, which requires a recommend to enter. You have the celestial room, which you have to enter via ritual. You have the Holy of Holies which can only be entered by the prophet and those he. (Unless of course you are privileged to vacuum there. ) I think this applies to the body as well. A good way see this is in terms of touching. Consider strangers and how they "touch" your body. You are probably willing to shake hands with strangers. Probably you are much, much more selective in letting people touch your back, legs and so forth and how they do so. You are much more selective yet in whom you allow to touch your genitals. You have a hierarchy of touch and (typically in our culture) this is done in a ritualized fashion. (Even amongst the promiscuous, there still is a highly ritualized nature to how these gradations are dealt with) What I'm suggesting is that how we apply a gradation of effective "holiness" to touch we ought to also do for sight. (Actually I think we do have a ritualized gradation of vision with respect to the body as well - something common to most cultures although they differ in how it is actualized) In a sense "holy" just means set apart. You delimit a region so that certain requirements must be met to enter that space. Of course holy has the religious connotations. But you could, for instance, see something similar in how a top secret government organization deals with space. The difference relative to holiness is that all of this has a connection to spirituality and ones relationship to deity. For Mormons (and many in the Judaic tradition) this is also tied to a covenant relationship. -------- I believe that the movements to de-sexualize (or "remove stigma") is the lack of recognition that there are sacred areas of vision as well as touch. We tend to recognize touch as intrinsically tied to the sexual, but hopefully we recognize why sight is as well. (In men especially, the visual parts of the brain are tied to sexual parts of the brain -- this is something hardwired to a limited degree) We recognize that promiscuity is the breaking of these boundaries of sacredness that we tie to religious requirements, rites and sanctity. However we also should remember that in our religion that sight is also treated in terms of sanctity. This is why pornography is wrong. This is partially why "lusting after a woman" is wrong, even if "touch" never takes place. Obviously I could go off on some of these tangents. But hopefully you can see the point I'm getting at. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 19 Mar 2003 11:03:48 -0700 SMTPSVC; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:52:30 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [128.187.0.167] References: <192.174148b1.2ba511d5@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2003 04:52:30.0934 (UTC) FILETIME=3D[2EBC3F60:01C2ED0A] Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our=20 > males. The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They = > are Women. > > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially=20 > awkward, spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak.=20 > They are boys, no > matter how old they are. > > The Women drive the stories. The boys follow after them. In fact, in=20 > order to > get the Woman, the boy often takes whatever course and makes whatever=20 > decision is demanded of him by the Woman. >> Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in = >> our > personal relationships? Richard, I don't think that this problem is simply in Mormon culture. It = has unfortunately become a cultural phenomenon in our society. I don't watch much TV, but whenever I do I see at least one commercial with the poor, ignorant man being saved by the smart, strong Woman. The man who uses = the wrong garbage bag, the man who doesn't know what to pack for lunch, etc. = The thing that is so sad about these commercials is that if they were = reversed, everyone would be in an uproar. Since we can't have wilting flowers = anymore, we just have wimpy men. > Has the Mormon male been neutered? > > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? > > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons reveal about=20 > their attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy? My husband and I were just talking about this yesterday, after some = comments by our bishop made us both cringe. We wonder why so many men in the = church seem to give back-handed compliments to women about how "spiritually stronger" they are and how "behind every good man is a better women". Is this just false humility? We both feel that it is condescending on the = part of men, because basically what they are saying is that "I am in a = position to judge, so now I am assigning you attributes." Anyway, I think that = that is a different thread. I guess my main point is that the trend you = noticed is a general cultural phenomenon, and it is becoming weirdly = appropriated into Mormon culture. Mormon men want to placate the feminazis, but they = are scared to go too far in doing so. Instead we just end up with more = confusion and less equality than before. I'd rather have a man who meets me at my level, rather than wanting me to rescue him, or having him expect to = rescue me. Jessie Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Framing in Art Date: 17 Mar 2003 18:26:30 -0700 ___ Jacob ___ | Some art is framed by things we actually call frames. They are | literally framed--paintings for example. Most things we consider | art have no component that is a "frame", but have obvious frames | that we can explore metaphorically. ___ I've not said much on this topic, but I agree 100% with you. Allow me to bring up a few points I'd written last year to a film discussion. I think they apply and show how the "frame" is both metaphoric but also very literal relative to *all* works of art. Before getting to those comments, let me direct your mind to the very word frame. Indeed by discussing that, I'm framing the conversation by putting a loose boundary over what is "in" the discussion and what is "outside" the discussion. What is the function of the frame? This border between the "inside" and the "outside" of a particular artistic production. ___ | I think the way we frame these ideas will ultimately lead to the way | we frame our world, and of course it will be reflected in film. ___ Framing is an interesting choice of words. Since to "frame" is to "cut out" a particular context, move what is framed, and then present it within an other context. Notice that when we film, the "framing" "cuts out" the work of the soundmen, stage directors, grips and so forth. When the re-presentation of a film is not framed correctly, we get events like seeing a boom-mike on the screen when it was supposed to be cut out. The framing intrinsically is a hiding of production. The framing is the attempt to hide the issue of the presentation as an "originary" performance (i.e. really being shot) verses a representation of a performance. A representation is supposed to be a perfect "reflection" of "what actually is there." The question of "reflection" is problematic. How the framing takes place (how we frame *ideas*) is through the attempt to hide how the ideas are performed, created, or brought into the film. It is the attempt to hide ideas as being ideas. The ideas must seem to be part of the film and not something created or added to events. When this isn't done well we have the intellectual equivalent of having a boom-mike show up on screen. We just happen to call this "being preachy" or some other way of describing ideas that are no longer invisible. The frame is what film uses to try and hide that film is film and not life. Yet, the frame is also what allows an exterior context to become the context. Thus the frame also allows the film to become part of life. The frame both hides the film as non-performance and allows the film to become a performance. In the above you can see that there are two levels of framing. The framing done by the production of the film and the framing done by the re-production of the film. The first is done while filming the film, the later is done while showing the film. However, I think that a little more probing can show that there was an endless series of framing going on both before and after this as well. Framing as interpretation by the audience, for instance. If in a scary movie, for instance, I am scared in a manner akin to being scared in a real event, have I not framed the film wrong internally? Or is this actually how the framing is supposed to take place? Just a few quick thoughts on context and how the Frame provides a border between the internal context and the external context. I think, relative to questions of "truth," that the framing issue is apt. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 19 Mar 2003 11:06:56 -0700 by mtaout11.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built = Feb 13 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HBX002LBFEC8W@mtaout11.icomcast.net> for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:06:21 -0500 (EST) In-reply-to: <20030315204611.99198.qmail@web21411.mail.yahoo.com> Message-id: <000101c2ed03$642275e0$27a8d10c@kimcjc> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list William Morris wrote: "...pre-occupied with meta-issues of discourse" At the risk of exposing myself as somewhat ignorant, can you explain = this to me? I looked up the prefix meta- and learned it means "occurring later = than or in succession to" or "situated behind or beyond " or even "more comprehensive : transcending", "used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with = the original one", but I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean = by "meta-issues of discourse". Paint me obtuse, but I just don't get it. Therefore, your words don't communicate anything to me. However, up = until that point, I was with you, brother. I appreciated all your comments = (the ones I could understand anyway...wink, wink, nudge right back atcha...) Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:35:38 -0800 I just want to throw my two cents into the ring and say that I think Jonathan's doing a great job, too. I got a chance to "meet" him right away because he spiked my very first serve over the net right back into my face -- KABLAMMM! Yup. My very first post got rejected by Flame-Control! It shocked me a little at first, but hey, he's a better volleyball = player than I am! I should have known it would happen, of course. When you go around using phrases like: "he's an unmitigated moron"; "this idiot is deeply, infinitesimally confused"; "he ain't got the sense that God gave a grapefruit"; and "the pitterings of this guy's post are more grating = than the babblings of a mental paraplegic," well, you're bound to offend = someone. So let me just say, THANK GOODNESS that Jonathan asked me to rethink my wordings! It kept me from making a new enemy right from the get-go, and = by golly I got to file away all those personal insults for use in my next satire. But seriously folks, yes seriously, while "grapefruit" might not have entered into it, my occasionally insolent attitude did, and frankly, I'm glad the public didn't read it. If you don't read something I said, I can't be embarrassed about it = later, can I? Now, as to Richard D's post on this subject (re: zero censorship). = Yeah... It's a hard call. If I were moderator (a job I will never accept), I personally would probably let everything go through. Hence, by actions, = I would be agreeing completely with Richard. If actions speak louder than words than that's where I am. I have to think about my words on this subject, and my words, my philosophy, not agree fully with my actions, = in this particular case, the AML List. I don't know. I have to think about this some more, and I am brewing, actually, on a fairly detailed essay about tangents of this topic which = have been playing on my mind recently. I think this boils down to "appropriateness of time and place." If everyone decided that this is a "flaming optional" forum, then okay. = But once the ground rules are there saying that this will be a moderated = forum, then there are certain people who depend on the safety of a those rules. = And those individuals should be heard in that safe environment. They should = not be subject to the occasional ferocity of tongue-lashings such as guys = like myself and the (infinitely funnier) Richard Dutcher can and do, from = time to time deliver. I've heard Scott Bronson give a wicked turn of phrase = himself, too! Obviously, people can be injured -- like who was it, I think it was = Scott Parkin was talking about. Between friends, things are said, etc. Richard = and I say things to each other that are not for public consumption from time = to time. Of course. The privacy of the one-on-one forum is certainly = different than the publicly open one. And being that this is a written forum, that affects things, too. = Sometimes verbal exchanges can correct or readjust or better explain or, you know = what I'm saying, right while it's happening, but in written text, it's all = one sided until the guy shuts up. I think some moderation is okay, and may not necessarily be "censorship" = in the grander sense. Although I do think it was a shame for the world to have missed out Richard's very funny retort to my quip about making out with his wife = before they met. (Sometimes comedy is more dangerous than rhetorical banterings = -- actually, it always is!) So, does moderation make us loose out on some of the comedy, some of the passion, some of the brilliance? Yes, certainly. The flip side is that there is a positive element to = some of that loss. So far, for example, nobody knows how insolent I can be, how obtuse I often am, how petty and scornful. So far, everybody is friendly = and polite. So far, I'm making new intellectual friends and not new enemies. That's probably good for my soul, however detrimental it is the to = freedom of my unsheathed quill. That's the price we pay and it may be a fair coin. Great art, plunging depths of thought, stretching ourselves to the = fullest extent of our beings -- all of those things are not what I would call "polite" processes. It's usually ugly, in fact. The brilliance (if there = is any at all) is usually sifted out of the ashes, after the fact. =3D Ultimately, is this not what editing is, in both film and literature. Re-writing, rehearsal? Knocking off the rough edges, forming, shaping, selecting, trimming, strengthening, etc.? Is my editor, who forces me = into the discipline of writing better, my censor? Sure, and thank goodness. = So there is, I think, a time and a place for it. Now, obviously, there must be somewhere that the initial kind of = dangerous exploration can happen, be it the stage, the classroom, private writing groups, one-on-one phone conversations, scripts by Neil LaBute, etc. But it might be okay, if this (the AML-List) is NOT that place. This can be a polite approximation of that place, and a lot of work = still gets done here, but by being moderated, this group can include a more diverse group, a greater number of fellow travelers than otherwise: = fellow travelers who would simply not show up if this were an anything-goes free-for-all. These thoughts barely scratched the surface of this topic, of course, = and I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is. But I for one and glad that, from time to time, SOMEBODY IS THERE TO = SHUT ME UP. And if I really, really, really want to say something and the likes of Jonathan won't let me... well then, by cracky, I'll say it someplace = else. You bet I will. But despite my own contentions to the contrary, this much is true: not everything I write is worth reading. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: [AML] What Is Meta-Discourse? (Resend) Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:03:48 -0700 [MOD: Folks, sorry for the occasional glitches. We're trying out a new system using the assistant moderators. So this is a resend of a post already sent, but which came through without an author or subject line.] William Morris wrote: "...pre-occupied with meta-issues of discourse" At the risk of exposing myself as somewhat ignorant, can you explain this to me? I looked up the prefix meta- and learned it means "occurring later than or in succession to" or "situated behind or beyond " or even "more comprehensive : transcending", "used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one", but I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by "meta-issues of discourse". Paint me obtuse, but I just don't get it. Therefore, your words don't communicate anything to me. However, up until that point, I was with you, brother. I appreciated all your comments (the ones I could understand anyway...wink, wink, nudge right back atcha...) Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:00:38 -0700 [MOD: Here's another resend of one that came through without subject line et al.] > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. > The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are > Women. > > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, > spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no > matter how old they are. > > The Women drive the stories. The boys follow after them. In fact, in order to > get the Woman, the boy often takes whatever course and makes whatever > decision is demanded of him by the Woman. >> Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in our > personal relationships? Richard, I don't think that this problem is simply in Mormon culture. It has unfortunately become a cultural phenomenon in our society. I don't watch much TV, but whenever I do I see at least one commercial with the poor, ignorant man being saved by the smart, strong Woman. The man who uses the wrong garbage bag, the man who doesn't know what to pack for lunch, etc. The thing that is so sad about these commercials is that if they were reversed, everyone would be in an uproar. Since we can't have wilting flowers anymore, we just have wimpy men. > Has the Mormon male been neutered? > > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? > > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons reveal about their > attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy? My husband and I were just talking about this yesterday, after some comments by our bishop made us both cringe. We wonder why so many men in the church seem to give back-handed compliments to women about how "spiritually stronger" they are and how "behind every good man is a better women". Is this just false humility? We both feel that it is condescending on the part of men, because basically what they are saying is that "I am in a position to judge, so now I am assigning you attributes." Anyway, I think that that is a different thread. I guess my main point is that the trend you noticed is a general cultural phenomenon, and it is becoming weirdly appropriated into Mormon culture. Mormon men want to placate the feminazis, but they are scared to go too far in doing so. Instead we just end up with more confusion and less equality than before. I'd rather have a man who meets me at my level, rather than wanting me to rescue him, or having him expect to rescue me. Jessie Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 18:45:55 -0700 Scott Parkin said: My friend says he had not intended to attack me, and I believe him. But whether he attacked me or not, I felt attacked. I felt injured. And that injury remains with me and now permanently colors how I interact with that friend. Which bothers me. A lot. I've let an argument over a topic that I believe has many valid responses alter how I treat a friend. Yet no matter how much I tell myself to stop feeling hurt, I can't seem to will myself to feel otherwise. And I do try. Scott, I believe that many of us have felt similarly, especially if we have taken a position that some or many people on the list strongly disagree with. I've felt upset, but tried to shake it off also. It seems to be one of the intrinsic problems that a list like this has. I suppose if I can't take the heat I have to get off the computer--and I suppose my lack of postings has from time to time reflected exactly that feeling. The time I really got upset was when I got a private message questionning my spiritual integrity and giving me apiritual advice. I thought that was extremely inappropriate and an example of the self-righteousness that LDS culture breeds (if you don't agree with me, then you must be deluded, apostate, evil). Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 23:02:58 -0500 > >I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming >it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying >about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't >answered the prayers of those parents? > >Thom You're not being crass, but you may be creating a false dichotomy. This is a question I've asked, too, especially when the WTC towers went down and that ridiculous rumor was making the rounds about how all the Mormons that worked there were late to work because they got food poisoning or forgot to set their alarms or something and thus survived. The only miracle you could take out of that actually happening, it would seem, is that so many Mormons were completely incompetent. (I'm not saying that it might not have happened to some people, or that certain people weren't miraculously saved. I'm just suggesting that the tendency to propagate these urban legends seems to speak more to our cultural sense of spiritual superiority, our inherent holier-than-thou group-Geist, rather than to our faith as a twentieth-century technologically-fascinated people.) And I asked this question a lot on my mission: why are the people I've been called to serve getting such a raw deal when, as far as I could tell, they were often far more worthy of divine rescue than I. The same sorts of questions are getting asked about the many innocent people who will probably die in the seemingly imminent violence in and around Iraq--many, apparently, just because they were born in Baghdad instead of Ogden or Minsk or Johannesburg or Hong Kong. What should we ask the Smarts (or anyone else) to do--say that God had nothing to do with their daughter being found because lots of other daughters aren't? Maybe when they claim it's a miracle from God, they're not inherently and automatically also saying that God hasn't answered the prayers of other bereaved parents. They're grateful without being superior, and I'd bet much more empathetic to other bereaved parents than any of us are. On the one hand, we (culturally, at least) often define miracles as things that are extraordinary--outcomes that aren't easily explained given our past experience with life. That we have a word for such events indicates that we consider them out of the ordinary. If they happened all the time, to everyone, we wouldn't tend to call them miracles (or would we?). On the other, the application of miracles--their apparent (by definition) rarity--seems to demonstrate a capriciousness on God's part. Why, indeed, do bad things happen to some good people, and not to other good people? Paul Celan--a remarkable poet who, though not Mormon, has certainly inspired at least one--spent his life essentially trying to answer this question: why he miraculously survived the Holocaust while his parents and family were killed. He didn't succeed universally and eternally; he drowned himself for his guilt, perhaps because he couldn't accept the miracle (wihout apparent reason) of his survival--couldn't answer for himself the question you're asking. But read his "Death Fugue." The terrible song of those verses is beauty in death and pain, speech out of silence, out of dust. A resurrection of language, if not of body--but still a miracle. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] R.M. #s & General Box Office #s Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:41:43 -0800 Darn that Preston Hunter! Jon P.S. - Can't wait to read your article. Having been on the front lines of trying to raise financing for the past couple of years, its a topic I'm both sick of and twistedly-interested in, like a 10-year-old pouring salt on a slug (or, should I say "into a wound on his own finger"!). ----- Original Message ----- > Jon, > > Thanks for clarifying for us. [snip] > I should also clarify that I did not actually write the specific report > on the R.M.'s numbers that you responded to. That was my co-webmaster, > as is the case with many of our mailings, lest anyone give me too much > credit for the amazing amount of information he is able to compile. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) Kim Madsen wrote: >I really enjoyed reading Eric's take on the media coverage surrounding >Elizabeth Smart's return. I felt all the things he expressed. I have to >add my two cents about the "live" coverage. The questions asked by >reporters were inane and embarrassing, not to mention repetitive. Do >media people not *listen* to the answers or do they consider themselves >clever lawyer-types who will trip up an interviewee with reguritated >and >restated questions? They came off like a pack of dyslexic hyenas. >Having >ever only lived in Utah, I have nothing to compare to. Is this a Utah >phenomenen or are "local" reporters like this nationwide? It's not a Utah phenomenon--it's a TV reporter phenomenon. In my experience, while print reporters may misquote you, at least they know a little bit (and sometimes a lot) about the subject they're covering. TV reporters are clueless. Actually, that's not entirely fair. Some are not clueless but still have to act clueless because their producer wants them to chase a story or an angle or ask a question that they know is dumb. But still, most of them are just clueless. And it's not just the fast pace that TV news demands either. A lot of the harriedness that TV news creates could be obviated by stopping to actually read the article that came across the wires or by doing a quick Web search. But TV reporters and producers don't really like to read, they prefer to ask dumb questions. At one time, I thought that maybe as you moved up into bigger markets, that the quality of TV news reporters and anchors improved, but the talent in the LA market is just a clueless as in Sacramento and the Bay Area. IMO, the Bay Area market has some of the best talent around, but even so, that's not saying much. And the lame thing is that newspapers are starting to produce clueless reporters as well now that they are relying less on and not developing experienced beat reporters (i.e. someone who covers a particular area or topic---city hall, K-12 education, health, etc.). ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:52:51 -0800 Jared Walters said: "I'd recommend reading a little child psychology on the effects of children's memory when witnessing traumatic events before passing judgment on Mary Catherine." I just wanted to throw in my two cents that it is very true: the brain (especially the neurologically-young brain) is particulary wired to remeber the specific details of tramatic events. This ability fades with age. In many categories, we are often inclined to assume that the adult is better suited than the child, but this is astonishing untrue in many categories of skills. The evolutionary theory for the trauma impressing itself in young memory, is that youth is when the brain is learning how to hard-wire the brain for later survival, and trauma is something that should probably be hard-coded so as to avoid it in future and therefore more likely be able to propigate the species. But the reality is certainly more complex than that. The negative side to this, however, is how much more severely damaging certain traumas are to younger people. At any rate, I don't really want to comment on the Smart case, but just wanted to say, yes, as an amature Child Brain Developmentalist, I am constantly amazed at some of the things the young brain can do, and Walters is right. Do all of you realize that there is a physiological, neurological imperative for the Age of Accountability? By age 8, the brain of all human beings has become neurologially adult (from a standpoint of basal pathways and not knowlege, of course). The 8-year-old brain is radically different than the brain in the first 6 years of life, and in some kids as late as 7 years. But by 8, everyone has pretty much locked it down and we are literally DIFFERENT creatures thereafter. Neurological adults. It's uncanny. That God, guy. He's pretty smart. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 18 Mar 2003 01:29:12 -0700 ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com [snip] > If there is no freedom of expression in the Association for=20 > Mormon Letters,=20 > then what's the point of having it? I couldn't disagree more. I'm a veteran of many an email list and I can tell you with confidence that the tone here is singular and the only = place I have ever found where liberal and conservative can share ideas with some measure of actual communication. In a free-for-all, it is too easy, too tempting to polarize. Before too long, all communication ceases. I = discuss here with the honest intent to convince but with an honest intent to be convinced as well. I don't mind changing my opinion based on a = discussion here and that has happened at least twice in issues I deem fundamental. = In more common online forums, that willingness is a weakness because if one side is willing to engage polemics and polarize a discussion, then the = other side will be hampered by any willingness to compromise. It's a form of dishonest discourse and I'm glad it doesn't happen here. = Or at least that there's a braking mechanism in place so that those heated debaters (do I *have* to mention that I can be and too often am one) can step back and fully articulate their actual *idea* instead of continuing = in a destructive discourse about an opponent. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 02:24:19 -0700 ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com >=20 > I wonder how entrenched this model has become in our=20 > storytelling. I have=20 > read very little popular LDS fiction. Is this a common=20 > character/relationship=20 > model?=20 Um. Good question. I'm afraid that it just might *be* common. And it might actually be why _Singles Ward_ was so dissatisfying. Off the top = of my head, I can match every story containing a strong man with two that = are pretty bland. > Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our=20 > beliefs and in our=20 > personal relationships?=20 Probably. One of the effects of the gospel is to mix the genders. The gospel teaches men to acquire feminine attributes (love, compassion, = mercy) and it also teaches women to acquire male attributes (leadership/hierarchical relationships, non-consensus communication, decisive action). As you can see, it's a lot more obvious that men are acquiring feminine attributes. Also, I see an important difference = between the sexes. It is still alright for women to have their feminine traits. = I don't think it is all that acceptable for men to maintain their = masculine traits. Seriously, think of the difference between "he's just being a man" and "she's just being a woman". They're both awful statements in their own = way of course, but the latter is subtly more forgiving (assuming some = neutrality in tone). > Has the Mormon male been neutered? Literarily, possibly. I'm not sure they have in reality, though. = There's a big difference between LDS males in stories and LDS males in "situ". = We're still a pretty rough bunch if you find us in our native habitat. The reasons for this could be intriguing. I have noticed, for example, a certain contempt for "traditional" men among our artists. Whether it is Orson Scott Card decrying Basketball or a group of men who find it fun = to spend a Saturday doing nothing but talk, you have to admit that we're = not terribly in touch with our peers who are busy building each-others = houses or pounding each-other on the court. Take our women artists as a contrast--they're still a part of the feminine community at least to all outward appearances and in their proclivities for activity. > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? Maybe. I think we've managed to disinculcate the dictatorship of the = "head of the house". That's a good thing. I'm not sure if we've gone so far = as to equate passivity with spirituality, though. Maybe. Certainly, we typically choose our leaders more from our thinkers than from our doers. Think of your Stake President (or bishop). Is he more likely to play = ward basketball or sing in the choir? My bishop seems comfortable doing = both, but then, I think he's a singularly well-qualified guy. > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons=20 > reveal about their=20 > attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy?=20 >=20 > These are interesting thoughts, but I am starting to ramble.=20 > Any input?=20 > Anyone? Interesting. For all my above comments, I'm not really convinced. I = think it's something I'll keep an eye on, though. It's a great question and = I'm glad you brought it up. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 17 Mar 2003 22:13:53 -0700 This is my third post today. and I'm really truly very sorry. But I had to respond to Richard Dutcher's post saying he does not approve of censorship, and doesn't enjoy the sting of the moderator's slap. Richard, you must be the most graceful of all writers. Perhaps you don't need a moderator to help you put things in a less offensive or threatening way. Maybe you've never offended or made yourself out to be an ass. I am very good at both of those things, and the remorse I feel when I realize what I've done is awful. You must be graceful. Not everyone is. Pais Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wes Rook" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 08:09:45 -0800 >Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in = our=20 >personal relationships?=20 >Has the Mormon male been neutered? These are some very interesting questions, and I have some strong = opinions. I only hope I can express them without sounding like a = chauvinistic male on a soapbox shouting about his private cause. Before = anyone accuses me of that, let me state that I come from a very, very = matriarchal family and to some extent my marriage is that way, also. I believe this anti-masculine trend in LDS fiction is just a reflection = of a greater trend in our culture. For generations, the church was = accused of suppressing women's freedom and growth. We were seen, and = STILL are seen by many, as a male-dominated culture with few = opportunities for women to progress. The Church has worked hard to overcome this reputation. I believe we are = in the middle of an over-compensation. If you look at the meetinghouses = that have been built in recent years, you will notice that we have = Relief Society Rooms, Young Women's rooms, Mother's Lounges, etc. = Nowhere will you find a Melchizedek Priesthood room or Aaronic = Priesthood Room. The older buildings (at least around here) had these = rooms. I have asked many times, "When did mediocrity become so acceptable to = the men of the church?" (I want to give a sacrament meeting talk on that = subject sometime hahaha). The Relief Society seems to always be on the = ball. They have a wonderful program. They have at least 4 different = teachers, one for each of their wonderful programs, who teach lessons on = Sundays. Visiting Teaching numbers are higher worldwide than Home = Teaching numbers. In contrast, I couldn't count the number of times I = have been in Elder's Quorum when they have said, "who was supposed to = give the lesson this week? What lesson number are we on? Well, let's = read out of the manual together." If some good sister ever did that in = Relief Society they would be lynched on the spot! When did mediocrity become so acceptable to the men of the church? I served in the YM presidency at the same time my wife was serving in = the YW presidency. I would get so frustrated when I saw the Young = Women's program. They had themes, mottos, spiritual goals, and projects. = There was nothing like that in the YM program. I tried to bring that = sort of thing to the young men, but there wasn't an organized program = for it. I think we have focused on building up the women of the church, and = ignored the spiritual needs of the men. Add to this the fact that our = current American culture likes to portray all husbands and fathers as = goofy, bungling, doofuses who could never even function without their = strong, intelligent, competent wives (notice how men are depicted in = almost every sitcom, commercial, and comedy), and you have combination = that truly has neutered the Mormon male. But here is the thing... I always end up with the same sort of weak male = characters in MY OWN writings. Why? Because it just FEELS true. Our = culture has shown us these images for enough years that it has become = the reality. (Or vice versa?) Sure, I have visions of me sitting down at my computer and pounding out = masculine tales while shouting out the manly prose just like Vincent = D'Onofrio as Bob Howard violently writing stories of Conan the Barbarian = in the movie "The Whole Wide World", but that's just not the world I see = around me. As I said, I come from a family of very strong women. So I = write what I see. Maybe someday I will get one or two of the stories = out of me. I have many more questions on this subject than I have answers. I just = wanted to share a few of my thoughts and experiences.=20 Just Thinking, Weston Rook Sacramento, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] re: The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 17 Mar 2003 21:40:00 -0700 Richard's post was fascinating and thought-provoking. I hadn't noticed the woman/boy portrayals, but he's right--they are everywhere. However, I wonder if it's not so much a Mormon as an American culture phenomenon. Look at virtually any sitcom and you'll see the same thing, from *The Cosby Show* to *Home Improvement* to *Everybody Loves Raymond*, and the list goes on. Funny shows all, but each one has a husband who makes stupid mistakes and a strong wife there to point out each one. LDS literature appears to be following suit in some ways, although Anita Stansfield's first novel was unbalanced in the opposite way: a totally weak, spineless woman with a superman guy. I haven't heard anyone but me complain about that one. Richard's post also got me thinking about the male/female relationships in my own writing, and I gave a sigh of relief when I could say that Greg in my novel, *Lost Without You* is not weak or in any way immasculated, and Brooke is absolutely not the powerful controller. All things considered, I think they are a pretty balanced pair. If I say so myself! Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:21:22 -0700 This is most thought-provoking, Richard. I find myself not so much thinking of literary examples and applications but looking at my own psyche: I think men can be ultra-efficient to the point of laziness. By putting women on a spiritual pedestal, we can defer most of the spiritual effort to them, conserving our own energy for things we see as more practical and pressing, like our jobs and our pleasures. By aggrandizing women spiritually, we take pressure off ourselves and avoid having to deal as much with an area that overlaps with emotion more than most of us are comfortable with. Most men want to conserve their energy for hands-on fun and accomplishment, not for digging up big-picture spiritual and emotional stuff that is ethereal and abstract and trying to make sense of it all. It's easier to defer to women, who seem to think the spiritual/emotional stuff is more important and who seem better equiped to negotiate it. I know that in my own church life, my main basic mode of thinking is, "How much do I have to do religiously to keep my wife happy?" I'm actually a big believer in the Mormon view of eternity, but I wouldn't miss its earthly practice one bit and would in fact be extremely relieved to be rid of it, though I see its purpose as a placeholder against the devil and as a vehicle for perhaps some begrudging personal growth through service and sacrifice and all that kind of shizbit. I'm pleased and delighted when my wife lets me get away without wearing a tie or with wearing sandals to church; she's actually been the one to suggest those under certain circumstances, knowing how much I value my creature comforts of an open neck and cool, wiggling toes. I usually manage to skip church meetings about once a month without triggering any alarms, and we both laugh and shake our heads at how persistent my home-teaching companion is, because she accepts that I'm more of a biannual home teacher when left to my own devices. She doesn't love it when I sneak Coke and magazines to church--hey, at least I insert the Coke can into a tall, plain, respectful plastic cup and use a straw so I can bend my head down to sip it--so I don't do it every week, at least not the Coke (except on years when we have 9:00 church--then I almost always take a Coke). She lets me get away with dozing thru meetings and with only skimming the elders quorum lesson one time on the morning I teach, because that's all the time and effort I can stomach to spend on it. We used to go to the temple every month and read scriptures every night, but now both are in free fall because I find them both terribly boring and have gradually withdrawn from them. Right now she is distracted with her own new diet and exercise program--thank goodness she isn't making me do it too, since my weight is the same as when we married--but I'm sure she'll retrench us religiously a little soon enough, and I'll go along with it enough to keep her happy, perhaps bargaining quarterly temple attendance and once-a-week scriptures as a compromise to ease myself back into it. If I can keep her reasonably happy and content with my performance, the Lord must be too, because aren't our wives our stand-ins for the Lord, like our mothers were when we were little? Are other men like this at all, or am I just revealing my own flawed, immature personality? By minimizing everything at church and at my day job, I'm conserving as much energy as possible for what's most important to me: constantly feeding my head with whatever the hell I want to read/watch/listen to, and then turning around and spitting out my own writing/editing projects. Let the woman worry about the laundry and the spiritual work and the overall strategy of our lives, and she can assign me tasks as necessary. I'll do toilets, vacuuming, garbage, dishwasher loading, and the equivalent religious spiritual hygiene tasks, and I'll do them just often enough and well enough to keep the mold from becoming visible. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gardner,Bill" Subject: [AML] re: The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:25:38 -0800 Richard Dutcher wrote: =20 [Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in = our personal relationships? Has the Mormon male been neutered? Do Mormon = men equate passivity with spirituality? What do the writings of these = domesticated male Mormons reveal about their attitudes toward women, = sex, domesticity, patriarchy?] Exactly. I'm that way-- just like the neutered male you described. I'm = sure it has something to do with the unquestioned respect I was taught = to have for women, Mom and everyone else. =20 As a result, fictional expressions of the "strong woman" creep into my = writing (okay, they stomp into my writing wearing big noisy boots). In = fact, my tendency to write strong women has been so noticeable that I'm = currently writing a story in which the female is a little messed up and = the male (still relaxed and somewhat passive) is very much on the ball. = What happens? The main character, the male in this case, has to make an = emotional journey of a different kind. I can no longer rely on the old = standby of bringing the main character from "goofball" to "real manhood" = with the aid of a strong female role model and I am forced to change the = quest, so to speak. What a wonderful thing to have to do-- especially = since I like to write mindless thrillers. Ultimately, this has led to a much stronger story. But in answer to = your question, I wonder if strong male Mormon characters are somewhat = dangerous because they reveal something about our "Mormon" reputation = that we don't want to confess- or more aptly put, that we don't want to = reinforce. I don't believe the Mormon male has been neutered, and you = probably don't either. I do believe that the Mormon male character = suffers from self-imposed exile. Could it be that we subconsciouly = fight agasint our patriarchic reputation (real or imagined) using weak = male literary characters? What an awful thought. (By the way, I'm new to the List and would generally be a non-poster but = I was so heartened by a clear literary topic- one helpful for me to = explore with a little input from the AML collective brain- that I = decided to try a post. This question interests me very much.) Willard Boyd Gardner -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 18 Mar 2003 15:12:55 EST In a message dated 3/17/03 5:21:36 PM, scottparkin@earthlink.net writes: << I've seen the nearly universal condemnation he's come under recently. I think that's a shame, because I know that Jonathan works very hard to expand the discussion as much as he can. >> I wanted to chime in before anyone might feel the phrase "nearly universal condemnation" to be apt. I admire Scott's candor in the post I've excerpted above, and have to express my boundless respect for what Jonathan is doing, and for Ben, who established the pattern for list moderation. I also want to express my deep respect for all those list contributors who have, by their kindness (I'll even say reverence) made this such a rich and safe place to share. I can't mention the list to anyone without detouring into a little speech about what an extraordinary haven it is from the storms of blindness and pride that really do buffet most intellectual arenas. (Few things are as dangerous as being smart.) I've learned some amazing life-lessons here. Who would know that Thom Duncan is the biggest cream-puff on the planet? Push him hard enough, and he'll admit that he loves you. I've never known anyone quicker to abandon an offensive tack or to apologize so sincerely, or to admit being wrong and be grateful for new light than Eric Samuelsen. The list goes on. (Get it?) I don't want to try to speak Scott's mind more clearly than he already has, but the most salient point for me was the danger of defining people in order to understand them. That kind of understanding is an illusion. If we were honest with ourselves, we might admit that defining one another is more a tool for managing their opinions and beliefs. It's just e-mail, after all, and though we're all supposed to be writers, or at least readers, it's pretty hard to take the measure of anyone we only know by a few pixels on the screen. I think that while we must admit and allow the foibles of mortality in one another, we must also assume the enormity of heart and faith and yearning that is only vaguely apparent in this little box of words. There is no literary tie-in here. Sorry. No, wait! I think I have one! "None of us can ever express the exact measure of his thoughts, or his needs, or his sorrows, and human speech is a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt stars." -Flaubert Tap away, friends. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:43:51 -0700 [MOD: I'm going to do a peculiar thing here. First off, in a sense Thomas Baggeley's post--and this entire thread--is off-topic for AML-List. On the other hand, I think Thom's original question related to miracles, who they happen to and who they don't happen to, and why, is an important one with important implications for our communications with each other, both literary and otherwise. When we tell the story of a particular miracle--because a miracle is so unusual--and particularly in such a public fashion as this one, what is the unspoken message about the similar cases when a miracle did not, to human eyes at least, take place? What is a responsible balance to strive for in our literature? Or is there even any obligation to strive for it--since any given work of art is its own single story, not responsible for being all stories? I think all of these are worthwhile questions, and I can't see any way of discussing them without, to some degree, sharing our individual views of what miracles are and how they happen. It's important, however, that we not turn this into a debate, pro and con, of various views of what constitutes miracles, or how one ought or ought not to react to them. So please feel free to share your views, but stop short of debating them. And whenever possible, please reconnect to the literary dimension.] Thom Duncan wrote: >I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't answered the prayers of those parents? Are you suggesting that we should not acknowledge God's hand in those miracles that do occur because we might hurt the feelings of those who have not (for whatever reason) been blessed with the miracle that they ask for? Certainly Heaven Father could have sent an angel to free Elizabeth Smart from her captors that very first day she was kidnapped. Yet Elizabeth Smart and her family had two endure nine months before she was freed and returned to them. Does this mean it was not a miracle or that it took nine months for their prayers to reach him? Of course not! The Lord, with his eternal perspective, does not always do things the way we would like them done. When Alma and Amulek had to watch the righteous people in Ammonihah burned to death and Amulek wanted to stretch forth his hand and use his faith and priesthood to save them, but the Spirit restrained them from doing so, does that mean that the Lord did not hear or answer the prayers of those people, that undoubtedly must have included some pleas for deliverance? No. God does not always give us the blessings we ask for, especially when or how we ask for them - and I'm certain that, although we do not necessarily see why in the moment, the day will come when we will be glad that he doesn't. When Christ asked that if it were possible, he would be spared the bitter cup he had to drink, acknowledging at the same time that he was willing to do the Father's will, when that answer came that no, He had to pass through the atonement, does that mean the Father did not answer his prayer? I, at times, must say "no" to my own children - even when they ask nicely and the thing they are asking for is not a bad thing. Sometimes I don't have to say no, but I do have to reply "not now, but later". Does that mean I don't love them and I'm not trying to do what's best for them? Does that mean I haven't heard their request? Does that mean I'm just ignoring them and not giving them an answer? My children don't like those answers. I don't particularly like not giving them what they want. When I say yes to one child and no to another, is that because I love one more than the other? No it is not. Nor is that the case with our Father in Heaven. Don't suggest that by recognizing and giving thanks for blessings the Lord does give us that we are somehow saying that he hasn't heard the requests of others for similar blessings and hasn't answered those requests. Sometimes the answer is not, "Here's the blessing you've asked for." Sometimes it is. Sometimes the answer is simply the comforting Spirit - like the angel that appeared to strengthen and minister to the Lord in his hour of need, although He had to drink the bitter cup. But we must recognize those miracles that do occur. We are commanded to recognize His hand in all things. We are commanded to be grateful. To fail to do so is only a step away from saying that miracles do not occur at all. Miracles DO occur. I have seen them. I have also wanted miracles and not received them when and/or how I wanted them. I trust that the Lord knows best when to provide the miracle and when to say no or not now. We should follow the example of the Savior and when making our requests, always be willing to accept His will, whatever that may be. Thomas ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 15:18:21 EST In a message dated 3/17/03 5:26:57 PM, RichardDutcher@aol.com writes: << In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are Women. These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no matter how old they are. >> I don't know, sorta sounds like life. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 12:35:04 -0800 (PST) Richard makes an interesting observation about the Woman/Boy model. I've= noticed it holds true for almost all the LDS romance fiction I've read --= although Anita Stansfield tends to imbue her male characters with more= strength and spiritual maturity than most (my favorite is Michael Hamilton= from the "First Love and Forever" series -- now there's a guy I wouldn't= mind meeting!). However, they are invariably eclipsed by women who've= weathered such trials as marital abuse, spousal infidelity, date rape, etc.= and who emerge as spiritual giants.=20 Perhaps this is because our cultural ideals of LDS women demand that they be= incredibly spiritual, strong, wise, competent, intelligent, funny,= well-organized, optimistic, nurturing, giving, clean, thrifty, reverent,= etc. etc. --and drop-dead gorgeous, too. I think we expect a lot less of= the men. Art may be unwittingly mirroring our culture here. =20 Is this because men just tend to seek out women who are stronger than they?= (As one friend of mine put it, "I thought I could ride to the celestial= kingdom on my ex-wife's coat tails."). Or is it because the culture decrees= women have to meet this ridiculously high standard to be worthy of the= man's love ( no matter how weak, shallow, immature, etc. he is)? (I think= some of the older Shirley Sealy novels imply this rather strongly). If this= is the case, it's no wonder LDS women feel pressured to "measure up."=20 In response to some of Richard's questions, I think this model is extremely= entrenched both in our culture and our literature. (If you don't believe= me, just drop in on a Church singles dance some Friday night). I think it= represents both an exaggeration of church teachings about the nature of= women and a reflection of the world at large, where women are expected to= be all and do all (and look darn good while doing it). We want both the= "Molly Mormon" who is a pillar of the Gospel and the intelligent, quirky,= gorgeous woman of the world who can run everything with one hand behind her= back ("Charly" is an excellent example).=20 The men, however, don't have the cultural mystique that surrounds "mothers= in Zion" nor the pressure of omnipresent media images insisting they be= body-building CEO's who still spend quality time with their kids, repaint= their dining rooms, do their home teaching, and keep the marital fires= burning at night. Nah, we're happy if they have teeth and a job and don't= snore too loudly in Sacrament meeting.=20 Go figure.=20 [Marie Knowlton] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] DAYBELL, _Chasing Paradise_ (FW DN Article) Date: 18 Mar 2003 14:42:45 -0700 'Paradise' lost book battle Deseret Book decides not to stock new LDS novel By Sharon Haddock Deseret News staff writer SPRINGVILLE - On page 99 of Chad Daybell's new book, "Chasing Paradise," a warrior angel swoops in, plucks up a naughty spirit by the nape of her neck and drop-kicks her through the wall. Author Chad Daybell says "Chasing Paradise" was shelved because of an "irreverent" passage. Stuart Johnson, Deseret News Daybell says that by then, readers are happy to see the troublesome "Ruby" banished. Unfortunately for Daybell, that same scene has booted his novel off the shelves at Deseret Book stores. Daybell said he was told last week that Deseret Book buyer Sarah Hoffman found the passage "irreverent" and therefore unsuitable for sale by the chain, which recently announced a sweeping clean-up policy for its merchandise. Daybell - who has several books including the popular "Tiny Talks" books in Deseret Book stores - was shocked. "As the managing editor of Cedar Fort publishing, it's part of my job to watch for offensive material," Daybell said. "I certainly didn't think my own novel would fall into that category." Daybell said Deseret Book's reaction has him confused. "I like the idea of making sure everything Deseret Book sells is uplifting and inspirational, but I find it bothersome that many of the New York Time's bestsellers are still sold there," Daybell said. "I don't think LDS authors should be the only ones targeted." Deseret Book officials suggested there may be other reasons behind the book's removal. Gail Brown, publicity manager for Deseret Book, said perhaps Daybell's book wasn't of high enough quality to warrant being included in the stock for Deseret Book. Keith Hunter, vice president of marketing and sales, said Deseret Book can only purchase a limited number of products to sell and the decision to buy an author's work is based on the book at hand, not necessarily on the success of previous books. "This is difficult for us," Hunter said. "His (Daybell's) children's products have sold well while his others have not. My understanding is there are a number of problems with the sales potential of this book." Hunter said while he has not read "Chasing Paradise," he feels confident that Daybell is not being singled out and the book is not "banned." "We will special order the book if people request it," he said. Daybell said prior to Hoffman's kibosh, the book was to be included as part of a Deseret Book advertising catalogue scheduled to go out this month. Deseret Book also has him scheduled for a book signing in Las Vegas next week. "I can still go," Daybell said, "but I can't sign these (the new book)." Daybell said he could edit out the offending sequence about the warrior, but that wouldn't make him happy. "The passage is based on an actual event," he said. "My Young Men's president was killed in an automobile accident and two years later, his nephew was attacked by evil spirits on his mission to Brazil. Chris (the dead president) showed up and fought off the evil spirits and led the missionaries to safety." Daybell said he feels unfairly and arbitrarily singled out because one employee disliked one passage in the story. "That's the main reason I'm publicly objecting," he said. "I didn't want to let this die because it feels so subjective. Is this the new standard, no swearing, no sex and, now, no conflict? If this is the new standard, LDS novelists might as well put away their word processors because potentially anything can come under fire." "The Last Promise," a book by best-selling author Richard Paul Evans, was the first book removed from Deseret Book shelves over a scene where an upset married woman seeks comfort from a male friend. "I watched that and felt bad for Evans. I never thought it would be happening to me," Daybell said. Daybell, a Brigham Young University graduate in journalism, has written four other books. One is based on stories he came across as he worked as the sexton for the Springville City Cemetery. "I knew enough not to submit that one to Deseret Book," he said. "Youth of Zion," based on the lives of LDS Church prophets, and a trilogy based on Emma Smith, along with "Tiny Talks," are all available through Deseret Book. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 18 Mar 2003 14:36:55 -0800 (PST) Personally, I think Jonathan does a good job as moderator. My comments were not meant as an "attack" on him or any other individual. But it's healthy to acknowledge that "the Jordan Rules" exist; that some list members get more leeway. It's just hierarchy, a fact of life, a situation that is inescapable in any social setting. I'm grateful that a moderator on AML-List has prevented the kind of destructive flame wars that have absolutely destroyed other on-line groups. As for the war, bottom line: If Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, and Osama bin Laden and the movements that produced them were decent and peace-loving, we wouldn't be in this mess, or having this discussion. The Michael Jordans of the list, the superstars, you know who you are. (Perhaps I should say the Karl Malones and John Stocktons of the list, since comparing someone to Michael Jordan is not necessarily a compliment, in Utah.) The best I can hope to be is a Jeff Hornacek: a reliable outside shooter, and a good guy. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 19:02:50 -0700 . Reading this post from Richard Dutcher, I was startled to recognize this Woman/boy model in my own writing. In the only explicitly Mormon story I have written I can see it, and in the explicitly Mormon novel I am working on, it is lurking in the background. In fact, the story really can't get to where it is going until the boy gets his act together and realizes the Woman holds the cards. Looking through my catalogued memories of LDS novels I have read, I can see the pattern recurring--especially in matters of romantic import. Very often the boy can't get it through his head that he's found a decent Woman until she gets it through. Although I can only speak of my own relationships with certainty, I do know that at least the way the Mormon male SPEAKS of his marriage relationship also follows the Woman/boy model. Either she won him, or she granted him her hand after he performed the necessary herculean feats. Any man who would swap his and his wife's rolls in their tale would be a cad. I think RD has come across an important theme. If I was still an undergrad, I would happily make it a topic of study. Somebody else should. ----------theric jepson post script: does anyone have any suggestions how I can post without all this gibberish appearing? It's driving me nuts. I look like an illiterate android. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 00:20:41 -0800 I think Richard has started a fascinating new string, and perhaps, by = asking the rhetorical questions he does, actually poses a thesis which, = if proved true, could be quite startling. In commenting, however, I should also admit that my breadth of reading = in popular LDS fiction is limited, which will limit my bibliographic = insight. But with respect to film, the thesis pretty well holds up: = powerful, independent women linked with weak, or spiritually immature = men. A slight exception to this pattern (and it proves itself to not really = be an exception upon closer examination) is "Out Of Step." In that film, = we have a spiritually immature female trying to grow, and she has two = men in her life. One is a quirky, weak, weird, spiritually awkward = Mormon boy (who is actually a little bit of a sleaze-ball - funny how = Michael loooves playing those darker characters - yeah, right, like I = can talk). Then on the other hand, she has this immensely attractive, = talented, strong, independent non-Mormon male. He's very strong. One of = the strongest characters in LDS film so far (outside of your own humble = fare, Mr. R). And yet, of course, here is the irony: she ends up dumping the strong = non-Mormon because he is (sin of all sins!) NON-Mormon; and while it is = not said that she actually starts dating Michael's dark-horse Mormon, = his character is the last man we see her with in the film. I find that = kind of twisted, somehow, and it plays into Richard's possible thesis of = the cultural product, to date, being more comfortable with slightly = emasculated males. Now, I myself, come from a more European writerly tradition. Brought up = the way I was, on the films that I was weaned on, I am personally, as a = writer, very attracted to the female character. She is symbolic to me. = Tad Danielewski called her the "Anima" (which he did not coin, of = course); the "anima" as the symbol of the spirit of the world, the = feminine energy of the Gaia, life, etc. European writers are very = intrigued with her as a symbol and tend to write their female leads as = such. And I have tended (or at least noticed a tendency in my own work) = to lean that way. I write LOTS of women's roles. More often than not, in fact. But that is = not to say that I pair them with weak men. When they are paired with men = at all, I love those men, and I love them to be as strong and = overwhelming, in a sense of balance with, not servitude to, the woman.=20 But my work remains mostly unproduced or unpublished, so I have no = influence, as of yet, on the trend (if there is one). I know in the novel I'm currently working on, Sweetwater Ford, this is = the first work of mine in a long time that actually tells the story = primarily from the man's perspective, and, for the first time in a long = time, as the writer, I am infinitely more interested in my male = character. Reason Doane is intensely strong; his female counterpart is = no weakling, either. I actually worry that the novel might have thematic = elements which will get it rejected when I go for publication (and do I = sense a trend to censor myself as I am writing?). At any rate, my = character, Reason, comes from the late Mountain Man tradition of the = 1800s. He cusses, shoots guns, kills things, fights like a bear, has an = indomitable will and immense physical strength for his moderate stature. = These traits make his eventual softening and falling in love and final = conversion to the church that much more powerful and miraculous (I = think). I'm also in the early plotting stages for a trilogy that follows another = very strong male character, based on an actually guy, a historical = character in Church history who's name I don't want to spill just yet -- = and he's a rock, too.=20 In my Women-driven stories, I'm thinking of The Long Walk Of Patience = Loader, in particular, the men are very strong. The love-interest (even = moreso in the screenplay version than the stage play) is a paragon of = tall, dark, handsome, tough, spiritual, immovable, independent, and = also, attracted to his symbolic equal: the female lead of the story. While these works have yet to prove themselves in the marketplace, it is = hard to deny to myself, in the face of Richard's intriguing question, = that I love very strong women. But the pairing of them with weak men, if it is indeed endemic to LDS = popular fiction, is very troubling. And from one point of view, it = doesn't make any sense. Certainly the most potent male heroes in the Mormon mythic pantheon are = explosively testosteronal!: Nephi, Moroni (one and two), Mormon, Alma = (one and two), Ammon, Gideon, Amaliki, Helaman and on and on and on -- = and hey, let's not forget those 2060 young studs we all love so much! = They may have listened to their mamas, but they was no Mamas' Boys! Then, of course, you have to counter with the immense popularity in LDS = fiction (and non-fiction alike) of characters such as Porter Rockwell, = J. Golden Kimball, Browning, and so on. so I think there may be some = adequate rebuttal to the postulation of a neutered male in LDS = literature. (And thank goodness!) What about Dean Hughes, David Woolley and/or Darius and Margaret's = stuff, etc.? Can anyone fill me in on this topic line with respect to = them? (I'm ashamed to say I haven't read any of them yet, but I expect = the Standing on the Promises series to arrive in my home any day now.) = Who can comment? My suspicion is that their characters do not fall into = the pattern Richard suspects might be pandemic across the Diaspora of = LDS lit. I'm holding out hope. But our film characters (and I'm being very generous by using that = "our") seem to fall into the pattern Richard points out. And while I = don't think this is a "Mormon" thing, per se, that to be spiritual you = must be passive, there may be some insecurity among screenwriters (the = very small group that are currently before the public eye) in handling = strong male characters. Certainly the "patriarchal order" of church history has had a tendency = towards the opposite. I think our history is filled with overbearing men = and we have had to struggle very hard to bring women to the place they = need to be - and I have no doubt that the women will argue that we have = a very long way to go yet! I have known many women who have suffered at = the hands of a Mormon male who was out of synch with the truth of the = gospel and repressed the women "under" him by "virtue of his = priesthood." And, I think there has been some response in our literature = (albeit considered fringe works), that have begun to address the pain of = that domestic imbalance - an important, delicate, painful, and yet = essential topic. But in current literature trends, and in film (still in its infancy) I = don't know where we are. My suspicion is that there are simply too few examples available for us = to be able to formulate a strong theorem as of yet. As I learned in my = years in market research for the film industry: the smaller the sample = size, the harder it is to make accurate conclusions about the general = trend. There is a much larger sample size in printed fiction, of course, but I = myself have not sampled enough of them to get a sense of the question. We do have to face a certain fact, however: this is a very difficult = time to be male; not just in our Mormon society, but in our society at = large. Some of the axiomatic off-shoots of the recent war thread come to mind. = We have a deeply divided social concept of what male roles are. Warrior, = lover, father, provider, protector (but you have to feel guilty for = shooting the guy you're protecting your family from, right?), etc., etc. = Who is this Man supposed to be?! We have to be spiritual at home, = aggressive at work, compassionate in church, ruthless in business, and = on and on and on.=20 Recent social readjustments to the male dilemma, such as the Iron = John-thing a few years back, to the "Promise Keepers" movement in = evangelical Christianity going on now, all point to a broiling of = paradigms in our culture at large.=20 How could the LDS community, a much smaller and yet somehow more complex = subset of the larger whole, not face certain insecurities in this area = as well? Now suddenly, I am forced to reevaluate a script I just finished, The = Trek, wherein I have a strong, independent non-Mormon female = (supporting) opposite a strong, but spiritually searching and uncertain = male (the lead). Am I falling into a pattern there? I have to address = this question with my partners when we approach the re-writes later this = spring. But then again, as I look out into my ward: how many times do we see the = wives, the daughters, the women, strong and there, dragging along behind = them their inactive or non-member husbands? That is so ubiquitous a = model as to invite hilarity (at least out here in the "mission field").=20 So, while I am not sure that Richard has accurately defined a trend, if = he has, there may be an ACCURATE reflection by our commercial artists of = what is really happening around us! That is a shocking thought! If that is true (and I'm not convinced yet that it is) I am convinced = that this reflection by artists has been an unconscious one, born of an = instinctive connection rather than a planned effect. But is it even true? Are the women stronger than the men, spiritually? = Or is that just an attractive lie? And if so, why is it attractive? The jury is still out!=20 Richard, you got me thinking! Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory Date: 18 Mar 2003 19:17:41 -0700 ___ Jongiorgi ___ | Yes, but now with the vaguerities of particle physics and some | of the implications of string theory, the acceptable probability | of multiple realities is scientifically accepted. ___ We ought to respect the wishes of the moderator and move this particular tangent elsewhere. For those interested Eyring-l is the Mormon - Science list. I used to run it but haven't for several years. Subscription info can be found at http://eyring.hplx.net Anyway, the above is one, rather controversial, interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don't think most philosophers of quantum mechanics accept the multiple worlds interpretation. I'll not bore folks here with a discussion of the philosophy of quantum mechanics which is even more esoteric than a discussion of quantum mechanics. ___ Jongiorgi ___ | And then you bring up a fascinating point: thinking about | reality changes it? ___ Yes, although this isn't that profound when you think about it. After all we are a part of the universe and thus if we act, the universe changes. So saying "thinking about reality changes it" is no different than saying "running down the street changes the state of the universe." What some call a breakdown between the "subjective" and the "objective" is really just realizing we are part of the universe. It typically isn't a real breakdown. There are movements that the attempt to move past the distinction of subject and object. Heidegger is a great example of this. However holism really doesn't entail such a breakdown. Science certainly doesn't point to such a breakdown. As I said, those interested in discussing religion and science may find Eyring-l interesting. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 18 Mar 2003 18:24:39 -0800 Eric Samuelson wrote: It's interesting to me to see the way the culture functions here in = Utah, especially politically (and I do think politics matters). I = think that there's just not a forum within Mormonism for dissent. And = that leads to some very interesting cracks and fissures. That's the = main think I was exploring. And since those cracks and fissures tend to = be in a kind of Mormon cultural monolith which I perceive as at least = 70% political, my response to them ventured into politics as well. I find this a little amusing (but true, really, in a sad sort of way). = It is not just a Utah idiosyncrasy but true everywhere in the Church. My = wife is very outspoken politically (I tend to listen and keep to myself = - social anxiety I guess). There is a brother in one of the Wards in our = Stake which came to me one day and questioned me about my wife's = politics. I mostly questioned him about what he felt about what she had = said. At the end he asked me outright: "Can't you control your wife?" I = answered simply "No" which really startled him. I personally feel no one = should be browbeaten over things they believe. That is not quite how I = see Jesus carrying out His work (or the Prophets for that matter). My personal and humble opinion is politics is very much like religion (a = very deeply sensitive and personal subject) and when you mix the two = publicly they become a very strange culture (in Utah and out). People = can dissent within the Church but many times (unfortunately) it costs = them (in various ways to numerous to mention here...but probably felt by = many) due to the prejudice this creates in of some of the "local = leadership" (back biting and gossip/rumors are a TERRIBLE problem = everywhere within the Church).=20 Unfortunately we are a long way from the "Zion Society" envisioned by = the prophets, both ancient and modern. Until the day someone can "look" = into my heart and see me for who the Lord sees me I will keep my views = and opinions on sensitive subjects to myself except with those I feel = "safe" around and I know love me for who I am as Heavenly Father does. = But for right now I do not see my politics being added to the Temple = Recommend interview questions any time soon so I'm not going to worry. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 19:42:26 -0700 ___ Ronda ___ | I've discovered that there is this tendency to almost dumb | down men as in - "well, men need the Priesthood because | they wouldn't be nurturers without it," "men have to have | the control in the church to be forced to be leaders, | women automatically know these things," "men, can't count | on them for anything, don't ask one to be in charge of a | ward party, we'll all be out baling hay rather than doing | anything civilized," etc. It's men and women who are saying | these things. | | What are we saying about ourselves, our spouses, our | brothers and sisters, our culture, and what are we saying | to others, when we make statements such as this? ___ It is also self-refuting. After all, if the priesthood was given to men to teach them this then the stories seem to suggest that it was in vain. i.e. that men *can't* learn it. Yet if they can learn it and the priesthood is an aid then clearly it is wrong to assume men aren't emotionally and socially developed. There are all sorts of stereotypes of this sort. Far too many are repeated and retaught in our literature. There was an infamous book from the late 70's called _Amazing Womanhood_ (or something like that). Basically it was a "how to" manual for women to manipulate men. It was before my time, so I don't know how widespread its acceptance was. However basically the women were taught to act weak, praise the man, and provide often faked opportunities for the men to serve them in a kind of knightly way. Laughable to modern ears. However I had some friends who described reading the book and trying it as a lark. Worked on every man they saw at BYU. Perhaps that just says something about Mormon culture fitting into stereotypes. Perhaps it says something about the lessons our literature teaches. Perhaps it suggests that there is something fundamental in our natures that lets such manipulation work. But it is distasteful. By the same measure we all are aware of men who have exactly the same skills. In the terminology I was familiar with we called them "players." They acted sensitive and nuturing but just were manipulating women to either make out with them or worse. But they had skills most men didn't. And most women seemed to fall for it. When you see how successful these manipulative people are, it does make one cynical. When you see how unable most people are at achieving what some want you also get cynical. Heaven knows I've been cynical myself more than once. But moving from such cynicism to overgeneralizations and worse overgeneralizations that emphasize expecting the worst from people is horrible. When we expect only the lowest common denominator that is what we get. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Jeff SAVAGE, _Into the Fire_ (Review) Date: 14 Mar 2003 14:44:24 -0700 INTO THE FIRE by Jeffrey S. Savage 2002, Covenant Communications Trade paperback, 214 pages 1-59156-042-X $14.95 "Fractal Characters and Presto-chango Canoes" I come to you this day with a heavy heart, trembling with anxiety over the words I'm about to write. Okay, maybe that's not true, but I _am_ disappointed (yet again) with one more LDS novel that I thought had potential. The first LDS novel I read was Jack Weyland's _Charly_, and (like so many others) felt no desire to sample anything else in that budding genre. Years later, I rediscovered LDS fiction with some well-written books and reignited the flame of hope that quality LDS novels could be written and published after all. But lately my hope has been diminishing. More and more of the books I've been trying out have disappointed, even books recommended by some whose opinions I respect. If LDS literature does achieve the level of quality we're all looking for, it's obviously going to be a rocky ride getting there. Jeffrey Savage's book _Into the Fire_ came recommended (so to speak) by Savage himself: I read his first book and, although I complained that the marketing promised me a different story than I read, had no significant complaints about the writing itself. So I approached his second book with anticipation. Disappointment reared its ugly head again. _Into the Fire_ (a lackluster title in the first place) is the story of Joe Stewart, an LDS businessman who has enjoyed tremendous success in the computer networking business he started. (Obviously this is happening pre-Microsoft.) He's an upstanding member of his community and church and a wonderful father and husband. But within twenty-four hours he loses it all. Word gets out that his company's products were stolen from some Hungarian genius who patented them all, but only locally, so the patent searches didn't uncover that fact. Then some unnamed source "leaks" to the media that Joe is the very person who committed the theft himself. He loses his position as chairman of the board, has the loan on his home called in, watches as his reputation crumbles before his eyes, and even gets called to repentance in priesthood meeting. His accountant can't afford to maintain relations with such a suspect client, so severs them right when Joe needs his help the most. Two of his three children, upon hearing the news, become bitter. His daughter starts voicing cynical doubts about God and their religion, and his son gets arrested for a crime. His wife seems to drift off into a near-catatonic depression. Because of a tick bite, he develops life-threatening lyme disease. He has lost everything. No surprise, because the prolog makes it clear that this is a retelling of the story of Job. Joe--Job- -get it? Normally I'm anti-prolog, but this time I have to grudgingly admit that a prolog is appropriate this time, because this book parallels the Book of Job, and the Book of Job has a prolog. With Savage's first book _Cutting Edge_, I expected a large-scale, worldwide technical thriller, mainly because the marketing and the title gave me that impression. It was a thriller, alright, but not worldwide or anywhere near as large in scope as I had expected. Not Savage's fault--his story was consistent with what it promised inside the book covers, away from the marketing. This time, though, the promise was right their in the writing: intrigue of global proportions, a thrilling mystery unraveling what happened to cause Joe to lose his business, his reputation, his good standing in the church, and starts losing his family. How did the patent infringement occur? Who framed Joe into being the culprit? How is he going to unravel all this and restore his good standing? Will he recover from the lyme disease? Maybe Savage heard me in my review of _Cutting Edge_ and wanted to give me in this book the story I expected in the other. Or not. In fact, he does _absolutely nothing_ with the story he promises in the opening chapters of the book. Poor Joe decides to take his family out into the wilderness and try to knit them back into a close, happy one. And that is the rest of the story. All Joe's troubles back home are cleaned up in short, vague statements that everything is all better again. We never find out anything about how it all happened. Bah, humbug! That was a big disappointment, but maybe the book could still have worked if the story-not- promised-but-given had been written well. It was not. For Joe to have been the savvy, intelligent, wildly successful businessman he was portrayed to be, he would need to be much smarter than his behavior indicates. He is downright dumb--often-- and in just the right places to keep the plot going. Much dumber than he should be to have accomplished the things he did in life. Joe's character generally is uninspiring. He's not quite two-dimensional, but certainly not three- dimensional. A fractal character? The other characters don't fare much better. In fact, the whole story feels fractal with a plot that seems more forced by story requirements than naturally and smoothly motivated. Joe's third child is a Down Syndrome girl who is obviously supposed to provide the "cute" element of the book, and later the tear-jerking. (I swear, if I have to endure one more book or film or song that uses butterfly kisses to evoke endearment, I'll throw up.) When the source of the physical jeopardy in the novel is first introduced, it takes about two neurons worth of brain power to figure out whom it will threaten in the climax. The Down Syndrome child seemed too much of a literary cheat. I can't blame Savage entirely for the quality of the writing. Are there no competent editors at Covenant Communication? Somebody there, please, read a book on comma usage, and insist your authors start using them where they should go. "Oh yes you are," "Come on man," "Well I don't believe that," are all sentences with a missing comma that appear on a single page, and that was the first page I randomly turned to in search of examples. Such constructs permeate the book. But copy editing isn't the only problem. Two-thirds into the novel, a canoe appears. Joe uses it to go fishing with his son. It's an important scene, because the two start connecting there, and it results in one of the Defining Revelations of the book. Yet within a couple pages, the canoe turns magically into a rowboat and back into a canoe--more than once--and even within one sentence at one point. Witness the magic: "Joe stepped off from the shore, lifting and pushing the end of the canoe..." "It had taken a while to get the canoe down from the rafters, and even longer to find the life jackets and paddles..." " 'Okay now, take the paddle in both hands...' ...soon the dark green wooden canoe was slicing smoothly through the water's still surface." "As he paddled, first on the right of the canoe and then on the left..." "Joe back paddled and turned the canoe sideways so that it paralleled the rocks." So we've clearly established that this is a canoe, and Savage knows canoe terminology and how to operate one--well, sort of, assuming the character doesn't know about the J-stroke of paddling that keeps you from having to paddle on one side, then the other to steer the canoe. Then all of a sudden, after some time has elapsed (enough for the author to forget its a canoe?), we read: "Joe laid [his pole] in the bottom of the boat and began to raise the anchor. As Joe rowed, Richie bobbed the end of his rod in and out of the water..." "...keeping his eyes fixed on the tip of the fallen tree and he slowly rowed toward it." You can't "row" a canoe. There's no pins on the paddles to lock into the holes and keep the fulcrum of the paddles in place. And you row facing backward, so how could Joe keep his eye on the point he's rowing for? But sanity rears its head again--or does it? The boat turns back into a canoe: "A soft breeze blew across the water, gently rocking the canoe." "The breeze was now pushing the canoe away from the shore, but Joe made no move to begin paddling, instead letting the canoe drift." Then it's a canoe and rowboat at the same time: "...he picked up the paddle and began rowing back..." I figure Savage couldn't make up his mind to make it a rowboat or canoe, and in the rewrites left artifacts of both decisions. It happens. But where was the editor who is supposed to catch such things? That was the nadir of my reading experience, but there were other moments of poor copy editing or poor writing that I would have glossed over if I had been enjoying the book. I can often determine how good a book is by how much I notice the little discrepancies. If the book engrosses me, who wants to bother sweating the details? I noticed every one of them in _Into the Fire_. The writing never felt quite real. I was conscious the whole time that I was reading a book. The story and characters never grabbed me. Not as bad as two-dimensional; not quite as good as three-dimensional. A fractal novel. The book _could_ have worked. If I'd cared about the characters, if the story had felt more real, if I'd become emotionally invested in everything, if after the diversion into the wilderness to make Joe's family all better, Savage had let us return to the real world and actually wrap up the story he had promised rather than gloss over it. If these things had happened, the ending that was supposed to tear-jerk probably would have. Instead it merely disgusted me with the transparent attempt to manipulate my emotions. Savage is a good writer--he proved that with his first novel. But _Into the Fire_ is a half-ready book. Mario Puzo was upset when his publisher released _The Godfather_ before Puzo felt it was ready. But the publisher knew what he was doing--_Godfather_ was one of the greatest successes of all time. Covenant Communications apparently doesn't have that touch. They should have let _Into the Fire_ incubate longer before its release. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 18 Mar 2003 18:54:37 -0800 Mormon-l is alive and well. I've been a member for many years. It's actually a direct descendant of the list that was on BYU's servers. These days it's the very antithesis of this list -- wild, contentious, free-wheeling. It's a broad mix of member, non-member (like myself), anti-member and just a lot of lurkers. They're located at mormon-l@smartgroups.com. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 18 Mar 2003 22:11:14 EST In a message dated 3/18/2003 7:22:46 PM Mountain Standard Time, Chris.Bigelow@UnicityNetwork.com writes: << I do really appreciate AML-List's maintaining its focus on literary things. Otherwise it would probably just turn into an all-purpose Mormon list. >> The more I think about it, the more I agree with Chris on this point. However, as long as our conversations relate to Mormon arts and letters, I strongly maintain that all members should be allowed to express themselves freely. AML should operate free of the stench of authoritarian censorship. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Elizabeth Smart Date: 20 Mar 2003 20:07:10 -0600 [MOD: It's a little embarrassing to expose my practice so baldly here, but that's okay, I guess...] > Jeff Needle wrote: > > > >> Another book could be written about her previous attempts to run away, > >> rebellion problems she was having with her family, her inexplicable > >> reluctance to either escape, or ask for help of other adults, when it > >would > >> have been so simple. >These are not my exact word. They belong to our moderator. He thought mine were a little too strong and offensive. I don't see what he's talking about, but I'm willing to trust him. That is the value of a moderator--at least, to me. "Maybe my perspective on this is a little different from everyone else's, but I feel very strongly about this." (End of moderator) The number one rule is survival. Everything else--the gospel, the church, politics, books, school, friends--that's all fluff. When you're a kid you adapt. Anything to keep the number one rule. When you're scared and survival is very much in doubt, everything goes out the window--even common sense. What Elizabeth did was try to survive. Survival has value. She's still alive, so she did a good job. In five to ten years maybe she'll find value in all that fluff. > > > >Adults get ideals mixed up with their rules, and that's where torture come into play. You have to convince them rules are more important than ideals. > > > >Hell of a thing to learn in the mission field, ain't it? > > > >Paris Anderson > > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Eric and Johnathan: Whipping Boys Date: 18 Mar 2003 17:17:09 -0800 All right, all right: enough already! Seems to me that the current trend at being annoyed at Eric's = impassioned essay, and by debating its on- or off-topic-ness, and thereby pulling = the moderator into the fray ("Well he let Eric's bone-headedness through but = he didn't let my bone-headedness through!"), is all becoming, in and of = itself off-topic by making a topic of the topic and thereby forgetting the = topic! The topic is LDS literature. Eric is a writer of LDS literature. Sometimes that literature comes from = him in the form of well reasoned, dramatic, thought-promoting plays. = Sometimes that literature comes from him in the form of un-edited, heart-on-his-sleeve, messy, unreasoned, emotional, impassioned, personal essays filled with egregious excess, name-calling, hair-pulling, breast-beating, bone-headed, beautiful humanity! Well I say bravo for both! Eric's essay was in no means a cautious, careful, thought-out, = well-reasoned attempt to persuasively argue a point. Therefore, I propose that it was = not an essay at all: it was a monologue! A dramatic monologue from a play (a work-in-progress) being contributed to Th. Jepson's amazing Epistolatory novel (also a work-in-progress), currently unfolding on computer screens = all over the world (but, alright, mostly in Utah)! What passion! What delivery! What controversy! [The following is an excerpt from Soap Opera Digest]: In today's episode, the fictional character of Eric S., while recovering from the flu, un-showered, unshaven, lounging on his sick-couch in front = of the tube, suddenly (and for no apparent reason) explodes on an = expostulatory ejaculation of unmitigated political ire, causing everyone around him to recoil in disgust; but also, secretly, causing all of his many fans (you = see how much mail he gets here at the station) to sympathize with this = delicate soul, flawed though he is, and to recognize that our favorite AML = superstar is, after all, a big, lovable teddy bear (conservative pig, though he = is)! Tune in next week for everyone's astonished reactions! You won't want to miss it. Cuz THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! Okay, nuf of that. You see what's happening here. Someone was genuinely MOVED. He expressed emotion (always messy) and he did it in a literate form. People reacted = (as they always do to drama). And now suddenly the entire raison d'etre of = the List is in question. Are we really taking ourselves THIS seriously? Richard's right: don't like it? Delete it. You know, one day I'm arguing we should use restraint and some = moderation is good; the next day my gander is up and I'm ticked off at the people who = are ticked off and I just want to say, lighten up, live and let live and = learn to love and listen to everybody's voice, however silly it may be, what's = the harm in that? I don't know which position is right; it probably depends on the day. We have had interesting insights (through the various reactions to the Halestorm films) into how different perceptions respond to similar = stimuli. Well, I propose that Eric's post was just another stimuli. I did not agree with it all, of course, but what I saw was his dismay, = his real distress, his real emotions, and it was quite amazing. It was a performance! I was not personally insulted by his suggestion -- I don't even recall = it being very overt -- that anyone who is for this so-called "unrighteous = war" is an ingrate. I personally would fall under that definition because, = for the record, I have been wanting us to blow the living crude oil out of Sadaam's royal behind for over 10 years and was furious when we let him = stay in power the first time around! I'm oversimplifying, of course, and so = is Eric. But I'm not taking anything personally, or getting offended, or = being oh so incensed that someone characterized me as something or other by = their post! I was fascinated by this explosion of emotion and viewed it as = being true to Eric's mood, however momentarily indulgent it may have been. What of it?! Perhaps this is because I am an actor as well as a writer, I love to = watch stuff like this. It's all homework for characters I may some day play, = or some day write. But whatever. Was it that big a deal?! Yesterday I was against Richard's "zero moderator" stance. Today, I'm = with him. But not because of the posts such a stance would bring, but because = of the reactions to them! Listen, if someone is consistently a pig-headed idiot on the list, that = will very quickly become apparent to everyone, and we'll all just boo him out = of the pack. But if someone is almost always interesting and insightful, = and then has a bad day once and a while, what's wrong with a little = indulgence? Its like natural selection. I think these kinds of issue will take care = of themselves. Outside of vulgar language and directly pointed, vindictive personal attacks, where is the danger is erring on the side of a little = immoderation from time to time, if the reason we do so is not to revel in excess, but = to truly reach inside the core of ourselves and plumb or emotional and = rational depths like all good artists and thinkers should? So, I guess I've talked myself around full circle: yes, we need some moderation; but we also need a big walloping dose of = getting-over-ourselves, too! How was that for annoying? Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 19 Mar 2003 04:04:17 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >And, while I agree with Richard D. about freedom of expression >to an extent, I know from experience that it is far to easy to >say something in the heat of the moment that can cause someone >else a lot of pain that probably wasn't necessary. But why should that be our responsibility? Shouldn't we expect the reader to exercise constraint and not jump to conclusions? This has a definite literary tie-in. Far too many beginning LDS writers spend far too much time worrying about if such and such a scene is going to offend someone, weaken another's testimony, or result in their Stake President calling them up some day. Our Mormon culture makes such a big deal out of not offending "even the little ones" that we seem to have forgotten another scriptural injunction against not finding offense but looking instead at the beam in our own eye. Communication is a two-way system. The writer should be as clear as he/she possibly can and the reader should try to understand without taking offense as the first resort. ? And >sometime thoughts don't come across on email the way we intend >them to. The writer knows what he is saying, but the >inflection doesn't come across to the reader. So the person who may take offense has two options. Write back for clarifications or ignore the offense. > I'm also very >happy to know I can read an AML post without worrying about >getting singed by a flame war that I didn't even know was in progress. Flame wars aren't the same as real fires. You can't get singed if you don't want to be. You can always, always delete. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:12:32 -0700 EST Message-ID: <20030318.210932.-838607.7.bronsonjscott@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,11-12,22-23,28-29,36-41 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Richard Dutcher: > I don't approve of censorship in any form. . . . Sure you do. We all do. We don't let our kids say anything they want = any time they want to say it. We even stop ourselves from certain kinds of behavior depending on the company we keep. As for institutional = censorship, well, that's what makes the institution an institution; the guidelines = by which it operates. In fact, most institutions are organized for the = express purpose of accomplishing a mission of some kind within a certain set of strictures. Strong institutions remain strong because they maintain = their vision, their mission. A couple years ago I had my whole family in San Diego. One day my = sister and I took my five kids (5-14 yrs.) and our other sister's three kids (9-12) to Jack-in-the-Box for lunch. Without much effort on our part, = my sister and I maintained a high level of control with a maximum amount of = fun as well. Those kids were simply very well behaved and happy. Some guy sitting across the aisle from us was amazed. He said, "You should write = a book on how to control kids." I said, "I don't need that much paper. I = can tell you in three words: Freedom within restraints." He thought that = was very funny. I couldn't have been more serious. It's one of the great secrets of the universe. Everyone gravitates to institutions that suit their level of comfort = with these restrictions. We're only censored as much as we want to be. If I didn't like the restrictions that the church placed on me, I would go somewhere else for my spiritual nourishment. Frankly, I think these restrictions promote creativity. Let me ask you this: If you had a staff of writers at Zion Films, would = you allow them to write something as dumb as "Singles Ward?" Okay, that's different than an exchange of ideas, right? Not really. Films are = ideas exchanged in the large public forum called "Entertainment."=20 You might allow bad writers to express their ideas around the Writers' Table, but if they didn't start coming up with usable ideas -- usable to Zion Films -- you'd fire them. What's that but a form of censorship? J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:13:43 -0700 SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:35:24 -0800 Received: from 133.5.25.203 by sea2fd.sea2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 03:35:24 GMT Bcc:=20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=3Dflowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2003 03:35:24.0936 (UTC) FILETIME=3D[93D6B880:01C2EDC8] Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Back in the U.S.S.R. ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Thursday, March 13 Last year, Brigham Young University produced LeeAnne Hill Adams' "Yellow = China Bell," an intense drama about an Armenian woman kidnapped by a Russian man and forced to be his wife. Next week, Adams' new play, "Archipelago," premieres. It is about Stalin's system = of gulags that caused the death of somewhere between 15 million and 30 = million Russians in the first half of the 20th century. Despite her subject matter, Adams herself is upbeat. "I'm really drawn to true stories, especially stories about people overcoming extraordinary hardships," said Adams, a warm and charismatic 27-year-old who recently earned her master's degree from BYU in theater history and criticism. "That's what I'm most interested in about people, = is their ability to overcome horrible things. But I don't like to make = things up, because reality tends to be so much better than fiction." "Archipelago," like "Yellow China Bell," is based on true stories. Set = in a Siberian gulag called Kolyma in 1938, all the events in the play are = taken from survivors' personal accounts. Adams' thesis paper was on the = theatrical performances prisoners put on in the camps, and she gained exposure to = their stories in the process. "I came across so many stories and so many experiences that I thought = really deserved to be told on stage," she said. Along with the drama, the play has humor, too, mostly in satirizing = Stalin and his associates. "The tone goes back and forth from this really dark, black comedy to = some pretty difficult subject matter," Adams said. "The effect is quite = jarring in the readings we've had. The audience goes back and forth from = laughing and choking." Adams attended a few rehearsals early in the process and is pleased with what she saw. "The feel they're getting is right on," she said. "They're coming up = with things that I'm just not smart enough to think of." Samuelsen said Adams is "as gifted a writer as we've produced at BYU, = and that would include Neil LaBute. She's that good." Adams now lives with her husband and 2-month-old son in California, = where she is taking a stab at screenwriting. Her first effort? A romantic = comedy. "It's so hard," she said. "I keep thinking as I'm writing, 'This really needs a death.'" Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:14:34 -0700 (dialup-64.157.22.32.Dial1.SaltLakeCity1.Level3.net [64.157.22.32]) by pimout2-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.3 patch/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h2JAq3lM185166 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:52:12 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c2ee05$964ed0b0$20169d40@MyLaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001b01c2ece8$34a631f0$0a00005a@clarklextek> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Clark Goble >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:49 PM >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices > > >I don't write much anymore, but at one time I was a prolific >poster. I've had lots of posts either sent back for editing or=20 >rejected. I don't mind and I honestly think that keeping the=20 >tone is a good idea. > >I've been a member of lots of mailing lists since *way* back >in the days of Mormon-l and Morm-Ant at BYU. (Actually I=20 >believe there is a list with the name Mormon-l still around -=20 >but I'm speaking of the original one run at BYU) It is still around, surviving independently on another server. > One thing >I've noticed is that with email it is easy to not realize what=20 >your tone is. Further I recognize that some subjects always=20 >cause heated debate without much light. The biggest problem=20 >for a list is either too much mean-spirited speech or too much=20 >noise relative to information. A moderated mailing list=20 >avoids that. =20 I'm on half a dozen LDS lists and this is the only moderated one. I understood the need to moderate when the list was on a school server but = I don't understand it anymore. But I stay on because well, it's the only = list about this subject out there. And I like it. >Having been on many unmoderated mailing lists I >can assure you that this is a much better format. It is easy=20 >to not realize how others would take your words or not realize=20 >how some subthread leads the discussion. Honestly, I prefer the rough-and-tumble approach to a moderated list. Moderated lists occasionally morph into something else but they usually = come back to their own identity. What Jonathan is doing is, imo, a waste of time. Because the moderation doesn't really accomplish what it's said to accomplish. It may prevent Brother A from being offended = by the remarks of Brother B, but what about Brother B? He's required to = suck it up and allow his posting to go through edited for inoffensiveness, or = not be posted. As a person to whom this has happened on numerous occasions, = I can tell you it can be offensive to Brother B? So Brother B should be = the more Christ-like person, and not be offended about being censored but Brother A should be protected? It's a slippery slope, this moderation idea, that's going to offend = someone, no matter what Jonathan may do. Why not just throw open all the stops = and let us self-govern, in the grand principle taught by Joseph. What's = likely to happen if no moderation occurs? Some people will post things that my offend others. The person being offended has two options. They = respond, or they shut up and, feelings hurt, ultimately leave the list. Sister C = enters the fray, tells Brothers A and B to grow up and get back on topic and = either they do, or one or both of them gets offended and leaves the list. And = then we're back on topic. =20 I have been on Mormon oriented mailing lists since 1988. I have never = met most of the people I have been sharing ideas with. Some of those people = I don't agree with. I have also met some people in real life that I = haven't always agreed with in the past. I've yet to meet anyone in real life, = with whom I've disagreed, who I didn't otherwise appreciate being around. = What I'm saying is that I've seen no evidence that publically disagreeing = with someone on a list has done permanent damage to my relationships. =20 I prefer self-regulated lists, but this isn't my list, and the AML apparently prefers that it be moderated (they're paying the server = bills, so they have that right), so I'll abide by the list constraints as much as = I can. Jonathan will make sure of that. =20 >To those who want more freedom I can just say one thing: >private email. I get lots of private responses to things I've=20 >said. Some supportive. Others more "flame bait." =20 > >So I'd just suggest that a little moderation may seem >confining, but it is definitely better than the alternatives. =20 >You really have to see the ebb and flow of lists to realize this. =20 Self-regulated freedom is better than imposed freedom, in my libertarian world-view, so we disagree on this issue. And, just to make my case, Clark and I have disagreed over the years on = tons o' stuff, but I don't get offended and I don't think he does. If he = doesn't like what I've said on the various lists where we swapped electrons, he = just offers up a reasoned response like this one, the discussion continues, = and eventually we move on to other subjects. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 09:28:10 -0700 The attempt to neuter the "Mormon Male" is just a part of a larger trend that's been going on an awful long time. The skirts around tables in Victorian times are my favorite example--wouldn't want a man to see a table-leg and instantly become a ravening beast, now would we? In literature this model has been growing everywhere, and if anything it's fairly minor in Mormon literature. As usual (an thankfully) we're behind the curve on progressive thought. On Monday, Mar 17, 2003, at 17:49 America/Phoenix, Knudsen family wrote: > Oh, I hate, abhor, find disgusting, these types of models. My 22 > year-old son, returned missionary, came home yesterday from his > Single's Ward. He was livid. He said that the Sunday School teacher, > apparently a wife of one of the Bishopric, talked about how men and > women are so different, how men are so insensitive, have only one > thing in mind (and it wasn't food), and how they will do just about > anything to manipulate a woman to get what they want. (snip)... > > What are we saying about ourselves, our spouses, our brothers and > sisters, our culture, and what are we saying to others, when we make > statements such as this? Can't both sexes be strong, be independent, > be emotional, be appreciated? Why do we always have to put down one > sex to make the other look good? Why does one have to look bad, weak, > stupid in order for the other to look strong, good, smart? > It often amazes me how cruel women will be while accusing men of insensitivity. Ronda notes it above, and I applaud her for it. Why is such arrant cruelty such a matter of course? I remember reading in _Becoming_ by the Yorgason brothers about a study done at BYU. They asked the boys and girls what their own and the opposite sex's greatest challenge was. The boys said their own challenge was sexual thoughts, and that the girl's was jealousy. The girls said that their own challenge was jealousy, and that the boy's was cruelty. I thought it was very funny that while it is a universally accepted "fact" that men don't understand women, these young fellers understood so well, but the opposite was not true. I have really only once been roughed up by a girl where I actually felt hurt, and in that case a few dozen truly horrible poems made it all better. Many of my contemporaries had been far more cruelly used and this is something that appears in literature constantly down through the ages. It's the source of virtually all poetry (written by men, of course) and dates all the way back to Homer. My best friend in High School was going out with a girl a couple of years older than he was. One fine day they were having a bit of ice cream at Dairy Queen and she told him that she had been seeing somebody else for the past 8 months and she was going to marry him. On my friend's birthday, no less. Do you suppose he reacted insensitively? Do you suppose he laughed and started chasing the nearest skirt? If so you would suppose wrong. In the English sense of the word young men are HORRIBLY GRUESOMELY romantic. I've seen it time and again. I'm the sort of person that everybody asks for advice, and I've heard the same stories dozens of times. Girls are brutal and heartless to boys so frequently that it's a wonder it hasn't appeared in more of the famous studies that appear every year or two about the "battle" between the sexes. If a boy were to treat a girl with such callous and malicious cruelty he would be universally excoriated, but the female side gets barely a mention, much less a censure. Women generally deem that the boys (or men) only get what they deserve, since they have no feelings to hurt. There is no difference in the content or scope of feeling or emotion. The difference is not that men are less emotional than women, but only that they hide and control emotion more easily. And learn they must, because after being scorned, humiliated and insulted (and usually in some public place) the boys can't cry, they've got to just take it and not do what they want to (which is break her neck often as not). This restraint is admirable, and ought to be celebrated, since men who cannot control or hide their emotions are what we call murderers, thieves and rapists. Since they are not demonstrative, however, far too many women make the assumption that there's nothing to harm, and that any cruelty is justified by her own feelings. Some may think I'm giving something away here, but this is plainly obvious to anybody who troubles to look. Mothers with teenaged boys know it better than I do, and it isn't hard for anybody to find out. All those endless forlorn poems written over centuries ought to be a clue. A little reported story that's occurring right now is how many men are killing themselves after a one-sided divorce. Wifey suddenly decides she's not happy, takes the kids, 3/4 of his income, and won't let him see the kids anymore. There was one a few months ago where a despairing dad shot himself with a shotgun on the steps of the state capital of Florida. Obviously because he had no feelings to wound. Drawing this back to literature, in my own case I gave many of my miserable poems to the girl in question. Turns out they read them out loud in her English class. Her teacher said they were quite good. Jim Wilson aka TheLairdJim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:16:25 -0700 -0800 X-Sent: 19 Mar 2003 08:17:10 GMT Message-ID: <004401c2edf0$029a8450$20c0fe0c@TVaio> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-reply-to: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list ---Original Message From: Gae Lyn Henderson > I think the AML mission should be separate from the mission of the=20 >church. I think that the AML should encourage artistic expression=20 >that is HONEST. How could you make that a policy? It's unenforceable. It means that = you have *no* guidelines. I hate having to put up with outrageous claims = that are "honest" and yet turn out surprisingly self-serving. And really, = there is no way to "honestly" attack people. Attacking church leaders and disputing official church doctrine doesn't have anything to do with honesty... > A particular artist might be full > of testimony and faith or a particular artist might be full of=20 > doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be disallusioned and=20 > disbelieving. All these are expressions of what it means to be=20 > part of the Mormon culture. And I believe it is absolutely=20 > necessary for people and artists in the Mormon culture to have an=20 > avenue for honest self-expression, simply for reasons of mental=20 > health and to allow personal growth. Depends on what you mean by self-expression. I'm not interested in = hearing an artist (or anyone else for that matter) spout off about how the = church is wrong and I'm an idiot to be a member. I get enough of that in other venues. Artists are perfectly free to gripe about the church all they want--but that doesn't mean I have to be there to listen. > IMHO, a culture that cannot be criticized is NOT a healthy culture=20 > and I don't think that spirituality can flourish in an arena of=20 > silence and censorship. Criticize the culture all you want. Criticism of the culture isn't = against list guidelines at all. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:17:43 -0700 h2J6xQmU002873 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:59:28 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <3E781564.6080804@vii.com> X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <192.174148b1.2ba511d5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > I was once again witnessing an interesting phenomenon in > male-written LDS fiction. Perhaps it has been identified earlier and = given a=20 > proper name by the academics, but I simply call it the "Woman/boy" = model. >=20 > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our=20 > males. > The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent,=20 > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They = are > Women. >=20 > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially=20 > awkward, > spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are = boys, no=20 > matter how old they are. This is not an LDS fiction phenomenon, nor does it only appear in=20 male-written literature. This wise woman/bumbling man characterization was pointed out to me=20 nearly 20 years ago by my husband while we were watching an episode of=20 _The Cosby Show_ in which something goes awry with the plumbing.=20 Phyllicia Rashad then had a scene in which she told the pre-teen=20 daughter not to tell her father it was broken, but that they would call=20 a plumber quickly. Well, of course he overhears them and tries to fix=20 it, and character after character walks in only to repeat the line, "Why = did you let Dad know it was broken? Now he'll really wreck it!" or some=20 close variant. After that I found it was all over the place in TV-land, especially but=20 not exclusively badly written TV-land. In TV-land all secretaries are=20 more competent than their bosses. All women are more mature and capable=20 than their husbands/boyfriends/lovers. I'm sure there are exceptions but = that is the cultural stereotype, and not just in the church (where, if=20 you want something done, ask the Relief Society to do it, right?). And most recently I came across it in _Back when We Were Grownups_ by=20 Anne Tyler, an excellent novel on trying to go back and take the other=20 road, in which the former boyfriend turns out to be bumbling and=20 immature and not really worth the Woman's time. I even recall seeing something like it in a movie once, where a=20 beautiful, intelligent Woman fell for a younger, insecure boy who=20 thought the 3 best books ever written were the scriptures. :-) Yeah, he=20 did get a testimony by the end of the movie and he grew up a little, but = I'd put it in the same category. So yes, this is a pervasive stereotype, both in and out of the church=20 and both in and out of literature. Debbie Wager -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:18:29 -0700 (EST) Message-ID: <179.1761675c.2ba96980@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list In a message dated 3/18/2003 7:45:12 PM Mountain Standard Time,=20 kcmadsen@utah-inter.net writes: << So how about it--can anyone come up with a male written LDS novel = that has a strong Man/Woman relationship from the get go? >> I think immediately of Levi Peterson's THE BACKSLIDER, which is by far = my=20 favorite Mormon novel to date. Peterson creates a sympathetic, complex = male=20 protagonist and a wonderfully unique, down-to-earth woman. It's an = excellent novel with full, rich characters and relationships. While I'm on the subject of Levi Peterson, I must also recommend one of = his=20 short stories, "The Third Nephite," which can be found in NIGHT SOIL. A=20 wonderfully written, and hilarious, short story with a strong, complex Mormon=20 male protagonist. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:19:06 -0700 (EST) Message-ID: <41.2c7c0083.2ba96402@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list In a message dated 3/18/2003 7:45:23 PM Mountain Standard Time, alan@trilobyte.net writes: << I've probably offended Dutcher beyond repair >> Alan, Believe me, I'm not offended in the least. Carry on. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Taitfam" Subject: [AML] Packaging of Fiction (was: Framing in Art) Date: 19 Mar 2003 13:01:24 -0600 I want to ask a few questions that relate to the subject of frames, but not exactly as discussed already. These are questions I've wanted to ask for a long time, so I hope you'll oblige me and give some input. I'm very interested in what y'all might think. (Sorry, Texan moment.) I want to consider what has been called the "circumtextual frame" in relation to mormon literature. The circumtextual frame is the physical surroundings of a text--the covers, the pages, the font and type size, the front matter and back matter, titles and subtitles, footnotes and index, even the other "texts" printed alongside each other (as in a collection or anthology). The question: How does the physical presentation of a text affect our reading of it? And is the packaging of Mormon novels sufficiently different from the packaging of mainstream novels to alter our reading experience? For purposes of this discussion, I'm defining a "mormon" novel as one published by a specifically LDS publisher--particularly DB or Covenant. An obvious example of how the circumtextual frame of a novel affects our reading experience would be the cover illustration. Romance novels in particular are notorious for their covers. My starting premise, and I'm going to stop here because there's a lot more to say and I don't want to bog down yet, is that my experience reading LDS novels has been shaped by the fact that most of them are published in hard back, in books that are very artfully designed and printed on high quality paper. Even the Covenant paperbacks (e.g. Heimerdinger's books) seem to be designed according to relatively higher aesthetic standards (even if the editing isn't always up to snuff). It's a whole different experience than picking up a paperback by, say, John Grisham. Or a paperback version of Tom Sawyer or even Shakespeare. The cheap, if you will, design of these books seems to be my default expectation setting for fiction--gray paper, small print, a physically smaller book that can be tucked in my purse (or hidden behind a textbook). One of the things that got me wondering about this was reading Eric Samuelsen's novelization of his play, _Singled Out._ It was very much like a "mainstream" paperback--same size, small print, gray paper, the whole bit. It was the first LDS novel I'd seen printed like this. And it was a different reading experience than, say, Dean Hughes' Children of the Promise series books. I'm purposely not getting too specific about my reactions because I want to see what you all have to say. So, I ask. How, in your experience, are Mormon novels packaged? Does it affect the way you read them and what you expect of them before you ever turn the first page? Is there anything particularly 'mormon' or at least distinctive about the packaging of LDS fiction and is it good, bad, or indifferent? Would LDS fiction benefit from following a more mainstream design approach? Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:20:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from katie@aros.net) Received: (from webno@localhost) by venus.aros.net (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h2J5NNrd002614 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:23:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from spritle.dsl.aros.net (spritle.dsl.aros.net = [66.219.231.166])=20 by secure.aros.net (IMP) with HTTP=20 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:23:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1048051402.3e77fecae0d18@secure.aros.net> References: <20030312.183551.-274689.7.lajackson@juno.com> <3E761FCA.9070903@wwno.com> In-Reply-To: <3E761FCA.9070903@wwno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Originating-IP: 66.219.231.166 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > lajackson@juno.com wrote: >=20 > > Who will write this book, and will it be truth or fiction? >=20 > I'd love to, but I have a sneaking suspicion when attempting to=20 > acquire > the rights, I would be outbid by--well, everybody. Actually, in a way, I think you've already written it. Your setup in _Brother=20 Brigham_ has some striking similarities. Okay, the story's not the = same, but=20 still... --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 18 Mar 2003 20:26:51 -0800 [Mod: A more in-depth exploration of Rhonda's thesis results might be appropriate to the list, particularly insofar as they relate to Mormon literature.] Rhonda, I would love to read your thesis. Perhaps, as I think there is certainly = a literary tie-in as we explore the impact of this topic on the characters = we create and portray, you should publish relevant portions of your thesis = work on the list. I'd appreciate it. Moderator? Jongiorgi ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:49 PM > I'm finishing up my thesis right now, looking at LDS women within the=20 > culture and their relationships with their children. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Re: Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 19 Mar 2003 12:10:52 -0700 FWIW, Maybe this doesn't tickle anyone else's funny bone, but it does mine. The = scene that DB cited as the one that caused them to pull Daybell's book is = a scene in which a guardian angel character kicks the butt of an evil = spirit, literally kicks the evil spirit through a wall or something. = Anyway, in the Deseret News story about this situation yesterday, Daybell = said that he doesn't understand why they'd be offended by that particular = scene. Because, he said, it really happened. It's based on a real life = experience. (That's my best paraphrase; I don't have the article in front = of me.) I teach writing to undergraduate students. I've probably heard that a = million times. "You can't tell me that doesn't work (or belong in the = story, or whatever). It really happened!" I must say, though, this is a = first for me, to say 'it really happened' in reference to fisticuffs = between angels and evil spirits. =20 Not that it couldn't happen, mind you. I guess I am being flip and = dismissive, but I will grant the possibility of such a combat taking = place, and even the possibility of someone on earth knowing about it. It = still struck me as funny. =20 Having said that, it's a bizarre situation. One thing Daybell did ask in = that same story was 'is Deseret Book going to censor conflict?' Great = question. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] More technical glitches Date: 21 Mar 2003 12:41:57 -0600 Folks, Sorry that some more posts have gone through the list without proper From and Subject lines, and that yesterday's full complement of email did not go out (though my in-box is full to bursting). Again, the eventual goal is to improve our system; in the meantime, we're doing a little experimentation. Because the current in-box is so full, I'm going to go ahead and resend the 8 messages that went out without proper headings today, in addition to the 30 regular ones. And I won't count this message, nor another that'll likely be coming from one of the assistant moderators later today. So there will probably be 40 posts today, and that won't get us anywhere near through all of them. So have patience, please. (Many may not go out until this evening.) Thanks again to all of you for your patience and interest in AML-List Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Shakespeare as Prophet Date: 17 Mar 2003 16:39:02 -0500 As I was hobbling on a broken foot all over London with a group of BYU theater students, I made it a point to see a traditional production of Hamlet that led me to conclude that the Bard may well have been a prophet of these latter days. I recalled a student once who was convinced, due to the on-going debate as to who actually penned Shakespeare's words, that the plays were in reality ghost written by John the Revelator. At the time, I chalked the student's delusions up to one too many late night missionary speculation sessions, but now I wonder... Shakespeare is certainly quoted enough in General Conference to be considered, if not scripture, then Apocrypha. It was the opening act of Hamlet that really brought me up short, agog at the play's prescience and applicability to today's geo-political situation. The sentry, Marcellus, wants to know why they are on such a strict watch over their own citizenry, why such a heavy expenditure of man-power and resources on the implements of war, when there is no apparent enemy. Horatio has the explanation: it is because Fortinbras is raising a rag-tag, irregular army, recruiting disaffected people from the outlands. The parallels to 21st century America are uncanny. Here we are in various stages of alerts, keeping a vigilant eye on our own citizens because we fear an unseen foe. Not a regular army, but terrorists who can't be tracked down so easily. We justify spending billions on all kinds of munitions because of this uncertain, uneasy situation. Act I plays out with circumstances that cemented Hamlet as a play written for and about our time, the tale of how King Claudius, the man responsible for the rotten state of Denmark, came into power. I don't remember all the details because I was exhausted and fell asleep at that point. I dreamed of being somebody else who could get this posted. Tony Markham Delhi NY -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Role of LDS Writers Date: 15 Mar 2003 14:34:16 -0700 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > I think we should > leave the official outlets of the church alone, give them a break, > because, quite frankly, they are leaving us alone and letting us do just > about anything we want in our own venues. The church is not there to > create a standard of art; it has already done so with Article of Faith > 13. The rest is up to us. In a better world, this would be the right prescription. But we do not live in a better world. We live in a world where statements are distorted, where silence is given more meaning than utterances, where those with beams in their eye spend all their time searching for motes in other people's eyes and gleefully damage corneas trying to poke the motes out. > One important > point at issue, however, is the role of the "institutional" church and > its various official and directly related off-shoots, such as BYU and > Deseret, and the "cultural" church, which includes the AML, each of our > various companies and all of the plethora of businesses, schools > organizations, web-sites, etc., which have no direct or formal > affiliation with the Church. I think there is a necessary distinction > between the two which often gets overlooked. Yes, it does often get overlooked--but not by us (generally speaking). It gets overlooked by members of the church who believe Deseret Book sets the official standard of the institutional church for literature, who believe BYU--a university, for heaven's sake--should be restricted to the same levels of appropriate thinking that sacrament meetings are, who believe every facet of life should be as conservative as a day in church (yes, an exaggeration, but not by much). > We are fond of quoting various general authorities and their comments > about artists. One category which often gets overlooked, however, is the > concept of "appropriateness" as dwelt upon by Spencer W. Kimball in his > long and famous speech on the topic of LDS arts. I'm reaching the point where the word "appropriate" is becoming ugly on an order of magnitude comparable to the word "nigger." It's a word bandied about as if everyone knows what it means and agrees with its definition, neither of which is true. Then--and here comes the ugly part--it's used as a weapon to judge and condemn others in an attempt to get them to behave like we think they should, because our mindset is superior to all others. Prejudice, jugmentalism, condemnation, arrogance--these are the purposes behind use of the word "appropriate," and they are also the purposes behind the word "nigger." Now I do not intend to ascribe these things to President Kimball. It's true that appropriateness is an appropriate concept when used appropriately (chuckle). Marching bands have no place in church. Sermons have no place at a football game. But, as that excerpt Steven Kapp Perry gave us about the official stand on appropriate church music demonstrates, just because a statement by a General Authority is perfectly reasonable doesn't mean it will be implemented reasonably by members of the church who seem to have an aversion to thinking. (By this I do not mean they are stupid, but that they use their God-given free agency to waive their right to think and let someone else do it for them.) Someone in authority says "appropriate," and the statement they use the word in is reasonable. But because "appropriate" is not defined--indeed cannot be institutionally since everyone has their own definition--those who waive their right to think automatically assume their own personal definition, then demand that everyone accept it as the official definition. Indeed, they believe it _is_ the official definition (just like racists believe the supremacy of their own race is divinely instituted). > Also, I must respect (from the vantage point of the official church) all > different kinds of tastes. There are active members of the church, good > people, who genuinely think I am wicked to listen to rock. I _hope_ the church respects that. But it seems apparent that individuals at many, if not all, levels within the church do not. And since humans are notorious for being unable to tell the difference between the organization and individuals within the organization, it becomes the same thing. > I'm not going > to put my personal choices of what I listen to at home in their face. If > they are not open to it, it is simply not going to come up in > conversation. That is your choice, a valid one, to which you are welcome. But I don't consider it the only possible choice, or necessarily even the best choice. I question whether it's best to let people carry on in their unrighteous judgmentalism. Ugly confrontations may not be in order, but to present an alternate point of view in a more palatable way, with humor or something (shades of Sugar Beet!) so they can see that their point of view is _not_ universal like they thought it was, may get them to reassess what they're doing, just a little, and help them be more accepting, more loving toward their fellow Saints, and more aware that they do not know everything. It may help them become more aware that they are prejudiced, when they shouldn't be judging all, pre-, post-, or whatever. > And so there is a kind of conservitavism that exists in > the official organs of the church, which may have nothing to do with the > gospel, per se, or even any official teachings of the church, per se, > but must exist for the fact that the official church must account for > the needs of all and, frankly, broad exposure to the arts is just not > one of its goals or priorities. This I reject. There is no reason that the conservatism _must_ exist. The "lowest common denominator" (LCD) approach exists because the church _institutionally_ promotes the need for it. Not always actively, and I'm sure not deliberately. But the very attitude that we must protect the weaknesses of the weak, instead of helping them grow, is a grave mistake in my opinion. The glory of God is intelligence, in other words, light and truth. Allowing people to remain in their ignorance for fear of offending them is a destructive policy, and certainly does not promote light and truth. Sadly, that is what the church does by allowing, thereby tacitly endorsing, the approach of LCD standards, cover-ups, and censorship in the name of not offending the weak. All this matters to LDS artists because the same approach occurs there. BYU feels uncomfortable displaying nude art because the church has followed the Protestant cultural trend of fearing nudity and sex, something that's unnecessary because there's no justification for it in LDS doctrine. Yet BYU is supposedly a "university," an institution which encompasses all truth, learning, and art "universally," thus the name. An insitution which censors art and covers up truths in the name of not offending the easily offended has no business labeling itself a "university." The fact that other unversities do the same thing, albeit using different standards of appropriateness, is no excuse. None of them should be doing it--none of them deserve the austere label of "university." There is nothing universal about education censored according to provincial biases. Brigham Young said he didn't want even the times tables taught in these institutions without the spirit. And that's a wonderful philosophy to hold. It's a fine way to ensure that the greatest quality of truth is being taught. But that's not what's happening. Teaching truth by the spirit is not the same as censoring or covering up truth, although the one is done in the name of the other by way of justification. > While it is fine for BYU to teach, perhaps, War and Peace, with its > battle scenes, love scenes, infidelities, murders, passions and > magnificences, it might decide not to display a nude statue. This in no > way states that the church is against or does not promote art of all > kinds or that it does not know the difference between porn and art. But > the church is simply (perhaps) not interested in discussing the > distinction at all, and if anyone might be offended, they pull the plug. Which is exactly what is wrong with the whole situation, in my opinion. I say the act of censorship does indeed state that the church is against some forms of art and doesn't know the difference between art and pornography. And since the church is conducting a big battle against pornography right now, it had _better_ be interested in discussing the distinction. In my opinion, the weak approach of giving in to the lowest common denominator is a cowardly approach and does nothing to help members achieve the very purpose of their existence: eternal progression. It lets them stagnate in their own ignorance. Assisting us in our eternal progression is the primary goal of the church, and in terms of art and education, I believe it's dropping the ball. And why? Out of fear of offending "one of the least of these." But the "least of these" they're afraid of offending are not the innocent or the novice in the gospel. The "least of these" seems to be the prejudiced, the judgmental, the arrogant. It seems to be those who build themselves up by condemning others. It's those who have _chosen_ to stagnate in their progression by saying, "I have enough truth and don't need anymore," and try to force that condition on the rest of us. They won't enter the gate themselves, which is their choice, but they also try to keep others out. Now what does that remind me of? You _can't_ learn, explore, grow, progress, without rocking the boat. And since rocking the boat always offends somebody who wants things to remain status quo, fulfilling the plan of salvation _requires_ that someone be offended. To avoid offense is to negate the plan of salvation. > Any kind of official "censoring" is almost > always done by "middle management" officials and General Authorities > almost never make any specific statement whatsoever about anything > commercial or artistic regarding merit or not, except in the broadest of > terms. And that, in my opinion, is a grave mistake. Either the GAs are unaware of what's going on in their name, in which case they are failing in some of their managerial duties, or they are deliberately allowing the situation to exist, thereby endorsing it, thereby making everyone think the behavior of the middle management is correct. So blaming it all on middle management does not let the church off the hook. > I may not like Deseret's guildlines, but what is the matter with > allowing them to have them, as long as we have Covenant, Irreanteum, > Sunstone, etc., etc., and any number of other outlets for appropriate, > but perhaps not Officially Sanctioned, works. I also agree that Deseret Book, BYU, and what-not have the right to decide their own policies. But their choices are not made in a vacuum. They have great influence, and those who have waived their right to think believe the choices of these semi-official institutions are official doctrine. But the true crime occurs when nothing is done to counteract the false belief that these policies are official church policy. Neither the semi-official institutions, nor the church itself make any meaningful attempt to divest members of the notion. Instead they give in to the misperception by following the LCD strategy. (By the way, where do you get the idea that Covenent belongs in the list of alternatives? Covenant is just a me-too Deseret Book who emphasizes fiction more.) Your suggestion that alternative outlets exist is not true. Theoretically possible, but de facto nonexistent. At least for fiction. Sunstone has been labeled (in characteristically cowardly fashion without being named) as a dangerous place for Saints to go if they treasure their testimony. Irreantum so far is barely a blip on the LDS market radar screen. Any other literary outlet more or less follows the Deseret Book policies, otherwise _their_ outlets won't carry their books. Signature is an exception, but Signature fiction never sells--they don't know how to market it, or perhaps have nowhere to market it even if they did. There is no _meaningful_ alternative to the Deseret Book/Covenant monopoly. There are a few trying to break that monopoly. I wish them well, but at this point see no reason to expect much success. My sense is that the approaches they're taking won't make much difference. > BYU (an > institution I have supported, loved and hated all at the same time!) has > its reasons, but as an official institution, I must allow them certain > restrictions that I might perhaps privately mock, but I don't feel the > need to actively force some kind of sea change therein. I don't feel any need to allow them anything. They call themselves a university, thereby taking on a moral obligation to act as such. They are a big influence in the cultural climate that restricts my ability to both distribute art that I want to create and find art that I want to enjoy. I don't feel any obligation to avoid criticizing them. It's not like BYU is the prophet, is it? I believe in the lofty ideals they claim to strive for, but I believe their strategy for achieving them is all cockeyed and destructive to their goals. Why shouldn't I speak out against that? If I belong to a church that won't let me speak out honestly according to my conscience--not belligerently, not abusively, but honestly--I have to wonder if I'm in the right church. > I write works which contain elements which I defend as artistically > justified, but I don't attempt to publish them as "Deseret appropriate." > I just look for a different outlet, and trust that my audience will find > me. Has your search succeeded? Has your audience found you? Please, if you have, clue us in. > And while I don't necessarily think Deseret represents the > mainstream of tastes in the church, they just might, and why try and > offend or force-feed something down the throats of those that don't want > it? Because of the situation Eric Samuelsen described in a recent post: an alternate audience does seem to exist, but is afraid and speaks in whispers, because Deseret Book, whether truly representing the mainstream, is _perceived_ as representing the mainstream, and the market they _do_ represent seem to be a bunch of intolerant, judgmental, arrogant tyrants who aren't content to just enjoy their tastes in literature, but are on a crusade to force their tastes on everybody else. And they do it in the name of God, one of the most insidious forms of tyranny. Is all this true? I don't know. But that's the perception, and perception is more powerful than reality in influencing the behavior of human beings. > I'm not hampered as an artist, but I must find my best marketing medium > for any given work. That marketing medium may be MTV, or it may be > Deseret Media! I'm producing both, but I'm not trying to sell my MTV > stuff on Deseret, and vice-versa. My stuff fits neither MTV nor Deseret Media. Where do I go? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices (Resend) Date: 18 Mar 2003 21:09:29 -0700 Richard Dutcher: > I don't approve of censorship in any form. . . . Sure you do. We all do. We don't let our kids say anything they want any time they want to say it. We even stop ourselves from certain kinds of behavior depending on the company we keep. As for institutional censorship, well, that's what makes the institution an institution; the guidelines by which it operates. In fact, most institutions are organized for the express purpose of accomplishing a mission of some kind within a certain set of strictures. Strong institutions remain strong because they maintain their vision, their mission. A couple years ago I had my whole family in San Diego. One day my sister and I took my five kids (5-14 yrs.) and our other sister's three kids (9-12) to Jack-in-the-Box for lunch. Without much effort on our part, my sister and I maintained a high level of control with a maximum amount of fun as well. Those kids were simply very well behaved and happy. Some guy sitting across the aisle from us was amazed. He said, "You should write a book on how to control kids." I said, "I don't need that much paper. I can tell you in three words: Freedom within restraints." He thought that was very funny. I couldn't have been more serious. It's one of the great secrets of the universe. Everyone gravitates to institutions that suit their level of comfort with these restrictions. We're only censored as much as we want to be. If I didn't like the restrictions that the church placed on me, I would go somewhere else for my spiritual nourishment. Frankly, I think these restrictions promote creativity. Let me ask you this: If you had a staff of writers at Zion Films, would you allow them to write something as dumb as "Singles Ward?" Okay, that's different than an exchange of ideas, right? Not really. Films are ideas exchanged in the large public forum called "Entertainment." You might allow bad writers to express their ideas around the Writers' Table, but if they didn't start coming up with usable ideas -- usable to Zion Films -- you'd fire them. What's that but a form of censorship? J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ADAMS, "Archipelago" (Daily Herald) Date: 19 Mar 2003 03:35:24 +0000 Back in the U.S.S.R. ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Thursday, March 13 Last year, Brigham Young University produced LeeAnne Hill Adams' "Yellow China Bell," an intense drama about an Armenian woman kidnapped by a Russian man and forced to be his wife. Next week, Adams' new play, "Archipelago," premieres. It is about Stalin's system of gulags that caused the death of somewhere between 15 million and 30 million Russians in the first half of the 20th century. Despite her subject matter, Adams herself is upbeat. "I'm really drawn to true stories, especially stories about people overcoming extraordinary hardships," said Adams, a warm and charismatic 27-year-old who recently earned her master's degree from BYU in theater history and criticism. "That's what I'm most interested in about people, is their ability to overcome horrible things. But I don't like to make things up, because reality tends to be so much better than fiction." "Archipelago," like "Yellow China Bell," is based on true stories. Set in a Siberian gulag called Kolyma in 1938, all the events in the play are taken from survivors' personal accounts. Adams' thesis paper was on the theatrical performances prisoners put on in the camps, and she gained exposure to their stories in the process. "I came across so many stories and so many experiences that I thought really deserved to be told on stage," she said. Along with the drama, the play has humor, too, mostly in satirizing Stalin and his associates. "The tone goes back and forth from this really dark, black comedy to some pretty difficult subject matter," Adams said. "The effect is quite jarring in the readings we've had. The audience goes back and forth from laughing and choking." Adams attended a few rehearsals early in the process and is pleased with what she saw. "The feel they're getting is right on," she said. "They're coming up with things that I'm just not smart enough to think of." Samuelsen said Adams is "as gifted a writer as we've produced at BYU, and that would include Neil LaBute. She's that good." Adams now lives with her husband and 2-month-old son in California, where she is taking a stab at screenwriting. Her first effort? A romantic comedy. "It's so hard," she said. "I keep thinking as I'm writing, 'This really needs a death.'" Copyright 2002 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices (Resend) Date: 19 Mar 2003 03:52:01 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >I don't write much anymore, but at one time I was a prolific >poster. I've had lots of posts either sent back for editing or >rejected. I don't mind and I honestly think that keeping the >tone is a good idea. > >I've been a member of lots of mailing lists since *way* back >in the days of Mormon-l and Morm-Ant at BYU. (Actually I >believe there is a list with the name Mormon-l still around - >but I'm speaking of the original one run at BYU) It is still around, surviving independently on another server. > One thing >I've noticed is that with email it is easy to not realize what >your tone is. Further I recognize that some subjects always >cause heated debate without much light. The biggest problem >for a list is either too much mean-spirited speech or too much >noise relative to information. A moderated mailing list >avoids that. I'm on half a dozen LDS lists and this is the only moderated one. I understood the need to moderate when the list was on a school server but I don't understand it anymore. But I stay on because well, it's the only list about this subject out there. And I like it. >Having been on many unmoderated mailing lists I >can assure you that this is a much better format. It is easy >to not realize how others would take your words or not realize >how some subthread leads the discussion. Honestly, I prefer the rough-and-tumble approach to a moderated list. Moderated lists occasionally morph into something else but they usually come back to their own identity. What Jonathan is doing is, imo, a waste of time. Because the moderation doesn't really accomplish what it's said to accomplish. It may prevent Brother A from being offended by the remarks of Brother B, but what about Brother B? He's required to suck it up and allow his posting to go through edited for inoffensiveness, or not be posted. As a person to whom this has happened on numerous occasions, I can tell you it can be offensive to Brother B? So Brother B should be the more Christ-like person, and not be offended about being censored but Brother A should be protected? It's a slippery slope, this moderation idea, that's going to offend someone, no matter what Jonathan may do. Why not just throw open all the stops and let us self-govern, in the grand principle taught by Joseph. What's likely to happen if no moderation occurs? Some people will post things that my offend others. The person being offended has two options. They respond, or they shut up and, feelings hurt, ultimately leave the list. Sister C enters the fray, tells Brothers A and B to grow up and get back on topic and either they do, or one or both of them gets offended and leaves the list. And then we're back on topic. I have been on Mormon oriented mailing lists since 1988. I have never met most of the people I have been sharing ideas with. Some of those people I don't agree with. I have also met some people in real life that I haven't always agreed with in the past. I've yet to meet anyone in real life, with whom I've disagreed, who I didn't otherwise appreciate being around. What I'm saying is that I've seen no evidence that publically disagreeing with someone on a list has done permanent damage to my relationships. I prefer self-regulated lists, but this isn't my list, and the AML apparently prefers that it be moderated (they're paying the server bills, so they have that right), so I'll abide by the list constraints as much as I can. Jonathan will make sure of that. >To those who want more freedom I can just say one thing: >private email. I get lots of private responses to things I've >said. Some supportive. Others more "flame bait." > >So I'd just suggest that a little moderation may seem >confining, but it is definitely better than the alternatives. >You really have to see the ebb and flow of lists to realize this. Self-regulated freedom is better than imposed freedom, in my libertarian world-view, so we disagree on this issue. And, just to make my case, Clark and I have disagreed over the years on tons o' stuff, but I don't get offended and I don't think he does. If he doesn't like what I've said on the various lists where we swapped electrons, he just offers up a reasoned response like this one, the discussion continues, and eventually we move on to other subjects. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices (Resend) Date: 19 Mar 2003 01:17:40 -0700 ---Original Message From: Gae Lyn Henderson >=20 > I think the AML mission should be separate from the mission=20 > of the church. I think that the AML should encourage artistic=20 > expression that is HONEST.=20 How could you make that a policy? It's unenforceable. It means that = you have *no* guidelines. I hate having to put up with outrageous claims = that are "honest" and yet turn out surprisingly self-serving. And really, = there is no way to "honestly" attack people. Attacking church leaders and disputing official church doctrine doesn't have anything to do with honesty... > A particular artist might be full=20 > of testimony and faith or a particular artist might be full=20 > of doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be=20 > disallusioned and disbelieving. All these are expressions of=20 > what it means to be part of the Mormon culture. And I=20 > believe it is absolutely necessary for people and artists in=20 > the Mormon culture to have an avenue for honest=20 > self-expression, simply for reasons of mental health and to=20 > allow personal growth. Depends on what you mean by self-expression. I'm not interested in = hearing an artist (or anyone else for that matter) spout off about how the = church is wrong and I'm an idiot to be a member. I get enough of that in other venues. Artists are perfectly free to gripe about the church all they want--but that doesn't mean I have to be there to listen. > IMHO, a culture that cannot be criticized is NOT a healthy=20 > culture and I don't think that spirituality can flourish in=20 > an arena of silence and censorship. Criticize the culture all you want. Criticism of the culture isn't = against list guidelines at all. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Deborah Wager Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male (Resend) Date: 18 Mar 2003 23:59:48 -0700 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > I was once again witnessing an interesting phenomenon in > male-written LDS fiction. Perhaps it has been identified earlier and given a > proper name by the academics, but I simply call it the "Woman/boy" model. > > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. > The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are > Women. > > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, > spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no > matter how old they are. This is not an LDS fiction phenomenon, nor does it only appear in male-written literature. This wise woman/bumbling man characterization was pointed out to me nearly 20 years ago by my husband while we were watching an episode of _The Cosby Show_ in which something goes awry with the plumbing. Phyllicia Rashad then had a scene in which she told the pre-teen daughter not to tell her father it was broken, but that they would call a plumber quickly. Well, of course he overhears them and tries to fix it, and character after character walks in only to repeat the line, "Why did you let Dad know it was broken? Now he'll really wreck it!" or some close variant. After that I found it was all over the place in TV-land, especially but not exclusively badly written TV-land. In TV-land all secretaries are more competent than their bosses. All women are more mature and capable than their husbands/boyfriends/lovers. I'm sure there are exceptions but that is the cultural stereotype, and not just in the church (where, if you want something done, ask the Relief Society to do it, right?). And most recently I came across it in _Back when We Were Grownups_ by Anne Tyler, an excellent novel on trying to go back and take the other road, in which the former boyfriend turns out to be bumbling and immature and not really worth the Woman's time. I even recall seeing something like it in a movie once, where a beautiful, intelligent Woman fell for a younger, insecure boy who thought the 3 best books ever written were the scriptures. :-) Yeah, he did get a testimony by the end of the movie and he grew up a little, but I'd put it in the same category. So yes, this is a pervasive stereotype, both in and out of the church and both in and out of literature. Debbie Wager -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male (Resend) Date: 19 Mar 2003 01:34:40 EST In a message dated 3/18/2003 7:45:12 PM Mountain Standard Time, kcmadsen@utah-inter.net writes: << So how about it--can anyone come up with a male written LDS novel that has a strong Man/Woman relationship from the get go? >> I think immediately of Levi Peterson's THE BACKSLIDER, which is by far my favorite Mormon novel to date. Peterson creates a sympathetic, complex male protagonist and a wonderfully unique, down-to-earth woman. It's an excellent novel with full, rich characters and relationships. While I'm on the subject of Levi Peterson, I must also recommend one of his short stories, "The Third Nephite," which can be found in NIGHT SOIL. A wonderfully written, and hilarious, short story with a strong, complex Mormon male protagonist. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Taitfam" Subject: [AML] Re: (AML) The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 13:23:34 -0600 I have noticed this phenomena of devaluing men in both LDS and mainstream culture. It disturbs me. I have three teenage sons. They have noticed too, as I learned today. I happened onto the profile one of my boys (age 16) had listed for himself on a discussion group. It asked for sex, as in gender. His reply: "the stupid one." That hurt. And yet I know it is the message that young men receive about themselves from many sources. Even, I fear, from their mother, no matter how inintentional. They've overheard my "girl talk" conversations about "men." They've heard my feminist rantings to my husband (who generally agrees). They've seen how overjoyed we were to "finally" get a girl when our fourth child was born. And most of all, they've watched lots of TV, from Homer Simpson to Everybody Loves Raymond. Even in the good quality stuff, the assumption is generally that men are basically idiots or animals. I have long considered gender a subject upon which more revelation would be most welcome, something that could help us strip away the layers of cultural baggage and see the truth for what it is. There is next to nothing to go on in the scriptures. Virtually everything we consider doctrinal on the subject originates in commentary, inspired and otherwise. Gender is an eternal characteristic of God's children. Beyond that, I don't think we're capable of figuring it out for ourselves. Meanwhile, I think we need to talk about this in Family Home Evening. Lisa Tait [emerging from semi-lurkerdom for reasons probably related to all the other work she doesn't want to be doing today] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive (Resend) Date: 18 Mar 2003 22:23:22 -0700 Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > lajackson@juno.com wrote: > > > Who will write this book, and will it be truth or fiction? > > I'd love to, but I have a sneaking suspicion when attempting to acquire > the rights, I would be outbid by--well, everybody. Actually, in a way, I think you've already written it. Your setup in _Brother Brigham_ has some striking similarities. Okay, the story's not the same, but still... --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Re: What Is Meta-Discourse? Date: 19 Mar 2003 11:54:18 -0800 (PST) Kim Madsen wrote: >At the risk of exposing myself as somewhat ignorant, can you explain = >this to >me? I looked up the prefix meta- and learned it means "occurring later >than >or in succession to" or "situated behind or beyond " or even "more >comprehensive : transcending", "used with the name of a discipline to >designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with >the >original one", but I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean >by >"meta-issues of discourse". Paint me obtuse, but I just don't get it. >Therefore, your words don't communicate anything to me. I was just being lazy, Kim. The meta- prefix is widely used by those who pose as post-modern hipsters, and while I fight against that tendency, it is often my default mode because my academic training was steeped in such an environment. In this instance, the prefix is being used in the sense of your final definition: "used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one." Generally what that means is any sort of 'meta' discussion takes a look at the underlying assumptions and principles of the discipline it's taking a look at. So if a discussion of discourse is a discussion of how things are said (rhetoric) and what they mean, then meta-discourse would be taking a look at the underlying assumptions behind the tools/principles that go into discourse analysis. Honestly, I think that what I really mean is that I'm preoccupied by discourse analysis. I'm fascinated by what we say on the AML-list, in Mormon literature, and in our discussions at church with other LDS. And even more, I'm fascinated by how we say it. If I were to try to make a reasonable defense of my phrase 'meta-issues of discourse,' I suppose that I'd say that I'm interested in how we talk about how we talk about Mormon discourse. In other words, when list members talk about the AML-list guidelines, or they talk about what they can and can't say at church---what metaphors do they use? how do they frame the discussion? what sort of examples and rhetoric do they fall back on? what principles do they believe govern (or should govern) their act of speaking or hamper their ability to speak? For example, I found these remarks by Richard Dutcher to be incredibly interesting. He wrote: "If we continue to practice censorship in the AML, then we are continuing a destructive tradition of censorship in the LDS community. Let's take responsibility for our own words, and let's be confident enough to stand up to the strong words of others." In the first sentence I quote, Richard ties in AML-list guidelines to what he sees as a historical practice (even a tradition) of censorship in the LDS community. What he seems to suggest is that discourse on the AML-list is coloured negatively by the demands of the broader LDS discourse. NOt only that, but it is destructive. The boundaries and strictures that are imposed actually cause a break-down in the discourse. The assumption is that censorship is bad. Now I think Richard could back up this argument fairly well. And I don't know for sure, but he might even agree that some boundaries are necessary, but it's obvious that his concern is that LDS discourse boundaries are way to narrow, and as a result expression suffers. But I also can see others framing the tone and content of AML-list discourse and the guidelines and moderating practices that help define it in a completely different way The second sentence focuses on strength. I'm going to exaggerate for effect here, but Richard is basically telling everybody to suck it up. What's interesting, I think, is that in this sentence and in the post as a whole Richard uses fairly strong terms and short, abrupt sentences to get his point across. If I, for instance, were to write a post on civility, it probabably include 'softer' terms and more qualifiers and I wouldn't talk about censorship at all. This is not to say that either point of view *has* to be discussed in those terms (there are 'nicer' ways to tell people to suck it up, after all), but that it's not surprising to see that Richard has framed his post in the way that he has. I could go on, but the problem with meta-discussions is that they're often boring to those who aren't interested in the topic, and it's really easy in such discussions to rely heavily on unfounded assumptions and shoddy analysis. Meta-discussion too often gets far afield from actual academic work---which is why lazy grad students engage in it so often. It beats doing the hard work. It's often the equivalent of bar debates like 'If King Kong teamed up with Mothra could the two of them together take out Godzilla?' or 'Is Barry Bonds the greatest baseball player of all time?' ~~William Morris -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Halverson, Tom" Subject: RE: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 19 Mar 2003 15:46:03 -0800 The following is a form letter that was sent to me by a friend who = works at Deseret Book in response to my query to her about this thread. It = doesn't really answer any questions, but it may be of value for those = interested in a statement of DB's selection policy. Deseret Book=AE=09 =09 [Date] [Name] [Address} [City, State Zip] Dear [Name]: Deseret Book Company is in the business of providing products that = uplift, enlighten and build individuals and families, and are consistent with = the values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To this = end, we receive literally thousands of products annually from vendors worldwide = to consider for inclusion in the company's publishing, retail and = wholesale divisions. Our inventory capacity (both budget and physical space) cannot embrace = even half the quantity of products that come to our attention. Therefore, = our buying process is essential and is based on well-researched and well-reasoned criteria. We look at several aspects of a product and ultimately must decide if it is 1) a match for our customers, 2) a = match for Deseret Book, and 3) a product that will provide a reasonable return on = our investment for the company. Unfortunately, we are not able to include Chasing Paradise at this = time. =20 A committee designated to review and evaluate products, along with purchasing and retail management, have declined on adding Chasing = Paradise to the Deseret Book inventory. This is a difficult decision that takes collective effort from many at Deseret Book. It is not based on one sentence or paragraph, as some have suggested through emails, but in = fact, the book in its entirety was reviewed and assessed, and the decision = was based on several factors. We wish you the best, Boyd Ware Director, Retail Stores -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 19 Mar 2003 19:32:21 EST In a message dated 3/19/2003 4:55:38 PM Mountain Standard Time, parisander@freeport.com writes: << Richard, you must be the most graceful of all writers. Perhaps you don't need a moderator to help you put things in a less offensive or threatening way. Maybe you've never offended or made yourself out to be an ass. I am very good at both of those things, and the remorse I feel when I realize what I've done is awful. You must be graceful. >> No, I just prefer the right to make an ass of myself to the comfort of being (or feeling) protected by another. Honestly, I prefer sinning and then repenting and learning to not sinning in the first place. It goes back to that moral agency thing that we claim to hold dear. In reading the many posts on this issue, I have come to understand more of what many of us want this list to be: a polite, safe haven for LDS writers. I can understand the need for such a place. And I certainly wouldn't want to take that away from those who value it. But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 16:36:44 -0800 I find this whole conversarion very interesting, esp in light of the fact that I was recently told by a friend that many women in Utah are what he calls "passive females." (*cough* Clark *cough*) I'm trying to think if I see these stereotypes reflected in the LDS people I know, and I don't think it is. I know lots of strong LDS women, and lots of strong LDS men. I tend to think that living the gospel takes a certain amount of strength. And I have heard many men in the church say that they wouldn't be active in the church if it wasn't for their wives--and that's the case with me and my husband, too. But I don't see those men as weak at all. I know when I read fiction, I like the women characters to be strong and lively. I really don't enjoy reading about characters that are "passive females," unless the character grows past that into a strong person. Maybe other women feel the same--and I'd assume the LDS fiction audience is mostly female. But I should put a disclaimer in--I haven't read more than a handful of LDS novels. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: AML List as Epistolary Novel Date: 18 Mar 2003 22:46:11 -0800 th. Jepson's post re: epistolary fiction intrigued me for a couple of = reasons. One is just nostalgia for the literary form he (I've made this = mistake before: is it "she"?; at any rate, Jepson!) talks about. The = second reason is one I'm not sure about, but reading Jepson's post I got = a bizarre flash of inspiration (some will call it indigestion) and wrote = a satirical post, which of course, our diligent moderator immediately = rejected citing the rule of no pen names and signing all posts. (You'll = see why that rejection was in and of itself wonderfully ironic later.) Firstly, about epistolary fiction. Jepson cites "Dangerous Liaisons" = which I studied carefully when I played the role of Valmont in a stage = production in LA about 11 years ago, and since Samuel Richardson is also = mentioned, I ended up reading his "Clarissa," too, and I've sought out = some other examples of the form. I actually enjoy epistolary fiction. But it is basically a dead form, now days, or considered anachronistic. = Consider Stephen King's experiment a few years ago in on-line publishing = where he posted installments of an epistolary novel on the web as he = finished them and asked people to voluntarily send him money when the = downloaded the posts. The experiment ultimately failed as interest took = a nose-dive after installment three or four and King gave up and never = finished the novel. I think the interest died, not because people were = dishonest and didn't want to send money for bits and pieces of a = novel-in-progress (actually, King reported that there was a high degree = of honest; some 75% of people who downloaded actually sent him a buck!). = I think modern readers (or that is to say, King's modern readers) were = put off by the epistolary form. I recently finished a book of autobiographical criticism (to coin a = genre) by Wendy Lesser and one of her chapters mentions this form, as an = early childhood favorite novel of hers was epistolary in nature. She = dismisses the form as archaic, saying that, while it is sometimes = effective, it always calls attention to itself in a self-conscious way. Jepson cites several classics in this form, several of which (unlike = Richardson) have actually remained in print and are still read. I = thought "Dracula" was immensely successful, and only occasionally found = myself saying, in the midst of a long chapter, gee, this is a long = letter! It was fun to see how King tried to get around it. He sets his book, = "The Plant," in a publishing house, so all of the characters are writers = and they all send memos to each other as a matter of course. Then he has = the main character's girlfriend off on the other side of the country; = the guy is pining for her, and rights these long letters to her, saying = within the text, "Oh my gosh" (actually, I don't think King actually did = use "oh my gosh," but you get my point), "This is a long letter!" So, he = handled it well, but it still was nonetheless a self-conscious form = (especially set in modern times when nobody right letters any more), and = the author is constantly forced to come up with creative ways to get = around the fact that there just would never be a complete, coherent = story possible to derive from various letters! Then comes Jepson with a remarkable idea. An on-line list. This is the = perfect modern equivalent to a possible epistolary form of a novel. Now, = of course, you just have to get rid of the problem of telling a coherent = story. But then, what am I talking about? Take Dostoevsky, for example. The man = was brilliant at creating novels, not so much about plot, as about a = connected series of amazing conversations. "The Idiot" is probably most = notable for this. What is that book about? I don't know, but there are = some really amazing things that get said in one long conversation after = another.=20 Okay, an aside. Digression. Admission: I've never read "The Idiot"! = "Crime and Punishment" is my only Dostoevsky to date. That will change, = but so far, I have only read commentaries about "The Idiot" - but = believe me: the commentaries make the point I just made! (those of you = who have actually read "The Idiot" can either disagree or concur). Back = to the point. So, does a novelistic form, a form which has proven itself time and time = again to be completely plastic and capable of gross manipulation and = experimentation by the artist, have to have a narrative through-line? I = think not. So what if you had all of these interesting people having = these interesting conversations, and through it, perhaps, you just get a = sense of some kind of plot happenings in these people's lives. = FASCINATING. What a very cool idea. Of course, to be a really entertaining novel, the forum of the = epistolary posts could not be a moderated one. Flaming and shouting = would be essential to keep us reading! (Just kidding. Sort of.) Jepson agrees that the form is problematic, but the inherent glee in = public voyeurism which is a part of human nature (again I must cite = "reality" TV), could revitalize interest in the form Jepson proposes. It = is a bold experiment, at any rate, and I which Jepson well on it. Now we get back to the idea of fiction. Do we create a fictionalization = of ourselves in the letters we write? Or at least a romanticized version = of ourselves. I suggested in an earlier post that all writing is a = fictionalization of a certain kind. So in our letter writings we = reinvent ourselves, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. And, = in reference to the various moderator posts that have come up recently, = it is true that writing has certain limitations (no body language, no = voice inflection, no eye contact), which also create a barrier that = allow for a certain masking and reinvention of self if the contact is = only via e-mail. By stripping away the "universal narrator" or by not allowing the reader = to really go inside someone's head and see what is really going on, in = the epistolary form, we have only what people say about themselves, but = not just what they say about themselves, but what they say about = themselves to other people. We want to be seen in a certain light and so = we create that light in our posts. Only if we are very fast typists, and = only if our posts go out live, with no edits, would it be possible to = detect the certain cracks in the mask that come out in impassioned = conversation. Hence my suggestion that Eric's recent controversial post = was inherently interesting as such: it became a monologue, rather than = an essay. For a truly interesting epistolary novel to work, such must at = least be the occasional occurrence. In thinking about this, I was suddenly inspired (this is the "second = reason" I talked about above, where I am also unsure about my use of = "inspired") to write a satirical response that plays on this concept of = the reinvention of ourselves and the fictionalization factor that comes = out in epistolary presentations (especially when ALL we know about = someone is their via their posts). I mean, I visualize Scott Bronson and = Eric Samuelson and Richard Dutcher and a few others when I read their = stuff. But for the most part, I am in the dark. Who are these names? = What are the faces the ages (and even, in one case, the genders!)? Some = of that comes through: someone mentions a teenage son, for example. But = this is otherwise a mystery. We are, in effect, characters of our own invention! And this idea lead me to write the following satire, which I include in = its entirety: Hello, my name is Voder Foss. I'd like to introduce myself to the List. = I'm a brand new member, and I've never introduced myself, so I'd like to = do so now.=20 I'm a historian, a writer, and, of a certainty, a CREATOR.=20 In fact, I should make a point of confessing something with respect to = my activities as a creator. I should do so now, particularly, because it = gives me a frame of reference with respect to this List. (And that begs = the question: having a "frame" of reference, could I myself be = considered "art"? But that's for another thread.)=20 At any rate, that thing which I should point out is this: I am the = creator of that fictional creature known to some of you as "Jongiorgi = Enos."=20 Yes, that's right. Jongiorgi Enos is a figment of my imagination. He = does not, in actuality, exist. I created him to suit my needs, to fill in certain gaps, to play certain = parts. I created him on a lark one day, for no particular reason and = he's just sort of -- you know -- stuck around.=20 I created him without too much thought and with actually very little = effort. He came to me all at once, out of thin air, out of whole cloth = -- complete.=20 He came to me sort of like. well, kind of like. well, like that Greek = kid who was born out of somebody's head. You know. And I've even left little clues about him -- you know -- not being real, = little clues scattered around his life for people to find. I mean, it = should be obvious to anyone really observing.=20 For instance, that bit where I always have him say that silly little = joke when people ask about his nationality, and he answers: "Half = French, Half Italian, and Half Texan."=20 I mean, really -- do the MATH! That's just not POSSIBLE!=20 An obvious clue to his illusory and purely literarily nature if there = ever was one! My fear is, of course, that HE will figure it out. Which would be a = terrible thing.=20 For HIM, I mean. Can you imagine if he ever discovered the fact that he is actually the = literary figment of some writer's imagination?!=20 Ooooo! The howls of rage, the humiliation!=20 The vertiginous sense of inconstancy! And then, of course, the excesses.=20 Creations always go there. They say to themselves: Okay, if I'm not real = and you made me, then I can do whatever I want and suffer no eternal = consequences. (What fools!) And so they go on a rampage, these creations: sex and drugs and violence = and repeated viewings of reality television. We've all seen it before.=20 If only they knew, these little creations of ours, that it doesn't work = that way!=20 Oh, well. The one's that don't kill themselves usually come back around = to a sense of balance. After all, we're all created by somebody, right? But on second thought, maybe I'd better keep this a secret. Yeah, you know, the more I think about it, the better that idea seems. = In fact, I shouldn't even send this post. It could cause much too much = confusion. Yes, yes, it's better that way: let them think they are all independent, = autonomous beings that actually exist. No need to go muddying the = waters. Alright, I've decided.=20 NOBODY TELL JONGIORGI THAT HE'S MY CREATION. Oh, but wait. He might see this by accident.=20 Okay. So. I'll go one better.=20 Just DELETE THIS MESSAGE. I'LL DENY I EVER SENT IT. In fact, I'll delete it myself. I'll just strike out everything that's = written above. I'll erase it. All I have to do. is press this little. button. right.. HERE - Voder Foss I sent originally the above letter signed "Voder Foss" all by itself as = a post. Jonathan, not knowing me from Adam, other than through my = introductory letters saying who I SAID I was, was so confused by it - I = mean, he knew it was a joke, but there was this little particle of doubt = planted, too - that he sent it back to me citing the rule about no = pseudonyms. Obviously he got it, but it was also unsettling to him. [MOD: Jongiorgi is crediting me with too much intelligence here... By the way, do you all notice that I'm the one character in this ongoing epistolary novel who's allowed to interrupt other people?] And this was part of my point. Who are we but who we say we are? And how = are some vultures and parasites in our society able to use this fact to = create characters which they then use to prey on the innocent in chat = rooms? Now, of course, the concept that I suggest, a character discovering that = he is the figment of someone else's imagination is not new to = literature. It is a device that has occurred many times, often quite = successfully. But it is certainly fun to play with; the implications are = quite enthralling. And there is another twist, common in the vernacular among writers who = talk about "characters that got away from me"; the "book took a life of = it's own"; they "started doing things I had never thought about", etc. = The inverse of the first idea: that our own creations then become = independent and sentient. Either way, it puts a spin on the idea of literary creation, truth in = writing, the nature of fiction. Because, by my own propositions, if we can reveal truth through fiction, = and if our writings about our own inner feelings or letters expressing = ourselves are possibly fictitious, are then nonetheless revelatory about = the truth about us?! Jepson's quote from Crzbach cuts right to the point: "There is no hard = and fast line between a genuine letter, a fictitious letter, and an = epistolary narrative. Sometimes it is impossible without external = evidence to decide whether a correspondence is genuine or fictitious." A = fabulous quote. Earlier in my life, before I met my wife, I carried on a correspondence = with a certain Sister Missionary. She's Heather Beers' sister, as a = matter of fact (actress who played "Charley" and whom everyone seemed to = love whether they liked the movie or not!) Well, I like Heather, and I = like her sister, too. I thought, for a while, that I was in love with = her.=20 My correspondence, our correspondence actually, for it was quite mutual, = for a while, makes for fascinating reading. I have kept copies of both = sides of it. In fact, it might make a great novel for the Mormon romance = market! All I would have to do is change the ending, for, obviously, we = did not end up together.=20 After only a few weeks of dating upon her return, we both looked each = other in the eye and practically said at the same time, "You know, let's = just be friends!" It was the best break-up of my life! We were so much = in tune, we both knew with perfect clarity that we were not right for = each other, and so we kissed and let it drop. About a year later, I took = my wife to her wedding reception! Perfect bliss.=20 Now some of you will say, don't change the ending, don't make them get = together, be brave, tell the truth exactly as it was. You'd have an = amazing, romantic, ironic, and realistic novel! And I might take you = upon on it. But the point is, that when I go back and read these letter, I say to = myself: "Who ARE these people?!" I mean, I really do not know! = Obviously, I wrote half of these letters, and my friend wrote the other = half, and I was there for it! But I don't recognize these people. My = own, actually, living, real, historical epistolary exchange strikes me = now as utter fiction. Wonderful fiction, but certainly unreal! What a = bizarre effect.=20 Since my intention was to woo this girl on the page (she was on her = Mission, remember, no contact other than letters), to seduce her into = loving me, in other words, did I create a character to do it? Because, = quite clearly, if you read her responses to me, she DID fall in love = with the man in the envelope. She did! She was in love with him, and she = certainly kissed him most passionately when she got off the plane (or, = well, after she was properly released!). But it did not take very many = dates before she realized that the man I really was, was not the man = that I had created on the page.=20 She wanted me to be. Part of her wanted the romance to be true, she = wanted to walk of the plane and be in love with the man she had fallen = in love with only by letter. Because, I should have said, we had never = dated before her mission, but were only friendly acquaintances. Then, = after she had been out a while, I suddenly said to myself, hey, I might = have missed something. She was really great. I'm going to start writing = her and make her fall in love with me and then she'll come home and = we'll get married. I was serious. And after my literary seduction was = complete, so was she. But then we dated face to face and we both knew it could never be. We = had BOTH created an illusion on the page. An illusion we both believed = with all of our hearts. An illusion we both wanted to be true. But then, = reality set in, and it wasn't. What a bizarre experience, but I'm glad I lived it. And it has forever = made me suspicious of this wonderful power we wield via semi-anonymous = (or at least, partially fictitious) correspondence. Who has created whom? The writer or the written? Anyway, I love your postmodernist leanings, o mysterious = theric-of-the-lower-case name! Food for thought. Have fun, y'all. Jongiorgi Enos=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 19:38:21 EST In a message dated 3/19/03 5:23:54 PM, Clark@lextek.com writes: << There was an infamous book from the late 70's called _Amazing Womanhood_ (or something like that). >> It was Fascinating Womanhood, appeared in the mid-60's, and had a very practical purpose (wedding an obvious literary tie-in with a less obvious culinary tie-in). I found my copy of Fascinating Womanhood (I'm older than you are) to be a good thing in which to place tortillas just after they've come out of the hot oil. The pages soaked up most of the oil, and there were lots of pages. If some of the ink ever came off on the tortillas and you couldn't avoid reading, the words (and, you might project, the ideas they represent) would appear on the tortillas backwards, making the whole message entirely acceptable. Jonathan, I think more posts here should focus on the practical applications of literature. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 19 Mar 2003 19:46:51 -0500 >Personally, I think Jonathan does a good job as moderator. I do too, and I really enjoy this list and its diversity of participants and opinions. I think that there is a difference between censorship and moderation (which we're to have in all things, after all ;>). I feel much more safe saying things within this group than I do in my graduate program, where (sadly, I think) there is a sort of consistent censorship of any view that seems to contradict the current vogue in the academy--something I know my sister has experienced as well. Also, those who might feel overly censored by Jonathan should note that I (and probably others) are much more likely to read a post headed by a moderator's "warning" than one that isn't. Forbidden fruit and all that... Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 17:56:22 -0700 ___ Marie ___ | The men, however, don't have the cultural mystique that surrounds | "mothers in Zion" nor the pressure of omnipresent media images=20 | insisting they be body-building CEO's who still spend quality=20 | time with their kids, repaint their dining rooms, do their=20 | home teaching, and keep the marital fires burning at night. Nah,=20 | we're happy if they have teeth and a job and don't snore too=20 | loudly in Sacrament meeting. ___ Actually men do have these images in the media. For some reason women notice the pressures they face but not the pressures men face. I'm not sure why that is. Probably for the same reason women bring up men chasing the pretty looking woman but ignore the women chasing the rich guy, athlete or musician. =20 But men have the pressures to be caregivers (successful in business), fathers and husbands (no success outside the home compensates for failure in the home - typically taken to extremes in LDS culture), be sexual, renovate the home, do their church jobs (with no mistakes), etc. Further while women have to face Vogue, Elle, Cosmopolitan and so forth men have Men's Health, dozens of muscle magazines, GQ, Details, and so forth. All portray an uberman.=20 Of course being the na=EFve person I am, I think such ideals are obtainable. I'd like to think that I've even obtained them in the past. However I am finding it hard to hit the gym as much as I want now that I'm engaged. And admittedly this has led to putting on pounds and not dressing up like I'd like. ___ Marie ___ | We want both the "Molly Mormon" who is a pillar of the Gospel=20 | and the intelligent, quirky,=3D gorgeous woman of the world who=20 | can run everything with one hand behind her=3D back ("Charly" is=20 | an excellent example). ___ >From my personal experiences the type who want the "strong successful woman" isn't the type who want the "Molly Mormon" type. Of course all would like someone gorgeous. But I think most realize that too high of expectations causes problems. ___ Annette ___ | Look at virtually any sitcom and you'll see the same thing, from | *The Cosby Show* to *Home Improvement* to *Everybody Loves=20 | Raymond*, and the list goes on. Funny shows all, but each one has=20 | a husband who makes stupid mistakes and a strong wife there to=20 | point out each one. ___ Part of the humor though is the play against type. These situations (now clich=E9s) were setup because the husband was seen to be in charge and the woman passive back in the 50's. Even though the social structures have changed since then, the literary type remains. Its just that we've lost sight of the irony behind it all. Of course now if someone were to use the same irony, only reversing the images there would be outcry for being misogynist. The only show I can think of that tried it was "Dharma and Greg." But they were pretty careful about how the images were portrayed. Had the Dharma character not been someone who valued her goofiness and relative incompetence as a social virtue then the show would have been attacked. Even back in the 50's when the ditzy wife was present with the competent husband the wife was a "fish out of water" as in "I Dream of Jeanie." Notice though how this type is allowed in comedy but not other kinds of shows. In drama when the woman is *too* strong or *too* powerful she is considered a b---h. Think of the Joan Collins character in "Dynasty." In action films and shows this is even more dramatic. The male has to stick to the old archetype of the rescuer of the damsel. When the roles are reversed the show isn't typically successful. Although I believe "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Charlie's Angels" tried to do this - you'll note that the male side kick's role is typically very different from most hero stories with males rescuing women. And in that compatriot of Hercules "Xena," we had no male sidekick at all. Instead we have a female acting the role, more or less avoiding all the interesting takes on husband - wife relationships. (And further Xena often ends up just being a male with breasts leading to claims of lesbian subtexts in the show) Admittedly there is far more openness today than even a few decades ago. But typically they have a structure that is the reverse of what goes on in comedy. And it is a little sexist to suggest that this is allowable only in the "disbelief" of comedy. Even drama shows that attempt this have to become comedies (such as the old "Allie McNeal" show) One exception might be "the Practice." But I've not read much about gender relations on that show and can't speak too much. (However wasn't the wife there also attacked and rape and "rescued" by the husband and then rescued again from murder charges?) ___ Jacob ___ | Seriously, think of the difference between "he's just being=20 | a man" and "she's just being a woman". They're both awful=20 | statements in their own way of course, but the latter is=20 | subtly more forgiving (assuming some neutrality in tone). ___ There are lots of unfair roles you can see by simply reversing the sexes. It really does tell you a lot about gender relations. (And in a way that is far more complex than a feminist position would typically suggest) =20 I'll leave it to others to do this in more specifically LDS literature. My sense is that there are lots of asymmetries but that most of these reflect ancient literary asymmetries that are part of our culture. Many are quite wrong - such as the types in comedy and action. Clark Goble =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 19 Mar 2003 18:01:24 -0700 > However, as long as our conversations relate to Mormon arts and letters, I > strongly maintain that all members should be allowed to express themselves > freely. AML should operate free of the stench of authoritarian censorship. > > Richard Dutcher "Stench of Authoritarian Censorship" And the above statement gives clear evidence that this list does operate free from it. I have yet to encounter any "stench of authoritarian censorship" on this list. I am not a prolific poster ergo I have yet to have a moderator ask me to rephrase. I am a prolific reader however and have seen much come through that would give plenty of evidence that this list operates viably without the "stench of authoriatrian censorship." What is it that each of us so desperately needs to say that cannot be said in a civil, reasonable, agreeable dialogue? Censorship can also be defined or viewed as vitriolic, polemic, incivil and unreasonable language and dialogue, as well as a wanton disregard not to want to "play by the rules" set up by a community. Believe or not, intimidation can be construed as censorship. Intimidation can happen from vitrolic, violent and incivil discussion. That sort of stench certainly has not happened on this list and I applaud those who work hard to maintain this civil community. Furthermore, I, for one, detect no stench from the moderator's quarters. Eileen Stringer -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 19:04:12 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > If I can keep her reasonably happy and content with my performance, the Lord > must be too, because aren't our wives our stand-ins for the Lord, like our > mothers were when we were little? > > Let the woman worry about the laundry and the > spiritual work and the overall strategy of our lives, and she can assign me > tasks as necessary. I'll do toilets, vacuuming, garbage, dishwasher loading, > and the equivalent religious spiritual hygiene tasks, and I'll do them just > often enough and well enough to keep the mold from becoming visible. > Although this post makes me a little tired, I'm not at all offended or upset by what Christopher has spelled out here because it precisely represents the attitudes of so many men and women about what our "natural" roles are. He's just being honest about it. There is a huge burden that Mormon women (and women in general, too, on many different levels) feel like we have to shoulder because we are expected to *want* to do things like laundry or scripture reading or lesson preparation more than men want to. Let me set the record straight for myself, personally: Before turning on the computer and reading this post, I had walked into my office and looked at the latest copy of _The Ensign_ sitting on the desk for a full couple of seconds thinking, "Man, I oughta call my visiting teaching people and set up an appointment," then I sat down in my chair and went online instead. I haven't read the scriptures regularly for a good long while. I lost my temple recommend in October when we moved into our new house and still haven't found the time to get a new one. I don't have any food storage to speak of, although I did (I'm embarrassed to say) go out and buy duct tape and plastic sheeting and some dried apricots and tossed them into a duffel bag in the laundry room. I feel like I spend all day long following my three kids around the house putting the little cherries from High Ho Cherri-O back in the box, wiping congealed yogurt off the kitchen table, putting lids back on milk cartons, and asking questions like, "Who hasn't been flushing the toilet??" (My kids are all under 7). I've been making dinner now for only the ten years of my married life and, frankly, I feel just about done (even though my husband actually likes to cook and does so frequently). After reading Christopher's post, I felt a lot like he did about the everyday duties we find ourselves surrounded by: they're often boring, frequently exhausting, usually not as big a deal as the pressure we put on ourselves would seem to indicate. However, the difference between Christopher and myself is that I don't have the luxury of playing "The Guy Card," the same "Oh, gee, men are just bumbling around trying to get it right but not as efficient and centered and specially attuned to the tasks of everyday living as women are," that Richard spoke about finding in Mormon fiction. But here's the thing: I *don't* want to do so many things that I do, all day long, every day almost, but (and I agree, a lot of this is my issue, "caring too much about what other people think," "not cutting myself enough slack," yadda, yadda, yadda) there's so much more condemnation that comes down on women if they admit to wanting to just watch movies and write stories and talk to interesting people on the phone all day long, laundry-and-visiting-teaching-be-darned. It seems obvious to me that this is the reason why women in the church seem to me to have a much bigger problem with guilt then men do (generally speaking). I will agree there are women out there who seem to get a real pleasure out of organizing the spice drawer. And I don't mean that in a condescending way at all; as a matter of fact, I wish at times that my nature had more of an intrinsic drive toward doing those types of things. It just makes me so tired sometimes that I'm saddled with the expectation of caring about things that I don't really care about. Because, if I don't care about them . . . and I'm supposed to . . . what does that say about me as a woman (or wife, or mother . . . ?). Men aren't expected to want to. So when they do, it's like this wonderful, praiseworthy surprise, this "Aren't you lucky to be married to man who likes to [fill in the household chore/church responsibility here]." As I've been writing this, I've realized that a lot of the fiction I'm writing right now has these issues pulling at it in one way or another. I know it's nothing new--the women's movement started before I was even born--but it still resonates. It's still a big deal. So . . . which one of you out there wants to come do my laundry???? I mean, really, really wants to? :-) Angela -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 19 Mar 2003 17:05:23 -0800 I haven't said anything yet on this subject, so here goes: I also think Jonathan does a good job as moderator. I, for one, would not have the patience to put up with people like myself who continue to send things to the list that were supposed to be sent to individuals. The fingers sometimes move faster than the brain. If I had my choice, I would choose unmoderated. This list is moderated; it may be the best of many choices. The only question that remains is, Is the moderator a jerk? Jonathan is manifestly not. Sent with appreciation by Jeff Needle, who at one time was a member of a list whose moderator was a first-class jerk. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 18:19:21 -0700 At 08:09 AM 3/18/03 -0800, you wrote: >I believe this anti-masculine trend in LDS fiction is just a reflection of >a greater trend in our culture. For generations, the church was accused of >suppressing women's freedom and growth. We were seen, and STILL are seen >by many, as a male-dominated culture with few opportunities for women to >progress. > >The Church has worked hard to overcome this reputation. I believe we are >in the middle of an over-compensation. I think this is true. People in general can't seem to simply move from a lopsided model to a reasonable center--the pendulum always swings too far in the other direction first. My 38-year-old son tells me often that the current culture discriminates against young males, but my experience has been with discrimination against no-longer-young-and-beautiful females. Yet, I do not envy men the road they have to walk. I think that today's women give them mixed signals. We say we want sensitivity and a willingness to talk about stuff, but then we get all dry-mouthed and weak-kneed at the sight of rippling muscles. We definitely do not want to be dominated or treated as inferior beings, but we are not attracted to wimpiness. What we have here, reflected in our literature, is a case of PC-ness run amok. Nobody wants to read about weak, spineless women, but I don't think that male characters have to lose their masculine strength to make room for powerful female characters. In some current novels (but not LDS ones) I'm seeing female characters, supposedly sympathetic characters, who are bad-tempered, ill-mannered, hostile, and foul-mouthed. I think the male characters should just walk out on them--but they don't. In the romance writing community, we talk a lot about alpha males and beta males. Each type has its own adherents. But it's interesting to note that we often say something along the lines of "I just adored him in the book, but I wouldn't want to live with him in real life." I guess it all comes back to Freud's question: "What do women want?" Good luck on trying to figure that out, guys. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 19 Mar 2003 18:08:20 -0700 ___ Ronn ___ | As some people have asked, though, where was that God of | miracles in the days following the abduction when Elizabeth | was "camping out" in the hills above her home and the | searchers came close enough for her to hear them calling | her name? ___ There's actually a lot of literature explaining this. The most oft quoted parable I can think of is the guy hanging on the cliff asking to be rescued. He prays and sees a helicopter fly by. The helicopter asks if he needs rescued and he says, "no, God is going to rescue me." Of course he falls. In heaven he asks God why he didn't rescue him. God says, "well, I sent you a helicopter." There are lots of variations on this theme. Put in the Elizabeth Smart story, we had people led to yards of where she was and she didn't do much. We had her in the midsts of hundreds of people at parties in Utah. We had her kept in Utah. Perhaps God did his part? That's not to discount what some are terming brainwashing. However brainwashing is often taken to be very overstated as a real psychological phenomena. (The recent media frenzy notwithstanding) Yes there is psychological trauma. And yes strong people can make bad choices appear persuasive. But by the same token God can't force anyone to do anything either. For all I know he was inspiring many people to question the girl. If she denies being Elizabeth Smart, what can God do? ___ Kim ___ | I have to add my two cents about the "live" coverage. The | questions asked by reporters were inane and embarrassing, not | to mention repetitive. Do media people not *listen* to the | answers or do they consider themselves clever lawyer-types | who will trip up an interviewee with reguritated and restated | questions? ___ Remember that a big chunk of the media is television. Television when asking questions often cares less about the *information* than about a sound bite. So they'll often ask a question again if they didn't get a nice simple sound bite they can put on the evening news. Also often they are writing or thinking of a question and don't hear (or remember fully) what other people have asked. Heavens, even I re-ask questions when trying to get information. Most reporters are also trained to ask questions they know they won't get answers for just in case the interviewed person screws up and says more than they ought. Even if it only happens 5% of the time that can help reporters a great deal. You'll notice in several of the press conferences with apologetic reporters sometimes prefacing their question with, "I know you probably can't answer this but I have to ask. . ." [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 18:17:56 -0700 ___ Jacob ___ | One of the effects of the gospel is to mix the genders. The | gospel teaches men to acquire feminine attributes (love, | compassion, mercy) and it also teaches women to acquire male | attributes (leadership/hierarchical relationships, non-consensus | communication, decisive action). ___ Hmm. I'm not sure I buy that, although I agree with elements. Take teaching women leadership and hierarchy. If the gospel teaches that then why are women cut off from it? Of course one could argue that the Relief Society was radically empowering in the 19th century. It took the structure for men and created a parallel order. Indeed some attacks on Mormons from masons were for giving women the Masonic orders. Most masonry at the time was for males only - although there was a form called adoptive masonry that was some additional rites for women. Some have speculated that Joseph may have been influenced by that kind of masonry in how he set things up for women. Still the progressive movements in the 19th century have hardly been pushed to give women leadership. Note that I'm not saying that the church is wrong in this - I'm sure they are listening to revelation. Just that saying the gospel teaches women leadership skills seems to presume a rather demeaning position for women outside of the gospel - a position that probably hasn't been true for some time. I also don't know if I'd agree that the gospel teaches women "male communication" and men "women communication." Even recognizing the different ways men and women communicate, I don't think I see the gospel teaching us to adopt the other's position. There isn't really any neo-feminism nor any kind of Jungian psychology. If anything the church emphasizes some traditional gender roles but ties them to responsibility rather than necessarily how we deal with those responsibilities. (i.e. one can be a good mother and fulfill ones responsibilities without following stereotypical female communication styles) I'm not sure I buy what you label male and female attributes. Once again it sounds a tad too Jungian for my tastes. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 21:29:48 EST In an earlier post which I cannot retrieve for some strange reason, one of you (a woman, if I remember correctly) mentioned the male instinct to "spread seed." So I'm adding to that thought as it relates to the "Woman/boy model"... Here's an interesting possibility: if we accept that men possess a powerful natural instinct to "spread seed" rather than enter into a life-long monogamous relationship, could it be that these domesticated males must endow their mates, even the entire female gender, with near super-human qualities? In other words: conquered males, in order to retain their own self-worth, must elevate females to great heights and endow them with special, almost magical personalities and powers. After all, only very powerful creatures could tame man's natural inclinations. This may not hold true for all monogamous males, but it could function wonderfully as a psychological element in a fictional character. Or am I full of poo? Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 19 Mar 2003 23:07:41 -0600 >There are all sorts of stereotypes of this sort. Far too many are >repeated and retaught in our literature. There was an infamous book >from the late 70's called _Amazing Womanhood_ (or something like that). >Basically it was a "how to" manual for women to manipulate men. The title is "Fascinating Womanhood." A copy has been found in the possession of both my mother and my mother-in-law, and has provided endless hilarity in group readings. Some of the ideas are things like telling women to dress up in sailor suits and try to look/act like little girls, tossing their curls and pouting or something. This was supposed to make women more attractive to their husbands. I think my father-in-law's response to this was something like, "You've got to be kidding." Also, most of the "proof" of the efficacy of the theories was found in fictional characters of literature, and not in the lives of real human beings. To continue to tie this into Mormon lit, the author of this book (Helen Andelin) is (or at least was) LDS. Her husband, Aubrey Andelin, also wrote a follow-up book called "Man of Steel and Velvet." Highly recommended for those seeking comic relief in a world of responsability and rational, functioning relationships. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [AML] Re: Elizabeth Smart Date: 19 Mar 2003 18:10:39 -1100 There's an interesting essay in Salon.com about the Elizabeth Smart case. The author, Ian R. Williams, is apparently a former Mormon or an ethnic Mormon. His observations on Mormon women are just the opposite of how they've been described in our recent thread on "Fictional Mormon Males". Here's the link: The Church of Latter-day constraints By Ian R. Williams http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/03/18/smart/index.html If you can't read the whole article right away, sign up for a free "day pass" to Salon (in exchange for viewing one 15-second Web advertisement). Regards, Frank Maxwell Gilroy, California -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 20 Mar 2003 00:32:21 EST I'm interested in hearing what you Mormon writers are reading at the moment,= =20 what novels you've enjoyed recently, and what novels you haven't enjoyed. It= =20 would be fun to get a quick snapshot of our collective reading. I'll go first. I'm currently half-way through John Fowles' THE MAGUS, and I'= m=20 enjoying it quite a bit. Last week I read POST OFFICE by Charles Bukowski.=20 The week before that: Graham Greene's THE HEART OF THE MATTER. I highly recommend all three. THE MAGUS has a section where one character,=20 Henrik, experiences a personal "face to face" meeting with God as two other=20 characters witness the event. Of course, the two witnesses don't see God,=20 they only see Henrik as he experiences God. It reminded me of when several=20 men watched Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon as they experienced the vision we= =20 now know as D&C Section 76. The other men didn't see Christ; they had to be=20 content with seeing Joseph's face as Joseph saw Christ. Interesting. It made me ponder many of the transcendent "historical" events=20 in our history. We have a tendency to make everything so physical, so down t= o=20 earth. I believe if any of us had been spying in the forest the morning that= =20 Joseph's first vision occurred, we would not have seen what Joseph saw. And=20 yet we would not have been able to deny that he experienced something.=20 Perhaps we would no longer require literal interpretations or physical proof= =20 of his visions, experiences, and "translations." We would be more content=20 with his flawed English descriptions of his indescribable metaphysical=20 experiences. The scene in THE MAGUS also reminded me of a similar scene where Bill=20 Paxton's character experiences a vision/visitation in my favorite film of=20 last year, "Frailty." (Rated R for "Required Viewing" for any Latter-Day=20 Saint wanting to make films).=20 A couple of great lines from THE MAGUS: "=E2=80=A6all cynicism masks a failure to cope - an impotence." Referring to Henrik's search for God: "To him all that was not the great=20 meeting (with God) was what the Buddhists call 'lilas' - the futile pursuit=20 of triviality." "Living is an eternal wanting more." "The human mind is more a universe than the universe itself." POST OFFICE employs a blue-collar first person narrator. A refreshing and=20 unusual voice. It's a fun novel and a quick read, and it ends with three=20 perfect sentences (which won't seem so perfect unless you read the rest of=20 the book first). If naughty words offend you, you'll probably want to skip=20 this one. But that would be a shame. Writers would surely benefit from=20 experiencing Bukowski's very human characters and his laid-back, earthy pros= e. THE HEART OF THE MATTER is a powerful novel about a good man, a Catholic, wh= o=20 makes some devastating choices. The writer, Graham Greene, weaves Catholic=20 images and ordinances into his story (a man after my own heart) in such a wa= y=20 that religion is inextricable from the character and the story. I empathized= =20 with the main character, and I came away from this book understanding more o= f=20 Catholic doctrine and psychology. If I were teaching Religion in Fiction 101= ,=20 this would be required reading.=20 So that's what I've been reading. How about the rest of you? Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report Feb. 14 03 Date: 20 Mar 2003 00:56:18 -0600 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 14, 2003 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 21 Final Destination 2 638,273 1,036 45 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 45,619,162 59 The R.M. 30,376 20 45 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 576,909 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Kirby Heyborne, Will Swenson, Britani Bateman, Tracy Ann Evans Merrill Dodge, Michael Birkeland, Maren Ord, Leroy Te'o, Curt Dousett Wally Joyner, etc. 57 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 38,409 10 766 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,194,575 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 73 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 11,722 3 1046 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,066,856 74 Poolhall Junkies 9,604 9 17 554,711 85 Galapagos 3,676 3 1235 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,965,758 95 Jack Weyland's Charly 1,719 4 171 Adam Anderegg (director) 787,803 Jack Weyland (book author) Janine Gilbert (screenwriter) Lance Williams (producer) Micah Merrill (producer, film editor) Tip Boxell (co-producer) Bengt Jan Jonsson (cinematographer) Aaron Merrill (composer) Actors: Heather Beers, Jeremy Elliott, Adam Johnson, Jackie Winterrose Fullmer, Diana Dunkley, Gary Neilson, Lisa McCammon, Randy King, Bernie Diamond, etc. 100 China: The Panda Adventure 675 1 598 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,003,170 HERE COMES PIGLET - "Piglet's Big Movie" opens on Friday. Ken Sansom's last movie ("The Tigger Movie") grossed $45,542,421 in 2000. We'll soon know if "Piglet" top that? Most critics writing early reviews are praising "Piglet's Big Movie" as a triumph of epic proportions. At RottenTomatoes.com, 4 of the 6 early reviews currently tallied are ranked positive. LDSFilm.com is predicting that "Piglet's Big Movie" will win the #1 spot at the box office this weekend. SCREEN DOOR JESUS REVIEWS - E-Film Critic has posted a very positive review of the feature film "Screen Door Jesus," which stars Latter-day Saint actress Alaina Kalanj in the lead role. The reviewer gave the movie 4.5 out of 5 stars. A wider theatrical release of the movie has not yet been scheduled. See: http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=7221 Some excerpts from the review: "Popular wisdom says that you should never address religion or politics in polite company. The logic goes that neither side is going to change their views based on your opposition, and in fact they'll likely defend those to the death - so what's the point in even going there? Screen Door Jesus not only goes there, but it mixes those two no-no's, examining the politics of religion in such a way that nobody - religious nut, middle of the road thinker or left-leaning liberal - could come away overtly offended. Director Kirk Davis has taken on what could have been a suicidal task, shining a light on the good, the bad and the ugly of religion, yet through an even hand, a first hand perspective and an honest dialogue, the result is one that every thinking person should see and consider. .. Screen Door Jesus is a brave, beautiful ensemble affair that never once strays into preachy or instructive or accusatory territory." The Austin Chronicle also published a positive review of "Screen Door Jesus." SCREENWRITING SEMINAR SCHEDULED - The Utah Film Commission is sponsoring a free screen writing seminar. When: April 26, 2003 Where: The New Salt Lake City Library, 110 East 400 South Cost: Free Register: http://film.utah.gov/local_film_scene.html The Utah Film Commission is holding the first annual Utah Film Commission Screen Writing Seminar with special guest Dan Decker author of Anatomy of a Screenplay. This event is being held in conjunction with the LocoMotion Film Festival and Spy Hop Productions. * * * FINAL CUT - Final Cut 2003 March 18-22 a BYU Student Film Showcase Schedule: Short Format Program: in Varsity Theatre Program A: Tues-Thurs from 7-9 p.m. Program B: Tues-Thurs from 9:30-11:30 p.m. Long Format Program in 250 SWKT Program C: Tues-Thurs from 7-9 p.m. The Best of Final Cut: in JSB Auditorium Friday and Saturday from 6-8 p.m. and 9-11 p.m. The Sitcom "So Much in Love" in the Varsity Theatre Tues.-Sat. from 6-6:30 p.m. Fri and Sat only from 9:30-10:30 p.m. Tickets can be purchased at the Wilkinson Center Information Booth or at the door (but there may not be any left!) Get your tickets today! Featured in this year's Final Cut long format program is "Unfolding" - Christian Vuissa's latest short film. Vuissa's previous short film, "Roots & Wings" won a number of awards including the AML award for film, the most prestigious award given to a LDS-themed films. This award had only been given once before - to "God's Army". We are also privy to some exciting information about Christian's future which we cannot release yet, but you won't want to miss the opportunity to see this talented young filmmaker's latest work. 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS TRAILER - Trailers are now posted for "2 Fast 2 Furious", which will open in theaters nationwide on June 6th. A sequel to the surprise hit racing movie "The Fast and the Furious," the new movie stars Latter-day Saint actor Paul Walker in the top-billed role. Walker reprises his role as a police officer who goes undercover to root out crime in the street racing underground. This time he does so in Miami. The movie was directed by non-LDS director John Singleton (Boyz N the Hood, Baby Boy, Shaft, Rosewood, Higher Learning, Poetic Justice). Walker received $7 million for starring in "2 Fast 2 Furious." Walker also stars in the big budget time travel adventure "Timeline," which is slated to open a month after "2 Fast 2 Furious," so he might be competing with himself this summer. See http://www.thefastandthefurious.com/site/ DONNY NOMINATED FOR AN EMMY - Donny Osmond, host of the new syndicated TV series, has been nominated for an Emmy Award for Best Game Show Host. Osmond's competition for the Emmy this year: Alex Trebek (Jeopardy!); Bob Barker (The Price is Right); Tom Bergeron (Hollywood Squares); Ben Stein and Sal Iacono (Win Ben Stein's Money); Pat Sajak (Wheel of Fortune). Donny previously was nominated for an Emmy twice for his talk show "Donny and Marie": in 2000 and 2001. Osmond was recently nominated for "Best Original Song" in the DVD Premiere Awards, for "Imaginary Friend", in the "Land Before Time IX" video. But he lost to Jennifer Love Hewitt. BARNEY AT GUGGENHEIM - Detailed article about the exhibit of ethnic Mormon filmmaker and artist Matthew Barney's film/sculpture exhibit "The Cremaster Cycle" at the Guggenheim. Barney has used Mormon and Utah motifs extensively in his Cremaster series, although this Boston Globe only mentions this briefly. See: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/075/living/_Cremaster_Cycle_reveals_a_brea thtaking_parallel_universe+.shtml BRIGHAM CITY ACTRESS IS STAR OF ELIZABETH SMART'S FAVORITE MOVIE - Newspaper accounts report that one of the first things Elizabeth Smart did after being reunited with her family watch her favorite movie "The Trouble with Angels." For the record, the movie was not written or directed by Latter-day Saints, but one of the stars of the movie was Portia Nelson, a native of Brigham City, Utah. Nelson had a major role as a nun in "The Trouble with Angels," her only major supporting role in a movie other than her role in "Doctor Doolittle." Nelson had a smaller role as "Sister Berthe" in the classic movie "The Sound of Music." Nelson, born 1920 in Brigham City, died in 2001 in New York. She is also known for playing "Mrs. Rachel Gurney" on the daytime soap opera "All My Children" from 1980 to 1990. HANDCART'S THEATRICAL RUN NEARING AN END - Your last chance to see "Handcart" in the theaters is quickly approaching. The film did not play in any theaters the past weekend, but it is scheduled to open in 3 or 4 new theaters on April 11, including theaters in Las Vegas, Sacremento, Afton, Wyoming and Orem, Utah. After this last set of theaters, Handcart will end its theatrical play. It will have played in 50 theaters in all and should approach the $100,000 mark. So far, the film has grossed $92,175. Presale of the DVD's should begin in May or June. ECKHART VS... - "The Core," BYU graduate Aaron Eckhart's first top-billed role in a big-budget film, opens March 28th. His co-star is Academy Award winner Hillary Swank in this $60,000,000+ blockbuster hopeful. Will "The Core" emerge triumphant in the #1 spot in its debut weekend? It's up against some heavy competition. Also opening on March 28th: "Basic" (starring John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson), "Head of State" (directed by Chris Rock; starring Chris Rock and Bernie Mac); "Assassination Tango" (directed by and starring Robert Duvall). Our take: Chris Rock will no doubt lock up the comedy and urban crowd. Duvall's movie will bring out fans of military-themed dance movies (?) and old people who accept Duvall as a leading man. The real battle will be between the big marquee names (Travolta and Jackson in "Basic") and the big s.f. plot (Eckhart in "The Core"). We predict "The Core" wins by a nose. NEW CITIES FOR THE R.M. - "The R.M.", directed by Kurt Hale and starring Kirby Heyborne and Canadian pop sensation Maren Ord, will open in at least 5 Arizona cities on March 21st: Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria, Tucson. The movie will also open on March 21st in Nevada in Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite and Reno. California openings are scheduled for April 11th. Currently the movie is playing all over Utah and Idaho. * * * ANXIOUSLY WAITING ANXIOUSLY ENGAGED - You'll recall way back in the first half of 2002 that we released information about Cary Derbidge's plans for his next movie, "Anxiously Engaged". (Derbidge is the producer of the critically acclaimed Latter-day Saint-themed feature film "Out of Step"). Well, there is now a webpage for the movie, currently located as a subpage of a Derbidge website: http://www.ldssilverscreen.com/anxiously_engaged.htm The webpage is slated to have a permanent home at: www.anxiouslyengaged.com Currently the page has nothing but an animated GIF which displays the following text: two temple weddings four funerals and a charming LDS woman who has just turned 30... and isn't married! Anxiously Engaged 2004 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 20 Mar 2003 05:00:32 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >I couldn't disagree more. I'm a veteran of many an email list >and I can tell you with confidence that the tone here is >singular and the only place I have ever found where liberal >and conservative can share ideas with some measure of actual >communication. > In a free-for-all, it is too easy, too >tempting to polarize. Before too long, all communication >ceases. You should try Mormon-L, entirely unmoderated. Liberals have their say, Conservatives have their say, each bashes the other for a while, one side gives up and moves on. If someone can't take the heat, they leave the list. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 20 Mar 2003 05:03:04 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >This is my third post today. and I'm really truly very sorry. >But I had to respond to Richard Dutcher's post saying he does >not approve of censorship, and doesn't enjoy the sting of the >moderator's slap. Richard, you must be the most graceful of >all writers. Perhaps you don't need a moderator to help you >put things in a less offensive or threatening way. Maybe >you've never offended or made yourself out to be an ass. I am >very good at both of those things, and the remorse I feel when >I realize what I've done is awful. Why should you feel remorse if others chose to take offense at what you wrote, unless you meant to offend them? Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 20 Mar 2003 07:03:23 -0800 I oughtn't let my mail stack up. I'm responding to this enquiry with half a dozen AML digests in my in-box, so recognize that I'm late to this discussion. That said: Bro.Dutcher asks: >Has the Mormon male been neutered? By definition. Femimen make ideal Mormomen. They're humble, spiritually sensitive, even mallable... They're good boys who grow up to be "good" -- ie, obedient -- men. Mensmen, otoh, are abrasive, roughhewn, and not given to suggestibility or nose rings. They make bad husbands*, and worse Mormons. *See local uber-shrink John Gottman's research on the mallability of men as a factor in marital happiness at and --lmg --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:46:15 -0700 jana wrote: > As for affecting sales, all of the Independent LDS stores that our Sales = > staff has contacted have been very supportive, and they all are stocking = > the book. We are contacting several newspapers with the story, and = > telling everyone we can- so it should be interesting to see how = > everything ends up. I will keep you posted on what happens. :) > Thanks, > Tammy I'm glad to hear that not every half-a**ed decision by Deseret Book is benig duplicated by the independents. But what about Seagull? Any word on their reaction? (If Richard Paul Evans' experience is any indication, Seagull will ban this book plus every other book by that author--just to one-up DB). I also like how Cedar Fort is wisely using this setback to generate some free marketing. How do you sell a book? Get someone to ban it. Hmmmm... I'm thinking of my own novel right now. Getting it banned should be a piece of cake. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 20 Mar 2003 07:57:10 -0800 The following article appeared in today's San Diego Union-Tribune. I direct your attention particularly to the fourth-from-last paragraph, and would be interested in your thoughts on the sentence the publisher decided to snip. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/currents/news_1c20romance.html ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Physics and AML-List (was: Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos) Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:19:55 -0700 [MOD: I'm fine with discussions of physics if framed, as Michael suggests--yes, I'm using "that term" from our current definitions of art thread--in a specifically literary context such as story ideas. Really, there's not a lot that's inherently off-topic for AML-List, if it's given a sufficiently literary twist.] Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Now that I am a believer, and have studied LDS theology, I think the > implications of it are very interesting and deep, especially when aspects of > physics are introduced. Multiplicity of gods and multiplicity of universes > is now conceivable to some physicists. So, if I were a non-LDS intellectual > or scientist, I might be interested in chatting it up with Mormons, > except...ooops! Most Mormons would have no clue what I'm talking about. I would. You can chat it up with me. In fact, I think you chat it up wqith me on this list, because comparing LDS theology to physics is a gold mine of story ideas for a nearly nonexistent subgenre of LDS literature that fascinates me: LDS speculative fiction. > I don't mean to imply that there should be elitism in the church, or in a > sub-group thereof (say, Writers). Let me backtrack and say that I love the > gospel and I think that I must defend the church as an having the right to > appeal to every type of person on the earth -- including those who don't > have a thought in their head! The church already appeals to those types of individuals. It should also have the right to appeal to thinking individuals who want to explore doctrine and faith as their method of progressing in intelligence, not just continually affirm what they already think they know. The thinker is the type of person the church (not the gospel) seems to have a hard time relating with at this point in history. > 19th Century American Puritanical Conservatism is a "culture" that has > superimposed itself on the latter-day gospel. But that's not the same gospel > Noah lived, or Nephi, either. And isn't that a fascinating piece of irony, that the restored gospel uses culture derived from apostate theology as the basis for its own culture? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 18 Mar 2003 11:46:41 -0700 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > I must say that one of the reasons that I am not a more prolific poster on > AML-List is because I have felt the slapping hand of the moderator a few > times. I don't approve of censorship in any form. > > The main reason I joined this list was to engage in passionate and > intelligent conversations regarding LDS arts and letters. I find it ironic > and frustrating to be censored in this particular forum. I believe this > censorship to be destructive and unnecessary. > If we continue to practice censorship in the AML, then we are continuing a > destructive tradition of censorship in the LDS community. > > Let's take responsibility for our own words, and let's be confident enough to > stand up to the strong words of others. > > If there is no freedom of expression in the Association for Mormon Letters, > then what's the point of having it? Some very intriguing comments on the topic. I have always understood, and more or less accepted without question, that many people appreciate the quality of the discussion on AML-List precisely because the moderating keeps things in line with the list's intended scope and desired level of maturity. Personally, I wouldn't want to give up the moderated nature of the list. But Richard made me wonder if there are other ways the moderation can be handled. The level of moderating against virulent statements of personal attack ought to remain the same, in my opinion. Or of posts with noise and no content. (In fact, I sometimes wonder if the censoring of the latter shouldn't be increased.) But the dividing line between on- and off-topic, I'm not so sure about. Or the grouping of statements merely made in passion with statements that are intentionally offensive. Not only has the moderating helped the level of discussion remain mature and on-focus, it has also helped teach me more tolerance. People I in real life would have come to detest if all our conversations had been live and unmoderated, I've come to respect and accept as friends, because the censorship on this list has given me the time to come to know them before my own unbridled passions and dislike of their views killed things before they got started. And there is one other important consideration. AML-List is limited to thirty messages a day. This has two consequences. One, the list is manageable for the recipients. I compare this to the enormous volume of garbage I had to wade through on a certain other unmoderated list associated with a satirical publication that made belonging to that list nearly impossible. Secondly, with a limit to the number of messages, it's more important to make each message count, and forays into off-topic issues, no matter how interesting or educational, dilute the list's ability to handle the topics for which it was created, which are already voluminous in scope. This is perhaps the biggest reason I prefer a moderated list--it's too easy to waste bandwidth on wildly tangential topics. Yet, Richard's comments are valid. I wonder if a reexamination of exactly what is considered off-topic is in order. It would help me to explore options if I knew what sorts of discussions Richard tried to have but were censored. I'm trying to imagine what he would say that was bounced back. I can't imagine it veering far off topic. Were his thoughts expressed too caustically? I can't imagine he resorted to name calling or personal attacks without substance behind them. What exactly was censored? [MOD: Up to Richard to share if he wishes--or anyone else, though I'd like to not let this swamp all our other conversation. On the other hand, I can see some potential value for the current conversation if individual posters want to discuss specific examples of posts that have been bounced. I am willing to discuss the reasons for bounced posts *if* these are first specifically discussed and shared by the author of the post--including second-guessing myself where appropriate...] -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] ADAMS, _Archipelago_ (Review) Date: 20 Mar 2003 11:03:19 -0800 (PST) THE REAL PERESTROIKA COMES TO THE BYU STAGE A review of "Archipelago", a play by LeeAnne Hill Adams; presented at the Pardoe Theater, Harris Fine Arts Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT March 19-April 5 It is a brave writer who will title her new play about Stalinist Russia "Archipelago." Comparisons will inevitably be made with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's monumental three-volume history "The Gulag Archipelago", a great mountain of 20th century Russian literature. But Adams' play is almost insanely ambitious. And damn it if she doesn't pull it off. In his recent literary biography of Josef Stalin, "Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million", Martin Amis writes that Stalin's rule was not a tragedy like "Hamlet" but a bloody, black farce like "Titus Andronicus" or something very Russian by Gogol. (Indeed, Gogol plays a prominent role in "Archipelago.") Sometimes the best possible response to the horror is strangled, knowing laughter. That is part of the approach Adams takes. (It's not her only strategy, as I will explain a little later.) Aside from some Shakespeare tragedies, this may be the darkest play ever presented on the BYU stage. We see the Brechtian spectacle of dead bodies piling up as Stalin's henchman absurdly argue with each other like demented children. There are several lacerating, monstrously ironic parodies of Stalinist propaganda and thought-control. (The phrase "politically correct" is even used to refer to the jailers.) Stalin himself appears only as a silent demon in a white mask. This is a legitimate approach to the dictator's eerie lack of personal affect, and a suggestion of the ultimately nihilistic nature of his evil. These scenes reminded me of Milan Kundera's morosely antic satires of totalitarianism. But Adams also infuses great lyricism and poetic feeling in describing the suffering of those who were innocent of any crime, but still condemned to hell on earth. The main protagonist is Nina Hagen-Torn, a poet. She shows how important imagination became to the prisoners in picturing and remembering what it's like to exist in worlds outside the camps. At one point she delivers an astonishing, moving speech about imagining the angels and God who will greet us after our deaths. It reminded my of the great speech at the end of Chekhov's "Uncle Vanya." The language of this play is so deliberately poetic, and so densely packed with ideas, that it takes some adjustment for an audience. You have to match your rhythms with Adams'. For this reason the pace drags a little in the first act as Adams marshals her forces, but it builds to an explosion of momentum and resonance in the second act. The prisoners band together and put on a production of Gogol's farce "The Inspector General" and use it as a form of underground resistance. The camp manager, an amateur poet, shows flashes of humanity. Their respite is shattered by the arrival of NKVD Colonel Garanin, who has orders to double the quota for gold production in the hellish mines, and whose real agenda is to exterminate as many of the prisoners as possible. This terrifying sequence culminates in the play coming to a complete halt. I didn't time it, but it must last a minute or more. You can hear a pin drop in the theater. It's an audacious, scarifying moment. The director, Rodger Sorenson, uses a barrage of multimedia techniques to shock and amaze the audience. At first I cringed when the video cameras were brought out--here comes some post-modern posing, I thought. But adroit use is made of the technology to depict the intense artificiality of events, showing how the ideology of the rulers becomes parted from the best interests of the people. At one point we see cartoons of Marx and Lenin bickering about who was more responsible for the vast butchery of the regime. It's like "The Simpsons" meets "1984." (And in a perhaps unintended irony, the security camera surveillance footage made me look in an entirely new paranoid way at the Harris Fine Arts center.) The issue of rape and sexual abuse of the women in the camps is sensitively but forthrightly addressed. As a man, I really don't know what to say about this, except the obvious--it was among the very worst of the crimes committed in the gulag. I should let Adams speak for herself on this subject. This is truly epic theater, effectively staged and finely acted by the student cast. It's a tremendous exercise in resurrection; a true perestroika for the past and the dead. I would stack it up against Tony Kushner's tendentious "Angels in America" any time. Congratulations to BYU for stepping up to the plate and presenting it. In many other universities you have some people in the history and theater departments who would say "Stalin wasn't so bad. He meant well--and anyway, Bush is worse." (If you don't believe me about this still current response to Stalin, read Amis' "Koba the Dread.") Maybe BYU is one of the few places free enough of ideological cant to nurture a play like this, I don't know. If there is any justice, it should get tremendous acclaim. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] BUCKLEY, _Getting It Right_ (Review) Date: 20 Mar 2003 12:35:42 -0800 (PST) A MORMON HELPS SAVE CONSERVATISM FROM THE LOONIES A review of "Getting It Right: A Novel" by William F. Buckley Jr.; Regnery Publishing, Washington D.C., 2003; 309 pp., $24.95, ISBN: 0-89526-138-3 "Getting It Right" is a historical novel by the godfather of modern American conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr. I don't think I've ever read a historical novel written by one of the actual participants, but here's one. Buckley was present at the creation of "the vast right-wing conspiracy:" the post World War II conservative movement (that would later remake American politics) as it took form in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Buckley tells the story of two extremist groups that could have derailed the new insurgency: the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand's "Objectivists." Buckley's protagonist is Woodroe Raynor, who we first meet as a young Mormon missionary in 1956 in Austria, along the Hungarian border. I must say young Woodroe's mission is unlike any I experienced as an elder. He lives with a young American couple, teaches English to the natives, and builds houses on the side. It could be that Buckley is familiar with more recent LDS humanitarian missions, or he may be thinking of the effort led by Elder Ezra Taft Benson immediately following the second world war, or he could be making up this part of the story out of whole cloth. But it's very unlikely that a 19-year-old elder would have served a non-proselyting mission like this in 1956. Then there's the little manner of his girlfriend, Teresa, who he sleeps with. She is Hungarian, and she draws him into the 1956 Hungarian revolution against the Communist Russian occupiers. Woodroe is shot trying to help refugees escape, and Teresa turns out to be a double agent. This political and sexual betrayal helps make Woodroe a convinced anti-communist. Woodroe then attends Princeton University where his mentor is professor Theo Romney, a Mormon from Utah who is the only conservative on the history faculty. His hobby is painting from memory as massive mural of the Wasatch mountains. Together they meet the circle around Robert Welch, a wealthy candy manufacturer who founds the fiercely right-wing John Birch Society in 1958. Buckley doesn't display much curiosity about distinctive LDS beliefs. He assumes for the purpose of his narrative that Mormons believe in Jesus and are bound by a code of comprehensive morality, which makes them Christian enough for him. Buckley must have noticed during these years the fervency and numbers of LDS members involved with the John Birch Society. A little later in the novel Woodroe attends a local meeting of the Birchers in Salt Lake, where Ezra Taft Benson is seated on the dais. Meanwhile a young Jewish woman, Leonora Goldstein, becomes involved with the intimate circle in New York City around Ayn Rand, the novelist and libertarian philosopher. There she witnesses at first hand the sexual intricacies of Rand and her very married lieutenant Nathaniel Branden (later one of the fathers of the "self-esteem" movement.) Buckley is witheringly satirical about the Randoids. He targets their cruelty, self-deception, and intellectual arrogance. (The very title of the novel could be a double-entendre about the romantic entanglements of the various right-wing characters.) The word "creepy" comes up more than once in referring to the Objectivists. It's pretty outrageous material, but Buckley appends a "Notes" section where he lists the sources for every chapter (when he's not relying on his own recollections.) Woodroe progresses through the JBS and begins to meet some its more colorful characters. There's Major General Edwin Walker, who tries to seduce Woodroe even as Lee Harvey Oswald fires a shot at Walker through a glass window. Then there's Revilo Oliver, an academic classics genius who spins increasingly elaborate, paranoid conspiracy theories to explain every bad aspect of American life. (Both these men were real people who Buckley came to know.) Woodroe becomes appalled by the racism, meanness, and downright looniness of the Birchers and breaks with them. He writes to Theo Romney: Us folks from Utah aren't racists. I never even felt the urge to look down on Jews and Negroes. So many people do. You commented in your course how the Chinese railroad workers were treated when they crossed God's country. That's *our* God, Theo. Other Christians get it almost right. We get it *all* right. Woodroe goes to work for Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, which is vividly described. We also meet along the way Jack and Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, a young Alan Greenspan (who was a Randoid), and other prominent figures from the time. Buckley himself appears as a supporting character. So does this make "Getting It Right" a Norman Mailer-ish "nonfiction novel"? Woodroe meets yet another Mormon, Than Koo, a refugee from Communist terrorism in Vietnam. The climax of the novel comes when "National Review" in 1966, Buckley's hugely influential magazine, publishes a special issue denouncing the JBS as dangerous and deranged in its paranoid analyses of America. The novel ends as Leonora leaves the Objectivists, becomes a Catholic, and becomes engaged to Woodroe, who is leaving to fight in Vietnam. I see a sequel in the works. Buckley's Mormons are defiantly idealistic, even as they are backsliders who drink and cohabit with their girlfriends. They are tolerant, compassionate, and committed to truth. Although their forceful presence in the JBS suggests they are susceptible to unwise fanaticism. Buckley captures well the feverish intoxication of extremist ideas, of how systematic ideologies take flight from reality. (Buckley seems to imply that some Jews has a similar cultural predisposition for Rand's cult.) Buckley himself has always been a model of civilized humanity. He comes across an an emotionally intact, jolly man who is able to successfully integrate faith and reason. It appears that in recent years Buckley is constructing a fictional narrative history of post-war America in his novels "Nuremberg", "The Redhunter", "Spytime", "Elvis in the Morning", and this volume, which fairly screams "to be continued." For sheer literary value these novels are no threat to the "American chronicle" novels of Buckley's old nemesis, Gore Vidal. Vidal creates deeper characters, more involving plots, and infuses his history with stinging wit. But his political views grow more extreme and psychotic the closer he gets to his own lifetime. Buckley's books radiate sanity and reasonableness and they are pretty funny in their own right. Plus he is arguably the most influential American journalist of the past 50 years. Some may find his books too abstruse for their tastes. Me, I eat 'em up like candy. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: ENHANCED EJECULATION -EXCELLENT ADVICE Date: 22 Mar 2003 07:08:24 +1000 EXPERIENCE EXCELLENT EJACULATION VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR MEN AND WOMAN TOTALLY IMPROVES YOUR SEX LIFE BEYOND YOUR DREAMS TRUE STORY - PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR WITH THE INFORMATION I GIVE YOU AND HE WILL CONFIRM REMEMBER SIMPLICITY IS THE HARDEST THING TO FIND I HAVE HAD TESTICULAR CANCER/ PLUS SECONDARY CANCER IN THE LYMPH NODES AND I SUFFERED FOR 15 YEARS RETROGRADE EJACULATION - I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH SIX MONTHS TO LIVE I BEAT THE SYSTEM - BUT SEXUAL PROBLEMS OCCURRED I WAS DETERMINED NEVER TO BE BEATEN NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TOOK AFTER 15 YEARS I HAVE FOUND THE DRUG COMBINATION THAT HAS NOW GIVEN ME A POWERFUL EJACULATION. FOR THOSE SUFFERING FROM RETROGRADE EJACULATION OR DIMINISHED EJACULATION PLEASE CONTACT ME AT PLEASE SEND $5 TO MEDICAL QUESTIONS 2/70 DEVONSHIRE STREET SURRY HILLS SYDNEY NEW SOUTH WALES AUSTRALIA 2008 I WILL THEN EMAIL YOU THE DRUG COMBINATION SECRETALONG WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO YOUR DOCTOR TO PRESCRIBE FOR YOU AND YOU WILL EXPERIENCE AN UNBELIEVABLE EJACULATION 24 HOUR TURNAROUND- I HOPE I CAN HELP YOU IN LIFE PLEASE TREAT THIS AS SERIOUS SEXUAL MEDICAL INFORMATION I HOPE THIS INFORMATION WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE 2956oeKT5-137iWFp5752jmnZ1-854WWVs1581HXuH9-338HrOn3135uWyl55 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Status Check Date: 22 Mar 2003 13:53:02 -0600 Folks, Just so you know: We now (as of 2:00 p.m. Central time on Saturday) have over 50 posts in the AML-List hopper. That's nearly a full two days' worth right there. Unfortunately, the best ways to handle an overload (compilation posts, reading everything and then prioritizing which are the most critical posts to send out, etc.) are all fairly time-consuming, and the next week is going to be a very busy time for me workwise. So we'll have to see what happens. I've already been skipping most of the "me-too" posts (posts where someone essentially expresses agreement with what someone else has said). I'll likely start dropping posts that don't have a high content level or high relevance to key AML-List topics. And I will probably go to allowing only one or two posts per person per day. In the meantime, please exercise patience, consider which comments you most want to make, and limit yourselves to those. Thanks for your understanding. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] This is only a test Date: 22 Mar 2003 14:16:32 -0700 This is a test of the Assistant Moderator system. This is only a test. Though if you desire, you can be afraid--be very afraid :) Mod Assistant -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] Stacey BESS, _Planting More Than Pansies_ (Review) Date: 22 Mar 2003 00:42:23 GMT Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Title: Planting More Than Pansies: A Fable About Love Author: Stacey Best Publisher: Shadow Mountain Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 26 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-875-6 Price: $14.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle When this book arrived in my mailbox, I wasn't really sure how I was going to react to it. When I write a review, I normally prepare the header, information readily available from the book itself, and then begin the review. In this volume, the pages are not numbered; I had to count them myself. It wasn't so much of a job -- 13 pages of text, 13 pages of pictures, cover price of $14.95. At over a buck per text page, this has to be the most expensive book I've ever owned. The focus of the book is a young girl named Sarah. She and her father are fond of working together in their garden, planting pansies and watching them grow. During these times together, her father has an opportunity to share some thoughts about faith and patience. Sarah grows up, and begins to stray from her religious upbringing. Finally, she becomes pregnant. The question: what does her family do? How do they handle this crisis? Sarah's father remembers the lessons learned from the planting of the pansies, and embraces his daughter, and new grandchild, with a love that itself brings healing to the young woman. If it all sounds a bit soppy, you're right, it is. The book is written by an adult, but it seems to be written for children. There is an economy of words (guaranteed by a mere 13 pages of text?). In a sense, this book is more an illustrated short story than a book. But soppiness aside, there is at least one serious lesson taught here. As has been discussed recently in several venues, the idea of losing one's chastity, and the road back to wholeness, is in constant evolution within Mormonism. While it may have been an assumption on the part of the writer, there were no explicit confession and repentance on the part of Sarah. Instead, the father covers his family with his prayers and his desire for healing. It is the embrace of Sarah's family, not explicitly her own desire for forgiveness, that brings about the happy resolution of the story. This was something of a surprise. It unites the entire family in the consequences of the act, and draws them all closer together. Good, as they say, came from a fall. I very much liked this scenario, and commend it to all who are living such a situation. The illustrations, by Melissa Ricks, are competent, but not spectacular. I have some doubts that many of these books will move off the shelves at $15.00. They should reach the remainder tables in short order. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] Kenny KEMP, _The Welcoming Door_ (Review) Date: 20 Mar 2003 12:19:03 -0700 Title: The Welcoming Door Author: Kenny Kemp 2002, HarperSanFrancisco $18.95, hardback. ISBN 0-06-008264-X Reviewed by Marilyn Brown Using the metaphor of the door through which we are welcome to find out = more about the everyday life of our savior Jesus Christ, Kenny Kemp = fictionalizes three stories from the New Testament: "The Prodigal Son," = "The Good Samaritan," and "The Talents." The scenes he crafts are often poignant and tender revelations, = answering questions about how it might have been. For example, when the = carpenter Jesus (called Jeshua in the novel) builds a door for the = father of the prodigal son, he reveals his awareness and love for = children in enlisting the help of young Arah as an apprentice. There was = interesting psychology in this scene. The rhythm of dialogue and = language was good. Kenny Kemp can write. Kemp is sensitive about the rebellious prodigal brother, never painting = him as evil or fully lost, so that the forgiveness of the father is = natural. The irritation of the older brother was also redeemable. The = plot of the talents is clever. The bucket brigade in the building of the = well is the kind of memorable, page-turning fiction I would like to see = more of in the rest of the book. Also, there are scenes in the Good = Samaritan story that are very interesting. Kemp has done his homework in = his discussion of the technicalities of construction, travel, food = gathering and serving. However, the major difficulty with the work is the lack of focus on the = development of one or two people who will carry the plot forward. There = are three "plots," and the only character who is developed throughout = the work is Jesus, who is so good that he cannot furnish us much = conflict of character. Conflict is what gets us to burn the midnight = oil, and the conflicts are pretty short-lived to generate long-term = interest. No strong book-length antagonists are present. In fact, there = are so many people in these stories that it is very difficult to keep = track of them! I read this work and the national best-seller THE RED TENT together. = Both novels dramatize stories from the scriptures. If I had time, I'd = read and compare Taylor Caldwell, who was one of the earliest authors to = Biblically elaborate. And she established what soon became an almost = cult-like following when she did it. This kind of story-telling has = always been popular. THE RED TENT's fascinating first-person development = of Jacob and Leah's only daughter Dinah absolutely sucked me in because = of the intimacy I felt with the story-teller. I'd say Kenny is capable of doing what he hopes to do here. But if he = focused on the development of fewer characters, the book would have been = much more satisfying in my opinion. Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 20 Mar 2003 12:48:06 -0700 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. > The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are > Women. > > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, > spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no > matter how old they are. > > The Women drive the stories. The boys follow after them. In fact, in order to > get the Woman, the boy often takes whatever course and makes whatever > decision is demanded of him by the Woman. I can think of two possible reasons for this. The truth may be a combination of both, plus some other stuff I haven't thought of. One, it's wish fulfillment. Our culture is still deep into conditioning our women to be passive, obedient, stable individuals who are loaded with emotional insight and spirituality but intellectual zeroes (in other words, boring!), that the male authors among us wish it were otherwise, and people their fiction with the strong women they wish existed in real life. If they also make the men little incompetent boys, that's probably wish fulfillment too, since our culture is big on men being so relentlessly responsible for everything. They want a break. Or two, it's part of the male bashing that's developed in American culture and that LDS culture has adopted with glee, in spite of the fact that it contradicts with number one above (humans are nothing if not contradictory). Thus we get the notion that if you want something done, give it to the Relief Society, or the notion that the elders quorum is populated with a bunch of goofy kids. (People act like you treat them, right?) > I wonder how entrenched this model has become in our storytelling. I have > read very little popular LDS fiction. Is this a common character/relationship > model? It's a common perception in our culture, so even though I haven't read a bunch of LDS literature myself, I can't help but think it is pervasive. I agree with all your examples, plus some others I've come across. I'm glad to say this model does _not_ appear in my book _Brother Brigham_. > Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in our > personal relationships? More our beliefs than our personal relationships, I think. I expect there are fewer relationships in real life like this than appear in our stories and our perceptions. I sure hope so. > Has the Mormon male been neutered? The America male has been neutered, which includes a bunch of Mormon ones. > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? Everyone does. Passivity, tears, and avoidance of thinking. Oh, and women's intuition. > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons reveal about their > attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy? Women: the traditional role model is God's model. But the traditional role is boring, so we fantasize about exciting women who don't fit the model. But at the end of the story we shoehorn them into the traditional model so everything can end up kosher--after we've enjoyed a story's worth of their unorthodoxy. Is this a perfect description of _Charly_ or what? (I'm happy to report the movie _Out of Step_ does not succumb to this temptation.) Sex: the desire for sex is suspect, because it's primarily male. Oh, and there's all that apostate Protestant "sex is evil" gunk that gets mixed in too, in spite of official doctrine to the contrary. Domesticity: domesticity is good because it's a family thing, and anything family is good. Since women are domestic and men are not, women are superior. The corollary to this in American culture is, fathers are optional. Patriarchy: Men were given the priesthood because they're a bunch of dumb goofuses who need the maturing influence of priesthood authority to keep them in line. So we let them have it and act like they have all authority. But of course, we know it's the women who really get the job done (witness all the jokes about how the Relief Society president really runs the ward, not the Bishop). At least this keeps men from being optional in LDS culture. > These are interesting thoughts, but I am starting to ramble. Any input? > Anyone? Personally, I'm sick to death of the insidious male bashing that this phenomenon is symptomic of. I don't consider women superior to men or vice versa. The superiority of women is a well-ensconsed presupposition in LDS culture that irritates me. Women tend to be perceived as more spiritual because of how we superficially define spirituality using traditionally feminine virtues. Yet nowhere do I read in scripture that the glory of God is passiveness, or intuitiveness, or emotion, or nurturing, or warm fuzzies. The glory of God is intelligence. Other places in scripture emphasize the importance of love to exaltation. Put the two together, and voila! we have a traditionally female virtue combined with a traditionally male virtue for godhood. And interestingly, LDS theology is the only one I'm aware of that teaches the man or the woman is not eternally complete without the other. No wonder God said husband and wife should become one flesh. Treating women as superior and men as doofuses is a strange way to combine them into one flesh. As a group, women tend toward certain valuable abilities, and men tend toward other equally valuable abilities. Neither is superior to the other. These may be useful concepts when studying sociological principles, but in specific relationships they are meaningless. Within the sexes there is too broad a spectrum for generalities to have any relevance to individuals. All the virtues have to be covered within a marriage, but it's up to the individuals to decide who will cover each one. It matters not how the virtues are distributed. Maybe this is why LDS doctrine teaches that men and women cannot be exalted without each other. Maybe it's the marital unit--the husband/wife combination--that needs to perfect itself, not the individuals that comprise it. If all the godly virtues are manifested within the couple, it matters not which is manifested by which individual. We are supposed to be "one flesh," after all. No one worries that the ears cannot see or the eyes cannot hear. We only worry if the complete organism (the "one flesh") cannot see or hear. How's that for some juicy ideas for LDS speculative 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 20 Mar 2003 12:50:50 -0700 [MOD: Dianna raises some interesting points here. How do we handle the line between providence and coincidence in our writing? How do we handle the often radically different views of this distinction that seem to be floating around within Mormon culture?] I want so much to have a literary citation for what I'm going to say, but if I can think of any in the next few minutes, I'm sure it will sound generic. Just the same... Miracles come in so many different flavors, and God answers prayers in so many different ways, and always for specific reasons and purposes. I believe, as a few have posted here, that when Mary Katherine was able to remember Emmanuel after such a long time it was, in some small way, a miracle. God did answer prayers in that small moment. When Ed Smart undoubtedly gave his wife and family members priesthood blessings during this family crisis, I bet the miracle of the priesthood gave him the inspiration to say that, against all odds, Elizabeth was still alive. God also answers prayers and works in such mysterious ways through experiences that bring pain and anguish. I was a little girl in Florida when Adam Walsh was kidnapped and murdered. I remember the Montgomery Ward where he was taken as my Mom often took us for shopping trips there. Adam would be 28 now, just like I am. I do not believe for one second that God would inspire men to kidnap and murder a child. And he did not stay their hands when they murdered him. But John Walsh, as imperfect a man as he is, and though a big celebrity now, was changed forever by it. In some ways, some could say that a little miracle happened in John Walsh, and he became a very outspoken, determined soldier for justice (even though America's Most Wanted can be so hokey - it still has a very good purpose). Also, that experience gave Walsh the ability to empathize so much with Ed Smart, and Smart gained a dear friend in the experience. Finally, Ed Smart has become a passionate advocate for the Amber alert. Possibly an even greater blessing than the return of Elizabeth Smart could be the passage sooner than later of the bill making the Amber Alert a national policy. (Sorry if that syntax sounded funny). Now, am I mixing miracles with coincidence, the will of man, man's ability to learn from his trials and become a better individual? Sure, and the truth is, that's how things are done in life. So, here's my literary citation. I give you the Old Testament, particularly the book of Genesis. In it, there are countless incidents where the acts of God and acts of man just barely overlap and bring about huge changes in the course of mankind and the kingdom of God. Rebecca loved one son more than another or maybe she was just inspired or something, so she orchestrated the passing of the birthright of Isaac to go to Jacob through deception with meat and goat-skins (though my husband did say once," Now, honestly, Isaac had to know that it was really Jacob he was blessing"). I don't want to go too far with my own interpretations of scripture, but for this one experience in the bible, there are a number where slightly random or even calculated acts by humans (some of them terrible indeed) ended up bringing about a greater purpose and plan of the Father. And so it goes in the Book of Life. A month ago, I was in a show, and I showed up at the theatre one night feeling anxiety over the upcoming war with Iraq. I mentioned my emotions during greenroom, and after the prayer, another cast member approached me and told me about a friend of his who served in the Gulf War. He said that while the man was in Saudi Arabia (or Kuwait, I'm not sure which), he and some other Latter Day Saints held a small sacrament meeting there. A sacrament meeting in the Middle East! To him it was a miracle of sorts, or at least, another example of the Lord bringing about His purposes through the choices of man. Line upon line, of course. This may not have hit the mark, and I hope that it hasn't offended. It's only my expression of a principle that has hit me over and over again. The Lord works in mysterious ways, and what may make little sense or seem coincidental in a moment can be pivotal in the course of mankind and the eternities. We can be grateful, especially at a time like this, to know that we are certainly not alone here in life. Respectfully, Dianna Graham "He never did tell me who the Fat Lady was, but I shined my shoes for the Fat Lady every time I ever went on the air again..." _Franny and Zooey_J.D. Salinger -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 20 Mar 2003 15:38:30 -0500 [MOD: Of the two posts Tony mentions, the second has since gone out. The first, I honestly don't remember. It's entirely possible that it vanished into a black hole, either on the electric wires or, more likely, in my own in-box. Folks, please: If ever you send in a post and it doesn't appear, and I don't get a response, feel free to send a query.] I guess what gets my goat the most is having posts censored for no reason having to do with violating list guidelines, just some unknown, unfathomed reason. I put time and craft into what I write. I obey all the rules, and poof! a dead end without any attempt from Jonathan to justify why he zapped me. Back when the list was discussing why Mormon culture seemed to be stifling its writing, I wrote a lengthy post about what Danielewsky did at BYU to nurture genius in his students. This non-political, non confrontational post vanished into thin air. This past week I wrote a post that again scrupulously adhered to all the guidelines. It drew parallels to Hamlet's world, our own, and connected it all to Mormon life. This post has likewise vanished into thin air for no reason. The whole silent censorship issue is more disturbing than I can ever express. And to listen to justifications re: letting some posts through because they're better written or more eloquently expressed. Argh. If your posts get flushed often enough, you quit caring. Why waste time and craft on discourse that gets aborted? Many strong writers and profound thinkers on this list have commented that they have stopped contributing because of the heavy handed way they are treated. This is antithetical to the purpose of a community like this. Just think--our best are being discouraged from writing. Way to go! So what was it again about Mormon culture that discouraged its writers? It's alive and well on the list, walking hand in hand with the beloved Deseret Book policy. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 20 Mar 2003 15:26:26 -0800 On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:36:55 -0800 (PST) "R.W. Rasband" writes: > But it's healthy to acknowledge that "the Jordan Rules" exist; > that some list members get more leeway. My turn to be obtuse. I assume the second clause is appositive for the first, but the phrase, "the Jordan Rules" has no emotional content for me. I don't think I've ever seen Jordan play outside of a few newsclips and with Bugs Bunny and friends in Space Jam. I'm not a sports fan, so when someone mentions Jordan the emotional content that carries is an anecdote about a writer who wanted to test computer security by seeing how many computers he could break into. He said you'd be amazed how many computer users in the Chicago area use Jordan or Bulls as their password. And because I'm not a sports fan I also don't know if "the Jordan Rules" is a common term among sports fans, or a phrase R. W. coined for this post. I'd be interested if someone talked about the nuances of the term. Actually, looking at another post, I notice Tony Markham first used the term, not R.W. > The Michael Jordans of the list, the superstars, you know who you > are. I'm not so sure about that. I made a list of the AML superstars for myself after Richard Johnson's Ides of March comment, "I don't think that even the most hyperbolic individual on this list would ever list me as one of the superstars of the list." Of course, Richard is on it. His post about what the hammers in Finnish outhouses in winter are for is a classic, one of my favorite posts, right along with Eric Samuelsen's story about the girl who peed all over her future husband on their first date. OK, I'm back at the computer now. I had to walk down the hall--sometimes you can't laugh effectively sitting down. Tony Markham is on the list. I've enjoyed his thoughtful posts, and he even sometimes parallels my own ideas, but in much less convoluted fashion. R.W. is also on the list. He and I seem to be shadow brothers, sharing many of the same concerns and reading some of the same books, and if I lived closer to Heber I'd love to sing in a choir with him, though my singing voice is not like the voice that comes thru my fingers, indeed, when I want to know what it feels like to be illiterate I join a choir and make sure I'm standing to the left of someone with a good strong voice in whatever section I'm singing in--tenor lately, bass sometimes--so I can throw them off their note. I remember that terrifying Sunday when all the other tenors (all one or two of them) were in some meeting or other and the song we were practicing came to the tenor solo. . . (and all the other voices dropped out--I suppose that's implied in the ellipses, an interesting moment). And there's the report (from Scott Parkin? (who wrote memorably about fighting the mudslide) about the fireside where Shelly Johnson-Choong told about being mauled by a dog, and Margaret Young's account of why she wrote the preface to _Love Chains_, having wrongly heard that Levi Peterson had been excommunicated and wanting something she could read in her defense at her own surely imminent court of love. And there are Barbara Hume's defenses of the romance and historical romance genres. And even if I mention Rex Goode's "Is the Desire to Write Genetic" from July 2000, about finally finding his father, I'm only mentioning a small part of what makes AML-List a superstar list for me. In fact, by the time I finished with my list everyone who's posted in the last three months was on it, and some who haven't, like Eugene England (when G. Eugene England Sr. died someone posted that he thought Gene had died and supposed Lowell Bennion and the Swearing Elders needed some extra help--but as my cousin (9 or 10 at the time) said to his aunt at his father's funeral (a silo fell on him, subject of my brother Dennis's poem, "A Killing in Barley," and my father's "God's Plenty") "But don't we need him down here, too?") Then I didn't post my list of superstars, but looking at it, there were some moderately interesting paragraphs, so I'll append them to the end of this post. > (Perhaps I should say the Karl Malones and John Stocktons of the > list, I had a student several years ago who rode his bike with three friends from Utah to Spokane to visit Stockton's (?) father's bar. They took a camera along, because one was a film maker, and got some sponsors and made a film called "The Pilgrimage of the True Jazz Fans." I enjoyed it a lot. > since comparing someone to Michael Jordan is not necessarily > a compliment, in Utah.) Now that is one intriguing comment. After I read it the third or fourth time it occurred to me it might be as benign as meaning he's not part of The Jazz, but it could mean he has a bad boy rep, but that would be Dennis Rod&staffman, wouldn't it? > The best I can hope to be is a Jeff Hornacek: a reliable > outside shooter, and a good guy. The best I can hope to be is a GBS. He got a letter one day addressed to George Bernard Shawm and huffed to his wife that there was no such thing as a shawm, and she assured him there was, a relative of the bagpipe, "an old windbag," she said. I should ent there (now that's an interesting typo--I meant end, of course, but I'm not ending the post there because I need to say a few words about how AML-List is one large and wondrous ent-moot. I mentioned in another thread that the distinction between literature and politics is dubious but useful and that I think we need some good old fashioned left wing political novels to let people of the left know they are welcome in our culture. I also mentioned Frederick Jameson's critical credo, "Always Politicize." (I don't know what book he begins with those two words. I chose the fifth chapter of Terry Eagleton's Criticism and Ideology instead when we did our reports on Marxist theory for Charles Altieri's Ethics and Aesthetics class. That led to my class paper, which compared Eagleton's aesthetics with those of a former prof of mine whose dissertation on Robert Penn Warren was, at least in the 1970's, the most checked out dissertation in the UW library, a man whose mother named him after a popular self-help author in the early 1900s named Orison Swett Marden (though Marden can't stand self-help books), and my class paper became my first AML paper, "The Necessity of Bearing Personal Testimony," the most academic and least wierd of my AML papers.) I didn't mention, though, that I don't believe Jameson's credo. I don't think all things are political. As D. Michael said in the Programming as Art thread, if a term is all-encompassing it's also meaningless. The problem is that politics and philosophy by their nature are divisive. I learned this, of course, in a philosophy class. Jim Faulconer said in more than one class that he had sharp differences with other members of the department, and if he tried talking in philosophical terms they didn't get anywhere, but if they switched vocabulary they could resolve differences and see how much they really agreed. For example, Jim said, Bro. Paulsen (I want to say Dennis, but that was (also?) brother Rasmussen's name--whose elegant and wonderful _God's Question_ would be an excellent reprint for either Scott Parkin or Gideon Burton. Jim Faulconer published it originally in his Ketter Press imprint, which was designed to publish unsellable books--it sold out the printing, Covenant (I believe) picked it up and that printing sold out after I had bought a copy as a wedding present for the woman who gave her wedding dress to the sister missionary who taught her because the member fellow who was supposed to marry her (according to a revelation she had had ) didn't ask her to marry him. Some revelations take longer to fulfill than others, and when Klaus finally understood what he was to do, Donna and I carried that book across Warshington and Montana and parts of Canada and should have crossed the border at Couer D'Alene because by the time we got near Cardston the border was closed for the night and we had to go about 80 miles out of our way to another crossing, and were dead tired by the time the wedding came around. (Now what were Klaus and Gloria doing in western Canada when Donna taught Gloria in Ontario? Oh, that's right, there was only one temple in Canada at the time.) (BTW, their last name is Rohrbacher, fascinating to my Hollow Cluck persona (What do you get if you cross a lion and a chicken--a roarbocker, but Donna says last time Gloria called she pronounced it Roe-baker.) Anyway, before I could get my own copy of God's Question the print run had sold out again, and it really deserves to be back in print.) That last paragraph is a sentence fragment interrupted by a large parenthetical that just keeps adding parentheses and I should just continue, but I'm already so long-winded I'll just start the sentence over. Jim told us once or twice that Bro. Paulsen told him once, "OK, I'm a stake president, and you don't believe in setting goals and building self-esteem (this is a paraphrase--Jim had just written a really fine essay about how the concept of self-esteem was almost sacred writ in American culture and it was useful to remember that self-esteem is not part of the gospel, the Savior always pairs the word esteem with words like others). How am I supposed to help the young people in my stake to feel good about themselves and their lives." "I'd teach them to repent," Jim said. Jim told us the vocabulary switch from philosophical to gospel was necessary because philosophy uses the language of debate (or as my brother said of our mother in his wondrous poem "Selvage," "when I'd bait you'd debate"), which emphasizes differences and the gospel uses the language of testimony, of becoming one and valuing rather than challenging each other's differences. In other words, I think art is more important than politics in changing the world, even if the art is political. Eric Samuelsen asked where is our forum. Well mine is Ent-mootML-List, and I deeply appreciate how non-political this forum is, even though I often make politically-tinged comments. But what I mostly do is tell a lot of stories and make a lot of really dumb puns. (I do need to review Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's Juanita Brooks lecture, "The Importance of Trivia.") So sister and fellow ents, let's go marching one by one from Birnam Wood to Dunsinane. I hear that's supposed to shake the kingdom of the evil one to its core, and I'm sure we can get someone to shawm us a marching tune, maybe we could even march through the shawm me state (I shouldn't have re-read this, because now I have to mention the shamisen, though it is a string rather than wind instrument.) (Oh, no, I reread this several days after writing it and thought, 'string, string a post out.' That's me.) Harlow Soderborg Clark ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] What Is Meta-Discourse? Date: 20 Mar 2003 15:58:43 -0700 Kim Madsen asked: - > snip< > William Morris wrote: > "...pre-occupied with meta-issues of discourse" > > At the risk of exposing myself as somewhat ignorant, can you explain > this to me? >snip< At the risk of attempting to answer something that has already been answered, I'll bite. I don't recall seeing this post before, and it is possible that I was in a delete mode and deep-sixed it because it lacked a subject. ????? Meta is a prefix which refers the word prefixed back to itself. Meta-whatever - simply refers back to the word it is prefixing IE - meta-discourse is discourse of or about discourse, meta-science is the science of or about science, meta-view is the view of or about the view, meta-language is the language of or about language. etc. etc. Does this make any sense? So I would guess what William was referring to is - issues of or about the issues of discourse. Humm... a peculiar language, this English. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 20 Mar 2003 17:01:06 -0700 Justin Halverson wrote: > You're not being crass, but you may be creating a false dichotomy. This is > a question I've asked, too, especially when the WTC towers went down and > that ridiculous rumor was making the rounds about how all the Mormons that > worked there were late to work because they got food poisoning or forgot to > set their alarms or something and thus survived. > snip< This whole miracle thing is bugging me. A lot of people died on 911, but a lot more miraculously survived. Among those who died were many who were good, and some not so good. None of those who survived, for whatever reason, were perfect. None of those who died were totally bad. The fact that the death toll was comparatively low, is a miracle. We could try and figure out miracles forever and ever and never get it figured out. To do so would be to fathom the mind of God. We don't need to understand the why of miracles, we just need to acknowledge them and report them or testify of them when we experience or witness them. After all, don't miracles happen constantly? I've seen my children come struggling into the world, and be transformed from a totally lifeless lumps of clay into a beautiful, vibrant, living soul making its presence known to all within earshot. Who knows why some soldiers pass through a curtain of hot lead and fire on a battlefield and others, right beside them, fall and die? Who knows why some babies in third world countries survive the birthing process in seemingly impossible conditions, and others in the finest hospitals, under absolutely immaculate and technologically perfect conditions, die anyway? Who knows why, Paul Celan miraculously survived the Holocaust while his parents and family were killed? These are miracles, and we, as writers, knowing of these things, need to record them as accurately as we can and try to find some deeper meaning to them than mere questions of righteousness. We need to acknowledge God's hand in these miracles, show gratitude, and try to see His greater purposes in all that surrounds the miracle, or the tragedy, without trying to justify, or condemn. This is life, and this is what we who understand life from a superior spiritually founded position, based on scriptures and the teachings of living prophets, should write about. Bill Willson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:56:35 -0700 To me, what is meaningfull about missionary stories is that men are not neutered. They try their best to succeed at the serious game they are playing, but they realize that the conversions they hope and pray for are not going to succeed most of the time. I can't think of a missionary story, novel, movie, etc., where the fictional character was neutered. Which is odd because they are temporary eunuchs. The novels: Elders and Sisters, Bones, Falling Toward Heaven, Angel of the Danube, Smith's Trust Trilogy, God's Army, etc. celebrate this celebacy and the tension it causes. They also celebrate the boyish pranks. (Well, maybe not Bones.) Are their lives controlled by women? No. Howard Rockwell in Falling is dominated at first by the heathen girl only to later convince her to marry him and join the church and draw on spiritually in the time of crisis. Certainly Dalton and his Greenie were not dominated by women. Even the humorous character of Trust balances with the feminine. And Barry Monroe (Angel) exerts his male independence by not joining with women in the book, although, like us all, he realizes that there is an equilibrium to be sought. What Dutcher may have stumbled upon by posting half way through a novel, is that there is a masculine/feminine conflict and balance in good stories, and in good life. Marilyn Brown told me once that the two stories (genres) that Mormons have are the pioneer stories and the missionary stories. In this context, that may mean that all stories are going to be masculine in that the situations require strong characters, yet feminine in their understanding. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 20 Mar 2003 19:58:34 -0700 ---Original Message From: Jongiorgi Enos >=20 > Listen, if someone is consistently a pig-headed idiot on the=20 > list, that =3D will very quickly become apparent to everyone,=20 > and we'll all just boo him out =3D of the pack. But if someone=20 > is almost always interesting and insightful, =3D and then has a=20 > bad day once and a while, what's wrong with a little =3D=20 > indulgence? Its like natural selection. I think these kinds=20 > of issue will take care =3D of themselves. That might work in the wild, but it does *not* work online. There's no = way to boo someone out of the pack. You can't do it. The thing about = booing someone out of the pack is that you *can* actually override someone in personal conversation. You can make it so that they cannot be heard. = Which can be kind of harsh, but is one of the ways we protect ourselves from = those who would hurt us. A significant enough consensus can override a = disruptive individual by denying them a voice. That's a significant difference. If someone has ulterior motives or values destructive discourse over preservation of community, they can take a nice, worthwhile list like = this one and turn it into a battle field. There's no way to protect the community outside of reasonably strong moderation. I mean, it's one = thing to protest in front of a government building with a bullhorn. It's = quite another to do so in my living room or some other place of peaceful gathering. > Outside of vulgar language and directly pointed, vindictive=20 > personal attacks, where is the danger is erring on the side=20 > of a little =3D immoderation from time to time, if the reason=20 > we do so is not to revel in excess, but =3D to truly reach=20 > inside the core of ourselves and plumb or emotional and =3D=20 > rational depths like all good artists and thinkers should? Yeah, but who is going to map out the line between "reveling in excess" = and "reaching inside our core"? They look awful similar and the problem is = that once the line is crossed, there's really no going back. We're all = grown-ups and all, but we dance around some pretty sensitive areas that lie near = and dear to our hearts. Missteps are painful and can do real damage even = when intent is pure. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Date: 20 Mar 2003 21:21:34 -0700 At 04:04 AM 3/19/03 -0700, you wrote: >Communication is a two-way system. >The writer should be as clear as he/she possibly can and the reader >should try to understand without taking offense as the first resort. Someone recently expressed the idea to me that communication is not the message sent, but the message received. If the other person does not receive the message you intended, you did not communicate. The implication is that the failure is yours, not the recipient's. This is an important concept for a writer to ponder. However, since we cannot control other people's thoughts, responses, interpretations, or imbedded opinions, I'm not convinced that we must take responsibility for every such failure. As you said, we must be as clear as we can. How can we do better than that? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 20 Mar 2003 21:35:31 -0700 > >It often amazes me how cruel women will be while accusing men of >insensitivity. I must admit that this is too often true. I also agree that men are actually very romantic, but that the male culture they grow up in teaches them to hide it. When I was young, I actually thought for a while that guys did not have feelings because I never saw any evidence of it. As a writer, I've done a lot of study of the man/woman thing because I want my characters to seem like real men and women, and the more I learn, the more fascinated I am. I recently read a wonderful manuscript by a Mormon writer in which the hero is a strong, handsome, sexy, Mormon male. I hope it sells, and sells big. The character even has a sex drive--wow. (Although he doesn't see that as an excuse for engaging in irresponsible sex, which is apparently considered manly in mainstream culture.) As you will see if Irranteum publishes my essay on romance fiction, I dislike most contemporary romances because the heroines are hostile, unkind, and vulgar--and this behavior is accepted by the reading public because it reflects today's mores. Well, I don't like it in either fiction or reality. As for the fictional Mormon male, he is taught not to break the tender hearts of his wife and children--and he's also taught to use his strength to defend his family. That's powerful. That's not wimpy. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 20 Mar 2003 20:22:35 -0900 _Kadosh_ Director: Amos Gitai 1999 Kino Video An axe has just been taken to the frozen sea of my heart. Kafka would be so proud. I'm a real bah-humbug when it comes to movies. I've been betrayed so often by the superficial emotion and unearned sex and violence in most films that I usually walk into movie theaters ready to be annoyed. I barricade all my emotions because I know that someone is just setting me up to cry at a joyful reunion or the return of a lost dog. I won't take it. Neither will I sit around and watch people paw at each other for pawing's sake. Or shoot at each other just for a thrill. But yesterday I saw a film that took off the top of my head and landed a blow to my gut that I'm still feeling. It's called Kadosh (Hebrew word for sacred). The action takes place in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Jerusalem. The central characters are a husband (Meir) and wife (Rivkah) who are devoted to each other, but childless. The rabbi demands that Meir divorce Rivkah and take on another wife that will give him children. The only purpose of woman, says the rabbi, is to bear children. And Rivkah has failed. Meir has to make a choice. Will he stay with the wife of his youth, or follow the dictates of his religious culture? The other story is of Rivkah's sister, Malka, who wants to marry a man who left the community to lead a secular life. The rabbi, however, has chosen an orthodox man for her husband. The only way she can get out of the marriage is to leave the community, her family, and her heritage. It's a powerful setup. And the film delivers. I watched this movie in an open carrel in the middle of the university library, and I was sobbing through parts of it. That never happens (all right, all right, except during the last scene of Brigham City, but the lights were down so no one can prove it). Kadosh is full of sex - I'd say at least a fifth of the film runs this vein - though it steers clear of nudity (quite a feat). I had always wondered why filmmakers thought they needed to show people in bed. Now I know why, because the director, Amos Gitai, did it right. Each intimate scene is infused with a high-octane element: in some scenes we see martial love at its most exalted (and therefore, sometimes also at it's most painful), and in another, absolute but unstoppable monstrosity. I had never seen screened sex imbued with spiritual content before. But now I know it can be done. The back of the video case says that the film was a feminist polemic, but I saw it as a love story, probably the most beautiful one I've ever seen. Romeo and Juliet can go jump off a bridge. Oh, and one really great thing. All Mormons are allowed to watch this film, as it has not been rated. Watching Kadosh brought a very interesting question to my mind. The guy who recommended this movie to me said that the Orthodox community this movie portrayed (which was the community the director came from) came unglued when this film hit the theaters. I think I can see why, because, in the end, the antagonist is the culture itself. For example, one of the arguments the rabbi brings up to Meir is that the reason to have children is to strengthen the community so that someday it can "vanquish" their oppressors and the "secular government." And in Judaism, having no descendants to carry on your name is basically a living death (as far as the movie said, anyway, I don't know anything about this stuff). And all of this had verses from the Torah or the commentaries as back up. Drawing the line between the culture and the doctrine, in this case, is near impossible. Which is probably exactly why the community was so angered by the movie. Yet, in my outsider's opinion, the movie could not have reached the heights it did without entering into such charged territory. Watching this film has been one of the most spiritual experiences I've ever had. So here's what I wonder. Was it worth it, in the eternal scheme of things, for Gitai to have alienated himself from his spiritual community in order to create such a magnificent work of art? I mean, as far as the religious community of his youth is telling him, he's probably damned now. I wonder, has he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage? In the end, is this film, with all its power, pottage? Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Call for Papers in Honor of Marden Clark Date: 20 Mar 2003 21:42:47 -0800 March 15, 2003 Call for papers--Essays in Honor of Marden Clark Somehow my father has become a very old man. I noticed it again yesterday as I clumb on my bike and watched my parents, who had walked me down to the corner, cross the street and head home. My mother is also old, but not so very old as my father. She doesn't write newspaper columns about going home, about having dreams of home--though she did make that troubling comment about just sticking around long enough to see the new millennium in and then blowing this place. I am more than a little angry to see my parents, especially my father, slowing down. It is painful to see the man who would recite the opening of Dylan Thomas's, "A Refusal to Mourn the Death by Fire of a Child in London," Never until the mankind making Bird beast and flower Fathering and all humbling darkness Tells with silence the last light breaking And the still hour Is come of the sea tumbling in harness approach that all-humbling darkness not with rage against the dying of the light but more like W. H. Auden's Herman Melville, Toward the end he sailed into an incredible mildness. Goodness existed. He knew that. And while my parents have been growing old: "Whoever said, 'Grow old along with me the best is yet to be,' was nuts." "That was Robert Browning, Mother." "I don't care who he was. That saying is for the birds." My oldest sister has turned 60 and got out of the shower one day to find her husband dead of cancer on the kitchen floor. My oldest brother has had hair as white as our father's since he was just a few years older than I am now. My next sister, the sassy, brash irreverent feminist PR woman has become a doting 3-time grandmother--executive mom, her license plate holder says. My next brother has become a high-tech dot.com Republican with a respectable stock portfolio. My youngest sister got married and seven months later, almost to the day, her husband died of a very strange disease that turned out to be rabies that had been incubating for years. I'm on my way to becoming the first baldy in the family and noticing white hairs (and indeed, as I write this Patsy Cline is singing "Let the Teardrops Fall") that could make my locks as white as my brother's by his age, if I have any left. In other words I'm of that age where I ought to be editing a festschrift for an older colleague who has retired. That the older colleague is my father and he's been retired more than 20 years just means I'm a late bloomer, means I've been thinking about this too many years, and I really need to do it. Collect the essays first, we'll worry about how to publish them later. At the recent AML meeting a BYU archivist was asking for AML members' personal papers since the AML archive is housed in the Lee Library, so if nothing else the essays would have a home there. So consider this a call for papers, not necessarily papers about my father, though I would welcome them, wlecome essays about Mormon literature, about the spiritual nature of art, welcome anything virtuous, lovely, of good report or pleasing form (essay, poetry, fiction or other pleasing form) and praiseworthy to honor the work of a deeply honorable man. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't use that last phrase, the next words would have to be "My heart is in the grave with Marden," and the purpose here is rejoicing. So rejoice, and send me your rejoicings. Thanks Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 20 Mar 2003 23:23:43 -0700 Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: >>>Ed Smart reiterated once again that the story, in this case, had nothing to do with class or race. He's a good enough man that he had to say that, but it's not true, unfortunately. The kidnapping of a bright, attractive, blonde young woman from a wealthy family is news. The kidnapping of a bright, attractive African American young woman from a lower-middle class family is not news. This is surely not anyone's fault, particularly; it's just where the culture is, right now. <<< Isn't it also possible that Ed Smart is a person who's amassed a fair amount of personal wealth by knowing how to effectively motivate other people to look out for his interests? That the same effectiveness at motivating others to increase his personal wealth is what caused him to do the things that would get him and his cause the media coverage he got? Isn't it possible that he got two press conferences a day for three months because he *called* two press conferences a day in an effort to keep their situation alive and in front of the cameras--and that the media showed up because it's always easier to appear at a planned event then it is to go seek out a bit of unknown news? That he was willing to accept the criticism he got (heaven knows, I got tired of hearing his voice every single night) and ignore it because his goal was worth a little personal discomfort, because he was willing to spend the time and effort--and had the personal drive to continue despite roadblocks. In other words, maybe the media came because he called. Relentlessly. Constantly. And the same skill that led him to successfully wrangle the media is pretty much the same skill he uses to become wealthy. Which skill the lower-class black family apparently doesn't have--or they'd be wealthy. Sadly, I don't have that skill either. Apparently you do, though. No one responds to my posts with the energy that your posts generate--with the result that you have visibility and celebrity and even superstar status (relative though that may be...) that I can only appreciate--and envy quite a bit--despite the fact that I've posted more words on this list than any other person in its history. I have nowhere near the notoriety or celebrity you do, and probably never will. It's not in my nature to make the kinds of statements you do--even though I share similar opinions on a great many subjects. It seems like a matter of skill, not bias. Some people got the skill, and those people get the notice. I'm not saying that there isn't bias, but I think there are many reasons for the things that do and don't happen in this world and that far more of it has to do with individual effort than with some sort of systematized conspiracy of bias in the media--or the publishing world, or sports, or Hollywood--to keep this or that group down. I've heard far too many Mormons claim that the whole world is against them so there's no point in even trying--which is the one and only pure guarantor of failure. Too many people succeed who shouldn't have for me to buy that. I think we limit ourselves far more than others limit us. If we whisper in corners instead of speaking boldly, don't we have to take some of the blame onto ourselves for the fact that our voices are not heard? I don't particularly care for the idea that you have to create controversy to be successful. I think controversy for its own sake is a form of artistic laziness, and that far too many people rely on shock in place of substance. For me sentimentality and shock-mentality are essentially equal as unscrupled manipulations of an audience. They're both inartistic. And yet, shrillness gets press because it's easier to cover the obvious noise than it is to go find some real news. Those who can combine shrill with effective get things done. Like Ed Smart. Or, at least in this forum, Eric Samuelsen or Richard Dutcher. Of course you two back it up off-list with critical and artistic success, where people like me (as Theron Jeppson so accurately pointed out) are unknown outside our little community--and are relentlessly bland within it (as I fully recognize). I think institutional bias gets far too much credit. People with a conservative mindset tend to seek out people like themselves. Journalists with a conservative mindset tend to seek out a paper with a slant they're comfortable with. Yes, the bias ends up happening, but not because there's a conspiracy of hate, rather because like people tend to group together and reinforce their shared bias. Which is what makes this list so interesting to me. People with substantially different viewpoints have still managed to choose relative unity over relative dissent, and have chosen to stay here despite the ways we often tick each other off. I find both hope and comfort in that. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 21 Mar 2003 10:37:53 -0700 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > You see what's happening here. Someone was genuinely MOVED. He expressed > emotion (always messy) and he did it in a literate form. People reacted (as > they always do to drama). And now suddenly the entire raison d'etre of the > List is in question. > > Are we really taking ourselves THIS seriously? For the record, Eric didn't do anything that I'm upset about. He didn't do anything that I haven't done before. But when I've done it, it got sent back to me. Sour grapes? Complaining isn't _always_ immature. Sometimes there's good reason to complain. My urge to complain comes not from this isolated incident, but a long history of experience on the list that tells me when a political comment gets through that fires up my passions and I respond to it, more often than not it's not allowed through. It's political--off-topic. And it's usually Eric who did it, as deft as he is about sneaking them in. Yes, it does upset me and seem unfair that someone got to get their political jab in and I don't get even one opportunity of rebuttal. This last one seemed the most egregious of any I've experienced, so I decided it was time to express my dissatisfaction. Now after I complained, Jonathan _did_ let a few responses to the political side through. Whether he would have anyway, or whether my complaint caused him to decide, consciously or unconsciously, to let them through out of fair play, I have no idea. I did realize that perhaps he _would_ let me respond this time too, since he let others. But by then Jacob Proffitt had sent his thoughtful rebuttal through and I had nothing to add to it. I was satisfied with that. I don't even blame Jonathan, really. Mistakes are made; people have differences of opinion. I wanted to express my view of what happened AND HOW I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED (i.e., _constructive_ criticism), and that was that. I think that's input Jonathan would like to receive. End of topic for me. I've become bored with it. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul VanDenBerghe" Subject: [AML] Levi PETERSON, _The Backslider_ Date: 21 Mar 2003 11:20:06 -0700 Since Richard Dutcher has brought up THE BACKSLIDER . . . First I join Richard in saying this is my favorite Mormon novel. Levi Peterson, as I think we all know is a gifted writer and especially adept choreographer of character. Rereading THE BACKSLIDER again, this time with my wife, I was once again drawn in by the tragic humanity of his players. As we read, my wife asked me about something I hadn't noticed in the novel before. She wondered about the seeming lack of any spiritually strong and grounded Mormons who were not completely messed up. It was an interesting question that made me stop and think about the novel in ways I had not done before. Any thoughts from you of the literati? Also, as long as we're making Levi Perterson recommendations, let me encourage any who haven't read ASPEN MAROONEY to do so. It's a wonderfully funny and moving book. And the characters won't easily fit into the male/female stereotypes we've been discussing. Paul VanDenBerghe This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ============================================================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 21 Mar 2003 13:11:08 -0700 Years ago, I met a really interesting man who was dying of cancer and really wanted to get married before he met the reaper. He decided to date Christian women because they were so "nice", and sponsored one to go to a Christian conference, though he did not believe in Christianity himself. He told me that he thought he (a ruddy ex-convict) held some fascination for Christian women, since, he noted, most of the men they associated with were mild-mannered to the extreme and not what he'd call "masculine." So, I think this guy would say that the phenomenon of the "neutered" male is not a Mormon one, but a Christian one. I don't have much experience with Born Again fiction, but I'd just bet you'd find the same thing Richard observes (accurately, in my view) in LDS fiction. Maybe it all stems from our sense of the tender-eyed Jesus who never cried as a baby and never fought with his siblings or said anything sassy to his parents. ("Jesus once was a little child/A little child like me/but he was pure and meek and mild/ as a little child should be" or "Away in a manger...no crying he makes...") Do we ultimately root ourselves in a fantasy of perfectly behaved children as the ideal, interpreting perfect behavior as non-assertive and somehow non-expressive (arms folded, etc.)? Is it possible we pursue that same fantasy into teenage years, with the vision of the mild-mannered, self-sacrificing missionary (Elder Dalton without the temper) being our goal, followed up by the image of the dutiful spouse/bishop/stake president who is worthy to judge those within his fold who do NOT behave. Is our image of Mormon men in our fiction actually a reflection of what we are seeking to create in our culture? Is it based on an interpretation of Jesus without that one episode of his cleansing the temple--and definitely without all that Old Testament Jehovah stuff? I suspect so. So should I take seriously the words my teenaged son said to me when I informed him that Darius and I had just missed our deadline yet again and that I was sure Deseret Book was unhappy with us. "I know how that is," he said. I suspect he was condemning me with magnificent subtlety and effectiveness. Because, honestly, I know I communicate my unhappiness with some of his choices. I communicate it very well, thanks. I've mastered the "wilt-you" look. And honestly, I wish he were easier to raise. I wish he wouldn't be quite so expressive or quite so assertive or quite so quirky. And the worst thing is that he says he's just like me. Now how am I supposed to take that? I've already written a story about him (or which at least includes him): "Hanauma Bay". I am CERTAIN he'll write a story about me someday. I suspect he'll portray me as a quirky, tempermental, difficult redhead married to a mild-mannered bald guy who's in a stake presidency. Honestly, the gall of it. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] Shakespeare as Prophet Date: 22 Mar 2003 06:30:50 +0900 Tony Markham wrote: As I was hobbling on a broken foot all over London with a group of BYU theater students, I made it a point to see a traditional production of Hamlet that led me to conclude that the Bard may well have been a prophet of these latter days. [snip] ----------------- I am not so convinced of the prophetic nature of the Bard, as I am that politics is politics at all the times of world history. And in writing about politics 400 years ago, he was writing about politics today, and 200 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and 500 years from now. We don't place the prophetic mantle around people who wrote about greed and avarice and selfishness and say, "Wow, they sure saw what people were going to be like in 2003." No, we read this and say, "Human nature sure hasn't changed much." There have always been terrorists, despots, civil war, uprisings, and coup d'tat's. We find them in the scriptures and we find them in old literature, because that is the way things were, and unfortunately, still are in much of the world. What would have been truly prophetic is if he had written about a political system that allowed every person a say (vote), had abolished slavery, allowed freedom of worship, and believed in habeas corpus and no taxation without representation. While he lived 300 years after its signing, Shakespeare truly had no idea (or at least didn't write about) the changes in political systems that would soon come as a result of the magna carta. Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Gardner" Subject: Re: [AML] Packaging of Fiction Date: 21 Mar 2003 14:07:12 -0800 Lisa Tait wrote: [So, I ask. How, in your experience, are Mormon novels packaged? Does it affect the way you read them and what you expect of them before you ever turn the first page?] It does bother me that LDS novels are either fancy hardbacks or large softcover and seldom (if ever) packaged as 4x6 paperbacks. Mostly it bothers me because the larger books don't fit in my coat pocket. But, I agree that there is something more to this. I'm not sure I would ever go so far as to say that this was a deliberate attempt by publishers to be different but I wonder if there is a "we're not like everyone else" influence here. Look in any Christian books store and you'll notice the same thing. But, having said that, usually a question like this is answered (to the embarrassment of the conspiracy theorist) by an industry insider who talks about overseas printing costs and standards, marketing research, distributor requirements, shelf size, etc. I do wish LDS fiction was printed in a more standard size because then when I gave a book to a friend I wouldn't have to watch as their face registered that oh-it's-one-of-those-kinds-of-books looks. So in answer to the question about the effect the package has on the read, it must have some effect because it appears make a statement before the cover is even opened. In the end though, I'm not an established enough writer to even dream of telling Covenant how to print my books. I'm just a dumb cop lucky enough to have avoided the slush pile. Willard Gardner _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 21 Mar 2003 18:16:28 -0700 As I observe the debate about what should be moderated out of people's posts, I came to this conclusion: It cannot hurt to explore ideas, even if they are unorthodox ideas. It *can* hurt to attack people. So my criterion for moderating the list would be to eliminate posts that attack people but to allow posts that ask questions and express ideas, even if they aren't the standard line. For me, questions are only questions and opinions are only opinions, even if they might make us uncomfortable. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 21 Mar 2003 22:04:31 -0700 Could the reason some find the strong, capable woman/bumbling male story line appealing be that it just isn't true-to-life? The men in my life have all been strong and capable. The only reason I find the bumbling man funny is that there weren't any close to me. It is a novelty. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: RE: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 22 Mar 2003 00:33:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) What I would like to know is if the DB stores are still carrying music b= y Amy Grant since its well known that she left her husband for another man = who was also married at the time. They have since married, but is this morall= y uplifting to our culture? Or is this something we want our youth to think= is ok? Or, like the NYT bestsellers they carry, is it ok since Amy Grant is = not LDS? =0D Debbie Brown=0D -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 21 Mar 2003 21:45:47 -0800 Susan Malmrose wrote: "... And I have heard many men in the church say that they wouldn't be active in the church if it wasn't for their wives--and that's the case with me and my husband, too. But I don't see those men as weak at all." So I have to ask: Why not? I mean, isn't that exactly what part of this thread is talking about? If the guy would quit going to church if the wife were out of the picture, isn't this guy "passive" in both the spiritual sense, and in the actual practical sense, too? If I am a "strong" and/or "proactive" person, and I did not want to go to church, for whatever reason, I would NOT go. As a passive or compromising person, I would go even if I did not want to, for the sake of my wife. Hey, there are a lot of reasons in life to compromise, but when it comes to religion, why be lukewarm? Be either in or out. So when Susan uses an example of a man who would be out if the wife weren't there, is this not speaking exactly to the stereo-type we are discussing? And if it is the stereo-type, but you believe that a man in such a case is still "strong," (speaking of a "character" of a man, now, and not your husband or any other actual example) how, as the writer, do I convey that strength in the light of his passivity in this one primary area of behavior, his religion? I'm not trying to paint Sis Malmrose into a corner, but I am interested in a deeper look at the concept, because I, too have encountered men who would not be there if it were not for their wives, and personally, I'm not very interested in that kind of a man, in a dramatic sense. Is that why a lot of LDS fiction is weak? I have several friends who's wives are members of the church and they are NOT, and I respect them. If they ever joint the church, it will be because THEY have a personal testimony and it won't be to make anyone happy. It will be real. That is a character trait that I can get my teeth into, and I like these men. But, as my local ward's Elder's Quorum president, if I have to interview or motivate one more whining, passive, I could care less, why-the-heck-should-I-do-my-home-teaching-anyway? kind of guy, I'm going to beat my head against the cinder block walls! I mean, GET OUT. Get IN or get OUT! But that's just on my bad days. On my good days I say we are all better off here than not... but do I really believe that? I don't know. I don't know if it does anyone any good to be here passively. Okay, maybe taking the covenants does you some good, ultimately, symbolically, but maybe not, because unto whom much is given, much is required. I am going to be judged much more harshly than my non-member friend, Ben, married to member Sara, am I not? Maybe not, but we are led to believe that as a concept. So if he's really not IN, then, he's better off being OUT (and I'm using those capitalized terms with a grain of salt: this isn't a club). In defining someone's character, be it an actual person, or a character we are creating, defining the traits that will dictate how this character will behave in any given situation, I can see where a realistic exploration of a man who has self-will and strength in many areas, but has some ambivalence with respect to this whole religion thing, could be both informative and entertaining. But I have not yet convinced myself that it could be, or that I could do it. If we are specifically talking about LDS literature and cultural stereo-types, then probably there MUST be some confrontation with this kind of character in our artistic endeavors, if he is as ubiquitous as he seems to be. But I think I must have a more melodramatic sensibility than I care to admit, because I like to color things a little more strongly, more black and white. Part of it is struggling to get to a sense of dramatic economy: you have very little time to tell something, at least in a screenplay, my usual medium. You've got to get to some kind of crisis pretty quick. You know, chase the conflict. And to me, the character of a man described and defended by Susan's passing comment does not fit the bill. I mean, he's good and he's kind and he's there, but if ever the wife was gone he'd just fade away. That's not dramatic. Why choose that kind of man as a character in a story? That definition is obviously exaggerated to make the point, but unless you did something terrible like have his wife killed in a car wreck and then have him smack up against the wall of his ambivalence, have some kind of dramatic breakthrough one way or another, I wouldn't care for him in a story. From a story structure place, he'd have to DECIDE something. He'd have to BECOME something, but I couldn't stand him being the person he is (unless the story has nothing to do with religion, but that's beside this point). Unless, of course, the nihilism of passivity is the POINT... I might concede that. Anyway, could the "man/boy" model, if it is there, work, if the growth arc of the character is convincingly and dramatically handled? But then, is that kind of approach just too easy, too formulaic? I don't know. A quandry. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 21 Mar 2003 23:28:39 -0700 Angela Hallstrom wrote: > ...there's so much more condemnation that > comes down on women if they admit to wanting to just watch movies and write > stories and talk to interesting people on the phone all day long, > laundry-and-visiting-teaching-be-darned. It seems obvious to me that this is > the reason why women in the church seem to me to have a much bigger problem > with guilt then men do (generally speaking). As a man who was unemployed for eighteen months, let me say that my own experience on the matter varies with yours. My wife was (and correctly so) viewed as the responsible one next to her lazy, slugabout husband who should be working three jobs at MacDonalds instead of lazing about collecting unemployment insurance. But here's the odd thing--the most vicious condemnation I ever felt came from inside my own head. It had been pounded so hard into me by my various cultures (Mormon, American, male, etc.) that my prime responsibility was to produce a paycheck that when I became unable to do so I had no other way to feel good about my own worth as a human being. For me the result was a severe depression that resulted in further failures of mind and spirit, including (but not limited to) a brief return to alcohol, checking my life insurance policy to see if there was a suicide clause, and deeply heartfelt prayers asking for God to please end my life because I had clearly proven my utter worthlessness and it was cruel to further punish my family for my personal failures. I wanted to write, but how responsible is it to write fiction--a known waste of time if you can't make a living at it--when you're otherwise unemployed? I took my kids on a couple of day trips to assorted locations around the state, but found that even the cost of gas in my 45 mpg car was a strain on our limited resources. I ended up spending most of my day either reading, writing posts to the AML-List, or playing Agnes solitaire on the computer--after searching all the online job resources and sending resumes across the country every morning. When my kids got home from school I did homework with them and read with them every day--which proved to be my only release from constant self-condemnation. I now have a job that I'm pretty sure is going to give me a heart attack within a year. High stress; adequate pay. I taste acid in my throat all the time and have a persistent ache in the left side of my stomach. I sleep an average of three hours a night. I arise before my kids wake up and come home just in time to tuck them in. I can't claim to enjoy my life right now, and I certainly don't get any sense of personal satisfaction. But it's better than being unemployed. My point is that I don't think anyone is particularly free of expectations. Certainly men don't get any free ride--any more than women do. I certainly don't claim to represent Men as a population--I do a lousy job of being both a man and a human being; I'm pretty much a weenie by all definitions--so I won't try to make any grand claims about who has it worse. In the end I'm not sure it matters who has it worse; things seem suboptimal for all of us at one time or another, and in one way or another. I think it's difficult to claim one set of expectations takes a higher toll than another set does--they all force us to either grow or shrink. I don't envy anyone their private struggles. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 21 Mar 2003 21:58:26 -0800 I appreciated Lisa Tait's views. You know, I think part of his is the lie that we have to have an either/or situation. I mean, I am a quasi-feminist male, myself. I have two very strong daughters and a brain-injured boy who requires constant care, a permanent infant, basically. I am rearing very strong women, and I delight in strong women and I have very strong sisters and a frequently overbearing mother. But I think my wife and I have a pretty good balance, and I am anything but passive. I'm deeply passionate and opinionated and stubborn. My son, injured though his is, is also very pig-headedly stubborn. If not, he'd be dead. If I have a well son in the future, I expect he will be just as tough as his sisters. Why does the celebration of the strengths of women somehow automatically imply a diminution of the male gender? We can celebrate the strength and uniqueness of both without implying a judgment on the other. But unfortunately, our culture (at large, not just LDS), rarely does, and our entertainment products usually go for the cheap laughs, which play on gender comparisons constantly. But you know what, I'm going to come down hard on the comment about "girl talk conversations about men". If anyone in a position of leadership (mothers are the biggest examples and leaders of all) frequently find themselves indulging in that kind of crap, they ought to slap themselves out of it and fast! How can we complain about our son's negative self-images (the stupid gender) and yet ourselves be purveyors of the negative stereotypes? It is something we all have to be careful of, in our writing, in our humor, in our teasing, in our conversations. Reinforcement of both genders, and of individual self worth is of tantamount importance, on a case by case basis (as parents, teachers, friends). And yes, I think we have a responsibility in our creative work, as well. That that this needs to come across didactically, but if our casual conversations are filled with denigrations, how will our creative work not be skewed with imbalanced perspectives as well? Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 22 Mar 2003 15:30:50 +0900 Jeff Needle wrote: The following article appeared in today's San Diego Union-Tribune. I direct your attention particularly to the fourth-from-last paragraph, and would be interested in your thoughts on the sentence the publisher decided to snip. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/currents/news_1c20romance.h tml _______________________________ I just had Jonathan return a message I sent earlier about the exact same article that appeared in Sunday's (16 March) Stars and Stripes (military overseas newspaper). (Not to cast more dispersion on Jonathan, it was because I included the copyrighted article in my post). In my newspaper it was titled "Mormons Search for Good Romance Novels." When I went looking on the web to find the article in electronic form, I also came across an article on the abcnews website: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/relationships/Entertainment/mormonromance0303 10.html. The article Jeff references is identical to the one in my newspaper, but when you compare it to the one from abcnews.com there are significant differences. Both articles are by the same author, and distributed by the AP. This prompted the following thoughts, (and #3 relates to the question Jeff asks, but doesn't answer him directly): 1. I found it interesting that an article about Mormon romance novels would make it into the Stars and Stripes. I know there are a fair number of LDS folks in the military, but in general the Stars and Stripes doesn't particularly notice. 2. There are significant differences in these two articles (although subjectively similar) written by the same author, with the same published picture in my newspaper and on abcnews.com, and distributed by the AP. Can someone with journalism experience explain how this happens? 3. The article implies that Ms. Stansfield changed a line in one of her books to get it sold at Deseret Book, although she is published by Covenant. Does this mean that her manuscript was reviewed by her editors, and then by DB for determination of "shelf-worthiness?" (Although the change request could have come from her editors, the stories just aren't that clear.) And if it didn't happen to her, is it unreasonable to think that it might? Does DB have that much marketing power? 4. What does anyone find in the whole "romance" genre? I can understand the titillation of regular romance novels, but there's certainly none of that in "Mormon romance" novels. Kari Heber Okinawa Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 00:55:48 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >RichardDutcher@aol.com >But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the >conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? Mormon-l. Go to Smartgroups.com and do a search. You'll love it there. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 03:17:35 -0500 Richard Dutcher wrote: >But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the >conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? Well, the thing to do is start your own list. It's pretty easy and there are many places to do it for free. I don't think I've ever had a post bounced by Jonathan, but Ben bounced several back in the day (I used to post slightly more frequently than the almost-never rate that I currently manage). And I never really minded. As a libertarian, like Thom, I detest censorship -- but the only type of censorship I'm worried about in a moral sense is the coercive stuff. You know, censorship by the government or, really, anyone pointing a gun at you. Since the AML and its corresponding List are privately operated, with participation an entirely voluntary matter, I'm not too worried about the imposition of rules. They migiht not be the rules I would have chosen, myself, but the moment the rules become too restrictive I can leave. Start another forum. Or participate in multiple forums, including this one -- as many list members no doubt already do. The AML-List is still operating pretty much according to the vision of Ben Parkinson, and I think his vision has turned out well. But maybe someone has a better vision for a forum devoted to Mormon Arts, and that would be great. My libertarian streak admires the marketplace of ideas above all, and different types of forums are just as critical to this marketplace as different types of ideas. Will another forum become more dominant or influential in the future? Maybe. But the fact that it hasn't happened yet indicates to me that the AML-List is serving a valuable purpose, at least for now. (I suppose one could argue path-dependence here, since this list was the first devoted to its topic -- but I've seen so many lists come and go, that I doubt path-dependence is much of a long-term factor for any online forum.) So, who'll volunteer to start the unmoderated, free-for-all, Mormon Arts Discussion List? MAD-L, anyone? Eric D. Dixon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 24 Mar 2003 13:47:31 EST In a message dated 3/21/03 10:57:41 PM Mountain Standard Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << It would help me to explore options if I knew what sorts of discussions Richard tried to have but were censored. I'm trying to imagine what he would say that was bounced back. I can't imagine it veering far off topic. Were his thoughts expressed too caustically? I can't imagine he resorted to name calling or personal attacks without substance behind them. What exactly was censored? >> I've been censored not so much for what I have said, but the way I've said it. I consider sarcasm a tool which, if used sparingly (and in times of cold or famine), is very sharp and effective. One example of a rejected post that I only partially remember was a response to someone who responded to one of my posts and said she was tired of hearing writers defend their storytelling by claiming to use the scriptures as their guide in deciding what kind of stories to tell and how to tell them. While acknowledging God and the prophets as the authors of scripture, she said something to the effect of "Just because Heavenly Father does it, doesn't mean it's right for us." Whereupon I wrote back and recalled the words of Christ to follow him and do His works (and the works of Abraham, etc.) and then I added something like: "Surely Jesus didn't think we'd take it literally. Silly Jesus." So I'm not sure if the moderator found me guilty of saracasm or blasphemy. Or both. A more recent example. Jon Enos wrote: << Richard Dutcher and I were friends at the Y and both moved down to LA at about the same time. I made out with his wife, Gwen (on stage) and he made out with my sister (on the living room floor) before he and Gwen even met, so I guess you could say we go back a ways. >> I wrote back: "Fortunately, I was able to get away with a lot more on the living room floor than Jon was on the BYU stage. I'd say more...but that would be indiscreet." So, in this case, I probably ventured beyond the borders of good taste. Still, it was funny, and (as the venerated theologian Rehctud Drahcir said) that excuses everything. Richard Dutcher [MOD: For what it's worth, I don't recall what the issue was with the first post listed above. The problem with the second post was mostly lack of relevant content at a time when AML-List volume is running high. I have no objection to "fun" rejoinders like this from time to time--it's part of what makes the list tone conversational--but they often simply go into the overflow pile when volume is high, and then, in many cases, simply never make it out again.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 20 Mar 2003 13:35:44 -0700 jeffress@xmission.com wrote: > I would propose that "Things everyone agrees is art" is an empty set, but I > would also contend that "Things no-one agrees is art" is also an empty set. > Since a binary definition of art really cannot ever create a useful working > set usable by large numbers of individuals, I would argue that a binary, > art/non-art, definition is a meaningless concept. It does create a useful working set usable by large numbers of individuals. The boundaries are fuzzy and shift constantly (based on the observer--does this mean art has quantum characteristics?), but there is a set of generally accepted items which the vast majority of us label art. Every person has his own idea of art, so a general definition is really irrelevant for the indivudal. But when we get together to discuss art, we need to have some idea of what it is. To say, "Everything," or "Everything any person ever considered art," (the same as "Everything" if your assertion is true), we have no topic to discuss. There is a general consensus on what art is, even if the boundaries are fuzzy. And I believe (so far) the "frame with intent to display" definition comes closest to approximating that boundary. Every so often, someone comes up with a creative explanation of why some bizarre item should be included as work of art, but for the most part, such things are considered briefly as the aberration they are, then we get back to discussing "real" art among us. The things that fall outside my useful definition but are considered art by somebody tend to be rare and of limited significance to the general discussion of art in the world. The whole purpose for defining art in the first place is so we have some idea of what we're discussing, right? What other reason is there to define art? "Art is everything" means we have nothign to discuss, or rather we might as well admit that we are discussing the universe, not art. Which means Jonathan should stop bouncing off-topic posts--everything is on-topic. > Too many objects that were never created with the intent to be displayed as > art are now on display in museums. And these are not just collections of > items on display for historical interest. Many everyday objects created at > the time for utility, are now admired for their aesthetic appearance. You are forcing a presupposed definition of "museum" on me. Museums display things of educational interest. Often that's art. But hardly exclusively. I do not accept the definition, "If it's in a museum, it's art." Even if the aesthetic appearance is being admired. > I once visited a museum that had a collection of 18th century carpentry > tools. These tools were aesthetically interesting, having been obviously > created with great care and skill. These tools were clearly not created with > the intent for display as art, but rather as tools used for a trade. It just > so happens that the same characteristics that made the tools useful, also > made them aesthetically pleasing to look at. Which still doesn't make them art. They are in the museum for their educational value. Even if I accept the "found art" category you present below, the finder still didn't frame and display it with the intent to make it art. It's of educational value. > Next consider the entire field of found art. This field specializes in > looking at art in the everyday and even the random. I have seen a smashed > cardboard box covered with tire marks on display. And a gas pump covered in > barnacles recovered from the bottom of a harbor displayed as art -- this one > amazingly beautiful. These objects were not created with any artistic > intent. Sure, someone found artistic properties in these objects and put > them on display, but the only intent was to display found items as art. > There was no intent in the creation of these objects. I suppose I could accept an amendment to my definition that doesn't require the original creator to have the intent. But it ain't art until _someone_ frames it with the intent to display it as art. I would consider it an inferior branch of art, at least for discussion (the main reason for defining art in the first place). The "artist" (finder) is not attempting to communicate anything with us like originally created art does, beyond, "Here's something pretty I found I want to share with you." What's to discuss there? Either, "Yes, it is," or "No, I think it's ugly." Maybe, "Why do you think it's pretty?" But then the finder stops being an artist and becomes the audience interpreting the art, because he's subjectively finding meaning in the art like the rest of us. An artist creating original work can objectively state what he intended to convey in his art. No one can convey the objectively intended artistic meaning of a tire track on a crushed box, other than a vehicle ran over it. > Next consider the slushpile of any magazine that accepts unsolicited > submissions. Here you have hundreds of objects all created with the intent > to make art. But under your binary system, most of these objects will never > get the privilege of being framed as art in the covers of the magazine. > Instead, most of the manuscripts will be soundly (and deservingly) rejected. > In spite of the intent to creat art, most of these objects will never be put > on display, will never receive the opportunity to endure Michael's scrutiny > for violations of the third-person limited point of view. But I've always left the loophole in my definition that the art doesn't have to actually be displayed. Only that the intent was there. Anyone who puts pen to paper and creates a manuscript has already framed it with intent to display, whether they die before submitting it, or get cold feet and never submit it, or submit it and no one accepts it. The intent to display was always there, whether the actual act of displaying ever happens or not. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Packaging of Fiction Date: 20 Mar 2003 21:48:02 -0700 >The question: How does the physical presentation of a text affect our >reading of it? And is the packaging of Mormon novels sufficiently different >from the packaging of mainstream novels to alter our reading experience? This is an interesting question. Most Mormon novels do not call out to me from the shelves. They have a bland look--and, as you point out, an expensive look. I don't want to pay big bucks for a mildly interesting reading experience that I will never return to. One novel whose cover I do remember is JoAnne Jolley's Secrets of the Heart. The cover had a very classy look, in my opinion, and caused me to open the book and eventually buy it. This book was published by Covenant. I am not attracted by covers that feature flowers or jewels or other neutral objects. (As for the horrible romance covers, I suppose that in my essay for Irranteum I'd better discuss the cover controversy within the romance industry to let you know who I think is at fault!) I frequently notice the typeface of a novel--whether or not it's pleasing to the eye, and whether or not it's easy to read. Although I think the content of a book is much more important than the physical presentation, a cramped or tiny font or too little white space on the page can turn away many readers. I like tendency of some publishers to tell what typeface they use in the book design. (Seems to me that Hatrack River books did that.) I must admit that I am not attracted to books that look pioneerish. This may seem blasphemous within the LDS culture, but I am not drawn to books about women who must wear long skirts and silly-looking bonnets while engaging in dawn-to-dusk drudgery and worrying about their menfolk being murdered and their children starving. So I'm shallow. I just don't care for the mores of the mid-nineteenth century. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] FW: Kim CLEMENT, "Hole in the Roof" Date: 20 Mar 2003 14:52:43 -0800 This is an unusual post. I don't know if Jonathan will find it = appropriate, but I feel it speaks directly to several of the issues that = concern the list, so I pass it along for your (all of your) judgment and = comments. This message is interesting to me because it was sent to me personally = by a good Christian friend. This friend is very serious in his practice = of evangelical Christianity. He has served many missions and done much = work in the ministry of his church. He has also read the Book of Mormon = and discussed the Restoration in depth over many years. He has no = interest in baptism into the LDS faith, but has respect for the church, = and attempts to create an atmosphere of ecumenical cooperation among all = Christians. This post is directly related to Christian entertainers. It was not = written by an LDS artist, but by a Christian as an open letter to other = Christian artists. I believe we certainly qualify as being a part of = that greater community of Christian artists, and I felt that his = comments had direct interest and relevance to us. And so, by permission, I would like to offer the entirety of Kim = Clement's article below. Jongiorgi Enos =20 Hole in the Roof , by Kim Clement As a Christian and a servant of God, I am not in favor of bad = language, or filth in any way.=20 However, for too long, Christians have focused their attention on = these matters and become totally irrelevant in their influence in = society because of these "convictions" that make us somehow feel better. = The fact is that it is not our holiness that makes the world [sinners] = listen to the Christian message, but because of the relevance of the = message and how they can relate to it in their daily lives. They can't = relate to someone who is portraying so much holiness that they have no = earthly relevance! I'm not saying that "anything goes" and in fact, I = don't personally watch movies that portray excessive violence, and = certainly no sexual graphics whatsoever. However, let's explore the = facts and find out what really matters to the world and why the church = is completely and utterly failing in reaching the lost simply because we = have become captives to a "higher" culture. Who is Jesus? Who was Jesus? God is not mute:=20 God, the "Word", did not speak out of a whirlwind, but out of the = human larynx of a Palestinian Jew. An analogy from Karl Barth comes to = mind when I think of Jesus.=20 "A man stands by a window gazing into the street. Outside, people = are shading their eyes with their hands and looking up into the sky. = Because of the overhang of the building though, the man cannot see what = it is they are pointing toward. We who live two thousand years after = Jesus have a viewpoint not unlike the man standing by the window. We = hear the shouts of exclamation. We study the gestures and words in the = Gospels and the many books they have spawned. Yet no amount of = neck-craning will allow us a glimpse of Jesus in the flesh."=20 Sometimes those of us who look for Jesus cannot see past our own = noses. The Lakota tribe, for example refers to Jesus as "the buffalo = calf of God". The Cuban government distributes a painting of Jesus with = a carbine slung over his shoulder. During the wars of religion with = France, the English used to shout, "The pope is French but Jesus Christ = is English!" Modern scholarship further muddies the picture.=20 If you peruse the academic books available at a seminary bookstore = you may encounter Jesus as a political revolutionary, as a magician who = married Mary Magdalene, as a Galilean charismatic, a rabbi, a peasant = Jewish cynic, a Pharisee, an anti-Pharisee Essene, an eschatological = prophet, or a "hippie in a world of Augustan yuppies"=20 Athletes again, come up with creative portrayals of Jesus that = elude modern scholarship. Norm Evans, former Miami Dolphins lineman, = wrote in his book On God's Squad, "I guarantee you Christ would be the = toughest guy who ever played this game.If he were alive today I would = picture a six-foot-six-inch 260 pound defensive tackle who would always = make the big plays and would be hard to keep out of the backfield for = offensive linemen like myself." Each one relates to Jesus on his own terms, and in his own culture = and within his own circumstances. The Italian movie La Dolce Vita opens = with a shot of a helicopter ferrying a giant statue of Jesus to Rome. = Arms outstretched, Jesus hangs in a sling, and as the helicopter passes = over the landscape, people begin to recognize him. "Hey, it's Jesus!" = shouts one old farmer, hopping off his tractor to race across the field. = Nearer Rome, bikini-clad girls sunbathing around a swimming pool wave a = friendly greeting, and the helicopter pilot swoops in for a closer look. = Silent, with an almost doleful expression on his face, the concrete = Jesus hovers incongruously above the modern world. A great professor of Theology, frustrated with his own personal = ability to portray Jesus to the sinner through his sermons, began to = look into the media and it's portrayal of Christ. This is what he says: "My search for Jesus took off in a new direction when the = filmmaker Mel White loaned me a collection of fifteen movies on the life = of Jesus. They ranged from King of Kings, the 1927 silent classic by = Cecil B. DeMille, to musicals such as Godspell and Cotton Patch Gospel = to the strikingly modern French-Canadian treatment Jesus of Montreal. I reviewed these films carefully, outlining them scene-by-scene. = Then, for the next two years, I taught a class on the life of Jesus, = using the movies as a springboard for our discussion. The class worked like this. As we came to a major event in Jesus' = life, I would scout through the various films and from them select seven = or eight treatments that seemed notable. As class began, I would show = the two-to four-minute clips from each film, beginning with the comical = and stiff renditions and working toward profound or evocative = treatments. We found that the process of viewing the same event through = the eyes of seven or eight filmmakers helped to strip away the patina of = predictability that had built up over years of Sunday school and Bible = reading. Obviously, some of the film interpretations had to be = wrong-they blatantly contradicted each other-but which ones? What really = happened? After reacting to the film clips we turned to the gospel = accounts, and the discussion took off. This class met at LaSalle Street Church, a lively congregation in = downtown Chicago, which included Ph.D.'s from Northwestern and homeless = men who used the hour in a warm room as a chance to catch up on sleep. = Thanks largely to the class; I gradually underwent a transformation in = how I viewed Jesus and Christianity. Essentially, the films helped = restore Jesus' humanity for me. The creeds repeated in churches tell = about Christ's eternal preexistence and glorious afterlife, but LARGELY = IGNORE HIS EARTHLY CAREER." The biblical and church doctrine, that Jesus was a complete man = with a human intellect and human freedom, does not seem to prevail in = the average Christian head.=20 How would I have responded to this man? Would I have invited him = over for dinner, like Zacchaeus? Turned away in sadness, like the rich = young ruler? Betrayed him, like Judas and Peter? The more I study Jesus, the more difficult it becomes to = categorize him. He said little about the Roman occupation, [the main = topic of conversation among his countrymen], and yet took up a whip to = drive petty profiteers from the Jewish temple. He urged obedience to the = Mosaic Law while acquiring the reputation of a lawbreaker. He could be = moved by sympathy for a stranger, yet turn on his best friend with the = vicious rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" He had uncompromising view on = rich men and loose women, yet both types enjoyed his company. One day, = miracles seemed to flow out of Jesus; the next day his power was blocked = by people's lack of faith. One day he talked in detail of the Second = Coming; another, he knew neither the day nor hour. He fled from being = arrested at one point and marched boldly toward it at another. He spoke = eloquently about peacemaking, and then told his disciples to carry = swords. His extravagant claims about himself kept him at the center of = controversy, but when he did something truly miraculous he tended to = hush it up. How is it, then, that the church has tamed such a character? As I = have said before, we have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion = of Judah If I were a filmmaker with a few 100 million dollars, what kind of = film would I make? I hope, in Luther's words, to "draw Christ as deep as = possible into the flesh". I am overwhelmed by the great monument of Jesus life; I have spent = 29 years of my life, inspecting the monument's constituent parts - the = birth stories, the teachings, the miracles, the enemies and followers, = in order to reflect on and try to comprehend the man who changed = history. However, most of the time, I feel like an art restorer = stretched out on the scaffolding of the Sistine Chapel, scraping away = the grime of history, hoping that if I scrub hard enough I might find = the original beneath all the layers of creed, formula and fable. I was amazed when I read the story of a great Christian Professor = of Theology who was invited to address 2000 students at a famous Baptist = College. This man was well respected with a long history of missionary = accomplishments. He stood before this great crowd, as they awaited his = speech, or sermon. He greeted them, prayed and after a few exhortations, = started informing them of present day statistics in the world: " = Increase of aids in Africa; The starvation rate by the year 2004; = Disasters in India, etc and then he stopped and said " and most of you = don't give a s*** about what I just told you." Everyone stared in = unbelief as this great man looked at the reaction to his last statement. = He continued; " Most of you are more concerned about my use of a = profanity than the disasters the world is facing today!" Satan has focused our eyes on the one evil so that we would become = ineffective as a witness to the greater need in the world. The "sinner" = is not our enemy; Satan is our enemy. Sinners have no life therefore they act accordingly. This should = not offend us to the point that we lose our focus on the real issues at = hand. God told me that I was to go to Hollywood and build a work that = would be a lighthouse to the lost. I realized that once my feet were = committed to that soil, I would have to face that fact that the sins of = the media and the obvious presence of profanity, violence, fornication, = etc would offend me and try to stop me from "social infiltration". I = further realized that I would be ineffective if I was "poisoned" by = their sin because of this offence. My moral standards are not affected = by their lifestyle and in fact, the mess that I see them in drives me to = a greater desire to be a witness because I see the pathetic waste around = them and feel compassion. Standing from the outside, separated on some = island shouting at them will not save them. Jesus Christ never did that, = why should I? He walked with them, had dinner with the sinner, allowed a = women to touch his feet, did miracles in the presence of iniquity and = yet He never bowed to their standard of morality, but brought them to = His state of existence-freedom. He wept at Lazarus' tomb, not because of = the unbeliever but because of the unbelief in the believer!! When he was = angered, it was not because of the sin of the sinners, but because of = the sinful control of the Pharisees. Somehow, we have turned things = around. Paul never stood on an Island and shouted the odds about their = sin, but he engaged in the battle of ideas and then presented the Truth = to them while standing amongst them. The island that he landed on came = about because of a shipwreck, and then while on the island, a snake bit = him, and in the presence of these "heathen" Paul became a witness, = because the snake's venom did not affect him. What a witness!=20 The venom of the world should not affect us in any way and that = alone would be evidence to so many. As I've said before " While the Church was measuring the length of = skirts and the length of hair, scientists were discovering a greater = means of transport, Bill Gates was gazing into the mystical ball of = Microsoft and women were legislating abortion, removing the rights of = the unborn". The short skirts did lengthen but did not stop the adultery = and the long hair did shorten but did not stop the rebellion, yet = millions of babies have died and billions of dollars have supplied the = wrong people with power." My point is that we are missing the real issues at hand by = concentrating on a few profanities and some violent graphics that might = correctly portray what happens to these abused victims. Sinners are supposed to sin; they don't know how else to behave. = The secular media do have a message - violence, sex, perversion and = deception. Our message is Jesus, healing secret wounds, forgiving sins.=20 The end, the ultimate goal of any Christian project within the = entertainment industry is to portray Jesus intervening in a real world = of sin and pain. Of course, you can clean it up and say that kids don't = need to be influenced by these images, but these same kids will watch it = somewhere else and become violent because in most movies today, there is = no solution presented to them. Our movies and projects should show them = the way out of their violence, crime and pain. Jesus. HOLE IN THE ROOF THEORY: I read something interesting about Jesus when he was on the earth = and this sums it all up: A man, who had spent his whole life horizontal, would have one = moment of vertical fame, when he talked four friends into digging up a = roof and lowering him through the hole. A hole in the roof is hardly the = way to enter a house. Jesus was beneath him ministering and suddenly dust was flying, = bits of straw and clay were falling on the guests, noise and chaos = interrupted the meeting. The crowd whose very presence had created the = accessibility problem were rudely shocked by two things; First was the messy way the paralytics' friends solved the = problem. Then came Jesus' completely unexpected reaction. When Jesus saw = THEIR faith- [plural]-emphasizing the four friends' role in the = healing-he said," Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." Who said = anything about sins? The religious began to whisper and in typical = fashion, the experts started arguing. Jesus hushed the debate with words = that seemed to sum up his general attitude toward physical healing; = "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or = to say 'Get up, take your mat and walk'?" PHYSICAL HEALING WAS FAR EASIER, WITHOUT QUESTION! Jesus never met a disease he could not cure, a birth defect he = could not reverse, and a demon he could not exorcise. But he did meet = skeptics he could not convince and sinners he could not convert. It is = so much easier to go to revivals that center on physical ailments. I = remember living in revivals, and just when I began to feel smug, I = suddenly was reminded how easily I feel tormented by the slightest bout = with physical suffering, and how seldom I feel tormented by sin. The = world is not interested in our smug revivals, they want their pain, = internal wounds, removed, and they need forgiveness.=20 Apparently, Jesus enjoyed the interruption that day. Outstanding = faith never failed to impress him, and certainly the four-man demolition = crew had demonstrated that.=20 I see the paralytic as the people in the World, in pain and = afraid. They don't know how to come through the front door of a church = and so they find Jesus in another way. It's unorthodox, desperate, and = in the midst of flying clay and dust they make their way to the "Door" = and receive forgiveness. Maybe it's not the way that the church wants it to be, but Jesus = loves it, and he always responds to faith and desperate hearts, no = matter how much crap surrounds them. All they need is "friends" to deliver them to the Christ.=20 Our personal victories are never applauded on earth, only in = heaven.=20 I constantly remind myself that the Church is founded on Peter who = denied Christ three times and who couldn't walk on the water by himself. = Don't expect his successors to do much better. For the church to be what = it is supposed to be requires the continuous miraculous meddling of God = in human affairs. I see Hollywood as the instrument, as the "hole in the roof" and I = believe that we have the means to touch a generation who couldn't be = bothered with our personal holiness, but are only interested in seeing = Jesus, the Original.=20 Maybe our slogan should be: "Make a hole in the roof to get to the = Door" Christian Entertainers, producers, directors, and the many = talented writer; Let us use the "hole in the roof" to give abused men, = women, boys and girls a glimpse of Jesus, even if it's mixed with dirt, = clay, straw and broken ceiling. Hollywood could be the means to reach = the masses of dying, seeking people who merely need a "peek" of the = Savior, and His acceptance of them will bring them to the cross and into = the "house". Let's just get them in. =20 Comments by Kim Clement, a Christian, non-AML-List member,=20 Forwarded (by permission) by Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 21 Mar 2003 22:18:14 -0800 I don't know, Richard, I think you may be onto something here (which does not mean, of course, that you are not still full of poo! =) But it requires us to accept the evolutionary model, man as animal, propagator of species, etc., which from a human behavioral standpoint, works pretty well most of the time, but gets us into the sticky evo vs. creation, etc. I've just met a lot of passive males in my life: my own father, my brother-in-law, my former business partner, and more often than not, it just pisses me off. You know, as a monogamous male, I have not in any way fully sublimated my desire to "spread seed". Of course my natural urges are there. The animal me, the evolved me, is absolutely interested in "spreading", no bones about it, and I don't have to come up with any "super-woman" models to talk myself out of it. I talk myself out of it by using my higher brain and just deciding this is what I want to do, despite my natural man! Didn't somebody big say something about the whole point being to over come the natural man? So, yes, I think you're right. And some men overcome their "natural man" by complicated mental juggling acts that emasculate themselves -- aided and abetted by society at large. Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 00:32:46 -0700 Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > I have to agree with Richard Dutcher when he says that censorship is > destructive and unnecessary. (This does not mean I don't appreciate the > hard word that Jonathan has been and is doing to keep the list within the > guidelines.) So here's where I have a problem. At least in the case of the AML-List, a big part of having a moderated forum and calling certain topics out of bounds is to create some sort of safe zone where natural (philosophical or social or political) enemies can speak at least part of their message without all the name-calling and partisan noise that accompanies the unmoderated public discourse. Yes, censorship can be destructive--if there is no other legitimate forum for communication. Yes, censorship should be unnecessary--if people were all good and fair and refrained from laziness in evaluation or harshness in judgment or cruelty in response. But as has been pointed out, few of us are perfect and we live in an imperfect world. So some forums try to establish rules of order to moderate natural response and encourage more considered, considerate discussion. Specifically to enable discussion of difficult or unpopular ideas in addition to the more generally accepted ones. I used to believe that some stories simply shouldn't be told, that some stories are too ugly or hopeless or bleak or silly or banal or pointless or inartistic to escape the clouded neural chaos of their originators. But I changed my mind--all stories should be told; all ideas should be communicated to some audience, even if that audience is extremely limited. However... There is such a thing as audience expectation, and a performer violates that expectation only at the risk of losing the audience. If an author annoys enough readers, one should expect those readers--and other readers like them--to walk away from their work, with nary a positive comment to make. Yet there's an increasingly large set of writers who believe that everyone should read what they have to say--and appreciate it as art. Somehow being an artist should be a shield from any kind of negative reader reaction or should grant them special immunity from social or critical rejection. Which seems inconsistent to me--the very same artistic freedom that enables one person to speak their mind as a performer should also apply to those who respond as an audience or critic. Yet even on this list we seem to have a hard time with that--and we are allegedly the enlightened ones. We bristle at each others' performances or chafe at each others' definitions, and claim that we're being ill used. I get mad a lot, and I wish I didn't because I would like to believe that all expression should be appreciated at some level even when it doesn't quite match what I consider to be right and good. I know I've rethought a fair number of basic assumptions because of the ways that others have expressed their views. That's why I told the story of my personally frustrating interaction with a friend of mine on this list. It's not to make myself into some sort of good guy--I consider my own...what do you call it...not so much *grudge* as a persistent, vaguely mistrustful sensitivity...to be a sin. I've decided that I shouldn't be bothered by that experience of the distant past. I've decided to repent of my frustration. So it bugs me that I haven't yet managed to fully embed the choices of my head into my heart. The desire is there, but sometimes the mind and body betray. Still, I think I'll get there eventually. But the fact is that I would have simply walked away from both my friend and this forum if I hadn't learned to trust both after long, worthwhile experience. I still don't agree with him on a lot of his social or political assumptions, but I've also learned to at least listen and to resist my knee-jerk rejections. If there are limits on the discource here, isn't that an opportunity for the artistically inclined to use a little craft and find ways to make our divergent opinions palatable to the management? Freedom is a good thing, but if we want to succeed in a market that is anything but free, we also need to learn the craft of packaging and delivery for an audience. And if we have to repackage or build a trojan horse to get our thoughts in, I don't see that as a limit so much as a challenge. I believe the stress is good for us, and helps us expand our ideas. If we're not mad about something that's said on this list (or mad at someone for saying it) we aren't working hard enough as would-be literateurs, and if we can't package our thoughts to meet the editorial guidelines of this forum then we don't qualify as players. But innoculations are usually done with attenuated pathogen, not full strength. I'd rather build up our communal immunity over time in this forum. If there needs to be another forum that's less regulated, then someone should go out and do it. I suspect they could announce the creation of a new list here without substantial resistance from our moderator. [MOD: Amen!] > I think that the AML should encourage artistic expression that is HONEST. A > particular artist might be full of testimony and faith or a particular > artist might be full of doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be > disallusioned and disbelieving. All these are expressions of what it means > to be part of the Mormon culture. And I believe it is absolutely necessary > for people and artists in the Mormon culture to have an avenue for honest > self-expression, simply for reasons of mental health and to allow personal > growth. Two thoughts--one an argumentative nitpick, and the other one an essential agreement with caveat. The fact that an expression is honest doesn't imply that it must be accepted or adopted or applauded. We all want to feel that our ideas are respected as real and honest, but we dare not require that they only be applauded and not criticized. We savaged "The Singles Ward" too completely on this list for me to believe that the artistic mindset believes that all performance should be accepted without criticism, and our recurring jihads on R-rated films and sentimental fiction suggest that both the most conservative and liberal among us are willing to dish it out, but aren't nearly as good at taking it. I have several friends who honestly feel that belief in God is a form of mental disease and that Mormons are a particularly virulent form of that dangerous pathogen. I don't accept their opinion on that issue, though I respect their right to have it. I also argue the point pretty much every time I see them--at their insistence. They can't quite figure out how I can believe in God and evolution at the same time, and feel a need to probe the question ad nauseum. I can't agree, and I won't agree with their honest and heartfelt expression. I would let the issue rest if they'd let me. But they don't. So we challenge each other again, and again, and again... Which is part of the game. I need to learn to be tougher, more firm in my conviction that my beliefs are worthy of defense and that disagreement is not always a personal attack. Most of us could learn to allow for honest disagreement. I believe it's critical that every last one of us tell true stories to the best of our ability. But I also believe that no one is required to applaud that which they find distasteful, or accept as true those ideas they see as untrue--however honestly or artistically rendered they are. The fact is that we're lousy at separating conceptual or artistic disagreement from personal condemnation. I'm lousy at it, and I dare say most human beings and Mormons could stand to improve as well. I put a lot of my personal thoughts (and more than a few private details) out on this list. For the most part, people completely ignore what I post. That bothers me to varying degrees at different times--but it hasn't bothered me enough to make me stop. I've found this list to be relatively accomodating to those kinds of expression--even when others have had different views. It's not just the fact of cultural criticism that makes most people mad--it's the unwillingness that so many of us have to allow different experiences to be equally true. I'm reading Margaret Young's _Salvador_ right now and find that she is quite unsparing in her criticism of many aspects of Mormon culture--as she is in most of her work. I've found some of her observations to be a tad overstated and maybe a bit unfair. But I've also seen no indication in her work that she believes her portrayals to be "the one and only true" depiction of experience or reality. For me, that makes all the difference. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 02:22:53 -0600 Okay. I should be doing other things right now, but I just got off a long session of AML-List moderating (about an hour and a half) and it got me started thinking about this whole question of politics in literature. Particularly Michael Martindale's preference that we have a more level playing field one way or another--either let them all through, or cut them all off--and why, difficult and often frustrating though it is, I'm reluctant to take either course. >From where I sit, it seems clear that on a year-in, year-out basis, just about nothing else causes quite as much trouble for me as moderator as politics does. Nothing else is quite so capable, in my experience, of (a) cluttering up the in-box with posts that have no clear literary connection, and (b) raising the temperature of the discourse. (Well, there's doctrinal disputes, but there don't seem to have been so many problems with those, in recent years.) At the same time, I'm reluctant to cut off a post that includes political content but where the focus, in my view, is more directly literary, and related to the subject matter of the list. Politics *is* one of those things that's important to us, and I don't want to weaken our literary discussions by cutting off our connections to that part of life. And now, for a set of possibly unpalatable admissions, which may, however, clarify where I am coming from as AML-List Moderator: * First, fairness in political discussion is not one of my major goals for this forum. Fairness in literary discussion--yes. But politics isn't a major reason for this list's existence; I frankly don't care so much what happens with the discussion of politics, so long as it doesn't negatively affect the discussion of literature. I *like* to see a balance of views, simply so that people don't start feeling that they don't belong on the list just because their politics are too "different"; but even that isn't really a concern with fairness per se, but rather with balance and tone and community. * My central concern as a moderator is to keep the conversation going. And I can't think of anything (in my view) that stops the conversation faster than for the tone to start becoming personal and/or angry. Part of the value of AML-List, in my view, is that although we will debate literature vigorously, this *isn't* a place where you have to have a thick skin in order to participate in discussion. And politics is one of the major areas where people can most easily start getting frustrated and angry, in my experience. Let me expand on this point a bit. Making AML-List a place where thick skins are required all around would inherently exclude a large portion of the Mormon literary community, including many readers. As I see it, just about the highest value the AML as an organization holds is to be a place where people from the entire spectrum of Mormon letters can be comfortable talking to each other. An umbrella. It's worth a tremendous amount of effort to keep that status, as an organization. If that means that some people are required to tone down what they would otherwise say, then so be it. This isn't, in fact, a free forum; rather, it's part of the AML community. (This is also, by the way, one reason why I don't think AML will ever sponsor a moderator-free forum; there's too much danger of the institution being formally or informally held accountable for what gets said, in a case like that, and losing that cherished status as a place where those with a broad range of interests and perspectives can get together.) Back to how this affects my moderating. When the temperature does start to rise, I'm going to do what I have to in order to cool it down again (publicly at least). This may mean that the rules of engagement start to become stricter partway through the exchange, as pertains to comments that could give offense. To a great degree, it doesn't matter if this is the intent or not; what matters is the likely effect on the conversation (as I see it). Unfortunately, this means that people who feel they have been offended against will often not be allowed to reply in kind. I can only say that I do try not to allow such things through in the first place; however, I'm not infallible, and interpreting the tone of a comment is very hard in an electronic medium. I do the best that I know how, in the often rushed circumstances in which my moderating takes place. * Third, AML-List is fundamentally more about sharing views than about debating. What this means is that ultimately, I'm going to allow that other person over there more freedom to say something stupid than I'm going to allow you to show him the error of his ways. It's a fine line, the line between sharing a different viewpoint and disputing someone else's views. But it's a real one, and it makes a marked difference in the tone of the responses you get. ================= Going back to the issue of politics in AML-List posts, and why I allow it in some cases and not in others... I have allowed--just off the top of my brain--political tie-ins in all of the following contexts: * Describing how politics enters into a work of Mormon literature or literature about Mormons. * Discussing communication dynamics within Mormon culture. * Providing background for personal reactions to public events, with tie-ins to identity as a Mormon, Mormon artist, etc. * Characterizations of the press, particularly the local Utah press. * Connections to politically-related literary criticism. All of these, I think, are theoretically justified, if handled properly: i.e., not simply as a mask for a political discussion, and with respect for the fact that others of equal spiritual and intellectual worth may hold different positions. But if you're going to respond, you have to respond to the literary component, not just the political component. Jacob Proffitt, I've noticed, is one of several list members who has become quite adept at this: he addresses the literary while still sharing his own (often differing) viewpoints on the political as background for what *he's* saying. Tricky, but that's the way it has to be, at least under the current rules as I moderate them. How does politics connect with Mormon letters? I can think of many ways, including the following: * Political motivations and views of characters in our fiction--including politics as a source of conflict. * Political motivations for ourselves as readers and writers of literature. * Political themes in literature. * Politics as part of the Mormon culture we depict in our writing/reading. * Politics as intersecting with esthetics and styles of criticism. * Effects of politics on publishing. There's no inherent advantage to liberal or conservative in any of these areas. Most of the politically based literary criticism of the last 40 years or so has been left-wing in orientation (e.g., marxist), and it's actually rather difficult to conduct certain types of literary criticism without taking an explicitly left-wing political approach (from my observations). But that needn't affect us here on AML-List. Politics can be potentially divisive and a time-waster. At the same time, it can also enrich our discussions of literature. That's the balance I'd like for us to work toward here. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 22 Mar 2003 07:00:55 -0700 Like Angela, I spent a lot of time thinking about Chris Bigelow's post, and appreciating his honesty. (And I wondered if his wife ever went online and read AML list stuff...). As I read Angela's, I realized far too much of what each had to say was important, and if I quoted them, this post will be huge, so I'll just add my comments. Being "ultra-efficient to the point of laziness" as Chris put it is nothing more than existing in a self-absorbed realm. Our spiritual natures are to connect with other people, but this mortal realm teaches us fear and self-protection. Christ's whole ministry was focused on teaching us to move past that "natural mortal" state and find our spiritual depth. Terry Warner expresses this in amazing ways in the book THE BONDS THAT MAKE US FREE. Boy is it helping me to stop and think about my actions--the way I betray my gut instincts with a layer of self-absorbed justification. As for Angela's comments, I wanted to give her a hug, tell her to go put her feet up for a minute, assure her "this too shall pass". I don't think anybody on the face of the earth really gets their emotional, intellectual or spiritual bank accounts filled by the mundane tasks of life. I remember vividly all the conversations I had with an uncooperative teenage son about the nature of work. After nagging, shouting, revoking privileges, I finally referred him to Moses 4:25 (for those who don't want to look it up: "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread..." the Lord tells Adam). I always told him to take it up with Adam when he turned back into dust. It wasn't my idea. But being in this together meant that I shouldn't have to do *everything* by myself. My job was to teach it to him so he could survive in the world. In the meantime, I'd say, work is as much a law of the universe as gravity. It doesn't have to be painful. At least it leaves your brain free to think, create, muse. I've done my best writing as I scrubbed the floor. Finally I wised up to keeping a little notebook with me to jot things down. Work. Mundane commitments in life. It's how we define mundane that matters. From a perspective of 45 years of age, 27 years into a marriage, I want to tell Angela that the days of flushing after everybody, picking up those really annoying little plastic cherries from Hi-ho Cherry-o, wiping noses, butts, fingerprints, et al, morph into quiet hours of wondering what your missionary is doing, how your daughter is handling her new baby, and what the 15 year old might be dealing with at school. I have time now to read more, write more. And life is always waiting to fill it up with mundane if I let it. Maybe it's something that happens to us as we age, but I feel no guilt now in not cleaning the windows for years, giving up canning entirely, telling my spouse "no, I'm not getting a full time job, I'm enjoying a more leisurely pace and the time to notice my fellow man and reach out to them more". On the church side, I feel no guilt in telling my own visiting teachers "I'm doing great and I really don't need a visit this month, but thanks for calling." And ZERO guilt in saying "nope, I won't be a visiting teacher, but I'll be my husband's home teaching companion." And how well that works for both of us--he isn't motivated by guilt or fear and home teaching isn't way up on his agenda. He has NO desire to do any kind of a lesson thing having spent years of his life being bored by droning home teachers himself, but doesn't mind at all fixing things for the three families we are assigned, inviting the single sisters to dinner, or taking them to a play (with his "companion" of course). It's a much more palatable way to work the program for us, and nobody objected when we made our requests. Not one of our families have said they feel a need for a sit-down-and-listen-to-this-lesson visit. One of the sisters is the Education Counselor in our RS presidency. One of the men is the 2nd counselor in the YM presidency. One of our sisters is single, struggling with her testimony, and not all that interested in being lectured to. It seems to hold true for the active as well as less active around here. On the flip side of the coin, we roll our eyes at each other and semi-graciously accept our own home teachers into our home at the end of each month, always the last Sunday, because one thing we've made clear is that our week day schedule is too full to accommodate them. Sundays are the only day that works for our family. It took a couple of "oh, well sorry we ran out of time this month, but we really are only available on Sunday afternoons, but you made the effort to call, we're fine, report us as visited" before they got it. They are motivated by guilt and the need to check off the Yup We Sat In Their Living Room And Delivered The Message box. So once a month we listen to one or the other of them butcher the article from the Ensign, pray with them, and feel sorry for them when they leave that it's so obviously socially awkward and painful for them to make the effort. And they leave, not remembering my kids' names, or thinking of us again until the end of next month. But hey, they're good for a plate of cookies at Christmas time. Home teaching is obviously a mundane task for them, and their reward is in faithfully completing it each month. I won't stand in the way of a moment of relief for them. My perspective at this point in life is that when we stop being motivated by fear or guilt, and are truly motivated by loving Christ, bearing one another's burdens and all that, we do the things we want to do and feel good about it, letting other things go. I eventually WANT to clean my toilet because I can't stand looking at the scum. But it may take a few weeks to get there, instead of the daily, weekly cleaning I used to obsess about when I had many aim-impaired males using the facility. (My biggest victory in this arena and the "who left the lid up?" fight was to convince my husband it didn't emasculate him to sit. Oh how much cleaner the place stays!) I wanted to invited two of the sisters that I visit/home teach to start an LDS book club with me, because they love reading and discussing books. I still can't connect with the other sister. She puts a lot of effort into protecting herself. And this after we spent three years in a Primary Presidency together. But she is in pain now, and protective of herself. So I leave her messages on her answering machine that go unanswered and send her things in the mail now and again. If she's ever ready, she knows where I am. I have to respect her feelings of needing to be alone now. It's all about negotiation, with others, with ourselves about what works for us and what doesn't. And that includes the community of Saints we live in called Wards (or Branches as the case may be). If we truly have pure intentions, are able to look at others with love and caring, we end up WANTING to do a lot of things and they don't weigh us down. If we are stuck in a self-absorbed place, most things bug us and seem burdensome. It's a sign we still have some growing up to do. And now the original Mo lit tie in. I've reviewed the books on my shelf. The play HEUBNER by Thomas F. Rogers, DARK ANGEL by Robert Kirby, ASPEN MAROONEY by Levi Peterson, in fact, most of Peterson's short stories, as pointed out by Richard Dutcher, OSC's sci-fi and historical fiction, especially his Seventh Son series--they all have fully fleshed out Real Men characters. Most of them are struggling in some way, and very few of them are hiding behind the Patriarchal Powershield to control life around them. That is probably the closer reality to The Mormon Male in the real world. There will always be bumbling male characters in stories whether told on film or the page, but usually it's an easy out or a comedic trick or some other kind of devise to facilitate the story of the female. As a writer, this thread has caused me to think about the motivations I've ascribed to my characters and to look for the real in them instead of easy devices to manipulate the story. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 22 Mar 2003 07:05:24 -0700 Jeff Needle wrote, after directing us to an online article about Anita Stansfield: "The following article appeared in today's San Diego Union-Tribune. I direct your attention particularly to the fourth-from-last paragraph, and would be interested in your thoughts on the sentence the publisher decided to snip." I only have one thing to say. Oh my heck. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 22 Mar 2003 10:40:41 -0800 (PST) "He laughed and kicked the door closed." ????? Why in the world would they cut that? It isn't even about the newlywed couple, their wedding night, or anything even remotely offensive.The sentence is so generic, it could take place if the man is alone in his garage working on his car and wanted to listen to loud music without disturbing the neighbors. If this is the kind of writing Deseret Book considers dangerous, then something is definitely wrong. I never realized door-kicking was a form of foreplay. Jeff Needle wrote:The following article appeared in today's San Diego Union-Tribune. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/currents/news_1c20romance.html Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 22 Mar 2003 14:47:00 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Sentence Jeff is referring to: Stansfield, whose books are published by Covenant, had to delete a sentence from her novel, "When Hearts Meet," th= at described a couple's wedding night. It read, "He laughed and kicked the d= oor closed." =0D I for one can see why this sentence had to be removed, why, it's positive= ly shocking! At some point she is saying that this character found the holy sacrament of intimacy funny and he was so eager to get at it he had to ki= ck the door closed which we know then followed hot married love where clothe= s were ripped off and thank goodness the walls were thick so no one could h= ear the screams of his victim, er, wife, and his hyena laughter as he finally got to do what he had been dreaming of ever since he watched Ariel swim around in _The Little Mermaid_.=0D Ok, I feel better now. =0D Debbie Brown=0D -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 22 Mar 2003 13:02:39 -0700 "Halverson, Tom" wrote: > > The following is a form letter that was sent to me by a friend who works at > Deseret Book in response to my query to her about this thread. It doesn't > really answer any questions, but it may be of value for those interested in > a statement of DB's selection policy. It has all the red flags of a damage-control letter. It speaks in broad generalities and provides no content. If they had a reason for their actions that wouldn't embarrass them, they'd state it. Just like the reasons they _did_ state about Richard Paul Evans' book didn't make sense, which also suggests damage control. I don't have enough information to make a conclusive judgment, but my tentative assessment so far is that the reasons they are doing all this book banning (current and future) looks like the very reasons we who are criticizing it are doing the criticizing. If we are wrong, I'm willing to listen explanations of why we're wrong. But the explanations have to ring true. So far, they have not. Short summary: When they say, "our buying process is...based on well-researched and well-reasoned criteria," I don't believe it. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 14:56:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) =0D May I be allowed to type the horrible "I agree" while waving my arms and jumping up and down in my chair? =0D You know, we can always do what some knitters did on some lists I bel= ong to. They started a yahoo group called knitflame and everytime a lister sa= ys something that irritates or ticks them off, they go on knitflame and flam= e the glory out of the poster. I was just flamed this past week because I spelled the knee surgery procedure I am going to have wrong, and their da= y was not the same until they could flame me. (I only know about this becau= se someone ratted on them). =0D So, in like, we could start our own flaming list and call it LDSlitFl= ame and make fun of everyone what ticks us off, writes stupid insipid LDS son= gs or even spout off about the moderator and editors that won't put certain books in certain LDS stores. =0D Debbie Brown=0D -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] New Mormon Lit Forum (was: AML-List Moderator Practices) Date: 22 Mar 2003 13:06:23 -0700 RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the > conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? I don't know of one, but it would be a piece of cake to create one. It required nine states to ratify the Constitution before it would go into effect. If nine is good enough for the Constitution, it's good enough for me. So if nine people will offer to join such a list, I'll create it. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 13:58:14 -0700 Justin Halverson wrote: >snip< > >Personally, I think Jonathan does a good job as moderator.<< > > I do too, and I really enjoy this list and its diversity of participants > and opinions. I think that there is a difference between censorship and > moderation (which we're to have in all things, after all ;>). I feel much > more safe saying things within this group than I do in my graduate program, > where (sadly, I think) there is a sort of consistent censorship of any view > that seems to contradict the current vogue in the academy--something I know > my sister has experienced as well. > >snip< As Mormon writers, I think it is our duty to show in our plots, and subplots that censorship is alive and well in our supposedly `Free Speech' society. There are certain things you just don't say in certain circles, if you don't want to become an anathema. For example: never mention any sympathy toward Democrates, unions or liberal viewpoints in Sunday School. My wife used to leave her fingerprints on my arm back when we were attending all of the block meetings. Never ever try to convience a city councilman who is also a member of the church that it could possibly be unrighteouse to try and legislate morality in the local ordinances, such as, no beer drinking on Sunday, or at the city golf course, or it's legal to edit copyrighted movies for rental to the public, but it's not permissable to have adult movies(XXX) rated in an adult book store. And never if you want to be accepted by the head pooh-baahs of this list, ever say anyything derogatory about a certain monthly satirical tirade which picks exclusively on the church and its culture. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not for beer drinking, strict democratic policy or liberalism, XXX rated movies, or immorality; however, I strongly feel that we fought for the right to choose these things, or not, before we ever left our heavenly home. The Devil and his followers lost the battle, we have our God given agency to choose our own ways. Just as the satarical writers have their right to publish whatever they want to in thier monthly tirade. We all have the right to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to express an opinin about it without the stigma of ostracisim. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 22 Mar 2003 14:18:59 -0700 Something that no one has pointed out, on the topic of list moderation, = is that list volume is kept very low--to 30 posts a day--because of the restrictions of some list members' email accounts or schedules. When = list volume is high, the need to keep discussions on topic becomes even more important. Throwing around words like "censorship" confuses the issue because that word is so loaded with negative connotations. The = implication is that there is an AML-approved point of view for this list, and = dissenters are not welcome. If anything, the moderator strives for equal representation on all sides of an issue, sometimes at the risk of = becoming extremely unpopular. There are logistical concerns at work here that = have nothing to do with ideology or censorship. Thom wrote this in response to the idea that AML-list is unique in its ability to allow communication between groups with widely different = views: >You should try Mormon-L, entirely unmoderated. Liberals have their say, >Conservatives have their say, each bashes the other for a while, one >side gives up and moves on. If someone can't take the heat, they leave >the list. I suggest that it is precisely this kind of bashing and heat that many AML-list members want to avoid. What's more, given that there ARE other email lists with these characteristics, why should AML-list become just = like them? Better to create a new, additional forum than to rework this one, which in my opinion is doing exactly what it was intended for. Perhaps those who have been expressing dissatisfaction with the moderated nature of this list could present ways in which AML could meet their needs--ways that aren't centered around altering the existing list. AML = has been growing rapidly in the last few years, and we are currently looking = to expand both in depth and in breadth. We can only do so much without feedback from our members--and we're also thrilled to have volunteers to implement those ideas.... Melissa Proffitt speaking only semi-officially ----------------- If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible = warning. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] WOODS, _The Hero_ (Deseret News) Date: 23 Mar 2003 09:36:58 +0000 Deseret News Friday, March 21, 2003 'The Hero' By Ron Woods Knopf, $15.95. Woods, who now lives in Provo, grew up in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho, in a house much like that of the book's main character, Jamie, with a cousin a lot like Jerry, another character in the book. And like Jamie and Jerry, Woods remembers building (but never using) a raft to float down the Payette River. The book, intended for young boys, is a high adventure story, beginning with Jamie trying to burn weeds from the garden. But the real story centers on the summer of 1957, when Jamie and Jerry build the raft. When Jamie's dad persuades them to take the unpopular boy, Dennis, along for the ride, trouble ensues. "'Hold tight, Dennis!' I screamed. 'Hold on tight!' I was sure he couldn't hear me. He was already dropping over the edge. "Sideways, we pitched over in free fall, toppling into the churning water, the raft smashing down on top of us. . . . My eyes came open, but I could see only white as billions of tiny bubbles were whipped into a boiling froth." The book is well-written and offers important, thought- provoking questions about the nature of true heroism. =97 Dennis Lythgoe 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online =20 http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3D3963 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Wallace Stegner Plagiarism? Date: 23 Mar 2003 19:51:36 -0800 This may be of some interest. Today's (Sunday's) LA Times Magazine has a lengthy article exploring charges of plagarism against Wallace Stegner, focusing on his book "Angle of Repose." It's worth a read if you can get a copy. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 24 Mar 2003 10:26:13 -0700 D. Michael Martindale said: > I also like how Cedar Fort is wisely using this setback to generate some > free marketing. How do you sell a book? Get someone to ban it. I don't think this can be attributed to the company. I recently talked to the publisher of CFI and while he and the marketing personnel are puzzled at the exclusion, they have not made any official comment, nor are they questioning Deseret Book about the matter (beyond the initial request for an explanation from the buyer). They do, however, allow their authors to express their own views. This brings up what I think is an interesting question. How much, if at all, should LDS publishers censor what their authors say? When is it too much? Rachel -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 24 Mar 2003 11:52:39 -0700 ___ Michael ___ | In fact, I think you chat it up with me on this list, | because comparing LDS theology to physics is a gold | mine of story ideas for a nearly nonexistent subgenre | of LDS literature that fascinates me: LDS speculative | fiction. ___ When I had to read non-fiction for school, my "relax time" was primarily fiction - and I read a lot of science fiction. Now that I am not forced to read non-fiction I find that my relax time is overwhelmingly made up of reading the sorts of stuff I once *had* to read. So I can't speak too much on what is current in LDS Science Fiction. Having said that though, I think Orson Scott Card had invoked a lot of uniquely Mormon perspective on physics. The obvious one is the Ender series. There Card weaves what is called quantum entanglement with a rather unique form of "intelligent atoms." The notion of intelligent atoms was one of the dominant theologies in LDS thought and was invented by Orson Pratt. (Largely as a reading of D&C 93 in light of the materialism of early 19th century chemistry) Now Pratt's ideas were very difficult to reconcile to quantum mechanics and modern physics. But Card does it rather well and this "theology" becomes a rather dominant meditative element in the later Ender books. Likewise in _A Planet Called Treason_ Card does a rather interesting analysis of priesthood and atonement within a scientific basis. As such it can also be considered a scientific inquiry into theology in the spirit of Orson Pratt or the later "theological scientism" of the early 20th century. (Widstoe, Roberts, Talmage) I should add that this was written during Cards "shock and violence" phase early in his career. As such it might be rather disturbing to some people. (At least as I recall - it's been a very long time since I read it) Finally while the Alvin Maker series is primarily a fantasy series, it has some science fiction elements. Once again Card invokes a lot of Pratt's ideas. Reality is constructed by "speaking" to effectively intelligent atoms. While he doesn't invoke the quantum entanglement of the Ender series, he adopts a similar idea. Deification (manifest in Alvin) is in organizing these atoms. Satanic elements are destruction or "de-organizing." The science is definitely second. But he does try to understand the fantasy elements in terms of science. (Such as how his black "brother" is recreated by reorganizing the DNA - making a connection to spiritual rebirth and Joseph's comments on blood in TPJS) All of this is more the bringing in of common folk doctrines mixed with the scientism of the early 20th century. As such it is all an echo of existing LDS beliefs. But it may be "new" for some readers. As such it is an important science - religion analysis. (Even if rather dated - most of those ideas that were popular in the early 20th century are hard to reconcile to modern scientific thinking) Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 24 Mar 2003 14:25:12 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David >and Dianna Graham >And so it goes in the Book of Life. A month ago, I was in a >show, and I showed up at the theatre one night feeling anxiety >over the upcoming war with Iraq. Please, feel free to tell us the name of that "show," where it was, and how marvelous you were. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Stacey BESS, _Planting More Than Pansies_ (Review) Date: 24 Mar 2003 15:00:46 -0700 Jeff Needle wrote about the book: _Planting More Than Pansies_ I have some doubts that many of these books will move off the shelves at $15.00. They should reach the remainder tables in short order. Sounds to me it won't be on Deseret Book's remainder table. That doesn't show the consiquences of sin. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "th. jepson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML List as Epistolary Novel Date: 24 Mar 2003 14:20:54 -0700 . Moving from my original idea of the list as novel, Mr Enos's post has reminded me that the form is practically dead. Not completely of course, as an element of a book, a letter here and there is a welcome break. In fact, part of the charm to A. S. Byatt's _Possession_ was that sneaky feeling that comes from reading someone else's mail. And the awkwardness of the 'anachronistic' form was dispersed by the fact that the book's characters were also having that sneaky feeling. (I suspect that feeling is why _Possession_ is unfilmable--you can't very well read dozens of letters on a movie screen. And that's why the movie was, sorry Neil, an abysmal failure.) But why can't a novel be written in, for instance, the form the list takes? This more instant medium is more becoming to our modern minds. I took a lot of delight in reading Mr Enos's post, as he described the nature of seeing through our fictional personas and the way the reader creates these characters. In truth, we create them as much as we create characters in any novel we read; the fact that they are 'real people' is irrelevant. When I was on my mission, I received a wholly random letter from a friend (also serving), proposing a 'Universal Clipboard' that God can cut and paste information from any place or time, to any place or time. The disconnection of the topic from reality, and it's complete disregard for the 'Hi, how are you?' school of letter writing floored me. I could only sit, alternating from stupor to laughter, for about ten minutes. In time, this letter of his bloomed into full-fledged 'research', wherein he, I and another Elder in my mission wrote letters back and forth, developing our ideas, discovering the interdimensional nature of mosquitoes and their plot for world domination, and the manner in which numerous scriptural miracles were performed via the Universal Clipboard. Even now that I am a more seasoned and self-critical writer, the energy and pure creativity flowing from these letters is startling. Someday I want to see them published. The reason I bring this up is twofold: 1) Serial and/or epistolary fiction is still appealing. Waiting for the next installment of the Universal Clipboard Files was like waiting for the next installment of a Charles Dickens novel. (The only questions are if that thrill was because I was a participant in the writing process, or because as a missionary I was simply ficiton starved.) 2) Jon was right--we do create fictional characters of ourselves. At one point, one of my correspondants was replaced by a mosquito-created cyborg, and we neogtiated the plight of humanity with him. And not one of us has ever actually studied the hard sciences or theoretical theology. These characters were not, properly speaking, us. Looking a bit into epistolary fiction, I am excited by it as a form. Not just because it has natural vitality, but also because it's an incredible challenge. The form is generally seen as antiquated, but it's obviously not. Someone just has to find the right method of updating it. I won't be getting to it for a while, so if anyone wants to beat me to the punch, feel free. Maybe we can make epistolary fiction our own. ------------theric jepson [MOD: A postscript on related to the Books on the Bedside Table thread was added to the compilation post I am currently compiling for that thread.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kathy and Jerry Tyner Subject: [AML] Supporting Players on the List (was: Elizabeth Smart) Date: 24 Mar 2003 14:22:57 -0800 I think Scott doesn't give himself enough credit. He is often the voice of reason and tolerance. I love Eric, but there are times when he says something in a very emotional way that I want to respond to in an emotional way. Even if I disagree with something Scott says, he often couches it in terms I can respect. I try and read what he has to say for that reason, even if I don't have time to respond, especially if it's only a "me too" response that will only further add to Jonathan's heavy duties with the list. A lot of folks that fit the so-called "Superstar" label, (list members excepted), are often loud and arrogant and don't care about the venue to blast their rhetoric, just so long as they have one. (Michael Moore comes to mind here). Sort of reminds me of Nephi and Sam. Although I love reading much of Nephi's writings, personally if I had had to deal with him in real life I'd bet I'd find him irritating. Of course, since there was condensation of the BOM, all we tend to get from him is repent, study, repent, study, be perfect, repent, study......he always came off as pushy to me, sort of super-Elder if you will. I like Sam because you have the one older brother that accepted Nephi as a leader, listened to his father and mother, witnessed an angel appearing, and seemed to be able to get past his ego, and this is my interpretation-find out for himself in a quiet, gentle way. Not everyone can be a Nephi, either in their writing or their persona, but Scott-Sam gets to go to Heaven too. Your posts and those of others who don't consider themselves superstars are greatly appreciated too. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives (was: Banned Book from Cedar Fort) Date: 24 Mar 2003 14:10:33 -0800 [MOD: I'm giving this a new thread title because I think it's a very good question to address. Although I'll post (in due order) any relevant responses we receive that adhere to AML-List guidelines, I'd like to ask for *thoughtful*, not off-the-cuff responses on this. My sense is that the discussion will go better if we treat this as a question that deserves serious discussion.] ---- Original Message ----- << What I would like to know is if the DB stores are still carrying music by Amy Grant since its well known that she left her husband for another man who was also married at the time. They have since married, but is this morally uplifting to our culture? Or is this something we want our youth to think is ok? Or, like the NYT bestsellers they carry, is it ok since Amy Grant is not LDS? >> This raises a whole different issue--and a very interesting one to me--of how an artist's personal life can affect how people view their art. For the most part, I have no trouble diassociating the artist from the art--especially when it comes to music. (Does Amy Grant sing about adultery? Somehow I seriously doubt it, but I wouldn't know.) There are a handful of people that really annoy me, though, and that makes it hard for me to appreciate their work objectively. Michael Moore, for instance. I haven't seen Bowling For Columbine, and I won't unless it's shown on tv. But if I do, I doubt I'll be able to like it. No one seemed to mind at the Oscar's last night that Roman Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl and fled the country before being sentenced. (Do I have that right? Didn't know about it until this morning.) Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 24 Mar 2003 14:19:16 -0800 > Susan Malmrose wrote: > > "... And I have heard many men in the church say that they wouldn't be > active in the church if it wasn't for their wives--and that's the case with > me and my husband, too. But I don't see those men as weak at all." > > So I have to ask: Why not? I mean, isn't that exactly what part of this > thread is talking about? If the guy would quit going to church if the wife > were out of the picture, isn't this guy "passive" in both the spiritual > sense, and in the actual practical sense, too? A strong person can lose faith just like a weak person can. I've seen it quite a bit, actually. My husband is a very strong person, and he was inactive for years. He reactivated because of my example and prayers for him. I was stronger in my faith than he was, but I am by far the more passive between us. Although over the years he's gotten softer and I've gotten stronger. Maybe we're looking at strength as two different things. (Now he has his own testimony and strengthened faith--he'd keep going to church if I stopped.) Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 24 Mar 2003 17:26:11 -0500 I've been thinking about this whole Eric thing, and a comment D. Michael makes relates. I think one reason Eric's post(s) got through was he apologized right from the start (if memory serves me). He basically said, I know this is off-topic, maybe it won't go through, and here I go. Almost a little-boy-with-his-hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar tone. I remember reading something in a positive thinking or relationship type book that talked about that from an after the fact perspective. If you really blow it--maybe a teen staying out too late--when the inevitable confrontation happens, diffuse the situation right from the start by taking the blame. "I know I was out too late. There isn't really any excuse. It was really wrong and bad of me," type of thing. I have seen this work. Almost invariably, the other person starts making excuses for you. "Well, I'm sure the time just got away............" I wonder if this is a case of this type of relationship dynamic working in an email environment. It is interesting how we see each other on the list. I feel like a baby compared to most of you, and figure you see me that way, too. There are people I pay more attention to than others. Sometimes it is because over time I have found their post very thought provoking, and understandable. D Michael and Richard Johnson, among others, fall into that category. There are a few people that catch my attention because of their qualifications. Both Eric Ss and Linda Adams for instance. They are not just interested in Mormon lit. They are Mormon lit. There are a few I skip right over because I know I'll only understand about 1/3 of what they post. I can't read every post, and that's one of the ways I select. And Scott Parkin--whose every word I hang on--doesn't think he is someone who is paid much attention to. Interesting. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 24 Mar 2003 20:47:33 -0500 Thank you D. Michael. Your single line: "Treating women as superior and men as doofuses is a strange way to combine them into one flesh" has made two years of perusing the AML list entirely worth every second i have spent doing it. I can't think of a better reaction to the prevailing attitudes towards gender stereotypes in mormondom than this very simple statement. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 24 Mar 2003 22:31:31 -0600 At 07:04 PM 3/19/03, you wrote: >Because, if I don't care about them . . .and I'm supposed to . . . what >does that say about me as a woman (or wife, or mother . . . ?). Men >aren't expected to want to. So when they do, it's like this wonderful, >praiseworthy surprise, this "Aren't you lucky to be married to man who >likes to [fill in the household chore/church >responsibility here]." Hoo! Hitting the nail on the head, Angela. If we turn this around-- "Aren't you lucky to have a wife who likes to cook dinner?" (Key word there being LIKES: not the *quality* of the dinner.) "Aren't you lucky to have a wife who likes to scrub toilets?" (How many men actually notice whether their toilet is scrubbed or not? How long do single men usually go between scrubs?) Anyway the point being, you just don't hear that. But OTOH, you also don't hear this often: "Aren't you lucky to have a husband who goes to work every day?" Maybe we shouldn't take each other so much for granted. I'm glad the subject is up, it's fascinating to follow along. Thanks. Linda P.S. BTW, I also want to thank Jonathan for doing a great job. I've waded through a list or two that were either unmoderated flame-throwing events or moderated, serious censorship. I enjoy that this is a place to speak freely with any opinion on the topic, but that posts need to *stick* to the topic in some way. Without that simple thing, along with a posting limit, the list would fast turn into 100 one-line posts of "Amen!" "Good going! Nice Job!" and "Hey! How are you?" or "Dork!" "Idiot!" and "You're a complete *&#@!^#!" which I hate having to wade through and delete. That's what our dear Moderator prevents! Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 25 Mar 2003 02:59:30 -0700 ---Original Message From: Stephen Carter >=20 > So here's what I wonder. Was it worth it, in the eternal=20 > scheme of things, for=20 > Gitai to have alienated himself from his spiritual community=20 > in order to=20 > create such a magnificent work of art? I mean, as far as the=20 > religious=20 > community of his youth is telling him, he's probably damned=20 > now. I wonder, has=20 > he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage? In the end, is=20 > this film, with=20 > all its power, pottage? Ah, but this question is fundamentally unanswerable. At least by us. = How can I say if it was worth it when I don't believe at all that his soul = is on the line? To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as presented, bear = in mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred and presented = beauty and truth for our edification. It'd be something else entirely if he = had been LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear. I firmly believe that my doctrine is correct and that it really *does* delineate the markings = between heaven and hell (in the abstract it does, I'm not yet so ego-imbued as = to believe I understand the whole thing or that I'm right just because I = think I am). And frankly, from my stand-point, you couldn't even really ask him = because I wouldn't trust his answer. His doctrine is wrong, you see. It's a = function of believing that you belong to a True church that is lead by = prophets... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Books on the Bedside Table (Comp 1) Date: 25 Mar 2003 19:21:47 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Sat Mar 22 07:51:11 2003 Richard Dutcher wrote: "I'm interested in hearing what you Mormon writers are reading at the moment, what novels you've enjoyed recently, and what novels you haven't enjoyed. It would be fun to get a quick snapshot of our collective reading." My recent list: A GIRL NAMED ZIPPY, Haven Kimmel PASSIONATE GARDENING, Lauren Springer and Rob Proctor AND THERE WAS LIGHT: The Autobiography of Jacque Lusseryran BONDS THAT MAKES US FREE, C. Terry Warner THE WINE DARK SEA OF GLASS, Marilyn Brown GHOSTS OF THE OQUIRRHS, Marilyn Brown THE SHAKERESS, Kimberly Heuston THE SECRET LIFE OF BEES, Sue Monk Kidd DANCE FOR THREE, Louis Plummer CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY, Alan Paton BACK WHEN WE WERE GROWNUPS, Anne Tyler EMPIRE FALLS, Richard Russo BLESSINGS, Anna Quindlen PASSIONATE GARDENING is hardly a novel, I know, but for anyone who loves gardens and the struggle to make gardens in the arid Intermountain West, there isn't a better set of voices than Springer and Proctor. They write with humor and fiesty opinions. A GIRL NAMED ZIPPY is an amazing look at an adult recapturing a child's innocense and voice in a memoir. Any LDS person who journals should read it. It will make you profoundly sad about your own journals...and realize writing from a distant perpective can still be immediate and imaginative. The LDS writers (Brown, Plummer, Heuston) I read to teach myself more of what "my" people are accomplishing. And dang, they make me proud. Warner's book I am reading (as detailed in another thread) because it enlightens me about being a person. EMPIRE FALLS was well-written and interesting, but left me unsatisfied at the end. Not enough redemption for me to feel closure. Which was probably the author's point...life goes on. And what about that cat clinging to the dead body at the end of the book? I was glad to see that cat drift out of the protagonists life...well, you'll just have to read it to see. BEES was my favorite in the list. Complex and satisfying journey through human relationships, especially the role of mother/daughter. And I learned a lot about honey I never knew before. The images of May and her own personal wailing wall will stay with me forever. Set against the racial unrest of South Carolina in 1964, the book weaves themes of racism, family, community into a personal redemption story. I always read Anne Tyler and Anna Quindlan. GROWNUPS wasn't my favorite Tyler book (although I loved Uncle Poppy's character) but it was still an excellent read. However, BLESSINGS was my favorite to date of Quindlan's (with the exception of her non-fiction HOW READING CHANGED MY LIFE). I'm just getting into CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY, because it's my Thursday book group selection for the month. It comes highly recommended. Anyone read it? I really appreciate Richard asking this. The best 'what to read' list I ever got came out of a novel workshop class at Writer's @ Work several years ago (where I first met John Bennion and Robert Kirby). This AML list will be another excellent resource, I'm sure. Kim Madsen >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Sat Mar 22 10:12:19 2003 I'm still working my way through an historical novel I bought at Deseret Book, which I mentioned on this list. It's full of great historical insight into a little-known society on this continent and is, ironically, also full of bloody violence and steamy sex. All right, people have asked my the title of this novel before. It's _Aztec_, by Gary Jennings. Thom Duncan >From bronsonjscott@juno.com Sat Mar 22 11:22:40 2003 This is a bittersweet subject for me. I have been a voracious reader most of my life. When I was in jr. high I went to school every day with a paperback in my back pocket; usually a Heinlein. I didn't do very well in the 8th grade and my parents thought it was because I was lost in a world of silliness called "science fiction." The Summer between 8th and 9th grades I was not allowed to read any SF. So I read Michener instead. I read _Hawaii_ during my time as a ninth grader. That one did not fit in my pocket. I maintained my reading habits throughout my life, branching out from SF and Michener to other things. Then, about two years ago, I got cancer and started chemo treatments. I couldn't read. For some reason I just couldn't keep my mind focused on that kind of concentration. When chemo ended I went right into this crazy venture with Thom Duncan, The Nauvoo Theatrical Society. I didn't read a single book for over a year. Then Scott Card came out with a couple of new books and I snatched them up and read them. It was like drinking water again after a fasting imprisonment of indeterminate duration. I gorged myself. After reading _Shadow Puppets_ and _Rebekah_, (which had been waiting patiently since Christmas to be read) I grabbed up Lisa Goldstien's _Walking the Labyrinth_, Neil Gaiman's _Neverwhere_, and Pat Conroy's _Prince of Tides_. I tried to get into Anne Tyler's _Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant_, but couldn't manage it. Then, right about the time I started work on "The Way We're Wired" as an actor, and radiation treatments for a cancer recurrence, I also started -- probably -- the biggest reading project of my life. There is a science fiction writer named Gene Wolfe who is considered by many to be among the best -- if not THE best -- writer of the genre. Certainly he is the most literary in style. Truly a remarkable talent. Back in the 80s he wrote a four book series called _The Book of the New Sun_ which included these titles: _The Shadow of the Torturer_, The Claw of the Conciliator_, The Sword of the Lictor_ and _The Citadel of the Autarch_. It was followed by a coda to the series, _The Urth of the New Sun_, bringing the canon to five books. This series chronicles the odyssey of Severian, a wandering pilgrim at the end of time who is driven by a powerful and unfathomable destiny as he carries out a dark mission far from his home with the guild of the Torturers. In the 90s Wolfe followed up that series with another that is separate, but occurs in the same "universe" called, _The Book of the Long Sun_. It takes place in a giant generational spaceship that has been so long in existence that its inhabitants have long forgotten that the ship is not the whole of creation. The titles of this tetralogy include _Nightside the Long Sun_, _Lake of the Long Sun_, _Calde of the Long Sun_, and _Exodus From the Long Sun_. That series was followed by a sequel series, a trilogy called, _The Book of the Short Sun_. The titles of those books are: _On Blue's Waters_, In Green's Jungle_, and _Return to the Whorl_. That's twelve books in all. And they're all about religion. About finding God in some way. Fascinating, dense, imaginative, challenging, enlightening, stirring, brave and strong. (Let me get my thesaurus, I could go on ... ) I am nearly a third of the way into _The Sword of the Lictor_, and having a grand time. See you in a couple of years. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society >From parisander@freeport.com Sat Mar 22 13:25:22 2003 OK, Richard . . .. I don't read as much as you do, mostly because I am dyslexic. I am currently reading a book called The Kundalini Experience by Lee Something, MD. It is a book written to help other doctors diagnose "wrong" or partial Kundalini awakening, which leads to "divine madness" ala St. John of The Cross. He also describes a complete classical Kundalini cycle according to Yogic literature and compares it to a spontaneous Kundalini cycle that is not predetermined and guided by quasi-religious practices such as yoga or pramayana. Bagwan Shree Paris (tha was supposed to be a joke) [Paris Anderson] >From barbara@techvoice.com Sun Mar 23 12:28:09 2003 What an interesting question! I looked to see which books I currently have bookmarks in. The stack includes: The Writer's Journey by Christopher Vogler Character and Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card (third reading) Writing Romances: A Handbook from Romance Writers of America Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance The Navy that Beat Napoleon by Walter Brownlee (kids' books are often excellent for historical background information) Wellington: The Years of the Sword by Elizabeth Longford Take Time for Your Life by Cheryl Richardson (although my problem is in taking time for my duties) Getting Things Done by David Allen (an excellent book for the organizationally challenged) And two books I'm reading to review: Kingdom of the Moonlight, a fantasy romance by Josie Litton, and Highland Bride by Amanda Scott. I'm becoming known for my reviews on the Web, and publishers are starting to send me free books in hopes I'll review them--a nice bennie. I notice that none of these are LDS fiction, although I do have Marilyn Arnold book on tape in my tape player. barbara hume >From Chris.Bigelow@unicitynetwork.com Mon Mar 24 10:19:42 2003 I'm currently reading "Mormonville" out loud to my wife. I'm sorry, but I think it's not very good. The writing is flat, the attempts at humor usually don't work, the POV is often messed up, and it's just not believable or very interesting overall. It seriously puts my wife to sleep most nights, whereas the book before that, "Edgar Mint," kept her up, even though we found aspects of that unbelievable and with weird POV/tense approaches too. I'm also reading "The Crimson Petal and the White" by Michel Faber. It's not a great title, but the book is supremely entertaining, and also very earthy sexually. It takes place in the Victorian era and reminds me of Thackeray's "Vanity Fair," but with a thoroughly modern sensibility. Here are some capsule reviews: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/015100692X/review s/102-5808453-2895347#015100692x7299 I just recently completed several doctrinal books on the premortal life, as background reading for a project I'm working on. I read a particularly good one exploring the earth's creation and also one by Brent Top, plus a couple of others. I'm at work, not at home, and I can't remember titles. But right now most of my reading is going into catching up with all the **** periodicals I subscribe to. I let them slide during the last couple of months while reading about premortality. My stack of slick mags is down to 2 inches, from 8. But my stack of book-format journals is about two feet high, still. Chris Bigelow >From thlists@hotmail.com Mon Mar 24 14:20:57 2003 Other Worlds, Other Gods (a sciece fiction anthology of religious short stories) Devils & Demons (short story collection focused on those sorts of cretures) Guns, Germs and Steel (by Jared Diamon--an excellent explanation of why some peoples rose to historical prominence over others) A Light unto the World ([approximate title] by David B Haight) Sailing Alone around the Room (a poetry collection by Billy Collins--can't recommend highly enough--if you suspect poetry is dead, start here) Bodies of Motion and Rest (by Thomas Lynch--a nearly as excellent followup to his The Undertaking, likely the best book of essays I have read) The Universe in a Nutshell (by Stephen Hawking) Notes from a Small Island (by Bill Bryson--one of our best humorists and travel writers) The Screwtape Letters (by CS Lewis--epistolary fiction, doncha know) There are more, but this small list alone tells you how scatterbrained a reader I am) ------------theric jepson >From hvozdany@hotmail.com Mon Mar 24 16:10:22 2003 Okay, I'll pick up the thread, mostly since I'm interested in other people's responses. (Always looking for something good to read:) .) Some of these books are excellent and some merely okay, but when you have three kids under age 6, you grab what you can off the shelf as you run by, and hope for a winner. I recently finished two LDS books. One was Margaret Young and Darius Gray's second volume of the trilogy Standing on the Promises. So many great things have been said about this trilogy that I can only add, "Hear, hear!" and recommend them to everyone I know. Thank you, thank you, Margaret and Darius, for writing them! I'm looking forward to reading the third book. The other LDS-themed (but nationally published) book was _Charlotte's Rose_ (by A.E. Cannon, I think), about a young girl who carried a baby whose mother had died across the plains on the Mormon pioneer trek. I found it well-told and well-suited to a national market. It had enough about the church to be interesting, but without a propagandist tone. More importantly, it was just a good story, and it's a book that I think middle readers will like. Then there's _Heresy_ by Sharan Newman, a woman who apparently got a Ph.D. in medieval French so she could write accurate historical novels. Well, she certainly does. Her mysteries are okay, her historical detail excellent, and her characterization very, very good. Her main characters are Catholic but have Jewish cousins, so there are two examples of bringing religion into mainstream writing. I think that her portrayal of her Jewish characters belief is more convincing than that of the Catholics, but I'm not sure why. Maybe because being Mormon, like being Jewish, is a way of life. What else? I'm awaiting a book by Jill Paton-Walsh that uses characters by Dorothy Sayers. I wasn't terribly convinced by Paton-Walsh's last edition in this vein, but I do greatly admire Sayers' writing. Her characterization, her attention to plot and detail, and her themes of scholarship and the roles of women, even in a simple mystery, are all strengths that I'd like to see more of in fiction. Finally, I recommend _The House of the Scorpion_ by Nancy Farmer. It recently was awarded as a Newbery Honor book, which I think it well deserved. It deals with ethics and courage and has a degree of plot tension that I think many books lack. So, what about the rest of you? Rose Green -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Congratulations, you've won today's promotion! Date: 26 Mar 2003 22:45:08 +0300 ------=_NextPart_AFD_960F_6D839F56.800D1090 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_DD7_B356_A4975880.67CEEFEF" ------=_NextPart_DD7_B356_A4975880.67CEEFEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printabler ------=_NextPart_DD7_B356_A4975880.67CEEFEF Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Durwaphwpdsogeuwt Qurwaphwpdsogeuwt
Bfpxvqab

Bpekrasvhbc Jgpgljny
------=_NextPart_DD7_B356_A4975880.67CEEFEF-- ------=_NextPart_AFD_960F_6D839F56.800D1090 Content-Type: image/gif; name="winner.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <4e1f84a02e55$83fdea78$8cc00683@ubvf.s> R0lGODlhWAK4AffZAAAAAI+IC5AAAIOEhFRYY0dGB8aKGrSSi4pbS8DBw00E AI1ODM3GCcNZCsXKkEREQohLLsSITYaDVxAWKenTh0w5LuaRTrWpVSIiDkwo Co9mLManU6SJT+XPrG1JNmgrB3BGDt3d2t6piigJAqKLa4lpCaZoMLZjTXNn CXNmPePk5EoqGq+trYd5a9vEU2dHJOntsMSpbufKVItyS6FUDqJ2S7q0iMSI aujllmaRxhAMGPTly6aYU3NWJuWSJLtiLjYlDJB2OejMb9eobYtKHKRYKmhb T6d3Ns25jaSbccikG/TZkffNrSsbGJCQkGk5HNeIS3BnUVQ1C0g1Hfj10V1c QRUUDDQpG29XOaemisfKrL1zLbOJToxYK4aDbk9PT+zXdVFZnIl2W/jrsysY CY1nO2ZmZaVpDdN4Nuzs7Me3csWXUeWoUCknJ3dIIsaMNXBUD+jbr4paOujU mNenTY5XHZucnElDJ4yEOVhNOqJ3WuG8yXp6erObbdaMMlc4HL13O9AAAIyY wejoAoc6DOPDEGh1la6uAuK0HaestMFxDvYHB+C8p8anNGo7LsjDdGsOAeao brSqca2HNt3DNObFNbl5S7WSAn2Dtbi4t8rKyuibabAAAIY8JJOv1HdkJ+G9 i1hneaV5a9hxHXiArMyfh+6GNeqiONF6TG50rKJeTNbdrHedzdPS0PkaGqWl peT1zz8/P56hu8u+q9iFGtTOkpqdU9WXbdawE5WNbf7+HdiyNMLO3HBwb75d HVA9P9nHc7KaNkkbBui6T+q4cllIDaRYG/fklqOYi6dpHZFpHeXy85iYAtjY AvjNWra5c/W7o/O+i67D4VlHJqW3015eXrOijXp6BHt0Pfz8/FpaWbt3YNbW 1h0hKa6KGSEiHps9EZSGUsq1U2s5CrOMasyqrMSaa/XLccK6BXp1UtTMrvXb dpmHNPzAPuiXNui5OYd6eLqzlqJaOHx/i791Hn13KhcZGbOaUte4cfXfrNaX UPeoT9i3UPr6BfercNaeEiwAAAAAWAK4AQAI/wABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHD hxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjypxJs6bN mzhz6tzJs6fPn0CDCh1KtKjRo0iTKl3KtKnTp1CjSp1KtarVq1izat3KtavX r2DDih1LtqzZs2jTql3Ltq3bt3Djyp1Lt67du3jz6t3Lt6/fv4AD67RCuLBh wwQJG7QCADHjxYZ16Bj4mPLjyh2t2MMsuLNntFYwNGnyDcO3b/ZSoy58kLXi w/YApNaMujSG0Bhyn/7mmnHow4oFHo5opU0sziBZNw7+ublzmIRN57ZC+kos 422yn26DWrv30/a07//+duW0ZsPbr5Q3fWW0evVAriBe3lt5Q99tvjzwXdn+ YomFbXYbcs8VaKBIuKl3XSwMPvBAHhDmcccd6t2R3YUYcldebd9c+ACDsVRQ wRTvTZhHFVXkYcSKJ6KYxzQwTpfbdI3NeBtD/T1QTRvCvcYcjr4pVNiMpR1o 5JGZNaHeFExed+GCsUB4xYRTZujkhFhOWMEX+n3o4AMTkniFmBdWoGIVUaQj RhRRYJHCJ5+kAOEdNFpxxYzAFfRYbFY8oI0RPPZHIGWQNSbcYrkBICMG/yHp 6KMLYTDlHXlUcEUFbWjWxhQmohlFFWZU82EbD3D5JZYSPvhlfl9oE8WKnhr/ 8eqK1VRjBIq3VpGCBGLkggwy8MDTQiwo3sHpnSUyChxnjMUCj3rKLkvgZQEG aSihCb5n6aEqWXFHCmL0YsQVErWRRxTYyEnufT9CNqhBbVTRy7xGHPeQY+3e 6x9C0krbWr6JAUwfRvMt1O+y7r5LEBDFfFKPug7tq6fABN2BRToSRJEHowZL DF1ok5LYhD3lpcadPeRBmKI22sTyYZcf3gEmilXcqk0v1ZgRKssosolxmi20 EGwLGEsgQTpFgzpvC7k0nYQEKXyK4rED8vfaco1V00seJFad532HIlyYku+R 66NJGIQjBBgUUHDMMUuogYVDKagBxhIULLHEOUJs/9DDQknMEUccSBAYzhJg yFDPQlHEs8MOVIyRzxhjdIDMNwlZwc/mdGy+yz/8IKGOOkg4EctDksyBOBgK XyGEDDIIQQHfYMzRwQ6Dvy7E4gT10cHvcx+UCwWw805QHnNQ4MwGFt3RweBL 4LFQDLIf04Hgg8eRD/GyJ4/ZFBTMMQcSC2FxDyjhr503ElEsdM8cuNtAoBOt dADGJ/y2oE4+x+STzxKvu8e6DnIFMAjhgN0qmHBmNCYqcaoCvEHMlCogLyOE qlURgtCK2CSrV2mjVrJCGtKM5oUWeMELwQqW0VYoAS+08IRBC1rRkpCLKBiN TbOqVHZuQwYrkKGHzFFSE/+mMCIy9KgJ/hnOu+pTIzvJp0OYU8k0gLGOSjhj CccAwzoml48kKMweMViHDIi3i0q4YA7+C0E8ongQHlCAizM4SDjysYN8pCMh bYiBDCjhgi1K7m15A8Ud+FWLODzucXGYQ+JwsYvNDQMbDbmC/9axjiW0LyFT AIP/hECJShxwbS44YN7yIYaCJGFyYzACQpRRCBksIY4FycMBzxEDiwTBbZKr pUIkYUBO4qKVODjGGN6GxSUAAzN3oAAYwICPhNhDEsRDhAzWQQFq9m8HmWCj QfpwDMjlQwIHCcI5JteC1sRgmUIAhgxauQQm5KMWeUDIFWQwDETw4yWGyc1o MED/ojkxqQL24OcUJDUllbFJZ1qTmso8lY5eRMEMvRDaCr3QtIom4VcYRYbT ksBRjvpKo7noaNOO1rQsmDQXeWjBml6Vh0uJjAxNuBF9RMS1EfgQA5tpF77o 0xvL1GiI2jIbSorhAixODm7r6B8dd5CFzDWiElClhBCWMMzqLQEHoBhgQSQB QBm8AxdaFcjh4AbJg7ShFkuQAVQLsQsh4AByVFiCJ8MqEAwsYR1ro2ox9aY3 NM4hnguZAf/6twQbKGQKlNSiM4TgDLVSAnYugB0lgrBVyY3hkgYJh+qOAUuC TKOaQghGRaywi124YBjncMEgE3KJQlTiHIPbAeXGANfH/1FACN+DnQzEwS8b 1LGO+XjdLt4xxjlQYQ/aJAgLdoC4Y8SBrrngawoOwgEhDEOtobzq2+7WAR7B C5EdcMmyekiGKUzjD+clERCYdKwHTohmKYgvNtKFIqQFjQ+94AM8TiiBcITU osjIwisG/AprZEESCEbwM2xgAxaw4BWZeLA1JmyDWcSjpFn4lROyMGFJ9IEH 2JhBCmaQQa7RiTJNAAIQVvDDETThh0Cklowtcxmv8YegkiLRcLB2rY1cgR/0 pIM34AAESaVgAweEXfAMckrtLUEcKcDUFYxgAyzKgB/BIJA16phWSlzCILmg QuRKuRg1wG4YQugDFgZ6BfMJgf+O+bjAQTAgBEpS4KIkCAcJfjULVOaDfAsR BzqXMDm6DuQbF0UGCTjAgVrkI5EX4AAPOqpKglhjtpU2iARUJ4Syera0uxAt RVKwhERqLw5kRogYrJGEPIdDErE7xixoyFFk2KEgU4DfDmaBEB5w8o3q4MN1 2nyPqepNlwaB5mALC+bgygB/BWmDCnBHgT5U4QptqEA4QnlAHhCQeMbEp29+ SBgyACED6AaCFKTApApRKgWyMoIIjzaD+c43vlU4YQoHQFGLchTBHHawg+MR DwY/4+ALbvCDMxFhaxQcCVqIhwSyEPF4YJTVJCABgpFggz70QRRYyCCFrkCG EfwQCBX/WMGL1QPTqvGUMKnBmmtsTJjRGEtMEeQxxS5yj9gJ4R4cGwgG7uEM Z6xDDQfJA+TGQAF2IOcTuxiG1KFtyjhIzn9zWLJY15YPLxxEAkrNx3SZjDdl ApYgGFAm3ghUjMcS+nQJSSahbbDUcEBEHXOQASKmsJA+WBOzBSkBP954x4JM AxGNvEdFgiEDTc6BcnNQWEFewMhdeFshd4CbEBqR9B2obgkkQA42Dng3wA9E ErSlwiGrUZBwxI4CYyfIJ3AhVcMWRAL8owA/kOM6QschJcwqjE19CARzZ+Dc KlbxClYwBfS+oAcpwEYQgoANPFgfD+HIvquzz/1w2IIHPAiH/0knHI8JW4PB DEaCA5CABILPYhYMtzDBGewAB8wiDiFwgh24wY1WaCITBGdSHZUEJhUPWjAL 6hAPs0IzG0N8JGduZEByo3Ew9REgOXUYFbIkFLJjIXEFytQ2hlYBwJUPdBUD WHQMz5AQXrAEgjMLyHEPlURolIMEQQcAc3QM6+BpA2EPISBbO2B6BKEGSZUP dlcQGFAJhUBcg0J0S7ADmSZHdDQGJPB5wAARjdBNO2BolpYGXGgGCBEOlfAO u0B1AzEN4jMHkkARV1AJsaMGWSBmY6B1C/ECbAgGfbAQFTA5S9BMBqEEbpeG CIEMTFcJ92QQ1qB6jyNmrRAbA1EPa/8DBjooEEGga16nJ0rQCGdEV98gW/kA CixhGC8mfOaWfKTIfFOwfOi2bsUABz0AJ/VgfeyQcbIoi+BXi+BnCybFYQQ3 fwVnA+pXf+73fsJYf8ToAFoQB5rAAgmgAiHADSHQClqgBQ4QD/VnA1kQUllw UeTXfi2QJukgHyPAfCNgci5mchRYgTAnLbkBLZLicj1yGRyBDbEDBiSQEFFz YkYoBMKUDxWQOR3AP0LAdwXhRsIUB68DBklAEHiwNseQagMRBYgjA8h2EF8A D9rgXUbYNm0zKBdgVFXgTHBVOEowDC4ABmfHEGowOTsAdwlxaVk0DV84VfkQ iQCQB6gEiBL/kQv/cwwpUAX8swQTuRA9wIaVcHmYNFXHUIUFcQXiY0xa2Bi3 gzurRRDxQAVpsAO31YTIQBA6qUVkKBAzwEm70AhAYBDl8S4lSQFIl0CGAWOj uG5ScHwQKAx0mQFS8AdP8ATFAAJSAAIv4AYv8HyfMH1BwA6Mdg/3wAGIiZgb 0Jgel2CScAEXoAZqgHBqwH7CODrqUAv19wiPQIzqsAOJsIwqUJqluQrqgJq1 wJkd92HhIGn3wAP3IA6P8AwU9QtksAIiUnKjgURfI3P9coHLAh800hofcQ95 QwEn+RA+2T+AlhD1YEA5aBDBUAiI4AIcIANotANnF53945AC0XOe/xR7EpF2 bxN5B/ENbqNFAnkQpIY40oMNgtNFD4EPw7ALuFCWCtEHlOOECFEP47QD8GAQ 05BUx2B7EiEOMiBMvFGScPOUBWEE+aA6CakQeZhFzBOhXcZ5CqE2jVd4BMFV stMHKsmPAzFHj1NOBVEBigRZPJAHjNgQaCUEHNASv4EBbqlid9l8gfkHf7Bu 6BakdikFe+kGgBmYLwAHSgoHn6AB02eYi3kPjSkJMVClVSqZkkmlkrBg7RcP 76eZm+kAq1kLq4A7mRACXJimKgALO7AKrIlgHleLHMAO7BAM4hAO4ZcOSAQE MNJD7tEvhgKoLwccxGljJFELcDMHEJoQ2P9QkmDADguRAjgwOXc4kOcgA87w CYJGVS4oELnwOHZkEHRAXHSgnxPxDasjBOURUzlmBEgwTMewlgjxqpLTj/MU O8fkEOKAPe2JEJLwOjIAkwfhBZTTkAZRDK0EBggKEdPAOZQFAEFAB3TQCHDg EFhAR0tglAgxBa9TCOhgEF6ASOCkEJ9wN8dQoVSJlWCQArQaZye6VCBKEFUG Bs5wDtQ0PuEwlQlBd/mQC92CGtASsO3FXnGZAXiJpD2QsCCwsFIwDg47DiBg pEu6pAtQsXWgDMqQDEcwCZMQDGuwBhvQOZvjAi4ADPigBlZapZT5CMAADBq5 mqsQB+qQBHEgZqr/JzlzAAqPgLIpm7IbIJk/iwc9AATj6EMr4Ah/kAEQWHIw No5Fe45Qqx5IFFM8NRJoRFvJ5RDhADfHEK8HMQ3FFJQAEAzn0IQaQ0lexTvK AAaU47UAwA8H5AI1GBEYME2lpj2K1DZLBVwfiRB52DayGgwuwA/EIIcJoQZj YJUsiRDVBTsvEJNuQ5NKtwNpsKwP4WtrUwwCkQeG1AE4uRDFwA+NVKOYd1W7 ZhAkkIhAaHhsc6DJxnRLUDP/Q0cqmguJSwUqGm3qEAdYhAOU1DnT+pUFUV38 QJMIAnP2EFNkMykvAiOB6bxPMA5S8AQLu7A90AUaoAFd0AV1YKRuAAIP/wux IECxFVu+C4CxGtuxwdAI4sAP+PC+lIkPLeuZ9MuyO/sIq5kLUzALz9MBtcB+ PEuZ7Md+J7sBHKAMKFACdIoCUmBu7GWwK3B8yWduV1B8P+Sb6QgcOYUaqTEb 0UFQ79EEPIYghpS4MQoRyABXq0sQU3CfuFCIBMEOzuACiACTkoADegMM5CIB TPCdehI+4XPCAHAHnucCUhVbO8AZdEZJYjRN/TNbwvSDClECiMA3nvYC+EAM xKB4DYEE/jMGi8pVbWO4nqpUuVuGbSMDXAwRTWBIj1YZXjwGcfAADfEC9/kO kIp5cwA3vGVKqpMPKzwQd8A2cWMQVeY/H0kCx/+QnOSSC4+XBmeMdrYgk0Lw ObtwCvwgZIPiyJbEluSRgSRiXlWABR4AIz56ynf5B0hqpD1QB9n7yhpQBmWw vUZavSBACISwAHWwy+V7sRmbDOn7BmvQOcQgdVJHsu9rshsQA8AQA0FQDI3Q CJvTmOIgDqBwzaCABB8nBtNwByPSHivwC0qCKZjSIU0rLTqgGcJJgV5jI+0h taKBU+ucHHHAhXEwtw7BAXezBG5bEHfAbbI6EEmAOEswNxgACpSTD02lk2OA A+NKGXu8PXPLretQdFv0P2PALJRwN/5DR1d5Wy6gBjMAoaTFNi5gqlbwBo0g raaqEI6GOL16EK8wBnj/84QEcYPHILl8VakQ0QJcOAb+OhC2K1voqhBVwDZ3 thC59ji8NrxuswTkmXSSc7oFcQGv95FtcDtiZg0A8KmQwwcKAQSfcA/A8ElC cFpCoK0EIQaS07cnQRifXDZXICEQYl7pJaR4nYoNG7G7TAREUAddIAexLMsm YALaWwcLkMuEMA7mu8uOjbGQnQyT4A3e0AiNFDvEcEDySwH4sMzRLK0bEEr4 kJhB8AkvoLTkOI4l57TDNxqn0ZuwLRqkoRrd0A02wkDqsRu3gSfL4jU9JnkY oQSb8w4t/RCfqnqBLBDTIHXvMAkGwQ4u8FXVCgDpsANggAi4UAxBMEbfZBC1 /3BbqurPUYyIyeMCSrzHSfkJcIACAYAOrSQDRagQebDPSPANrIoBfaCRnaUQ 6oA4LrCogvg/ZNzVVweeAFAM0nR0EqEOVJAPwAAHkjIaVZA3x4CeC2EGVzkG am0Q3HpbfMiVHe3WCJECWSQEzr1V+WCVrAcALUBbj1MFalNa070QVxAFkgAD EyoE70AJmmsQKaBM+koSQ7IeCqIqLCIh6mXBFFzBOvoCnyAHsqy92SsHcgAB Vg4BXTDLXVDYha0BylAHRIDLf00EC2AMxrDLNEADZ3AGxgDMybAFgBAB+sAG m8AGbGDMoDbNk9ADxzcCAGByZIABRSboyYduPspeD/+M1xM8fMLntITB2qoN U715wWUzGoz+myChR4gwDI+rahIQ5AIRBf6TrQsxevxwCspgEN4wDOGDWXQX B2AgDpMABj5cEOwgk3J4BZKQBOHHA3BLTZzxDVe5BLtQGSmwNt22EIw3VQep kX1gVLXQxbQVB6A+kFq0Dn8Dhf5j4MiDRTztEHewna3QCrgTB8p0kEKQ7QqB BbjE1ZjHSS7AoQQBB4hACUvg7gmhDI/1DqleEPEwBmctrABQlVyoDsigSGDQ z5ljBOjTNvVoEFUwBmmAkSXxGtpSAS6DJumgUj6TJmKQDingAZViXlgwAyYv y1GuAT0ABxlAly6fAR8AsX//vcvKwOWFfQRcbr7mSwNt7uY+D8z08AZ+8AZK EABwIAXCEKQrUHxko2K5kXyJziR3ACN3UMov4AEegAVaDyNiQkRENCbtFsKT /rTAQV7qAbUeQxG4x7vPuhihuQPw5M9L1QH4TBAbAFWIMOMCrTpgsGSxgAOJ 4wzBsEyKYxBigEpNlRDfYEBgsHtG6LIsiBnpcHVg0PYGscT9AwZQFTuVlDhs u5wHcQmVF9OGj0oK/4ayBYTNugt0cOKXezdvlDevQwmUMAzvgAiFIGoKkQIJ /e0HAQTEJQMZWjGPMwfioDBqoDoy0OPpynQCfwcpLluOU0deawXT8Al44PqG Jzg7/6AOB/EAjyPEFd8hbTAg+vQe/aQm6SAhImIsS58BUxCXZNAwpV0MqriX C8uK2OvlkI2x25u9AJFMoLIjBU2YqJOQyMI6NIwZS/ZQYrIzNI6Y0KAQxDgp GYCQIQNEpBQpxeB80qBMGReW91ze4xLhDSBAEWja1JBTQxeeKlVqCPLpUxCi OT/16PFC6Z+OGTySmeIhz0eRIK1iwGBFqxUAXb1+BRtWbIV8VHbEaSP20zAX QlzcCQss37F1QcR2xUJhCYU538L2WSejUrGvufZS0HvsWLqwGFwcO/vgLoBv S47lA8b1q5Vdw4Qs0eyVnQwZS+bkuQsvHwUhMijEwbFkyf+6Jfl2zOUx2esj 03Mq6AYgpjUYMXdj5BszpkrYPK2F3AMO1srnMRRktEUse0mcOGfT6s5bOwnw CrBlNAprBZRzu3erzMkX3y9YSWOQG/lKAsyxJcCIyTjnE7Da2KHAHa4QawoK bKtFrDbUmSU6CSfsSit7rLAHAwCswKAJrDy8QqQr7sjjjiuumCLFafLI4wUs UsAmxjJmLCOIGjjAEccbOWCpRy6CWeOGGyLgYpKCjlBJoINossQSQEwwhoYF plyABiuNqagIE46wxEc9ZkDgRTFayCWccHD08cgj2WFHIDeVSaaOgzLiyQ03 UCjBJ2U+OUknoz4pYwZBBxU0BTH/xEhnmgpSTPHEEEHSikIKSbCNilkQ/OoP SmQAYwk1xEoHOTAoSUGsK+S6rQ+xeFiHgmOW88oKcWrLJ47aigsridnAEAfT sKpYAgwX+AmtQnxkQESJYjdUA74xalm2q1qEqASMFNJJJ0ahUpiBAjBkEMIe 4DoYg7/fdJtmwXw68NWrK1iTgRIgmLPsmHgkjWKuJWJIRwwJDs02hXvUbQE4 I5DbgQXyVlviEbFyiW+MOaYZqxYK1gEjt7BsYI0fimPFB7ICKXBBQLBAuSyf LMRSBlwKPpU0Zkk10+obRyuYZhoYY8QmBSx6vlaMXMQw08wg8CAq6aTLACoI NtnJEcdJ/3KcZBKW1sB6Azro2ABrLo7IqYs64EzGG28EKqKIOgghhMq0H7KS hjO2SCYjOe7GWw4IIHCjE787sXOjcT4Yp3DDDSepKaeckqLwJx4n6fEX7HQD BBDgwLwHoYTC4oVpUhSpKjJG2CpamU2tZQcqqJiDhBLz4MAFZ8AV4mPpxNkU MRLm2zCKWi5bQhwyxJqEn2GGsb2raUjbLznGwrpCCMWOASWd0KyAnQJQiHFB ifT4EQKxaL+4zTqTv7qDUzAyu0scwVwoVTckbNthCuAwYO1bNVDz6g4bClwC P8RSjP0cAwkoclQCQwQWNYABOfELCxaWUKAI6SYF8VkCCchTLv8woCc9+BBC +ObgBd5Z4RPvkEF88vEdsEyiNEvgn1eMEC8X6IUCz/uKBOhHBWSw0AopAAYY OoWN9LDJG+w4XRIrZA+bnegbi5oGUnowjRelYGfpSEEUooANpSWtaUHQSY1u xA6nkTFqXHiJOcwxhCHwgx9bGwI+iEGM7bGRSFV7wxv0oY8IRMASFzFBRBby kIpMiQaE+EAiPyAMYThFkeN4ghsgcDd5yKMGR7jkkS5ZAxvVoAY1ytvdaDQj vPXATkqxXOESV4xikMQpobMKpEpnOiV6JQ+qo0I+nFGJSiwhOfnYSz0m8wsV XoYCtZBEDJg3DEq8Aw536cM5OgWrr9z/o1KrwyFYsMCEMexgDHsRxz2CUcNg dSoOSGiM9PIxB9MlQQiF4Aco2gUA/bQlHJPBBmmE4DDd4MM0YziXbvRzmQKp IwbB2EUIEyMBseTBPmAQAhjOwZc42Gc4NvjKFLqzGt5JZw7WQUQBdBOFbwlB Y5OJhXV4dZc7wGcHwaIAMCQhCUZwBwbxoSZYrKGC28TQK5JAWIEKBhYMqMEF 4MLYI/rQB2C8plwbiBYGECGEOTSoljHbClZONIVp3KGrVgQrWAM1gyAwrUZF AcoRwGgjDniyBiyJGgd4MFceuGSpbNxAXtkYA1D0FRSIAUYQgeECcfDDBfiQ 4xwjwQY27EIJ/441wBkkW5AiDO4DbGtb2ty0hTz20Y9qcqsnRznKu/UACx7A Qg9EWYYayIFGSeNkF4MwAzn4zAMeAQLjSJIiAEwhRFmhpRK/0ArWUeAcrlkn cnIBnDwgxltCDKEzwIAYIRDxLkC9DH4GBMAQWlcsefmlRQtRiWN8M1gciOqC 7GM6e8zhWzJAIsiG4Ub73eUK8KnoPMHivhDCBThWiMEcajOH8HqzXDYw3TQi Wppu5sM5QnCGMwz4lSCASwbB0E0WvEmBGYBHNnNQlW7uUKt8oNM9AibNgvYy wXy4ABc9mMw9hNDNnHblCnFY3epwBZYpdCaEbqFEW1Z8GlPNQcCguP+qzLjC IRR5lYpgBRqhAtXJpKlVJzwxJQjc0INiWC5xiWMcHIByyTqMY3G6JYlJUFAP NgVDHG0Rgn/mOMdzRHgX7zgeG/wAiGREQB4QUMUfD3IQgdCDs3qEgmexZg6/ NhoUIoB0pIegRnJU2tLkKGsPuqABMcaWKDP6BKGw8IdpeOAFU8zZNEj9hylw KCtJTk868LGfOHgrH/Hw6WSuIInZ1Kabv7xHfe9iDW/mo8ZdCRUMvDnUuwCB A+HzVsr4QwEe+Dcs30DOeu+ChVYhBgteScdZ4gCzySDh18udjMVII2zdWIEE 3kIMRKEthHDQcnmd4o8vbyOEddAPo8bSzrf/J9NctwghuCkQjAxOylLLLMHE 9pUEGJyhrnUKgR/BYHdYgsEpChwbAF7IMRWYDZYKIMEtw0ChDOYrBHNk3Ctt oF8cYD0zK5wIuB1y1BTusHMW5QELWMiZi37+8xdM4SMgwcqSt7IhDjUBJED4 Qw9YW4MZlGEaZHB6SELUBKePYARAYOQIhIGAPpSiFDFAQlN/LIMFgABQBUnG EfChhqYO4R5mt8EqVhEHbrAAGdbowG1qUYsO1CIJNojHLBQfDxvYYKZJgLwk Go8MyiMjCV6QQOYlEIV0SCAJEshFFqzBAhbYwQnw6EUWZyABbGBLAlKcIhAY tfWlzxwsV8hDFfLQ/+qYXSEddQ1GMDiQApczJx296AULtYmUTxT/9ingQAzw gUw85EFck7GCabEQBd28oBg9gANhuvIFM/SCD7mGnouiYAYLYisd15cQELDB AzWoIw7qeEULmqAb3/usilHohSgAP81JAWrCAKSwouDqCgRMgf1rNgREP6Ly mU94geiIBS9IPFCIAQ6YAef7imk4ihTQrw1BwHSIBRELgmBoBHEIJ2yIwFhJ By2CINv7r9pjOit4Olg6utDJgCn4gx/8wUZxFA9pgivguiNsgxMJnSl4AUAJ Aj3QAw8AApt7lCuogBVoAiBYgSf4A0bKgD/4iBEggwwohhJgh2DYgAg4gv8y 6IE60IAjYIPAaiq9KJCQy4Y65I44qAUkqAUbgLw/zIUykYBwmAGeiZEZ6Jcx AZh0yAXIA73Gc4B4iAcWeAU7eAVKPBQSSAJb0MRcCLoXQC0PmAbRiRQaNMVT RMVUVMVVZMVWdMVXhMXTKZ2Q+EKl0ByhQAql8L4gDEJGmcJfLEKRWIEVUKCt 8oAZ4IA+8CQPEAbRuQIyuIJf+IVnDJGjM0IysAIPGR2vC4kP6IQauAE+2gJ9 +KuqcpXVMRB0LJDkgIF27KY46IAOYIRZQAIkeAQ1eIR8VAMksAHF80drgLxG jLzPQ7xZSIBMQEhJzIIk6DxNTIJA9AJ4gIco0L3/Etm5KUg6BYzFjeTIjvTI jwTJkBRJWXw6H4wi5oMRQllELAK6K1iBRrGKYXTJYhSJWuyBSXKEDFiBRZG9 E6mAawwdkWgC0inCBGKURHKDJ2ibZNAHYFgCHMABYHgEPjwLXMoxGIANHNC7 VVCHDoCQekQCNcDHfJxKxJNESbSGhXzImZKEh7QBLdCCBDjITFg8G8g8h3xI LxiAAWgBI9A93fucKyidkSTMwjTMw0TMxCTMUqwQV7MCYZwGXWxC0wIaKMOG GSBEbAgHbAAUNnyBH2SlVmqKoCSDRpKCPxiHLXMDogND0bEKRhKGYXxJR6iA CvgD23SEH5ScF4CDOmBK/1AgsG8yBy4JijLggHtQA+dyLiPjjnxggjkAzjkA BnyQQ2AASyRghOysR0kggT4ghz7QEXIwO3+cBQdwAMcDvb+jPCcYAD7ohWro BWzBABLJg5/8BvhTzPzUz/3kz/70z2Jhsgr4BZyJTBeZLZ6ZAZ8Jq0LEBg4w k3twUEIsg5/rJKqbUFPzHKb4A6Vwgy6Qg6T4TCkIidAZRiBwBEfwAA840RQ9 0T+QzWGUnB7wiQgATuTIBw5QJdgEO6cIzZP4hHSYAaoLUhwhozJiB0E5FAQQ AzAB0RcoCSl4gtMExTEJvXpsPKKpPGQwPSfggwcwA4rUPSOwgjZog/vUSP9E 0/80VdM1ZVOsCg2vE8MwhNMVoKI74KoViQJEGRSigFAv4rQuMKVPqAenMYg3 vIicCAKpqZqgAIEuKwZIgqTHiaQOJQLDIZxEGgcQIII66IJKMoEiMIY6WIAj QAJQIJd8mIFGeoIMOM0VgE3YhNNY5cYj5MZtFEMx9EKS+IMPeILU3AjCWSXN mQE9EAMSOABr+LsscIKH/Dwt0qIveIBYuM8LadNqtdZrxVY1ZczH9EFGyRmj O7rR0QogsNMRlYJP4AFz4ACiuBEu+KQyYJMjYAdA8pOcOILjFAfqBIYNvJFP kiI3mBzKcYPUrNQugAAi2LRB8xsiwKwFsAS+2qhwkAL/O4EABNADURCFiyUl N0BRBECAXJyGAa3NnUxR5mMts4LC1robgq0cEHiCRgWzPyhWa6BZmrW8QJSA dPACI4iFL4BWMsXPbBXaoSXaonXFwcRBMQyJEZ0CYnRRUvtMH2RVpvBCYYhV YZgBcojCodCAPoBQT7KylDiCSViDvDLbNSiInEiILqCcsCGCN0wIQlCILtiI LiiCSpVbTjUBvnIWJLCksKmcDi0DLsiaNQCSSWATPICDjpCCU9MAdvgRFWwE fIgBl9AAfDAHN5ADnhAbIoADEPiApHwCCMhND4DCPnC8x3uya0mHvjSCL6iA JKRWo6Xd2rXd250QrcBGrgAJ/9l0yargRm5kJF1lCsn80Lt5AkeQAkayCtFk VU5VBg3YkqrZABbM1yHAmhrQADvpAiLo0MuBg0zF23HArIVwAw2whE+libuV u+jMhz5IpcMpnI343BJAErINPnZY3MWRAhDIkwAwG2/gE5MoBu80Jcppw4SY pKTUGxTVA02cKRsIxKBEkQrouTI1U9zV4A3mYNqdJWwE4RAOSsbNAEbSQqd4 VWH4g1V1hORFLaDzgAo4Oq8TBikQs2Qwgbf6GrCp1A8A3QzYtFXNgNQkX4Y1 BjSwAH9QYn84B9kYgicpgraTO2JwlXwwB7aBAL+pWI9l0T/IzRHVyRVwij/Y soQQ1f8e/gAzLgjsRYiEcAPvpRwIMDNJfYFwIIFnaLws0OMgxK1YgpQN6eBA FuRBRlOtIJ3NsALS2QqvgzoXKbU/+MIUPS3RfYFV5cIVYAqP6MGPyMIVOE04 CIKqiaPhvIjuBQEN2AhOs2RJ0lRQ3QI0gIIlPocmjo9jiIZoGIItiaMqNgdw IIROIARJfQLZZCQwvNWv21DUAljMWQA5waRL+hoTWABlaLspYQjO9VC+kSTV WipbcMFp4LxUa1ox/ohZIuRzRud0BslZxMHrqZCQYMLP3EFu/IMykIMoJYkt gyTCcQMVZbVpWIGQMM0XCAJGAwUmgIY1kF5AaBI11AAuuIX/LvgAQJOHIiAE GviBBvCFBuBoRVAEWqCFU/AHC9iHfTiHfZjmDcAHHICBMUCCg4CbBSAE+fXC L0TNwcnULtiSN9gCujmItKGBiIiIh0iGtFEbM95UM04IU/rMV+sKHYBGYqxJ o8uA3T1TdcbqrNZqJcIAIYwl2bPNH7w6kBBDFAkJUlteVpUCTUvND8iAYQ7j FECAFP0D1Mra6GQCULCEhPjUtEmICDAHIviALrAEeWDYH0AFNECDURgFd/AB kPYBZ1gCNPBoP6AHEAAEEHLHOeAjWIYCNLiJWxiCaCiDcZADBuYJ1hI0gagI hzCGtxGILQAEusHhvk4IvzbjnHAD/ynwOguxAh3QAUZeAaogtYBmzK1G7uRW 7ugonTh1pR9cCo8QhtEhAxcNHSwoViz4snEwpYl+gkT6HJLYkiipkjfsA1Pt gDlAAi7QgIdIiNd+b7YhgiMQ1QUYBQswBVNoAFPYB1OgBR+I7GPYhX/4h3b4 h3FIBnyIBu5ggg5AhR8whh/oaUPzA5L2hy04gzeICLo5A4hIG7t9G4hwE4qw kkEDpINICJU4aolwgzBuA3uwB+CGcRwMESvwiK3AuqBd7h3nca3WCq47Eahl JbUGAq8LYy10zUZ+gaqu4SdAXgj47ksuYemlEhqQXnIAheYEBfY+Y79egIeQ 7yeZEl8whf9RaIBR4O9RoIV9OAVnWIdhMPB2eAf/3QBiiAP6gQJj8AUJ3wJ6 8PMtsOxk8AMNT4YFkKyHMOqKBtURp4gzUJKfHrRAGhtl0KxQTQa6xQJH+AYd sIduAG4c5yow1MmaOe4eN/VTR+cf5zogSGRuhDpW+0lshNMxHLUvJAMnh9IX kANdT82tWoFJIgLDJgR5uAFQgAaz6wNrIIcZ6N46KIKD7d6FGIc6QBIi+HJQ NQYi0Acq0AMrNMIUCQBxWIdGGIcj6AMk4A6JSd8zOIV28IE82oXS+Jpj2GuI EFVCMIbu5Yki+IG0yQg5SQbafm2/7usi0HdA21QE2Fw5QABh6Ib/C/ltHYgU DChuLXzGJugoVNf4jd/gWcLxK1AUz9G63R2BJrDgz3SKx6kBPYjSJ6AtCHhr IMAAkXAthCUEImiSGugBqxW7HqgBeYh2aIcAU/bNOtjUt6EBnGcELOjtVgcC FDiqcVAG7PRK6LSELjiFfXgHHzC0RognUIiEMegjfYCCmmASS9iGGigCVEAF hj6CBbgsh4iITyUCE4gAZwcEQBIBRtAHSygFRriFGvCAFYhxbAQAiN+QpQ2J aXjG++T4x4d8o1W6H6+CKPi5FABoWyVKrjI6q63rz+yBVRW7XWfgVQeCmjf6 LlAFN3BVsh4BKCUchdjU2QeBOtiCuIGb/6QHgT8YAQAQQytwfDK4h2M4Zb6N DQoYAmVYgwigg0jAmraYCzYYhi1gA2dgLDawgOzfhE2IAGOIhjFYg1GU9SvY UBCYhEKPhGj4s4oGhFvAAVDAmjnogAjACCJgpKQcyhg35Fi6gqz4Bg0BCAAC BxIsaPAgwoQKFzJs6PAhxIgSJ1KsaPEixowaN3JcaOUjyCtVKlwhM+LkySZX 8uSZdgUImT8Z5GB54aaHlD9SnsjJkPOFyilA3Mgh0oUIoSfChK240oSplKVE TNQhQqRqnTog6myhQWMBDV/JtmggkrLCryb22lgBAAcYiCB9QFE4toTCkK0a iB0jNuTcujHH3v/QgbJvnzs2fvxAsaDvMRR/+OCAtIJyxLgN+rYUgSIPQidI HyLMwbdmTQckVU1oePFCjpxfI3TosGeFTBOYZGBa+da2I/DgwocTL278OPLk ygmCHFEZQNvbTZpUqLDC5IgMWLD0kCOlhx49ZbYjIPciAxncFaYJcwMBQpcu 4zIwXdGEzIcn9AkBMvF1QR0AErEVVQEmA8gWWxyxhhtPQCBHDW4A0M0Vt+kx jgZrAFPXMRTEAMIQawyzzjBsOLPOMesYoMQudOyyCxtrLOYHLW+4M8QRBbRl TzcTdNONbUDkQo4ewjwhjxydCKPADTjgEEMfc4DihhtXaaBBJxAgIEz/E5U1 gQEAQGBgBQZXgLkcmmmquSabbbr5ZkMfpeecc1Z8qZJKKJGRwRR/vPAElTPJ 8YRNfvaBwB97klGBI+3J0QUEZXxA3wqV/qKKHB98UER/XQG4gFVbHaGBMQss kMwCH9RxCwTuQQhBNzqYOcIfGG5AAQV3XQDHCJMcsYszdLzxDorrnHFJI40o oUQE+liABj1+vPHGGiB8ZI89E+jgo20ATOHICh8Ig+kTSt0CwyMzhANKHyAc RcQRR0CgSikItGGbFVdUMMUVd1SIwb2/wTkwwQUbfDDCaH4E3UlAAIEetmSa BMBJZKwwjSMewAZCq0QJQ+sLUmSgRwrXCeVn/0w9PKiUMBm4nIEbJpS6QIL0 dEVDqVZ1Is8RXWhQxyTn4LMBPtFAWkQRP/jyB8U7CTNOEPcAM0c+Y9ig1AfJ jBjBByA0kg8oykzSxwzTwIxABBEYUOMbM2QAwFrfjACdSUCMQIYjMgkDm4NP 6JEPNmR4cM8nT5ShiiqWWCJKKbeQg5OcZmIwOXRWdEucFV98IXBBD3zRRkZt fGEPcJ5vTlAsmn9O0Deax1JQLHy8woIdvXxjUOtfPGBQ6qMTl/pAnic8PEKi k36Q8cRHVJllZAhFBudtZTfNdlgggAB8IEjRRZEjEOrGCzN4ANMKGXjgwQjC SOEGoku1DGgNACZjwv9YWySTjDHG1HHUzlxQBcIkjiFAwRChSoTwBRTEAAQp 6MEcPtHAPfAxhzlQwQZ/KAYgknGGU2zCBN44xxiicQQuzEAYFEtfHQBhAAO8 gQ1/AII9fAMAMlyBehXAwgoqIAYE0EcOZXBDDWqgByQUg1YaUEYZDqcHLlji BjeowQ3IUYYp4KZLXrIc54SjiWw44SCxyEY2QIcRO2Rjdx1JABjNQJAQgDEb CSDIAMBoh4F8A41tbKMdONeLNn6hIK0AoxmF88ffcCMbWVTeRL6RCeM4IRva GMgA+iiQRj4SkQ5ZGMUA0JT0RMcKMJnCCrCQAizM4HoeQEAXPlaGPpjENTL/ ER8VXzIFobSsZZVawR+6EL8P0MB+pqLHG+iRDJwlow5F2NkW8keDZMRICPc4 xjieUAQFgOMHERBGHSyhAWGAQANz6UAHwJaBMizBH7Twww8IcaolRKMGXbBP vtInjCKssFl3o81JiOBECDQLgBuYxElapYAPmAAQoIBDDaQAAnx04QnbkEPa yEEOLnChBlzIxR0qtzA7fUOGxWkDGF9XEDbyQSNkDORG4piNOQrkG3fMBkHs WA2BtCENL71jKwS2RzCqgHN/LCNxBikQPnTRkhZho3G+4AQxNlKSAKCkUSFi GSDc5m520lcFWBKFdEThfNdLXxc+MAI5IOFjHgCf/xTEd52SAOE69ZmGxRzh iC6UYQHjSNAwe7kFYZ7BGMnQmTzsh6pkEGMNG7gHKOQQM0IYAw36qIMJIlAH BWDom+DsQDF68AYa7OMchICEPt4QDXyUAQTTmRxRjHkGP+gDoCNogzZWIAxL 3OIEEDBBEcYxCRNIobdP+IAChEEDQCwBH/mowREAKoxtJM4EQvSVRXMBV8vh i0wdPWRw4tiKgmh3I2QUKUe+AEZuDKQaLwWvTcMokJ+mgQ9saUMjwciCgewU jEVdLyCDasioZgSpymnqQKDKX4XYqWKWoRgZAJDV6uxLX1M4CRbE4Ek5gGCs jHjwdgZVhhc4zCltYOssp//hsPJ9AAJJ88UPfnA/ExzBBILFHw0YK1hCHKFD wAAF2GpgAhP44llb+IEFJNtNSahhgnOgABzg8IZfDQNBJzrGObwxjhEooBgv iEA0/EE/KOjjCHUTgwm6AIXGFGHHGjBByMQwg9fEa1prIEY+ylCDITiIC2WQ hwZmcLgykCAFd8BA3HyzsMsd548lpSkYxViQNrDFIIfE5B5Jh0nmZHEtikaI Fdr4GzLe8dAgzYYKBGLeRBdEvCEVSH1JjV+gLoTRl261GIVauYFg8huNprRA 1nI8RzP6IL9pw+18/etb8xrYjqbp7aygAkN20tGPzuKkBYLJ31iBjNX4DVSt 0Gv/h9ia2HB6TnROMkuTUCfBU5jG3FLQhxFMoQYgEMYMSvFgjZWBJx6goVOm YzHrgHJOCoBAiseCCgRt4Q0RePH9FlAEvC7ABHbBxxjGwIQaEMEYNEADFNBg DAv4Qx9DjgES5rCEGEgBDsoYhwHe4ZVG0CFZb/DGE77zAsL6owj04DIxRnCf ClgiAoCIDCqgINn5vEAPa5YDF45gKr/MgYnm0A85IDCVGvgQAhlwDnRsc7yr etQ4nxYjGgdQkGrf8RW7Fu994ZYNTQjkC2kQiE2zuOzjxWKLYGyvQgrJajZy EYyLBIAZwPgKgdhR7AZ5hX1R/VK2rxqli2bBHdNg+IQM/yC9IYiFrAv5m2yE oA0/zcYrBPbHNmSijQkIdkshj0edZiMWfE/7QDj/DbtzsXN25OlMFe96MNIe 1Jl+O0FAut2CIN6pn849AIT/VEcCIL2npqRKOQ9eXzvB+dlgwa7dZCfpQUc3 NTTJFIyQ4DxEwW4z6AMQsKAHN6xAD/F48DT45gYP1EffI7jYFfJ/GzIIAwLg IATGQUExmQAXRMAk+MoR3A8hzA+LXQk+XEDU8EDPmEoDNICPocENWEJaXYAa 4IMQUAA7jIAUyIEwvME6EMEHKMMH0IE+CEtoyIEl6IM/REME+AEwsQFM3I0y WMIW+AMb6MMtFMHHjBgQuEYd/P/MEZgDCHzCJ3jAH4zANHRAH4gCAlSAEcBD BWgdtkjaQJTJmCRHHL1R4A0freldJmSCTYXAb6AdQdjD2kmbGVkbQTyAGwkE HWYDN7CAHQ0eQnCa2LlUNqSBGwaiQHBaLwhEG71a2/Ge4nFeG6kRAPyU4w2E PdiUCmQCCyxbNhwiQiBeNpxhIMadQGgeIqaBKWaCHbFUJDoiKL4hTVkiC6Ch KwLAHoVAGmQCNzgVQYBaISVA6X3iQHwRHsZieolULaYBC3DDAPBdCLAd5Oli HHEiQYiXKgbeStFXNpQUVLWCTaVB5y0fG2lCJgZi9hUEGt0iC/zU373JwiQY SNgNGcD/FbvlQYJNAwKYxB/A1RQ0yMjEQR4AABZQXblgQQZcQQ79woNZDEzc h0n0nzGAw5gBgv7sWB0kQ3K9gf0wVgIeQR1IQR0UQwYUwyfUwRH8AA2MgiKg wRZgXASYAMzwACiAARgsATvsRg88wanUwTjMhze8gT74gSo4Qg2Ugj4Ywybo Az3Qgz6wgTySgTL43CYIoAkQwlJUwG6QQQ8UwzhoxREk1J5AgCOkVQcwQims gBW0QDn8Alt00kdUCJkAG3YNRyHxgU1N3/JpwtaVHkuxISXOYjDW4UCQkRpZ gSkGkj2Uni4SxKgt0mKuYusBgN6BziDCFPLcXSO+AqcJomNO/+IkgR5BkNEb eRGoidE36B0h7RcA+N0aEiJ+ccPx1JR6AQAaQWIhZoPh7ZQi7mIgilEbLJsk odGhQccWFRVurhFlAoB48aFAzN1BpEGoCYQnkhfhqZeAAVhnspoV/BFtdg7n 7Zo2gFFcKgytfYRZjoC+QM8UVEErlVAG/IEwPMxSAAEJ7EAVjIAYmINijQMP 7YYUbEfd3Mc32INJZEAX/AAauIO0bAEg9IdW1IHYvAEgNBw9nIH9gMARcEAQ fAIeBAEHaAAIJMi0+OQtHMEPRY0LrEM+hAOw1QEXrFAyKIPLNQI90IA8HEkk QMM2RMMtrNBizAAW3I0JrIHP+cPAKf/oFlhCHWiKHEgdUpgAEzDBBdgCWRZD ATjAKrTC62jDPMRCbQAJSGBABWAAGYBJtBmHMNqmQdgU6kGHTS1i2rkh4xVE Ie2aKH6nNOYaMB4EIL4dp2kjGPFBprHmniLEZF4mYQreZiJELNgO6uBhH2YD 8gGAMJ7m5mXDmi7bb/yRLkLe64CUKg6ECjznHs2XQoBRJS0iqX5BcCoeS43q SB1n86XBb3xRaBoEpy5nCJSepDnq8lWSdS7fpwbe5BXEN5iB44FROX6bc5Bb HrRFE9AjGaQAOUhBGXgHuFzdChzADuSBfYpAGTTUDDwhTPRAGXxMU1xBbagE EK0kLdjMFvj/XLz8zFYoaMMZgCJU6IUGAQ/gQW+BABFsgQmEKBBawhiIQDHA ATugaBAEaAaswTs0wo7RAR04wzCcwQd0QifcABNAgwgwgSWsTbSIASOswAhk UwSUZNAZAyDoQwSAwAe4h9R9wDhEACMwQjjgARIwgi3Ug5WGgBnEkLbURrMB QIUAQBPA5XI0Ugjgjl8KROm9Dl/iaZwSBB9ko0B8J6k2UiskANd2LaglhCa2 Ad9Brd/dIakWamWy5k4N3qiVkSQyhD0saulJp0H8UTmKImSiJmsOhKzZ7WcC lXmFQNd2rU2Rzh4N60GAkUFwHu48AB9sER8e7qsShIDJ4UF85x+C/17VPhLm dqavZoNTNdJ2Rm1CWEEsVAOnran2VY7zRMc0tAUGGAFMeIA1gIAbnIo8EELe jIAejAEcAEAKzAEHhEhP2AkQ3AFBjkB1OOEKDJTKrlCIToI3eMMknMEZzI8y 9AAc0JWCaoAbRAEWTMEdFIAk9EExyAECqIIHyMMtPBEPUM0YIAEJiIE1qEMu CAUcbMCyTAIXxAAoAAMHjAAQWAMykEAHzAESBAFFcYE5rEENxIAHUMw0IIM1 gOUIKYIf6EEGtJWWVAAQjIM8nEMwTAI7qAEPYEE6qMMOIIMZvIJvbCHzUBuj dR1ymBepBt/1GcRJIWft9eXU9qV0PiN03v/UHSWE6qkU8AWq5P1p7KlaqY3X ZU4n5+kdZ7bd7bUR3RbEshkEKebt5i0tQfQtatbm7lQtEZPaHq1q4j4nQZgi fX1eG0XuJk7uX/4d3jpaNmxX4JnBF3UR4jEV8y1f6AaymyZEG7yC9YGR6sLJ /VXA7RxvW1xB+Y2AB5SD927GNhTBHzxhGeTDJ4xAD9QAB6wBF/SESuxGo6yA B1jHw1xs0iiCAdzPGrxBMEyvN9xPvPaA7SYDIcTHHYjvHQBBCmBDf+qBKPzB B8iDG6gPKIzBHIDTLESzNaTANCgDPrBIvMLB1Z2EF2TDDuwAEszAnmAIRenE 3YBfFDjCEyjDESj/gg/UQH08SKVAQA24QDAoQzFkaAGkwA5oQTW8QixoYXXF sK0tsnHYsEGA1DoOBOKR7Zs27UCUHlvsLeJVQ0dd9EUnxE6l1zranSaCl92p 8RBfIy0iavLdVBXv1CXWTuBlsXEaBBtRKiKCMd+ipqyRcUkPAEZjtOKJdEHs bew9Z3RmghOYQSPJ8Z0CgH8NREyL1w0fROl9AxmBTh43H01XJ+gGGCHzMOwN xKelQQK8Ah88gJoajGVYQXWESZd4iwKNAAIwwlFAwRn8ACQYyQh0MjYAwB/0 QCmYg52hR0l8y1K0SrlUiTz8wF75wY6dxj1wwQG2WFfWAJaMQ5n1DEhm/4CI TcMorRIr2c1JWIEXwAAV1EIc7MBlqUM8SE0j7IIUmMRZv843sEA4m8EVnJAA U1WCxRB0YMAXdAkGfMI9/Ogd4JK4lkAJ+IAPvMEClIEUWMEdqEAv9IIaaV0M g1vALAdCLy7wEQRzUmOj/vBAfGdRkzQAVC3iQodCfFobBWf0AfVGv9odstra QtJLVbEpTp94uXREPyatgeco6i1N41emjjEA7LBTH1tPLwSy4vAigRQ3rGkc ITUdD0TVmoEQJ4R5VYMtCsQWidfkYfUgnypXIwTk3WmgGrSbnAUAYMCfoXUL wIQeiMAH1EAw0bUw0J8czMEneEvR+XVPpMfx0v+fAjjCg+iBOxECDfyAItBD gGTFJHAA/8ZLvFiCCRABBNAYF7iBleVjBrxAOJADB8TAPZjECnArAOTCGMDA GMRBaX/zDsRBhzTCMEhBw9wGkADAAyABEiTAP+rG3OSLFvrGL1RAW3BTHqSD GGCBFLzAFKQAMUyCD7gDHSRDEBTDbrDAAxxibQx0ddMUodVwDhtE6a1qSwvE F2Ux4oH3QHjj03r1bhIE1iqE9YFXfOeptGliGphBdPRCetXqfDP1HXGmG5Kh cDLuQQTeQquUTKdmgK/igHPODh8qSoEUGKexgvewQECeGnk3HS2bhL8067gR UPvaJ4a61vJ3r3quVov/OOmGcTZkX3zl5upOB9HmQYVMAwlssBgcgDDUQGgB AiFIAY4zAhYApEzUwOOgB0xUgAfQxzgsgDE8xhGAwKkkpTGoE9TEi2NLOZUT gTwcBRdoQA+YQx8kEQcUmRqowTPUwxXEg88+wB+FABWogzqweRyoORUggQZw QR40AZB0FLdYQS5QQTYYAgDQxqZ31KbXhm8wmg7cxjTMAijwwAd0AbkaizvQ AhTQADmIQDykwxcQQNDWxtNX92/YwxXQ8HFkN+wInuZwmiQdKqZ/AQvYlKrX 5tcSBOJJnufEV2IWxC+O+x0hbixYn/WpAOr9uh0GO0LYlB3oDh/w3XZzsRtp /8MXkBHedrGx1/Sz/60Z7ZQTQL5N3abVlqrbf8HcthQYDcADPEDl+Z3iJfUf 9cL0pSJD/OKhmRobpzsAxBELxEJbCFghH0Sqa0MsmMHtybuaCIzAYIC9j0Ae JIHDOAIJPM056EM6tSe8dUDBY8ETkEHX9wB6rAAQMLwj9PL8AEIkRAIXzM8o jEKKmcAC5OtjU1RLEkIRhBUcxAW7cEAfIAFAgJrz6BEFHNZ2ZAuRKU2abOrU xYnTYQcVKmM6BIFTgUw3Hd+sdJtgzwqQDtlkTehmT4e9byxbsrRi5du3lWRm TosRRJibF1hklBg1CsqCGnNa5enWBoBHHR9nRpUKAP+AlTZWqGbVupVrV69d q2Vj4VWbw2xns5nRagZttjQPsmn6GuusE64s2p7t9ZXqALSZtiZAG4trLG55 zyb4prXX2VdbX6F94PVL3jRmHGLt+u0w2gGtsmk+rFnhVtCaT2u1k21yX8R2 qTbmwxeAwtVouS123TYE2xCxs+3V6gStZgBssxGmjVy5lbrDs2mjCvdsNQDE pWetDJvrNxV57WSKTpt8efNZjVcFcCXdFStYkpAhkyfenxExQJnjmQEIiThR RvDghRfMAUWPP4AA4g9H3HDDmC38cCcZOoARh4sjfvjBmB9MWGCSNY6YZBIT RORCg3G6qAMON8bhIhouYrj/QA01gHnmkVVgUGeHNFqZJY0ddogDhjFgENKi s0gAooIRMMCgCavs6QakKLLhxZ6maqrKni2tICmqbqT8ZgQguHDjAwg8kGMN E0ywxJwuSEAiHiAwAKCNLa/sRqo9seozvfMA5aqNAbLryp5e7LCjlyu3GtQO PkgaQK2v+BhAt61iGSDRRckbdIABWsvqgU8H+OoLOxJoJQEnQs0q0wG+2Moe Ui8VlI9EzcDqC0v5qibRycwoNTZhARhAuKyCRZZYqnattY1bH2XK1QGU+6q0 U+0odFo7nIgVgF6EzbTarBB1glE7SyNv1mXBlXa6Adx94FcARnXXTlC/sgLR Rxcb/7TVQAEuzzjjmojiCgDyiG+EFnawb5wllhjijwzImKGDFEaYJgMsuBCh FDlWCPmPJ7rY4g139nmDDWCAIWaNDH8A5IgF1hhCxEmSOeIIDjSQIkUQggAB AhFiGAIfUIA5phYcYFgFSCp6zIaKHYoccuojsxFlBCPIuOIKJ126iQwVliFs yzu99JKmmWBqgwwgPhHmCTcy+AOEBbgwoQY3SNAjHbZJwlNtPjXD4M+AEU9c 8cUZb9zxxyEHNN3Iu/JrWcoxzzzxPqkauIIpAEghCSBG6KWXK0YYgQQq1GnB g2lSB4KMFITpIYYy9Jgh5A8+WMAEevw4xZ1gJnkEGCQcMP+nhiMs0eAIc4aw RGcTgjhCDyxCbhCCccoo4x58jK9lDiLjAFJHiS6CYQ6mYbDIIYesGcG+P1YY IYMrgKjpSSp7WZvwqLZkuDt1zQMLWoEwUocADtSgDC9IAegA2KWZ6IBwVemT 4TSXQQ1ukIMd9KBWJpfBNjjkXB80oQYPRxX5kCEduSBD6l6YOixYIwUVWMEU Upe6aQgDC+TowQx0t4IPPGEBRzCAO4Q3iWDUohZIqEU0RHCLCHChZviIgDKO QD3rYWEKK3DDE+QgBSloABRIA8YjarEKiVQEInEYQ/pwwLQ3UuF92WDENGZA hgxoDAt3yN83moCBK4QAGTOpyf//ZgKAJgFAB0YwAgKw4AgPIAABT/AAE/LB CCTswBruYZsEBzeVRFoBgyc05SlRmUoNhhBzdHmOKmGJOR3k8ApGmAYAcmiF JqgQl2OSzwjIMI0n9LAMGXgB/cZBiDO8wQ/NfAMP1LCKWjiAiR2gwIwIgoQ1 gOBudQjCDF4guyfMTRgZ0ADLkOcAJMxCHR2IAxVW4YBVWCRIEoGFRegotanN oA8gEMYxEZAHMtgkS1mIhyFBEsoukYQMCMwAORyRAZ+8oAtlqEENIqCPBaoj FzOZwEdHolA+WTCFsTTpSVGqygQ8JoNW4IYKuJNSmQpsK8B82wpI57UmNEGn V7BhBYA6/wUgrMADZfhnD0YwA1EIgxBEoAcz/fCGN8SAAtN0gDqRcE2CxCAG R5AC7zLwgT9IYagrGKcUjjAECizhEVdVJzs70LRnzHNq6lDjPafmELyKgQNG lYICPLAkMGWpCk6QICj3RJIHdI8EpRABAkbgBg9goQbb0EMXjGGMHoCgBXkA wDdAGlJERqUqpZzpaVGbWtWulrV8GcHhrOA1Mux0BRW4Ak996jWO0MlJViDD CiD7BywAoQ8ikAMhwEEPNERoA0NAwhxqEY+r2uAZ1XWrA/rwAm6KsRhkzcAK xpqBGuDjaEhIp3lrUdVrUmAM+YgDIyByTxi0jwr3zIYYXlCDHf8GCIdgalKC okATlqwET4CzQhRcFolobMIS8oAAEIRRBH3oQxk0AEcXJAsELRUYkU8ZZSJb G2IRj5jEJcbca7Pi4SusEJgwfOEvXzyTJsgHwvKTwghegIDjGkO5zWzuc5lo VQfY6KpplEQPLBqEb6bgBdNwBIOkAIcYzKGqyGuiE6FbCzVwVQ2MiIM6WmGR VdD1SCTIQBk8IAyi9tceTRLqAxbKJZe8pMB5iAYxFLwJVHTiAw0tYgQmAQga yIMI9EMbhzusGdKamNGNdvSjSTzKEaR4PTLWZRNGMOMVJihBnrRCpuuXICm8 4Ivg+AEalvsGGLFzFh3IMg6eIQktaCH/E5qwg9s4nesE/UEYUiAHEpgwBySg sRbGowATRLAGS0ziDRsgBgWOQSR5Yi0be9jjNIb6C9mBibY3JENMAveNNtB5 wGuIBhSjKIc/xCIWYdXAEG5xghtsQxUI8IB8RhsVD/sJxJD2978BHnATvnbS jPyINtxjuJ3qksX4m8YdKrDTnVbAA0T1QAqwIAc3mBrVftjCquWkjjnMYb61 kDUMNKGCTDShttOYRh6m8YeJSWGsPdCDHjpQCxs8AgdzYBkwmHADS0TgDWsQ 0RLeCINpUwEtafjDTX8rnza0wWvg9dpT5Dx1cl9JGCCgmzxuIAdhtOEXT8gA WuUhDxFAgxGl/wAQvvP9FJLSqaQCt/vd8Z53vviWDFSR+0yaFFtOe+22O5WP MBAvjKu3oQk6QOCZGuCLLVjABHWIgTkkIQkb1WK+MMiCDeTZgTEcKGQh40+C Sj+CFGRBErU4hhqCwV4YwEIL+eAAFaEABT+M4g36OMYxkmAD9zUkDSSYwoC+ OI5xLn9B945KQsX9pKgY7gtYAaYCpBBq+UxBD3K4BTTAj8PDxnnfe6LKFabw Er3zpQ1fcP8XxmWF97v/cF9wAgtY4ARtHC4W83f/A+xFVPzP/5TDHtxvXABl VF4h//6FXgZw/grwAPniAR7w/SLwAWPhT9oPA/+k/76gXyrw/QDw/f+6wgOV gwTXr3H6BCcMjqRIaQqECggkTuLeJvGEQT6aYOra4IA6QQ58wRfQwAKK4AM0 oA/UYGniaMyUTrpqQfT6QAoy4LtW4PSGin5GIBfqaQ4ugB3AgEjSABbmoA8u 5NQswAKS4Q1w4BgkIQl0RAWILx6MQA7koAwwDAIapEEkyQOAgJRcAk+oLpAw 4G2sQBvgDAtmwA2kAAueLnXyQA+e4ASgQQTI4YXGD0+egoLMzwoA8E5S0Cv4 IC+0ojLawl6+4Dss41ioQjAQIxtUwDq0wixWMRsSgFkSA2AMAzFawV5gcRVn EQBEUS6+whRjERipIxbtwDg+MRazwQ60IjL/gqNYlPEsQqAN0GJSsoIaqwMA 7AEtOlEFWyyHwLGcxgmsovC7/oB30BEShEEBDgjxIAESikAejCFn6iADRqAY +iDImGjk5iAObOAI8yMCFoAQCBIcigBm9IAcgiADeOAY4ugYHoEd1KBIVKAV kIARQOEeJiEC1kAf7iEGKkIFXioEUg5IaiEJ7oEDgkADeqBBnuDJngxBSMlw QIImpm6n7IEpggUD4qQMxqH7pqACWmAPdsADPMC8xCChBodL9O0S++QBYuEq upErknEwsoI4RjErwkIZY0oVY3FZdhExelEUe/E8ihEx0uBSwjIvxvIsgNEr hHEViTEaswEwqKIq/40xK5xxL/wiGn8DK9MgPVSxF7fxLKZyc6oC6oCAYq4g ZF5ynO5QsowSC7qgC+JRHk5AFfSAkigJAp6gCIogGbZgZsZBjGbAvB4h1szL iWygFvIBFIJgCNagIEETNH/AonoACPCAIAwCGPCAHWohDhaiD8ZgDOaAGIhB HyLAHPChIs4iDVQgBH5kBzoACWKAB1gSBJSP5kbmu/YwgmyS8TDAJQCgGljA CmZAEsihBkRBD/NgFqQGC+RHEZ+EKQ2sKbFOG7UhFkDiMLUCL7NhNqhCE/JC WrAxG7hBGxRLPLIxFR3DdHrBCUJAMrLCLIwFQiHUW8gSUKzALDThC1yiF//M wi4BwEIxFEKz4xf5whSd4ERNJzuoQwVOlEGT4y7d8kS9Ujf2EgBiAUPNokVN xxUnNBuIRRvQQloKMxv8E3Fm4m3o56u+ahyIoAuIoErr4Eq7QAO0tAuUoUuP oGaAARSaUJNAoQbqILNowAQi4BaOIAOAxhyQoA9mIBx4oA8+gQPwAfbYwWVC hAu4oAykAPF+aQTYYQMuABhc7x6CYMo4igfeqDjzoYmS4CTyQr7Uxzp5ZrPG QeYW5AlobgoMB3C2pCZeIku+QC6AYBo4gBzkYByMqQMsIgsOpk8QbaGk4hIp iEe/YOrqbv2S0RTHoirOQhilBS+yoRX+5DZUICv/VFFbAMBY39IsAnArNvQ8 +vItpwMtdENa+UJFg/EsplUrqANbqQI00sJGl5ErOsMVd3QrhhQB6UVbqWJI BVQbuXFJA4bvdmeI5sYNqpQI6gBgsfRK62AB6gCLaqaMgpNMy4AgHbYIIqAG MkAYPiEcOOATiqEYeuAFPmEGOIAD2GESiGESjEYEzAFQaeyFhCEIJgGaJGEM dmLKaiEXeCAfivMi3CseEqJSLUJ9aiEG2CE7N/UPpuEFPECy+ijw4sxWt4Re VOBK9OgJyoloYfUsOopt6Ewq7NMKcJWR4E8q8RUAkpEF3idbs8EZs4EpnOMs 4LVEz6I1mlVW5NVt07Zb/2vxPIa0AY0FzqiCW03FLVcUXCcQcLeCQb0lGZmx cBu0XbXiXbvCGcciGblhK4Y1bPOVp27oD+DgSrWTCCCgCz6XYK90AZTBebhg A8gLH5zIvIZAA4yhCMAhdgmSCMZBAdDxA0CgDrQ0QzbkQQDBGJin+xAkQXYK 8cqAHGLAvKiAHMoAdTcgAGwh2uiLRzJBOtOA6eprvooTukqBBHTsBZ5grGju BTYWC/LgO211abGCLqyD5SLKDVpyDvCpVPowJrS2wHBVB3i0Ctr2MMdWFZmi L5GjbqnjN7riNoQlbgPjLLzFLB6AVCFYO+5WYO6VNhwYgklVguMicLPhAzH4 Uv/GVSusADlUQDMQF1OsEgAYNysclyvswSzKgm234jvI1XLN49NgSAMmwUxB QAPosDIrU3Sv9AgiwGjyFAlsoBSQ4E0y6wd5lwhAk5tytw64yQ1oABVQLRk8 jhBAoAvk4Amm4A/uQKfKSQ8EIgZqQR16oBicNxgclQqmtxVYoBUcAp/S5yKa qHv1AM3Al1OlAIyxoAo8Tc5qYs50gBpLpQkkqUE0Vn6lxrD6kMDuFya41ikf oAp0o1f1LhlfQYABAICP9DjOgkS34oQ/+SycVYX1om+j8QQnuFMqlzzWsi1c eYO/VRlb4yzRslqSkUda4ZeFsSxXeF5luCsG+CwSVyv/QCNYbRhgsMIeamCB ukcOgLiaiwBL5aEGbmAIjGZGuAofbsESTCBDtgAQzHkL2MQEatMYBpIIaGC5 0GAL0AAKCKET7LkTIMAzGbOcysAc8EMd4vQPjgAUGkEi5ygv8Kk45wtHrqwU SuHmNhMCjgkKxWgKpmEKAEhwNNoqsgGShcvrxqEOkM4iVAADPkKjOSx/MTG2 6mTRlpSTqeMxyjaUG+NsvQI5glWBVeMsBHSWU7hay8OVDNiCW5kWbRkuozGX ozET3AVA80ITzmWYAaCFu8IrA5MrxCOZm5lDq8KiuueHqxmIsVmboWfLtoyr pCgCIoCczbmt1dqcOQQ0ISSe/9HAF8ChqYjAnvMZEdFvYp+gDDzWvDqAfG0m GIDhoM9iGey4OItzFZ4BG7CBHByaHERhM+VAQDj1Dywao0UVpVmCGj1ax8pA d0eaClSgCfrQsycof0Wp317aMdY2BFwJMEIZpz3RMRx0PCCDp1lZLBLltxNF WoAalt2iPMyCBYD7t4WbcJHat5P71sw2DRJguhOgM9xCWqpyF7kBAaWaqgUF LVxxK1bjcraapnRADy6qBlayS7s0s4whYMFBd4/gHppLHGJgA/B7A+hgv+lg DSJg2XQmwDlyDQjc6MKBq3hAJQN1nBhkrz/ghqZQCuQgCPBUDWzvE2JgDbgA VhvCLf8We47oKR7yIA9EgRxUQTNVQQ7QxAPy4BdKbwoG2bO35JA7uirwyASO QHfnwGZZ549kfLVxddGUNmw5GQA6AytnI5RFcajF+ywSGJWxukH9ljJemTbW NjS4ohf2r0IF92+PuitMMVxFhbk7x1iD1ZS3Ml2bcZXdtZi9Ysq1wi9Qsbxp yh4s66KOQAPYWxneu2DvWnc/ZAPuO7834B6kSqo4kgtGJBk+BB+Qk5uRkxis Ex/ugQvUoAYCNQMgk0WkMGSKYQa4gAMu4AKeiweCYAO4gAl2QAXc8HoTGsQt IgRIQAzMwREbxFUT78Vkh+7iTMZpvFSsQApSwKJIZOSQoAP/4ie1BedWWbtP YDxUiRy3b8MsCCOUkzRczcJbdJrL65Zuxdyoy7I8zDW8Oyfbe/vbfZHMuSLM B/fLqQIbl1VskVmDA3TNn7HNa/Qr4JxcOpjOA8UqLupjL0rJlKwMtrQLeqCi yHoIHp2b/VutJ4EcbsEcTEQZPvICYuARhq2tHoERrAEJmLcM5KAHEk/THeEJ Hry2YBALgqAM2IELJOEYnqEYPsEcgORpLsKO6YjpoDMN1MEaHnocbh0KQ2an bCqQev3H22AZgD2YNIAjh2AJQCF5vaDX820qAKAJxti0Xjtd0/wssCKUT1kW uQIwmRXK//MsJvfc7Zbsz6OmVaBW/24jGxhl36lV3We4y70ihO+eFdFVq7Gy 21X53hvXzbvC7j+rGkrI38kD4MnhTzXgE3oADihfirVzHLxO4f1Uw9XaT/30 CLiA4k1EA+g7T5koNZ/BFg6AERgBv6KwjydWGPg1ZD4HCKZAA4KAC+7hUOcA D4RhCKbmaagG1mFROpG9D/TADSrzi6QABr1mqLxGKWWcS0YI2DPm6Rl+DmKg D0Dhb+Ts6vvtG+5AkTR5k+f9QG1Z7F0pLpSjDea+XlWRWvrPPNGiUMyiGtgt //PfqFtB//X/KwCCW7ZsaQZ8qZZpYDY7ABqmGVgtlsSJEht+GciNIsWGKgaa 0Tix4QOME/+/fOHzMNurhnwGMmzYUGC2BDBfDewFE2aIgbFy+gSQss1PK3aK /jyKNKnSpUybOn2q1AoAe0HMkSgGhIwVKzrsebW3NazYsE3KtjnbZsq0YinC 8XikRo0kSUkk2JJkS0KuHgWKwYFTLIgGN1KEZfjwIYOUK1mbYNHDhYMkBztW IShFJQ4OGJxxjKFCJc0yhWlgwYoTr48eORDkuPmzYsqUKxiuzL7yzYq9rl97 h72Shs9UMr+6WFozBNiFC4+iAPgGFuzY6VIBbP1258pWqNy7e/+es+VChwqd kM8mlKXCgSkHZsqZYL18lTnbzx9oD8DF+xiTtul4XyvVAcWfQt//6FdgNiFw lGA2B47UYHrivQRTLApV05BN2eDk007Z9JRUUD/ZoxB4Jp6IYooNWfGJVVKQ AURZOsz41VbSiXXjWCPsWEw4kjxyAQ992FCXLbZgk8cUBcwQxCd44BFEED08 QaUbT1hJxgjW/YGFG2UksUocVHRwwA4dbDZGmp+FNhp7VMAyZgyrtfZabLNh QMYVeua2W2++bdVGcFONUIE8N+hDDAUb3PNIFVNFR9101kllxR0YYDCgippu qtSEDbGgkDbnpdeQGfaV51N89wlaX4P57ccfN0rZo+F6dmR66nwHwnrfggAA WOCDCarwAEye+mQHe/lpyGFOHoKIlIg+/5E4EKfWXovidgBgQUIXIIywwo1e iZVlpNPZ880IYpDAriRZWGNNLuFIkE46T8KhATk1zCCGKAggRgghCyxAAw3K LLAjGR54ycUtayhzxBKe1YIDaGmosMwyoIFm2sYhMHKAG10QQsQTUqyQgWEr rFwBprr5+ZUObViBQRrmpVuBBjUEswQF4oijRhW6daPDpOZWN+NWZWWKbdMq xjKAQQ1BHXV+APARNdNW9PKKJppkwgepMFUTddm9mFHsT1iXzXbZUrXRdtvN JmXPF7308gXTAPQSd9tv9212Q3wDnjUAcLN999nQTh31F0OV3dMXUS8ueNWd Fu6TFVEL53Tnnv8nVd0L4bgxDozi5khG6keHNeMIuZDThyQ2ZBFPPLMngTsP tgTBATn8kkDOC510YYwxCxzxww+AAPKiwvsSMQ5iC9CBw2Y4xLHDQBlv/Cac oO2wQzkQdFEHEY488ccfGWSw8got2whzbwBgoIJ5VoxwhQbm8LOOEMCo0aiX jetoDZlR0cTyuQQqcIEMbKADHwjBCDIlD2J4AgiaQIbTwa8JA3zZVpI2FiAg I3ZIIJINkFBCG9jgGbOzhg1IIIYh9SAD8ujCAkxAg2T4whcR0EceRmCFL+QC Cx8YhzG2QA80JEEPrchGK3bAMdPAIk2cMU0aoKiOGqiiC114wRM8MA3/lLGs AvGrkRW60Q0rfEMFr1AjGZpQhjkc4xjAoEAtanEHABStg2OZ0YpCGBYJCnKQ hCykIQ+JyO9IhYLjAMEKMhiWAZoRR3+ykRWAYI0+9AEJsrPdCR1QCwfMIh6z mAW8UGiYLsijDjg0xg4nsYZpbCUWUyDDB8oAiB/4gh7TcB1BQrADdZiGM8SE gRVVMAsSsIYIIPiDFNI3Bfa57xfRiR/8ttKKlXwjdV0AxRwpsIR84OAOZ+yK DiLlx+2oU3V6S6Q73wnPeMpznkvZTgWiQKUKcJB15xTgbpJGozJeMgvLecZk HKBCB6xiFVrQRAJaoYl4qAMU9wDBOMYhD0sU/4EGW0ADGgCxhh/aY2YAyEAZ LHEC5SEAfyHIzBjmUEUpUmEHKthJCFrQvg8IY6dAiBEZWJYHgUYyjVZoBQum gikpiCEG+WjqGPKRxzagy2hcMeAfp6MdbdFzq1ztqle/2jmpkCEPVFoBB6UD Qt8YkDcCJUMuCvqMUCJUoQwNATdCoAl1xAEfQTCBBopoAhMkYwu++Kg+sJBB e2BKGFIogiVQgYpSrMAKyHgTFY1JhWxsLA0paUETHHE+KqHvDxVYAWMqEFR/ 8rEbM/tGAl7RFUwBoQc8SFMHxlCLKVhnKn20KnWsoyetgnW4xC2ucYsblgp4 cQVAEAsIlYZBcp0LUv/pWM4FnuEAB2ihoa3ghiZCEAJYrCIfc3jDYLdABAV8 QB7JcKVhewBEK6ROSyMgwx/W9QcrVGEVVNgMZzi7HtOATxRkyACVPnAlN7jB ERlI3RTyYCO2mnGA1fjCjKADhBT04alzWAIwwtEDctLMuQaMlHXykNXjqnjF LG7xILcygl/I4QXMJbFYyoLB1C0tkjU6UAqWY4tH2KAWxjRNTcErXtxOYgtQ +IE8dEqEBSQPCoDQB3yt0IT71RcIWgJCYQBABgdQgcgxbZNCoFiO0joCAsOr gR70oAoPZOnBEYYZ/KQzlW7kJsPkYMIc5kCBOaTJGrrt7XPHMj8Ua8XFjG7/ tKMffSKxXIEEUgCAliaVup6OICs7ZewTvHi+P0yhAhXQk556yoELzEWh4ANN TSsjpiVwQRF+QIMvwEGyOhSPHlvQxxtmWC4eJw0DXK7CmxYKJyiGJg1UpAIS ivGE8bH3CGuIwBGOMENh/IHLd57wyybwzyyPAAHmWMIxKCCEdXg4DrLkZ1X7 KSkr6MllkK63ve9t7+1cgRw9WME07lAFI2CgCYxZGRDYt75nOvMFsDFtdAcu hRRogB19UIM6whSH8KpABdgbAwzwMQl61NoXRTBGEeSxhY76gQ5sIEcX9EnJ GWklS9OAohTBBz4VpIEzn5lDD9ygipMnA5bVPoIe/3qQPi5nOaDUsUc3vNKN smSABPgw9xLSTccOYMHGvpUUarMsXHyLfexk72pYMBCOcJBglFmIQpZQJoXo XXTuhIiegv8gjBUgIAqmxgISytAHRnQAfB3ogFOfSoUxUEAfEYACFNDwA2MU LBn0oAct3PGGRlzlQL0JaJa1/QckaJYKrRjDDuIQBxjwd2OMmMGVuKiBI3Ah ApYwQRkgcCX0VSC+fvoGW58u7/pKwRxCAMM6nAEGMNARCeH4YIkpZa4kZaWd Za++9a8PwepIBe3hiAIW7nCHKQBhZZ8eh4KJwEUTAOIINZQHBIQBhL3nyQoe 6EAPQNEBa4ghCilIQRmC8P8kPKAGMTAJR/AGjgd5kmcMlGd5p5B5M6AVfsJ0 VvACMzAD1qAQ3HNsMGADEnAHQDANEAABREAEdWCCdbAAFwUCVOIIWCBn8lUj BtQnvtcERoAACFADS7AOO7gOYCADdDQXzndAq2MFFTAFYEd92KeES8iEmwJ9 35ACL5AlV2AEqbMCFgQChFA8xTNYH/UDRVAEZfAEO4IpGAAAoecGTMAEELA+ iDEOArMAIEAwxhBY8qAKdxhYDChy+/AGdDADWjIzPOYVI5ABRGAJXMAFfwYN oIAEJMB/4RdIVmAEb8YFN2AONQABVoJgboAY0YYFwrAjNPMNGAAW7EQGACAM M8D/BTUwCegGDOnmP0uADxV3BXr0fOpEHXlwKfTWhL3oi78IHjYyAyRwAKSk Dj8kDI4AAnK4gIKVDD+wBZF3BLY3DiMwBVUwbx7QB12ghm7gAXKgSkcQAW/w BoAwjoy3AAqgXp0wWJVHD2/gBw5IBxwABFTlT1LQA8axBlxgDvegBzWABVqi fS/TBL+gB6KwDSJQCphIOh/gBrg3DlfiAaAYX2IRivI1AlIwA9fWism3g8BQ RzHAA0jgKABFQDZCBrwoT99gEl9wID5hBk7QC0moSCaRSG3wBWLzOXVDOT4R C19gNU4RkzMpSEHkOE/xAHkDHj9pk5BGKdaRAklASpow/wsHMA1/4AEkOHnJ wJUdBXmAYALvRwYkkAVX0AbfgAXhcASgsAQaQAh1AIY/gAYWAAXw6AfusAkm sALC8FMgoAyVR45QQJf6YA5lcAUV6U83BI1sQAen4AdbYAwpkAHWkTqXgkby FiWTgA8xMANy0CVWYiVXAgE9MA5SkAFZkTBNwD5SIAXF0AMQo373YHUUAAyg AApzYA4j2QL2aI9apRu4OE+9oBBzAwCggh+c0gbVgkgtQSEJdBGaoBTxISpO YZzZEJQQlJxpABUd0ZNPoSoO4pRG4wEkQEqzgAwkgAUrQwStJFgK6AvGgGuJ UV+5YB6xgJYzcA/EcAxrsJ5fWP9YdOkHfiBykRABHrCXh7EAIudrFrAPbECY XFABVNUbC2AMP5AM5CigW7AAM/ACuqEVajQuVyAYmlmYcuABosWJVdIFPTAD 4SAG6WAERtACTgA7fRAOHNAHEaAMgPAG90ABPzoHtYAEcwAKmiQJLUAd8IYU CBSc2cANTkA5D5E2yKmch8ScDPSc0ZkN09kUD9GdDpSdUDEATvCS3tELTjAQ ZepoYoEFucACprQj8LJ709AEFZABf9ADn2AEs1CLNKMdQJAEuzlqL9ADQ2AO +QAK+CKO+gAFkbAJ+qAPaxAJQ7AGFkUGL2B+JrAFmUcHjcBya3AEeTSBABCj TTADGcD/AzzAAUGgBxmQSQDQXC+jA8D3CTMQAdFQCqqAAHLwBKDFgg95gtem AUWgfnX5BhEACBpwCzXQBaogD0cQDUsQDYHmAi4gBC5wDzOADGRgTubEpDmR J6qzVcK5Ej5RDQPBByCiDU4ApWNTDVtjB6ISC+xKKlBjBwMAIsmZDRXCrkd5 FA/ArhjSEPZQYW1gB/5qONXwAN8wpkJhBnYwN+tqB3xgNVdaKveqkw1RDe/6 sGZgOPSaEwDrBAILE71gB2aQpRbBrtAinf/qBCc7Nui6ONrwrg3xDRU2sCY7 AKTyANWQHgdxILHgs9XgBDoJr/jaENlpD3xwsDnxDUzLB2V6/xBWs7QYmxMP u7NIkab19pTTkAu1Yw0YdACzUIUecJjaFgRlkAezoFsAcAUVIF/0MgJ1Kgcz QAxD8FIcoAELUAdV5g9QAKlvoA9gWUR9QA4KNlie2gieSgegCmGVFAViUAF9 kAJEapvmIAUqJKFOtxVyUANHEAm3YKIe4Aiki6IQUAfkM43lQwR0SI7LYwJD YAldYALyoAG22TOg4ALiIATigA08QGjduhthBxMw8qHjSh8+sR5HVZ3ZIBxW MBCakBIJoSwIQhADUSz6qh4KcVQ/UStOJBUWAmDNaQZOCmBp8J3dmywKoQLq 8RLfuaU/Eb3Te73okSHrISANoQnsm/8N0AkA6zsQA9AQLYss68EN+bG8OQEq HgsAA5AN9fkQKcEhCcHA++s4aNpE2TClU7ETKYEh+gpgG9IQ2sAe2MsgPREo 9dsTRVW/GwwTW2tvM3IHufAK8YAMGPS1AZkCP3SpHDADFWANQlOEeZA6KRAF QFAAUdkHQpoZhBcP7GINKWAMFmWCshcN+WAOIEAE0EiOjdCHp8AFk5ACIwC5 p0oCM5APSKAGSBADxRADtWCGEzABNkJUPRAONRANIiAHoPUCHvACV7kCf0Co +VgDNSAHRNAJRFAEqICs6zcER1AH13YExMAP1+oCwLABF8A7HJAL02Ada6UU QHAFi4a85er/tFJqDySsCbrxEGCBrgCApva7ExjCBwnQE8liHtr7DQRxIPGB sABQvgcMADbBEBYyE06wweUry/1rBcb8Ke9BID1xpS3xHmGqvA98NSa8vzhx rsJsEytxriEAFvsLnSPBDbrREUJBwDBxEeL8v9lwVLv8Idd5EdC8E0IhEMKR wkJBwfqbDRfsEreSE2jKECPRCobjEdkMnVbwEI5zEWkgFdwJAPGBEy1xVA68 EhbSvvILnjEMADOMDK9ww2RwAFpgBOrSAiMgDC+wqiNgBEQ8xHgyDSkwWdPg I4yYGepAeIK3AzMACCmoDHWAiLfJAeNQB9HYxSxHB5MwCWKQWB0U/wVlMHVB kA9qYA5q0AcgIAn5EAVWMAFE5XRg8QJlUAagoMd/4Ah9DMgo8wef5iVbhMiK vDyAYAlHcAsm0AUaEHvnwA/8YK2ZzAGT0ANSMAUr8Ml+5BNFAxOiTJOJRK5H 8RBCYRMD8A3fsMDQa53A3L+fkg0MDACxwAcCwRDaW76ZUNkWCxPxIbDy/NnH CZMz0RAJgROYrX1f4ARSms0MER9mUNn768IDIRQXsdHJIsD9/BzVQtylstlo SqbfkCw4sc6czSG0DQDA/RMPYQXJedDW/M7F3dn+DNA08RM7QTnaCwDmDADn Kt4THb/cSd05IRDaUNkCkbEw/GhSUTRX4P8FIY0MXJYESPAHIyAHK3WpNgoE HtACRiBvcGtfcqYWhFoGNVB4enV6jJAPO5ACQ8BMgrGPQ0ABHLAARRB59ACp +sAGbFCO4SAFkbQdRjADf9AHaMzGSMAFcHAP+WAD9ZgbL5MbGUCo+FAK/bYy onZqohzITyAHrNEJnUAyRUDXEcCPZdAFhny7+DAEjRAMcjDYPAUEU/BBR3FA MPGtTWrKrcLP8zEA1H2u0AwqOPEFD6ECoo3Q++rA8gHNMCEQU4of4nsUpR3b 313d2SAVsdwKuH2lMrEent0QW4ve3Q0ATaTn1rnAFrHZzTsQ5hHdAGDBMPEQ B2LdPoGmZOO8COL/v7kNAMa96QQN2fabE9ZsIQuC2jaBE9zJ2j6RK78c6Gpa bxjgBS/bAllCAtagPvxSSy/gOzCSB7+AZX8qBXIGBHcgOmkrBlGJBB0QB4I3 BhlOOhpQB/uID/jAAaz0AzRwBoKrD+7ABmAZDltnSVJRBS9OuXNg1THABZ9w D3MQB7o1Ll6xZ3gK5AbKXKcpyk1g5FPAJRDgCEtOCJ1QoeZ4bRbVBRZEDuyg DChQDKwpBV7CcLKUE+cEE4gt5tpHT4993fY72WghVWqeDWwuwg8hKleqvcKZ CSiv66o9sNXy6n2+8n/OwANhBSOhAgeS56a+zSjPNIzuRA2R3DY/Fcg9/+qa DZ24jPL5kenGTd2fnhMWkgkCEbTZsNGwnA3ezSECAdDm8RMSfd5C4eoKotl3 3rLu7fPW8QBCMctGz9G6DmkYkA65gAxRMAU9QAKXOAOGPIbaOANcRmryNcow 4uwrIAV6wJHKAAfKoAFcMARXrAEi4AZj3QVcQG0xEO4VKnkHWGvuAJkcUAPU kQLpyQOfIIsxAO6fEAODl0eRpAN7Ng09EAN9gAXQJGq3UfCCTLpLnsjg8AMm YAlkjTI7tQJYwD6EqgfkYA7kUAZy8AcQlhNPWUCZo/1kvuoOC9unPvMqz/I4 Yd3xsRLaq7T/mwBcKjjMDPYZzfY/4eenDug+f/+u2z0QjnOlGG0dXwMQ9gAM HJgt2zcAD7K1Gmgn2wAAvbJpsgLASTYWAKpl41ZR00QA2kACyJQgFoAE2bQR HGiGY8UB2TIVzNaGJUFuBhMQVJGtGoBvaWoCeJXNDoA2Br9YfHizoVEAsbKl QTp1oNQQQA2elJqmYs+TH80AcMnQoRMA9lplqnjTIEKnceXOpVvX7t26Voy0 yCUmip4ZPV68yCCsMII+ZYCMmDLFipUrVkaMmEZmygphNTRomHRkEhcTdRYo G6IBmptxPUDc42IO3706dX78SPbGzxt6frYs4NAHw2PgVqIgWEGuzLEY99TU gKMmH5VpwbvpsGdlSor/Hn3IvWi8YkqeaRWmXAECBPOKP3+edGIP7kcRSzVq DPbgaIUHYWXMmSM3owwIKf4AIrKBrNBBBwDacgoDDBLE60EIIxxIolfiEsom AD5Ko6edrDCooo1mAoCFbHohaSoVetKkqmyeSiOEbFQQ6KaUNuRIIKzicknE TLIZC4AP7RGqp55M5AMqK2BUQagK3ToooYWeggglFLMJYUYN02hlpBpVHCil lW7q0UYV4DIIw5uO9JEghaw0iI+BROIoxWyWumjKm+zpCcYSq6IqKisnNCin OgcCC1CODHogrT2FQsuptySUdFJK6bKiinSqwAKLYp6QAoQXnshACjI86OMT /zJGgAyAJiIDIgMPyLiDDCmCUEaZSZSpgQsuWKtBDw+YQCCDP8Yhpwcu1GBn ARN8+WGLLXTbAo0tkqkBlCmAAg6APIKQgh1l1hHnnhjKcOOA56JIywp72v3G CiCieIGEPggzD4j0MBOGDGGkMEyYD9x4ggh5jPnBklti6OIPYf5w5OEX/Hth HCkoluK7PGw68EAF5eq4UpAhpDAuPgZQsJdXWDBxoAGmbGOAn0Ia4CQrBmDB ZD74eGwAOONMeYAZnarmlVd6aeubAVa+6eUwtRkAw5YHasOOV7R5+adYBlgq QT5YeCXmNE0GaoAfv5iZoKFf0Zmgmlkw4+UfyUrZ6P+Wno5Lm5TXHqjkj6X+ kCWkWbDjJLRZcOIbM+x+YIBF47LHZjsaf7xnpJWOxQnD0ewFaKkxdwLNx70O E9InQzb99LseiOIO7/5wQ4rCYC8Mi1NTJSMyyKwgA4hpBiQDBA6O0ICLIzjg lQs99BBFDkaGlUIKLpDFhx1CTEDjemihRQMQGmqIJp11rfgtijKKYQeFY8bF p4se0KVC3erabVf3KlIggYQXBFxhhVH3T+8FOZRBD24A2MDkUQRARCAS5uhC /oRhnn394QUgEEwPGuOBKEThFwDYGILygjoQ0kUi3DhbCE14QhSm8HQXyYgK XXiXasSkdC+kIV5isboVvKr/B24ojCP+kAEg0K4HqcqdFdoArykYgTxA6AE5 LHEEJ9aAA/IJghQ/wQQx5E8KNeiBa2pAiCOgAhVveAMgtmACQACiDhoYQhJU VR3JVIEDwNPAEl5zDzjAoQ/PaQF12CU/3VVADGKYwQumkQH0fOADT2CkG7pQ gzJwAQTCeMIHQFADBEbgFlwoQw968IlPaMBW7GAHHsLhgU1hIQViSEEeKmIg B80lOH2roYQkYhCl1VKXu+Tlg7QhlGwQrpc1TEmkhjnMNkShChXAjCf99cN9 0e4FRPyNPY4IhBS04ApkIMM4gtAFImiAfWUoQxc+UQYuMmIGf4Dd65IVBBCE cXtQ/4BWMgCxhmR0YQhIIEP4RnAHc0iBA59gRxDuUQMK9mEOVECGPagTPzhe YQYzSMEfDrm/RTbSkUGo4gfGIY8PCEMeJrDEDW7RyXNqoAy9uQcP8JCCFGCj DDCdASuN0CBY0rJAGCDDto4JoTZUQ6ho+mlRjfrCqTlBmEdF4QOEWg2dMvWE yTRCBV7lhtc17HlkwEISpvlKdl2zCkYYQRP45QHUEAGrm4mNBo4AAiasE3aw 4wISajAOE4hxC4AwQQTWoI81xMYccYgOHEdQAT1k5nkZCMIc63CBJVDBBpGZ H7seU6oZIEA9UthfBhRpyR4o4wi8EgYIBigMCKDxFsfqwf9mNHArDnAAG7Od 6Ayw8QlsSAALVbhCgRL0SqforqePkWpxjXtc5CZXuVKNhRHycJkMMJKzjniB B7CZhGmYNTjfsMfu+tmEJjQMq3LoghtcqwwTvJUJegjVOChmjhgE4QMmgAI9 t2AJfdxiDRGowzjqgN3HCIQxmmWvccQJgjrE4Bhj6IArAVnZPxBSgn/AqCKf 4Ei3jjYDl6yBwIhgghtwQQo94GgQPtEDbOABD9gIR4vDgY0gYCMdu3Xlb4nr FB2Upwk+XW6PffxjIAdZyN+4A3SjW7HOksp+02DQH//YZCtMYAIjuIJ6sOrI LmRZDghwAyP0IKrnCfQTLxBGF1D/AYU0WmIN+13DWy/2h4q8a8CO0EMZxkCB OTqyFGPYwQ6i8Ec4dtcKK0DADJ6QP/8x8gk96IIygnCENYwDBKoghxyEUYcj mOMIwnBDGeQw5h6E43658EJfKIpbCcD0z789UFzgBYThRlXIs6Z1rW19a0m1 hZuwlsIT3JtkrubCMdW0B3ftAYQpYKAJUqby89wLAjdAG6sQeAI0REGYim1x BPzqAiBQEQF9RGAIkdAvF+oAuxTYpDoDFoYcXgAKCsRAA45EAp+pkA5AB3jH QZSDw/zFP3Yu+rXsmMQGJC0HcnyZWREowwhekAIsnPgTPBh1EkhAyBR8Iggv ToEEEPKY/1YHF4jDxXXJTX5ylOPaOvwzTIAKkwGYt5sEnF0BN8FLhia0Lj1T +MMUEHnoXmNZAyYgAiNI4EP/PY+SbigpFPyxCiqAIgb6AMQPjCGHGvT2N5D5 hBQgMINzRIMC7OhBDWywioXEw0A6CE67MJAHLPzBAyuogHh4/gIMm6AGQ3ie fLZgjCdgfRwjQGXGyzCD3pCDB+GoAUdDyQGO7mUpHIsl2yADax6nXPOb53zn d2mFaUyDnVKoLoXTI6Ae6IGziymrWbn5+vJ0lliewmoX1kh0RpAD6ehxYK8t EYEfoIEKWojB1KGAii0E8Aoj2PoVPlEMgQFCH8DgwRqzsAoVtP9CHWTgGHDm VwEsrIAwVyD/FYgFAgiskQPmUI/fAd9pKYygB5s6Zw3I0QcStLjxjRelYKLg hZ+gvL6BjK2TNc87QARMQAW0FCzwAMKIrvxBJNgpFTEYD9Yzq8nIwMnYHfM4 vV5jJI9ygw9ghHrxQEPzlww4ggjYq+TglVvQhxqwBD0QgwrAgDaojm+Ygmnw gD/ogiPoABJQBVWwARjYgTjIBylgu7arjinAAh3MgPK7AmFAjyeAgEfiAClw A70Tp+gqgxdwOFT6JA2QIg4gJcjzwkOzqChoATNYu8qzvPLIvAWcQzqsQ8+z ggrIA4ahJB6cQn8hgxcQAygEglYBL9f/e71d85/0uLAr6zQiQAJyMD126gM5 wAKY6ytU0AeNEx4FqgFVIAE96K0/+gbLcMD0igNJEAVVcIAiVIdaeAEl9L7q uILwyyFDbAIgMAz1CDw5yIAXeCQNqAPDkIMh8gDBAKXGuocyZIdPgINoO7Qd 3Is25CAc+y0yKEA7zEZt3MZby0NokqCXKwwymIYoKI/Yi8JDNEdFpDBFuzA5 cAM1wEJi+aFSiIE+gB15sAQoCLd4MoEyYIJ8IAcSSIfeIgi2q4BpyAO9owJ1 UMVnwIF86AOEmqUAewwsMEecA6/ygDlFjC4NIIcuGAd+2ZQgMiRPGsPGUwYU yCNPkoNKTAEj/xADutGpimCQN+RGnMxJnTwqPNRD/im9efwDy0gBc4y9FSg/ 11NH/+G9dhTBUggH2WGYUsgHJHgekqqvIViALOsCUKACKtgBdQjLyKEODLiC hDyCGgDLhHvIMQiHaKNIyxKOyzjK8tvIwphCzJCCLjAHEBDHF7DEuBuVigGB PMojUHLJStyUNfQCnJKlK9AuA9xJyZxMyjyd73iBFei1F4Ad9RDKJizKewHN otwf0gyQALkwCJCCGKiBxXoCYZjKquyB3wu3G5AHCHCDHigDcsiHOQCFfMiH eKgCh7KCb0jI9IKBWlgDLniEBZsjEIBLOIoCZhqPuRxNusOMP0A4Cv9bAcZ4 LksEAtn5FKzypBfwJPJ8uHRgzFgaQCiLzMp8T/iMz7loQu6QIC06tBdAtjww ysswxyXiwKPsSHZSj/LMgD7wFtghjFLoACR4gRqIAHADhFuQhyybKyl4vvhL EI7BgPDAlTHAAS6oAWBYsLt6ToqsDgAwgim4HfLbH6VcAfsgliYiFu4EgiK7 yFw0DEZ0RsH4n8FAT/WsCLYLLmyUTyM9UiRliSbYFHbKn8F4AgK1qt6BufTg SETKl1chTf4RzF5znR4QKARVDyDogw6oF+Opgb+yBBPoAhBoRxAYhwxQlRFo l3G0KLfCAQpQTlbcgRn4gC4QRQzwI+BojEL/XKLyuIL9mQJmGoEMQAA9oLAp 2LYrUNQc2p+gGww3+NHOLIZpSIF04AObENIbYwkGibUkPVVU3UnxyYMUYJ3T E730eJ4pwBd+uVLDeLmeyyFEIs1XCbP0wM0MIKdRkSBhiAEGHbEhEIFICDdA kAciaCRoA4FiyABucqg7qKhp4IxjoIAh4AJWpAISAIEuqABVCdRYhIzHNETR RErzcFT0WD6c4yYt/UBFCxAf5dT6eRsN/a0FKdJU/VeApcMryAPwgNVRmQLO YqcMmNUV7UCGASLDkD2OzEyYgznSG4weyABQGtb8tIY4qAViiYE5iARwewNL qANGcgRG/CEGqQ4S/0sPDbCEMZgDESCHWoCBNDiALtCAWBEfjoEjZYvX28HF jCS/nvKOVYK5bSIuxpjLXnOv5zk9i0qPO6iCKOCDL0AQgRhVgoCygP1asPW8 KagCggWP7mgMngs9CjOP3UEPXd1I2SNNClsszsJYwtjYhCWDPoiDqvyDGjCH IYgA3AgNC7swT4k1K3gBbEiPR4KBOSgFc1CHItTZMsCC4RpOOBKfm8tImyu/ firFdaKyHXuMJpgG/slMX/PV7ey5xsgDI+gFbegGGxvA4Ahb271dXLsCsr2D SUXbPxCPumMm8tim28kh0OwsLdXSK52GKRgMYSjQDiQDEugAGwAiCfrbNf/o jC6AUoepjxUFOR3IgIpaARDQgDhYBf6ohVWIA1Eggi6wrgA7V3bRyIw0xPLD qSZowjKg1lgzS/NYRyzlzwqoWm0wg62hSTnEXQVeYOW6At5t221C1ErNodsp D9u5YEQUTdGcR54DxB7IUgFJAiSoXloRhnHYlRDlWdPrz+E6EPGlMHFdhVpI OAdYhQ7QAxAAAQ/IgPidJXuoyygkRPDaOp66Ay6yucua1XmtWA124Dwo4GqA C2q8iVliYCu+YqZilyJ7DPLgQFgTYrNK1+HqKUSEPQ22YGTjOaEkVkTqnSSI B2u4jAd8AhKwARsQhSgwXe+4gq2zhwnQgTxoAdH/K99aeIYpegRgAIUykDQe BN/MZZe6BM3XC7DuIoMekIMKwDngsDlcXKLN3VxucuAoyJigcbXaxWJUTmUU +gZWbuUAawPyK8sKOMQyTpVJ3VyequXdYab/1dJc9Q7xGIzycJgMaIF4SAI1 Vo8MmAEkUAc4PgBkQAbnWlqH0oEogAfRg4MjcIAkOORaQIIeGIcu2JTfoI4j +i1ryl/iPUduouQmAABAjIICxIBtO0pFXVFQzkDdcWDeMkgPYhsbU2WBHmjT aYMQCAGhOGg+0AYWAA4MsIeqCY5U2bZUgYdM6Klt053HUBUyboI0UFQ7ID9z tAZryFIgSIMoEBBimYZP/+KAHjikK/2DD4AAPTAHJEACa7hpMeBOiiaDdBCD 3ilP1RiHTouHVog2EFCHbKgCVbGZbbGCVnGCFmgCJ/gFqoaHAdk28ILLx2CQ CogROmmFx4w1krOHX4gFBaEle/BXgm5rt34QMxCRkGghlpBoDB4Bi74sDORq FbiCKMgEjASCaI69P0gDLFginguzkctS/um1xYK5xtimyZjUDDokoQaQLJyB bCgDlUqDWXCCisiENgwOZTOrJggBqxZazqXIncKArw7aJtCEAZhkityxujbl BP6xsGqDWOht3/5t4A5u4R5u4i5u4z5u5E5u5V5u5m5u535u6I7u426DG3TP Wv+La4LQhkywgxBoaIv4gpoJARJCRLxmiyZggRBoBSOwgjx4Be7OhMh4hdNO g1dARDuwA6M07GkwggRQgUyYBs5ChhBQgQT4BQ9IgHxJgEOyBhXghhaANU1o gYNGBiyYhkx4kVyw1+pSATHAAhIIgVzQhH5KgyPqhVZQAU3IgyuAh164CNQe gKnWBD7gBm4wA/CChxDQBHiwA9Jtgl/Ihna2AjtAhm0T8Fagm1jo70w4oi9w Au5WKk3ghpUQn9xWLmuSbizPci3fci7vci//cjC/wc3D7jjxiTZIAIhgAW34 BW7gbRWoAMlQFYvGAMypgGpIAzIQiV6ogAQA7Z3RhF//QERkaIUhRwaHyIMo UIHVkfAV8AJuyAM+fwUgUIFYwQIVAAIWsAYM4oZylIk8GIA0yANkYIEUyIU0 WMTqKgdk+ANriAcjyIYriIWOeAAVeICp0QQMQAZ4qAAV6IUm0HUrSAMWqAA+ 8AptUIFf+AL/ZhCe+moz6IUWQIY0+AUhNwllB28VAFU+UAEr2AirSYMEaAMz UIEEKUDr/qkrB3N1X3d2b3d3f3d2F/OTI/OQ2ImIOAo1j4U0cALw7pheyIQm wHF4oHYr0AaKsIJeaOjHMIKLNm0yQIYEgAeJh4dsEPUI94IWUAEVbZU8YIGL HgD8fgVkAIJskHhkyAQWWIFs/5iGB1r5XFABZOhwDwiQwWiBBJiCEDCCFVDv FjeQdrkcbriCV3ACIAiBTLYDePDoTCaDbLCConmMf9doMvhqogH3pU8DOEf4 V3iAg7cCTfiCauCRn/CQgD73YfoGeE97tV97tm/7d5fiW6N3hm6JCmGBn9Du NJj24Ih6hP+IVmiCL2ALKzADhdeLTOjph0cG2At1ZOAGQ4/msUJoTVgLy7j0 aVd5ZLCGLECGFpiClQ+Plf+DFviIEIg7CdrBUE+DyXACzAHvNtAELUkAbmiC ob+CEFDx2sf6x2z6TICqbhd8qP5x8LqCNDACbsqG0WXowEdRu6+GFsqEKW8R qOba4/9Ce7e/fuzPfu3ffuCGe1qT+xYyA3zXhljw/fsOjhYAeDOg9tiuBu1+ DMIHjvff5Gge41DPhVZ4vT3PBHjgJjsAbIAAkgBZKzJk0uQBssKIkRXZpqxw uKJFwimtWvzJOG2KplevyIz4kkCFFR1O7OgA0IubFWTwgITIc8WOkytprlix ks3KyZxOMuXMWSGbQStmblrh9gUAACdO2qhICUBFrGosmGZaqhOAFQxBmYIN K3Ys2bJmzwKwF2st27Zu38KNK3cu3bp27+LNq3cv375+/wLmaw8t4cKGD4M1 kwmstqsAzNgBwEJbrDROBoTQFtRKL6B8VAxwkqaNNqBGWVj/YZpHRa+iLZ2k zomwQqsEAzJxu/KqlRMWaRIAudIi2wCQLdIgQ5bGCJCHGZqT8aIC2as0FcgA ybhiQLYoIDH8BqCjV4gBdtKQdDmiYwU78KykaZKT6BUVLHybztlmZ9BMdqxU k4Z5owGQiSYDaLKYVVhplU1asD3WBgBtmIGYhRa2EZiGG3LYoYcfghiiiHVJ eKGJJ5pFGlgqAhDLUtpIWMEAAzzAVE4tVpPaF07wIWEbOVoRizZgWcHHAJt9 8cVm8FxBRhO9ONGLFSOQ0YITUUzxEhBTOFFBkyPk4dR1ZAzQBHZOGGQEMk7k scIUb05xhYxmjsDZUkyZ4YQZ9hyZ/+QIFXRpRB5WwAOSFUda0YQZi6IWlD18 hNUGH6nFMkCPsVWjJ1MswsgUpEUy1SmLKJJK5Iinopqqqquy2mosqZUaq6yF 3fiVYbVulmuiZm4GABmbGWRQE1fwOoKxVAZr0LFOEnsFEMG9SSwGht7I1Vip BSufV7EF1UsCGSbQi4WwlkWuWObOGus3rrLbrrvvwovqN+nSW6+stVprY69B YTDtr9xaQUa//+pasJNNNDHtsFf0O62tZhmcK1dOhMDNAOOia6/GZGUYr8cf gxyyyLGUuLHJJ5dasMors7yvymdJzBW3+aJcc6kdj5yzzjvzrGHJNgMdtMkZ 20iz0Ecjvf9pz0sz3bTTbf2ctNRTU1211Wjh/LTWW3P9btRXX23PvGFZMa89 g4ElNgDfsN022d+QqzZT9iSJNldjMwV3Wm3jHdbZ547N9zeDic13bH2DbfK6 XTPeuOMjIp441QmkIVYv2cTCQjZ2p9GKPdmAHnqNTMWSzWJppRECU9yFHtlj 2Yy+38WahA46pGFpooJYfGD+ee2tAEB77ZHZsZPkQz+evPLL+0X08UdTbjnm X2QjLgAPVP95AtVwX43dABRfY/ivZ7JW8RebAfumxAWfBvdmtJJN37nv3ns2 23O/lCbudx8L+MY/z17MGyABCwiXAE6ucmG5nP/SoAmmvGJzn3P/HVmsoAJu 7OcVTOGGApmyv9fFjn308xTmcKe7sPAuFhMUywjD4gQHIZBeWTMgDWvYuK/F 0GbRW2AJizevNCzmcypIABETMBZtZCMNaUBbNhzDlBdSSH0TEqFl7FCdE4Kl hSRUYTZCcB8WSIh2RUyA//jQwRyWSi02XCMbt/Y9NNZsh2BhYIuywQfqDUmI YyRLJrJRIa5kQ4Ng4U4UQzi7JILuFYjTIgBS+LnOtaIVYbxfEf1XDeDBsVRt 3CQnl5ZJoMmRKXScSit8M7dsULAshARLGrgRlj4CKBt3kl3wdNcG9LyRkY5E JQuxCJYHnO6TJlpcJ4tpTI9FTpj1CqVK/0oIANa5boVnWeUT7Rgq09XRdZer 0Aip50QP+rKR9ktlLccyKmUi5pjqXGe70GmyBNQuG9oY5X6c6bva3S4s1OQK 7dDTxbH1UwXZIEk5maK5O3kwnl/YJTmFF7oHFs957iQLMdlp0YuGKJkTLVU1 ZuTRDA0Ab73I56E8OiP/iaVSb6yGHewgpQW2lA9oM4P10jKAaoTFDCYdAEjt cSiE4mmnFfrCxTZaGIwiVXlf4N4DPmbUp0JVmWqsSwhUYNWqqqAVdmjqWhLA jccNQAVmiMUDQvAKuFSjqq1QwVnZstbcfTUWvcjqAD4EV25gtRWv+EKqzHBB J5jvgpRp1xeq8/87PsTrjVFdLGOvNkO5KDEEFZNsGrLBDa62Ig1gTUMvyGo6 uBzFsklkCxIRiblY8A6VHxJoPEGnFFRdrolr0Zz72pXW1oLODvDCYWN761ug 4UWJbnkAPHUbCw4+7oWdxV753pK+bAhvsKyrrGarkolMjNVDIejiFzNRWdme KrbGjWBtXfWF7d4vSnzoYxI7+67fwje+KJtqXYTrFm04cC2ZHW6S4vKAJHHV Lf2Ny4Dr8t8At+W/fG2Lcj3bXLc8l7V1zVwSBVrduFSjF72oBlzm2QszIPgt 26UKaStLYraYgQ8clos2VNzhDyP4ucal7YrZkmEQz0XDIV4LTWsclwj/gpct xbsfXHoxWBeNtBcL7pBi5evkJ5vosZC9MFse0Lm17I8tX2CvZd27lmo49DdL Divo0sCCAD/AsAOdcFy0QTnQJeDIvYhfmV/B1QZb+cFtea53wbtdTXADdGtJ LWDlSmfQtQKxPHZoEgsNF4GeuKv2NfR3uZHdWBSPs1xOQIDdHLoQOFq8swVd jflwaBVslS2Bdt/+uqjoQbM2G6249HAhHeI0DyC7l0vDK4Q3VjUnsa2ay0aN e6FE496Ft1BeNrPLkhcVUHktxm5u7tZy3ia+IhPbVfQXBJoJFmRCoCwYNHd7 /Vmyxi8Br2BBoJF938pmwtwhaGr60tBSFgi0/614BiJoQccCeIbARZV9xarJ rdovVJY3u6lsZ68N6t0k8dVugXRb8IseaVeWG61WwYqHnLtWq9ZFrG0Fegv9 XGGTei0DqGwIvAq6B28XPa0QXhqym1pujCSJPkaxv+sS22HL8oX3yx3o6ipj ttD2yHdpNtObfq1nX/i/fKCdovebuZprOdxNLZ6jz5uGpoZ7wWUNeCxeyGbi pkHpSCfO2gHr3Usfhex4PjeEX57phdqOzgYHrNAnbIaOdJbQaylNJtg88Sa2 lCaBBm+gQ8BX/J57yJyWK+g0sRbyLldzKqB3Ii+f8gdAerDsnXA/yYjanh83 iY/frundIvi1PKB7/f+jfBITYIdx97q5xvazrFVNd7xI1OnChy996xvP7yI7 y3l+APOZzx33VgPB++PreV6R3QC34rLNf0D6HN2WIbZloXx9gNqhvZa5j9u5 /k4tH4Z87eoKXuj2uWNbbs6CASw5LrGOZyv4enIhJ9HWNRrsudZaQJvlGRxi hdaMpRzrdF1lmR6dXVo/cV/nnV8AvoUD2lhrNVVsfR1c7Ii4mU/KxZb33UWT DV8K+lZF1YVAFdF12QGtrZWQ4FZlOVqeZBtr8VWAgI4KZMKrOVDtfJeeWVuQ FZl5+MZAXeBy/R7PNRH1BBLtBFzM7Z3ACWECKBroCWErGJ5bxJwSKZFeLVj/ apUSuLHXWA3Zq4FOwEGhunkEPGUDYB1dLPRRbQEZrdEOidFZgA1Zi1XedRkI 6NCatOXWBgphB76cW/QCCxwaeEGeblVHGuTfXWiUClpiVEmZXJjfXOxXNaAS IH4buDXcoYXAzMnS4NkBB7lWU92PGXZXFwoJr2HYoQGRfe1b+tWdbG1XZsnW 4lVhVcDh8Axen9VOW70FxcXFdH1X6HQWkHmZQH0VwuFWIMXCHA4bh91hWxRc LOjd2hEb6+CWl2lZIsIeH4wUHCIiNbIFkAGR0D0Y7XxVoBFhsl1iPfZWJsZF CETbWyCXN8lFH72CkWHZKbZFpgQaYFnVXWCPMQ4a/4dxgwroyYKlzhI6WL/J FntVVl1tY2q5G1GFWw+GHx+wAHp9oIgpYVxwZJJow0p+gQBWD1sIVMBZGXSp 5EpqA70NnOcRW9lF3Pd10Vos3pHBId6hkkp+wUruWCzAE2e9hfCkI7JBoSY0 FQ/iIncISNHxhbLZ41YKk15solxk2XGpQP4NwGTEwgVVXGXxFQsgII+pVnWI Yy8EJFzkzpIhXAL4I1vwDonN3TxWY88JnSByo6ChlhIBFpTYwZLFj2blCQss 2VDCxYjJhTQao3kU2pB5Wcbp10BxVS/QBF/FVluxF4c9V+ulVlvRWaFpIRta YKXYASwaHDe82gM4wao9Jf/PyWKlkKMV0lZS2gVXAudG6YU+0oXVcYcm8IE2 sBR6NNVa4Z82DEBQ0mETVcMXmAE8dVb6lMdKYsZOZmCXfQF52JGVJZpynkdl UST24OKe9ZwnlhlQjtbpxSGmwVl1fgaRkWF1imdcmSTZxQV7sYBnkiNmsoVm 6iZ0GQmk+Z8FjmZX+RuUKOhmNpqpgU6h1WGAepxcANlAJQAxcibtQWWZGUmr tR6FVdZ66kVwqqgyeeU+uoXVYdoyDpTN8V8fNRx6hU5lymgaSJxbbKgFZpoS mQ7t8FVfWmT6fZfpUaF8FloS1g43DNaGCinH5eNJEtjihc5rxYIzssUarmNr KVr/aI6ad34Bo3XRpS3mUsKZli3ed/XfXIhGa5nZgompNyJa/GyeXjKjX6xo n8KRXpwEXYRGQdqBf9AIocZbZ2lDDMLeAKwbo4afo76CE0yic90epPLYujkB adoBZUAGZTyAHfSotbWUe5mHS6lcS31ZS13aImqCJiSAEyDYIhJRJlCqXJyE Cb4FbSZAbcgqW3hmp7JFrrZFZ7zqKxzZF5TqoLVU/olkh/6qW42WE8BqFz5A WV5XtM7FjoBbAtxf/i0qqjIYESVmnggr7JnYX/jpuiJQUrnrqmzj0pymurJr vSbOu+LrqSzm0oTG4u1citprwFZNvhIsiCwpz8QaQ/KF/8AyrNQU7MNySC+c VM84gbqN6l40bMYKDcRybMe2hcaCbM147MhCbMia7MaQbMrm68myLL2o7Msm VcvKbKzAbM1a1Mzi7InY7M4eU876bDrxbNBu0s8SLWEI7dGuUdEqrbMhbdMW 0NJCbVg47dQyT9RaLdVi7eNYbdRmbdd2zdZCrdeK7dOA7dKO7dl6UtkWLdqy rc6o7dq2bdyCzNsSrdzabbzQ7c/e7d62U97mLN8CLqv47d8GbuGeyuDirOEq bogg7swu7uN2SOPKLORSbmBIbstilG9WLuNcLsu2ilOAbuhebF+d6mv+611o gxOoXas8AJRchtrp1E7lX55cxv8gVmNo6AldSOxOBZhO8cHvzsiSta5TDMDq Dtfu0l+CuW7xHm9oJG+rdO7JtkpLhS7oju6pWOZI8cFJXO9csNTpqgpt0sRJ 2IGPlW7iLVn7OUVMFev4ci+ckm/iBZhlJl5iNur4sqpcXOtrru+RiS/oYur/ hkb5ukr0GgvIfq6utgtkSNz+Gi9dfK+7QIZ77Yi2OkWbvWZTPUD7LZiyHqoD +5eo4qoCy5W4EpW2uh6kVjCwmrBTcJV5ZNcKQ6/kKgAnLMIijIDGTi8JD9et aS5ZIRjzzQUH35cIK+RUEnAP+5cQa8gF25gKi2sGphqpupdnCq8Rv4WyimP4 RbFbODH/j9kvXLzmnp3rF1cFpF5G+1bq4SKuAgTCIriCKyyCAOgwqwQqro5U /soV+eYuFZsro9JulMhF+61uf3mm0kGGrpHvhiWxUxAV9SoddCYeH3TmFEub /Q4qXISqOIaqoi2q7Z5fj2ZyJuslCX8qhmHqrqoxCHaxFpMVFr/ybLaFefww iAzuCNiwHMPxIgRCHa/KHceF9QqkZf7uSVCwS/HI9rqUSyEm+C5qlKyxskoc LaMWTWiYqDYy90osTXAVSw2Ahnnmr7IUraUxao3uJ3vxhHkmYooqV3WyW5hH KKdwUrYfYvJIgK0z+VLyroYnLBPqzokwOjOYtS5UF6sKyMoN/6kIwA3r8i7j cMZO72vuVI2dxJEt6qGSlXnwlbLeqpA0K6leb6ZQb66RpaO9sweTVkutmDGz MIfR5j5bmyC/dEpvMVol8bAW2qlaykkcqivX31a98yq/xfoCL02whU4PMEbr 5fj65im3xRgv6s6ZsWtmcAFrrD0oGawAiFaOhQLc8Fd/dRzTccNGdP3qcdl5 nxVXHKr6dCwP9FzEnjIvKxgP1imrdUufn7ai86Le5PZtL7OOYRh7703n9aDh Hws3nEFvL/P5810r4mEzq81BdglvsTbQlCOD1rkOa11FMIOZYDWkWFULrsZ+ g4aNFQCEZ2cdxggwtBw3NC9DtB272/9Qex8pw54It3VQm0/3hh9iXp8RZ3L7 xVg2r/VYQYZZv2aqoTNtwuZbCPRmj/Arb3H7yXP71jLslTNcTLWWZTehqh1U p3LZNfei8vaHgCyAgLOH4dRqg7VDf3UOM+znznY6z/J843YU6zamwSb3/StK q5ysSvN/u0Vn2zY6e+bvIrj23hlgjbNdKOsgdjc8G5c//7V4ux4P07ZcxHMy zrdH+9hJh3eEzzKG23LIyhU490IlkgVr6/JryzEkkLVsw+9PI1iA53YXj/Gu 5rgXI9v3HjIY559nrliBA7JmF1liUrOBwbIrt67aZfJUl7NtV4oCh+ckpnGT wzNgte4gbrj/gLUyqub3JpOVQI74DIesFXjYh6FUYXh1ezP0DXNCjP9yh+M0 GdOaZ47VjUucPx81YbvIjr/0F7OUOJ7ESnsfOgd4/XmZFhv0XIQGPgtrfic6 EaNidjn1n19sW3v0chm1lomrC1eZiBf2Ui/Yo7MwqO64i/CImZ83TdGUhmmD ioPFQru3m8N3wMr3jId6RFonqOv5Uzc3RyvZf5mrj7VfF5uHkp1wEhO5zb1m Sxb0NJuHjxXYW3hzS9LuUt/RUmH2nxdv7J2EOztF9EnyGrumstMuV7XftndU GEMG/pFf+4HvuydJnrDZtfe6o7UfvIv0A4vIybaBhmUIiisJWryx/2u7+Q0r QHzLeHSHX/w+OxVXGSyn+n1B/FmjomCreuJFCXGn9PWdr2iDMQpLeQpzvPCe r+qScf36GEvVLyjf78lXmWXmqtIde+LBfKom3mRXMx+jvFnn/L+frD2MjhWk toatOVeUDGuDtYvDcZwLbKvQ1Fwsyq6mmItVGZmPudJtGFzPkzni2HBVPFml WC/8l5LxGK1VecUlWSH7c9XPhYeFfUGO1NxrWYqZQaVap4aZO93DmHPX/Y6F pzn2PWkFPuD//X2Z9nWXOM7+SHqPzTyZQWpAQsK3dhz3ctQ/bIOvimNvLsbq LcGrN1McvOWD9cLjOsEe5WKrCreT+OfPhf/JtsHsEw3doLiGzYsbt3Z7u7Yc j7W9FuyxB72HkK+/wz5dgOw3ZBjfp8jyqzYACMBr87Kby3HmAz/BWrbxf0iG Ff7xx37GUgiKc3WGoM0IvHF72zAcI/wN3zq7ev/7fz/D2sOrj19YfEMbqHjl hzUvM33C/777A0QsgQMJFjR4EGFChQW1fVmYUJu2hwkfOJx4cWAviAof9OLD R6IZPgM+8nlA8qNFjAJ7PRgocqA2kwY1DvxSLVbNg9pQtsy5UmE1l0CJFjUI AGlSpUuZNnX6FGpUqVOpQv3Sq+XSb9Ww9qpmz2kgV2NdLVoECQAns2sXlQ1U FW5cuXPpMjV6t+j/Az53zZi520siXoROhhp0opCPmYoDvlQU+QAy4S9fnARe OaAwHycWNRceeJgg5AEJH38xMxq04Fh6Vbd+WBd2bNmyv2H9srRN167VrDCF tHasWaS/gZc1O2J2cuXLlbp2frAaTm29NlcbMECi3gF9Y+3N+cAMztMDcGId LdBML8zjzVCWPNKvdu8CO153yEe9X23jHRL23h49JzQ6jQ+VYmFMoMYEqsa7 B1KTiSD2YumLJJesGymzxFYbgLCcSOrPDAFjMe2kEeGLUKfDnAixJgId6oXA ABGUCSSBZnoOR4GY25FH2TrqpY3mumpvuqyWCoQtswRIqq22yFKyxyil/4wq xxwxm9CkL0w6SS/FPooFtAL70nLEwxIrzKOKsvQPJ8Y6qia9CVXizrpY7BAK u9Me4OlALsEcyME9MfvivASv60UlruhLrcQEt/TPJBgJ3bNDG+vkijAGBQXT y/ZMGs3NGtEDiUYw8bzJJD63OymiLFGDrCY4q8RxylptZWo6M4TEygywALhK V6UUaJJY5JBSK0mz3rqV2R5nfQ407kLk0Ik6Y4EwTNP0w8pMA70SaLrOAKPs OicKtGNVgrga6c9YuOKuT8LG1OnP8Gw0cMRqNluwJgcBLXREjwgD7FoY/epz IJAwKxAzRAXCDDQttTzJPSdERG8Ag10CDTBRMf+7Mjz1yr3KXIsgfNa1ZlWO 8t2kfoTRVwBy6qW3pMRKkhNhkzVOgZV9lg1l16L1Kz3IXLqSwXYZ60ukhuzo zlvpsKOso4YwMxoymXTCKiLU0OurpldPKpCgw+w90CJ/v+Z30Zfm46kaqmvk SlEwM9svxD4Jjtel6SZm7GrIXqL3QJamC+xjl7zyCjKHGgvRoemCbu3nyuGq mamrNPrGNKy+UupHnY1by1gmmyzLuCUtX72qyVUjm7uT+trstBi3g5xpPhg8 DMGMxMNO3JYyhrtpDW0E7Do7dZd3O48QZrfsychTjyD1otvX3X634+rKBckT V6LpZKfubso0kmz6vcz/5WmyTw9E3rK6P7PRau4R9opQOD8OD2ScXMeLdQFs Skdi0RR76GY3mENKeoKFFCQFB0pLQZZZILgsAV7QLv+7y35GlLYxrcY0kruK NoQymQkhSihCIUhD+EVCWD1ub1yxzGok5ZfKOIyBB9Mh4TgILM8UzCcJsgyv VKguRGljTy75QnbCU0R3uQRAigmYDq/ikD1NaDXpmaEJ1QUux33riR0cUV9c Ah4AdeeHGlwJBi94QBg5JTe6+YICZYaVAiJlWE4iHVPyOLq19IyNgVTjXeZz EPxYZ4aDNEyEDrbCSikSkq67SiSBEkgB5iRITrFHRb6QSaXUBkaY44QfF6E6 /6aIhZSuyJklMUjJlXARIXDClyvdRRBYDqQaiaTlLlujS14ehJUBVKBEolKz NqQHSEnJY5JKtxQBQJCZwbzkL6lZTWteE5sYkeYFZ6YNT2YObLZRygTXYko+ suVJZ9km67LZTne+E56DXKfK6IiUmdmmnm7sym2UmaxANJMpxWGLBefps3ge FKEJVegaC2ore/ilKVbQHIzumBR73EQx3wTAA9lizqYIIFlNAmRDVbZQk54U pfEkaa00V41vNGUrQ9KoU/q4FoI6ZQQhLcsqV8qslP4UqEGlZE+ldEJ8NsWo iKrnkVDXJLRIBUnoXAtRfSpUq14Vq8+hapQkOqSKKv/FCi+DqFN+MzpX3PQp IA2pOrc6pay+Fa5xnUhbo9QGrnBtpgCw627yGlUKLmKkUclpKhfBU7rySK6J VaxcDxulpM4RqXJ0ZrIMC1Vi/XURAG1scmZFnVly5LOKnCH5JmcujJDsQwjB z0J4MpLrYEdd1ApiTF47W+i89rUqaS1uZ3gaJ5DnIer5rf8iZLHtFKQjxiXu rDbbo67y6qtJeS4/kTICv+6xKpAgS1Mj2FzlzIoPdvAlQr5wp10mLyPdQxm6 LmIGO9jBYvCdZS/sUMiD0Be+8SUufS3mBPbi8r3xVa9BNOPf94o3I/A9sHkf Bl8O2YFwBRlAgP1Lr/AqGML/ZcvveyOsVe/yaK+ey+tWYgaAZybJo1PZ2VQ/ zNkqhTe00GGwK+sLyf8uhFwWcS/A9PJe+xqEQ+RFVxnDe7AHyJclGR5MaoD8 tIO4dyYnsUNooWyoKYOrvmWcsEXo26AtP6vFzpLjUpUy2NGhdSpqNatZnhpm 2ID3ygYRXEGqMePQpPHOB5mznvc8kBo/pM9yxvNqAv3nhdDXQEFekH/D++OC 3Lgg9LWMg87j3uWiV86GNgyTCRLewmjDDo2UsHpBfTBP20TJil6QnWnl5h09 145QGSV32wyXZfpRla5+84vjnBPxThi+OrnwewujrwDbVkAX9kt503PgG9FH MwHu/x2oFWxqOxQmuQEmbnm55WNsDxtdKvlznZdbNoARuDJHdjSq161qGzn5 1C+59k5CLeR1ryZCrPYz4X4rENMSRNWeQTSYdb2jEHvlpecsDpqpcl0/arbg U4GzSujLoY+813+ncfBQ+IuV8AKsv1wbEYSTzWhAVbjb5yHUe2HbnXk3OGPR Plh5UT7h+Xy825X6M6F8qe76lMyW9NG0Qeo8EuOqpN/Vu7K7J4Rgg7hXPfAl 26pHwvLPmibpBuF2QSy2mqEzvSLUOXerI86ceypVgqgLDsSpQhw9pq7scZl4 grsH6vmQm93qqre/nZ4gJK+m66um15cFoul4V9lQHaJ52v8Cb/dOx3noBylv geOLvdBEXun1rTr2so6eKwde3r68MEn8Wyn8vvbv8k59QZgt4cNsvdOP9LXF Bp2yuDMH1iXuY3BSDBfrUtCPDL89UnlNcTv/210zRjTWKP0ZTrd+IBO2pWdg 7OdCxnvCnqnzspX87qEoKMGBwTzrpT4U93La6/eeEHCp7u9zu7c/nMY7TVre 9P+wP/n27ZzFfAn96L+++7zPltLDYmJMNYbP4BSDqfRI+KpCLQir1hDQKeBs iHrNTgpl/g5kwQ7Mv5yP/EQtvFgPmYBN3AqJvoai80aO+yzs5fJFYN5L/NTP 785t4C6vwxBj3lJw4JiuzsaryRL/It6Qi+n8jnCC7MiK0Mm0DvRyRAKnpKxG JwLnYlhIySwqqwmXYu6SzEBuLAM1wyNK4iNS5Pn27t0AZdgspvoK7/pebglH TiNgTwC7w8CkzunGzwbprO+ETgZpYuk47QQ1sCDg7yKCMNIsUOlm6QhdTw0V UbVakOyukDl+z0lybTauK5ogMYNyJA19bQsxUPkMkevGEASTsMtYyOVKUOmG QvpWKMP8z+WgCF1M0b1icCKGbhaRyw4nRNReUQ6pj2MckRDpA4z+b20eD4p2 URANg8f+rA2Tzo6MkbkwkTlAarsyKzncDrNKSRpxg9cqsBNjYsbqjF66xANt iQxdrhwX/6XXNO0PXW6Gwksi4JAX3U3K/CcXE0b2OgMXb9DfHqn5mq6RKMM7 tu/kxs79bOnfaK8gG8xAFJLAes29rE23lMy/sG0IXSOvtpEucgr4tFE5biak NDIp2qBKapATCeLGQG22LAZRBIUM29AVQ7DB2uMmgM0yfiszXo5cFENL/kse Ty28EAVVMG4RVwOJhAw71CQA9VAhdqwxeMLpHGRFlsi/kG5FFkPfkqxAHsDY dCzc9gQeVy0pV+4GQW1qQqRSaA6JjM38YpFSzvE5MlIk44KcFqEB54IaO3Is ohASv6H4Euwbhe69LGLlFqyQYPIcV7FMFowkyHDCLiYIje3Auv/nJ+eNMhbM XPZu3LISXOYwyzJNBsHtHKntwOilvBaMHzVwwZYL3FYk80pTIfDrwHprA5dL NjnsWRJuG0myImKhxKhiCv8qsGZjsIDDpubSHqpEfGzCtoZxigxkXRyGkZBL OsFlHJGJiSZN5ArGM8ADP2aoIwxEcuhDJHQHPQIDjKqIIxhovKrmITTnjAYQ PxBRJPZGIcLFthLEI6qTOdPDAPXzTLSOV2bpKuYTZX6zCWMKgbwJLjiqCnlk 1k5HpETSChbLQi/0p8js9o6pK0hIN+RyKbCxLNguNrARZ+YSQ1NURQ9KGvUJ suoIMKjCuvwIEiBBAW4UR3MUR2uURyH/QQB+VAA4QUgDgUilyjiPQyRJckWX lEl/CUTLrki+Cpl8hXOg4sTWbK3WSu20NEuBo/eaMDmbVEzHdJAQdPhASRt2 hZ8eqhd0cyk4Uo+ONJ2SBJq2lE6liruUBUXJlE/7NBoh8Ud0U5+MCSseICzU jgrjtEu7NFFXjC+bUEn9VFIn1SieNOJyRSmK5JsYqCmW6Uj1slEXNRuz1Dis 8ArDlFJTVVUXwkyH73BGUpwyFSvqCSRTyTie5FYvS1SVRVkscXSGExJXVViH lSC2cTqqISkY6DdbxpmgiVi4yzgCQUh/1EZvdASu9Vrb7rKexFQTlFi/NVXd 9Apzwgx640cM/xWsYjUpODJUpVUAFIBE64JOIShehw9c79VPNdIKbAOUyhUL sUKjJihPA+Fdp0StJpGCvlQC/RJfG5ZJxTVYPQdgtYJXluLW2IITHnVHitOf 6vX2HBZkVXQuf6VDFYhDk0kpalVZNLZH6rKjRBJVQ1Zm46pVIXGizKAhbmKf JktCOcFjd8RTJfQuhy9SZ9ZorcpSI66eThaBEOVNj1Rha8US2YJlEfBor1ao MPEbigQn7OKu8IopBNYjfyZogWNob69CsVZtTUpDIy6OdMMMZsoK7OEblupi o/ZWbiZX2Qw519ZvD6pmI06fmlYbAvdIiKVbVYY4ttQtRpZh/xZyr/8JYl21 UMFik3TjAdoWKU5MTwWIS6sWAYs2ckfXlZJ2sx5Ao/bVaZXCHorEK0AUTpFU gA7Wn0ZWr0gXdyPJdBsLlL4gZuJocpm2cJ0iQtlKgGLXOF0Bbxc2d5v3fybX 1c4OXWujgZgirDDXN/QocStnlP6Ku352+GLWecf3OQw3zC5Kpva1eg3IdRVI Eu3Sktj1U7f3CtOWfO9XNTRX14R3OvT3mKKLnIBVgIr3SEEXUvEXgYlid13t erFXLm5teSvnYrNRgLfRfhMYgxNCf29va3UjuqYiqs5qm+oSmv7JdpPicTNY hWMBeqWRaX23KtTMGqUpOPdWWcDXW1c4gVv/uOxYGCoauFCnInYNmHWmlrtM uClwWNfsQXR1eHTbwHwjLjxrZkI0qnVlKir86mwDSLvm1TgFoJkUgEiVuOCY 2IkhF4rn8kf8gk1phimEt1W7WHbnyeFWrLCC1K+IGAHptg2a+IyJtY+/IYoX 9muj1CmAWCOY4n31OIBod8UYt7tOWJInmZIb6uz89Sns4WvRNSkmiH4tyUjr NE59tpJL2ZRPGYPamKKigkN1jy3IuJE7MhtzNYJR2ZZvGZdnY413g4etQKP8 qpYDSZad9YZz2ZiPGZljQxeTc8yo4mC32JKo0YbhLpmr2ZqvOZMz6YqhSyn6 WJGLpa0clJQYGZvL/9mcUVl4X8qN0jRly4mu3C5XA6GCz5me6/mWzw5OJjYp 3O6T6ZhOkdieA1qgbRl9dYOdq8uvYNmSghagB9qhH3qSQ0wbFOiZyoKcpelg +xmiN5qj9/g3i1OjGwpJgrmjS9qk4w5ZoJmkFPqkW9qlGwtOWfqlZ5qmZ5oT Grqmc1qnd5qne9qnfxqog1qoh5qoi9qojxqpk1qpl5qpm9qpnxqq484KrOAb +pgg+tgepjqqt5qre8ovNUczXuEVEoGsWSARXkFAwgN1N7ir29qtbYWqY2Ee xjoRMiETEgCvE0ATNIEXuIEbQgCwWyEBWAAz2oCt3xqxE1s22qCqnUCs6f/a ru9aExJAsv86BFRABdJAExrCsBXbsz9bOXw5OedwrO86rzOBrBPAsjE7DULA PwcZtGNbtlk3Fio0vt6LrN9LExLBCRIBvnjhsllbBTyHh2d7p+0gG5I7BPw6 AQbgsLeqGrIhDQaAKcwgG4YbAFQgG7jBnpI7udMAvDWBD56CD7w7DQ46Fsz7 FXiEBaT7uZMjOcOqv/xrrMd6t+0gE8R6tTM7DTwibo2bqF8hGzTBtFlAuzNB abVbBZhCE5L7pbjhurvbuyc8G1jAKcrbu+0gWSfcwnckE5L7vWejj61AG+b7 vV4hE/qawBNhr/cbvEkikQFcqJFbo5wgG9Y3zAT/PA2+6hvSIBsQHABCYLsl HCX4QMClm5OVAsMhPAGSwsa1OxvW28NBfGVGfFr668Tr2q71WhP+mrXBO9k+ WMZ5msaxMBucQCtiISOTM6/Y/ClIEnPgvClI0nSV1CqSG82ToheSG1mzOxtC QMLHW8/BvCkGILkhPA18RbshPMrBapKeQqI+BwAuyqWU4hXAe24hw0xZI5P/ u3UMezzmActvm6zv2stZexk0L8kdNwRWfSlegbqkos7oYpOW4guk3EdgWype tC6+wVCtIARC3LvsIA006gGyQdBlRhPAOw1aIcnbIBN8fLsr6htYQNpD4KCt +9YxuxXmqL2luxeaQxMy/1sFEkDMkcIKbFzasdspFFwpGjwNagbCuRsAjh3Z uzm5NZwpDD0bkDsbbqMN8j25cd0MpP3PObkVrvsB+JsbTGPdwx0p2jsNzADK 7z0ptAG8k1sFDnrPs6EXEj4birs5QH0eSn4eqCUxvjC+ujy402AZWGAkYn1k B6AVOtwpMqHPp8IMbD4ufmspqqHJZ6PYlSMbdL0p0AUArCAbhL25iP2bvqEV VMBXYiGzSYLmswFd7UHIM+bJ1Zkb0kBABkDI+9y6M0ETriOzX6EVrkPIMykW NLs8M/vckZsFsMLfz13d76gNfFzf/Zze7T3ZAYDfqZspMLzg7z26bzzfFyi5 Kf8bwkMgk4S8FdIAr5O7wVng24ceADKfsqWdnb/Ax1XA7KX7jjr+w4ecKiQK invB5Et+vum71Fke1TNBM3BcJHdcBQS1LxIO55P+C8RVk41k579BAZPiO1zG mBg7E1jgm4D+oWL9+OvdVzrJnmImvXth+j19KZ4/rJLCNO4ovTEZhcMj+f9X K/LbsIt+P+IcZ5mepJCbv6VdEzxJr2PGCjKhFZDCxnPeuqnbxiEeIAB8a8XN CgAz2TIBWDgg4UIAvbKZWdgqk8GF9jQleMjRXhpNHPlk68WRY6xs2ZwsFJnt wUNu2UIsPJmNj81Xr1Bma1OSIcovCbKxAGAnW5o2KF//UczWyqC9EA4BtEJZ bWHOlAudoNS2kEXShW3SZNsIQFM2TQatmCUb0aiZARN7yhX4oE0bPvPy5h3g xIkdO68SZUqQQBMvbiFUpEmTiY+duHMjS55MubLly5G1tQLgZABYxkFjAchU zUoChSbTnM6m1EziTGmUEk3DQgVZFaKJ8vmy2PPDaipCwJbNgrYKha8822O9 8OjDotxiWeHGDbbvh7FUa+KmAoCVVq2Kq8zJjedDbQk1OXdCPdNIjtrSqBhg 5Wwm7gZ7Mdakwjzm/wAGOFlRmmRiYHGM2QOAR07E4qCDWvFUUUm5abJZSNl8 cdB7C6HHB3bvIdXgg7EUpaBc/xcthNB1PcEkU1nZcMMRTBc+oNONRpEkF0tf aKWCWmMhxRxNH65k1FI/LlRUhgtVg1Jc7mWTGwBX2RMWVj5lo2BbKv33TV2x 4NULAdp8YeYX2lRTjRlm9NILH3y9kokmISQwwCulCajnnnxilsBEbXQHAB+o 9aJhJr0kMFRJbnaYxoY8eeRgGgp+RxJuSn7YWUnVUArASQB8oUKlIVTzBUja JBaqjBw5NwBqSH3DUSa+vdLdAHYsZEUIPGlZUhpccaaQExfyQdZzntUXbBoP eCQrRIv2Ke20Pb3iHEcRDWXjYtzqpGFsc6WRK0c2ToSQhgt9weRM76Fn1GI3 TllSG/+9vNqKCtmwWFJDGQrJoosL2WgUSiGwYIdLc7H0gJPZdFpToMwxHJ6B V0mYjaCcoWSeu3F5lUaKWkkp8GksZBKySxGlAdll33wRywPzvAKnTTb1EsrN NxOgMwE3GzLPYAOwYEaK1BZttGVI2dFXNlwhpcIr6EYp70NtVDNAAo+acSwL b8o2qFKY6saZvtWQtRwAuD6UNqV28JHGN3bo61wCVS2UQLDNmfdAdwmEAF4r aZDkK9XZUP1oX+mCxFHc3mVzkSZmpvE3d0dXvmdRUwOAtRU2DvAmH5/z0UZ9 XnNU37ggkoQQwqECmzoATspMs5t8PFtSyCgloFWRcgkZt1H//gGAr6BEXsZv XSiZ1a9YrekkVryax/hQyBs/2ZVRKYp0lLooPe8tRFsB2IbLX9yJYHC88CIN NZ54wgorOcQv/zyJ2Imo7Zbnn78Tdg4QNFnfIFQ2cpUJFvCBVSFhTF+yhhoA cI0PXoOg8HIjs7FxymyF44vaciW06JCmP7/iyd0eQrdW6a07mnDCmb7QqxN9 hnAWDJXikNW4x5kpBCtEl/52SBnM9cQ9VsKSXLhROti5RAUXeghCuLK6h6gL bychyQPSwLvJ2CgTD7iIk6rYE7N8ZCwlMUuNUKIvyRwPAFAJCqW+8RXurYwj U8EY9TpkPQdq7DlG+Ubx5IKQdWEm/xYu04b5VEDIEKRvfe17n/zkZ4hX6K4x weOhJPlkhTRMqT5tYFO6ZEKasuhLBQgTyUE+5h1L7u0iCfgQDhfCDU2RDYMA SNVDWkESbbhnUHTqyXpks5zgNSYr3bFDtAbQwl+FEiSbkmFJGFcfG7JRbzqa pDQXJ6WSfEMFrPKbC9GWCVnZ4VoLqg5nLMmRoMjKSVPijQ6jWMoEEK0zRDOS vNxTRmx1j0MPgYqgBMZFM6LEJT5iikC+4hGhPMcJRZoKApdUPYlcLw1d2tXF msMchrQtPz8B0MtiYbVX1KaQ3FAfNdjnvkW+LxR2SGEqIznNllrGDAjsihNs 9AonhMAznf8Miy9b4YRM4OsgIeCGTReViRA4gU4GsYMKjtpKtHFjZWXDSOHK IlTwpAWMJymjCljQhm8o8GnzAo18BKIaphokNsHTD2BaEsNT3Y4bpXHcQiA3 zr+ozKUtLUo1HvQAY3EIIaVyUFFQcxJN7BUoTPtUGp76MveMq4npatjrBsUU bbzsFQWTC3oy4aBToaRLc/GqTraJxpgEjIzG+yf4xOIZ0cpGK7H5wlVkY5YX ZWwndOSQx8RlS5QUiV8s6BG+CpXR/zzgAbF4C2AISciQ8mKknhDE+6YrCFmg VKWiw6t2K6MN1oGFJLHgC7qqYR4zma4XTqgKH+wRC8sOoG5NckL/L1L0FkCK xgqe40jVdHUdMzhhaEpE2ADwN5MGLQi9OuTIN8xgKlbZA70ABsADnBDJ8BIz YAjLZEnsARe0KVFv/svcdvfnPJ2ooIosgVcCXBifgeXLifgSC0SVyFY6QhGf sA1BCBgTz4dcRSwhQAho53IV1OVTehL2bWrZShOHulZXUXqeOxcClYXeEXZ1 jFJbUGJkr7h4xUZy3X++cFzl2qq5mpjFAfQgClkcQBTwiHMLxICAL6TUDisd sZ73zGfLmMw7BuuzoPP3hdmZwUFyWbBNMmePaoCOwFZwdHapVjtK+8cefJAX vUDH0pIUejcdiuZcwjSAzNVLR98I8WXC/1vpQdmkUnBKcI9qmmAzgM6JrwbL ojtkEwC0wS/wfcgDgmaHYN9l0pghc3JxdWZGlOIGqkCAHl7hCRZs4wSqkIMc EFDno9oBkoMOt7i32waYJIS04063utfN7najSNlmDkEHSrENaR/gAIl4xbVV 0WZZJCIRofB2Y0Ts7oIbvDL26PHBF87whjucTy1zmRnm8ZcOdOAWcrCDc9eX CGTYYaTSCHnANeHRXhD84ShPucpXzvKWj9seD5A4rpAhAhHoAQKzYAELEhBy aoQ85OnjRcAT8IrHnNzlSE+60pfO9Kb3xEzLtkMLro0ARyDAA2J4hfqAHvT0 oTcBfyGv06UZnf/n8EpXvNLgQ3qBOm2oB60LQa9k2hCCFG0HO5vRRKcjYwdR o83vv5GME2gz9sIbfuzd5SiuzCCKxiNjTs7t+mGoww30ZkJpYj+8/n7ZnKa2 jihGJhRDVNaGEjnHMZNh1mfC9qoJYobzVCPwC+dSny+gW/O4zz3Dla0NimOW uc2VPOV1fOKeKk0be9c9n3pBWBUwnyFK+UtIFIKU4B0Vdr75Qi+8axXf8IEF ybHbpQBpBts1uhrohj1Yyrv9uPuRUxlSUKPNcKJvjC/Yys+//rd73PFRvDbc AlLUoWPEx1x84ATgNwDIt3/UEhZZYQdIMVdVIX0PIXqt1xHZ8A3250D/BSMu F2Q3DKY4uIVEheEc2UEY5DQrXMQ4RVUcuTIVTdET38EUyKUaQYEy3NAKx8KA PNiD+vMy/idMiiEfwUGAiZEYhLQYJwYYyfEFsueDAIIp3KAhoAQAvrIkN6IQ SqNLrINbv7ZhhVMf9rAcVhALgjIfc0UStBR3MTUaK0gfXqgSDjgXZ+NJKtId vYAxUOhylVRER1NJQ7aH81IXfYWAsiALISAL1CAImKCIzzVSO6aEvmdAzSKI etJ3bGQQyfEAFyJMGqiBPQV6PVFNC+EeqYRurdBeFzKFqOd6VMIHzaQrcvUQ 6kcUnhEUCdALCjKHclGHGfgQWvJ8lthyfbhD/1ZQi8Poaw/wJY6RCWEQBoIQ BqkgCNQgjamQCrxACryANb0BGFwjHckIINogNKhRNv6jJKGnEK5BIbOYLkrl KRyBUIzDGT2FLmEjM7FYQyq4TNn3jlbyKHQ4VYNjhQ8WLeGIcpVkZAcpSeOj R/6VCalADakQBpiQCphgCKQgCxHZiNiYCNxwJ992aAq3kLTHGDriEQmAMBS4 EgphBWiIEa2AOvbgNatELrCRG0BBSq5YQaXSJHrohvz4DV4DSrzYE3XYCnHB G9BCktv1IJFReqN2XwM0GbEQPGV4cog2GaX3hJNhJck3L1lZcG2gDQ7ZU3TC DdtBGLzQCkFlGIeBTf9GlQjftoBMaRlm4R/cAJCiWIGwgkR+wRglAR4ImCQl cSSyOEP3+CHogROJNSsx+Re5wjiC6VNWsBx2oHB1qC5F51C9YJB1KUlu8zxp cB3WUm7dA1X4whTZoZAv8SooQRJWgIWjuS+iWSSW6UTqYRQJYB5u410n0SVt 4FNGEQJ4syPeM5vuNpZ65Gh+AZk4gRP/JhiDYSHtkULBdXSfiWsc8QWQYV7Y gTeR1hmZYwXopYt8FGztF3cn4jJg4T8sJUj+c47sSZ7ydRHa4AS352HtWWoz UZzZqT8DwBjaVxRpgC7FEQIyM3jX4iRPxQfb4YFyoRgnll1BYUAChDpeoQn/ cAITE+ER44IerTAANpEGZ+cRBqkVovEN6iGiAwA4CcYRDUFLBygWb5Ruyjk+ bMImb5IXffEX0WkghBGk3xeW/1mkRupSqsERnVIrL+Z+CRUCLuQVrLkQijEl EZFggycaJ+E1HiEjHkoRpXNNslFUKZIArJIJrWA7VvAKSfQraPEbU9lu30CW LWMT8wAn/tWjfxEYgjEPZjqEd0KkRzqohJo/RMMb41IctoMUnpFV2xmnPREc HFEbJPIyNYE2pAgWsrIcKmEjJkcisJEuYnYSH1JJLFCpDUFwRLOl7mYPLARz huAz8yBfz1l0gPFvjQE4hYQrUFmovvqr1PINbzIn/4qRqHo5UJ6BHgnmEX5I pW0qOTiCEkNhLQGpEn10T4xxLa0gG0XBE0jBLaLpUL1oawbCPO5mBa/aV3mB E4mSb7YKmXbQI9ywDMswob0KrPiar5ihHzoBdnHqFfr1YspqOpBaEkjEEcJB O6BjExryTXQ4YyLRNgtbMycyeN+wKxdCqm4SOsjGEWbgPf7arOKGrqMTCzu6 HXwQAhqRCfmmNAMwDwvjZc5nBnahrzZ7s3OBFK+QRadlrAHbqPjkawWLsG2K NZERoPgzlpWJFeiBf+zYC+iBakMbGV6VALbHLiIbblaAfFYwlgTAfK3AB8Gh g5lQdCJqcnaGlq9QJhuYf/8DEGSTGgKXxA3+aRXRdEAk6gQX8QBGyA12QFp8 a4Q1KSB6dDSx0EArYYRYtJ1QKmx9+woKYlOCqxKZoCFfILghIGBQcVP5lJ91 6SQJVhRdUhs/6x1bFY9GNRcqG4+ShR2ZwBXqUkXu0QacOlBFJEzltK0DyZb4 g17v2bpZYVDtRrJdqw0EoH3vpR5IxLJ2MA9vUnr+VXQu07bKpxXHshyZ2gut MEP7qDmtwEIPYKYGwRsP8gUTsp2WRCKeWxlcczQP0IY99SANYTsJELZOlL6A VCC+5iAF5CA8AVewI7ckYhDsQYipS5CEaiOagFyIVVHFUbqUhUWx4AT4MqUA kIP/CiYfpZZcU2Ee/LHB36QUtZsxVvsyUmpPSepEY2FZptemhFPCD+BliKtu xJtJw6oyMLFYCZAICPUm7QUbqsFC1Kt7PTU4ZuAeUzKFZVcSv+QaRJNCoaKH U+RpPykQU1KzEmYGrPMF6Ep/vgZ2kcImnZZcNDsT7FXGC7FgZAa/pfNUn0F3 92sSU4WOM1IV1dCGFAEZMbwQA3mkWHgxH7soAEs41xEyYuEkFozBJpGaKKEC OtQGaiQWFrEgQrQkz1NE2Ouf/Dow3TQXBIovIdALflNwdWEFC/YmXiG28sEN ROcEzmty1fB2nGV/Xzl2TuBIUIIQuWGGg8Kav0QrJaEN/90hKvHowsQcVg+h CRPRgqdrhToIOPbwsc5Xte7BfbbCAlMhGvWrg0ymGuDBxhyhAsHiF2WBLkqp NjG1khdsx3hMFFMYT8c6qGGyG+NbJIVmOnzgXZsmK6AmF71Qo6ECJ9rQY592 Sf38XZzGR7BolLZ2aFQJOlwsYQvdblVpymYQNxR8NdikKDV1p9XQeyGwB3vw CnaBxdX7Cs8nhqRYQR4RT79EnPNSOOryN/IxNeoCrqTUCk3jOGYQLVZrhTpC tw6kOopjBgl2jCeiCbfIrbmiCTrCAvBrWNXAfElSSTxxxJH1N4QkL+oMwE6C 07oyeGfBO+2Ms2a9Qw5iytqAXv+33BkaoXPvWg3EsgeMsANOYH9VqX+3nImx bIWisRw1NXh+90sALMetYyZ20LiedhQlbR7PFzRUgkTgMWO4NRoT0b5hERt1 K2FsN5t/shK58ourcjtbpXMDcCIf26O/qE52ptjPYWRezSuNTSEpixozfNa4 nT8vU5mARAAMtn1+UXSBUXTaQBgetbbsldf5d8tSMY4fUk0OGp8at7+l+CHq jEtR/BA793RVTMlPoSEGs0K98iyZcNknyXzCqyvUkRwhqjl1I0GD8wXg3EXJ 4T9K/XlWsYN7yUrsbJRgBha/aMG5PeDTEnOV+QUfvSaHlqMbywdmoA17mggs gH5AqNf/ShE0zlFNjtwqw0YWbowUj+w6x7wggUPFc2EwAGksFSgaol3eQx1L RZId23khLnmL760USJkV850aKTLF51xKotbV/d0TnHtaBlHLBJ7kAQJIVsA5 bPeyKtScHlUyfYEYilEqMFcXFi60LyIlP54Vp8oaxXEiTmIyXpF9evix24So 8Bos6jIu08FTWCMrLT4RdqDTJ8EC7DFkOkvBKpArJfQ1SSZMQXU7fnjd4vzl neJCQg474gKvGjJFKZQTRXKZSn7p0tJeTf4A6BUnEI4TLOtRNkEnivG94xML XGl43tnPteOdlPYp/oM/D4ZQ/kEvjKJp8RmfrINsVuBf5jko//YZKe/la3xR txZWlXZsHoDUnr1g6+TyooMSSWbi7GuXTrXmrbnuPwgz6xfGECOJ6eBeGWOZ cGGiNDt30SwgGDpnQDGTl5JTlWSW6uE+7/RO4JmUcGPpJrgsTCUDfrLTU9tL 0oDkhPVe8AZv771wsXOqJgeoDba2sW5iJtpwgG3jqmayvgef8RpvpG1ATBb9 F+oBGKdxGvm2o9xoBxF3tRu/8tJkBYPQDzDfD4PQDDPPDBwxCDgf8ziPDgEQ T+gg8zgf9DjPABzBDECf80c/d7rZEzThNWo0GVHy7UaTE4yMGK8wNfyCndN0 m5fxa6NjD/fJP+LCP4RRtv/1Jtx42v9oEtEs3/bGGPNwD/PocPNxD/dzzxGH UPcx3wwcEQB6H/OT4UWkxS948/SS4R46yUNXEa0pmCVaL01fyjIz1eQE0BdY U3Q6uMM11SZ8oKvlt9Y86/aiXzku3w+HcA2ojwIocA3FcPO6gA6oj/oB8PKD 0PoPkfeDEPu6jwJFL/MBoPuxPxlt4XdTcaySNhkeI/VFkxNUZBMDoDxtmvWC NsKWATcEsOn/jGciWnSdAdG+vXOQUzWZpvyjX/7/UfqHMBmDoAvpzxEFAPPX gPcyTxl+3w9AACBsFBXsIkRUWcaI32MA0cbMA3sADB48aC9Wr1hWED58+Cqb ioIHM2XL9u3/4ACMsQDEMtMG4sFvX8x4HImwTa8HKT/yIQjRShonLkfac9IL gJU22swMSOSEzys7Tgbw6fWFgBk7RNvEqsanoU2qVa1exZpV61auXb1+BRtW 7FiyKa0M6seMaj9d6B5iQKv2ILp+g6oy69cPCFcW2dJoNOikI8KLaR7GaoUx m53CDg+20aQ4zYCRA9IoVqGzqsQ0FQ3awSjSIMdsvRIoZgHRXl+MaVq1RNhr YjUWl7O1Avw4cms+ECdnxTnACk8+TmprstNKU6tMdgaY6eVEhQpNbR5ER1lW +3bu3b1/Bx9ePFYredEVQI9+L0K0bg8COZQXBUK6g9Lfd2yQma5+/8Xuo8eg KjMw6s0gbrLh5qHIDEtIBYw0OS2xbPKz4sBsWLgom5oQkiibTFjYrUCbOPPM ihAw8oyjNKjLxEIzELJiNxZYcDCb7AAY8MIQMpHQDpUcTCOT3TQ7SAURrbJn ACeGa6O4V9LQxAnlmHPOjOLSCLKNL/gY4MbxvgQzTDHHJLNMmfJqBq26BmHg IbTeHCRONB+iKy877SwGIbzuvDOAqmbKJgGDHriMSINOywYh0gqsprX8SIMN tL8O+gKjVwyy4rRJR8zmlaP44CPDSzfCyMePSlWUQIO+OTHBg2QL1KFvLmuF w4lEkzQ/ALgx9M8B7LDHCpzsqK0VKTXRJP8TT618Mg07HqhmgAFEM7Naa6/F Nttrz7KTv7zaRKjbNfNiRlcA4uMTTz3vjFPNa6xiTSTQMnroIhUQ0jS/BfW9 7aBYMHrRIM5yqzSbI0diTTHFWqEWAMuy0eYgjAQ9KDFXR8MINhxVNTCbEBBy MDWDtMkYIU2qycqKodoYjksnEnjlJ6R66UUbk15RIY2Z7eCjYW1/BjpooYem qry2/lvvILaYueYaBuqS66H47EsPCPR03a+//woIsKqC+ajQQ4h2Q6hVwvzK j9ZM1s5wQwAS+5iky0Z1iTUss9GEBbAfIi27yygGwJ7LRB4ZIyJzRNmgxO41 yB6MPpwRUUMT+CL/Kx34SKQhnr744tdeiGWBqJqjAvWLV3rJpGeiV2e9ddfF NPoQqtqbi1yI6ruLv6S3cpByjBLH1y+QETw7jfxCuCxn22g66MCLA7eUKtY8 S6nvIvFOaG6ECj4co4gVF37Vu21TjLKDWPCyaMy/GO4BO+xIgBvjEmglARYG mMcO5FPPxLRefH5dAAU4QAL+CS2yswntMNWMuuSJPnm5S166xhXBpOFAxoMI oooXPAyCTxM2aYy/MGK+uqGIKtYzyN8QciDAAQBW39sYxA4SmYsBim4psQMA bXK5RGiDSUpizABekYBkJSJ/CQiBCozDgl5oIiQFhGIUpRjA8vQDgS5R/6BB CvAtXdUpgv2Y4FYegJET3fB84QsMRip3KozkR1KieYDeqAUrEXUofQ+Z3gkH k0KxHUQiKshOJlaUnxzB8EBxM8hFWuEYpvAhN1zRQS8S0YtgWWEhRYlOIiAX quW8wgncOAo3njhFUpbSlNXi1hVTkhdVAmBPfqpdXtoly0FMMGtqupMuCnCV xWVDYxxUCa16YQZNXDA//7pNNYjplxI5KAQD0EaHzDgSEunRRgdR4WNoxQdt ZChgBilkxTy2vYn55DTP+4gOXaIDM0zyG8MRViy+AC0uKakaTsDnK1rBRCeE oBqPPGVABTrQslSxlRAxz0POoruDoCtdEjzInv/y4i1v7dIqpEHkQzSIkByV Kl8clYxffgmANlhIMaaSngltUsHsPO4hXyAfx17lveahEWMK40bDHIdSq1ih nT2Dp7DsYY9vgIRLTcFQc5BiBxUQgHoEhWpUpWqVplnUJU1zIEIKgIJrWLUY TQNrWK+RnwKIVaxhtMk3QDXSg0TrYB9xgh0itqW3fqMXrzjdUynlhNTdcSSd 25tNFsIHz3AJeAexwj1TB8BYgIpa0PnmY0JlBzOYS2VrxMoXEiGVoH7jKfSU VmhBRbO7quALOphqalW7Wta29mdxnMcDgtpZmc2MtKCikWxdu1ve9ta3v9VK LIzIvtnaQ0ujJe1tB6D/CRXoFrjPhW50pQvVNtghEdUYDlE9K89qdNcM0OnF UYuSrFigdrrnRW961Tu0b2jjAW2A7zeGOt9v1Be+8I1FfmPhXnOt17//BXCA vSPU+RbYwEOFp4AVvGAGN9jBD4ZwhCU8YQpX2MIXxnCGNbxhDnfYwx8GcYhF PGISl9jEJ0ZxilW8Yha32MUvhnGMZTxjGtfYxjfGcY51vGMe99jHPwZykIU8 ZCIX2chHRnKSlbxkJjfZyU+GcpSlPGUqV9nKV8ZylrW8ZS532ctfBnOYxTxm MpfZzGdGc5rVvGY2t9nNb4ZznOU8ZzrX2c53xnOSl6g37bAVIbFgQX5AdRVt /7BAnSPxM4fYZ2is7LlXX2mDRpwQWa18YUYsABagL80CM6DPIHxAaRsCfRA+ bPoVVrj0KxL9mEyEgHI26QUJuYJqWVOlDXrd3qW4lOeALscJEnmrVwZkk0rl Z228XMxV4EcVnVnBCYeGCDeMJRFKd8VxLeEDZrfCBw05IQ0JaMOvO/XsFpE0 G8CrlGfu2QqaDMBxLOCrL23i6k7TC4cf9EqjJmSVNmQD2nwwjDJ5fUrkGEQT r/hGAqSTJOp4pBfcUMGo+RCC17jwfSoQzokyAYCJVzzhIZCIsSHkz4SLJDoq 6RSDHiCoTMWiDQlwzRdigSUnrBx+L4eSSHRmjwQ0RP+QFcdnJlQQWfkpLocK D4EVehGCEPRm5QNQgXMibpClNx0AoGlFLE73EeaeGgCZWG4IPDKAJPIU4J9O lLlF841smCEBLUz3Qz7ZuGys8dguSQML3qkNe8TsIwmwwhe4AaEPOkfoEXu5 EgEgFACUHF99CVgmIlYch5UdAH2pTib6+QDpGInjhlESjiw/cCgi61el6Xcr BlCNNMQC6lbIhrudEIsxXsd4oImFYJxto9r3wngsYFhfjN16jtgDlADw/EGk 5LiINQp6X9CfPaCTKYY1ionR+obid173WNgh4RtPgApEzTgDaUKIbe+3+cco 83OTDDqxrxTtuX/uMYJNfjP/mVYrLvXtNuyz39UIt9zgNiVRAYrpN2rhNn8j p6eau+cbDfIbCVjhFYepFSf4IJpoA+p4m5zikbd5hQwcJsPoBQjstwd4BXzT GQAYov8LwEapLCzpkldwvUQ5Owy5ui9oFGgjPaJhLvvRiX6rHDugCYmAjIkA FsuIKxtJDgAoNtlwGJrAPYwDAJIxto1juwfgA274l0f6thHcOOdzHJOYmMoZ IgBolIL4BilJtu1jn+UKFACwn89boQJkInNriQZUFir8l1urOzxEOHmTn7g7 uxQcIitwJuEgtUDRvIo4QIRwlpfKBgZ0lTAcDUSqLjvQNum7CG04wMzoN484 wbfx/xGygz3NC4FA86UoSZW7UkBCBLxDtKRW3BAzECQaNAwbtDQH0cEdFJqC e4xr6ifOIa4v8DaeSQPO4Ts7+KAmtEVktIcQqIkBETlziwW2y4QWIplWaIUD sYdGsQK2q5wmiQwrKEPng8NMsIdW8BE27Kc2KEOYkcPmcRtqdBjGQQ499Lcw hDqD8z5ArDkF3EdX3AltAA0RObuHaMSDeCZIlES6W6ODe4z3WaPsW6PfSJZI /MTL+yB1rDzYc4Iv0AaPwBAFLBIV0EbmSUEWYDmCNJg9BIAUrJQHGLYazIR+ OwmS5MUA8kWDyMh/GYBWExy5MpJ++7XbW8YJGZD/0ZAnsf8Cy+iFxDC22BO6 Q2k7wqCYmZCKpaw7/Ymme2EqHEw7+uG2/SOsrUwD36sVeDxIA5nHRuy3ovA3 fOTDL3hLwWCZxfiGouOGBPA9nXDFflu9NIChtfzFhllIcoIQhQuMSbwN5koD aNOENDjBa5KNjXsbTQC4jRzFjwE+33uRSnmeShEN6XibVvA9cIs91uNEDRGc 3qgUPkgMe6BJorwIv8rJoTEDbWtKwMg9J9CIcKMsg+hNkTAJkqIMZ6uJ4fy0 2ZM1bfCJZ0M7XZGKtkIZM2BOk3OO37SD/zGfNIQJneCsaXG2LumNaqicxoqN X0oSRsQnkWgDyvgGd2tK92xPcMqHIZbYCVBbo+nEQbjCxD97q/VMT4QMrecY FM1oyqMwA1yDkc+ZPZ6UocDJieLMTQC4jvy0g8SBvSP5AiJ5T+OirP7Mvf/k OO+bTotrrKfoDW1AGYK8Dtu8TQUzA5AzsgcQpK7QukiM0SADlf4CMmLcxZTI PRjd0SI10iNF0iRV0iVl0ia1s4AAADs= ------=_NextPart_AFD_960F_6D839F56.800D1090-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 21 Mar 2003 22:46:15 -0800 > D. Michael Martindale wrote: And isn't that a fascinating piece of irony, that the restored gospel uses culture [19th Century American Puritanical Conservatism] derived from apostate theology as the basis for its own culture? Yes, and sad, too, but that's not the LDS culture I choose to live in. It intersects and crosses paths with where I want to live, and that's quite frustrating, but I mostly ignore it and go about my own thing. Currently, I've been growing my hair (and actually my beard, too) out long for a series of roles. I'm quite the ragged prophet looking guy. Actually, I'm looking pretty much like I did for John The Baptist (yes, that was all my own hair). I think most of the people in my ward put up with it, because they know about the acting thing, but I also know there are many that are driven batty by my current looks -- especially when I officiate in something. I really do ignore those people (chuckle at them, sometimes). And that's just the stupidest most superficial example of our Puritanical impositions. Anyway.. off-topic. So back to Physics! D.M.M: > Comparing LDS theology to physics is a gold mine of story ideas for a nearly nonexistent subgenre of LDS literature that fascinates me: LDS speculative fiction. I'm looking forward to reading Linda Adams speculative fiction, and I am a fan of speculative fiction myself. One day, reading "New York Review Of Books" I stumbled upon an article (that I will have to dig out again), where this guy describes a theory which would include multiple universes. It was like reading a footnote to the King Follett discourse. Clark Gobel would probably disagree with the guys ontology (and he'd have the right), and I certainly admit it was over my head, but it kind of blew me away. There is absolutely no reason why and LDS sci-fi writer could not delve into that concept of multi-God, multi-universe exploration in a story. It'd be fun; it'd be a blast; it might even be totally mind-blowing and moving. But it would always be fringe. Few scientists (I think) really agree with it; few thealogeans agree with it; many LDS readers might be put off by it. I don't know. When it comes to LDS sci-fi, I've never been particularly intriged. Obviously O.S. Card is disguising a lot of his stuff as allegories, so its fun to pick out (if you're "in the know"), but it's not being crammed down anyone's throat. One of my main problems with projecting LDS culture into say, the far future, exploring space, etc. (like in all those good old sci-fi stories I read so much of and loved so much for so many years), is that I just don't see us going out that far before the Second Comming. Unfortunately, and even though "nobody knows the hour or the day" I think we have this concept in our minds as modern Mormons, that the Second Comming will be within the 21st century, and most believe it will be within three generations. And if that is a pervasive believe in the "culture" (I'm just guessing, but I think it is), then there is a big check in the suspension of disbelief factor to read about Latter-day Saints in say, space. Wouldn't it be cool to do a kind of handcart story where the pioneers are acutally limping along in these old, derelict space ships going from a dead earth to a new planet: Zion?! Yes! But would anyone care, outside of the novelty of it, because we just all KNOW that we'll be in the Millenium before anythign like that would happen. My brother, for one (a Mormon maverik: 36 and never married), is not sure that he wants to be a "God" in the LDS construct. He would much rather be given the right to have a space ship and just travel around, learning, sharing, helping... kind of a space "Kung Fu" if you remember that old show. He wants to rocket ship the melennium, not hang out and do temple work. I don't know. The Terrestial Kindom is a glory, after all, these people are not prisoners or damned souls. They are happy in their sphere. Why couldn't they tool around the stars instead of having billions of kids? Don't know about that one. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: Books on the Bedside Table Date: 22 Mar 2003 00:23:44 -0800 I'm manic about lists. (I'm manic about a lot of things.) But I love to = read lists and responses about what other people are reading. Being = insane about books, I like to read about books. I keep lists about books = that I will want to read some day, so that I don't forget them. I will = look over these lists before browsing at a bookstore, or before going = online for bargain book hunting. So reading other people's lists of = books helps me make my own lists of what I might want to read in future. = So Richard's reading thread struck a cord with me. (A dangerous one, = probably!) I should also point out that Richard has directly influenced my reading = several times in our long friendship. You know, he got a lot of flack = (or, perhaps just ribbing) from that list of "best books" scene in God's = Army. But he wasn't making that one up, those really, really are on his = list of best books. In fact, Richard is the one that finally got me to = read Grapes Of Wrath. Well, why bother, you know: I'd SEEN the movie! = Anyway, after bugging me for a long time, he finally pulled an old copy = of it off of his shelf and handed it to me and said: Here, READ IT! And, = even though it was about a year later, I did. I couldn't believe what I = had been missing for so many years. I loved it. Anyway, I read a lot. When I'm in a big writing phase, I don't read as = much, but between projects, much more. In 2002, I read about 200 books, = but this year, since I'm writing a lot more, It will probably be down = significantly, to around 50. And when I'm writing, my consumption of = non-fiction goes way up, usually in the form of research, whereas = between writing bouts, I consume a lot of fiction, for pleasure and also = research. Since January, some of my non-fiction reading (ones that I would = recommend, generally) are as follows (in alphabetical order, not order = of preference):=20 The Child That Books Built: A Life In Reading, Francis Spufford. I'm = about halfway through. This is a wonderful, personal study of children's = lit that I am finding fascinating. (And it's filled with lists of his = personal favorites that I've never read that I'm having to add to my = lists!)=20 The Coalwood Way, Homer Hickam. Hickam's the "Rocket Boy" guy who's = first book was made into the film "October Sky." Fun stuff. This is an = amazing example of how he has found structure to autobiography. While = somewhat episodic, this book is nonetheless plotted very much like a = novel, with respect to how symbols and character arcs are introduced and = they pay off by the end. Very interesting. The Demon In The Freezer, Richard Preston. Terrifying small-pox = revelations. Don't read if you're scared about he war, terrorism, etc. = Part of my research for a possible film project, I'm boning up on bad = bugs. Preston's Hot Zone is up the same alley. Empire Express: Building The First Transcontinental Railroad, David = Haward Bain. Read it for a role I was preparing for, but if you live = history, you'll love Bain. There are some very interesting revelations = about Brigham Young and some of the history of the Utah Saints that = overlap this time period. Very interesting stuff. Hagakure: The Book Of the Samurai, Yamamoto Tsunetomo. I am kind of a = Sinophile, actually, and am always reading at least one or two Japanese = books, both non-fiction and fiction. Last year, I discovered Yasunari = Kawabata and I absolutely love him: Sound Of The Mountain, Beauty And = Sadness, Snow Country, A Thousand Cranes. Talk about getting a lesson in = restraint in prose. Subtle, powerful stuff. In The Land Of Pain, Alphonse Daudet, translated and edited by Julian = Barnes. Brilliant, reads in one setting. Mind expanding. An exercise in = writing extremes of human experience by using simplicity and = recognizable images. Lost Lands Of The Book Of Mormon, The: A Geographical And Historical = Study Using The New York Setting, Phyllis Carol Olive. Absolutely = fabulous, if you are into that kind of thing. I've already recommended = it to Richard directly. It's for anyone who has trouble with a = Mesoamerican Book of Mormon setting. The Mother Tongue: English And How It Got That Way, Bill Bryson. Bryson = is hilarious and wonderful. Every writer will delight in this short romp = on the language. Nothing Remains The Same: Rereading And Remembering, Wendy Lesser. = Excellent blending of literary criticism and autobiography, and a study = of how our perceptions change. Chapters on books I had never read where = less interesting to me. The Seven Sins Of Memory: How The Mind Forgets And Remembers Daniel L. = Schacter. Wonderful. I don't always agree with Schacter, but he's the = best writer on the topic of memory today. If you don't like science, = this is still good for writers and actors because it deals so well with = behavior with respect to memory. The Story Of Language, Mario Pei. This is an old text, and I haven't = finished it, but I'm loving it so far. Story: Substance, Structure, Style, And The Principles Of Screenwriting, = Robert McKee. The "uber-book" of screenplay. A lot of McKee is easy to = poke fun at, and some of this feels like going back to school and = picking things apart so much that you loose the point. His dissection of = some of the scenes from "Chinatown" are just moronic. But in between the = eye-rolling, there are gems. And forcing yourself to the discipline he = demands is a great exercise once and a while. I'm in the middle of my = second read. The Tao Of Physics: An Exploration Of The Parallels Between Modern = Physics And Eastern Mysticism, Fritjof Capra. I love it. A bit too New = Age or simplistic for some, but I loved the digest of various religions, = which I like to study, and his is an interesting thesis. Wagons West: The Epic Story Of America's Overland Trails, Frank McLynn. = I've just started it, and it is great so far. The last chapter covers = the Mormon migration. From my scanning ahead, he seems to do a fair = summary. Watershed: The Undamming Of America, Elizabeth Grossman. I got = interested in water issues, especially as they concern California = specifically and the West in general, after reading Marc Reisner's = brilliant Cadillac Desert: The American West And Its Disappearing Water = in 2001. Grossman talks about how some of that is changing. I haven't read a lot of fiction yet this year, mostly children's books = and short stories, and most of my reading has been geared to the kind of = stuff I'm writing at the moment, so there is a recognizable theme, shot = through with some fun indulgence. Fiction: Because God Loves Stories: An Anthology Of Jewish Storytelling, Steve = Zeitlin. I just started this, on the recommendation of a friend (one of = my several non-LDS guy friends who's married to an LDS gal), and I'm = loving it so far. Jews can tell a story better than anyone, even better = than the Big Fat Greeks! We (Mormons) try to compare ourselves to Jewish = artists, but folks, do we have a long way to go. This is going to inspire a digression, which should perhaps be its own = thread. A friend asked me once: So there are 14 million Jews and about = 11 million Mormons. We both have a persecuted history, we both identify = ourselves with the same origin stories and the same destiny (The Chosen = Ones); so why are there so many great Jewish artists and so few Mormon = ones? I'll leave that discussion for another time. Boone's Lick, Larry McMurtry. I love McMurtry. Not just cuz I'm = half-Texan, or cuz he's also a book collector. This guy teaches lessons = about stripped-down, effective prose. Study his use of adjectives and = his dialogue. He makes it effortless. McMurtry is also the king of = creating natural plot occurrences that are so organic, bizarre, = out-of-left-field, that they seem like real life. It's a neat trick, to = plot like there is outline. Terrible things, wonderful things, = non-sequitor things, it all shows up. This book is not definitive, of = course, but a fun, short romp. >From A Buick 8, Stephen King. Okay, I'll admit it. I read everything the = man writes. He's my break from the more "high-brow" stuff, and I'm not = embarrassed to admit it. What King does best is take real people and put = them in unreal situations and watch them dangle. No matter how = outrageous the events may be, the folks watching it happen are drawn = from such reality that they sing. He's growing funnier and more savvy as = he ages (and survives near death). If you can get past language and = blood and guts, this guys can teach you something about writing. Hours, The, Michael Cunningham. Okay, brilliant. You know, I had an = epiphany when I picked up this book (and this is going to get us onto = another digression, but I can't help it - isn't that was this exercise = is about; to spawn discussion?).=20 Okay, so every so often, I will pop into an LDS bookstore and just start = randomly selecting books off the fiction rack. I put these books through = a little test. I just read the first page. I'm not reading for content, = per se. I'm not reading for story. I'm just reading for prose. I just = want to see: how good a writer is this? Do the sentences sing. Is there = something about these words that sets them apart. And you know what, = there almost never is. Well, it just so happened that I had done that = experiment the day before I picked up Cunningham's thin little = award-winner. I don't even remember what the LDS book was, but I threw = the thing away from me in disgust after a single paragraph. Then, the = next day, I pick up The Hours, after all, the movie was making a lot of = fuss at the nominations, and instantly, I'm hooked. From the first = sentence, you know this guy is an amazing writer. By the end of the = first short chapter, I was breathless. Prose, friends. This guy's got = it. Painted House, A, John Grisham. You know, I tried. But John Grisham just = can't write. He really can't. And this was supposed to be his first = "literary book." Just because NOTHING HAPPENS does not make it LITERARY! = Bad book. And it COULD have been good. It was not his story that was = bad, it was that his telling lacked any true artistry. In the hands of a = great writer, Painted House could have been wonderful. As it was: = Vanilla when you want Rocky Road. Still Wild: Short Fiction Of The American West, 1950 To The Present, = Larry McMurtry, editor. You want to talk about some brilliant short = stories, here you go. Of course the list of authors give it away. = Crackling. Again: prose, people. (So, yeah, I'm stuck in a Western = theme, but this is good writing for writing's sake.) The Tale Of Genji, Murasaki Shikibu. I have been slowly feasting on this = the world's probably oldest novel, and I am loving it. Even lover of = things Japanese that I am, this is lyrical, wonderful stuff. Truly = foreign, a transportation to another world. The concentration on poetry = is spectacular, and makes you think about symbolism and language in a = whole new way. I'm reading the new annotated translation, and the notes = are fabulous, indispensable. I'm loving it, and will probably be at it = for at least another year. I Should Be Extremely Happy In Your Company: A Novel Of Lewis And Clark, = Brian Hall. This is one of those situations like Michael Cunningham = where I picked this up while browsing and was overwhelmed by the writing = on the first page, so I had to buy it. I'm not finished, and parts of = the writing style (he moves from the perspective of several different = narrators, and jumps around in time) are challenging, but it is worth = the struggle. A marvel of language. There are a billion Lewis and Clark = books out there, but this one is written. This is art, however you frame = it!=20 My favorite books from the past 12 months were (in alphabetical order): Non-Fiction: The Diving Bell And The Butterfly, Jean-Dominique Bauby = (stunning); John Adams, David McCullough; the whole series of James = Herriot's Lord God Made Them All books; Me Talk Pretty One Day and = Naked, David Sedaris (hilarious); The Most Beautiful House In The World, = Witold Rybczynski; My Dark Places, James Ellroy; Reading Chekhov: A = Critical Journey, Janet Malcolm; Reviving Ophelia: Saving The Selves Of = Adolescent Girls, Mary Pipher; Shot In The Heart, Mikal Gilmore; and Zen = In The Art Of The Tea Ceremony: A Guide To The Tea Way, Horst = Hammitzsch. Of the 100 or so fiction books I read in the last year, the following = were the best, with respect to the writing: The Black Dahlia, James = Ellroy (very rough, but electric); Caesar's Women, Colleen McCullough; A = City In Winter, Mark Helprin (don't be fooled, it's not a kid's book); = The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen (what a voice!); Empire Falls, Richard = Russo; The Forsyte Saga, John Galsworthy (I was amazed at how much I = liked these old chestnuts from earlier in our century; wonderful = character studies, humor, observation); The Fourth Treasure, Todd = Shimoda (brilliant, not well known; it blends Japan, neurology and art = in a most fascinating way!); Independence Day, Richard Ford (see, = Richard Ford and Richard Russo are two guys who can write men who are = struggling, and yet come off as strong, in the end: real, but not = wimps); John Henry Days, Colson Whitehead (tour-de-force; worth all the = fuss this book got last year); Libra, Don DeLillo (also try his amazing = and unsettling Underworld, which is an even better book); The Tombs Of = Atuan, Ursula K. Le Guin (I had never read the second of the famed = Earthsea books; Le Guin is great, worth it, and reads better as an adult = than it did when I tried her at 14); When We Were Orphans, Kazuo = Ishiguro; The World At Night, Alan Furst. And then, I'm going through a lot of kid's lit, reading out loud to my = kids at night. After plowing through the obvious and ever-wonderful = Chronicles of Narnia, The Hobbit, The Rats of NIHM and some other = classics last year, we are now reading Edward Eager's books. Eager's a = little dated, and has a lot of references to other books (Ivanhoe, = Little Women, etc.), that my kids are unfamiliar with (being 6 and 8), = but fun, nonetheless. Happy reading, Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 22 Mar 2003 07:12:21 -0700 D Michael wrote: "Hmmmm... I'm thinking of my own novel right now. Getting it banned should be a piece of cake." Thought you might be interested to know that the women of my LDS bookclub, whom you graciously allowed to read your unpublished manuscript, were musing the other day on how it would probably be possible to sell your book to the national market in light of the Elizabeth Smart thing. They also expressed concern that it would confirm LDS people as nutcases in the national eye, and that a national publisher would probably want to add purient sex to the story. That seems to be the focus of the national media on the Smart case--what were the gory details, please. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Role of LDS Writers Date: 22 Mar 2003 08:38:39 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "Someone in authority says "appropriate," and the statement they use the word in is reasonable. But because "appropriate" is not defined--indeed cannot be institutionally since everyone has their own definition--those who waive their right to think automatically assume their own personal definition, then demand that everyone accept it as the official definition." Ok, I've probably posted too much today, but I have to share this real life example. Last week in Sacrament meeting we had wheat bread in the trays. I was mildly surprise, as this is not something we see often. I wondered if someone had made a special dietary request or something. Later I learned from my friend/neighbor/home teachee/ that he was called to task by the bishop because of the wheat bread. (he's in the YM presidency and in charge of the sacrament set up stuff.) He was told "it's official policy to use only white bread". My friend questioned that. He asked if he could see that policy as it appears in the Handbook. The bishop and his second councilor looked it up. It wasn't there. It's apparently not policy. Then the bishop said "we will NOT have brown bread again. It's an accepted fact that white bread better represents the intent of the Sacrament, and we should conform to tradition." When my friend questioned why that was, where the tradition comes from, he was told that it's a matter of approaching a "Celestial" form of being. Conforming, he was told, was the end result of everyone having their intentions aligned with that of God. Remember, all you AML folks, I live in Utah. My friend and I are having a hard time with the bishop's line of reasoning. I am choosing to "wu-wei" it (be the rock in the stream and let the chaos flow around me). My friend is still chewing on it. Ain't human beings fascinating. Bet God is up there laughing, shaking his head, trying not to cry, all at once. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Found Alive Date: 22 Mar 2003 12:49:15 -0700 katie@aros.net wrote: > Actually, in a way, I think you've already written it. Your setup in _Brother > Brigham_ has some striking similarities. Okay, the story's not the same, but > still... But my true crime book on Elizabeth's abduction would earn me millions more than _Brother Brigham_ ewver would. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 22 Mar 2003 13:24:43 -0700 At 07:57 AM 3/20/03 -0800, you wrote: >The following article appeared in today's San Diego Union-Tribune. I direct >your attention particularly to the fourth-from-last paragraph, and would be >interested in your thoughts on the sentence the publisher decided to snip. > >http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/currents/news_1c20romance.html This article came up on the Georgette Heyer mailing list. We had a slew of posts with the heading "Mormon romance novels." It gave me an opportunity to mention the discussions among Mormon authors about this point. It interests the list because some romance readers dislike following the characters into the bedroom, while another contingent says that you can't have a satisfactory romance if there is no evidence of sexual attraction between the hero and heroine. So our niche market is not the only place where this debate goes on. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 22 Mar 2003 13:39:38 -0700 Clark Goble wrote: > Notice though how this type is allowed in comedy but not other kinds of > shows. In drama when the woman is *too* strong or *too* powerful she is > considered a b---h. Think of the Joan Collins character in "Dynasty." > In action films and shows this is even more dramatic. The male has to > stick to the old archetype of the rescuer of the damsel. When the roles > are reversed the show isn't typically successful. Although I believe > "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Charlie's Angels" tried to do this - > you'll note that the male side kick's role is typically very different > from most hero stories with males rescuing women. And in that > compatriot of Hercules "Xena," we had no male sidekick at all. Instead > we have a female acting the role, more or less avoiding all the > interesting takes on husband - wife relationships. (And further Xena > often ends up just being a male with breasts leading to claims of > lesbian subtexts in the show) How about _Aliens_? Popular movie, serious drama, and the kick-butt action hero was a woman, who also played a nurturing mother to the orphan girl without falling out of her heroic character. The weak characters were all male, but importantly, not all the male characters were weak. The strong ones were able to accept the leadership of Ripley as if nothing was amiss, simply because it was obvious she was the best "man" for the job. Ripley in this movie may very well be the best female protagonist in the history of film. She's certainly one of the best. In addition to this acceptance of a female hero, what I really like about the movie was how gender issues never entered into any of the relations. Even the contentious power plays had nothing to do with gender and everything to do with competence. The weak military leaders that resented Ripley's intrusions did not resent them because she was female--they resented them because she was civilian and usurping their authority. Those that acknowledged Ripley's competence didn't even think twice about her being a woman--they accepted her for what she could do. About the only moment I can recall in the whole film that acknowledged the existence of any gender bias was this scene (paraphrased from memory): The tough Marines (both male and female, by the way) are preparing to embark on their mission. Ripley goes up to the hard-boiled sergeant (who was black, and happily this film treated race as a non-issue as much as it did sex) and says, "I feel like a third wheel around here. Is there something I can do to help?" "I don't know," says the sergeant. "Is there so mething you can do?" A slight disgusted look crosses Ripley's face. "Well, I'm fully rated on that forklift over there." The sergeant adjusts his well-chewed cigar with his lips and says, "Be my guest." She straps into the giant waldo-style forklift, grabs a huge container, walks over to the sergeant (displaying obvious skill at operating the machine the whole time) and says, "Where do you wnat it?" The sergeant looks at a nearby (male) marine, laughs, and says, "Over there, please!" A brief moment of wondering if the "woman" could do what she claimed she could do (and I'm not even sure it was her womanness that was at issue, or her civilianness). But the instant she demonstrated her skill, the tough Marines accepted her without batting an eye, or trying to save face for their previous doubt, or any sort of hedging over their male ego. Now that's how life is supposed to be! And our overall attitude toward our literature as well. I am so weary of the whole "battle of the sexes" thing. I wish storytellers everywhere--and I fully intend to do this myself--would just tell their stories however they think they should be told, and gender stereotypes be damned. If the story needs a weak female character up against a strong male character, write it. If it needs the opposite, write it, whether comedy or drama. If they should be equals, but each contributing different strengths (which I like the best), write it. If it outrages the politically correct thin-skinned, who gives a rip? -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben and Jessie Christensen" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 22 Mar 2003 23:52:43 -0700 (Moderator: this might be a repeat; my email died after I sent it the first time. However, if it is a repeat, please post this instead of my first message) Clark Goble: >That's not to discount what some are terming brainwashing. However >brainwashing is often taken to be very overstated as a real >psychological phenomena. (The recent media frenzy notwithstanding) Yes >there is psychological trauma. And yes strong people can make bad >choices appear persuasive. But by the same token God can't force anyone >to do anything either. For all I know he was inspiring many people to >question the girl. If she denies being Elizabeth Smart, what can God >do? I will admit that I had many of the same questions during the first few days after she was found, but unfortunately my understanding increased with the revelation that Elizabeth's kidnappers were charged with sexual assault. She was not just "brainwashed", she was raped. By a man who kidnapped her at knifepoint and told her that God wanted her to be his wife. Whether or not you believe in the validity of brainwashing, rape is a devestating physical and psychological weapon to use against anyone, especially a 15-year-old Mormon girl. I've been thinking in the last few days that rape is particularly terrible in our culture because we have placed such a high value on chastity before marriage. How many of us have had the old Sunday School lesson with the candy that gets sticky and dirty because everyone has touched it, or the one about how no one wants an apple with a bite out of it? (For some reason we forget that repentance gives us a brand new candy) Anyways, we tend to look down so much on loss of virtue that we sometimes don't think about the circumstances in which it was "lost." (When that came up in Charly I wanted to punch Sam in the nose. I would have left him right then and there.) There was a rape case here at BYU where the guy dumped the girl at the Provo Temple afterwards and taunted her by telling her that she could never go inside. Talk about psychological trauma. I guess my point is that I now realize why Elizabeth must have, at least subconsciously, thought her place was with the sickos who kidnapped her. Jessie Christensen PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 24 Mar 2003 17:09:44 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jacob Proffitt > >If someone has ulterior motives or values destructive >discourse over preservation of community, they can take a >nice, worthwhile list like this one and turn it into a battle >field. There's no way to protect the community outside of >reasonably strong moderation. I mean, it's one thing to >protest in front of a government building with a bullhorn. >It's quite another to do so in my living room or some other >place of peaceful gathering. Okay, so what you do is have a semi-moderated list. That is, if a sufficient number of people think that Joe Schmo is just bloviating with no content and making every body mad, the moderator can delete the poster and make it impossible to receive or to post ever again to the list. I'm on a list where one guy was so full of himself that it soon became evident he didn't want to engage in adult conversation. The moderator ex-communicated the guy. End of story. >Yeah, but who is going to map out the line between "reveling >in excess" and "reaching inside our core"? Here's a radical idea. If no one complains to the moderator, the idiot is allowed to post. In other words, let us defend ourselves by majority means if possible. > They look awful >similar and the problem is that once the line is crossed, >there's really no going back. We're all grown-ups and all, >but we dance around some pretty sensitive areas that lie near >and dear to our hearts. Missteps are painful and can do real >damage even when intent is pure. Either ignore the sensitive stuff or complain online and tell the guy to shut up. How hard can that be, people? Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 24 Mar 2003 17:21:14 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jongiorgi Enos >If I am a "strong" and/or "proactive" person, and I did not >want to go to church, for whatever reason, I would NOT go. As >a passive or compromising person, I would go even if I did not >want to, for the sake of my wife. Hey, there are a lot of >reasons in life to compromise, but when it comes to religion, >why be lukewarm? Be either in or out. So when Susan uses an >example of a man who would be out if the wife weren't there, >is this not speaking exactly to the stereo-type we are discussing? Or she could be speaking a male so hightly sensitive to his wife's feelings that he wishes to cause her no embarassment by staying home, thus labeling her as a woman married to an inactive man. Yes, the guy could be going to church because he's a wimp, but it may also be because he cares more about his family's reputation than his own discomfort. I would call such a man a hero of the first order. > >I'm not trying to paint Sis Malmrose into a corner, but I am >interested in a deeper look at the concept, because I, too >have encountered men who would not be there if it were not for >their wives, and personally, I'm not very interested in that >kind of a man, in a dramatic sense. Is that why a lot of LDS >fiction is weak? Look at that man as a martyr for the sake of his marriage and you have all the drama you might want. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 25 Mar 2003 09:17:12 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > Angela Hallstrom wrote: > > > ...there's so much more condemnation that > > comes down on women if they admit to wanting to just watch movies and write > > stories and talk to interesting people on the phone all day long, > > laundry-and-visiting-teaching-be-darned. It seems obvious to me that this is > > the reason why women in the church seem to me to have a much bigger problem > > with guilt then men do (generally speaking). > > As a man who was unemployed for eighteen months, let me say that my own > experience on the matter varies with yours. My wife was (and correctly so) > viewed as the responsible one next to her lazy, slugabout husband who should be > working three jobs at MacDonalds instead of lazing about collecting unemployment > insurance. > > My point is that I don't think anyone is particularly free of expectations. > Certainly men don't get any free ride--any more than women do. . . In the end I'm not sure it matters > who has it worse; things seem suboptimal for all of us at one time or another, > and in one way or another. > > I think it's difficult to claim one set of expectations takes a higher toll than > another set does--they all force us to either grow or shrink. I don't envy > anyone their private struggles. > This is why I don't post very often: I end up writing something quickly and emotionally that doesn't precisely represent what I'm trying to say, then I read it a couple of days later and think, "Oh, I didn't really mean *that*." So I apologize if my post gave the impression that men are free from expectations and women are unduly burdened, because that isn't what I intended. My husband shoulders tremendous burdens, burdens I don't have to carry because he does, and I am incredibly grateful to him for that and honor everything that he has to take on by virtue of being a man. My post was more in response to Christopher Bigelow's previous post. In it, he made this observation: "By putting women on a spiritual pedestal, we can defer most of the spiritual effort to them, conserving our own energy for things we see as more practical and pressing, like our jobs and our pleasures. By aggrandizing women spiritually, we take pressure off ourselves . . . " I was simply agreeing that I have experienced this expectation in my life. I was challenging the stereotype that, as a woman, I *want* to do my visiting teaching more than my husband wants to do his home teaching, therefore it's easier for me to get off the couch and do it. A lot of women in the church are incredibly hard on ourselves because we are subtly taught (through our culture, mostly) that, by virtue of being female, our desires are somehow more pure or more refined than men's (and I'm not talking about sexual desires here, I'm speaking more of our desires to be good or do good). And I do think that, in general, women are still more likely to struggle with guilt over not measuring up than men are, although I'm not entirely sure as to why. However, Scott's post got me thinking about men's unspoken pressures, most particularly to *want* to go out there and be aggressive and work all day long and make a ton of money and be successful by worldly standards. I used to be a high school English teacher (an occupation I thoroughly enjoyed without having to worry much about the low pay), and, right now, I'm getting my MFA in writing part time while I stay home with my kids, something I couldn't be doing if I was also expected to provide for my family. It even made me wonder: is it harder in our culture (even more specifically in Mormon culture) for men to pursue artistic endeavors like writing because they are expected to be spending so much time "making money?" Could be. So, Scott, point taken. We've all got our burdens and our expectations to shoulder. Thank you for writing and helping me to see it from another angle. Angela Hallstrom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Anita Stansfield Interview Questions Date: 25 Mar 2003 10:55:36 -0700 I'll be doing an interview with Anita Stansfield for the upcoming romance-themed issue of Irreantum. If you have any suggested questions for her, feel free to send them my way, either to the list or to me personally. Thanks! Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Aaron R Orullian Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Call for Papers in Honor of Marden Clark Date: 25 Mar 2003 11:48:54 -0800 I don't know who you are Harlow S. Clark, but you write beautifully. This invitation for papers in honor of your father read like an excerpt from a lovely memoir. Aaron Orullian -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 25 Mar 2003 11:37:12 -0700 All right, now that I'm Michael Jordan (which I regard as really a lot of = Bull (rimshot)), what to do next? Do I fend off Bryon Russell with my = left hand to free my right hand for the winning jumper? Do I waggle my = tongue while jamming? Do I drive and dish to Steve Kerr? I presume that = I travel on every possession without the refs calling it, or that I = hand-check with impunity without foul consequences. The Jordan comparison = is not unflattering, and we are about the same height, though I still have = my hair. But I am, after all, a Hoosier boy; in future, please reference = Oscar Robertson or Larry Bird. Like the Big O and Larry Legend, I aspire = to be an all-around player, who makes his teammates better. Not a mere = scorer. =20 But while I contemplate the strange fact that relatively little Mormon = literature has in fact been written about basketball (strange, considering = the ferocity of Church ball, a ferocity to which I enthusiastically = brought my elbows and blood and floor burns and jammed fingers in days = gone by), I do have something I'd like to explore with y'all. Oh, but = first, an obligatory inappropriate political aside; I'm writing this while = listening to the Dixie Chicks, all of whose CDs I have purchased in the = last week, and which I am very much enjoying. Two questions, actually. First, what is the place of the Book of Mormon = in Mormon literature, and second, what ought it to be? Mormon is an interesting word, for starters. Mosiah 18:4 suggests that it = may have originally been a Nephite word meaning 'infested by wild beasts.' = (Applied to a particular place, BTW, by the worst king in Nephite = history) By Mosiah 18:30, it has come to connote an earthly paradise, = founded on the profoundest kind of consecration and charity. There's an = evolution: 'wild-beast infested' to 'place of consecration.' It then = became a popular name, given to a military genius whose greatest sermon is = on the subject of charity. In our day, it further evolved, from an insult = to a proudly embraced term for a culture ('I am a Mormon boy!'), and on to = today, where's it seems to be becoming, at least institutionally, non-PC. = =20 Enough asides. I've had occasion recently to contemplate the Chris = Heimerdinger phenomenon, and in particular, the very notion of tennis = shoes among the Nephites. It seems to me inevitable that we would do = this, that we would contemplate our own connection to our unique scripture,= and imagine ourselves back in the day. Heimerdinger's own books seem to = me filled with a genial humor and genuine wit that I have no doubt his = young readers find appealing. And, of course, Jim, Jenny and Garth aren't = without their problems (especially Jim,), which their connections with the = Book of Mormon heros enable them to deal with. My own teenagers aren't = much interested in them; they're at an age where didacticism turns them = off, and the books are surely didactic. But they have cousins and friends = who like them a lot, and who are the sorts of Mormon kids who can say = stuff like "I like 'em because they've got a good message" and make you = believe it. In other words, this is a popular series of teen novels that accomplish = three things; they allow us to imaginatively recreate what Nephite society = might have been like, they show us how the Book of Mormon might provide = answers to dilemmas we might have, and they explore a duck-out-of water = kind of comedy, based on differences between an imagined Then and an = idealized Now. =20 So. It seems inevitable that our literature would echo the place the Book = of Mormon occupies in our culture broadly construed. The Book of Mormon = first of all, functions as proof text. If it's 'True' then everything = else follows. It becomes, then, a site (THE site) for Mormon apologetics. = Thus the peculiar rhetoric of Mormon culture, in which we repeated assert = that a book, or an institution, are 'true.' We don't talk of concepts or = ideas or paradigms being 'true.' No, the Church is 'true,' the Book of = Mormon is 'true.' Of what other books do we say this? "I just finished = One Hundred Years of Solitude; I just read the new Barbara Ehrenreich; I = can't get enough of Thomas Friedman. I just read a great book." We say = that, but do we go on to assert that this novel, this piece of non-fiction = is 'true?' No, we say it's 'interesting.' We say it's 'great.' We say = 'I couldn't put it down.' But to say 'I just read a wonderful book. I = testify that it's true?' We don't do that about any other book I know of, = not even the Bible. Same thing with organizations, institutions. "I assert that the IRS is = true." It's comical. "I testify to the truthfulness of Presbyterianism." = Doesn't happen. One exception: "Islam is true." You might hear that one = from time to time. =20 Our culture rests, in other words, on certain historicity claims: a = document, purporting to be of ancient origin and contemporary relevance, = is in fact what it says it is, and not a forgery. Its translation is 'by = the gift and power of God' and not through scholarship and hard work. And = an organization founded by the translator of said book is 'true' too, a = genuinely prophetic institution. =20 So it's not surprising that we have a literature based on a fairly = straightforward acceptance of the Book of Mormon's historicity claims, = much of it intended for children. The Living Scriptures project comes = immediately to mind, in addition to Heimerdinger's work. And it's hardly = surprising that Heimerdinger has taken the next step, to literally, point = for point, apply the Book of Mormon's content to contemporary problems. = Fact is Mormon culture doesn't generally actually deal much with historicit= y issues and problems. Generally, Mormons are delighted FARMS exists, and = we know a lot of our ward members who flock to hear Jack Welch or John = Sorenson speak at Education Week, but the truthfulness of the Book of = Mormon is basically a given. Meanwhile, we want to know what's in it for = us. And the assumption is that the Book of Mormon basically is for us, = it's about us. Dealing with a bully at school? So did Captain Moroni, = son. =20 The third way the Book of Mormon functions in our culture is the one our = literature doesn't deal with directly, but it provides the basis for a = cultural assumption that directly affects everything we do. Reading the = Book of Mormon daily (fifteen minutes a day is generally recommended) is = seen as a holy act in and of itself. Reading daily is basically a = mitzvah. The daily read is a holy act in and of itself, leading to an = increase in spirituality and an improved relationship with the Holy Ghost = and protection against worldly influences. It doesn't actually matter = much what we're reading, either, whether we're bored out of our minds by = Jacob 5 or utterly appalled by Mormon 4, or inspired by Alma 34. =20 Now, that has huge implications for our literature, because it becomes the = standard for all 'Mormon' oriented reading. If reading a holy text is the = key to spirituality, then it automatically follows that other reading must = either be equally spiritually invigorating, or it's opposite. I mall walk = every morning of my life (I find it inspirational, to walk with people = thirty years my senior who zip right past me--and they do), and that means = I walk right past the local DB, and it's real interesting, to see what = they're advertizing in their storefront displays. Collections of talks by = General Authorities, for the most part. Good Books, as the culture = defines the term. I suspect that for much of our culture, harder edged = literature with a Mormon setting just . . . doesn't feel right. We don't = want wild beasts infesting our literature. We want repose in the waters = of Mormon. =20 And so Heimerdinger goes pretty easy on wild beasts too. Jim's problems = involve an Inapproprite Immersion In Pop Culture, and the solutions? A = straightforward application of scripture. =20 But see, there's actually fourth place where the Book of Mormon applies to = our culture. We don't like to talk about it much, but fact is, Mormon saw = our day and wasn't impressed by it. And that includes us'ns. The = extraordinary parallels between his failed society and our sensationally = successful one are the basic subject of the entire book. All is not, in = fact, well in Zion, and our eating drinking and merry making are, to his = mind, dances on graves. The historicity of Book of Mormon wouldn't matter = worth a hill of beans, if the book didn't have content, profundity and = relevance. So that's what I'm wondering. Trotting about an imagined = Zarahemla in our Nikes can be jolly fun. But isn't there room for a = literature which blasts us out of our Nikes entirely? That seems, after = all, to be part of Mormon's project. Let our wild beasts roar us into = charity. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 25 Mar 2003 15:07:05 -0700 At 12:48 PM 3/20/03 -0700, you wrote: >Women tend to be perceived as more spiritual because of how we >superficially define spirituality using traditionally feminine virtues. This is an interesting idea to contemplate. While doing some research on Catholicism, I found that they seem to consider religion for women and children--that many Catholic congregations consist of women, children, and old men, who return to the church hopefully in time to square things with God before they die. But saying that religous practices, such as attending Mass, are for women more than for men is not the same thing as saying that women are more spiritual. I've always felt that the term "active Mormon" should refer to someone who has a genuine relationship with his or her Heavenly Father more than to someone who shows up in all those meetings we have. Because something is traditional does not make it true. I believe that men have the virtues women have, but their male culture teaches them to hide those things. Like female intuition--there's really just human intuition, but men squash theirs because they are supposed to be "logical" to be "real men." Female culture has long taught women to squash their intelligence so as not to upset "fragile" male egos. What would happen if both genders started being honest about what they think and what they feel? What if we cast off the shackles of all that cultural conditioning? Would it be wonderful, or would it be chaotic? Maybe that could form the basis of a story--one with more depth than something like "Liar, Liar." barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sunstone Date: 25 Mar 2003 17:39:53 -0700 The new, March 2003 issue of Sunstone has a number of articles that will be of interest to AML-Listers, ranging from an analysis of racial issues 25 years after the priesthood revelation to whether good Mormons can watch R-rated movies to an article by our own Stephen Carter about the role of satire, with AML-List-originating The Sugar Beet as exhibit A. Following is the issue's table of contents. Sunstone has some article samplings online at http://www.sunstoneonline.com/, as well as subscription info. (And for anyone who doesn't subscribe to Sunstone, you're missing out on Mormonism most open, vibrant, interesting community, which gives me shivers of relief and joy, as if finally allowed to quit hopping on one foot in institutional Mormonism and put my other foot on the ground.) Sunstone March 2003 Issue 126 ---- FEATURES 16 John Hatch . . . . . . . . CAN "GOOD MORMONS" WATCH R-RATED MOVIES? TWENTY-FIVE YEARS: A QUARTER CENTURY AFTER THE PRIESTHOOD REVELATION--WHERE ARE WE NOW? 23 Newell G. Bringhurst . AN UNINTENDED AND DIFFICULT ODYSSEY 28 Armand L. Mauss . . . REFLECTIONS ON A LIFETIME WITH THE RACE ISSUE 31 Darron Smith . . . . . THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIALIZED DISCOURSE IN MORMONISM 34 . . . . . . . . . . . OUT OF THE BEST BOOKS? Publications Continue to Promote Folklore 36 Dale C. LeCheminant . . TO "CURE THEM OF THEIR HATRED": AN ANTIDOTE FOR THE PREJUDICES OF OUR TIME 42 Gary James Bergera . . "ONLY OUR HEARTS KNOW"--PART I: SUNSTONE DURING THE DANIEL RECTOR, ELBERT PECK, AND LINDA JEAN STEPHENSON YEARS, 1986-92 54 Arnold V. Loveridge . . . THE LESSON: 1999 Brookie & D.K. Brown Fiction Contest Starstone Winner 56 Stephen Carter . . . . . . WHY SATIRE IS BETTER THAN SERMON: A Sermon POETRY 27 Richard Arnold . . . . . . AIMING FOR FLAGSTAFF 33 Priscilla Atkins . . . .. . . PRESENCE AND ABSENCE 35 Barry Ballard . . . . . . . TREE LINE 71 Kelley Jean White . . . . KNEADING COLUMNS 4 Dan Wotherspoon . . . . . FROM THE EDITOR: Hints of Pastoring 8 Donald L. Gibbon. . . . . . TURNING THE TIME OVER TO . . . : A Typical Sunday CORNUCOPIA 10 Robert Kirby. . . . . . . . . LIGHTER MINDS: My New Church 'Quiet Book' Is a Palm Pilot 11 John Sillito . . . . . . . . . TWENTY-YEARS AGO IN SUNSTONE: To Love More Nearly as We Pray 12 Merina Smith . . . . . . . . .MARGIN NOTES: Different Wells, Different Waters 13 Brian H. Stuy . . . . . . . . THE REST OF THE STORY: Matthew's Mosaic 14 Marta Adair. . . . . . . . . . RIGHTEOUS DOMINION: Looking at a Heart, Not a Habit 62 Scott Cooper . . . . . . . TRAIN UP A CHILD . . . : Teaching Children Values through "Domestic Church" 66 Jana Riess. . . . . . . . . ANXIOUSLY ENGAGED: Strengthening the Part-Member Marriage? We're Just Fine, Thank You 68 D. Jeff Burton . . . . . . BRAVING THE BORDERLANDS: Group Membership--A Self-Assessment 80 Elder Bruce R. McConkie . AN OLIVE LEAF: A Glorious June Day NEWS 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archive documents released on DVD; Is God's love unconditional?; Changes in missionary discussions; news on films, BYU, and much more! Cover photo: (Left to right) Bronson Harwell (16), Richard Harwell (14), and Morgan Harwell (12), members of the Genesis Group. Photography by Michael Schoenfeld. Cover design by Nathan Bang Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 25 Mar 2003 18:03:26 -0700 Bill Willson wrote: <<< And never if you want to be accepted by the head pooh-baahs of this list, ever say anyything derogatory about a certain monthly satirical tirade which picks exclusively on the church and its culture. [snip] Just as the satarical writers have their right to publish whatever they want to in thier monthly tirade. We all have the right to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to express an opinin about it without the stigma of ostracisim. >>> I do remember when you said "shame on you" to The Sugar Beet (in fact, Stephen Carter quoted you in his Sunstone article on satire), but I don't know what you're talking about as far as ostracism. It was actually a point of pride for us to get our first "shame on you" letter. Neither myself nor any other Sugar Beet staffers have anything to do with running AML-List, and if we did I can't imagine any of us blocking your posts or something. Chris Bigelow [MOD: While I do not recall all the particular, I do know that there were several posts to AML-List from at least one list member related to The Sugar Beet that were bounced, by me, for violating AML-List guidelines. Among other things, those guidelines (as I interpret and enforce them) prohibit satiric negative response to other list members' works and positions--even in a case where what is being responded to is, itself, a work of satire. (Among other things, I find satire far too easy to misinterpret in our forum, and it seems to me that it is far more harmful to conversation than forthright disagreement.) I also will block or require revision of any post that casts aspersions on the spiritual qualifications, intelligence, or motives of other AML-List members (and I try to keep us from commenting negatively too much on those of non-List members as well). At this remove in time, I don't remember which of these precisely might relate to the posts Bill is talking about here; however, I do know that this is one reason why individual posts are frequently not posted.] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Savage" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Jeff SAVAGE, _Into the Fire_ (Review) Date: 26 Mar 2003 22:43:51 -0600 [MOD: I am forwarding this reply from Jeff Savage, who is not currently subscribed to AML-List.] Arial Times New RomanI was sent a copy of D. Michael's critique of Into the Fire by several people. Thanks all. Arial Times New RomanFirst let me say that I appreciate all the feedback I get, whether it's in the newspaper or someone who stops me in a bookstore. I think that Covenant feels the same way. The very fact that people are turning to LDS fiction with increasing expectations just shows that LDS authors must be improving. I think that the bumps and stumbles that we have hit in creating literature that is both challenging for the readers and acceptable to LDS booksellers, are another sign of a maturing space. Arial Times New RomanITF was reviewed very well and fairly I thought (of course I did, she liked it!) by Jennie Hansen in Meridian magazine. Arial<Times New Romanhttp://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/020814savage.html But Michael hated it. As the readership of LDS fiction increases, we are going to have people who gush over our work, people who find flaws, and people who think we must have been inhaling model glue. That is a very healthy environment and one that encourages growth. Arial Times New RomanWith that said, after getting bashed over the head with a knobbly-headed reviewing stick, I naturally would like to respond to a couple of the comments. (What fun, I never get to do that with the newspaper articles!) This is not to disagree with Michael's opinion at alleither you like it or you don'tbut to clarify why I wrote what I did. So "trembling with anxiety over the words I am about to write," I'll give it a shot. Arial Times New RomanI think that the first salvo was over the book's title. Originally I had some complaints with the title too. (We get to give our input, but the final decision is Covenant's. There may be some author's for whom that is not the case, but at least for me that's how it works.) Actually though, the title makes more sense when you consider that this is a modern day retelling of the story of Job. He definitely went through the refiner's fire and came out the stronger for it. I was surprised that there was no complaint about the cover. The story takes place for the most part in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the book shows a guy in the desert. Oh well, no control there either. Arial Times New RomanMicahels second point was the one that really stumped me. I think this may be a case of misplaced expectations. As he mentioned, my first book was a techno-thriller. It had lots of the expected intrigue, murders, suspense, that you would look for in that genre. (At least that was the goal!) For my second book I handed Covenant a curveball, and to their credit they fielded it like pros. I didnt give them another thriller. There were a lot of reasons I had for that, but suffice it to say that I didnt want to be a male (fill in the blank here) cranking out book after book that all taste exactly the same. Arial Times New RomanAs he points out, the prologue makes it perfectly clear that this is a retelling of the story of Job. As such, the promise I offer up is not a story of who-done-it, but rather a story of a man and his family dealing with extreme adversity. I needed a plausible explanation for how the tragedies befall the Job figure, but the focus is no more on who caused those events than the Biblical account is about who really killed Jobs flocks and pushed the walls down on his children. Thats kind of covered in the prologue in both cases. Arial Times New RomanI dont know how to fix this particular problem. I understand that if you buy the new Stephen King book, you expect a tale of spooks. But on the other hand, I love it when an author surprises me with a new genre. I thought that Grishams A Painted House was better than all of his lawyer stories. The two books I am working on now are a serial murder mystery that may be a little too intense for LDS publishers and a follow-up to Cutting Edge. (Yes Michael this one is global, with terrorists, smart bombs, new technology, etc.) So maybe its all okay. Arial Times New RomanIm going to skip over the rowing/paddling thing except to say that DM made a good catch that no one else did. Honestly I think those things happen in every book. I just finished Ghost Story by Peter Straub and he has a doorbell ringing while the electricity is out in the house. Oops! In Cutting Edge I talked about German and Brown trout and actually the fish is called a German Brown. But to defend the editors, they catch 99% of that stuff. In a typical novel I end up changing eye color, last names, and compass directions several times and they catch them all. Arial Times New RomanJust a quick note on the editor comments: I personally think that Covenants editors are very, very good. What you need to understand is that unlike national publishers, Covenant needs to make a profit on nearly every book that they put out. They dont have the million copy sellers to offset the duds. That means that they can only give a set amount of time to each book. For the amount of time that the editors have to spend they are incredible. Arial Times New RomanAs for the commas issue, I would not be surprised if I misplaced or displaced many of those little buggers. Grammar is NOT my strong point. But to set the record straight, the three sentences you quote all occur on page 75 of the book, The first reads, Oh yes you are, Joe countered. The second reads,  Come on man. You know that everyone will be . . . The third reads, Well I dont believe that. But if a few of them do, thats your problem. If Michaels copy of the book is missing the punctuation, it must be a different version than what I have. Arial Times New RomanThe final issue regards how the book ended. Michael said that he wasnt surprised that Angela, the little girl with Down Syndrome, was the object of the threat. This goes to the old issue of suspense through surprise vs. suspense through allowing the reader to know what the protagonist doesnt. In chapter 5, Joe has a dream where Angela is being chased by some unknown danger Arial Times New RomanHe listened intently, straining to hear a movement or a breath. But although Joe knew that it was still there, it was utterly silent. Thats how I know its there, he thought. By the silence. Its so deadly that silence accompanies it like a shroud. All living things burrow into the ground or huddle in their nests, or lie shivering in the brush, too scared to even run when it approaches. Arial Times New RomanAnd suddenly Joe knew why it was there. It wanted Angela. It had been stalking her, following her through the darkness waiting to pounce. It sensed her goodness and was attracted to it like a shark to the scent of blood. Arial Times New RomanObviously in this case, I am trying to create a very strong (maybe too strong for some people) good vs. evil setup. The element of surprise comes from the fact that the physical danger to his family it not the real danger at all. Yes, you know that the little girl will be harmed. Yes, you have a pretty good idea that she will die right from the prologue. But just as in the Biblical account, Joe discovers that losing a child to physical death is not the worst thing that can happen. Arial Times New RomanThis is a story about a family torn part by drugs, sex, lack of communication, depression, and to some extent greed. It is also a story of how sometimes the best thing in the world for us is our trials. They can make us stronger and pull us together if we let them. Thats why I went to the epilogue when the family discovers that. None of the rest matters. I interpret the ending of the biblical story to mean that Job had twice as many blessings because of what he learned not that he had twice as many camels. Arial Times New RomanIm sorry that you felt the story was only half-done, but I always feel that way. It doesnt matter how many rewrites you do, there is always something you would like to change. But if I never published until I was satisfied, Id never publish. Arial Times New RomanThanks, Arial Times New RomanJeff -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Stacey BESS, _Planting More Than Pansies_ (Review) Date: 25 Mar 2003 18:43:11 -0800 On the contrary, nearly everything with an LDS imprint that doesn't sell gets pushed on to the remainder table. I'll keep an eye out. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 25 Mar 2003 18:38:51 -0800 > Subject: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives (was: Banned Book from Cedar Fort) > From: "Debra L Brown" > << What I would like to know is if the DB stores are still carrying music by > Amy Grant since its well known that she left her husband for another man who > was also married at the time. They have since married, but is this morally > uplifting to our culture? Or is this something we want our youth to think is > ok? Or, like the NYT bestsellers they carry, is it ok since Amy Grant is not > LDS? >> > > This raises a whole different issue--and a very interesting one to me--of > how an artist's personal life can affect how people view their art. I'm going to mention this author in another post, but I think anyone who has any interest at all in this issue *must* read George Orwell's essay "Benefit of Clergy". The essay starts out ostensibly as a review of a 1940-ish autobiography of Salvador Dali, but it goes on to address this point. He does so, perhaps somewhat indirectly, but addressing the related point of separating an appreciation of the *craft* of a work of art from the *purpose* of the work. Let me give a few excerpts: [After having described the book, which includes autobiographical anecdotes and reproductions of Dali's work:] "Of course, in this long book of 400 quarto pages there is more than I have indicated, but I do not think that I have given an unfair account of its moral atmosphere and mental scenery. It is a book that stinks. If it were possible for a book to give a physical stink off its pages, this one would -- a thought that might please Dali, who before wooing his future wife for the first time rubbed himself all over with an ointment made of goat's dung boiled up in fish glue. But against this has to be set the fact that Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. ... He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings. And these two sets of facts, taken together, raise a question which for lack of any basis of agreement seldom gets a real discussion." "He [Dali] is as antisocial as a flea. Clearly, such people are undesirable, and a society in which they can flourish has something wrong with it." "It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of _benefit of clergy_. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word 'art', and everything is OK. Rotting corpses with snails crawling over them are OK; kicking little girls in the head [an anecdote from the book] is OK; even a film like _L'Age d'Or_ is OK." "If Shakespeare returned to the earth tomorrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another _King Lear_." "One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. In the same way it should be possible to say, 'This is a good book or a good picture, and it ought to be burned by the public hangman.' Unless one can say that, at least in imagination, one is shirking the implications of the fact that an artist is also a citizen and a human being." > > For the most part, I have no trouble diassociating the artist from the > art--especially when it comes to music. (Does Amy Grant sing about adultery? > Somehow I seriously doubt it, but I wouldn't know.) Look at the big honkin' fuss so many people made when the Beatles came out with 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' and there was all this fuss about the Beatles using pot or LDS or whatever. But both Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_ and Coleridge's _Kubla Khan_ were products of drug use (opium in both cases, IIRC). Tchaikovsky was rumoured to have been gay, not to mention Oscar Wilde and countless others. Mozart was apparently a vulgar and annoying twit once he reached adulthood. Beethoven used to keep full chamber pots under his piano. And we could go on and on. How nuts do we get about it? The way I do it is this: If I can indulge in the artist's work and appreciate it for what it is without the artist's personal life getting into my head, I will. OTOH, if I can't, I won't. I'm sure my mental processes are much more complicated than that, but hey, it's close. I mean, one of my favourite singers is Elton John, especially in his early years (up to 1976), and I love his love songs. OK, so he's gay, and so one of his shows had a bunch of buff guys dressed scantily as Wolf Cubs (s/Wolf Cubs/Cub Scouts/ for you Yanks). I'd avoid such a show if I had any idea it'd be like that. But if I could just see him and his piano, I'd be there in a shot. (If I could afford it; he was in Kelowna last summer, and my unemployment wouldn't permit the two tanks of gas plus the $75 tickets...sigh.) > > There are a handful of people that really annoy me, though, and that makes > it hard for me to appreciate their work objectively. Michael Moore, for > instance. I haven't seen Bowling For Columbine, and I won't unless it's > shown on tv. But if I do, I doubt I'll be able to like it. I actually like Michael Moore. Yes, he's over the top. But is he any more over the top than the rest of Hollywood? He pokes fun at people who both deserve to be poked fun at, and who hate being poked fun at. That's why he's unpopular. I can't *wait* for Bowling to come out on video. > No one seemed to mind at the Oscar's last night that Roman Polanski had sex > with a 13 year old girl and fled the country before being sentenced. (Do I > have that right? Didn't know about it until this morning.) Yup. www.thesmokinggun.com actually has the recently-released grand jury testimony of the girl in question (who's now 38 or 39), if you can hold your nose long enough. Ideally, his colleagues in the industry would shun him completely and he'd never make another movie again. However, Hollywood is rife with the amoral, so he's OK. So what if he can never set foot outside France again? (He's a French citizen, and France's constitution prohibits extraditing a citizen outside of France for any reason.) I'm not a big fan of his movies anyhow -- _Tess_ was not too bad, and I want to see _Rosemary's Baby_ before I die, but that's about it. And as long as there's no paedophilia in those films, I can probably stomach it. Finally, one of Orson Scott Card's essays in _A Storyteller in Zion_ (can't remember the title, but it has to do with the artist's responsibility to society) is also very much worth reading on this subject, if y'all haven't already. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Indeed all our food springs ultimately from dung and dead bodies, the two things which of all others seem to us the most horrible. - George Orwell, 'Politics vs. Literature' --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 25 Mar 2003 17:55:37 -0900 >===== Original Message From "Jacob Proffitt" ===== >Ah, but this question is fundamentally unanswerable. At least by us. How >can I say if it was worth it when I don't believe at all that his soul is on >the line? I'm not sure why you say this. Is disrespecting one's religious community only a sin if it's the "true" religious community? To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as presented, bear in >mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred and presented beauty >and truth for our edification. It'd be something else entirely if he had >been LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear. I firmly believe that my >doctrine is correct and that it really *does* delineate the markings between >heaven and hell My question is a roundabout way to talk about our own interaction with our religious community. I was asking, was it worth his while to enter into such charged territory (points of doctrine and culture that seem inextricable) and be ostracized by his community for the sake of great art? Jesus did that. To me it's one of the great disservices we do to our understanding of Christ to say that he entered a totally false community and brought a packaged truth. Judaism was his community, and he played the part of the artist, entering into the most explosive of places (sabbath keeping, the identity of God, the Messiahship) and trying to cast some light on it. IF you think about it, the people who have done the most good for the world and religion have entered these explosive places. (in the abstract it does, I'm not yet so ego-imbued as to >believe I understand the whole thing or that I'm right just because I think >I am). > >And frankly, from my stand-point, you couldn't even really ask him because I >wouldn't trust his answer. His doctrine is wrong, you see. It's a function >of believing that you belong to a True church that is lead by prophets... It seems that you are taking a position that excludes you from being able to partake of great contemporay religious art. If nothing anyone from an "untrue" religious community does is worthy of note because their doctrine is incorrect, then it would seem that true art cannot exist outside the Mormon community. This is an attitude that I think _can_ hold religious people back from creating really great art. It's an attitude I've had for most of my life. The attitude that because something doesn't matter to us, it doesn't matter. It makes us incapable of negative capability (remember Keats said Shakspeare had it because he was able to enter into ambiguity without reaching out for reason), we can't really explore a question brought up by someone with "false doctrine" because we don't give it any validity. That ultra-orthodox community is just as convinced of its veracity as our's is, perhaps even more so because they're not nearly as amenable to letting people in. The question I asked is one worth us asking, I think, because the director's position can be analogous to ours. Not taking his position seriously is akin to not taking ours seriously. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 25 Mar 2003 21:17:12 -0700 ---Original Message From: Jonathan Langford >=20 > There's no inherent advantage to liberal or conservative in=20 > any of these areas. Most of the politically based literary=20 > criticism of the last 40 years or so has been left-wing in=20 > orientation (e.g., marxist), and it's actually rather=20 > difficult to conduct certain types of literary criticism=20 > without taking an explicitly left-wing political approach=20 > (from my observations). But that needn't affect us here on AML-List. Oooo. Cool observation. I mean, it's so blindingly true that I'm = shocked I didn't notice that before. Why isn't there a, I dunno, Smithian = literary criticism (as in Adam Smith, not Joseph)? I think it might be = inherently harder to do conservative literary theory because conservative theory doesn't fracture or focus very well. i.e. liberal politics can be = rendered down to feminist, Marxist, or ecological studies. All relatively = distinct, though broadly related to or influenced by liberal ideology. So what = would a conservative look at? Good question, and one I'll have to think about. Nothing comes = immediately to mind, though I'm sure something can be done. It's hard to apply an individualist or free-market outlook on literature. Some of that may be because traditionally criticism is a function of limiting or focusing on certain elements of a work. Conservativism (as I practice it anyway) = tends to be more amorphous and less targeted. It's more of a leave me alone, leave others alone, property rights matter, swing others to your cause = one at a time one-on-one kind of philosophy. It's a bit more trusting of individuals in chaotic circumstances and a lot less cohesive than the liberal counter-part. And I reject the idea that traditional or classical literary theory is conservative. Conservativism isn't about blind adherence to tradition and/or following historical precedence. It *is* about core values and applying important traditional principals to new and emerging = circumstances. It *is* about stretching known systems and values to cover emerging = changes (whereas liberal theory tends to view changes as the demise of known = systems and values). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Date: 25 Mar 2003 22:57:45 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Every person has his own idea of art, so a general definition is really >irrelevant for the indivudal. But when we get together to discuss art, >we need to have some idea of what it is. I wonder if, rather than consider "art" as a category of objects or products, or as a set of attributes, or as an element in the presentation or creation of objects or products, we might more profitably think of it as one of a number of ways we can choose to regard things in the world around us. Thus, for example, a computer program is art when we choose to view and talk about it as art, but not when we choose to talk about it as a purely functional tool. I personally like this idea, because (a) it incorporates the flexibility needed to talk about things like computer programs as art, while (b) still placing definite limits around the topic. I'd argue (without a lot of knowledge; I'm not at all versed in the theory of the esthetic) that any kind of discussion of art requires, first, some kind of esthetic, implying, I suppose, a notion of beauty. That notion will be different from genre to genre. When my mathematician wife tells me that mathematics is an art form, and that some math is beautiful (while other art is ugly), I do not doubt that there is an esthetic that many, perhaps most, mathematicians share, although it is completely outside my realm of knowledge. To another mathematician, you can show what the beauty is, you can discuss it, you can demonstrate and argue about it, just as much, I suppose, as we on AML-List can talk about the artistry of a movie or play or short story. In some ways, I don't think this is all that different from Michael Martindale's borrowed idea about framing art. Yes, everything is always framed--but I would argue that there are many different types of frames, some of them artistic, others utilitarian or scientific. The same object can have several different physical or conceptual frames. Depending on which frame we choose to set around the object, we may be talking about a work of art, something that holds us off the floor, or an object of scientific (e.g., sociological) study, when in each case the physical object is a chair. The main difference I am arguing (as I see it) is that I'd transfer responsibility for the frame away from the author or presenter of the work to the reader or viewer or critic. Some objects can be talked about much more compellingly as art than other objects can be. The way to settle arguments of that sort is to let someone talk about something (e.g., a computer program) as art, then judge how effective the discussion is. If the presentation isn't compelling, then you may not (by this scheme) be justified in saying that the object isn't art; but you would be justified in saying that viewing it as art doesn't seem to accomplish much. Which, practically speaking, comes to much the same thing. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 25 Mar 2003 21:44:28 -0700 ---Original Message From: Bill Willson >=20 > We all have the right=20 > to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to=20 > express an opinin about it without the stigma of ostracisim. I'm with you until this point. Why should I be forced to listen to = people I disagree with? I mean, I have a tolerably thick skin (though if someone expresses an opinion I'm not shy about expressing mine back), but I = don't feel like going to Democrat party functions and the idea that someone = should force me to go is abhorrent to me. If someone often expresses opinions = with which I disagree, I'm not going to want to spend as much time with them = as I spend with people with whom I *do* agree. And I expect the same in = return. In fact, I rather dislike the whole notion that we should have to listen = to people who oppose us so we "understand" one another. Too often, the assumption is that if we "understand" one another, we'll end up agreeing = and we'll be friends forever more. That's just not the case. I have no = trouble understanding liberal ideology, I just disagree with it. No amount of explanation is going to change that--frankly, I've likely heard it = before, probably exhaustively. =20 One reason for our discomfort is that we have less in common and thus = less to discuss. Another is that we often have fundamentally different ways = of viewing and processing things. And while I enjoy associating with the = more liberal members of the list, and look forward to our discussions and = enjoy sharing with them my viewpoint and having them share theirs with me, the majority of my time I'll choose to be comfortable discovering new = territory with those who share my fundamental philosophical beliefs. Not because = I value homogeneity so much as that I need the rest from the effort to accommodate alien ways of thought and irreconcilable world views. All of which hasn't even touched on society's greatest influence for good--deliberate ostracism. A lot of deviant behavior is prevented by certainty of ostracism including fraud, theft, lies, covenant breaking, = loud and disturbing noises, even violence. Legal ostracism is a great thing, = of course, but even the non-legal ostracism can be a powerful motivator. = Of course, ostracism can and is sometimes used as a force for evil as well = and when it is it should be undermined and not tolerated. Ostracizing ward members because you disagree with their politics is wrong, though you = have to be careful that it *is* ostracism and not just being more comfortable with others more ideologically like-minded. True ostracism *should* be confronted, though keeping up confrontation in the face of = intractability is probably a bad idea. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Call for Papers in Honor of Marden Clark Date: 26 Mar 2003 07:15:56 -0500 Harlow: Could you provide a bibliography of your father's work? I think many of us would love a list of what he wrote. Kent -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] News from Center Street Theatre: "Stones" Opens Date: 26 Mar 2003 14:07:58 -0700 NEWS FROM CENTER STREET THEATRE 50 West Center Street - Orem, Utah 84057 - 801-225-3800 - Opening of Stones - How to Get Tickets - About the Play - What the Reviewers Say - About the Cast - About Center Street Theatre - Producer's Note Opening of "Stones" ------------------- CENTER STREET THEATRE, 50 WEST CENTER STREET, OREM, announces the opening of its latest production, the award-winning "Stones," written and directed by J. Scott Bronson. The production, which is actually two one-act plays performed in repertory during the same evening, opens March 20, 2003 and runs every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday through April 26. The first play, "Altars," is closely based on the scriptural story of Abraham and Isaac, presenting an up-close look at the concept of sacrifice, both in the literal, Old Testament sense, and in the day-to-day giving up of one's self as a parent or family member. The principle action of the play takes place at the top of Mt. Moriah, the place of Isaac's Binding. The second play of the evening, "Tombs," is an exploration -- a frank inquiry -- into the relationship between the Son of God and his mortal mother. While the situation here is invented, Bronson feels that the emotions connected to it must be as real as the people who surely felt them. The principle action of this play takes place in Joseph's tomb as Mary, the mother of Christ, prepares it for her husband's body. How to Get Tickets ------------------ Ticket prices are 10 dollars General Admission, 9 dollars Senior Citizens, and 8 dollars for students. Groups rates are 6 dollars for groups of ten or more. No children under 12 will be admitted. To reserve tickets, call the theatre box office at 801-225-3800 during regular business hours. Tickets may also be purchased at the theatre box office 50 West Center Street, Orem, between 4 and 6 PM Monday through Saturday. PLEASE NOTE: As of this production, the Center Street Theatre will no longer be presenting plays on Monday evenings. About the Play -------------- "Stones" premiered at the Little Brown Theatre in 2001 and subsequently won the Association for Mormon Letters Award for Best Play. Playwright Bronson says: "I have a mission in life. That is to spread the word of the gospel of Jesus Christ -- to build the kingdom of God on Earth -- by writing and directing and acting in plays. The fact that I want to spread the Gospel should not be surprising to anyone who knows anything about Mormons. The fact that I want to spread the Gospel through theatrical means should not be surprising to anyone who knows me. Theatre is the only thing I'm any good at to any degree. And as far as I'm concerned the Gospel and theatre are a pretty good match. After all, the temple ceremony, as originally conceived, is a theatrical event. This doesn't mean, however that I'm conventional in my approach." In awarding "Stones" its Drama award, the Association for Mormon Literature said in its citation: " 'Stones' is a perfect example of the three keys to playwriting: Story, Character, and Dialogue. Both acts, thousands of years apart in real time, appear outwardly to tell two different stories. But the similarities in the themes of faith and family reach across the years to bind the play into one coherent story that is relevant today and will always be as long as humans walk the earth.... "Stones" sets a new standard for Mormon drama in the universality of its theme, the depth of its characterization, and the poignant beauty of its words." What the Reviewers Say ---------------------- "The emotional intensity is palpable, and 'Stones' is a cathartic, enriching experience." -- Eric D. Snider, of the Daily Herald. "What wonderful, powerful plays you have written in 'Stones'!... they were emotionally electrifying and emotionally challenging. Everyone should see these!" -- Tim Slover, author of "Joyful Noise." About the Cast -------------- Kathryn Laycock Little: Before starting her family, Kathryn, a native of Orem, Utah, lived in New York City for several years where she performed Off-Broadway as a charter member of the Manhattan Theater Ensemble. Kathryn has also performed leads at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, The Capitol Theater, Abravanel Hall, and Sundance Theater. She has been a guest artist with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Utah Valley Symphony, and the Utah Valley Choral. Some of her favorite stage credits include the leading roles in "Camelot," "The King and I," "Kiss Me Kate," "Into The Woods," "The Sound Of Music," and "The Music Man." You will also hear her as narrator and/or soloist for numerous television and radio commercials, films, books on tape, and CDs. Elwon Bakly: Elwon, being a native to Montana and an eight-year Washington tourist, is fairly new to the Utah region. Elwon has been performing for well over eight years in all aspects of the performing arts -- stage, film, voice, etc. Recently Elwon has been seen in performances at the Hale Center Theatre as the bitter Scot in "The Hasty Heart," and the bewildered Englishman, Norman, in "Cash on Delivery," as well as in "Deathtrap" for the Provo Theater Company. He can also be seen in the DVD, "The Basket." Elwon loves his new family first and foremost and misses them very much thanks to all the acting going on. Someday he will be gifted the simple luxury of kissing his wife and children before they sleep ... someday. J. Scott Bronson: A native of San Diego, where his love for theatre was also born, Scott came to Utah twenty-one years ago so that his friend, John, would have a room-mate while schooling at BYU. Scott soon got himself going to school at BYU as well and continued his studies in theatre. After a few years Scott fell in love with the incomparable Lynne Davis and got married and got kids (five) and got stuck. While in Utah he has performed in scores of stage and small screen productions. Scott is also Artistic Director for the Nauvoo Theatrical Society. About Center Street Theatre --------------------------- This production of "Stones" is presented at the Center Street Theatre, 50 West Center Street, Orem, by the Nauvoo Theatrical Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to the creation and preservation of Mormon culture as found in the theatrical arts. Producer's Note --------------- I read the first act of "Stones" in Sunstone years ago and was immediately stuck with its lyrical beauty, not all that common in plays meant to be performed. As a work of two-dimensional art, "Stones" holds its own with the best in Mormon literature -- it scans well, its dialogue almost poetic in rhythm and content. When seeing it performed, however -- as I was privileged to do two years ago -- one is transformed beyond the beauty of the words to the living wonder of the lives those words illuminate. It is with great pleasure that the Nauvoo Theatrical Society presents the 2003 performance of "Stones." C. Thomas Duncan Executive Director The Nauvoo Theatrical Society "Mormon artists exploring Mormon life through theatre" -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Books on the Bedside Table (Comp 2) Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:36:01 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Mon Mar 24 21:44:28 2003 I just finished _We The Living_ by Ayn Rand. I hadn't read her before; she's been discussed on the list, piquing my interest; the lilies are pushing their tender leaves through the dust of earth beneath the kitchen window; I was irritated by its ending. [--voila, a Rand-style sentence to chew on.] In the middle of _We The Living_ I broke for something lighter-weight and read my first C.J. Cherryh novel, _The Paladin._ Maybe I picked the wrong one. She has ravenous fans. But the pacing of this one seemed terrible. A full 2/3 - 3/4 of the book was spent developing an interrelationship between characters that, while unique by themselves, were taken from stock situations and frankly, after the first chapter or two I got it already, and wanted her to get on with it, very very predictable. (Master Trainer, mountain recluse, Young Eager Student convinces Master to teach--Student turns out to be, voila, a girl hence there is a potential love affair) I skimmed the ending--where the action (revenge) *finally* takes place after about a hundred pages of "and we're walking. . . we're walking. . ." so maybe I missed something; by then I was half-asleep. But I didn't notice any twists--it seemed to end up exactly as planned with no surprises. I thought up a couple of nice ones but the book didn't take me up on them. So: can anyone enlighten me to a Cherryh title I should try instead? Her writing _quality_ was very good--excellent sentences, detail, and characterization--in spite of her choice of stock situations, they were quite believable--maybe I happened across one that's not her best. I also recently read _Catseye_ by Andre Norton, a really old thing that I liked as a kid, to see why I liked it. I'm not sure now why I liked it so much. But it was fun. Also on my bedstand to be read are _The Bluest Eye_ (Toni Morrison), _The Joy Luck Club_ (Amy Tan), and _The Lilies of the Field_ (by I Forgot Whom). And, uh, a Piers Anthony thingy, and another Andre Norton that I read ages ago, _Forerunner Foray._ I'm afraid my list shows I'm more of an SF pulp fan than elite literati. . . but I'm not ashamed to admit that. Okay that's enough spoiler space and now I will explain why I didn't like Rand's ending. Stop here if you don't want to know it, because the rest of this post discusses only that. ******* Kira, the protagonist, is not very smart or reasonable; but that's forgivable, she is very young and has little long-term perspective and chose her men badly. She ends up shot while trying to cross the Russian border by a soldier. (That much I'm okay with; it's a reasonable enough ending.) What is not reasonable is that it happened this way: On a very dark, Russian night, in winter, in knee- to waist-deep snow, and Kira is dressed all in white and hunches down when she sees a guard ahead. The soldier's POV is given. He sees a bare trace of movement. Then nothing. He isn't sure. Long-range, he fires one shot. No movement. He figures it's a rabbit, does not go to investigate, walks away. Six pages or so follow of Kira trudging through the snow, beautifully written prose, dying as she slowly bleeds to death from the single shot which just-so-happened to pierce her in the heart. Sure it's fiction--but it strained my disbelief to the point I felt the author was pulling the irony card a bit too much. The soldier is not portrayed as a sharpshooter; just an unbrilliant guy who'd rather be stationed somewhere warmer. I seriously doubt that he would have hit her at all--more likely, an arm or a leg. But with no aim, no sure target, *smack* in the heart. Also as she dies, no one knows whether she died inside or outside the border of the U.S.S.R. So: who won? Did she make it? Did the Soviets slaughter everything good, and there is no escape from it? Or, was there a glimmer of hope extended? I felt that whether she got out, or not, even though she died trying, was important to establish the final theme of the book. Apparently Rand herself got out; the cover and introduction by the author states "This is as close to an autobiography as I will ever write." The plot is not her life, but Kira's ideals and thoughts and values are. [paraphrasing] And that the novel was to illustrate what it was like under Soviet rule in 1922, that the living conditions she describes and situations were quite real. (And it was realistic; which is why I had to take a breather and come "up" a bit.) Okay. There's not much of a Mormon connection except that Richard asked for thoughts on what we're reading and we're Mormons. Oh, and that this book is an excellent treatise on the evils Communism brought to the world and the utter wrongness of the concept that Man exists for the State, rather than the other way around. (I can back up that it is LDS doctrine that governments exist to support man, I just read it in a November Conference talk which I can look up if anyone cares) It also made me think of weird similarities between the current Corporate America environment and a lot of the complaints of the characters in the novel; but we are still FREE. Huge difference. Anyway: are there Ayn Rand fans out there who see this novel differently than I did and can help explain it to me in plain English? Her prose was gorgeous in many places, and the characters jumped off the pages, but I didn't *like* any of them very much. There were two fathers that I cheered for, Vasili (Victor and Irina's father), and Victor's wife's father, for the speech at their wedding. Okay, there's my reading list. Linda Adams >From Jacob@proffitt.com Tue Mar 25 03:53:29 2003 Interesting question. I'll bite. I just finished John Steakley's _Armor_. I've become quite a fan of = his, though I know of only two novels he's published. He deals a lot with violence, the purposes of violence, the motivations for it, and most particularly, he deals with good men who become men of violence for = whatever reason (usually conviction, but mixed with other motivations as well). = He explores the damage, spiritual and physical, that accrue through = violence, even to the victors. _Armor_ in particular is an exploration of war and = is relatively anti-war--or at least, it turns out strongly anti-war-establishment. I love the book and I am surprised and pleased = that I still find it so worth reading now. Before that I read a Heinlein juvenile, _Citizen of the Galaxy_. = Strange choice, I know. Melissa is perpetrating a reading project on a nephew = of mine and I wanted to re-read it to see if it holds up as well as memory served (and is appropriate to his age and maturity). It does stand up, though it's probably a bit over his preparation level for now. It's a scathing tract against slavery in a way that is powerfully moving (as = many of Heinlein's juveniles are--moving that is). It was an enjoyable read = and a quick one. I like Heinlein's individualists, though they crack a bit under too-close scrutiny. Hm. I wish I had emulated Melissa's commitment to keeping a reading-journal. The next book that I recall is _The Dollmage_. That = was an *amazing* book and I wish I had followed-through to write a review of = it right after reading it. The book isn't very well known for several = reasons, though I consider it the best LDS novel I've ever read. It's "young = adult", and has an off-putting (or at least misleading) cover, and the publisher = is associated with the University of Calgary so the book doesn't get wide distribution and getting a copy is a pain. It is, however, well worth overcoming that pain. _The Dollmage_ represents (to me) everything a = Mormon novel should be and it does so without actually being identifiably LDS. = And the ending--oh my. I finished it after midnight and as tired as I was I couldn't stop thinking about it for several hours after (seriously, two hours--thinking it over, on a week-day). There's power in this book and = it should be required reading for our people. It's fun, it's engaging, and = it deals realistically with themes of love, betrayal, power through proxy, = real evil, responsibility, kindness, and forgiveness. Recentish books I keep harking back to: 1) Michael Chabon's _The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_. I actually *did* write something of a review of the book and it's posted = on my web site (http://www.jacob.proffitt.com/blog/Reviews/Kavalier.html). 2) Neil Gaiman's _American Gods_ is a fantastic ride through American mythology and a landscape dripping with myth and meaning. And a = reminder that some of our Gods are nasty, brutish things that are probably best = left in the dark that spawned them. Neil Gaiman has finally found his voice = as a writer and it has been a pleasure to witness his migration from Graphic Novelist (The Sandman series still represents some of the best art our culture has produced--and that's a good and worthy benchmark) to = powerful word-smith. Jacob Proffitt >From lhkimball@pobox.com Tue Mar 25 19:15:20 2003 Here are some of my favorites: PEACE LIKE A RIVER by Leif Enger Set in Minnesota in the more-or-less innocent pre-Vietnam War '60's, this is a story of a remarkable father and his three children. The oldest child is involved in a murder of another teen in town and escapes from jail. The tale of how the family stays in tact (more or less) with affection, faith and determination is powerful and page turning. The writing is fresh and suffused with a spirit that shimmers. It's so "spiritual" (for lack of a better word) that it's a delightful surprise to me that it has been so commerically successful. Deep themes of sin and consequences, forgiveness and redemption run throughout without clubbing you on the head. Beautiful, beautiful. I have a few quibbles about some characters and other details, but overall I enjoyed this book more than any other in the past few years. STRAIGHT MAN by Richard Russo Our local book group read this book about a middle aged department head and his dysfunctional college English department in a run down PA milltown. I liked it a lot, laughed out loud, and felt like I knew those folks very well. Some other book group members (younger and married for a shorter length of time) didn't share my enthusaism and thought it put men in a bad light. Not so, I say. I'm looking forward to reading Empire Falls. THE DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America by Erik Larson. This book is about Chicago's 1893 World's Columbian Exposition and about a serial murderer who set up very grim shop nearby preying on young women drawn to the city because of the fair. I'm not finished with it, but so far I am entranced by the writing in this non-fiction hardcover. His description of late 19th century Chicago is vivid: "During heavy rains, river water flowed in a greasy plume far out into Lake Michigan, to the towers that marked the intake pipes for the city's drinking water. In rain any street not paved with macadam oozed a fragrant muck of horse manure, mud and garbage that swelled between granite blocks like pus from a wound." (Rest assured, Chicago is a handsome city these days!) Thanks for the thread, Richard! Linda Kimball in Evanston, IL >From tlaulusa@core.com Tue Mar 25 20:04:25 2003 I loved Cry the Beloved Country. It took a chapter or two to get used to the dialogue style--no quotation marks. Mostly I've been reading non-fiction lately. A lot of stuff about horses. If you like story telling and horses read the books by Mark Rashid. Magazines like Backhome, Successful Farming, and Equus are all over my house. I'm in the middle of the definitive book on aquaculture, which I am too lazy to go look at the title of. I am making my way through a variety of religious treatise, currently Who Told You You Were Naked. I am embarrassed to admit that my escapism reading of the moment are books by Amanda Quick. Not my usual style (no offense to those whose style it is.), but an effective escape mechanism which I really need at times. I just started a little book called Christmas in Harmony--reminiscence of a Quaker pastor. I have a P.G. Wodehouse collection waiting for me, and plan on a re-read of Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury. Tracie Laulusa >From scottparkin@earthlink.net Tue Mar 25 21:44:21 2003 I read a fair amount and have been on an ecclectic reading schedule recently. Here are the books I've read over the past eight weeks, in approximately reverse order. A special thanks to Stephen Carter for giving away so many of this books. I'm still working through the six boxes of books I took out of his basement, and the two additional boxes I scavenged later on. Current: _Holes_ by Louis Shachar. A YA title that came highly recommended. Recent: _Salvador_ by Margaret Blair Young. Review forthcoming. _Enchantment_ by Orson Scott Card. _American Gods_ by Neil Gaiman. _The Marketing of Sister B_ by Linda Hoffman Kimball. Review forthcoming...maybe. _Shadow Puppets_by Orson Scott Card. _Shadow of the Hegemon_ by Orson Scott Card. _The Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood. Thank you, Stephen. _A Canticle for Liebowitz_ by Walter M. Miller. Review on this and the next two forthcoming--all religiously themed sf that takes religion seriously...mostly. _The Sparrow_ by Mary Doria Russell. _Towing Jehovah_ by James Morrow. _The Green Man: Tales from the Mythic Forest_ by various authors. An anthology that includes M. Shayne Bell's excellent short story "The Pagodas of Ciboure." _The Eyre Affair_ by Jasper Fforde. _Singled Out_ by Eric Samuelsen. _The Curse of Chalion_ by Lois McMaster Bujold. _The Bridge of San Luis Rey_ by Thornton Wilder. Read this the evening after reading the Solzhenitsyn. Thank you, Stephen. _One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich_ by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Read this after church one Sunday. Thank you, Stephen. _Brave New World_ by Alduous Huxley. _Frankenstein_ by Mary Shelley. _Three Christmas Stories_ by Charles Dickens. Thank you, Stephen. _The Screwtape Letters_ by C.S. Lewis. Next in line: _Standing on the Promises_ by Margaret Young and Darius Gray; the whole series. I hate to admit that I still haven't read any of these. I suppose I should comment on some of these, but I've already taken up a lot of space so I'll do that in another post. Scott Parkin >From roy_schmidt@byu.edu Wed Mar 26 08:52:41 2003 My current stack includes: Hillerman: Seldom Disappointed Chandler: Farewell My Lovely Mencken: A New Dictionary of Quotations Peterson: Hugh Nibley Greene: The Third Man Roy Schmidt >From lairdjim@mac.com Wed Mar 26 11:13:59 2003 This last month I've read: _Nicholas Nickleby_ by Charles Dickens _David Copperfield_ by Charles Dickens _Black Spark, White Flame_ by Richard Poe _March to the Stars_ by David Weber _Conan of Cimmeria_ by Robert Howard _Slander_ by Anne Coulter _Knight Errant_ by R. Garcia y Robertson _Enchanter_ by Sara Douglas _Green Rider_ by Kristen Britain That's all for this month. I haven't been reading much lately, though I also read three books that are certainly not literature: _SAP R/3 Handbook_ by Jose Fernandez _Guide to Windows 2000_ by ??? _Oracle9 a Beginner's Guide_ by some committee or other It's amazing how long it takes to read manuals compared to literature. Presently waiting by my bed waiting for me to get to them: _Starman_ by Sara Douglas _Myth Direction_ by Robert Asprin _Tale of Two Cities_ by Charles Dickens _Killing Time_ by Caleb Carr (I'm about halfway through this one) _Death Lands Starfall_ by James Axler _A Storm of Swords_ by George R.R. Martin The only one that was really socially interesting was Richard Poe's _Black Spark, White Flame_, which is a new "afrocentric" take on the history of western civilization. He makes a pretty good case but there are some massive assumptions and leaps that detract from the idea somewhat. It's a particularly interesting book from the LDS perspective since he claims that the current Masons are descended from the Ptah-worshipers going way back to Egypt. It also makes an excellent case against the whole "hug the coastline/stay at home" theory of history. He talks about a ship with goods from all over the Mediterranean and even from England that was sunk about 700 BC and had little icons from a dozen different civilizations. Very interesting in light of the "impossibility" of the Lehites crossing the sea. It was fun to read but really mostly speculative. I would really really like to know what actually happened all over but I suppose I'll just have to be patient. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim >From ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu Wed Mar 26 16:41:56 2003 Recently (within the last week): Franzen, Jonathan: The Corrections Lemony Snicket: The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room Friedman, Thomas: Longitudes and Attitudes Winik, Jay: April 1865 Alterman, Eric: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and The News Westlake, Donald: Don't Ask That's a pretty typical week, except in one regard; I loved every book I = read this week, and that's unusual for me, but of course, welcome. I = usually also read more non-fiction than this; I tend to read two non-fictio= n books for every novel I read, esp. books on public policy, history, = science and so on. I never read inspirational stuff, I never read books = on writing, and I have read one work of devotional literature in my life, = and, since it was Ann Lamott, I figured I'd read the best so why go on? I = usually read more LDS stuff than this; just the vagaries of a one week = sample. Franzen's The Corrections is one of those Big Novels that get space on = Times Reviews and stuff. I thought I'd see what the hype was about. = Earned, is what I'd conclude. I absolutely loved the book, loved his = compassion for this loving, screwed up family. One of those huge American = Family novels, a compelling read, one of the best novels I've read in = years. =20 Lemony Snicket. My nine year old discovered these, and she loves 'em, and = I got one of those 'what's my daughter reading' pangs and thought I should = read 'em too. Man, are they great. The illustrator's LDS, too. Best = kids' books I've read in years. Terrific sour humor. Early in the Reptile = Room my daughter came up to me and said sadly "I'm twenty pages into this, = and nothing bad has happened to them yet." And then she brightened and = said "but I think it'll pick up." Friedman's the best, absolutely best journalist on current Middle East = stuff. I've read his other two books, and thought, right now, I should = read this one too. It's a little disappointing, just a collection of his = old columns, but with little flashes of light and truth and wisdom every = three pages or so. He's so evenhanded. And he supports the current war, = which I do not, but for reasons I can respect. The Winik book was a gift from a friend, and I thought I'd better give it = a read, started it Sunday night at around 9 and finished it 2 o'clock = Monday morning, was tired and grumpy all the next day but who cares. The = events he describes--Appamatox, the Lincoln assassination, the surrender = of Johnston and Forrest--are all familiar stories, but he gives each some = real insight and he writes like a dream.=20 Alterman's book is utterly brilliant, but I can't say much about it = without being accused of being Michael Jordan or something. The Westlake book is superb comedy, of course. It's an old favorite, = picked it up on a whim at the library, and started re-reading it, got = caught up once again in familiar rythms and patterns, and fell in love all = over again. There are two new Westlake novels out, which I'm desperately = trying to develop enough self-control to not order from Amazon. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: List Superstars (Comp 1) Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:37:18 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation of several similar posts.] >From barbara@techvoice.com Tue Mar 25 21:15:55 2003 At 12:32 AM 3/22/03 -0700, you wrote: >I put a lot of my personal thoughts (and more than a few private details) >out on >this list. For the most part, people completely ignore what I post. That >bothers >me to varying degrees at different times--but it hasn't bothered me enough to >make me stop. I've found this list to be relatively accomodating to those >kinds >of expression--even when others have had different views. I enjoy reading and thinking about your thoughtful posts. Some of them I clip and save. But I don't want to clutter the list with me-too posts. And sometimes you express yourself so clearly and fully that there's nothing else to say. barbara hume >From glennsj@inet-1.com Tue Mar 25 22:04:26 2003 Scott Parkin (addressing Eric Samuelsen) wrote: > Apparently you do, though. No one responds to my posts with the energy that your > posts generate--with the result that you have visibility and celebrity and even > superstar status (relative though that may be...) that I can only > appreciate--and envy quite a bit--despite the fact that I've posted more words > on this list than any other person in its history. I have nowhere near the > notoriety or celebrity you do, and probably never will. It's not in my nature to > make the kinds of statements you do--even though I share similar opinions on a > great many subjects. > > It seems like a matter of skill, not bias. Some people got the skill, and those > people get the notice. I know that Scott is merely building an analogy here (using this example to fortify his very credible argument that the Elizabeth Smart case may have received so much media attention for reasons completely separate from race and/or socioeconomic status), but I want to respond directly to what he says in the above snippet. Scott, you underestimate the value and power of your contributions to this list. Of course people respond more often to Eric's posts. That's because he (bless his lovable soul) makes these outrageous statements that just cannot be ignored! Your posts, as others have already pointed out, tend to be thoughtful, sensible, carefully crafted essays. Eric sometimes almost *invites* argument. Yours is nearly always the voice of reason, tolerance, and compassion. Hard to argue with that. I love to read Eric's posts. I really do. He's a superb writer--often funny, usually provocative, always entertaining. But you know what, Scott? Yours are the posts that I print out and keep. Just thought you might like to know that. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: New Mormon Lit Forum (Comp 1) Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:36:13 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From pchamberlain@westcon.net Tue Mar 25 18:13:44 2003 Would this new forum allow F-bombs. That's what's keeping me from posting more. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net >From robert@robertslaven.ca Tue Mar 25 19:12:02 2003 Wow. Where to begin. There was so much in digest #1016 (comprised of posts from Saturday 22 to today, Tuesday) that I couldn't let my fingers sit still. This will be #1 of a buttload of posts I'll be making tonight. > Subject: [AML] New Mormon Lit Forum (was: AML-List Moderator Practices) > RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > > But where can I go if I want a little more passion and color in the > > conversation? Is there another forum I don't know about? > > I don't know of one, but it would be a piece of cake to create one. > > It required nine states to ratify the Constitution before it would go > into effect. If nine is good enough for the Constitution, it's good > enough for me. So if nine people will offer to join such a list, I'll > create it. Having spent time on a variety of Mormon discussion groups -- Mormon-l, alt.religion.mormon on Usenet and its successor soc.religion.mormon, Joseph, the old LDS section of the Religion forum on Compuserve yea these many years ago -- I can appreciate the struggle between moderation/censorship and free rein. The biggest difficulty with free rein on any discussion group is that the loudest often hog the spotlight and the quietest often say 'the heck with it' and leave. This problem is squared on any group that has *anything* to do with Mormonism -- and not just because non-LDS or inactive LDS may use the forum to bash the others, but also because Mormons can be pretty darn good at bashing each other. So while there's a place for no-holds-barred discussion, I tend to stay away from it. The only LDS lists I spend any time on are Joseph (where every post isn't moderated, but everyone sticks pretty much to the rules with the occasional prod from the moderators), LDS-Poll (ditto, a political group), here, and a recovery-type mailing list whose identity will be kept secret to protect my privacy. If anyone wants to create another list, that'd be cool. I'd probably check it out. But if it devolves into the kind of thing Mormon-l's become since I first found it a decade or so ago, I probably won't stick around. As for this list, perhaps Our Humble Moderator could consider the possibility of letting the list become more 'self-governing', a la Joseph and LDS-Poll. (Charters for these lists are viewable at http://topica.com/lists/joseph/ and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lds-poll/files/LDS-Poll%20Charter/lds-poll_cha rter.html, respectively.) The key advantage to going this way -- i.e. not having every single post require the moderator's approval -- is that it'll save the moderator a lot of work and significantly speed up post turnaround time. As for disadvantages: First, what about volume? IIRC, most listserv software lets you put a cap on daily messages, squirting the excess out first thing after midnight (or something like that). That would help. Second, if a really flame-like message popped up, it would go through for all to see. Any 'issues' with the message and its sender would have to be dealt with after the fact. Do we trust each other enough for that? There may be other disadvantages, but I can't think of them. Anyhow, food for thought, eh? Robert Slaven >From jeff.needle@general.com Tue Mar 25 19:44:06 2003 Heck, I'll join. Why not have more mail? Incidentally, there's already a list called mormon-library, where there is a lot of unmoderated discussion. It makes me yearn for AML, it gets kind of heated. But it's fun. And wouldn't detract from participation here one whit. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Apologies Date: 28 Mar 2003 00:04:08 -0600 Folks, Apologies for the list being out of commission today. Will return tomorrow... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 22 Mar 2003 14:14:12 -0700 Jeff Needle wrote: > > The following article appeared in today's San Diego Union-Tribune. I direct > your attention particularly to the fourth-from-last paragraph, and would be > interested in your thoughts on the sentence the publisher decided to snip. > > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/currents/news_1c20romance.html My thoughts would not pass Jonathan's rapier attention. Let's just say, this is one more confirmation why I despise the cowardice of LDS publishers, and the insipid customers that cause them to do such idiotic things. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 24 Mar 2003 21:05:55 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "Maybe this is why LDS doctrine teaches that men and women cannot be exalted without each other. Maybe it's the marital unit--the husband/wife combination--that needs to perfect itself, not the individuals that comprise it. If all the godly virtues are manifested within the couple, it matters not which is manifested by which individual. We are supposed to be "one flesh," after all. No one worries that the ears cannot see or the eyes cannot hear. We only worry if the complete organism (the "one flesh") cannot see or hear." Issac Asimov beat us to it in his brilliant novel "The Gods Themselves". The aliens who mate in threes--an Intellectual, a Parental and an Emotional merge to make a whole. It always rang true to me. Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles in Literature (was: Elizabeth Smart) Date: 25 Mar 2003 12:34:39 -0700 > [MOD: Dianna raises some interesting points here. How do we handle the line > between providence and coincidence in our writing? How do we handle the > often radically different views of this distinction that seem to be floating > around within Mormon culture?] How do we treat miracles in our stories? The same way we experience them in life. Things happen. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes they are bad. Sometimes they seem so unbelievably good that we attribute them to God's intervention. Sometimes we asked for intervention, and something happens that seems an answer to our request, so we assume it's divine intervention. But in the end, unless we receive a personal witness from the spirit, we never know for sure. I think that's how we handle miracles in fiction. If our story requires it and the possibility of miracles is part of our story's worldview, we just let the inexplicable and wonderful happen. Then we let the characters sort it out. Not even the narration itself should take a stand one way or the other. Even if one of the characters receives a spiritual witness that it was a miracle (in itself a miracle), it is only that one character's testimony that it was a miracle, and everyone else (including the narration) can't know for sure if the character is right. I think that's the correct approach because that's how life is, and because it leaves it up to the audience to decide (this is called "wiggle room"). Because the author is supposed to understand everything that goes on in the story, including stuff that doesn't appear in the story, you might think I'd argue that the author at least shoud know if it was a real miracle or not. But I tend to believe this is one exception to the rule. If the author isn't even sure, somehow that seems to me to preserve the ineffable nature of miracles. Let's examin some stories which had miracles, which is always a good way to figure out how to do it: God's Army Benny already couldn't walk without crutches. Then he's beaten and paralyzed, and possibly may die. Elder Dalton heals him through priesthood power as dramatically as a healing by Christ. This miracle was plopped into the film out of the blue, and a number of people criticized how it was handled. But this film had a worldview that miracles are possible. And that worldview accepts that miracles can appear out of the blue. I think the difficulty with this scene is because the miracle, being so dramatic and inexplicable, seemed to make any interpretion impossible except an intervention by God through priesthood power. The narration itself appeared to demand that we accept it as a miracle. But technically the film did no such thing. It left room to argue that it was some sort of mind-over-matter faith healing that medical science accepts can occur. Yet from a purely literary standpoint, I think it would have worked better with a touch more foreshadowing than existed. I'd have been happy if the film had informed us early on that Benny had been praying for such a miracle, which I think would have been foreshadowing enough. Literary moral: even though miracles in life are shocking and inexplicable and (often) unexpected, current literary expectations require us to foreshadow it so it doesn't seem totally like a Deus ex machina result (even though, when you get right down to it, it is). Leap of Faith This film has a similar healing scene, except this time we're talking Protestant evangelical Christianity, and the minister was clearly a fraud. The miracle occurs nonetheless and is never explained. Somehow this miracle doesn't bother as much as the one in _God's Army_. Why? After all, there is no explanation. The minister was a fraud and therefore could not have been the catalyst for the miracle. In _God's Army_, the explanation was clear: the Mormon Priesthood can work miracles. That leaves little wiggle room for someone who doesn't want to accept that. _Leap of Faith_ doesn't require us to accept a single explanation, so we are free to come up with our own. Literary moral: leave wiggle room for interpretation of your miracles. This may be difficult with stories where the LDS worldview is accepted. There is virtually no wiggle room there. We may have to be satisfied with ignoring this moral and make sure we follow the moral above: foreshadow enough so it doesn't come totally out of the blue. But one thing strikes me: wasn't it Mormons who were bothered more by the miracle scene in _God's Army_ than nonmembers? Maybe that's because nonmembers don't accept the Momron worldview. so they didn't feel obligated to accept the explanation that the Mormon priesthood did it. They had enough wiggle room. Mormons don't have that wiggle room, and perhaps felt embarrassed because they figured those who don't accept the Mormon worldview might be turned off by the scene. If that's true, their embarrassment was unnecessary: the nonbelievers took it as well as I, a nonbeliever in Protestant Christianity, took the miracle in _Leap of Faith_. Ben-Hur In the end of the film, Ben-Hur's leprous mother and sister are healed. This scene breaks a couple of (Mormon) miracle conventions. There was no request from the recipients to be healed, and there was no instrument through which the healing took place (a priesthood holder). The film leaves no wiggle room for explaining the miracle: the narration clearly takes the stand that the healing occurred through the miraculous intervention of the Christian God. Yet it works. Why? I think because of the accepted conventions of the genre: in an epic film about a divine Christ, such things occur and don't need explanation. Literary moral: if the genre is for you, who can be against you? Miraculous things happen in fantasies and no one bats an eye. Miraculous things happen in science fiction and no one bats an eye, as long as you come up with some semi-plausible scientific reason why it _could_ happen (or at least a fun reason so the reader is willing to ignore the fantastic nature of your story). Often science fiction doesn't require even that, if the fantastic thing is a commonly accepted device in the genre (like faster-than-light space travel). Magical realism has become a recognized genre, which is nothing more than transforming a religion's real supernatural beliefs into fantasy to creates wiggle room for the unbelievers to enjoy the story without having to take a stand on the beliefs. Miraculous Judeo-Christian stories comprise such a genre, so the world can enjoy _Ben-Hur_ or _Ten Commandments_ or _Jesus of Nazareth_ or even _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ without having to pass judgment on the beliefs. The miracle in _God's Army_ may not fare well simply because Mormon magical realism is not an established genre. We may just need time. But there are things we can do to speed that time up. I think Mormon magical realism is not acknowledged because of our pervasive reputation of being a proselyting people. If we tell a story that contains a supernatural Mormon worldview, everyone assumes it's because we're trying to tell them that's what they're supposed to believe. No wiggle room. _God's Army_ doesn't proselyte, and as a result, many nonbelievers praised the film, even with the miraculous bits. _God's Army_ struck a blow against our reputation of inevitable proselyting every time we open our mouths. To establish the genre that will be for us, so no one will be against us, we simply must stop proselyting in our stories. Over time, the mainstream audience will come to trust us and accept them. The paradoxical corollary: then our stories really will proselyte, because our worldview will get out. Those who are receptive will be affected. We must trust that the message is powerful enough on its own without our artificial (and bumbling) efforts to enhance it. Which means, we must sincerely not be interested in proselyting in our stories. Americans are hypersensitive to marketing of any kind, and they'll catch the whiff of it whenever someone consciously does it, no matter how well disguised. When we establish the genre of Mormon magical realism, we can use miracles all we want and the audience will accept the story. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Date: 25 Mar 2003 19:01:02 -0800 > Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices > From where I sit, it seems clear that on a year-in, year-out basis, just > about nothing else causes quite as much trouble for me as moderator as > politics does. Nothing else is quite so capable, in my experience, of (a) > cluttering up the in-box with posts that have no clear literary connection, > and (b) raising the temperature of the discourse. (Well, there's doctrinal > disputes, but there don't seem to have been so many problems with those, in > recent years.) > > At the same time, I'm reluctant to cut off a post that includes political > content but where the focus, in my view, is more directly literary, and > related to the subject matter of the list. Politics *is* one of those > things that's important to us, and I don't want to weaken our literary > discussions by cutting off our connections to that part of life. "All art is propaganda." [My hero George Orwell again, from his essay 'Charles Dickens'.] To apply it specifically to AML-List, "all writing has some kind of political message". (If you don't believe me, send me something to read and I'll tell you what political message it may have.) While politics is, of course, one of those things 'you don't discuss in polite company', we have to remember that religion is the other thing. Avoiding either would seriously hamper any discussions about any art here. > > And now, for a set of possibly unpalatable admissions, which may, however, > clarify where I am coming from as AML-List Moderator: > > * First, fairness in political discussion is not one of my major goals for > this forum. Fairness in literary discussion--yes. But politics isn't a > major reason for this list's existence; I frankly don't care so much what > happens with the discussion of politics, so long as it doesn't negatively > affect the discussion of literature. I *like* to see a balance of views, > simply so that people don't start feeling that they don't belong on the > list just because their politics are too "different"; but even that isn't > really a concern with fairness per se, but rather with balance and tone and > community. I actually like this. However, I would quibble with how you use the word 'fairness'. If you mean you're not out to make sure that all sides are heard (which is a monstrous definition of 'fairness' that the politically-correct Fascists have forced upon us), great. That's not what I want as a goal here, either. However, I think it would be reasonable that if anyone *does* get into political discussion, that they avoid hyperbole and weasel-words (if you haven't read Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language', you're missing out on a valuable piece of writing instruction), and that they stick to facts and well-founded assertions. The last thing we need here is some kind of "Bush is a moron/No he's not!" children's argument here (or anywhere, for that matter). > * My central concern as a moderator is to keep the conversation going. And > I can't think of anything (in my view) that stops the conversation faster > than for the tone to start becoming personal and/or angry. Part of the > value of AML-List, in my view, is that although we will debate literature > vigorously, this *isn't* a place where you have to have a thick skin in > order to participate in discussion. And politics is one of the major areas > where people can most easily start getting frustrated and angry, in my > experience. Which is a shame. Granted, I live entirely in the left hemisphere of my brain, with the right only coming out for major crises and the Stanley Cup playoffs. %-) But I do think our democracies would be a lot better off if people would actually *think* about political issues, rather than *feel* about them, IYKWIM. Nothing frustrates me more (as a citizen and as a politician) than someone whose basis for political argument is raw emotion, especially when he/she has his/her facts wrong. But that's the way the world turns, and we can't avoid it here or anywhere. > * Third, AML-List is fundamentally more about sharing views than about > debating. What this means is that ultimately, I'm going to allow that > other person over there more freedom to say something stupid than I'm going > to allow you to show him the error of his ways. It's a fine line, the line > between sharing a different viewpoint and disputing someone else's views. > But it's a real one, and it makes a marked difference in the tone of the > responses you get. I agree wholeheartedly. Well spoken, Bruce! (with apologies to the Monty Python non-fans out there). > Going back to the issue of politics in AML-List posts, and why I allow it > in some cases and not in others... > > I have allowed--just off the top of my brain--political tie-ins in all of > the following contexts: > > * Describing how politics enters into a work of Mormon literature or > literature about Mormons. And, if you agree with me and George, there is *always* some kind of political dimension to *any* piece of art, whether intentional or not, whether explicit or implicit. > * Characterizations of the press, particularly the local Utah press. If that ain't political, I don't know what is. (Has the Deseret News *ever* said anything nice about a Democrat since Truman?) > How does politics connect with Mormon letters? I can think of many ways, > including the following: > > * Political motivations and views of characters in our fiction--including > politics as a source of conflict. > * Political motivations for ourselves as readers and writers of literature. > * Political themes in literature. > * Politics as part of the Mormon culture we depict in our writing/reading. > * Politics as intersecting with esthetics and styles of criticism. > * Effects of politics on publishing. Again, if you agree with me and George, those are *all* omnipresent in any work of art. And so political discussion is inherently necessary here. However, I strongly agree that for this list, the focus should be on the literature or the art, not on the politics. It's OK to say "This book seems to promote the view that all Republicans are morons." It's not OK to say "I liked this book because it agrees with me that all Republicans are morons." Fair summary? > Politics can be potentially divisive and a time-waster. At the same time, > it can also enrich our discussions of literature. That's the balance I'd > like for us to work toward here. Again, hear hear! Signing off from the socialist fringe, Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too I don't know a soul who doesn't maintain two separate lists of doctrines -- the ones that they _believe_ that they believe, and the ones that they actually try to live by. I'm simply one of the rare ones who knows the difference. - Orson Scott Card, 'Shadow of the Hegemon' --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 26 Mar 2003 07:20:25 -0500 This is one of my reservations with the practice also. If they would just make their criteria public, then publishers and authors would have a reasonable chance of conforming to them BEFORE the book is printed. The way it is, authors and publishers can't easily conform. Kent At 1:02 PM -0700 3/22/03, D. Michael Martindale wrote: > >Short summary: When they say, "our buying process is...based on >well-researched and well-reasoned criteria," I don't believe it. > >-- >D. Michael Martindale >dmichael@wwno.com > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 26 Mar 2003 09:58:17 -0500 > Sentence Jeff is referring to: Stansfield, whose books are published by > Covenant, had to delete a sentence from her novel, "When Hearts Meet," that > described a couple's wedding night. It read, "He laughed and kicked the door > closed." I think we're all missing the point. Compare this censored sentence to the scene that caused a Cedar Fort author to get banned from Deseret Book, where the Angel drop-kicked the bad spirit over a wall. Kicking appears to be a sin. Any depiction of kicking is suspect. And any of us who don't "toe" the line may stand accused of kicking against the pricks. Not that there aren't a few pricks who could stand a good kicking. Toe-knee Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 26 Mar 2003 09:28:51 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Susan Malmrose > > >There are a handful of people that really annoy me, though, >and that makes it hard for me to appreciate their work >objectively. Michael Moore, for instance. I haven't seen >Bowling For Columbine, and I won't unless it's shown on tv. >But if I do, I doubt I'll be able to like it. I fully intend on seeing Bowling for Columbine. I don't want my distaste for Moore's Oscar diatribe to affect my veiwing of a film which, from all accounts, is quite the marvelous documentary. The second I give in to the natural man, and judge a work of art by the person who wrote, I will have considered myself as having come over to the dark side. >No one seemed to mind at the Oscar's last night that Roman >Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl and fled the country >before being sentenced. (Do I have that right? Didn't know >about it until this morning.) Another reason why we should try hard to not let a person's politics, or lifestyle, affect how we view the art they produce. Polanski is a marvelous director. (Speaking of wonderful directors, I am still wondering why the Academy didn't give Scorsese the Oscar.) Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] RE: Books on the Bedside Table (Comp 1) Date: 26 Mar 2003 09:38:21 -0700 <<< All right, people have asked my the title of this novel before. It's _Aztec_, by Gary Jennings. >>> Whoa, you bought that book at Deseret? That blows my mind. I read it as a teen and can still remember some of the sex scenes, quite explicit ones. How long ago did you buy it? Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "" Subject: Re: [AML] Anita Stansfield in the News Date: 26 Mar 2003 10:45:09 -0700 Quoting Debra L Brown : > Sentence Jeff is referring to: Stansfield, whose books are published by > Covenant, had to delete a sentence from her novel, "When Hearts Meet," that > described a couple's wedding night. It read, "He laughed and kicked the door > closed." I don't get it. Stansfield and other LDS authors have other books out that say things like this, letting the readers know that the bedroom doors are closing and they're not invited. What's different about this one? Are standards becoming stricter? I thought one reason for Stansfield's popularity was that she's candid about things like this without being graphic. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 26 Mar 2003 10:51:09 -0700 Thom, The play, per your request , was "The Way We're Wired" by the brilliant Eric Samuelson, and it was performed at Orem Center Stage with the Nauvoo Theatrical Society. It was one of my favorite experiences in a production. :) David and I can't wait to go and see "Stones" which I just heard yesterday (as I'd heard many times before) is absolutely AMAZING. I hope noone in the area misses that production. Smooches! Dianna >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:25:12 -0700 >From: "Thom Duncan" >Subject: >-----Original Message----- >And so it goes in the Book of Life. A month ago, I was in a >show, and I showed up at the theatre one night feeling anxiety >over the upcoming war with Iraq. Please, feel free to tell us the name of that "show," where it was, and how marvelous you were. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 26 Mar 2003 12:48:01 -0700 ___ Susan ___ | I find this whole conversarion very interesting, esp in light | of the fact that I was recently told by a friend that many | women in Utah are what he calls "passive females." (*cough* | Clark *cough*) ___ Uh oh. Busted. Now you know why I only responded to this thread by discussing media images. Much safer. . . Now that I have to say something I guess I'm about to dig myself in a hole. But c'est la vie I guess. But, yea, I think relative to non-Mormons, Mormon women in Utah are considerably more passive. I actually reached a point for a few years where I didn't date active Mormons at all because of this. After a considerable amount of dating I'd found that many LDS women tend to not have as many of their own hobbies they engage in, tend to downplay career or the ability to have a career, and often try to "morph" into what the guy they are interested in like. (I'm sure that the women on this list are the exception to the rule though) Knowing how controversial such comments would be, I wisely didn't say anything. Now I've been drug out of my hole. I should say that I also find that the narratives Mormon women here *want* to be said about themselves and how they act are quite different. Further I'd add that most Mormon men seem to *like* Mormon women to be like this. There is a significant trend that men want women who are less intelligent than they are, who offer no danger of being uncomplacent being house-wives, and so forth. That probably offers as much of a social pressure and fellow women do for this socialization. I also should point out that I don't see a conflict between being able to have a career and being a home maker. I do think that *all* people ought to have hobbies outside of family life and think all ought to be prepared for a career that can earn them money. Further I admit my bias towards strong women - especially career women. How does all this relate to Mormon literature? I don't know. To be honest I don't read a lot of Mormon fiction. So I'm not in a position to judge. >From the comments made by others here I half wonder if the literature isn't offering a vicarious outlet for people. You read about what you aren't so as to makeup for a certain lack of experiences. In general a lot of literature is like that. We like adventure stories to make up for a lack of adventure in our own life. Personally I decide that most things people watch on TV or read about can easily be achieved without a lot of problem. So I spent a lot of the last 10 years *having* those sorts of adventures. So I admit a certain strong view that this "vicarious experience" aspect of literature often has a negative effect. (IMO) Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben and Jessie Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 22 Mar 2003 23:38:44 -0700 Clark Goble writes: > That's not to discount what some are terming brainwashing. However > brainwashing is often taken to be very overstated as a real > psychological phenomena. (The recent media frenzy notwithstanding) Yes > there is psychological trauma. And yes strong people can make bad > choices appear persuasive. But by the same token God can't force anyone > to do anything either. For all I know he was inspiring many people to > question the girl. If she denies being Elizabeth Smart, what can God > do? I will also admit that during the first few days after we heard about the details of this case I asked many of the same questions that most people have been asking. However, my understand was unfortunately broadened by the revelation that Elizabeth's kidnappers have been charged with sexual assault. The girl was not just "brainwashed", she was raped. Not only that, but by a man who told her that God had decided that she was his wife. I've been thinking a lot about this in this last few days; rape is always a terrible crime, but I think it can be even more devastating in our culture because of the emphasis we put on being pure and chaste. How many of us have heard the stupid Sunday School lesson about the candy that gets sticky because it's been passed around to everyone, or the one about the apple that already has a bite taken out of it? (Too often we forget that repentance lets the Lord give us an entirely new candy) I think that attitudes are slowly changing, but the loss of virtue still has a stigma that tends to ignore the circumstances of its loss. There was a rape case here at BYU a few years ago where the guy dumped the girl off at the Provo temple afterwards and taunted her by telling her she would never go inside. How's that for psychological trauma? Anyways, I have cut Elizabeth a lot more slack now that I realize, at least subconsciously, she felt like she could not go home again and that her place really was with the sickos who kidnapped her. Also, does anyone happen to know of any LDS fiction that has discussed rape in our culture? Jessie Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:15:37 -0700 I haven't read much lately, being busy with other things. Even my book group book was something I read two months ago...bad, slothful me. _Castle Waiting_ by Linda Medley--a graphic novel compilation of the = first five or six issues of the comic series. The thing about such books is = that you're inevitably disappointed at how soon it ends. I wish this was in color, but other than that I have no complaints--it's a good strong unconventional fairy tale with just enough subtlety to be enjoyable, but = not enough to put off newbies. _Junie B. Jones and the Mushy Gushy Valentine_ by Barbara Park--this was just too fun. They're wonderful to read aloud, too. _The Element of Fire_ by Martha Wells--her first novel, and an excellent debut, though I find I prefer her later stuff more. She has some of the best fantasy milieus around and the most imaginative forms of magic too. _The Welcoming Door_ by Kenny Kemp--very good, with only a few = reservations. I'm looking forward to later books in the series. Waiting to read: _Heir Apparent_ by Vivian Vande Velde, because hope springs eternal, and _The Dragon's Tapestry_ by Martine Bates (Leavitt). This one came via interlibrary loan and the librarians swore they = couldn't get it, so I read vols. 2 and 3 of the trilogy first. I thought I'd outgrown the whole reading-series-out-of-order thing.... But I'm feeling= as though I need a little Diana Wynne Jones instead, so I may go back to _Archer's Goon_ or _Aunt Maria_. I'm annoyed because an Australian acquaintance has Jones's new book already, and in paperback. So she got = it early AND cheap. I would hate her if I had the energy. I thought about picking up Michael Crichton's _Prey_ at the library, but ever since he's gotten into this whole characterization thing I've lost interest. Give me _The Andromeda Strain_ any day. I'm having _Winnie the Pooh_ read to me by my oldest. I've never read = any Milne in the original and it's a lot of fun. Better even than reading = books to myself is listening to my children get hooked. Last week the girls (9 and 7 years old) were invited to an Ancient Egypt themed birthday party. Somehow this led to them wanting to read _The Egypt Game_ by Zilpha = Keatley Snyder. I've never seen them so obsessed with a book; not even the wiles= of Harry Potter had this effect. And then tonight they decided to stop just one chapter from the end so they could "save it for later" and not have = it end too soon. It makes me happy. Melissa Proffitt ----------------- If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible = warning. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:42:55 -0700 I think it might be inherently >harder to do conservative literary theory because conservative theory >doesn't fracture or focus very well. i.e. liberal politics can be rendered >down to feminist, Marxist, or ecological studies. All relatively distinct, >though broadly related to or influenced by liberal ideology. So what would >a conservative look at? > >Good question, and one I'll have to think about. > >Jacob Proffitt > Yes, it is a good question. And one that I've been struggling with for some time now. Current literary theory is so liberal it's actually become boring. I'm currently attempting to create a systematic method for reading texts based on conservative social principles and psychology is one way I think this is possible. Terry Warner, who wrote Bonds That Make Us Free, developed a powerful, socially conservative perspective on behavior that's now being used as a sort of self-help program in various ways. But I think his ideas can be focused down to a point where they could be used to do some really strong readings. I think there's a lot more out there. Anyone else have any ideas towards a conservative literary theory? Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:20:43 -0800 "Yes, the guy could be going to church because he's a wimp, but it may also be because he cares more about his family's reputation than his own discomfort. I would call such a man a hero of the first order." I could be arguing semantics here (and probably am). But I am interested (both because it keeps us on-topic, and because I think it is a really interesting question) in talking about characters, and character motivations in a fictional setting (which of course, must be informed by the real world), and so I'll harp on this to see if I can make myself more clear, because the possible implications of this statement give me pause. So now, backt to my problem with semantics. Any man who cares more about "REPUTATION" than actual individual and personal integrity is NOT (in my own personal definition) a "hero of the first order." I had another semantic problem with choice of words in Thom's argument a little later in the post when he said: "Look at that man [a man who goes to church for his wife's sake, even though he doesn't want to be there] as a martyr for the sake of his marriage and you have all the drama you might want." I take issue with the inherently implied quality of someone being a "martyr for the sake of their marriage." I think part of the problem with this discussion is that it is easy to confuse specific examples in a given case study with more broadly applicable general philosophies or concepts. For example, I believe that I must be allowed, as a Mormon, to "worship or believe what I want." That allowing me to worship is a general construct. When applied to Mormonism, I obviously feel that this construct (everyone should be allowed to worship as they want) is acceptable. But as a general statement, it also means that Satanists, Neo-Nazi's and Utah Republicans (that was a little joke, there), also have to be allowed to "worship or believe what they want." It is the American way. So, applying tests of extreme cases which are allowed by our general statments, makes us review the validity of our general statements or beliefe in them to begin with. In the case of my worship habits, I am going to have to accept the more extreme tests of the statement, and accept it all. I want my worship, so they get thier worship, too. So, apply the same extremes to the statement about being "a martyr for one's marriage." When applied to the specific case of a guy going to church with his wife, this seems pretty inoccuous. But as a general concept that we might consider good, or even HEROIC for a character to do, this statement is pretty dangerous; and tests of extreme cases reveal why. For example, this statement is exactly the same used by thousands (I made up that number; we might expect it to be much higher) of women who stay with abusive husbands (or vice versa). Obviously the psychology of why someone stays with abuse is complex, but one of the reasons could easily be stated: "I'm a martyr for my marriage." "I stay in this screwed up relationship for the kids." Etc. "I would rather be beaten, than be divorced." And why this is so doubly terrible is that I really believe there are people (in the church, too) who really, really believe this. Obviously, being a martyr for a marriage in the abusive case is a horrific thing. So the example tests the rule, and shreds it. We cannot say (blanketly) that it is okay to be "a martyr for one's marriage." We have to qualify the statement with extremly specific caveats in order to even remotely accept this as a true construct. Therefore, the concept as stated, does not hold water as a general rule. And therefore, it makes me wonder about the subtle message of any book that might proport this to be its theme generally, without seriously explaining itself. And besides, why is a marriage something you would every want to be a "martyr" for, even in a "good" sense? Again, it may just be semantics, that I don't like that word, "martyr" when applied to marriage. But that word, and the sense it was used, conveys someone's belief of something that is okay. And I simply cannot accept that, generally, even if I might agree with the specific argument in any given case. Furthemore, speaking of marriage thus, proposes the illusion (held by many in our reading culture) that being with someone is better than being alone, no matter what... even if being with someone isn't great. Also a dangerous belief, in my opinion. Being in a great marriage is great; being happy alone when no great marriage is available is great; being in a bad marriage is never good, ever. Now, in the case of a guy appeasing his wife about church, great. it doen't cost him, may even do him some good. So in the specific example we say, sure, the guy's a hero. I would agree. But the "concept" to make a choice to do something unpleasant and to suffer "martyrdom" for the sade of the all-hallowed marriage, is scarry to me. Very scarry, and as a literary device would, by implication, justify all kinds of horrors that I may not have thought about when I made the statement. The other case is less extreme, but to call someone a "hero of the highest order" who is worried about "reputation" is to place a high value on what other people think, the superficial quality of so much of our culture, what things "look like". In Thom's specific example about church: not such a big deal. But more broadly applied, you have not given us a definition of a HERO, you have given us a definition of a HYPOCRITE. My fear is that when we examine our literature critically, we are often lead to miss the deeper implications of the "general constructs" we argue on behalf of, because we are lulled into intellectual complacency because of the gentleness of the specific examples. This same dilemna came up when Stephen Carter reviewed Amos Gitai's film "Kadosh" earlier on the list. I thought it was an excellent review, and Carter posed an astounding question. Carter says: "So here's what I wonder. Was it worth it, in the eternal scheme of things, for Gitai to have alienated himself from his spiritual community in order to create such a magnificent work of art?" One of the responses to Carter's question was very telling. Jacob Proffitt pointed out the following: "Ah, but this question is fundamentally unanswerable. At least by us. How can I say if it was worth it when I don't believe at all that his soul is on the line? To me, he's just fine because he didn't violate anything sacred and presented beauty and truth for our edification. It'd be something else entirely if he had been LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear. I firmly believe that my doctrine is correct and that it really *does* delineate the markings between heaven and hell... His doctrine is wrong, you see. It's a function of believing that you belong to a True church that is lead by prophets..." Here we confront the specific case with the general question or broad construct. In the specific case, an artist who drags his own cultural religious beliefs over the coals is OK, because his specific culture's religious beliefs are wrong (so we believe). But that statement avoids the more important and infinitely more difficult general question about artists rights to question any culture's religious beliefs, including OURS. What we allow Gitai to do to Hassidism we would never allow Dutcher to do with Mormonism. And that says something about us. I'm not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, but I am saying this SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT US, as a community of artists, when we start to see ourselves realistically within the tone of our own bias. If I want to allow myself the right to worship as I wish, I must allow Hanz the Nazi to worship, too (as long as he doesn't actually Zarcon-B anybody). If I allow Gitai to do what he did, I must then allow some hypothetical questioning, at least, of my own religious culture as being artistically justifyable. And that is a very hard nut to swallow. If I allow that a guy who goes to church, not because he believes in the church (in fact, my character in this example, hates it), but because he is worried about his family's repuatation, or how his wife will be treated in her culture, and if I say that this guy is a hero (not a hypocrite); then I must say that a guy who turns in Jews to the Gestaop, not because he hates Jews (in fact, my character in this example, loves Jews), but because he is worried about his family's repuatation, or how his wife will be treated in her culture, is not, in fact, a monster, but a hero. Big problem. You say the two cases do not equate, but they do equate, exactly and literally. Logic demands it. This is why I must instinctively be suspicious of the first case: because I cannot condone the results of the extreme test of the logic in the second case. My fear is that we are constantly (and by we I really do me myself and others around me) saying things BY IMPLICATION in our literature that pervey general constructs that we do not in reality believe or would be horrified to have applied to us, because the specific example of that general construct is so innocent at face value. That is why Sam in "Charley" is a monster for his statement about "used goods" (Ben and Jessie Christensen's post about Elizabeth Smart and the impact of rape speaks brilliantly to this), because the implications of his generalization are so horrifying. That is why Michael's character in "Out Of Step" (I can't remember his name) is a monster for some of his behavior, too. Etc. This is why so many characters in our fiction are problematic. We allow ourselves the right to gloss over the bigger questions or implications of our literary statements because, Oh well, we are RIGHT, after all. This kind of critical flippancy (if it exists) will continue to cause our artistic works to be ignored or dismissed by the world at large (which is not so great a problem); and it will continue to cause our artistic works to, at best, never challenge our culture, and at worse, misinform our culture or contiue to pervey erroneous cultural myths regarding general constructs (Kim Madsen's story about her Bishop's insistance on "white bread" for sacrament despite being unable to find it in any doctrinal manual might subtly apply to this as well.) Can the variations of these specific examples be dealt with dramatically? Of course. But not irresponsibly. As a writer I would have to deal very carefully with the character going to church with his wife in the extreme example above. Very carefully indeed. Because it is NOT a foregone conclusion that his actions are heroic. Not foregone at all. If I don't deal with this dilemna as a writer, if I just accept his as a great guy because, after all, the church is TRUE, and he's better off, then I have missed the opportunity to study the growth pattern that might cause this character to become (eventually) truly heroic; or I might have missed the opportunity to ask questions which would effect profound growth in the audience. I'm tired of easy answers and pat responses! Even though I'm sure I use them myself all of the time. I do think Jeff Savage is probably right when he says (in his recent response to a review of his latest book): "The very fact that people are turning to LDS fiction with increasing expectations just shows that LDS authors must be improving. I think that the bumps and stumbles that we have hit in creating literature that is both challenging for the readers and acceptable to LDS booksellers, are another sign of a maturing space." Yes, and this pattern must continue. But in order to further its continuance, I think we must ask much more probing questions of ourselves when alalysing possible dramatic situations, possible character motivations, and the possible broader implications of the work (characters, situations) that we put forth. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Role of LDS Writers Date: 26 Mar 2003 23:40:10 -0800 First, a quote from a posting different to the one I'm responding to: > Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > And isn't that a fascinating piece of irony, that the restored gospel > uses culture [19th Century American Puritanical Conservatism] > derived from apostate theology as the basis for its own culture? > > Yes, and sad, too, but that's not the LDS culture I choose to live in. It > intersects and crosses paths with where I want to live, and that's quite > frustrating, but I mostly ignore it and go about my own thing. Ya know, I'm convinced that the reason God didn't send me to be born to a member family was because if he had, I'd've chucked up the gospel by the age of 13; not because the gospel sucks (it doesn't!), but because all the crap that surrounds it sucks. Fortunately, God had the good sense to send me to a non-member family that meant well but nonetheless provided fertile ground for various weaknesses that I guess I'm now expected to turn into strengths (Ether 12:27, one of the very few scriptures I have memorised). So when I found the gospel at age 17, it was sufficiently new, and my introduction to the culture sufficiently inadequate, that I could actually accept it. When I ran into cultural crap, I was able to separate it from the gospel. Thank heavens! Now, for the post I'm *really* responding to.... > Subject: RE: [AML] Role of LDS Writers > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > "Someone in authority says "appropriate," and the statement they use the > word in is reasonable. But because "appropriate" is not defined--indeed > cannot be institutionally since everyone has their own definition--those > who waive their right to think automatically assume their own personal > definition, then demand that everyone accept it as the official > definition." > > Ok, I've probably posted too much today, but I have to share this real > life example. > > Last week in Sacrament meeting we had wheat bread in the trays. I was > mildly surprise, as this is not something we see often. I wondered if > someone had made a special dietary request or something. When I started attending sacrament meetings in Saskatoon SK (first year of post-sec at the U. of Saskatchewan), it was always whole wheat bread.* Having been a confirmed white bread eater throughout my youth, I thought "Oh no, they're health freaks into roughage!" Fortunately, following weeks dispelled that concern. ObFootnote: * What, your white bread in the US isn't made with wheat? "White or wheat?" I always have to process that mentally for a few seconds every time I'm in a restaurant south of the border. %-) > > Later I learned from my friend/neighbor/home teachee/ that he was called > to task by the bishop because of the wheat bread. (he's in the YM > presidency and in charge of the sacrament set up stuff.) He was told > "it's official policy to use only white bread". My friend questioned > that. He asked if he could see that policy as it appears in the > Handbook. The bishop and his second councilor looked it up. It wasn't > there. It's apparently not policy. > > Then the bishop said "we will NOT have brown bread again. It's an > accepted fact that white bread better represents the intent of the > Sacrament, and we should conform to tradition." When my friend > questioned why that was, where the tradition comes from, he was told > that it's a matter of approaching a "Celestial" form of being. > Conforming, he was told, was the end result of everyone having their > intentions aligned with that of God. Remember, all you AML folks, I live > in Utah. Ya know, on the one hand, I appreciated a lot of things in the talk Elder Packer once made about "The Unwritten Order of Things" (one link to it is http://www.zionsbest.com/unwritten.html). OTOH, I'm concerned that some may have interpreted his talk to mean "Oh, so it's OK to keep on with stupid little traditions that have nothing to do with the gospel. If we've always done it that way, it doesn't matter what the handbook says!" Grrrrr.... > > My friend and I are having a hard time with the bishop's line of > reasoning. I am choosing to "wu-wei" it (be the rock in the stream and > let the chaos flow around me). My friend is still chewing on it. > > Ain't human beings fascinating. Bet God is up there laughing, shaking > his head, trying not to cry, all at once. I have determined that one of the key axioms upon which our universe is predicated is that God not only has a sense of humour, but that it is totally bent. One of the evidences I have for this is my belief that if it were not so, he would have zapped us all into ashes long ago. May I learn to have the same patience and sense of humour that He does. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Look, could I have egg, bacon, Spam and sausage without the Spam? - Monty Python's Flying Circus --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 27 Mar 2003 00:36:14 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Eric >R. Samuelsen >construed. The Book of Mormon first of all, functions as >proof text. Incorrectly, in my view. Because, like it or not, we are only one (though the largest) of several churches that believe the Book of Mormon to be true. There is the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), the Churches of Christ, including its breakoffs (Temple Lot) and (With the Elijah Message). Then you have the TLC, and the other polygamous sects. The rest of your post goes on to buttress this understanding. The BofM proves only one thing to the sincere reader: its own inherent truth, completely and utterly unaffiliated with any church, or, for that matter, without any outside physical proof. It, like the Bible, and any other holy book, stands alone, its own witness. It needs no other proof but that of the spirit. But, being the natural men that we are, we seek for outward evidence of our inward feelings, much as we did in High School about whether Sally was really "the One." If our buddies in the locker room thought Sally was great, than she was. If they didn't, then maybe we better move on. Entirely understandable for adolescent minds, but, imo, not at all acceptable for the mature mind. This is not to say that we should ignore all outside influences, it is to say that we shouldn't base our entire opinion of a book, a person, or a church, on what someone else, or some ancient artifact says. We give the book power that it never claims to have. (What are "these things" that Moroni 10:4 talks about? Read backward in the text to find the antecedent to "these things" and you'll find nothing about our or anyone else's church, or President Hinckley, or whether BYU is the Lord's university.) Can such an understanding affect our writing? I believe it can. If we write something we feel is inspired, we may also feel that those who don't like what we wrote just aren't "in tune" enough to understand our words. Or we may incorrectly attribute the wonderfulness of our words to our own near-perfected status with God, a la Salieri, the patron Saint of Bad Mormon Artists. (Salieri couldn't figure out why he, the righteous one, couldn't write music as well as that sinner Mozart). Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] News from Center Street Theatre: "Stones" Opens Date: 27 Mar 2003 00:45:59 -0700 A change to our ticket policy was made after I sent the above-referenced announcement: Wednesdays and Thursdays are half-price nights: all ticket five dollars. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) Date: 27 Mar 2003 00:51:48 -0700 ---Original Message From: Stephen Carter >=20 > >Ah, but this question is fundamentally unanswerable. At=20 > least by us. =20 > >How can I say if it was worth it when I don't believe at all=20 > that his=20 > >soul is on the line? >=20 > I'm not sure why you say this. Is disrespecting one's=20 > religious community only=20 > a sin if it's the "true" religious community? What does disrespect have to do with anything I said? Being = excommunicated from his tradition doesn't translate into losing his shot at heaven. = That doesn't mean I can't respect his tradition (and him too, if it comes to that). Whether disrespect is a sin, well, that probably depends on the disrespect. Blasting people for belonging to a community is probably a = sin with regards to most communities (some communities deserve no respect, = of course, but they're remarkably few). But it seems to me that in your example he didn't disrespect it so much as he left it. Breaking with = his community and disregarding its closely held beliefs isn't a sin. = Unless, of course, the community is our church and the beliefs are the gospel. = That wouldn't so much be a sin as it would be a tragedy in the truest sense = of the term. Eternity is on the line for someone who leaves the LDS = church. It is not for people leaving other churches. > To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as presented, bear in > >mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred and presented=20 > >beauty and truth for our edification. It'd be something=20 > else entirely=20 > >if he had been LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear. I=20 > firmly believe=20 > >that my doctrine is correct and that it really *does* delineate the=20 > >markings between heaven and hell >=20 > My question is a roundabout way to talk about our own=20 > interaction with our=20 > religious community. I was asking, was it worth his while to=20 > enter into such=20 > charged territory (points of doctrine and culture that seem=20 > inextricable) and=20 > be ostracized by his community for the sake of great art?=20 If his community holds the keys to eternity, then it is *never* worth it = to alienate it to the point of excommunication. Ostracism might be worth = it, but there comes a point where you're just kicking against the pricks and it's time to re-evaluate your position. Excommunication has one meaning = for every other organization and quite another for the one true one. > Jesus did that. Jesus did that to a corrupt religious community. Jesus would *not* have alienated the True church if it had existed in his day--offended certain people in it, sure, but antagonized it to the point of official action? = I don't think so. It may be romantic to be a rebel and all, but rebelling against the *actual* gospel and the authority of God on Earth seems like = a phenomenally bad idea--no matter how right you believe you are. Not = that I believe we need to conform to our sometimes whacked cultural dogma, but = the heart of the church is *the* gospel and crossing *that* is an incredibly = bad idea. With regards to the story at hand, I could very well be sympathetic to people growing away from their religious tradition and I can see it as a potentially growing experience. If the story were altered to be *my* church, though, the story changes fundamentally. Leaving *my* church = means leaving God. I'm not going to be sympathetic or see it as a growing experience no matter what you do to set it up. > To=20 > me it's one of the great disservices we do to our=20 > understanding of Christ to=20 > say that he entered a totally false community and brought a=20 > packaged truth.=20 > Judaism was his community, and he played the part of the=20 > artist, entering into=20 > the most explosive of places (sabbath keeping, the identity=20 > of God, the=20 > Messiahship) and trying to cast some light on it. IF you=20 > think about it, the=20 > people who have done the most good for the world and religion=20 > have entered=20 > these explosive places. Then we're in a world of hurt because those explosive places are = patently off-limits in the church. Jesus and Joseph Smith entered those = explosive places under the authority of God and in the confidence of their = calling. Violating gospel doctrine is not going to find much forgiveness here. = To forgive violations of core doctrine, we'd have to essentially admit that we're in apostasy. > >And frankly, from my stand-point, you couldn't even really ask him=20 > >because I wouldn't trust his answer. His doctrine is wrong,=20 > you see. =20 > >It's a function of believing that you belong to a True=20 > church that is=20 > >lead by prophets... >=20 >=20 > It seems that you are taking a position that excludes you=20 > from being able to=20 > partake of great contemporay religious art. If nothing anyone=20 > from an "untrue"=20 > religious community does is worthy of note because their doctrine is=20 > incorrect, then it would seem that true art cannot exist=20 > outside the Mormon=20 > community. Being untrustworthy is hardly the same as unworthy of note. Just = because I wouldn't trust his answer to "was it worth it to alienate your = community" doesn't mean I believe he has nothing of interest to say. Just that I = don't really have much interest in that one specific question. Alienating his community is fundamentally different from alienating mine so no matter = how insightful, it just isn't going to apply. > This is an attitude that I think _can_ hold religious people=20 > back from=20 > creating really great art. It's an attitude I've had for most=20 > of my life. The=20 > attitude that because something doesn't matter to us, it=20 > doesn't matter. It=20 > makes us incapable of negative capability (remember Keats=20 > said Shakspeare had=20 > it because he was able to enter into ambiguity without=20 > reaching out for=20 > reason), we can't really explore a question brought up by=20 > someone with "false=20 > doctrine" because we don't give it any validity. >=20 > That ultra-orthodox community is just as convinced of its=20 > veracity as our's=20 > is, perhaps even more so because they're not nearly as=20 > amenable to letting=20 > people in. The question I asked is one worth us asking, I=20 > think, because the=20 > director's position can be analogous to ours. Not taking his position=20 > seriously is akin to not taking ours seriously. Now you're extending beyond my statement or intent. I didn't say it = doesn't matter and I didn't say it has no validity just because it comes from = other traditions. I just said that equating the experiences isn't going to = work or carry the same weight. You're asking if it isn't worth alienating = your religious community to present valuable art. The answer to your = question is that being true to your artistic vision *cannot* be worth alienating the = LDS community to the point of excommunication. It doesn't matter that the ultra-orthodox community is just as convinced of its veracity as ours is = (an inherently improvable statement, BTW). What matters is which community truly holds the authority to act on behalf of God. Which has actual priesthood authority? If we don't then sure, you could translate the experience of the director just fine. But we do. So while I take the directors position seriously, I cannot translate it = to my own position. To do so is to imagine it being worth alienating God = to tell a story. No story, no matter how convinced I am of its power and truth, is worth losing eternity. And really, I'd be willing to bet that the director *doesn't* believe he = has alienated God. He'd be a singular artist indeed if he believed that he = had compromised God to tell his story. So to be able to translate his experience to our own, you'd have to first assume that the Church isn't = true and that excommunication doesn't carry any actual consequences. A = position some of our artists *have* taken, but only at the cost of losing the = respect of those of us who remain faithful. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit Date: 27 Mar 2003 01:10:57 -0700 ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen >=20 > But see, there's actually fourth place where the Book of=20 > Mormon applies to our culture. We don't like to talk about=20 > it much, but fact is, Mormon saw our day and wasn't impressed=20 > by it. And that includes us'ns. The extraordinary parallels=20 > between his failed society and our sensationally successful=20 > one are the basic subject of the entire book. All is not, in=20 > fact, well in Zion, and our eating drinking and merry making=20 > are, to his mind, dances on graves. The historicity of Book=20 > of Mormon wouldn't matter worth a hill of beans, if the book=20 > didn't have content, profundity and relevance. So that's=20 > what I'm wondering. Trotting about an imagined Zarahemla in=20 > our Nikes can be jolly fun. But isn't there room for a=20 > literature which blasts us out of our Nikes entirely? That=20 > seems, after all, to be part of Mormon's project. Let our=20 > wild beasts roar us into charity. I'd like to see it, but so far it hasn't been done very well. For some reasons, our artists don't want to break out the wild beasts unless they = are rampaging. You see, to work and carry meaning, exploring that fourth = place isn't going to do a lick of good if it invalidates the other three. = Break out the beasts, but it won't knock us at all if we can't relate to it. Violating those other three places brings it outside our experience and relevance. I'll take the accusing finger, the call to repentance, and = the faults in Zion, but not if there's no basis to believe that it's = anything more than sour grapes or didactic polemics. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Debra L Brown" Subject: [AML] KZION Radio Date: 27 Mar 2003 11:29:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) I was attempting to listen to zkion this morning in yet another attempt t= o find LDS contemporary music pleasing to my ears and on the website found = the survey of the day asking: =0D Should KZION censor music with lyrics that do not reflect LDS teachings?=0D with a total of 236 votes the results are that 194 numbnuts said yes and = 42 really intelligent people said no. I was one of the really intelligent. =0D Somehow, this must reflect on what is happening at DB right now. Sinc= e I live in Ohio and the buffering is usually useless and I can only catch th= ree or four words of a song at any given time, I have never heard anything wo= rth censoring. Of course, if there was any song that had to be considered for censoring, I would like to hear it, as it might actually be interesting t= o listen to. =0D Yes, I am harsh on LDS contemporary music. And yes, I buy it. I have = a few cds of every LDS genre and very few I actually like. I should write a review on some of them! And in advance I apologize to Steve Perry who jus= t yesterday I asked if he ever considered writing any hand clapping foot stomping praise and worship music. I don't own any of his, but in a few d= ays my order from Cedar Fort should be here where a few of his were on the scratch and dent table and I got a cd and two tapes of his for $2. =0D Debbie Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Sugar Beet Readership Date: 27 Mar 2003 12:03:06 -0700 We got a statistical report recently on The Sugar Beet readership, and apparently most of our readers come from Virginia, with 6,727 sessions during February originating there, for 39.54% of the month's total. In comparison, only 1,080 sessions originated in Utah during Feb., for 6.35% of the month's total traffic. This blows our mind. Does anyone know any explanations for this? Are there really that many people interested in Mormon satire in Virginia, or is there some other reason why the statistics would skew that way? (Maybe there is some technical reason, like some kind of big mother server there that makes it look like hits are originating from there, when in reality they come from all over?) For those who are interested, here are the SB's total numbers for February 2003: Total number of non-unique hits during February: 300,112 Total number of times people visited the site in February: 17,012 Average hits per visit in February: 17.64 With a full year of material under our belts, we're now starting to look into publishing the first year as a book, like The Onion does. Anyone have any advice or insight or referrals related to such a project? (I've already sent queries to Signature and Gibbs Smith; haven't heard back yet.) Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Leeanne Hill ADAMS, _Archipelago_ Date: 27 Mar 2003 12:42:43 -0700 There's a new play by an LDS playwright which you guys should go see, if = you're close enough to Utah to get to it. But watching it is not any kind = of easy experience, and while I won't forget it for awhile, I don't think = I'm going to be sleeping much the next few days, either. Leeanne Hill Adams is a former student of mine. She wrote it in one class = I taught, and workshopped it in another class. She's a good friend, in = other words, and I'm not very objective about her play. Anyway, Archipelago tells the story of the men and women who Stalin sent = to the Gulag back in the thirties, who tried to survive Siberian winters = and insane work requirements, and who mostly didn't. The Gulag prisoners = were very often intellectuals and artists, and while in prison, some of = them wrote poetry or novels, and some of them did theatre. Specifically, = a group of them staged that classic of Russian satire, Gogol's The = Inspector General. That production provides the main structure for the = play. The approach taken to these materials is essentially Meyerholdian. The = play mixes grotesque comedy with narration and scenes that are closer to = realism. Stalin is a character, and the play satirizes the Politburo, = then it'll cut to a woman describing her rape at the hands of prison = guards. And back and forth. =20 The production is a bit flawed. The satirical scenes aren't edgy enough, = and the emotional scenes can get a bit sentimental, and overall, the play = is quite didactic, and didactic in sort of obvious ways. It uses media = elements effectively, but they have a tone that's a bit at odds with the = rest of the piece. =20 And none of that matters much. It's a shattering emotional experience, = watching this play. Watching the audience leave at the end of each = performance, there's this absolute silence, as though everyone's thinking = that even talking about it would be somehow irreverant. =20 I have to say this too. The fact that we're at war right now effects how = we view this play. I don't think it matters if you support the war or are = against it. I mean, emotionally, I have this constant maelstrom of = emotion just under the surface, a mixture of anger and anxiety and fear = and tension and worry, and I think those feelings are shared by a lot of = people. And then you watch something like this, and it ends up not = mattering much what we think of the war; what matters is what we're = feeling. And in some ways, Archipelago assaults you, bears witness to the = death and despair of the Gulag and then says 'don't you dare forget us, = don't you dare forget what happened here.' You feel almost violated by = the production, frankly. Intentionally, I think, because going to see it, = it's like being required to undergo a tiny fraction of what they went = through. So you may not want to, and nobody could blame you if you didn't. At the = same time, it's really something extraordinary. It runs through the end = of next week. Love to see you there. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Moderator Practices (Comp 1) Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:35:14 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From glennsj@inet-1.com Tue Mar 25 22:33:30 2003 Quickly weighing in with my opinion here: The unfortunate and ironic, but almost certain, reality is that a completely unmoderated forum here would result in one of the most insidious brands of censorship--the silencing of the less strident, less confident, more tentative and humble voices in our midst. That would be a true tragedy. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com >From Paynecabin@aol.com Wed Mar 26 11:13:21 2003 I liked how Jonathan in today's post used the word "rules" in connection with this list. Suddenly the discussion seemed to me to find its correct context. There have been assertions that censorship (here costumed as moderation) is an offensive principle. And there have been assertions that moderation (seen by some as censorship) is a noble principle. Principle, schminciple. It's the rules. Just because in baseball three failed attempts at progressing means you're out doesn't mean that the correct number of failed attempts in football should be three, instead of four. The two games have different rules. Our moderator may respect and enjoy both baseball and football (and LaCrosse and Tiddlywinks), but what he's refereeing here is a game of football. Agreeing to play this particular game by its rules means nothing about our notions of free expression in general. If the following brutal expression can make it through the courtesy filter, I might just risk writing, "chill." Affectionately y'alls's, Marvin Payne >From Clark@lextek.com Wed Mar 26 14:34:56 2003 ___ Bill ___ | As Mormon writers, I think it is our duty to show in our | plots, and subplots that censorship is alive and well in | our supposedly `Free Speech' society. There are certain | things you just don't say in certain circles, if you don't | want to become an anathema. ___ OK, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mind. I think there is a clear distinction between free speech, the right to be heard, and the right to say what you will without other reacting to you. Even in the examples you gave you have free speech. It was just that your audience not only disagreed with your comments, but disagreed with them in such a way that they didn't want to associate in discussions with you anymore. But is that censorship? In a way - but censorship only in the sense that your audience doesn't want to listen to you. But free speech is the right to speak, not be heard. I hear this confusion over and over again. Perhaps I'm reacting too strongly, but it really is a pet peeve. Yet it is one that artists in particular tend to miss. I recognize that later on you say, "we all have the right to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to express an opinion about it without the stigma of ostracism." Yet that ostracism is nothing more than people choosing not to listen. Allow me an example of this. (Hopefully avoiding political overtones) There are certain people speaking the past few weeks who have a minority view on political issues. They are issues people are very passionate about. They feel people aren't listening to them (and by and large they are likely correct). Thus they do things like block traffic, cause a fuss, and otherwise try and *force* people to listen. Yet, to me, that *force* is opposed to the very freedom of speech they claim to support. I can understand the frustration when people feel they aren't being heard. However I also think that people ought to understand *why* this happens. Clark Goble >From dmichael@wwno.com Wed Mar 26 15:09:36 2003 Scott Parkin wrote: > I believe it's critical that every last one of us tell true stories to the best > of our ability. But I also believe that no one is required to applaud that which > they find distasteful, or accept as true those ideas they see as untrue--however > honestly or artistically rendered they are. The fact is that we're lousy at > separating conceptual or artistic disagreement from personal condemnation. I'm > lousy at it, and I dare say most human beings and Mormons could stand to improve > as well. I've learned to get pretty good at it--or at least stifle the emotionally defensive response enough to approximate being good at it--but only as long as the condemnation truly is not personal. All audiences have the right to receive or reject a work according to their personal preferences, and have the right to express their opinions on the subject. But when they start insisting that their standards must be my standards, otherwise (and here comes the personal condemnation) I am sinning, then I take it very personally, feel justified in doing so, and react accordingly. > I put a lot of my personal thoughts (and more than a few private details) out on > this list. For the most part, people completely ignore what I post. That bothers > me to varying degrees at different times--but it hasn't bothered me enough to > make me stop. I've found this list to be relatively accomodating to those kinds > of expression--even when others have had different views. Once again I emphasize, often what looks like being ignored really means you've made your case so well there's nothing more to add. > I've found some of her observations to be a tad > overstated and maybe a bit unfair. But I've also seen no indication in her work > that she believes her portrayals to be "the one and only true" depiction of > experience or reality. > > For me, that makes all the difference. Me too. (See, I'm not ignoring you. I'm agreeing with you. And if I hadn't had something more substantial to say, I wouldn't have sent this "Me too" message at all. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Wed Mar 26 16:48:06 2003 Scott hit the nail on the head, when he said, "The fact is that we're lousy at separating conceptual or artistic disagreement from personal condemnation." He also alluded to the principle that we should try to write our stories with as much truth and honesty as we can, and not be offended if our critics disagree. Scott Parkin wrote: I consider my own...what do you call it...not so much *grudge* as a persistent, vaguely mistrustful sensitivity...to be a sin. I've decided that I shouldn't be bothered by that experience of the distant past. I've decided to repent of my frustration. So it bugs me that I haven't yet managed to fully embed the choices of my head into my heart. The desire is there, but sometimes the mind and body betray. Still, I think I'll get there eventually. How true! This reminds me of some of my own thoughts along these lines. There are many sins, which we all struggle with. As a great man said recently (don't ask me, who?) "We all have our own Goliath to battle." We believe in truth wherever we find it so I offer this gem of truth I found in the writings of a Toltec Indian, Don Miguel Ruiz. He shared `The Four Agreements' of his people in a book with the same title. 1. Speak Impeccably 2. Make no assumptions 3. Take nothing personally 4. Always do your best This boils down to the same thing as the Gospel - Love - I certainly hope, as you suggest, we all get there eventually. In the mean time we will just have to have faith that the atonement will take up the slack for us. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Wed Mar 26 17:45:21 2003 Melissa Proffitt wrote: Something that no one has pointed out, on the topic of list moderation, is that list volume is kept very low--to 30 posts a day--because of the restrictions of some list members' email accounts or schedules. When list volume is high, the need to keep discussions on topic becomes even more important. Throwing around words like "censorship" confuses the issue because that word is so loaded with negative connotations. Exactly! Good job Melissa! Instead of `censorship' let's call it `filtering.' Jonathan eliminates a lot of redundancy and posts that are off topic or without merit. He saves us a lot of time and effort trying to decide for ourselves if we should delete or read. That is the job he has undertaken to do for us, and I for one appreciate the work of the moderator, even if I have, at times, been the target of redirection, or filtration. If we don't like it we can offer to take it off Jonathan's hands. Any volunteers? -DEAD SILENCE- OK! lets get on with our discussion of Mormon Letters. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Thu Mar 27 00:43:01 2003 >---Original Message From: Bill Willson >> >> We all have the right >> to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to >> express an opinin about it without the stigma of ostracisim. > >I'm with you until this point. Why should I be forced to >listen to people I disagree with? How would you be forced in a list context? You can always hit the delete key. It's not that hard. I delete all my own posts, for instance. Thom Duncan >From bmdblu2@attbi.com Thu Mar 27 10:42:05 2003 Thom Duncan wrote: > Okay, so what you do is have a semi-moderated list. That is, if a sufficient number of people think that Joe Schmo is just bloviating with no content and making every body mad, the moderator can delete the poster and make it impossible to receive or to post ever again to the list. I'm on a list where one guy was so full of himself that it soon became evident he didn't want to engage in adult conversation. The moderator ex-communicated the guy. End of story.< So it's a majority driven delete button? OR do we all just maintain control of our own delete button at the end of a filtered stream of civil e-mail posts? My motto is if it ain't broke, don't fix it! If someone wants to fight about something, let them take it outside. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Date: 27 Mar 2003 10:49:39 -0700 Real interesting post here from Robert Slaven, especially his musings on = Michael Moore and Roman Polanski. About Michael Moore, I don't have much = to add to Robert's comments. He's extreme, and funny, and he's a = documentarian who plays fast and loose with facts, and he's passionate, = and a man blinded by ideology, and also a great artist. In some ways, = he's a kind of liberal Rush Limbaugh. About Polanski, however, I do have = a comment. Roman Polanski is a Holocaust survivor. He's also a crime victim. His = wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in one of the most appalling killing = sprees in US history, the Manson family murders. And he's a convicted = pedophile. As Robert pointed out, the grand jury testimony in his trial = is available, but is only for the strong of stomach. He's an utterly = brilliant filmmaker. I count The Tenant, Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby, = Tess, Death of the Maiden and The Pianist as among my favorite films of = all time. Watching Chinatown again recently, I was reminded what a superb = film it is. He is a man who has been witness to horrendous things, far worse than any = I can imagine going through. He is a man who has also done horrendous = things, again worse than any I have ever done. And he's a far greater = artist than I can ever hope to be. =20 I wish he hadn't won an Oscar this year, and I'm glad the LAPD didn't let = him fly back to the states to get it. At the same time, the relationships = between his own personal story, his own personally morality, and the = personal statements and ideas embedded into his art seem to me very = complex and difficult and not capable of any simple explanation. I'm = certainly not saying that because he's a Holocaust survivor, we should cut = him some slack on the pedophilia, or anything like that. I am saying = that the totality of his life experience, including serious sins he = committed and for which he may or may not have repented or tried to repent = all find some expression in his films. Just as we have to make some = connection between Wagner 's almost bizarrely compulsive adulteries and = the gorgeous sensuality of his music. =20 I'm teaching a graduate seminar these days on Strindberg, and it's been a = real struggle, trying to free ourselves from biographical criticism. You = see it a lot; he was a misogynist, and so all his female characters are = simply the expression of that misogyny, hence all these gruesome female = vampire characters in his plays; Laura in The Father, and Miss Julie, and = on and on. Well, he was a guy who married thrice, and all three marriages = were total disasters, and he did write A Madman's Defense, probably the = most savage depiction of a former spouse in the history of awful divorces. = And he was also an anti-semite and he was also a drug addict, and he did = really go nuts at one point. And he was saved, underwent a religious = conversion, and we do see peace and forgiveness and redemption in the = endings of so many of his post-Inferno plays, The Pelican, The Ghost = Sonata, The Dream Play, and so on. And then, again post-Inferno, he got = married for the third time, and it was as dreadful a marriage as the = previous two (he hadn't learned much, it seems). And those vile expression= s of misogyny, like, say, Laura and Miss Julie, are among the most sought = after roles for the very best actresses for a hundred years now. Point = is, here's a superb post-modern writer, one of the most clear-sighted and = observant writers in the canon, and also a guy utterly blinded by the most = repugnant ideologies of his day, both things together. And Polanski can = make a deeply moving and sympathetic picture depicting the damaged victim = of incest (Chinatown), and he's also a pedophile; both things together. = =20 That's the glory of art, the wonder of it. Human experience depicted with = all its contradictions and confusion and pain and grief and sin and horror = and love and redemption and humor, all together, all there. I think we = can glory in art, and also quite properly denounce dreadful behaviors = practiced by artists. See The Pianist, for example, and revel in its = complexity and beauty. And also not want to give Roman Polanski an Oscar = for it. Which the Academy did, the same year they also gave one to = Michael Moore, all the time recoiling from his utterly predictable--for = him--Oscar speech. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] re: Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 26 Mar 2003 17:49:17 -0800 My comments are interspersed below regarding the validity of memory and nonfiction writing. Travis Manning ************************************************* Kari Heber wrote: " >From a literary standpoint, what do all of you writers feel about writing based on memory? Particularly, as a reader (and definitely a non-writer) how much should I believe when I read any form of literature that is primarily based on someone's memory of events? Or should it even matter since what they are relating is their perception, whether factually acurate or not? " **************************************** Travis: There is an unwritten contract that exists between writers and readers of literary nonfiction (I am distinguishing literary nonfictive genres like memoir and personal essay, from 'straight' nonfiction like autobiography and most journalism). This unwritten contract requires the writer of literary NF to be as exacting and detailed as is possible. A few basic rules. If the author is utilizing direct quotes, use quotation marks, don't summarize or claim the language as the author's own. If the author is summarizing someone's comments, don't put quotation marks around it. If you didn't tape record a conversation, and are quoting it, be as true to the quotation as is possible. If necessary, briefly explain that this quote is a recollection, or pretty darn close, or heard across a room or something. Or, speak again to the person you are quoting to verify and double check (this is also a way to get even more quotes, perhaps better ones). If you didn't tape record a conversation directly, and are quoting it, also take into account *who* you are quoting. Are you quoting a conversation you overheard at a restaurant between two celebrities for a tabloid magazine? Or, are you quoting a conversation between your great aunt and great uncle at a family reunion for a family history project. One quotation requires more precision because the persons involved are public figures, and the others are not; one quotation has the power to bring you into a court of law for libel or slander, and the other one is very unlikely. So know your audience. Does knowing your audience mean you can't quote your great Aunt Velma from a family reunion in 1982 and you're now writing the story/article/essay in 2003? No. But do your very best to clarify if you are flat out guessing, summarizing, reading lips, whatever. As the writer of literary NF, you want the reader to trust that what you are saying is, in fact, true. So don't violate that writer-reader obligation to be truthful. ********************************************************* Kim Madsen referring to something said by Judith Freeman: " She expressed mild disdain and confusion at why people would ask her what parts of her book (CHINCHILLA FARM) were "true" and which parts were fictionalized. Since the entire story is published as fiction, it should be taken as such, enriched perhaps by the author's experiences in life. " I would say Ms. Freeman's statement is great when you are writing fiction, but what about when we are talking about nonfiction? I recently finished a book of nonfiction that deals extensively with my experiences. In order to make the stories as personable as possible, I included dialogue and detail that, quite frankly, I can't be sure are true. I wasn't carrying a tape recorder about with me for later transcription, and I could be mixing up the various visual cues. SO how do I justify saying I am telling the truth? First, I am honest to what happened. Perhaps I can't get it down exactly, but what I have said is close enough that I doubt any of the participants will find room to complain. (Although we'll find out for sure when it goes into print.) Second, and this is not a liberty all nonfiction storytellers have, it's funny. There is enough obvious hyperbole that slight iacurracies are expected and more easily forgiveable. (For a bestselling example see, for instance, Bill Bryson.) But never do I suggest that I am making it all up. I'm having fun in the telling just as when I tell a story verbally. And that's the key: in my case, the style is very verbal, and so the same rules applied to telling a story verbally can be generalized to my book. ***************************************************** Travis: Again, remember the writer-reader agreement to be truthful at all cost. Establish your approach at the beginning of the book, essay, or article, whether you are quoting directly or not, or basing your comments on recollections or from the memory of others, or not. Clue the reader in so they know where the author or narrator is coming from. You don't have to fill out a 5 Ws and the H card at the beginning of each scene, but you should, artfully, inform and allow the reader to connect with the text while maintaining narrative precision, preferrably toward the beginning of the text for maximum clarity. Readers need to know, implied or otherwise, the point of view and perspective of this narrator to know how much trust, and what kind of trust, they can assume. ***************************************************** Incidentally, focussing on dialogue, we can find some obviously not precisely accurate dialogue in the Book of Mormon. For example (note--I copied and pasted off the Church's website, so there are a few extra dots and letters): Mosiah 5:1-5 " 1 AND now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had thus spoken to his people, he sent among them, desiring to know of his people if they believed the words which he had spoken unto them. 2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually. 3 And we, ourselves, also, through the infinite agoodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things. 4 And it is the faith which we have had on the things which our king has spoken unto us that has brought us to this great knowledge, whereby we do rejoice with such exceedingly great joy. 5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God. " Are we really expected to believe that this huge congregation--some of which is receiving King Benjamin's massage delayed (they had to write it down because everyone could not hear him, the crowd was so big)--simultaneously said this rather grammatically complex statement of faith? I doubt it. Yes, with God all things are possible, but Occam's Razor folks. Either this was the gist of it or they prepared a written reply or something. I doubt they all yelled verses 2-5 at once. **************************************************** Travis: I don't think we can assume the above-mentioned dialogue from Mosiah 5:1-5 is "obviously not precisely accurate dialogue"; digging into the quote and the context will help us understand why the quote is precise and accurate. Mosiah 5:1-5 does come off sort of awkward, and initially it appears the narrator or writer of this chapter may be unreliable. How is it possible that a group of people could "(cry) with with one voice," as is indicated in Mos. 5: 2? When does a group of people ever cry with one voice? Well, at places like sporting events (cheering or booing at opportune moments); or, at the end of prayers ("Amen."); or, while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. In all of these instances a group of individuals would be "(crying) with one voice," or speaking the same words at the same time. Mosiah 5:1-5 is no different. Mosiah 5: 6 gives us a clue: "And now, these are the words which king Benjamin desired of them; and therefore he said unto them: Ye have spoken the words that I desired; and the covenant which ye have made is a righteous covenant." The implications in Mosiah 5: 6 are that the multitude gathered to hear King Benjamin's final address have each signed on to a group covenant. Mosiah 6: 1-2 further says that "King Benjamin thought it was expedient, after having finished speaking to the people, that he should take the names of all those who had entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments. 2. And it came to pass that there was not one soul, except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ." Here we have King Benjamin "(taking) names of all those who had entered into a covenant with God." Why would he do that? My guess here is that King Benjamin's people drafted the statement in Mosiah 5: 1-5. Or, perhaps it was one of the King's sons, or perhaps it was one of the messengers that was relaying the written King's speech to one of the various groups gathered around the temple site. Remember, King Benjamin originally gathered his people around him by family, their tents facing the temple, but they were too numerous, they had grown to "a great number, even so many that they did not number them" (Mos. 2: 2). So King Benjamin "caused that the words which he spake should be written and sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice, that they might also receive his words" (Mos. 2: 8). Perhaps one of these messengers was also the scribe for a possible "righteous covenant." In the case of whether or not Mosiah 5:1-5 is accurate--I believe it is. At least the circumstantial evidence seems to point to its validity. The probablility that everyone signed on to a statement (again, a "righteous covenant" King Benjamin referred to it as) is likely high. As the writer of scripture here, the narrator, at least the compiler of Mosiah, could have explained the unanimous voice of the people as "one voice" because there was a written document with the names of all the people along side it. Describing the people as "crying with one voice" then, would be an accurate rendering. And I won't go into the second example for the sake of time. The point here, in rebuttal, is that there are creative and literary ways to utilize true accounts of any given situation. Closely examining the Book of Mormon text brings out these strong possibilities. *************************************************** Example 2, the men sent to see if Nephi's prophecy regarding the murder of the chief judge is true: Helaman 9:1-2 " 1 BEHOLD, now it came to pass that when Nephi had spoken these words, certain men who were among them ran to the judgment-seat; yea, even there were five who went, and they said among themselves, as they went: 2 Behold, now we will know of a surety whether this man be a prophet and God hath commanded him to prophesy such marvelous things unto us. Behold, we do not believe that he hath; yea, we do not believe that he is a prophet; nevertheless, if this thing which he has said concerning the chief judge be true, that he be dead, then will we believe that the other words which he has spoken are true. " Okay, they're running as fast as they can and they say this? Between pants? No. This was the essense of their thought as they were running, but I doubt this is exactly, word-for-word what they said to each other. My point is that these things do not make the Book of Mormon untrue. And I suppose if Mormon can get away with it so can we. Just a thought, - -----th.jepson *********************************************************** "If Mormon can get away with it so can we" what? I don't believe Mormon "got away" with anything. I don't think Mormon embellished or made up his comments. I don't think he broke the unwritten code between writer and reader. Based on all of the numberous records Mormon had been reading, and based on the subtle indications within the text of the Book of Mormon itself, I think most, if not all, "discrepancies" can be rectified. The textual indications are subtle, but present. I will admit that I am highly curious about exactly what the writers and transcribers of scripture really know/knew, as a lot of what they say seems understated and embedded. But, such is the nature of metaphorical, scriptural language--we must have the spirit to decipher it completely. In my opinion. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Date: 27 Mar 2003 00:26:03 -0800 > I will admit that I had many of the same questions during the first few days > after she was found, but unfortunately my understanding increased with the > revelation that Elizabeth's kidnappers were charged with sexual assault. She > was not just "brainwashed", she was raped. By a man who kidnapped her at > knifepoint and told her that God wanted her to be his wife. Well, he also apparently said "Do what I say or I go back and kill your family." > Whether or not > you believe in the validity of brainwashing, rape is a devestating physical > and psychological weapon to use against anyone, especially a 15-year-old > Mormon girl. I've been thinking in the last few days that rape is > particularly terrible in our culture because we have placed such a high > value on chastity before marriage. How many of us have had the old Sunday > School lesson with the candy that gets sticky and dirty because everyone has > touched it, or the one about how no one wants an apple with a bite out of > it? (For some reason we forget that repentance gives us a brand new candy) I was discussing this in a completely different forum recently. The Smart's bishop was bang on when CNN quoted him regarding how Elizabeth is almost certainly not guilty of any sin in this matter. OTOH, how many parents from her ward/stake/SLC generally will tell their young men "Stay away from her, she's tainted" or "after what she's been through, she'll mess you up" or whatever it is they might say. > Anyways, we tend to look down so much on loss of virtue that we sometimes > don't think about the circumstances in which it was "lost." (When that came > up in Charly I wanted to punch Sam in the nose. I would have left him right > then and there.) There was a rape case here at BYU where the guy dumped the > girl at the Provo Temple afterwards and taunted her by telling her that she > could never go inside. Talk about psychological trauma. I guess my point is > that I now realize why Elizabeth must have, at least subconsciously, thought > her place was with the sickos who kidnapped her. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she felt "Well, I'm 'damaged goods' anyway, so there's no point going home." She may have thought that on her own thanks to our cultural hang-ups, her captors may have planted the idea in her head, or (most likely) both fed off of each other. She's going to have people whispering behind her back for at least the next decade. If I were her dad, I'd be seriously looking into home-schooling her through high school, and then making sure any post-sec takes place outside of Utah. And I don't even want to think about what she might have to go through at church from fellow Young Women over the next few years. I pray that I'm dead wrong about all of the above, but I wouldn't bet the house on it, either. > PS-Is there any LDS fiction that deals with rape in our culture? I'd love to see some. I don't think there's any way I could properly deal with it, because my experience with the Mormon culture has been very fringe. (Heck, most of my 20-odd years in the church were in a branch that wasn't even in a district, let alone a stake! And my experiences in real stakes are/were in British Columbia, hardly a hotbed of Mormonism.) But from stories I've heard -- date rapes being regularly hushed up when the boy is about to go on or just returned from a mission, for example -- I suspect there's a lot of room for some good challenging fiction. (Which DB probably won't stock, but that's another thread.) Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too To begin with, in a single phrase, 'great wealth in a few men's hands', Yeats lays bare the central reality of Fascism, which the whole of its propaganda is designed to cover up. - George Orwell, 'W.B. Yeats' --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/14 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 27 Mar 2003 23:32:48 -0700 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > I'm looking forward to reading Linda Adams speculative fiction, and I am a > fan of speculative fiction myself. Not to put down Linda's writing, but the last days kind of speculation doesn't excite me. (I like her book because of the story and characters, not the speculation, which is all wrong. I know--I've seen the future myself in my own speculations.) That's mostly all LDS spec fiction has done so far. I'm about as bored with that as with missionary or pioneer stories. That's all Mormons ever seem to write about. Which is why... > One of my main problems with projecting LDS culture into say, the far > future, exploring space, etc. (like in all those good old sci-fi stories I > read so much of and loved so much for so many years), is that I just don't > see us going out that far before the Second Comming. ...one of the conventions of LDS science fiction would have to be that we've grossly underestimated the time left before the Second Coming. It's really not that bad of a suspension of disbelief, no more than accepting time travel or faster-than-light space ships, which are both quite impossible according to current physics theories. The point of speculative fiction is to ask "What if?" and see what happens. "What if the pioneer saga was replayed, but from planet to planet instead of within one continent?" Ignoring the timing of the Second Coming for the duration of the book would be worth the effort. LDS science fiction fans already have to suspend their belief in Mormon theology anyway to read the vast majority of mainstream SF. Besides, I'm not so sure the Second Coming is all that close. Every generation thinks it's the one that will witness it, all the way back to Christ's original apostles. And yet two thousand years have passed and we've gone to the moon, something unimaginable back then. The two-thousand-years-after-Christ estimate for the Second Coming is based on a great deal of deduction and speculation, the reliability of which we have no certainty about. Considering Christ prophesied that people would say, "He delayeth his coming," makes me believe it's a lot further off than we think. > My brother, for one (a Mormon maverik: 36 and never married), is not sure > that he wants to be a "God" in the LDS construct. He would much rather be > given the right to have a space ship and just travel around, learning, > sharing, helping... kind of a space "Kung Fu" if you remember that old show. > He wants to rocket ship the melennium, not hang out and do temple work. I > don't know. The Terrestial Kindom is a glory, after all, these people are > not prisoners or damned souls. They are happy in their sphere. Why couldn't > they tool around the stars instead of having billions of kids? They'd get bored after a few centuries. It'd all be the same. "If it's Tuesday, this must be Andromeda." If the family cycle of Gods has been playing out into the past with no beginning, that has to mean the eternal realm is infinite, with infinite families and societies and cultures. Our finite universe can't hold a candle to that. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 27 Mar 2003 13:40:30 -0700 ___ Johngiorgi ___ | ...the restored gospel uses culture [19th Century American | Puritanical Conservatism] derived from apostate theology | as the basis for its own culture? ___ Well, as *elements* of its culture. But of course one could say the same about any period of the gospel. How much was the culture of Jesus influenced by the fact they were occupied by Rome and had been highly Hellenized? Don't we acknowledge that this had an effect on the content and rhetoric of the scriptures? Didn't the same thing happen to Abraham? To Moses? To Isaiah? Is it pure coincidence that many Psalms appear to have been borrowed/modified from Babylonian hymns? Much the same way many of our own hymnals have songs from Protestantism? This really isn't that surprising. I'd also add that while there are things we don't like in "New England Puritanism" there was a lot good in it. Probably the Lord used that, along with the Masonic culture, and a lot else to bring about his aims. The search for some "ideal gospel culture" that is somehow independent from all the cultures around us is a futile one. The issue isn't the culture but what we do within that culture. Just as when communicating ideas the issue isn't what language we use, but what we speak in that language. Consider culture like a language and then the above seems far less insidious. (After all a lot of our theological language also depends upon Protestantism) There is a danger when we criticize based upon culture just as much as when we blindly accept based upon culture. I rather suspect that the literary example of this can be found in the Book of Mormon. Samuel the Lamanite was rejected because the people looked at the culture he came from and not what he was saying. Put an other way, just because something comes from an apostate tradition doesn't mean it isn't true. (Speaking in analogy - the Nephites were the "gospel culture" and the Lamanites the "apostate culture.") OK - enough of that tangent. ___ Johngiorgi ___ | I stumbled upon an article (that I will have to dig out again), | where this guy describes a theory which would include multiple | universes. It was like reading a footnote to the King Follett | discourse. Clark Gobel would probably disagree with the guys | ontology (and he'd have the right), and I certainly admit it | was over my head, but it kind of blew me away. ___ Larry Niven has one of the best science fiction stories about multiple universes. Remember that the universes aren't just other worlds, the way Mormons think of creating new worlds when we become celestial beings. Rather there is a separate universe for each possibility. Thus anything possible exists. This is a hard thing to grasp and the Larry Niven story basically is about a world where this reality sinks in. Suddenly there are all these unexplained suicides. The police are baffled. But all it is that they happened to exist in that universe where everyone takes the choice to start committing suicide. It ends with multiple paragraphs, each in a separate universe. The reality of multiple universes sinks in. The hero (a police detective) puts his gun to his head and pulls the trigger. The hero puts the gun to his head and then hesitates at the last minute. The hero jumps out the window to his death. The hero laughs and walks away. . . I think what most Mormons mean by multiple universes isn't the multiple worlds interpretation of QM. It is what is called inflationary universes. In that conjecture when space-time is sufficiently flat, a new universe forms in its own "big bang." Several LDS theologians have used these theories to defend Mormonism against criticisms of the King Follet Discourse made by Evangelicals. (They argue that the KFD requires an actual infinity of beings - an infinity not possible within a finite universe with a fixed beginning - the big bang) ___ Johngiorgi ___ | But it would always be fringe. Few scientists (I think) really agree | with it; ___ Inflationary models, while still very speculative, are actually fairly mainstream. As a literary type, they've been used in science fiction a great deal. As I mentioned, so has the multiple worlds interpretation of QM. Indeed that is one easy way to allow time travel but deal with purported paradoxes. i.e. you go back in time to kill your grandfather. However all that you've done is enter the universe where that happened. You didn't kill *your* grandfather in the time line you came from. I actually seem to recall a time travel story involving Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that went along those lines. I should also say that the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is very mainstream. According to one survey of the 72 leading cosmologists, about 60% accepted the MWI. This makes sense since in cosmology you often solve problems by integrating over all possible worlds as if they were real. The philosophical problems of this are legion though. As help for inspired Mormon science fiction authors here are some links to the two (very different) theories. Multiple Worlds Interpratation http://www.tau.ac.il/~vaidman/mwi/mwst1.html Good introduction. Unfortunately it does assume some familiarity with quantum mechanics. However if you skip the math it is still very readable. http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Probably the best FAQ on it. It gets a tad technical in places. But is quite good. http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/p105.htm A slightly more accessible introduction. Inflationary Multiple Universes http://www.fairlds.org/apol/TNMC/TNMC05.html A response to a popular attack on Mormon views on ex nihlo. It discusses a lot about these in passing. http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/EBridge/Afterword.html A technical afterword on these universes for a science Fiction novel. Very good introduction. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/inf_lowden.html Good introduction, albeit slightly more technical. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 27 Mar 2003 13:56:15 -0700 ___ Michael ___ | How about _Aliens_? Popular movie, serious drama, and the | kick-butt action hero was a woman, who also played a | nurturing mother to the orphan girl without falling out | of her heroic character. ___ _True Lies_ notwithstanding, James Cameron always has had strong female characters. (And even there the film was partially about the transformation of the Jamie Lee Curtis character into an empowered woman, despite some underlying misogyny) Something I've always admired in him. One could argue, as I mentioned, that some shows have tried this. i.e. _Charlies Angels_. But by and large these are the exceptions to the general rule. Further most of these attempts don't really do as good as job as Cameron does. But I do agree - I wish more authors would follow the Cameron lead. _Aliens_ was amazing because it was a fully empowered female, but one that still recognized some gender differences. Indeed the underlying theme of the movie was motherhood. The final battle is the battle between two mothers - Ripley with her adopted daughter and the Alien and her brood. What was so fascinating to me was how Cameron managed to make Ripley powerful *without* simply adopting a male view of empowerment. It was a very uniquely feminine empowerment and strength. Further the film draws a strong parallel with the alien. In some ways a much deeper film than most realize. Compare this to what Cameron does in _Terminator 2_. There the mother character is dehumanized by adopting a masculine view of female empowerment. She has rejected her motherhood to prepare her son, thus adopting a kind of stereotype of fatherhood over motherhood. As the Terminator becomes the father figure the mother starts to re-humanize a little. (The key moment being the attempted assassination of the corporate researcher) It is never a full transformation. (The humanization of both her and the Terminator is the more significant thread) But it is interesting contrasting her empowerment with the empowerment in _Aliens_. As I mentioned, the empowerment in _True Lies_ is much more problematic due to some of the Swartzenegger character's misogyny. (i.e. forcing his wife to pretend to be a prostitute and do a strip tease - the rather harsh questioning) Yet it also suggests that without equality in the relationship of husband and wife that there will intrinsically be dissatisfaction. One can also argue that it is the Curtis' characters realization of how people have been using her and lying to her that affects her transformation. It is the realization of passisivity that enables her to be empowered. _Titanic_, while to me a very sappy movie I dislike, also has as its theme the empowerment of a woman. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "" Subject: [AML] Anita STANSFIELD, _To Love Again_ (Review) Date: 27 Mar 2003 14:15:09 -0700 Stansfield, Anita. _To Love Again_. Covenant, 1998, softcover, 292=20 pages, $12.95. Reviewed by Katie Parker I wrote most of this review before learning that this is one of Deseret=20 Book's "banned" titles that they will no longer stock on the shelves of=20 their stores. I'll discuss my thoughts on this later in the review. =20 In _To Love Again_ we follow the story of Janna and Collin, the happy=20 couple who got together in _Return to Love_. In case you missed that=20 book, Janna and Collin were high school sweethearts, but they did=20 something once that landed them in the bishop's office. Janna became=20 pregnant, but she kept this secret from Collin so that he could still ser= ve a=20 mission. Collin does so, remaining unaware that he has a son. Janna,=20 meanwhile, marries a physically abusive man. After several years, she=20 finally has the courage to leave. She flees with her son to Collin's hou= se=20 because it seems like a safe place. Eventually the two of them reconcile= =20 and marry, and live happily ever after. . . until the next book. =20 This book, _To Love Again_, begins at their honeymoon, but their=20 happily-ever-after soon proves to be more difficult than they'd dreamed=20 possible. You see, Janna was also abused by her father as a youth, and a= =20 chance encounter with him sets off some awful feelings within her. Soon=20 she's verbally and emotionally abusive to Collin, and the harder he tries= to=20 help her feel better, the worse she gets. She's also hideously depresse= d,=20 and Collin finds life with her more and more difficult. Eventually he=20 commits adultery, and that of course sets off a whole new set of problems= =20 to overcome. Believe it or not, Collin and Janna do eventually reconcile= =20 their differences, but getting there is not easy. Things I like about this story and Stansfield books in general: There are real issues going on here. There's abuse, healing from abuse,=20 mistrust, adultery, the whole works. People who want the fluffy side of=20 life aren't going to find it here. Or are they? More on that later. Stansfield depicts the workings of the Spirit. Very few LDS writers=20 portray that as effectively as she does. In all of her books, God is alm= ost=20 like another character. He's very real, always in the background, but hi= s=20 influence is never far. Even in their darkest hours, God always comes=20 through for them, sometimes in ways that they least expect it. Problems with this book: The issues are real, but ultimately everything has to work out. That's a= =20 stipulation at the beginning. Stansfield herself has said on television=20 commercials that "I guarantee a happy ending." So, no matter what else=20 happens, when you pick up the book you know that the characters will live= =20 happily ever after. The point of reading the book is to take the journey= to=20 that ending, not to speculate on the outcome. In a way I like that. Who wants to read through an entire depressing boo= k=20 in which the protagonist loses and eventually wilts away to nothing? =20 Maybe that's real life, but it sure isn't fun to read about. Overcoming=20 obstacles and truly achieving happiness really happen, too. People come=20 away inspired by stories like these. On the other hand, not every problem in life has a happy ending that can=20 fit with it. Since it's fiction, and romantic religious fiction at that,= =20 readers=20 can often allow for a few little miracles to help solve problems without=20 feeling that the credibility of the story is too strained. But there's still a difference between solving problems realistically and= =20 solving them unrealistically. Latter-day Saint fiction is notorious for=20 unrealistic solutions. Just for an example, I recall a scene in a Jack=20 Weyland book (_Kimberly_) in which a man and woman divorce after=20 years of marriage. The children experience a range of emotions, includin= g=20 despair. The junior high-aged girl contemplates suicide for all of about= =20 two pages. Then she looks outside and sees the beautiful world and=20 decides that life is worth living after all. The problem is solved, but = the=20 simple solution certainly does not address the pain that truly suicidal=20 people feel. But Stansfield comes a lot closer to realistic situations than Weyland do= es=20 in this scene. (Weyland himself has been known to come closer than that=20 in many cases.) While there are miracles in this book, they don't drive=20 much of the action of the book. For example, Janna experiences=20 depression that doesn't go away just because people pray for her or=20 because the world is beautiful. Colin, frustrated by his depressed wife w= ho=20 has turned hateful and abusive, finds himself turning to another woman fo= r=20 acceptance. While it's repeatedly made clear that this doesn't excuse=20 Colin's actions, it's a realistic thing to happen under the circumstances= . =20 And separation and possible divorce are realistic things to happen after=20 that. Colin's excommunication and deepening despair are also realistic=20 consequences. It's refreshing to see LDS fiction that admits these=20 realities, unpleasant as they are. They're as much a part of life as=20 conversion and temple marriage. We may like to think that Latter-day=20 Saints are immune to such problems, but this is sadly not the case; they = are=20 likely much more widespread than many of us realize. So what about the story isn't realistic? Unfortunately, it's the happy=20 ending. I wouldn't say that it's an easy ending, since it does take a l= ong,=20 torturous path to get them there. Given that the ending must be happy, t= he=20 road there is fairly believable. But once Janna's finally overcome the=20 demons from her past and feels that she can still accept Colin after what= =20 he's done, and Colin finally qualifies for rebaptism and has to face the = fact=20 that Janna might not choose to take him back, their reunion is much=20 smoother than I would realistically expect. Colin's character has to carry quite a bit of the non-realism. Of course= , he=20 does fit the mold of the bigger-than-life hero of any romance novel. He'= s=20 sensitive, as we see in scene after scene where he sheds tears over Janna= ,=20 the state of his family, and his own sins. (In fact, he may be a bit too= =20 sensitive. He sure cries an awful lot, and occasionally he does things l= ike=20 "clap his hand over his mouth" when he hears surprising news. He must=20 have been written by a woman.) He's also incredibly patient. When=20 Janna treats him like dirt, month after month, he continues on in the=20 marriage and tries to do everything he can for her, including sending her= =20 flowers every week while they're living apart. His love for her is still= =20 strong. When she's finally ready, after a breakdown and months of=20 counseling, he takes her back easily. He's upset by her behavior, but he= =20 never stops loving her. It's a great example of something we should aspi= re=20 to, but how many people can really put up with months of torture from=20 another human and still love them and be willing to have a working=20 marriage relationship with them? I would at least expect some rebuilding= =20 time, some time of "we're trying but let's not get too close because I'm=20 not sure I can trust you yet." Or I'd just plain expect a divorce. True= love=20 can die, after all, especially if someone kills it with abuse. =20 What might make the story more realistic? The reunion could be more=20 difficult, for starters. Another possibility would be that they simply d= on't=20 make it. This could be a depressing story, but it could also be written = as a=20 hopeful one. Perhaps we could see them come to peace with the fact that=20 their relationship can never be the same. After all the hurt that these = two=20 have caused each other, I could even believe that God might help them=20 heal and move on. =20 Or would he? I'm sure that some folks out there would feel the same way.= =20 I'm also sure that some folks would never dream of it. Why would God=20 ever tell a couple to divorce? The idea just doesn't fit with some peopl= e's=20 view of things. I would venture to guess that these are the same readers= =20 who thrive on solutions coming through miracles. With its happy ending that comes in just that way, _To Love Again_ is=20 probably more for these readers than it is for people who want a truly=20 realistic story. These readers like to dabble in reading about worldly=20 problems, but they like to end in a safe place. However, these people al= so=20 don't like to be thrust into worldly problems and dragged through them. =20 They like to observe them from a safe distance. This is where the book=20 seems to lose its audience. The customer reviews on deseretbook.com were interesting, at least until=20 the book and its reviews were removed from the website. While most=20 customer reviewers of Stansfield's books rave about the high emotional=20 intensity, real life problems and solutions, and high quality of her writ= ing,=20 two of the three reviews of this book were somewhat negative. =20 Admittedly, two is a small number to base any sweeping judgments on,=20 but they are nonetheless interesting. This quote from one of them says i= t=20 all: "This book left me feeling bothered and troubled, and left behind i= t an=20 obvious lack of the Spirit in my home for several days." This sort of=20 material is something that many readers of LDS fiction just aren't lookin= g=20 for. What's wrong with the book? Well, for one thing, it actually shows some=20 of the outbursts between Janna and Colin. They even use the "h-word"=20 repeatedly. The dialogue here is often quite believable, and the frictio= n=20 between the two is pretty realistic. Sometimes one of them tries to be=20 kind, but the other one, anticipating caustic behavior, behaves caustical= ly. =20 Then the first one reacts negatively. And on it goes. Janna becomes mor= e=20 withdrawn, and neglects her duties around the home and in caring for the=20 family. Colin tries to take up the slack, and tries to initiate kind beh= avior,=20 but Janna becomes only more sullen. =20 Then there's the adultery. Yes, this is a Latter-day Saint novel in whic= h=20 the hero commits adultery. Lily, the "other woman," is from the office,=20 and Colin isn't even remotely interested in her until a series of events=20 brings them together. She's a nonmember going through a divorce, and he=20 politely tries to comfort her and then finds himself telling her about hi= s=20 problems also. He gives her rides home when her car doesn't work, and=20 comes into her apartment to fix things for her. It all starts innocently= ,=20 except for the constant warning sirens going off in Colin's mind that he=20 ignores. =20 The part that I had the most trouble with is the scene where they actuall= y=20 do it (ahem). It's quite clear that Colin is troubled and feels hopeless= =20 about his situation at home. And it's also quite clear that Lily likes h= is=20 company and appreciates him in a way that Janna doesn't seem to. This is= =20 all believable. Lily initiates the physical contact, which is also=20 believable. =20 What I didn't quite buy was that Colin feels so hopeless that his covenan= ts=20 and standards just cease to matter instantly. I can buy the hopeless par= t,=20 but he hadn't been questioning his testimony, or lusting after Lily, or=20 anything like that. Wouldn't something jar him into reality before he go= es=20 all the way the first time he really thinks about it? =20 Besides which, he doesn't even find Lily particularly attractive. He=20 doesn't love her. Even through all of Janna's emotional abuse, he loves=20 her, deeply. He hasn't considered getting intimate with Lily. It just=20 happens. Given Colin's moral fiber throughout the rest of the book, this= =20 just didn't quite ring true with me. He knows that married men shouldn't= =20 be alone with a woman that they aren't married to, which is a fine rule t= o=20 follow, but which he proceeds to break. But just breaking this rule does= =20 not mean that the two people will end up in bed together. =20 But what follows is pretty real. Afterwards, Colin lets himself realize=20 what he's done, and ends up crying in Lily's arms for an hour. Then he=20 has to go home and face Janna. He confesses to her almost immediately,=20 and she responds by throwing him out of the house. And then Lily refuses= =20 to disappear. She wants to expand their relationship. And from what she= =20 knows about Colin's home situation, she can't fathom why he won't=20 comply. This is all handled quite well, and shows some consequences of=20 Colin's transgression that he hadn't even considered.=20 In spite of the realistic depictions of the situation, this book also has= =20 plenty=20 of examples of sloppy writing. The book begins with a multi-page=20 information dump to catch the reader up on what happened in _Return to=20 Love_. Then we see Janna and Colin on their honeymoon, and then at the=20 birth of their next child. The object, of course, is to show how happy t= hey=20 are and how much they love each other. But, since nothing happens of=20 substance, it's about as interesting as watching someone cook a box of=20 macaroni and cheese. The story at this point is all cheese and no=20 substance. (Fake cheese, at that.) Things eventually get more interesti= ng,=20 but it takes longer than it should to get there. =20 Another example of poor writing is the introduction of Hilary Smith as=20 Janna's good friend. She appears from nowhere and their entire=20 relationship is described in a paragraph. Her friendship is supposed to=20 mean a lot to Janna, but apparently not enough to give her any more space= =20 than that. She makes one other similar appearance, and that's it for her= . =20 What was the point of even introducing her as a character? Actually,=20 anyone who does a bit of homework will discover that one of Stansfield's=20 next books is about Hilary and her trials and romance. Most, if not all,= of=20 Stansfield's main characters are tied to main characters in another story= , so=20 the stories are all interrelated in some way, and occasionally you'll hea= r=20 news in books about other characters. For instance, in the third book of= =20 Emily and Michael Hamilton's trilogy, the "First Love" series, they=20 befriend Sean, who is studying to become a counselor. Sean's romance is=20 covered in _By Love and Grace_. There, among other things, Sean=20 counsels a youth who has been sexually abused by her father. This is=20 Janna, who goes on to become the heroine in _Return to Love_ and _To=20 Love Again_. Janna and Colin's daughter Mallory grows up and has her=20 own trials and romance in _For Love Alone_. And on it goes. This was=20 simply Hilary's "in" to the series. But it's a pretty poor one. But those things aside, a problem with this book is that it's too edgy fo= r=20 some of the folks who read to be uplifted. And it's also too unrealistic= and=20 positive for those who like "real" material. The appearance of sloppy=20 writing doesn't help the cause for either side. In the end, the book can= =20 only really appeal to those from either camp who are willing to overlook=20 the parts they don't like=97either the edginess, or the contrived happy=20 ending. Even some diehard Stansfield fans don't like this one. On the=20 other hand, I think this one is now one of my favorite Stansfield offerin= gs.=20 Part 2 But, frankly, I don't understand why Deseret Book has "banned" it. =20 According to the letter from Sheri Dew, President and CEO of Deseret=20 Book, sent to many Utah customers in December: <<<<<< Many customers have asked if we will continue to carry books=85that=20 explore the classic conflict between good and evil (and thus deal with=20 everything form adultery to abuse). Of course we will. But we will stoc= k=20 only those that clearly distinguish between right and wrong and that show= =20 the honest consequences of individual choices. =20 >>>>> If this book doesn't do that, what books do? I've been racking my brains trying to think of other reasons why Deseret=20 Book might pull this one from its shelves. Perhaps there is some little=20 thing that they don't like, such as the use of the "h" word. Or maybe t= hey=20 didn't like the fact that both Colin and Janna date other people during t= heir=20 separation, while they are legally still married to each other. The book= =20 never says that this is wrong for them to do. Or perhaps they didn't lik= e=20 the scene where Janna finally comes back to Colin. The couple is still=20 legally married, but they've lived separate lives for months, and they=20 immediately hop into bed together as soon as Janna comes back. Or might=20 Deseret Book disagree with the idea that Colin was prodded to his=20 adulterous act by abuse from Janna? Did that seem to excuse his actions=20 somehow, even though the book goes to great lengths to explain that this=20 was no excuse? Like it or not, that's still a very realistic possible=20 consequence to Janna's behavior. Could Deseret Book be bowing to the pressure of negative reviews such as=20 those on their website? Maybe this book isn't for everyone, but much of = it=20 is very real. Right or wrong, these things happen. Not everything in li= fe=20 brings warm fuzzies. But the ultimate resolution of this book is full of= =20 hope. Yes, it's a long, terrible road back. But with patience, persiste= nce,=20 repentance, and forgiveness, it can be traveled. =20 Another thought. The letter from Sheri Dew states that the books that th= ey=20 carry must "show the *honest* consequences of individual choices." =20 (Asterisks added.) Perhaps the powers that be at Deseret Book feel that=20 the consequences for this couple weren't honest. After all, Janna was=20 abusive and Colin was unfaithful, and they still got back together. I=20 suppose it could happen, but the more likely consequence is for the=20 marriage to fail altogether. Could that be the problem? Does it seem th= at=20 this book promotes the idea that it's okay to mess around or abuse your=20 spouse because you can fix things in the end? Although the happy ending may not be realistic, the book goes out of its=20 way many times to stress the difficulty of reconciliation. Stansfield=20 doesn't make it easy for them, and emphasizes that things would have=20 been much better for them both if Colin hadn't fallen in the first place.= =20 She did about as much as she could to make it realistic and still get Jan= na=20 and Colin back together. What's the problem, then? Could it be just that the book's not selling? A few months ago I was one of the more vocal folks on AML-List in=20 support of Deseret Book's decision to remove certain books from their=20 shelves. In theory, I still support this policy. They should be able to= cater=20 to the people whom they see as their customers. In carrying this out, I'= d=20 expect them to come down on books with explicit sex scenes, as well as=20 those where the characters have inappropriate relationships outside of=20 marriage with no apparent ill consequences. But I'm alarmed that the ax=20 has fallen on a book like this where the consequences are clearly shown a= s=20 devastating. It may just be that the book's not selling well; it's been = out=20 for several years, it will probably go out of print soon if it isn't alre= ady,=20 and the customer reviewers didn't seem to like it, anyway. But those of u= s who=20 are aware of "the policy" will likely continue to look for moral reasons = for its being pulled from the shelves. I don't believe that Deseret Book ever intended to place "banned book"=20 labels on anything. They just want their decisions to be reflected quiet= ly=20 by the absence of anything "icky" on their shelves. Customers are=20 supposed to notice the high caliber of literature they find there, not fr= et=20 over what's not in the store. I'm sure that many of them will do exactly= =20 that. This is a reasonable goal for a bookstore, but defining where to d= raw the line is difficult. There will be some unbargained-for consequences.=20 Just like Colin faced with Lily. . . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Packaging of Fiction Date: 27 Mar 2003 17:05:35 -0700 "Look in any Christian books store and you'll notice the same thing." Not entirely true. The Christian bookstore run by Bill Gaither (Bill Gaither Trio) in Alexandria, IN, had regular-sized Christian novels the last time I was in the store. Also, I bought the first Left Behind novel in pocket-sized novel as well. I think some of these novels are published in two different formats and that particular bookstores make their own decisions as to which version to stock. [LuAnn Staheli] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 2: Representations of the Afterlife Date: 29 Mar 2003 13:07:33 -0700 INFORMATION ON D. MICHAEL'S FILM LABS, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR, CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.wwno.com/filmlab ======= D. Michael's Film Lab No. 2 Saturday, April 12, 2003, in the Salt Lake area. "Representations of the Afterlife" Humanity has been obsessed with the afterlife ever since there was a humanity. Is there one? If so, what is it like? Even religious people have radically differing views of life after death--even among the same religious denomination. For Lab #2, we will view three films that display very different representations of the afterlife from an non-LDS perspective. (Except for Man's Search for Happiness, there isn't much in the way of LDS cinematic representations.) 3:00 pm - Defending Your Life Albert Brooks, 1991 runtime 112 min PG, thematic elements An offbeat (as only Albert Brooks can do) view of the hereafter. Brooks and Meryl Streep star as two individuals who have recently died and find themselves in Judgment City, a place where people eat anything they want without gaining weight, find out who they used to be in the Past Lives Pavilion, and suffer from "brain envy" instead of penis envy. But they also find they are on trial for their lives, and where they go in the next life depends on the verdict handed down by the powers that be. "Little brains," as they are called, suffer inordinately from fear. Moving on into the next sphere of existence requires that they demonstrate through excerpts from their most recent life that they have overcome fear--otherwise it's back to Earth (shudder!) The twisted humor of Albert Brooks makes this a fun excursion into the next life, although we hope dearly he has it all wrong. 6:00 pm - What Dreams May Come Vincent Ward, 1998 runtime 113 min PG-13, intense images, themes of death, language Perhaps the most original representation of the afterlife in film to date. Glorious and beautiful, intense and frightening, the hereafter is what we make of it, totally and completely. Robin Williams plays a man deeply in love with his wife, who was once suicidal, and he fears for her when he dies and leaves her alone. Annabella Sciorra is masterful as the troubled wife who succumbs to depression and is imprisoned for eternity in a hell of her own making. But Williams refuses to accept the prevailing belief that no one can be saved from hell, and does what Joseph Smith once said he would do for Emma (and Brigham Young retorted that he'd probably have to do): march into hell to rescue his wife. With an impressive supporting cast, including Cuba Gooding, Jr., Rosalind Chao, and Max von Sydow, "What Dreams" is a moving story of faith, hope, and love for a spouse. 9:00 pm - Gladiator Ridley Scott, 2000 runtime 155 min R, graphic violence The ultimate Roman film, evoking Rome as only 21st Century cinematic technology can do, "Gladiator" is a film with it all: visual spectacle, thrilling fight scenes, political intrigue, and a powerful performance by Russell Crow, who solidifies his standing as one of the great actors of our time. But this film doesn't stop with being an action flick. It also celebrates such noble virtues as love of family, loyalty, integity, patriotism, and honor. And as icing on the cake, it serves up a tender vision of the afterlife, in stark contrast to the brutality of mortal life. Gladiator is proof positive that the great epics of the past are not dead. NOTE: We will likely have a special encore presentation of Lab #1 later in April with a special guest of honor. An announcement will be released as soon as the date is confirmed. RULES OF ATTENDANCE: Because space is limited, please RSVP to dmichael@wwno.com. You will then receive directions for finding the location, which is in Sandy, Utah. You are welcome to show up at the door (if you know where it is), but seating preference will be given to those who reserve a spot. We'll try to fit everyone in, but you may be put in another room with an inferior screen if things get too crowded. You may attend any or all of the films. Discussion will follow the viewing of each film, analyzing and critiquing the merits and weaknesses and impact of the film from an artistic, cultural, and yes, even moral standpoint. No expertise is required to participate. Just a vocal opinion and a respect for the opinions of others. (Personal attacks will not be tolerated!) No admission is charged (this is just friends gathering to watch movies together), but we like to make a potluck party out of these labs, so please bring something to share with others. Utensils will be provided. To maintain balance, please be prepared to say what you would like to bring when you RSVP. PLEASE be considerate of others and do not bring anyone who will not be interested in viewing the films or be disruptive in any way. Be honest with yourselves--if your kids are little hellions, leave them home! No babysitting facilities are available!! We don't want to enforce age requirements, but we will enforce considerate behavior. Also be aware that there will be no attempt to select films or maintain a discussion that is "family friendly" (unless the theme is specifically intended to be family friendly). Frankness (but not crudeness) is an acceptable part of the discussion. YOU are responsible for deciding if attendance is appropriate for any particular individual, not us. Everyone attends at their own risk. We ain't got no commercial liability insurance. This is just for fun. You are welcome to bring pillows or blankets or beanbags if you like casually relaxing on the floor. Dress is as casual as you want to get. Heck, you can come naked for all I care (but others may care). D. Michael is the final arbiter of all rules. Come join us! It's bound to be fun. -- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] FW: Kim CLEMENT, "Hole in the Roof" Date: 28 Mar 2003 16:38:42 -0700 At 02:52 PM 3/20/03 -0800, you wrote: > As I've said before " While the Church was measuring the length of = >skirts and the length of hair, scientists were discovering a greater = >means of transport, Bill Gates was gazing into the mystical ball of = >Microsoft and women were legislating abortion, removing the rights of = >the unborn". The short skirts did lengthen but did not stop the adultery = >and the long hair did shorten but did not stop the rebellion, yet = >millions of babies have died and billions of dollars have supplied the = >wrong people with power." > > My point is that we are missing the real issues at hand by = >concentrating on a few profanities and some violent graphics that might = >correctly portray what happens to these abused victims. Has anyone else responded to this interesting essay? I very much enjoyed reading it, but the section I copied above struck me the most. I agree that Satan distracts us from what we should be doing by providing us with other things to do that let us feel righteous without actually accomplishing anything. And if our literature can point that out (non-didactically, for a culture impatient with didacticism) clearly enough to make people think about which battles they need to fight, so much the better. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Date: 28 Mar 2003 17:08:00 -0700 At 01:39 PM 3/22/03 -0700, you wrote: >. I wish >storytellers everywhere--and I fully intend to do this myself--would >just tell their stories however they think they should be told, and >gender stereotypes be damned. If the story needs a weak female character >up against a strong male character, write it. If it needs the opposite, >write it, whether comedy or drama. If they should be equals, but each >contributing different strengths (which I like the best), write it. I agree with D. in principle. But one problem I have with C.J. Cherryh's novels is that the male and female characters are just the same. The only way you can tell the gender of a character is by the pronouns that refer to him or her. And that doesn't work for me in a story. I agree that there should not be a judgment in terms of a character's supposed inherent superiority because of gender, but I don't agree with her that men and women are alike except for the shape of their skin. Letting characters display masculine or feminine traits isn't a put-down. (And you know what I mean, so let's not restart the argument about what is feminine or masculine.) Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] KZION Radio Date: 28 Mar 2003 17:39:52 -0700 On Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 09:29 AM, Debra L Brown wrote: > And in advance I apologize to Steve Perry who just yesterday I asked > if he ever considered writing any hand clapping foot stomping praise > and worship music. I don't own any of his, but in a few days my order > from Cedar Fort should be here where a few of his were on the scratch > and dent table and I got a cd and two tapes of his for $2. And worth every cent, by crackey! :-) Steve -- skperry@mac.com http://stevenkappperry.com - where you can get CDs and Cassettes and Songbooks with nary a scratch nor dent for a price that is less competitive than $2, but the shipping is on me! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] _Stones_ Performances Date: 28 Mar 2003 17:26:22 -0700 On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:51:09 -0700 "David and Dianna Graham" writes: > David and I can't wait to go and see "Stones" which I just > heard yesterday (as I'd heard many times before) is absolutely > AMAZING. I hope noone in the area misses that production. Actually, as of today, Friday, March 28, we have had five "scheduled" performances but only three "actual" performances. Last Saturday and this most recent Wednesday not a soul darkened the threshold of our theatre. We changed our clothes and went home. Of the three performances we have had a grand total of fifty four people have seen the show. So, everybody gets in for five bucks from here on out. If you're really poor like me then you get in for nothing. I really just want to perform the show. I want my actors to get that chance. It can't be about money. So ... come on over! scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles in Literature=20 Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:09:56 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Ben-Hur > In the end of the film, Ben-Hur's leprous mother and sister are healed. This scene breaks a couple of (Mormon) miracle conventions. There was no request from the recipients to be healed, and there was no instrument through which the healing took place (a priesthood holder). The film leaves no wiggle room for explaining the miracle: the narration clearly takes the stand that the healing occurred through the miraculous intervention of the Christian God. I guess my worldview is too simplistic to give as much analytical effort to the plot of the movie Ben Hur. However When I saw it, before my conversion to the gospel, I thought the recipients of the healing certainly were hoping for deliverance from their afflictions, and I recognized the instrument through which the healing took place, the atoning blood of Christ. And now, 41 years after my conversion, looking back with my enlightened 20/20 LDS vision I see also that His priesthood was a factor in this healing process. I mean, I'm quite sure that Christ was using his priesthood power even from the cross and in the act of laying down his mortal life. To me, as a writer, I feel that I know if an incident in my plot is a miracle or not. Nevertheless a reader always has the agency to accept it as miracle or not. I think non-believers have enough wiggle room in their own lack of faith, so I do not feel inclined to give them any wiggle room of my own creation. Let them find their own. That said, I think I'll pass on any aspirations for the advent of the genre of Mormon Magical Realism. I'll just tell my stories from my own personal worldview, based on my limited understanding of LDS doctrine and the gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that we don't need fantasy or magical realism, I thoroughly enjoyed Patrick S=FCskind's "Perfume," Salman Rushdie's "Midnight's= Children" and Jeanette Winterson's "The Passion," but I'm just reluctant to go any further into it than the possible putting forth of gospel truths along with the rest of the story, in hopes that an occasional reader might wiggle in the right direction, without any proselytizing. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Date: 28 Mar 2003 17:54:00 -0800 (PST) --- Eric Russell wrote: > I think there's a lot more out there. Anyone else have any ideas towards > a > conservative literary theory? I'm not sure there can be such a thing as "conservative literary theory" because many conservatives dislike being placed in ideological straitjackets. They are contrarian by nature, and approach things from an eclectic perspective rather than a single overarching political world view. There are some conservative critics worth reading. Joseph Epstein has published several witty collections of literary essays like "Partial Payments." Thomas Mallon's "In Fact" is a fine survey of recent fiction (he also writes historical novels.) James Wolcott, who writes for the "New Yorker" and "Vanity Fair", was kicked off of the "Village Voice" for being too nice to Reagan. Christopher Hitchens is excellent on writers and their lives. Kenneth S. Lynn wrote a wonderful book of essays, "The Air-line to Seattle" and his icon-busting biography "Hemingway." Czeslaw Milosz's "The Captive Mind" is a penetrating study of intellectual life under totalitarianism. I would dare claim George Orwell as a neo-conservative; his essays are priceless. John Updike can be bracingly politically incorrect in his reviews. Tom Wolfe virtually invented modern conservative literary criticism. There are the forgotten critics of the early 20th century who were swept away by the New Deal: Paul Elmer More, Irving Babbitt, and above them all H.L. Mencken. Gore Vidal, of all people, is absolutely devastating on literary theory in his essays. I know these guys are all white males, many of them dead. But you have to start someplace. What they have in common is a preference for free agency over control. For responsibility rather than extremism. For the individual over mindless conformism to society. For real, private diversity rather than publically imposed popular blandness. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Role of LDS Writers Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:50:18 -0700 Robert Slaven wrote: > Ya know, on the one hand, I appreciated a lot of things in the talk Elder Packer once made about "The Unwritten Order of Things" OTOH, I'm concerned that some may have interpreted his talk to mean "Oh, so it's OK to keep on with stupid little traditions that have nothing to do with the gospel. If we've always done it that way, it doesn't matter what the handbook says!" Grrrrr.... I'm with you Robert, I too joined the church when I was seventeen, but I was not truly converted until I was 25. Thank goodness I was in the mission field for the first 32 years after my conversion, or I might have given up before I got a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. In one of my first sacrament meetings after moving to Utah I was sitting about four or five feet to the right of a good strong sister in the gospel, who had lived her entire life in this small town in Utah. First I have to tell you, I have a bad back. Well when the sacrament tray came to her I leaned over to take it from her, supporting my back on the seat with my right hand and reaching out with my left to take the tray. The sister held the tray just out of my reach, and glared in a very unkindly way at my outstretched left hand. I didn't know what the problem was so I hitched myself a little closer, and she drew the tray further away. I finally as a last resort hitched along the bench and putting my left arm on the back of the pew, and reaching for the tray with my "right" hand she smiled in a very patronizing way and relinquished the tray to me. I scooted back to my wife, and we took the sacrament. and then passed it along. After the meeting, as we tried to leave the chapel, the sister cornered us in the isle and proceeded to teach us as if we were primary children on the requirement to only take and pass the sacrament with the "right" hand. I have served in a bishopric, and a branch presidency and have never found this particular bit of doctrine in any of the material distributed to the mission field. > I have determined that one of the key axioms upon which our universe is predicated is that God not only has a sense of humor, but that it is totally bent. One of the evidences I have for this is my belief that if it were not so, he would have zapped us all into ashes long ago. > > May I learn to have the same patience and sense of humor that He does. Talk about God's sense of humor, - what a hoot, have you ever been to a zoo and seen one species of apes with a red, white and blue face, while another species has red white and blue derrieres? This cracks me up every time I think about it. I'm glad you have reminded me of these things, we need to remember to include things like this in our writing, to show the world that we, even though we claim to be in possession of the truth, are still human and fallible. This is an eternal truth. Bill Willson, bmdblu2@atbi.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Williams" Subject: [AML] War and International Liberal Mormons Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:25:15 -0800 Nearly every poll confirms nowadays that just about 7 of every 10 America= ns support this war in Iraq. Judging by what I hear in church, I'd say that number is probably even higher among Mormon Americans (like maybe 9 in ev= ery 10 support the war). I have no real scientific evidence to back that up, but it feels about right. Anyway, I should say at the beginning here tha= t I am one of those 3 in every 10 Americans and 1 in every 10 Mormon American= s that is opposed to this war. In short, I am what my mom calls a "liberal= " Mormon. Now, before we begin a debate about whether I am correct or not in my opposition to this war (a debate that I would certainly welcome, but whic= h has been deemed inappropriate to this forum), I'd like to steer my commen= ts in a slightly different, more literary direction. I have noticed that as= an English-speaking liberal Mormon, I have access to a very large discursive community in which I can find people equally interested in asking difficu= lt questions about their faith, and how it informs their more liberal politi= cal positions. In the case of this war, for example, I can always turn to Eugene England's classic "Making Peace" wherein he reminds us that pacifi= sm has never meant passivism, and that there are an infinite number of creat= ive solutions to political problems that do not involve violence. Or, I can turn to the rather handy English-language "Ensign" CD-ROM, where a quick search pulls up the First Presidency Message from June 1976: "We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of prepar= ing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resource= s to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel-ships, planes, missiles, fortifications-and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train = a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Sata= n=92s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior=92s teaching: 'Love= your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pr= ay for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be th= e children of your Father which is in heaven .' (Matt. 5:44-45) " I can also read Dialogue, Sunstone, BYU Studies, or any of the other English-language venues that offer a chance to explore more intellectual "liberal" ideas. So, when my home teachers explain that D&C 98 justifies the use of preemptive violent force in Iraq (seriously, I'm not kidding, they shared that just before the message on Family Home Evening), I'm certainly shock= ed, but not shaken by it. Because I am situated firmly within a solid discursive community of people who do not think that way, I feel a kind o= f solidarity. I am also not so easily swayed by talk of how patriotism and nationalism are paving the way for the preaching of the gospel in Iraq. = In other words, I may be only 1 in every 10 Mormons, but I do have access to= a valuable discursive connection with those other 1's. Now, I'd like to pose a few questions that I think are rather interesting= in this context. First, given the fact that there are now more Mormons livi= ng outside the US than there are inside the US, what kind of support would a war like this get among Mormons living outside the US? And, assuming tha= t a sizeable number of those Mormons do not speak English (even though the majority still do), what kind of a "literary" community does a non-Englis= h speaking "liberal" Mormon have access to? That last question could proba= bly be broken down into two smaller ones: 1) Is there any kind of "intellectu= al" or "liberal" discussion on Mormonism happening in any other language than English? And 2) does any of the Liberal English-based stuff I listed abo= ve ever get translated into another language? For example, take Mexico. The failure of a second UN resolution for President Bush had a lot to do with Mexico's refusal to sign on to the wa= r, even under intense pressure from the United States. And of course there = are thousands of Mormons living in Mexico right now. Assuming that there are= a few Mormons there that are against it (just as there are a few Mormons he= re who are against it), would those Mormons have any type of literary commun= ity to which they could appeal for ways that their Mormon faith informs their opposition to this war? I mean, beyond simply reading the scriptures and the Liahona (the Spanish-language Ensign), would they have any means of arguing that their Mormon faith underscores their opposition to this war? These are honest questions. I know that a lot of Deseret Book materials = are translated into Spanish (like Robinson's "Believing Christ"), but I've ne= ver heard whether any more "liberal" scholarship (like, say, Eugene England's book) has ever been translated into Spanish. I guess a more broad questi= on might be, does someone who does not speak English have any access at all = to the more complex, heterogeneous intellectual history of Mormonism that ha= s emerged in the last fifty years? John Williams --UC Irvine -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Words and Music Date: 28 Mar 2003 18:52:01 -0800 (PST) Speaking of artists' personal lives: Richard Wagner may have been a disgusting old anti-Semite, but he did say one true thing about music. He observed than words and music are incomplete art without each other, that they naturally fit together to give a more complete aesthetic experience. You rarely hear a song on the radio that is just instrumental. And the best poetry and prose has a musical rhythm. On March 22 I attended a performance of Mahler's Symphony No. 3 in the Salt Lake Tabernacle. The Orchestra at Temple Square performed along with the women of the Tabernacle Choir, the International Children's Choir, and soprano soloist Martha Hart. It was a deeply moving, satisfying experience. These concerts are free to the public. The church must go to great expense to maintain orchestras and choirs. The only recompense for these gifts are the goodwill they generate and the spiritual lift they give to the concertgoers. This is a marvelously generous thing the church does. Mahler was perhaps the most intensely spiritual composer of modern times, and this performance was gorgeous. He wrote a program in most of his symphonies. The choral parts of the third symphony include a poem by Friedrich Nietzsche about how the important things in life can only be sensed as in a dream, "at midnight." We would say they are revealed. I especially liked how the conductor Barlow Bradford took time before the beginning and after the intermission to comment on what the symphony is about--what to listen for when the choir represents the angels singing, for example. He made his words amplify the music without seeming pedantic or condescending to people who aren't experts in classical music, and I think most concertgoers were grateful. He did make Nietzsche and Mahler sound like Latter-day Saints. Maybe by now they are:-) The Orchestra at Temple Square is sounding better and more professional all the time. I'm really looking forward to their Easter concert with the Tabernacle Choir on April 18-19, Brahms' spine-tingling "A German Requiem." Another deeply affecting work that combines words and music to provide a spiritual experience. (I know aesthetic pleasure and spiritual experience are two different things. Listening to music will not get you to heaven by itself. But music can get your attention and lead you on on to further light and knowledge.) And in the "tooting-your-own-horn" department, I would like to invite list members to an Easter concert in Heber City, Utah on April 11. The Heber Valley Arts Council presents the Mountain High Chorale in a performance of Murray Boren's "Easter Cantata" and the baroque composer Dietrich Buxtehude's "Rejoice, Beloved Christians." (I'm the big guy with the beard in the bass section.) The new cantata is by Murray Boren, the composer-in-residence at BYU. The orchestra and choirs at BYU are scheduled to perform this piece in two years, but it's getting an out-of-town tryout, so to speak, with us here in Heber. It's a lovely work. Admission is free and the location is the Heber 1st Ward building at 325 East 500 North. It has a big, cool pipe organ. The words in the cantata are from the scriptures and the poetry of John Donne. It's going to be really good, I think. (And thanks again to all the list members who responded a few months ago when I sent out a request for information about a new choir to sing in. We've reconstituted in Heber and ironed things out for now, but I'm still keeping an eye out for other singing groups. You know how these things go.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:56:04 -0500 I can honestly say I read more than I really should. But I'm not repenting, nu-uh, I shall go on in my wicked ways. Here are some highlights and lowlights from the past year: _Stargirl_, by Jerri Spinelli: A formerly homeschooled girl attends High School for the first time and creates quite a stir. The girl is much more interesting, quirky, and spiritual then the guy, and it's muy, muy exelente. Maybe that's my Homeschooler pride talking, but I don't think so. _Shadow Puppets_, by Orson Scott Card: I love everything he writes, or, rather, everything he publishes, and this was no exception. The Bean/Petra romance is almost as good as the Gaborn/Iome one in The Runlords. Which brings me too... _The Runelords: Wizardborn_, by David Farland: Not only is The Runelords series arguably the best fantasy I've ever read (I haven't decided if I like Lord of the Rings or Alvin Maker better, and I don't really see why I should choose.), it contains the two best romantic subplots I have ever read in any genre (Borenson/Myrrima being the second one). In this latest installment, Gaborn is still trying to figure out what being the Earth King is all about, and The Great Big Bad Guy really isn't as Big as we thought he was. When, oh when, is the fourth book coming out? There has to be one! We needs it. We wants it. It is our precious. _The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer, My Life at Rose Red_, by herself: What an odd little book. Around the 1900s, Ellen marries a very evil man, makes a pact with the devil, engages in homosexual relations, and lives in a house (called Rose Red) that eats people. Supposedly, it's all legit. I'm still trying to figure out if it isn't fiction masquerading as fact a-la The Blair Witch Project. In any case, it's odd. _The Free Bards_, by Merceades Lackey: Set in a medevil fantasy world, the Free Bards are non-conformists musicians who travel the fairs, making a living off of donations. Lots of fun. Made me wish there were still street musicians serenading on every street corner. I would give them money, I promise! _The Screwtape Letters_, by CS Lewis: This one seems to be very popular. Mum and Dad gave it to me along with Mere Christianity for my birthday. They have pretty matching covers. I hope to collect the whole set. I decided to reread Screwtape first just because I read him last three or four years ago and Mere Christianity just last year. I find new things every time. CS Lewis is my hero. _Til We Have Faces_, by CS Lewis: My favourite Lewis book. A retelling of the Cupid/Psyche myth from the viewpoint of Psyche's overly devoted sister, Orual. It is a story of how love can be contorted into something ugly and destructive. I do not yet have a copy with a pretty cover, but if anyone wants to remedy that situation... _Mystique_, by Amanda Qhuick: I picked it up expecting a fantasy, and got a sex-laden romance instead! How vexing! Mom liked it, though, she went and got Quick's entire library. So they must be good for something. _Watership Down_, by Richard Adams: My favorite book as a nine-year-old, although most the political and social symbolism escaped me then. I just liked the stories about bunnies. What I still like about it now is that the bunnies aren't just smaller, fuzzier humans, they're bunnies. If bunnies could really talk and think on that level, they would talk and think somewhat like that, I think. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Books on the Bedside Table Date: 28 Mar 2003 21:08:55 -0700 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >Christopher Bigelow >Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:38 AM >To: 'aml-list@lists.xmission.com' >Subject: RE: [AML] RE: Books on the Bedside Table (Comp 1) > > ><<< >All right, people have asked my the title of this novel >before. It's _Aztec_, by Gary Jennings. >>>> > >Whoa, you bought that book at Deseret? That blows my mind. I >read it as a teen and can still remember some of the sex >scenes, quite explicit ones. How long ago did you buy it? About a month after DB's proposed book burning was to have taken place. So I couldn't buy a book by a Mormon author with a suggested sex scene, but I COULD by a book by a gentile author with graphic scenes of lesbian sex and human sacrifice. Go figure. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature