From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 30 Apr 2003 11:05:40 -0600 A case in point is Shakespeare, who became "respectable" to the literary community exactly when his language became obscure. But not because Shakespeare himself used obscure language. Quite to the contrary, he wrote in the vernacular to the time. Shakespeare became obscure because of the inevitable evolution of the language. This explains why Shakespeare is often more "difficult" than the more formal language of the KJV--vernacular evolves much faster. In other words, Shakespeare didn't sound like "Shakespeare" to Shakespeare. Or to his audience. He had to fill the cheap seats, after all. He did, of course, layer his plays with rich structural complexities, with metaphor and allusion that would appeal as well to his upper-class patrons, for whom he could embed messages that for political purposes were more safely hidden behind simile. Ironically, part of Shakespeare's current respectability is because the obscurity of the language has hidden much of the bawdy humor and outright vulgarities from modern eyes. Few people would understand why the Reverend Bowdler felt Shakespeare had to be expurgated in the first place. (So BYU professors should not even show illustrative clips from R-rated movies in their classes, but Shakespeare is all but worshiped. Delicious, that.) To switch to a second case in point, I can distinctly remember when, on my mission, I picked up a Japanese/English New Testament (a "taiyaku," or side-by-side translation). For the first time I read a "modern" translation (the NRSV, it turned out) of Paul's letters, and discovered, to my enormous surprise, that Paul had in fact written concise, well-reasoned examinations of the theological justifications of the new Christian religion. Paul didn't need to be decoded, Paul only needed to be read. Christ as well spoke not in the four-hundred year old language of the English court, but in the common Aramaic of the time, language that everybody who heard him could understand, or at least understand well enough to get very upset with him.. A third case: When the Book of Mormon was first translated into Japanese in the early 1900s, they kept very close to classical diction of the "original" KJV-type language. The result was a narrative that, a century later, even educated Japanese struggled with. When a revised translation was brought out in the mid-1990s, they used standard, modern Japanese. Once consequence is that a good way to start an argument among a group of Mormon English/Japanese translators is to discuss the translation choices the 1995 translation made, because when you choose to be clear, you are also forced to be precise, and you may end up, to some eyes, being precisely wrong. Obscure, complex language can be easily deployed like a bad singer using excessive vibrato to cover up the fact she can't quite hit the right note. But, then, the delicate question arises: how can we speak of "eternal truths" if we're not sufficiently sure of them to articulate them in "plain and precious" terms? Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "" Subject: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 30 Apr 2003 16:20:42 -0600 Stansfield, Anita. _The Gable Faces East_. Covenant, 1999, 499 pp, $14.9= 5. Reviewed by Katie Parker This particular book, Anita Stansfield=92s first published historical rom= ance, is=20 no longer available on the shelves of Deseret Book or on their website. = Having=20 read the book for the first time with this in mind, it almost became a ga= me for=20 me to look for things that might have gotten this book =93banned.=94 Kee= p in mind=20 that this story takes place in the late 1880=92s in Australia, and the ch= aracters=20 are not Latter-day Saints. They=92re all decent people, and they even pr= ay=20 occasionally, but religion does not play a role in this story. And these= =20 characters are under no obligation to live up to Latter-day Saint standar= ds. =20 What most readily comes to mind, as far as inappropriate behavior in this= book,=20 is the physical affection expressed by the hero and heroine. While they = do not=20 have sex outside of marriage, they do get pretty affectionate. They don=92= t just=20 stop at little goodnight pecks, they slide lips over throats and nibble a= t=20 earlobes and get their pulses racing. The hero repeatedly invites the he= roine=20 to sleep with him (usually when they=92re already consumed by passion), a= lthough=20 she always refuses because she doesn=92t want to bear any children out of= =20 wedlock. (Turns out our hero is a first-timer himself, but that doesn=92= t come=20 up until later.) But there are several times when they chastely spend th= e=20 night together. One of these times happens when they=92re trapped outsid= e in a=20 storm and they have no choice. Another time or two happen when one of th= em is=20 upset and they turn to the other for comfort, and end up falling asleep i= n each=20 other=92s arms. Yet another time occurs when the hero wants to prove tha= t he=20 won=92t try anything, and the heroine decides to show that she trusts him= , so=20 they deliberately spend the night together in his bed and let the other w= orkers=20 on the ranch think that something is up. Nothing happens, of course, but= all=20 this boundary pushing could rub some readers the wrong way. There=92s also the fact that the hero=92s livelihood is based on gambling= . Jess=20 Davies, the hero, owns quite a bit of property, or at least he will once = his=20 mortgage is paid off. He inherited the property from his parents, who bo= th=20 died in the recent past. They raise sheep and sell wool, but what usuall= y pays=20 his mortgage are his winnings from racing his horses. Alexa Byrnehouse, = the=20 heroine, enters the story when she applies for a job as his horse trainer= . The=20 Byrnehouses and the Davies have been feuding for as long as either of the= m can=20 remember; both families are prominent landholders and horseracers. But A= lexa=92s=20 been disowned, and she has nowhere else to turn for a job besides her riv= al. =20 And thus the story begins. Although the gambling is not a constant focus= , it=20 does bail them out of a few situations and they are never struck by light= ning=20 for it. So this might be a source of concern for some readers, although = it=92s=20 not mentioned on any of the reviews on the Deseret Book website. Then again, there are also the circumstances of their births, which they=20 gradually learn through the course of the book. Suffice it to say that=20 extramarital affairs and heinous acts occurred, and the whole thing is pr= etty=20 convoluted. These are some interesting details that spice up the story, = but=20 they aren=92t exactly up to Latter-day Saint standards either. =20 I won=92t pretend to know why Deseret Book won=92t carry this book. It m= ay be due=20 to any or all of the reasons listed above. Or it may be due to none of t= hem. =20 The book was available on the Deseret Book website until very recently, s= o my=20 knowledge of the reader reviews posted there is unfortunately strictly fr= om=20 memory. There were seventeen reviews posted, which is quite a large numb= er for=20 this website. A few of the reviews complained about the graphic affection= =20 displayed, and one even called it =93dirty.=94 While there are many book= s in the=20 world that are much =93dirtier,=94 this is one a bit graphic and border-p= ushing for=20 sensitive readers=97those who patronize Deseret Book. So I can understan= d it if=20 Deseret Book wanted to stop carrying it because of these things. But mos= t of=20 the reviewers loved the book. And no one addressed what I felt was its l= argest=20 moral problem. The first half of the book moves pretty slowly, with the characters prepa= ring=20 the horses to race, getting to know other characters, racing the horses,=20 winning the race, and occasionally looking at each other and having their= =20 hearts pound. Then their physical affection starts, and then it grows mo= re=20 intense, and they declare their everlasting love for each other and make = plans=20 to be married. (That right there probably should alarm some readers. Si= nce=20 when does physical affection equal eternal love?) But Jess has some secrets haunting him from his past that he realizes he = needs=20 to work through for Alexa=92s sake, and he pulls away from her. He doesn= =92t=20 cancel their engagement, but he suddenly seems a lot less interested. He= had=20 been anxiously awaiting the time when they could wed, but now he refuses = to set=20 a date. And his kisses are a lot less passionate. This is all unfortuna= tely=20 developed pretty hastily, in terms of the writing itself, which makes wha= t=20 happens next seem that much more sudden. Richard has been Jess=92s best friend for years, and is one of his employ= ees on=20 the ranch. His face was disfigured in a fire years ago, but his heart an= d his=20 integrity are strong. He and Alexa have developed a friendship, which he= had=20 hoped might become more until she began her relationship with Jess. So n= ow he=20 loves her from afar, and does his best to look out for her well-being. H= e=20 confesses his true feelings to her once or twice, and kisses her passiona= tely=20 at these times as well, leaving Alexa thoroughly confused. Alexa feels=20 strongly for him, but wants to keep him as a good friend. Her feelings f= or=20 Jess are simply different. But all this changes when Jess pulls away. Alexa tries unsuccessfully (f= or a=20 few pages) to help him work through whatever is troubling him. Meanwhile= , she=20 pours out her heart to Richard, who suggests that he might be the one who= can=20 give her the love and commitment that she=92s looking for. (And he kisse= s her=20 again.) Alexa tries one more time with Jess, finally giving him an ultim= atum=20 to shape up or the engagement=92s off. Again he does nothing except to s= ay that=20 he needs more time. Alexa breaks off the engagement, and makes arrangeme= nts=20 with Richard to meet in Brisbane and be married. Meanwhile, Jess still=20 believes that she=92ll be there for him when he=92s ready. He has quite = a surprise=20 in store for him when Alexa and Richard arrive home, married to each othe= r, a=20 week or two later. It=92s not the graphic suggestiveness of the whole piece that made my sto= mach=20 churn. It was the fact that Alexa turns so quickly from Jess to Richard = in=20 only a matter of days. Hours, even. And the dialogue makes it clear tha= t this=20 was the right thing for them to do. The reason for this is that if they = hadn=92t=20 gotten married, Jess never would have come to terms with his past and=20 everything else. Call it what you will, but the unexplored fact remains:= if=20 Alexa were really committed to Jess, she would have stayed with him no ma= tter=20 how long it took him to be ready. Instead, she had a =93Plan B=94 in pla= ce before=20 she even broke their engagement. One might even guess that she would hav= e been=20 more patient with Jess if she didn=92t have Richard. =20 It seems to me that she had no business running to Richard about her brok= en=20 heart in the first place. Certainly physical affection between them was=20 inappropriate, at least until her engagement with Jess was broken off. B= ut=20 only once is it called wrong: =93By returning Richard=92s affection, she= had=20 already stepped into a circle of betrayal. Whichever road she chose, one= of=20 these men would end up hurt=94(251). =20 Somehow we are supposed to believe that Richard and Alexa are right in th= eir=20 sudden marriage and that Jess is wrong in his bitterness over it. True, i= t=92s=20 done and we can hope that Jess will be able to deal with it. And yes, Je= ss=20 really should have tried to be honest with Alexa from the first. But isn=92= t it=20 callous of them to do this to him and expect him to simply =93deal with i= t?=94 =20 Shouldn=92t marriage be more than a =93Plan A=94 and a =93Plan B?=94 Wha= t about=20 commitment to the person you love? Marriage should be forever. How can = it=20 ever be right to enter into such a serious covenant on a whim, out of spi= te, or=20 as a backup plan? Richard is an attentive husband, and he understands that Alexa=92s feelin= gs for=20 him will never be the same as her feelings for Jess, which still exist. = (This=20 is supposed to be fine, too. She occasionally worries about it, but feel= s=20 secure in her love for Richard, his love for her, and his support of=20 everything.) Alexa is happy with her decision and is sure that she made = the=20 right choice. Both hope that Jess will come to terms with it all. Jess = turns=20 to alcohol to drown his bitterness, and makes a couple of clandestine vis= its to=20 Alexa where he tries to recapture their passion. Alexa, ever faithful to= =20 Richard, protests, but still finds herself longing for Jess. Eventually = Jess=20 does come to terms with everything, and he ends up taking the role in Ale= xa=92s=20 life that Richard once filled=97that of her guardian from afar. Richard=20 understands her need for Jess in her life, and feels blessed just to be t= he one=20 married to her. This, too, bothers me; since when is it good to have fee= lings=20 for another person outside your marriage? But not long after that, Richa= rd is=20 killed by a bullet meant for Jess, and soon Alexa and Jess are planning t= heir=20 own wedding again. This, too, they attribute to destiny. Not that it doesn=92t make for an intriguing story. There=92s lots more = in here,=20 besides, such as the ongoing feud between Jess and Alexa=92s brother. Th= ere are=20 also some nice themes of forgiveness and submission. But isn=92t it inte= resting=20 that anything can be made =93right=94 by explaining it as =93God=92s will= =94=20 or =93destiny?=94 =20 Also interesting is the fact that many readers would likely evaluate this= book=20 differently if it had been a national-market book by a non-LDS author. I= =20 myself would likely have been more impressed with the self-restraint exer= cised=20 by the couple, rather than feeling so much that their affection was pushi= ng the=20 borders. I probably would have seen Alexa=92s marriage to Richard as a s= trange=20 but interesting plot twist, rather than feeling so offended by it. But k= nowing=20 how many LDS readers feel about the LDS books that they read, Alexa=92s d= uplicity=20 really bothered me. There=92s a kind of unspoken rule among many readers of LDS fiction, whet= her they=20 consciously realize it or not: Any book published by a faithful LDS publ= isher=20 is safe, faith-promoting, and provides good models for life. Even many r= eaders=20 (myself included) who don=92t truly subscribe to this notion still seem t= o expect=20 more standard-wise from a faithful LDS book. But this unspoken rule seem= s to=20 have two corollaries. Corollary one: If, perchance, a reader finds some= thing=20 that isn=92t as faith-promoting as he or she would like, it is the obliga= tion of=20 the said reader to immediately complain to Deseret Book for allowing it o= n=20 their shelves. Corollary two: Otherwise, the reader may consider any fa= ithful=20 LDS book as scripture and take its lessons as gospel. I don=92t know which is more terrifying. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] RE: Good Readin', Conservatism, & Miracles Date: 30 Apr 2003 18:34:58 -0600 Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:17:56 -0600 >Miracles? They showed the face of David Mitchell on America's Most >Wanted. Soon after that, half a dozen people seem him walking the >streets. Standard by the book police work. >I get real antsy when people start suggesting that miracles are involved >in these kinds of things. Because the implication is that somehow God >listens more to Elizabeth's parents than he does to another family. And >I don't like the other answer I usually receive: well, God doesn't >answer everybody's prayers the same way. Then on what basis does he >choose to intervene in Elizabth's life but no one else's? Thom, you've heard my views on miracles and the return of Elizabeth Smart. See aml-list-digest #1012, sent out on 3/24/03. But, why should we get antsy about citing the Elizabeth Smart return and some of the events surrounding it as miraculous? While it would be easy to argue that most of the events were really just a playing out of cause and effect (and that's my opinion about most of the events), why is the word "miracle" bad if it's used to show gratitude? I don't think for one second that Ed Smart or anyone else implied that God listened to them more than to all of the parents whose children were killed by their abductors. Rather, they were trying to show gratitude to God for a sweet blessing of the return of their child. Blessings may not always come through miracles (well, they usually don't), but "miracle" isn't such a naughty word if it's a way showing reverence to God. Few people get ticked at the phrase "the miracle of childbirth." It's just science to most, but isn't it just the greatest miracle ever? >I believe in miracles, but not this kind. I believe in the miracle of a >family's love that can stay strong throughout such a horrible ordeal. I >believe in the miracle of how humans kind find a way to go on through >dark tragedy, even if their loved ones never come back? I believe in >the miracle of how love can transcend death. If you can call the divine power of the human soul, which enables so many to grow from tragic experiences, a "miracle", then the Smarts can call the safe return of their child nine months after her abduction a "miracle." Using the word loosely, I think neither is incorrect. Somewhere God has intervened. No one is left out, and truthfully, it's kind of debatable which form of intervention is easier on the receiver. I don't mean to keep bringing this up like it's a trophy or anything, but when I was 14 and got out of an adolescent rehab group and started attending 12 Step meetings, I never stopped hearing about "what a miracle" it was that I was in recovery so soon. I just thought I had stinky friends who worried too much and ratted on me to my mom and the guidance counselor. I remember an extremely well made, though partially scripted, documentary they showed us in rehab called Streetwise. (This one's really amazing and sobering). It just blew me away. They showed it a few times, and one of the times, we were free to do other things like play pool, etc. I just sat and watched it. If you can ever find it, I don't doubt you'd be impressed. If you can't find it, you might find the book on it. Anyway, it featured runaways/homeless in Seattle in the early 80's. After awhile in meetings and getting to step 2 ("We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity"), it occurred to me that it was amazing how low I *didn't* end up hitting. My low was stories higher than so many of my comrades in NA. I never blacked out, never got raped, never did any of the big drugs (some of which can fry you on your first try). I could go on, but when I put two and two together, I couldn't *not* believe that a Higher Power hadn't been looking out for me. It's crazy. So, why did I get rescued so early and a great guy I knew ended up in prison for half of his life? Can't say. Doesn't mean we should take God out of the equation though, right? I asked, "Do we ever tell ourselves the lie 'Out there is the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it'?" Your response: >That is not a lie to my mind. I seek out the grit as you call it because well, it speaks to me. >I've never been moved by fluff in my reading or viewing. Until very very recently, the world's >literature and film has been far superior in content and depth to what we Mormons had provided. I'm not well-read on Mormon lit, so I can't comment on the quality thereof. I'm a slow reader and have tons of other artists to go through as well. Maybe that makes me unqualified for this list. Hmmm... Avoiding the material I called "grit" does not mean depending on a "recommended works list" from Deseret Book. I think you know what I mean when I say "grit," "dirt," or "dregs." Millennium Approaches from Angels in America was dirt to me for a few reasons. Well crafted dirt, but still dirt in my eyes. Cabaret (the film) is pure, unadulterated, moral, brilliant, flawless genius to me. I really hope someone makes a film of Sweeney Todd, and I pray that they can pull off and keep it PG-13. Sexual, profane, or violent content offends me so much more than harsh subject matter. I dream of writing a screenplay someday about some of the children I worked with back in 1999-2000 who had Reactive Attachment Disorder. Some of these kids were ritually abused as well as sexually,etc. I doubt that, were it ever produced, it would be less than PG-13 for subject matter alone (hopefully not for yucky content). I'm not saying this to try to impress anyone (what could possibly impress?). I'm amazed and appalled when individuals can actually be moved by fluff, because I'd be too busy staring at the fluff to see a good story, etc. (Though some cheap Mormon movies sure did hit the spot when I was in a third world country on my mission. Call it insanity. Or maybe, I was in a better state spiritually? Don't know, but that's a little scary). Hear my heart. There is so much to be learned from conflict and some grit. We're not idiots, though, and we may have a general sense when the grit suddenly takes over the film or book. Suddenly, we're not reading about or watching people who sin, rather we're just watching sin. I've got plenty of my own to deal with. I'm not that hungry for more sin. Barta Heiner was talking once about a play that was produced at the Denver Center, and the play contained some nudity. She commented that from where she was sitting she could see that the audience members had stopped watching the play and just started watching the naked bodies. It really made me think. (Now, for Barta's complete views on nudity, etc., ask Barta). That does bring along another subject of the audience. Maybe the writer or director feels something is appropriate, but does the piece go from compelling to titillating or offensive? How much stake should the audience have on this issue? So many questions. And you're going to kill me for saying this. Should I be worried if it takes a grossly violent or sexual film about serial killers to teach me that I don't want to become one? Duh. Ask my grandma about mafia men, and see how deeply she loathes the mafia. That's all I need to prove that it isn't a good thing. I digress... I asked, "Do we ever make it a little mission of ours to find the outer limits of liberality in Mormonism/Latter-Day Saintism and hang out at those outer limits?" Your response: >I do and I do it on purpose because I feel cloistered hanging out in Mormon conservativeness. I >tend to feel some kinship with all the great people in Mormon history to tell you the truth. >Joseph Smith himself was, in comparison to the religions of his day, a flaming liberal. He >wasn't content with the religion the world had given him. He sought for me meaning. He was the >last guy in the world to accept a status quo. As we can see from his brief but amazing life, he >was enhancing the doctrine and practices of the Church up to this dying day. The great >revelation about the nature of God was given a month before he was killed. >Another of my mentors is Parley P. Pratt. He and his brother Orson are almost entirely >responsible for codifying Joseph's revelations into a coherent theology. So was B.H. Roberts. >I don't consider Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie in the same league. Instead of trying to >stretch the doctrine to embrace more or eternity, they were trying to pull the reigns in. >Joseph Smith said that Mormonism didn't have a creed because our beliefs changed based on the >revelation we will always keep getting. But if you ask people what Mormons believe, a lot of >folk cite Mormon Doctrine, a book of Mormon creeds, if there ever was one. I hear you on this, and I totally agree about the book Mormon Doctrine. It was recommended to me years ago, and for awhile, I used it regularly as a reference for questions, talks, etc. Yuck!! I must also point out that it was around the time when I was preparing to go to BYU, and I gave away all of my Pink Floyd cassettes. What was I thinking?????!!!!!! I still mourn that decision. I had Piper at the Gates of Dawn on the same cassette with The Final Cut. Oh, I was an idiot... Liberal and conservative are such tricky words. I hate the idea of being considered a conservative, because it sounds to me like I don't think at all. Maybe liberal wasn't the word I wanted, but I still can't think of a better one. How about the some of the questions that Elder Holland raised in his talk during this last General Conference? Yet, I have to respond on the comment about the early founders of the church. I see your logic about Joseph Smith being a liberal and the church was constantly changing and all, and here's where my post doesn't get posted because it has little to do with Mormon Lit, but... The gospel was only just being restored. I'm not saying for one second that we have all the truth now, let's close the book and start behaving like some of the people I met on my mission who had all the scripture they needed "thank you very much", etc. I would guess, however, that the new revelations and changes to the church in the last days will be less frequent, because we have a lot of stuff to learn and focus on as it is. Besides, discussions on blood sacrifice for adultery, etc., haven't really done a lot to keep people strong in their faith and really drinking in the Atonement of Christ. >Everyone, including the well-rounded LDS, are essentially dregs, in that none of us without sin. >Our sins perhaps are not as evident as someone taking drugs, or viewing porn. Personally, I >learn nothing from LDS who preach from a position of having always been seemingly without sin. >But give me a GA who isn't afraid to talk about his wild youth than later repentence and I'm >there. Me too. Sorry this was so long, by the way. Love ya! Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantion Fiction Editor Needed Date: 30 Apr 2003 22:22:51 -0600 Send Irreantum fiction contest entries to: Irreantum Fiction Contest c/o AML PO Box 51364 Provo, UT 84605 The deadline is May 1, but the grace period will last until Tory gets me all the entries that were mailed directly to him. Then I'll send all the contest entries to Irreantum's new fiction editor, Quinn Warnick. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Anglophilia Date: 01 May 2003 01:00:17 -0600 ---Original Message From: Justin Halverson >=20 > >I think there is a > >strain of Anglophilia in popular LDS culture that could be=20 > the result=20 > >of heritage similar to mine. C.S. Lewis is of course the=20 > most famous=20 > >honorary Mormon. I know Neal Maxwell loves to quote Churchill and=20 > >other Brit luminaries when he gets the chance. >=20 > I wonder if it's also because we share a language and, broadly, a=20 > philosophical heritage. No matter how internationally-read we=20 > are, it's=20 > likely that all of us who grew up with "English" (scare=20 > quotes to mollify=20 > the Brits ;->) as our first language are better-versed in British=20 > literature than in any other national/linguistic tradition. >=20 > As far as a specifically (U.S.) LDS Anglophilia, one factor=20 > might be our=20 > use of the King James Bible, and the way it colors the=20 > translation into=20 > "American" of much LDS scripture. There's another factor. I know a lot of Mormons who *love* Brit humor. KUED in Utah exploits Brit humor extensively, probably because they get substantial donations to do so. The only place I've seen to rival it is Seattle where a substantial geek population exists. I think there's a reason that Mormons appreciate brit cultural artifacts more than typical = for Americans. One geek blog I was reading (wish I could remember which) mentioned that Brit humor is largely based on shame. I think that's true. Think of = all those Brit humor shows you've ever seen. Monty Python for example was excellent at twisting normal situations by introducing something truly bizarre that nobody else wanted to point out--a burly-men transvestite lumberjack song, a man walking strangely down the street with nobody = seeming to notice, or a dinner party interrupted by the Spanish Inquisition. = The blog point was that Americans have no shame and situations where a Brit would stammer, pull a long pause, or other indicator of shame and the = cover of same leave your typical American wondering eh? An American would = brazen it out, or even exaggerate to draw further attention and thus ameliorate = the situation. An example to compare and contrast: a dinner party is crashed by the = Spanish Inquisition. British: The host would quietly try to convince them to leave. When = that fails, an Inquisition starts and much mayhem ensues and is funny only because of how inept the inquisitors are. American: Guests wonder who the new guys are. One way or another, = they're going to be part of the entertainment--either by joining in the revelry (dude cool outfit), or by providing an opportunity to reinforce group = values when it comes time to explain the errors of their ways (dude, you're harshing my vibe, we'll put a stop to that by ). There's no *way* an American dinner party would actually = *enter* an Inquisition. When the rack is brought out, even a dish-drying rack, the American reaction is going to be insurrection and general mayhem to = eject the foreign element openly and by force if necessary. And it just = wouldn't be funny. Mormons, unlike most other Americans, have a relatively deep = appreciation of shame and that cultural desire to cover faux pas moments and glaze over emergent gaffs resonates better with us than our cultural American kin. = If these generalizations are true, then Mormons would tend towards = Anglophilia because we're just a touch closer to the Brits than typical Americans. Yeah, there's a shared historical context, but America made a = significant cultural break as well--a break ameliorated a bit by LDS cultural values = of shame and denial. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Copyright Law and Horizon Date: 01 May 2003 01:33:27 -0600 ---Original Message From: LauraMaery (Gold) Post >=20 > I'm confused by your situation, Linda. Maybe I'm missing something?=20 >=20 > My legal education was, admittedly, under a British system,=20 > but the principles are pretty much the same under any legal=20 > system: Books *are* like paper towels (or -- inasmuch as=20 > they're not consumable -- perhaps like television sets.)=20 >=20 > While Motorola owns the intellectual property on the design=20 > of my tv (and I am therefore prohibited from stealing their=20 > design and manufacturing an identical tv of my own), I am=20 > absolutely free to purchase and resell the television set=20 > itself. And the person who buys it from me is likewise free=20 > to resell it. And so on. The intellectual property law=20 > doesn't apply to selling physical goods; only to stealing=20 > their design (or contents) and passing it off as one's own. >=20 > If Horizon had *reprinted* your book and sold it (which, from=20 > your account, I gather they didn't do), I would see a huge=20 > lawsuit. But if the book was published legally by another=20 > party, and Horizon then legally obtained the physical copies=20 > of that book, I'm not following how this violates copyright=20 > law. They sold the lot to you, so I'm observing it was theirs=20 > to sell, yes? >=20 > Or perhaps I'm missing something altogether. Are you saying=20 > you were gypped out of royalty payments? But there would *be*=20 > no royalty payments due on books sold back to the author...or=20 > so *my* contracts say. You're partially right, but looking at it in the wrong way. For = consumers, books *are* like any other consumer product--something you're able to = buy and sell and loan to others as much as you wish. The part you're = missing is the obligation the publisher has to the author. Due to the copyright agreement between publisher and author, the publisher cannot just give = the books away to just anyone for any reason they choose. The publisher has = the right to release/distribute books only according to the contract that = was signed with the author. It's a bit like patent law, really. If Filo Farnsworth patents TV technology, then nobody else can produce or distribute TVs without = clearing it first with Filo. Same thing. If Linda contracts with Cornerstone to publish and distribute her books, then Cornerstone has to abide by that contract. If the contract isn't specifically transferable, then it = ceases to exist when Cornerstone ceases to exist and the copies of the book currently printed cannot be distributed without the author's permission (publishing constitutes both printing *and* distributing and both are covered by copyright). The physical copies currently printed but not distributed are a bit of a problem because Linda didn't pay for the printing. As such, she can't just take them and that's why she had to = buy them from Horizon. She could have refused and they would have had to do something else with those copies (probably destroy them, but not necessarily). They can't *sell* them, but they don't have to give them = to her unless she pays for them. Yeah, that's confusing, but there you go. Unless all authors want to = front the entire costs of their books (printing, advertising, distribution, = etc.) you have to divide up all the labor somehow. Publishers are essentially taking a gamble, and the author and publisher have to hammer out how = they're going to apportion the costs. Most authors don't want to deal with the mechanics of printing, so they're happy to give some rights to = publishers. Publishers want to entice good authors to lend them their property so = they negotiate a kind of rent/lease on those ideas for a determined period at = a determined reward. In the end, it's a pretty good system, though hardly perfect. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 01 May 2003 05:59:37 -0600 Eric, I loved your report and am so jealous. Especially the play about the LDS prostitute. And by the way, who does one have to sleep with to get an invite? Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clifford Dubery" Subject: RE: [AML] International Mormon Lit? Date: 01 May 2003 23:06:47 +1000 Here is one International Mormon, British Subject living in Victoria, Australia who would like to make a few observations and comments. Yes, Mormon Literature is not authored overseas (there probably are exceptions), but awareness of Mormon Literature has expanded because of the increase in Mormon Bookshops that followed the Temples. Now, I tend to buy Nibley, or D.C. Peterson etc. whereas my sister buys Lund and I expect will experiment with that form of Historical Fiction. Then you've got people like myself, who are writing, and hoping one day to get published, novels, histories, short stories, essays. In fact this group has given me an idea for a Historical Novel which requires reading a History of the Church in Australia, written by the wife of a Bishop I knew, Marjorie Kneale. I have a lot of work, some serious tragedies in that experience. Those that call themselves Liberal Mormons, although I wouldn't include myself in that category (but am sure others would), do consider myself to be a contrarian at the best of times, so keep writing, it's all part of the rich tapestry that makes our culture, whether you live on the Wasatch Front or Port Phillip Bay. Clifford M Dubery -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 01 May 2003 08:52:49 -0600 Thom Duncan Wrote: > Miracles? They showed the face of David Mitchell on America's Most > Wanted. Soon after that, half a dozen people seem him walking the > streets. Standard by the book police work. > > I get real antsy when people start suggesting that miracles are involved > in these kinds of things. I know what you mean, Thom, but I think you're being too harsh. Einstein said something that relates to this thread. He said (paraphrase), Either everything's a miracle, or nothing is. (end of paraquote, or would that be quasiquote) It's ok if some people see a miracle in everything. And it's ok if some people don't see a miracle anywhere. How people respond to events goes beyond religeon (meta-religeon?) That is the real truth in the universe. I guess you have to define a "miracle." To me a miracle is something for which I am so profoundly greatful and has a significant impact on my world view and has an element of the mysterious in it. Your theatre fit this catagory. The plays I've seen there. Elizabeth Smart's return to her family certainly does. My wife and boy do. And of course, the making of brownies. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 01 May 2003 08:27:47 -0700 There is, however, a "horror" element to it -- but it's an introspective horror, the kind that asks, "Am I really capable of acting like such a fool?" "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > Kim Madsen wrote: > > > And that's what D. Michael has created with BROTHER BRIGHAM a > > new genre--the Mormon horror story. > > I always enjoy praise, but I think Kim overstates things. If people were > to come to "Bro Brig" expecting a horror story, I fear they will be > disappointed. It's definitely a character study, with the character > revealed through some rather unusual circumstances. > > -- > 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 > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 01 May 2003 12:42:19 -0600 Eric Samuelsen said: "I wrote the play for lots of reasons, one of which is that it's true. A good percentage of the women who work in the Nevada brothel industry are LDS, some of them reasonably active, a few even temple recommend holding. (One presumes that they've been less than forthcoming in that interview). That's an amazing fact, an astounding and shocking fact, but it's true; I've read the research." Eric, I was impressed with your forthrightness in talking of your feelings about the event and art presented. And OK, I'll admit it, I am jealous too, feeling left out of something pretty amazing (so I'm wondering if in the future there can be a nose-pressing section where us non-producing types can stand and watch), but mostly I you have really piqued my curiosity. To what "research" can you be referring? Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 01 May 2003 20:45:29 GMT Well, my new career goal is to someday be enough of a writer to be invited to this Mormon Arts Retreat. It sounds like THE place to be. Those late night chats sound so fun. I'm glad you shared your retreat experience, Eric, and I'm glad you write what you do. I love how you "push the boundaries," as you say, of Mormon art. I'm not familiar with the play you read for these guys but the others of yours that I've seen and read give me hope for the future of Mormon literature. -Darlene Young ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 01 May 2003 12:24:51 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- > Tipler's Omega point theory is certainly interesting. People should be > aware that it is *very* controversial and runs into various problems in > terms of physics. I'd also point out that for Tipler this Omega point > ends up being God. So it really isn't that compatible with a Mormon > view of diety and resurrected beings interacting with mortal beings. > > Clark Goble All of the theories of man are controversial, that is why they are merely theory. The only point I was trying to make in my post, is that here is a scientist trying to prove mathmatically that there is a God, and I think not only that this is a step in the right direction, but that it would be an interesting topic to explore and expand upon in some of our "Mormon Letters." Surely there is someone out there in AML land who has the imagination and scientific background to write a novel about an offbeat whacko scientist that postulates the mathmatical proof of a real God, and in the mathamatical, scientific world's rush to disprove it a brilliant student of science and math actually finds a testimony that God does exist, and then goes the second mile by actually converting his "Whacko" teacher to the gospel, and baptizes him. I don't know, I guess it was just a whacko thought, you know - sort of a cereberal infarction. 8-) Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Date: 01 May 2003 12:21:20 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "I always enjoy praise, but I think Kim overstates things. If people were to come to "Bro Brig" expecting a horror story, I fear they will be disappointed. It's definitely a character study, with the character revealed through some rather unusual circumstances." Ah, but Michael, the denoument is "horrifying" and employs supernatural beings trying to manipulate humans to behave in ways they wouldn't normally behave. You've used classic elements of horror stories. Scary stuff--and even scarier to me in BROTHER BRIGHAM because it's so plausible given the belief structure I hold as a Mormon. I totally agree that it's a character study--in fact, I'd put it in the same category as Hitchcock's stuff. I think he wrote some dang fine horror stories. You use the same slowly building tension of circumstance and character behavior. Yup, it's a Mormon horror story alright. And I don't know about anyone else, but it's the first of it's kind I've run across, which is why I said you've started a new genre. Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? (I'm not counting such retellings as the Hoffman murders and the Texas Missionary murders in the 1970's--those are horrifying, but factual. True crime.) Kim Madsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Dianna Graham Date: 01 May 2003 13:53:29 -0400 Fred C Pinnegar wrote: > I can think of worse places to wash ashore; for example, anyplace east of the > Rockies. Better inform all the celestial powers to move their HQs from Adam-Ondi-Ahman and Jerusalem to someplace more acceptable. I hear there's land near Tooele. Tony Markham, who lives in lovely Upstate New York, well east of the Rockies -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Curtis Taylor Date: 01 May 2003 10:16:05 -0700 Veda Hale asked if anyone knows the whereabouts of LDS author and = filmmaker, Curtis Taylor. Curtis lives in my neck of the woods. If Veda will contact me directly = with her e-mail or other contact information, I can e-mail Curtis at let = him know that you would like to reconnect your friendship. My direct e-mail is jongiorgi@sunset.net. Just shoot me a private line with your info, and I'll forward it on to = Curtis. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Anglophilia Date: 30 Apr 2003 23:12:30 -0600 Justin Halverson wrote: > As far as a specifically (U.S.) LDS Anglophilia, one factor might be our > use of the King James Bible, and the way it colors the translation into > "American" of much LDS scripture. Or it might be that a good seventy percent of my heritage is British, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh. -- 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: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 1 Date: 01 May 2003 10:04:37 -0700 First, a story.=20 I had an experience with one of my daughters the other night.=20 Frequently, since my experience with parenthood began, I have been = struck by life-lessons which have come to me -- and from time to time = they have come with the force of a two-by-four between the eyeballs -- = where I suddenly felt as if I was having an out-of-body-experience. = There I am, minding my own business, yelling at my kids or something = innocent like that, and from out of nowhere, it is as if I have been = transported out of myself and I am looking down on me. (Hey, is that a = bald spot up there on top?!)=20 I am looking down, observing myself, and suddenly I am struck (and = here's where the two-by-four bit comes in; the out-of-body thing is not = all that surprising by itself) by how much my relationship with my kids = is like this type-and-shadow of my relationship with God, or rather, His = relationship with me. I suddenly get hip to the fact that: Oh! This is = like a miniature version of how He feels when He deals with me! It's the irony that's the actual two-by-four.=20 I mean, there I float, and I hear myself saying things which -- more = metaphorically, perhaps, and in a nicer tone of voice -- have been said = to me, directly or indirectly, by God. And this whole = we-are-children-of-God thing is impressed on me once again as not only = literal, but exactly why we have been given bodies which inherently = crave sex and wind up forcing us into relationships and rearing = children: just so we can be hit on the head with the occasional ironic = two-by-four. There are times when I'm telling my kids to be good, = telling them why they should be good, telling them I love them, but = there are rules for their own good -- and I can just hear God telling me = the same thing in an embarrassing reversal. Well, take this thing with my daughter the other night. It wasn't = exactly like that, but it sort of was. Typically, our nighttime routine with the kids goes something like this: = round about "bedtime" we start the process with the "PTJ" scenario. PTJ = stands for "Pee, Teeth & Jammies". And the kids are pretty well trained = to this. I figure three or four yellings of "Quit screwing around and = BRUSH YOUR TEETH!" called out from the living room is standard, and goes = hardly noticed. Other than that, they are pretty self-sufficient. After = PTJ comes Reading Time.=20 Reading Time is usually divided into two parts: Daddy Reading and Quiet = Reading. Daddy Reading consists of me wrestling and tumbling with the = kids for a time and then animatedly, with multiple character voices and = sound effects, reading a chapter of whatever book we are making our way = through at the time. Daddy Reading, after some scientific study, proved = to be too exciting to lead directly in to Prayers and Lights-Out (as it = used to do). It got them too riled up and wide awake to lead to restful = sleep. My kids lean towards insomnia anyway (as do I), so this wasn't = working. So my wise wife introduced Quiet Reading, a ten- to 20-minute = period when the kids read books of their choosing silently to = themselves. This has the desired soporiphic effect, and by the time = Prayers and Lights-Out comes around, sleep is actually more easily = fallen into.=20 (I think Santia's choice of the word "QUIET" rather than "personal" or = "private" or "free" or "unsupervised" or any other of a host of = alternate and perfectly descriptive and acceptable words to describe = this period of reading, was a conscious dig at me, attempting to suggest = a contrast to "Daddy Reading" rather than a simple distinction from it. = I am being subtly mocked, I believe, and I'm still trying to decide = whether or not to be offended and may yet take this issue up with the = Court of Familial Appeals. But that's another story.) Getting all of these phases actually accomplished requires some careful = planning. If Lights-Out is supposed to be at 8 p.m., say, that means = that certain aspects of the whole process have to begin at 7, which = means that dinner has to be done by a certain time, and that homework = has to be done by a certain time, and any number of intruding factors, = such as dance lessons, YM Achievement activities, special FHE events, = etc., often throw the schedule off. What cannot be thrown off, however, = is the actual Lights-Out time, which, for reasons of health and sanity, = must be kept sacrosanct. So when intrusions come up, we are forced into = a process cheerfully known as Bartering. Now some folks will tell you that kids need hard-and-fast rules and = schedules with no flexibility. But I'm too much of a softy (that = flashing light you see is the "Laughter" sign coming on). Okay, all = right. I'm too much of a closet lawyer to not want to teach my kids that = just about everything is negotiable. (Even GOD indulges us in a = negotiation from time to time, as anyone who's been around for long = enough knows; but that's another story, too.) So the Bartering begins.=20 "Dad, if we loose our Quiet Reading time, can we do this?"=20 Or: "Mom, can we finish watching this movie?"=20 "It will cut into your reading time with Dad," Santia warns. To which = the reaction is always a hearty (and to my mind, overly-quick): "Okay!" (The more that I think about this, the ease at which my children will = barter away their nightly Daddy Reading time is suspect; there may be a = calculated conspiracy to mock me which has infected not just my wife but = my entire family! I now begin to be paranoid that I would get ANY kind = of justice even if I DID appeal to the Familial Court! Hmmm...) At any rate, such was the case on the night in question. The kids were = watching "Bug's Life" or some such Disney mayhem. (Fancy them picking = THAT over DADDY READING TIME! But what do kids know...) Tadja proposed = the deal: "If we don't do reading time, can we finish the movie?" We = agreed. "Okay, but if you finish this movie, there won't be any reading = time, okay? Not even Quiet Time. You'll have to do Pee, Teeth & Jammies = right now, then you can finish the movie, but then it's straight to bed = and Lights-Out, okay?" Again, without hesitation, the kids agreed. After = all, it was the deal they themselves had proposed: no reading, straight = to bed. Sign on the dotted line. Finito. The movie ended. Kids went to their room.=20 After a while, however, it became apparent from the general level of = ambient sound coming from that direction in the house, that although = going-to-the-bedroom had happened, going-to-BED had not. Neither had = Lights-Out. I went to investigate. Now, just as the Laughter sign started flashing when I described myself = as a softy, so would it embarrassingly deem to flash if I ever used the = personal adjective, "patient". I'm working on it, believe me. I want to = be patient so darn bad, and I want it RIGHT NOW, too. I also have this = tone in my voice (Santia calls it THE tone) -- and it's not very nice. = It's kind of this hard, rising-in-inflection, eyebrow-punctuated vocal = stiletto. And half the time I don't even know when I've whipped the = thing out to stab people with. If Santia ever leaves me, it won't be = because of apathetic sex or not taking the garbage out: it will be = because of THE TONE. Now, one thing you have to know about my six-year-old. (I keep saying = that, but she's closer to seven -- a fact that I'm not ready to face.) = She's the "sensitive one". Heaven help us when she's a teenager. Tadja = is the one with her heart on her sleeve; she's the one who will burst = into tears for a look; she's the one who learned the expression "you = hurt my feelings" when she was two, and has been using it ever since. = She says something funny, we burst out laughing, she bursts into tears = because we are "laughing at her". You get the picture. She's also incredibly stubborn. That seems to be an Enos trait; the = Dutch-German Hershey line that my wife brings to the genetic soup-bowl = have been known to have exaggerated skull-thickness measurements, too. = Tadja was the one we had to beat the most when she was little (I'm = kidding, but not by much), because she was just too bull-headed to give = up, even when she knew she was wrong. So her emotional nature is not = evidence of her being a shrinking violet. It is just a manifestation of = her paradoxical contrasts. She's a pit bull with a soft heart; a rock, = that's wide open to the wind and the rain. I storm into the room with my usual delicacy: "WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!" = That gets their attention. They are always telling me, "Dad, you = startled us!" when I burst in on them. Very stern voice: "Didn't I tell = you to go to bed, Prayers and Lights-Out?" Tadja looks up at me. She's very sincere, not one ounce of guile in her. = And she has these amazing eyes: greenish, hazely-brown, gold-flecked = wells; big, too; and you can see the whites all the way around the rim = of the iris.=20 She looks up at me: "But Dad," she says, "What about Reading Time?" Out comes... The Tone. "WHAT?!" Silence descends upon the room. There is that certain type of knowledgeable silence that kids get when = everything becomes very clear to them. They know with every fiber of = their youthful wisdom that they just stepped in it now, folks. And it = makes them quiet. They can't do anything about it. They're little. They = want to retract the last few seconds so badly. They know they can make = it all better if they could just snip out those last few pesky moments = of time. But they know they can't. And they know there is no mercy in = store for them from the adult world, which they understand remarkable = well. They know that there are rules, and that the rules shift. They = know that they can test the boundaries, push the limits, and they know = that they can get away with stuff. But they also know right when = everything snaps and they are in for it, and there is nothing they can = do but hunker down and weather the storm. They are truly amazing and = resilient creatures, children, and we adults are, as a general rule, so = completely clueless about them. But they know us very well, in their = special brand of knowing silence, when they quietly prepare to take it = from one of us. "WHAT?!" I said.=20 (Oooooo, and I was reveling in the irony of it through my anger, an = irony I was now going to throw back into their tiny little faces...)=20 "READING TIME?!" I said, "Okay, WHO was it who begged to finish the = movie? WHO was it who said that they didn't want any reading time so = that they could finish the movie?! WHO was it who suggested, of their = OWN free will that they give up Reading Time to watch a movie and then = go straight to bed?! WHAT was the deal we all agreed to and which YOU = made about Reading Time?!"=20 To say that I ranted is to be diplomatic. Tadja, sitting atop the top bunk, instantly recalled the deal that she = had suggested; instantly remembered the covenant that she had entered; = instantly understood what she had only momentarily forgotten; instantly = GOT what I was now going on and on and on about trying to beat, beat, = beat with my words down into her innocent, comprehending head. When I = said "What?!" and whipped out The Tone, she remembered. And she got it, = in one split second. She comprehended it as fully as any adult, with all = its ironic iterations. She knew she'd blown it. She hadn't been trying = to get away with something this time, she genuinely, in her innocent = playfulness of getting ready for bed, falling into the routine, had = forgotten about the deal. They had finished a movie, brushed teeth, = peed, put on jimmies, and were now bouncing on their beds waiting for = Daddy to come in and read to them. Just part of the nightly routine. The = instant I said "What?!" she understood. And she understood that I was in = the right. She had screwed up, I was right. I was the parent, she the = child. I was bigger than her, with a much louder voice... and that tone. = What could she do? What could she say? She had to just sit there and = take it while I beat and beat and beat her with my damnable tone of = voice. Somewhere in the midst of that vocal beating, my soul left my body. I got a chance to look at myself. It wasn't a pretty sight. There was my daughter. The moment I said, "What?!" and she got it, tears = welled in her eyes. Huge, angelic beads of crystalline circumference = filled her eyes, but did not run down her soft, ruddy cheeks. Because = you see, she was not crying. She was "taking it". But soft, soft that = she is, the emotions were too strong. The emotions filled her, and they = were deep emotions, complex and conflicting. She knew, for example, that = she had just made a mistake. She felt a sudden stab of remorse. She felt = shame, regret. She felt stupid, in a way, because she KNEW that she had = made that deal with dad, but she'd just forgotten it. So, she felt = foolish, and yet, what was this verbal beating I was giving her? And so = she felt hurt and scared. She felt in danger, too. A large, bear of a = man was yelling at her in close proximity, flinging her own faults, = which she had accepted, back at her with some degree of violence, = compounding the sense of shame. Rubbing her nose in it. Which she knew = somehow was wrong. So she also felt pride. She would not let herself = really cry, she who always cried, she who wanted to cry so very badly, = she could not let herself do it! So she felt determination, and fierce = anxiety at a personal performance, and pride and yearning and hope and = fear and sadness and remorse and anger and all of it trying to come out = of the wells of her eyes, betraying her, but she would not let it. And = all she could do was shake her head, shake her head, shake her head, in = big, exaggerated arcs, up and down, up and down, saying with the shake, = that movement, that language of the body, saying yes, yes, yes, I know, = I know what you are saying to me, I know what you are saying to me is = right, I know what you are saying to me is what happened and I am sorry = about it that I forgot, and I know, and daddy, why are you yelling at me = so much about this thing that I know that I am trying to be strong and = accept and not cry about, and then the shaking of the head, that only = thing which she could do, the up and down of it, not anything else, = pushed, knocked one of those crystal spheres off the lid of her eye and = it suddenly ran down the side of her face against her will because she = was nodding, nodding at me that she understood. I froze, suddenly, in my action, voice clogged against the underside of = my heaving throat. I stood outside myself and saw it all, suddenly, = about 60 seconds too late, about 100 times slower than my own children = saw it. I shut my mouth. I went to my daughter and hugged her and = started kissing her, kissing her tears and telling her that I loved her = and she was shaking her head and holding me and I had salt on my lips = and an icy clutch around the grip of my throbbing heart. How could I have been right and yet so wrong? I was in the right. I was the parent, the enforcer. A deal had been = broken. A deal proposed, ironically, by my own kids. A deal they has = spaced on. It was almost 8:30 at night, way past their bed time. They'd = had nothing but treats and favors and exceptions to the rules all night. = They were spoiled, well-fed, well-entertained, healthy, lucky kids. = They'd pushed my buttons. They'd asked for reading when they themselves = had asked to give up their reading to watch a movie. OH! I was SO mush = in the RIGHT! There is no doubt but that I was RIGHT! I was enforcing = JUSTICE. I was enforcing TRUTH. I was enforcing BOUNDARIES. That's my = JOB. I'm the parent. I WAS RIGHT. Uh-huh. So why did I feel like a warm paper bag of dog vomit? It took me a long time to get over it. A lot of kissing and hugging and = apologizing, and then, still, a lingering sense of disease that snaked = around in my bowels for several hours after they had gone to sleep.=20 Days later, my children don't even remember this scene. But I have this = after-image burned onto the back of my retina, of Tadja nodding and = nodding at me with those huge eyes and that expression, and Sanyu, her = sister, silent, still as a statue, standing there watching, thinking, = maybe, if I don't move, he'll eat her and be satisfied, and I'll escape, = alive. The experience took less than five minutes. Nothing earth-shattering was = changed. It was a blip on the radar screen of experience. The barest = whisper in a long, eternal arc. But the profundity of the impact this = had on me cannot be adequately conveyed. I was right. I was enforcing a correct system of mutually agreed upon = justice, and yet, I had to keep brushing my teeth to try and wash the = metallic taste off of my tongue. That old sock, cigary kind of taste = that comes from the mineral leavings of bile. You can be right and be an asshole. Sorry about that, but its better = than some words that come to mind. My manner of enforcing what was right = is what was wrong, of course. My tone, my incessant harping, my beating = of the obvious horse long after its painful death. This was all wrong. = The nature, sensitivity, age, background, knowledge, education, = experience, preparedness, maturity, level of self-defense-ability, etc., = of my audience, of the individual or group to whom I was talking, = demanded a certain tempering of my presentation, an editing, a = moderating element, a degree of wisdom in interaction to achieve = positive results, which I did not apply. Therein was my failure. And it = was extreme, given the relative contrast between who I was talking to = and how I was talking. There are principles, and there is presentation. There are truths, and = there is how they are fed to the receivers. There are teaching moments = and there are wars. Some wars can be avoided, some cannot. There are = principles that some people are ready to hear that others are not. There = are principles that apply to some people, but not to others. There are = ways of talking that are right and ways that are wrong, regardless of = the relative rightness or wrongness of the message. It is possible to be = right and to be an asshole. God is not an asshole. People are. Often. Even people of God are. = Sometimes. And the only reason I make this somewhat shockingly-phrased = observation about Our Father, is because -- to return to my = type-and-shadow allusion at the beginning of this essay -- are we not = little fledgling deities over our tiny spheres of influence? Are we not = also, on life-journeys that demand of us a constant progression towards = goals which are, as of yet, beyond our reach? Can we compare ourselves = to God, despite the infinite gulf between us, and learn something = positive? This is the second of three long essays which are somewhat thematically = interrelated, over which I've been tinkering for some time, and all of = which were inspired by discussions on our fair forum, the AML-List.=20 The first essay was titled "In Defense of Obscurity". It was the first = of the three to be completed, although its subject matter was the very = last I started to write. This one is called "In Defense of Moderate Judgment". Not a great title, = but it keeps the "In Defense of" thing going. It was the second to be = completed, and also the second area of discussion to come up. My plan of = attack as to how to approach this particular meditation daunted me at = the outset, and I have been dragging my heals about writing this. It has = probably been the most difficult of the three to write. But then, number = three's not finished yet and I've been tinkering with it the longest. The third essay is probably going to be called something like, "In = Defense of the Church/Art Paradox". That's an unwieldy title, so we'll = see if it sticks or not in the final draft. It probably will, because I = can get lazy with titles. It was the first one of the three that I = started to write, but will, of course, be the last one to be completed.=20 Writing these three essays backwards, as it were, has actually worked = out well, because it has allowed me to approach my various conclusions = slowly, and has created a serendipitous working environment in my mind, = allowing events, examples and thoughts to present themselves and = coalesce at their own pace. For me, the act of writing essays is an expiation. Essays are exercises = in writing and thought, wonderful workouts. But they are not the = end-all-be-all. To me, essays are frozen in time; they are slices of a = life and a mind which are timely. I may have very different feelings a = year from now, ten years from now. But for now, these are a journal of a = certain aspect of intellectual life.=20 Essays published on the List are often couched in the pretense of being = there to convince others, or arguing a point, or making a case or in = direct response or reply to another's argument or case. But to me, that = is not what an essay is really for in its purest sense. An essay is a = record of how one has argued a point within oneself, a measure of how an = individual has come to think or feel or believe a certain thing, and = that thing can change. They are personal (although I hope that others = enjoy them). Having said that, however, I need to acknowledge that each of these = three interrelated essays, while personal, while independent, does = respond to someone else's argument and were inspired by the rhetorical = questions and challenging arguments of two individuals, other prolific = essayists and great thinkers whom I admire, but have never met. They are = D. Michael Martindale and Jacob Proffitt. As I say, I've never met either one. And while I admire them, both as = writers and as thinkers, it is the fact that we have disagreed, or that = our differing viewpoints have engendered discussion, that have given = genesis to this three-part exercise in essay form, and many others on = the list. I suppose, then, I must see disagreement, in this case, as a = positive thing. Which is ironic. And what is most ironic is that, while I have disagreed with both, I = have also seen myself reflected in their words and tones and manner, = from time to time. As if a mirror of myself in some different time and = place, a former self, or an aspect of myself, was evident to me as I = read these guy's posts; which is perhaps why I have typically responded = more emotionally to them than to others. I find that fact ironic and = telling. But that's a topic for its own essay. So: "In Defense of Obscurity" was in direct response to one of D. = Michael's outcries, although it stands alone and needs no response, = although it has engendered an exchange already. This essay is, or will = be by the end, in direct response to one of Jacob's responses to one of = my earlier posts on the list and will probably engender more discussion. = The last of these three essays returns to some of D. Michael's = observations in response to a dialogue we had some time ago and may or = may not stand alone, as I have yet to see. But even it is dated, even = before its publication, because much of what I will address in the third = essay has been addressed by Michael's brilliant "Apple Biters" essay = which, I feel, modified and sensitized much of what he may have said in = the post my third essay responds to a few months ago. At any rate, these three are interrelated. Michael and Jacob curiously = touched off categories of thought I have been working out within myself = for many years, and all three discussions, ultimately, come back to the = problem of struggling with art and becoming an artist, and struggling = with faith and becoming a better Christian, and a the issues of = congruence which sometimes seem to conflict between those two goals as a = member of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. But I'll come = back to this meta-conclusion in the end of essay three.=20 For now, however, I see that I have used up so much space with my = introduction, that I will have to split this essay up into two parts. I'll submit part 2 of "In Defense of Moderate Judgment" tomorrow, and = try to explain why I told the story I did, and come back to a response = to Jacob's April 17 post about "Artist's Personal Lives" then. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Copyright Law and Horizon Date: 01 May 2003 09:43:06 -0700 LauraMaery (Gold) Post was (understandably) confused about Linda's recent dilemna with Horizon. She asks: > "If Horizon had *reprinted* your book and sold it (which, from your account, > I gather they didn't do), I would see a huge lawsuit. But if the book was > published legally by another party, and Horizon then legally obtained the > physical copies of that book, I'm not following how this violates copyright > law. They sold the lot to you, so I'm observing it was theirs to sell, yes? But under what conditions? Linda sold her rights to the publisher under strict conditions as spelled out in her contract. That publisher had the right to exploit her intellectual property which happened to be printed on "paper towels" (to continue with the original metaphor) which they (just like Motorola, to mix the metaphors) owns. Therein lies the wrinkle. They paid for the paper, publishing and binding, and so are likely to want some kind of compensation for that, but they are limited in thier rights to sell that paper and binding, based on their contract with the author. In the Horizon case (as it has been described, I have no insider knowledge other than what's been published here on the list), Horizon acquired books (bulk paper stock, the "towels" in other words), but they did not acquire the contract which gave them the right to sell them. Contracts, under British law as well, are, under certain conditions, commodities and can be assigned, purchased, transfered, etc. So, the new publisher acquired paper but not the rights to sell the intellectual property printed on that paper. Since they owned the paper (they acquired it as bulk inventory transfer), they had the rights to destroy that paper, but not sell it. They recognized that, and so had the option to take a total write-off on her stock, or get somthing out of them. So effectively, they held Linda's books hostage in order to get something out of them. Buy these back from us or we'll just get rid of them. Or, you can give us the rights to sell them. Linda didn't want to give them the rights to sell them, didn't want all those printed books to go to waste, and so opted to pay the ransom instead. The confusion about this unusual scenario, is that we often see resale books in used book shops all over the U.S. But, of course, these books were already purchased once and royalties paid to the respective authors. THEN, yes, they become like the TV set or the paper towel and can be resold, traded, given away, etc. But Linda's books in question were created and then the conditions of who held the rights to do what with them changed and they found themselves in a legal limbo. Linda owned the rights to what was printed on the page, Horizon owned the paper. A very interesting case. > Are you saying you were gypped > out of royalty payments? But there would *be* no royalty payments due on > books sold back to the author...or so *my* contracts say. No, its even more subtle than that. Linda is saying that Horizon did not have the right to pay her royalty payments. For example, if I steal one of your works, make a bunch of copies, then go out and sell them, then I show up at your door and say, oh, by the way, I sold a lot of your stuff without you knowing or approving it, and here is 10% of what I made as your royalty. You would certainly have the right to be freaked out. You'd take them to court and in court, they'd tell the judge, what's the big deal? We paid her a royalty?! Getting paid is not the issue. The issue is rights. Horizon had no right to sell or pay royalties or collect anything or do anything with the book printed on the paper they inherited. They had the right to destroy the books or try to obtain the rights. They could not obtain the rights from Linda, so their only other option was to get rid of the books legally. The only way to do that was to shred them, or to sell them to the author, which is sneaky, because that's the only person on the planet Horizon could "sell" them to without getting sued. No, they don't pay a royalty on the sale, no they don't get in trouble, because they are selling to the copyright holder, and yes they get a little something for the books instead of writing that paper stock off as a total loss. Hope that helps making a confusing situation a little bit clearer. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Maxwell, Frank" Subject: [AML] UDALL, _The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West_ Date: 30 Apr 2003 18:12:31 -0700 =46ormer Arizona congressman Stewart Udall will be on CSPAN2 this Saturday.= = It will be a re-airing of a speech he gave about his new book, "The = =46orgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West." As you can = see from the Booktv.org description below, the book may be of interest to = many of us. I've already started reading a copy from my local library, and= = I recommend it, especially the sections describing his own and his wife's = great-grandparents, one of whom was involved in the Mountain Meadows = Massacre. Regards, =46rank Maxwell ************************** History on Book TV a look at nonfiction history books On Saturday, May 3 at 8:00 am (Eastern time) [on CSPAN2] The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West Stewart Udall=20 Description: From Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver, Colorado, author and = =66ormer politician Stewart Udall talks about his latest book, "The = =46orgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West." The book = takes a look at the history of the American west from the perspective of th= e= everyman. Mr. Udall, a former four-term congressman and secretary of the = interior from 1961 until 1969, wrote the book because he felt that the = notion of the American west that many people have, of gunslingers and = cowboys v. Indians, is an incorrect one. Instead, the author writes in a = series of essays that the people he believes to be the heroes of the old = west, are the hardworking and religious settlers of the homesteads. Mr. = Udall tells the story of his own great-grandparents who were Mormon settler= s= of the west. The author is introduced by his nephew, Congressman Mark Udal= l= from Colorado, and after the event the author answers questions from = members of the audience. Author Bio: Stewart Udall is a former four-term Democratic congressman from= = Arizona and served as secretary of the interior from 1961 until 1969. He is= = the author of numerous books including "To the Inland Empire" and "The Myth= s= of August." Publisher: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, = DC 20009=20 ********************* This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, = and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any = review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto)= = by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, = please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original = and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 30 Apr 2003 23:10:52 -0600 Justin Halverson wrote: > If I am "forced" by a book to think something "against my will," I call > that book "easy"--I don't have to do any work. The book gives me all the > ideas, and I can't work at all, since I "wouldn't have chosen to think > [those thoughts] on my own." Painting a reader into a corner is *not* > challenging or ultimately beneficial to the reader--no matter how > interesting or good or wonderful or necessary to salvation or an > understanding of the human condition your thought is. > > If the reader has to think what you want him or her to think--and he or she > does, because, as you rightly point out--they're trapped. That's why I > began my response by explaining as clearly as I could (since I was much > more concerned with the message than the language), that your analogy > applies "if you want to limit the literary experience to I thought of. Isn't it neat?>. If you want to trap your reader into a > single, clearly identifiable, unequivocal reading of your work, that's > great. I won't deny that I really like and need those sorts of novels from > time to time--for the same reason that I enjoy watching "Law and Order" or > summer action movies." Would that I had such power, to force people to think certain thoughts and no others. I guess it's the power Lucifer thought he had when he suggested he could save every person--I don't know how else he was gonna do it. No, I'm only talking about leading people down the primrose path to confront thoughts it may never have occurred to them to confront before, or that they've resisted confronting. What they do with that situation, once they come to realize it's happening, is entirely up to them. Some will reject it and throw my book against the wall. Some will forge ahead, but reject the thoughts I'm presenting. Some will consider the thoughts, then come to their own conclusions. Some of those conclusions wil be to agree with me, some won't. But except for those benighted souls who throw the book against the wall (and I'm hoping that my wonderful, effortless prose and exciting plot line will keep that from happening), at least I'll have seduced people into considering something they hadn't considered before, regardless of what they decide to do with those thoughts. That's all I care about as an author. > 1) That medium and message are radically separate. If they ever do touch > each other, the interaction, like the interface between a tire's contact > patches and the road, is extremely small. They are separate. An author's particular manifestation of a message becomes intimately integrated with the medium the author chooses to communicate in (unless he's a poor author), but the message could be communicated in any number of media. Just take an idea and ask different authors to write about it and see how radically different the stories will be. > 2) That difficult prose "constantly breaks down." It doesn't. Sometimes it > does, but then it's no good. Perhaps you got the impression that I'm > defending all difficult writing. I'm not. I don't like difficult prose if > it "constantly breaks down." But good writing, even if it is difficult, > does (by definition) *not* break down. Well, for all I know, "prose that breaks down" is the definition that I'm using for difficult. Remember, I haven't read Gene Wolfe, so I don't know what I'd think of his prose. I'm taking an educated guess based on the fact that one individual, J. Scott Bronson, whose intelligence and artistic taste I have high regard for, couldn't finish Wolfe without great effort--couldn't finish him at all the first time through. That to me is prose that breaks down. I simply don't think it needs to be that way. For all I know, once I read Wolfe, I may love his style. > 3) That a good reading experience presents itself before you like a > landscape to be oohed and aahed over through a window instead of touched, > tasted, smelled--even heard!--in addition to being seen. Since we all seem to be indulging in a bit of metaphor stretching since I brought up the car anology, let me remind you that I can at any time stop the car, step out, and touch, taste, smell, and hear anything I want. Then I can climb back into my comfortable car drive on. The somewhat forced reading analogy to this is, I can put the book down, meditate to my heart's desire in all sorts of deep and complex ways about ideas I just read, then go back and continue reading the easy, comfortable prose that is transporting amazing concepts to me. > Perhaps I may appropriate your metaphor, and compare good though difficult > (poetic would be another synonym) prose to a well-used, resonant, > well-weighted classic cruiser, whose owner has spent countless hours tuning > up and rebuilding from parts that, though they've been used in other cars > and might seem ridiculous, mis-proportioned, or out of place when viewed > close up--as solitary parts of most arguments--work just as they should, or > even just as they weren't expected to, when taken as a whole. This car's > owner/driver could be both reader or writer, since good prose, when it is > difficult, often requires the reader to contribute as much as the writer. I say easy prose requires the same thing. Easy prose just makes the reader do it over ideas, not words. And that in my opinion is the superior way to do it. > with writing and reading, *both* types of > vehicles are great at times. Sometimes I just want to hand over the keys, > sit back, and enjoy the ride. I take great pleasure, too, though, out of > driving in a vehicle I've actually had a hand in building and that will > probably break down a couple times along the way Definitely a difference in taste here. I have never enjoyed the experience of having my vehicle break down. > I *didn't* say that. I said that a book that only produces thoughts its > readers are "trapped" into is not challenging nor thought-provoking, and > therefore not worth a second read. Fortunately, that's not what I meant. Probably because my prose wasn't clear enough (he he). I meant I trap people into _considering_ thoughts they've not considered before. It's patently impossible for me to trap them into thinking only certain thoughts. I'd be Master of the Universe if I could do 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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 01 May 2003 09:46:59 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Last weekend, I had the great honor of attending the annual Mormon Arts Retreat. This is the latest iteration of the late, lamented Mormon Arts Festival, which was a wonderful idea that Doug Stewart and Rob Paxton worked like coal miners to create, which finally died, I think largely because putting it on every year was so exhausting. Or maybe it's because they don't promote it well enough. I would have loved to attend, but I didn't know it was going on. Or is it a closed function, by invitation only? > Then came the after-dinner speaker. A wonderful choreographer, Pat Debenham, talked about ways in which our talents can become the means by which Satan tempts us, lures us away from God. He urges us to think of our artistic gifts in more mundane terms than we are used to, to essentially repudiate the romantic notion of the Artist-Genius whose connection with nature, or with the Super Sensuous as revealed in nature, is so much richer than the connection ordinary people have to it that He (the artist) leads us to God. (Pat didn't say all that; I'm interpolating.) What Pat did say is that a lot of young LDS artists leave the Church, and in part it's because we artists take ourselves too seriously. Art is not a calling, it's a job, he argued. I don't mind dumping the romantic conception of the Artist Genius, but sorry, Art is a calling to me; if it weren't, I'd quit and do something else with my life. As for young artists leaving the Church, well, it's hardly surprising! , when LDS culture (together with American culture) is in many ways anti-art. You are right, Pat is wrong (absolute enough for you?) As with other professions (doctors, lawyers, politicans come to mind), artists can succumb to a debilitating hubris, but art is much more than plumbing. (Yikes, there I go contradicting myself when I said art is like plumbing. But I'm allowed to do that--I'm an artist.) I have never been inspired, challenged, disturbed, treated to new insights on the human condition, or even entertained by plumbing. LDS culture most certainly is driving artists away--and intellectuals--and scholars. But I've already harped on that in a message I wrote eralier this morning that I hope sees the light of day, so I won't elaborate now. > Kiss is a play I wrote about a husband and wife, driving down a Nevada highway. He's driving her to work, her first day on her new job. About half way through the play you realize that her job is as a prostitute. She's LDS, and active, and she's going to work at the Mustang Ranch. > > I wrote the play for lots of reasons, one of which is that it's true. A good percentage of the women who work in the Nevada brothel industry are LDS, some of them reasonably active, a few even temple recommend holding. (One presumes that they've been less than forthcoming in that interview). That's an amazing fact, an astounding and shocking fact, but it's true; I've read the research. > > More than that, I think Mormon art can and should go to the darkest places we can imagine. I don't think it has to do that, but it can; it's okay to. I think the play talks about rationalization, and the way we can rationalize almost anything. I think the play talks about two people, a husband and wife, who really desperately need the atonement in their lives. And I think that Mormon art is a really big tent, and that at a retreat like this, it's valuable to push the boundaries a little. > > Well, maybe so, but there were folks who walked out, and I think the overall reaction wasn't particularly positive. We'd seen a lot of overtly religious art, and I think there was a strong feeling among many that my piece was inappropriate, and even damaging to a good spirit that had attended the event. I regret that very much. I regret your regret. You felt the regret because you're a nice guy and care about people, but I think the reaction to your play is an illustration of the very thing you and I are talking about. Your art was considered "inappropriate" because it wasn't feel-good. You shouldn't have written it. Bleah! And it was fellow artists making the judgment. Megableah! -- 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: [AML] RE: Introductions: Dianna Graham Date: 01 May 2003 16:01:54 -0600 >I can think of worse places to wash ashore; for example, anyplace east of the Rockies. When we >moved to Orem from Kalamazoo, my 4-year-old boy said to me, "Where are we going, Daddy," and I >said, "We're going to the mountains of Ephriam to dwell." >I guess I'm just a country boy. Orem is lovely, isn't it? Especially when you're just blocks away from Orem Center Stage. :) (Buttering up to Thom and Scott) East of the Rockies? Heaven. I doubt life will take us back there, but somewhere in Connecticutt sounds like a dream to me. Alas, I do not forsee David's future in production taking us in that direction. Maybe Chicago? If only. Looks like Cali will have to be the place someday (if they'll take us). Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 01 May 2003 18:26:55 EDT eric_samuelsen@byu.edu writes: > I kind of wrecked the whole event, frankly. I brought in a new play I'd > written, a very short one, and that was my contribution to Show and Tell. > As Eric mentioned, I was also at the Retreat. I disagree strongly that he "wrecked" the event. His play, "Kiss," was one of the highlights for me. My wife, Gwen, liked it, too. When Eric writes that "there were folks that walked out," that's not exactly representative of the truth. One folk walked out (very emotional), then her husband and one of her best friends walked out a moment or so later to be sure she was okay. So he only lost one audience member out of, what, a hundred. That's one percent of the audience. So stop bragging, Eric. Surely you can do better than 1%. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 3: Twisted Time Lines Date: 01 May 2003 21:35:33 -0600 Not that it may matter to anyone wanting to attend the film lab, but Sliding Doors is rated PG-13, not R. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: [AML] RE: Miracles Date: 01 May 2003 21:52:52 -0600 (MDT) Thom said: I get real antsy when people start suggesting that miracles are involved in these kinds of things. Because the implication is that somehow God listens more to Elizabeth's parents than he does to another family. And I don't like the other answer I usually receive: well, God doesn't answer everybody's prayers the same way. Then on what basis does he choose to intervene in Elizabth's life but no one else's? I believe in miracles, but not this kind. I believe in the miracle of a family's love that can stay strong throughout such a horrible ordeal. I believe in the miracle of how humans kind find a way to go on through dark tragedy, even if their loved ones never come back? I believe in the miracle of how love can transend death. Reply: These are unitarian miracles which Emerson would have been proud to report. As far as I can tell in the literature associated with miracles, a miracle requires at least two elements: an event in which there is a divine manifestation and an interpretation of that event as a divine manifestation: neither one of which appears in the examples you offer. To be sure, there is lots of generalized love going on in your examples, but human love is something which can be learned and practiced freely, and it is not in the same category as raising the dead and the ministering of angels. Show us a definition of miracles which takes into account the restored gospel as a viable force among us equivalent to that which is talked about in scripture. Fred Pinnegar -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Payne Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 01 May 2003 23:00:18 -0600 Eric Samuelsen mentioned peripherally, in a post about the Mormon Arts Retreat: > a nineteen year old kid named Kalai, > who is the next Cat Stevens, except that Kalai is fifty times better on guitar > than Cat Stevens. I love Cat Stevens, and loved Kalai's music even more. Kalai, by the way, is a member of the Timpanogos Singer-Songwriter Alliance (TSSA). His music can be heard, certainly, on his own recordings, but also on the TSSA compilation album "Sidewalk Serenade." His tune on that compilation, called "Fading Out," is quite good. A standout. > And some wonderful hammered dulcimer music from a husband/wife musical pair, the Schultzes. Some of my very coolest childhood memories are of my folks playing with Tom and Gael Shults in our living room. They've been playing for a million years, and can be heard and seen on Kurt Bestor/Sam Cardon's "Innovators" album (and the accompanying concert video). Tom is also a freak-out brilliant songwriter. His fingerstyle guitar playing is terrific, and his songs, though instantly recognizeable as Tom Shults songs, are utterly unlike anything you've ever heard before. He released two CD's simultaneously awhile ago, called "Left" and "Right." One of Tom's songs appears on the same TSSA compilation mentioned above. The thing about his songs, too, is that their effect is cumulative. You might could shrug off one Tom Shults song, but listen to five in a row and there will open up a rich and strange little space in your brain that you won't easily get closed again. I keep remembering odd Tom Shults lyrics during Seminary lessons. Tom Shults lyrics and episodes of The Simpsons. Sam Payne ---------------------------- (Visit http://www.sampayne.com today for a glance at "Railroad Blessing," the new record!) LDS internet radio - www.kzion.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Date: 02 May 2003 01:08:50 EDT Paris Anderson, I loved your post on miricles! I don't understand how one makes great brownies so I guess even sugar filled cookies that I don't eat very much but still love the taste of qualifies as a miracle. I recently read a book called the Hunger for Ecstasy that has as one of its major premises the idea that we all have the ability to learn to be filled with joy to the point of ecstasy more of the time. Key to doing this is to live in "the presence" of God by being fully observant and attentive with gratitude in the present moment. Is it a miracle when we are only occassionlally "surprised by joy" to use a C. S. Lewis phrase? Is it a miracle we feel joy at all or a negative miracle that most people live such sad lives most of the time? Brigham Young said, again as best as I remember the idea, that it is no greater miracle to raise the dead than to actually communicate with another. I think I fall into the miracles abound all around group of people. But I agree that not everone has to see things as I do. I've noticed an interesting thing in connection with miracles I'm wondering if others have also noticed in life or in literature. That is: it seems to me after years of pondering a particular great and obvious miracle in our son years ago that the miracle occured because of several factors. First I was in an appointed place at an appointed time. Second as most significantly it seems to have occured because of gratitude and joy in me before the miracle. This seems the reverse of the normal cause and effect of our ration minds. But is it possible that joy and gratitude are mother of not only all other virtues but also miracles? This might make an interesting subject for a book. Someday maybe I'll write one. Title: The Miracles of (or from) Joy and Gratitude. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 02 May 2003 01:11:53 -0400 Dianna Graham wrote, speaking of "dirt" and "dregs" in literature: "Millennium Approaches from Angels in America was dirt to me for a few reasons. Well crafted dirt, but still dirt in my eyes." Dianna, may I ask for some reasons? I'm just curious. I actually love the entire play _Angels in America_. I wrote my masters thesis about the play. I've probably read it more times than I've read any other single piece of literature. the play actually professes some of the teachings that are inherent and important to Mormon doctrine. teachings about progress and hope and faith. beautiful truths. and i believe that with a close reading, a reader begins to understand things that an audience never will because of the innate differences between the experience of watching a play and reading a play (though watching the play will give you interesting perspective that couldn't be gained by reading it). I've never really had the chance to discuss the play with other latter-day saints very much. i'm sure many would object based purely on content. but my objections have little to do with that and much more to do with kushner's treatment of his mormon characters, both male and female. especially female. he creates double trajectories for all of his mormon characters. one trajectory of development can be seen in performance. the second, more subtle one can only be seen with a close reading. when read closely, joe is a much less villainous character. with a fast presentation of joe, a single presentation where one scene rapidly follows another, his anguish gets buried under his seemingly thoughtless treatment of his wife and his willingness to abandon all of his beliefs, life, etc. but when you read the play and think about the careful construction of the play both in its narrative and in its development through time on the stage, you begin to realize that joe's life is fraught with inability to reconcile all that he is. and kushner treats joe's mother hannah even worse than joe. she follows a trajectory of being liberated. of being somehow freed from her constraining mormon, patriarchal roots. and she becomes the real prophetic voice by the end of the play (interestingly enough teaching some important mormon doctrine). but when you stop and trace what happens to her you watch as one man denounces her as a mother. and immediately she adopts another man as her son. kushner doesn't free her. she remains unchanged, in spite of the appearance of a positive character development. in spite of these very real objections i have to this piece of art (and there are others and this email is a very superficial treatment of my problems with the play), i love it as a work of art. it is a work that will substantiate many readings. a work that will ask very difficult questions of mormons and non-mormons alike. it draws fascinating parallels between our social, ecological, political, religious, and psychological worlds. parallels that have the potential to drive discussion and discovery. does it contain bad language? yes. quite a bit of it. does it portray behaviors and acts that i believe are wrong? yes. it does lots that i could see as objectionable. but i believe it is a moral piece. it is a work of art that makes a statement about the moral tenor of our world. and, although i cringed on my first readings of the play at the way kushner appropriates mormon history and joseph smith's experience, i do not believe he treated the sacred lightly. i think he used it very seriously, knowing full well what he was doing. i do not seek out or enjoy art that makes light of things i consider sacred. i don't think kushner does this. i think he very carefully uses a sacred heritage to illustrate his point, to make his viewers and his readers think about their world and hopefully understand it better. of course, my understanding of his intent and his work has been enhanced by my research and by reading interviews and such wherein kushner discusses the play. but i truly believe that this play is an amazing work of art. and i believe that in order to appreciate it, we need to get beyond the first shock of reading our religious heritage in such a light and really think about what he's getting at. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail 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: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] LDS Radio Programming Date: 01 May 2003 23:54:25 -0700 I have a question for AML-listers regarding radio programming ideas for a local public station that's getting going fall 2003 here in Spokane, Washington. I've been encouraged to submit a proposal for programming content. The station is small (100 watt?) sort of like Salt Lake's KRCL, I believe, a true community sort of radio station. I was thinking of perhaps doing a half hour or hour weekly show where I read Mormon literature, be it plays, radio theatre, fiction, nonfiction, etc. But, I only have minimal experience in radio, having interned with Salt Lake's KUER a couple years ago. But, I think it would/could be really fun, if anything just for the experience of going through the whole decision making process, programming planning, and then, perhaps, getting an opportunity to read my own work (perhaps some of yours too, of course). Lastly, I don't want to step on the Church's toes, you know, I don't want to necessarily use the church's name, yet I want it to still have "Mormon-related" content. I don't necessarily want to approach the Church's PR machine, i.e. speak with the Public Affairs' national radio person, Kim Farah, and have her tell me what I can and can't do. On the other hand, perhaps the Church's Public Affairs dept. could give me some good advice. Or should I just go for it.... What do you think? Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 02 May 2003 00:35:27 -0700 On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:23:57 -0600 "Eric Samuelsen" writes: > As for young artists leaving the Church, well, it's hardly > surprising, when LDS culture (together with American > culture) is in many ways anti-art. O come on, Eric. Did you miss the recent Congressional debate on the Literature and Culture bill? There was a huge push for pome and fiction and essay (or creative non-fiction for the hoity fartsy group) subsidies (subsidies for other arts too, but as a writer I followed that part of the bill), a huge call for tariffs on imported art and literature so that our artists could compete on a level playing field with artists from countries with massive public funding for the arts. And you missed it? Of course there were detractors (and dehorsedrawnplows) who felt tariffs are just another name for protectionism, that _tariff_ is just a euphemism propogated by the all-powerful art lobby, and that art ought to compete on its own merits without gummint subsidies just like farm goods and the airline/airplane industry do. Well, I guess there are always naysayers, but we should admit the esteem our culture (and subculture) has for artists and the arts and built that esteem, rather than making snideremarks about our culture. Hollow Cluck ABA (also bocking as) h.s. (cummings) clark ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Re: Membership on AML-List Date: 02 May 2003 08:28:14 -0400 David and (or) Dianna Graham wrote: > I'm not well-read on Mormon lit, so I can't comment on the quality thereof. > I'm a slow reader and have tons of other artists to go through as well. > Maybe that makes me unqualified for this list. Hmmm... Yikes! There's qualifications? Who knew???? Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 02 May 2003 07:21:53 -0600 (MDT) > A case in point is Shakespeare, who became "respectable" to the > literary community exactly when his language became obscure. But not > because Shakespeare himself used obscure language. Quite to the > contrary, he wrote in the vernacular to the time. Shakespeare became > obscure because of the inevitable evolution of the language. This > explains why Shakespeare is often more "difficult" than the more > formal language of the KJV--vernacular evolves much faster. > Eugene Woodbury That's only oartly true - People did not regularly speak in iambic pentameter and blank verse. Gene Wolfe actually has a few characters in The Book of the New Sun speak in Blank verse - all of them aliens. Why? He said it was because when they spoke in blank verse, it seemed unnatural to the reader, making it more alien (while still understandable). --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 02 May 2003 07:25:02 -0700 I appreciate your thoughtful review. What I may have missed is any LDS content in the book. Could it be that Deseret Book just pulled the book because there was no Mormon content? Forgive me if I missed something. katie@aros.net wrote: > > Stansfield, Anita. _The Gable Faces East_. Covenant, 1999, 499 pp, $14.95. > > Reviewed by Katie Parker > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Copyright Law and Horizon Date: 02 May 2003 09:01:47 -0500 > > I'm confused by your situation, Linda. Maybe I'm missing something? >(LauraMaery) Jacob: >You're partially right, but looking at it in the wrong way. For consumers, >books *are* like any other consumer product--something you're able to buy >and sell and loan to others as much as you wish. The part you're missing >is the obligation the publisher has to the author. Thank you for explaining the concept so well, Jacob. If those of you with book contracts take a look at them, usually there is a transfer clause included, meaning the contract can be sold or transferred to a new owner. (Think how the bank can sell your mortgage w/out needing your permission; same idea). Generally, however, the contract also carries a clause that says if the contract is not *previously* sold to a third party, it expires when business operations cease, reverting all rights to the author. It can't be sold or transferred *after* the company goes out of business, because that contract has ceased to exist. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 02 May 2003 10:22:24 -0600 Alan Mitchell wrote: >And by the way, who does one have to sleep with to get an invite? As I understand it, each discipline has a 'group leader' person, who = selects the ten artists from that discipline who come. My theatre guy = is Marvin Payne. In Lit, I think it's Kristen Randle. So you'd need to = sleep with Kristen, assuming Guy doesn't object. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 02 May 2003 10:44:14 -0600 I would like to respond to this very briefly, while also unashamedly = plugging my new show. Eugene Woodbury wrote: >But not because Shakespeare himself used obscure language. Quite to the >contrary, he wrote in the vernacular to the time. Shakespeare became >obscure because of the inevitable evolution of the language. This >explains why Shakespeare is often more "difficult" than the more >formal language of the KJV--vernacular evolves much faster. This is mostly, but not entirely true. Shakespeare loved to invent = words. His coinages have greatly enriched the language, and of course, = coining new words was accepted cultural practice in his day. But I = don't think it's unlikely that his audiences had to listen carefully, or = that they had to wrestle with words they'd never heard before, the = meanings of which they had to grapple with in context. I'm facing a unique challenge right now; one I'm enjoying, I should = hastily add. I'm directing a play by Shakespeare's younger contemporary = John Fletcher. It's called Rule A Wife and Have a Wife, and as best I can tell, it was = probably written around 1640. Fletcher was the young guy in = Shakespeare's company at the time that Shakespeare was the old guy; WS = and Fletcher probably collaborated on several plays, including Pericles = and Henry VIII. =20 Anyway, this is a play that nobody today has heard of. If I were = directing a similar Shakespeare comedy--Taming of the Shrew comes to = mind--I could count on at least some of my audience knowing the play in = advance. Not so much with Fletcher. =20 Fun story, BTW. A rich young heiress, Margarita, a spoiled brat, wants = to marry for the sake of her reputation, but she wants to marry someone = who will do exactly as he's told and not worry about it if she wants to = fool around. She meets a young doofus named Leon, who seems perfect. = Only he turns out not to be such a doofus; he's actually smart and = brave, and is only pretending to be a dope. Eventually he wins her = heart, and they settle into a genuinely equal marriage. A subplot = involves a maid, Estifania, and a soldier, Miguel Perez. They each have = become persuaded that the other one is rich, and marry, and learn that = they're both poor. They finally make up, but only after going after = each other with swords. =20 So. Anyway. What I've done is re-write the language. I'm not = contemporizing it much (like I did a few years ago with Holberg's = Erasmus Montanus). But I am replacing obscure and archaic words with = more contemporary ones. If I can replace "'sblood! I'll own t'it!" with = "All right! I admit it!", I think I'm giving the audience a fighting = chance to understand what's going on. And since Fletcher set the play in = Spain, I decided to do him one better and move it to California, ca. = 1840. To Zorro, specifically. I think the play is going to be a lot of fun. Come see it. It's a = rolicking comedy which we've tried to make even more rolicking, with = lots of sword fights and mayhem. Certainly appropriate for children; = I'm taking my kids, at least, including my nine-year old. =20 It plays in the Margetts Theatre, on the BYU campus, in the HFAC, = starting May 14, running until the end of the month. W-Sat = performances. Tickets available at the HFAC box office, (801) 378-4322. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Mormon Horror (was: Validity of Memory and Nonfiction) Date: 02 May 2003 16:27:44 -0600 At 12:21 PM 5/1/03 -0600, you wrote: >Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? What about Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys? barbara -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Horror Date: 02 May 2003 16:57:31 -0700 Richard Dutcher has the best Mormon horror story I've ever heard (not having read Michael's, of course). A clever fusion of aspects of both genres and a truly interesting "excuse" to introduce such a mixed genre. But as far as I know, he's not interested in publishing it, he just did it to see if he could. It is a little-known fact that Richard is one of the best horror writers out there, but he hasn't seen fit to publish or produce any of them. But he's scarier and hipper than most of the fare that comes out in that genre. I keep twisting his arm (grin). Personally, though, and this comes from my time in movie marketing, I think its a generally silly idea (from a commercial sense) to try and do such an (albeit interesting) fusion. I'm going to disgust the higher-brow of this set by my next cultural reference, but there was an applicable line on "Friends" last night. Monica and Chandler are trying to have a baby. She comes in and asks him if he has any plans for that night, and trying to be funny and sexy, he gets a look in his eye, melodramatically sweeps everything on the kitchen table off onto the floor, and then gestures at the table with a suggestive expression. Monica (a confirmed neat freak), says: "You're trying to turn me on by making a mess?... KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!" The joke is applicable to this discussion. Granted, there will be a tiny market segment of Mormon lit readers who are also horror fans, and might appreciate the merger. But I think it is safe to say that besides me and Richard and Michael and maybe Kim and a couple of others, you are talking about a very small group. Say it's even several hundred. Say even 1000. That's still pretty shy of the 20,000 you need for an approximation of profitability. And it's not just a question of money. What if you horrify (in a bad way) and thereby alienate a significant portion of the core audience who bought you because they were expecting a "safe" LDS story? You could really kill yourself from a commercial standpoint. And it doesn't count to be flippant and just dismiss market demands. I mean, artists have to make a living and we HAVE to think about this stuff. I happen to like genre fiction, and I have tinkered with stories in a broad variety of market categories. But when I'm contemplating an LDS market, I get very careful with what story elements I include. I just got off the phone with David Howard an hour or so ago. We had a very long conversation about this very topic. In the course of developing an LDS comedy screenplay, we are very conscious of trying to figure out what we can and can't get away with in our jokes. Comedy that is to sex-oriented, or too bathroom oriented, or too irreverent about sensitive areas of spirituality, general authorities, key church figures or personalities, etc., we are having to very carefully consider. And it's a serious dilemma. We are driven by market forces. We are raising and spending huge amounts of other people's money, and we have to show a return to stay in business. If we tick off or alienate a core group we suffer. On the other hand, if we get too tame, the work suffers. It gets even more complicated when crossing between literature and film. I have a feeling (but no hard evidence as of yet) that LDS film audiences and LDS book audiences are somewhat different, especially when you have to figure profitability into the margin. Vera asked Curtis Taylor the other day. Well, we had a dilemma last year when he approached me to direct a screenplay of his comic novel "The Invisible Saint". Apparently, the book sold pretty well. I think he sold something like 50,000 copies of the thing. But the script I read totally turned me off. Too irreverent in parts, goofy in others. I just didn't think it would fly. Curtis argued that the book sold well, but I had to remind him that for a film to work we needed a heck of a lot more hits than 50,000. I might have been wrong in my assessment. Especially given the financial record of "The Single's Ward" and "The R.M." And I may be making some mistakes in my own comedy. Jacob Proffitt's thoughts about British comedy were very interesting earlier. How do you tailor certain elements to certain audiences? And do different audiences get turned off or on by different elements? And how much can you get away with? Mormon horror seems by definition an impossible sell. Even "Brigham City's" serial killer theme turned off a significant portion of the first-run audience and we felt that hit in the box office. Marketing outside of Utah also dropped the ball, which had something to do with it, but subject matter had a large share of the difficulty. And I could see it coming. First time I read the script I knew it would take a hit, but it was still worth doing. But full-blown Mormon Horror? I'd would rather strip out the LDS elements and have a good mainstream genre novel then try and cram something down the throats of a market that would by and large reject it out of hand. How do artist's deal with market factors in tailoring their work to a given target? We all have to do it. Anyone who has ever made their living from writing knows that pressure to target product for a specific market. But like Eric's play about the LDS prostitute? Probably a good play. But it will NEVER be accepted (broadly) by the LDS audience. Which is tough, cuz it might have some important things to say. A dilemma, a dilemma. I don't know where I stand. But I do know that I edit and/or target my work, and that that limits what I "can" and "cannot" do for the LDS market. Maybe I'm a scardy-cat, but I don't have a lot of time, and I want my work to sell. So I could never do Mormon Horror. But that's just me. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 02 May 2003 12:46:12 -0600 At 04:20 PM 4/30/03 -0600, you wrote: >Stansfield, Anita. _The Gable Faces East_. Covenant, 1999, 499 pp, $14.95. >Reviewed by Katie Parker I found this book a bit disappointing in that I didn't think the prose style was up to Anita's usual standard--it seemed to me that she might have pulled out an earlier work that would sell now because of her name value. On the other hand, I thought it stronger than most LDS fiction of this nature because the characters seemed more like people and less like Object Lessons. I objected to some of the same things Katie did, although I take exception to her saying that the characters shouldn't have had certain feelings. One does not simply decide to have or not to have a feeling, especially in terms of wanting to have a person. I tend to think that feelings themselves are not wrong, but you can do wrong things in an attempt to satisfy them. I disliked two things about the book: the way that Jess treated Alexa, expecting her to put her life on hold indefinitely while he figured things out without confiding in her, and the way the writer used Richard as a plot device, first to separate Jess and Alexa in order to have conflict, and second to kill him off when it was convenient to put Jess and Alexa back together. Richard was an appealing character--a truly good man--and his creator treated him most shabbily! As for the physical attraction the characters had for each other, that's perfectly normal and natural, and it annoys me that Mormon readers seem to think that it isn't. Especially since that's one main reason it's hard to tell a true story in the Mormon venue: the expectation for characters to behave like people in a church video, in which dressed-up, smiling children listen attentively to a scriptural recitation during Family Home Evening without squirming, giggling, scowling, slumping, belching, whining, cutting their eyes toward the television, demanding that the cookies be served now, or punching their siblings. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 02 May 2003 15:03:28 -0600 "Eugene Woodbury" wrote: For the first time I read a "modern" translation (the NRSV, it turned out) of Paul's letters, and discovered, to my enormous surprise, that Paul had in fact written concise, well-reasoned examinations of the theological justifications of the new Christian religion. Paul didn't need to be decoded, Paul only needed to be read. What? the first great apostate made plain? Where can I get a copy? What is NRSV? Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 2 Date: 02 May 2003 13:21:54 -0700 This is the second half of an essay, the first half of which was = submitted yesterday under the same title. Together, parts one and two of = "In Defense of Moderate Judgment" form the second in a series of three = interrelated essays.=20 In Jacob's post sent out on April 17 under the title "Artist's Personal = Lives" he asks an important question: "What role, if any, does objective = reality play in our art and what role do universal truths play in our = philosophy?" And it is that question which interests me particularly, = not the specifics of the discussion we were having at the time; however, = I will return to and use those specifics to launch examples of the more = general concerns I'm trying to explore within myself. And to repeat what = I suggested before, I am really trying to work these things out within = myself, and not (even though it will seem so) really trying to reply to = Jacob or to convince him personally, but to respond to his questions = within myself to my own satisfaction. With respect to universals, I have a philosophical problem with most of = them (or how they are handled, I should say, or the implications we let = them allow), and especially as they relate to interpersonal = relationships between each other, between fictional characters, between = Church members and non-members, etc., and with respect to conversations = about the arts. In the initial conversation which prompted Jacob's question about = objective reality and universal truth, we were talking about perspective = and perception. I made the point that in the early days of our Church, = when some of our faithful were practicing the marital concept of = polygamy, men with multiple wives, the vast majority of the rest of the = country considered such arrangements perverse, immoral, wrong, based on = what they perceived to be universal truths. Even many of us, today, = faithful Mormons, cringe when this topic comes up, and have to admit = within ourselves that we find such practices creepy ourselves. In the = light of the press revealing that Elizabeth Smart was abducted to become = the multiple wife of a madman, it becomes an even more uncomfortable = topic. What we demand of the world, when we can get it (to preserve the peace = and open up at least the possibility of dialogue), and from within = ourselves, when we can achieve it (to preserve our sanity and our = faith), is an environment of openness, a temperance in thought, a = willingness to see things from all sides, an exploration of context, an = admission of the possibility of fallibility on both sides, etc. In = short: respect. If a reporter, say, talks to what's-his-name, the head = of PR for the Church who fielded such questions so well during the SLC = Olympic Games, and that reporter is willing to listen with respect, = he/she will come away enlightened and edified. Might not agree with us, = but will understand our history and our perception of it. If we demand respect of others, even in the consideration of = perspectives radically different from their own, then we MUST expect = such respect for others from ourselves. And this means even if we are = listening to them describe perspectives which we consider radically = different from our own, even if we consider our own perspective to be = coming from a principle of universal truth. Such respect, when achieved, = changes our tone substantially. It changes how we speak, how we respond = in debate. It changes how we write essays, it changes how we write = fiction. It changes the characters we can write, those we can play as = actors. It changes how we criticize both fiction and non-fiction. It = changes how we think about ourselves and others. It is possible to be right, and to present things wrong-headedly. It is = possible to use correct facts to make a point which completely misses a = larger point. It is possible to expound "empirical truth" in a manner = which creates an environment of, if not falsehood, then at least, a lack = of respect and insight. It is possible to be informed and unwise, = knowledgeable and small of mind. Such paradoxes should be avoided = obviously, and each of us will argue where the line crossing into one = state or the other actually is.=20 Where Jacob and I disagree is that he is much more confident in the use = of statistical, empirical truth to define his world view than I am. He = is much more quick to apply a universal truth and to dismiss the = subjective in the perception of reality than I am (if I interpret him = correctly), and in this, there is no right or wrong, only differing = personalities. Essentially, we do not argue about facts, we argue about = their importance, we differ in our interpretation of what these facts = may mean, especially in the light of context. My contention is that as = we alter our personalities to one side or another, this will also alter = our artistic sensibilities. The specific argument being debated at the time, which has ultimately = prompted this response, was about gun violence versus non-gun violence = in Europe and America, and how the two regions perceive each other with = respect to their relative levels of cultural violence. I made the point = that there are more gun-related deaths in America than in Europe. I made = the further point that Europeans know this empirical fact, and that they = interpret it in a certain way. They believe our level of gun-violence = makes us a more violent culture generally. I made a final point that = European perceptions of us also include different mores with respect to = sexuality: they see us as prudish sexually and often combining violence = and sexuality in our entertainment. Jacob countered by changing the subject (which he admits cheerfully to = doing), and then adding to it. Jacob points out a page and a half of = statistics, empirical truths, which show that even though there is less = gun-related violence in Europe, there is still an alarmingly high level = of non-gun related violence. You may not be raped or burgled at = gun-point across the pond, but you will still get raped and burgled; you = may not get shot so much, but you will still get beaten and stabbed. All = of this is very interesting, especially if you are writing a police = procedural, as Jacob suggests at one point; in writing a crime drama, = you'd have to know the statistics he presents to write accurately. Hard = to argue, but hardly my point. Jacob argues that these empirical facts are essential, my argument is = that those empirical facts change nothing. Europeans still see us, by = and large, as gun-blazing cowboys. Right or wrong, that's how they see = us. Which is ironic and interesting. Which was my point. Jacob then, to increase the irony, describes an experience where he and = his wife, visiting Germany, encountered a German who, on a bus driving = through a graffiti-riddled neighborhood, talked about this very thing, = how he would be scared to live in America because of the violence, = something which many of us find laughable. Each of us living on our = respective sides of the water, living in our little worlds of naivet=E9, = just like Tayva's New York FBI agent and Richard's Utah Sheriff in = "Brigham City". But my point is that one is not more naive than the other in respect to = the relative experience of the character, and that the bandying-about of = empirically provable statistics changes neither side's perceptions = particularly when applied to a specific experience. The difference = between universal generalities and subjective realities is massive, = particularly when addressing an individual character, which ultimately = all our stories must be about. In fact, as authors and especially = actors, we are infinitely more concerned with specific individuals. We = let the character tell the story. And each character is unique. We may = still have some universal theme, which the individual experience of any = given character may contradict or counterpoint, but we tell that theme = through the unique and uniquely relative experience of each individual = character.=20 To a woman who has been raped in the countryside, an empty field of = grain may always seem ominous. To a kid from the projects who has never = been molested, the graffiti-dressed gray brick wall may engender a = feeling of calm and coming home. But these are counterpoints to the = stereotype. Regardless of the individual variation, and regardless of = empirical rightness or wrongness, stereotypes are also a huge part of = life, and a huge part of our writing. We generally believe the country = to be more safe than the city; the relative truth may be otherwise. = Europeans generally believe themselves more safe than Americans; the = relative truth may be otherwise. We generally believe the French to be = arrogant; the relative truth may be otherwise. The French generally = believe that Americans are arrogant; the relative truth may be = otherwise. We may generally believe that women don't masturbate all that = much; the relative truth may be otherwise. To insist on one side of the coin as being "right" (and therefore, by = implication, the other side is "wrong") is to force oneself into a = position of limiting our ability to truly understand someone else. And I = think we can know facts (not, that is, live in a fantasy world) and yet = still understand and truly sympathize with others who come from a = different perspectives. The trick is in the presentation: how we present = facts to others, but much more importantly, how facts and perceptions = are organized in our own minds. Do we organize facts mentally in such a = construct as to make us incapable of appreciating and seeing through = other's eyes, or no? Do we organize facts mentally in such a way that = those facts disallow another view of reality, or are our facts stored in = such a way as to allow for wide perception? What is our true level of = respect for the values of others? Respect, in this case, meaning our = ability to sympathize, within the given context, for the values and = beliefs of others; not necessarily respect in the sense of "to agree = with." At one point in our discussion, I comment that one of Jacob's comments = "reveals a completely geocentric bias." Jacob retorted with a warning: = "Careful," he said, "You're close to some unfortunate assumptions here." = He then went on to relate some of his personal history, and how his own = personal experience was diverse, broadly varied, and he had many = geographic backgrounds to pull experience from. In fact, he explained = how he had encountered personal experience which seemed to break = geocentric stereotypes with respect to violence: he had experienced = violence in a rural setting where it would generally be unexpected; he = had lived peacefully in an urban setting where violence would more = generally be expected.=20 But none of this personal history, ironically, was assumed or denied by = my observation about perceive geocentric bias. To the contrary, I was = not making a comment or an assumption about Jacob's personal history. I = was not commenting about HIM, I was commenting on his COMMENT. The = comment (in this case about graffiti in a neighborhood) implied that the = presence of such graffiti suggested a violent neighborhood. I was = careful not to say such a comment suggested that Jacob had a geocentric = bias, but that the "comment reveals a geocentric bias." The distinction is important, and not just because I want to avoid = personal attacks, which I do, but for a much more interesting reason. = Often times, we say things we do not mean, but when we do (especially = when you write a line for a character to say), we must ask ourselves, = yes but why, then, did I say it that way? If you have a character say "I = love you" when they, in fact, do not, there must be a reason, that the = author at least has some inkling of, even if he doesn't yet fully know = the reason. If a character says, "I don't love you," but in fact does, = that is of interest, too. If a character says, in act one, "Some = blankety-blank nigger stole my truck," but then in act three becomes a = civil rights activist such distinctions must be addressed, either in = subtext or in overt text. If a character, who we know from exposition, = has been beaten by a spouse, tells another character who has been = beaten, without much sympathy, "Oh, boys will be boys", this statement = will have a much different resonance than if the same line is delivered = by an innocent young thing with no real experience with men. And so, I found it both ironic and mildly inexplicable (though I believe = I know the explanation) how Jacob, who has a diverse and varied cultural = experience with American and conditions of cultural violence in = differing geographic areas of our country, could still make an = unqualified statement that revealed a geocentric bias which suggested a = solitary viewpoint, when from his own experience and admission, he knows = that there are many varied and relative viewpoints with respect to this = one topic of cultural violence. He states, "We're kind of unlikely to = carry unfortunate geocentric biases. Not that we don't carry some, I'm = sure, but we're usually aware of them and unlikely to bow to any = Urban-centric analysis of U.S. make-up and/or attitudes... And we know = that an overly urban vision of the U.S. is at least as inaccurate as an = overly rural one." And yet, these statements (and their truth, which I = do not doubt) notwithstanding, Jacob was still able to make comments in = his first essay on the topic which suggested just such a bias, a bias = which, on further inspection, he realizes he does not have, and is quick = to correct if others perceive he does. And yet, why the initial statements?=20 I believe Jacob was able to write an essay forcefully arguing that I was = wrong (and all Europeans are wrong) to believe that their culture is = less violent than ours (not a point I was making, of course), and that = such a perception is utterly misguided and disprovable by the statement = of empirical facts and statistical studies, and to include in said essay = unqualified comments which suggested a geocentric bias (when he does not = in fact, have one, upon further reflection), because his forceful = conviction of "rightness" and righteous sensation of "truth-bearing" and = vigorous instruction of others as to the incorrectness of their own = cultural biases and perceptions, blinded him, temporarily, to both the = validity of the relative bias of an individual in a given cultural = experience, and his own multifaceted experience here in the U.S. which = would have, upon deeper introspection, naturally tempered his tone and = cautioned his delivery. One of Jacob's comments is telling, and herein lies our general = philosophical disagreement (which we shall agree to disagree upon, = because I have no desire to "change" him and would certainly fail to do = so if I had such a desire). Jacob says, "It is too easy to simply say = that one person has a bias and another has another and that is that. = Because that isn't that. Some biases are invalid. Others are valid. = Others are justifiable paradox and relatively even. Some are benign, = others not so much. If you insist on treating every bias as equal, = you're going to have trouble with an LDS audience that "knows" that not = all biases are equal." Because, I will conclude and take from this comment, that LDS audiences = know they are right, and others are wrong. And therein lies the danger, = as I see it. If we demand a respect from others, we must give it. And even if we = believe in our heart of hearts that "we are right" we must be = exceptionally cautious about both, 1) stating that belief and 2) = allowing that belief to prematurely color our judgment of others. Now, Jacob includes a disclaimer at the end of his post that states, = "Oh, I don't want to make a claim to all truth and I don't want people = to think that we're always right and all that. That'd be icky.' Yes, it would be icky. But ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 02 May 2003 22:47:55 -0600 Quoting Jeff Needle : > I appreciate your thoughtful review. What I may have missed is any LDS > content in the book. Could it be that Deseret Book just pulled the book > because there was no Mormon content? I suppose that would be as good a reason as any, except for the fact that DB does also carry non-LDS books. But you're correct; there isn't anything LDS about this book except that it was written by a popular LDS author and published by an LDS publisher. Also, these characters are the ancestors of Michael Hamilton, who is a hero of several of Stansfield's novels. But that's it. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature unfortunately, in my opinion, that's exactly = how some passages in many of Jacob's arguments for and on behalf of an = empirical universal truth (in the post directed at me and in several = others over the last several months, including the Kadosh Review thread) = come across. That is how they read. Just as the comment which I read as = revealing a geocentric bias when Jacob states he does not have one, = sometimes the things we say, and the way we say them, reveals some inner = belief we carry which we would be embarrassed to admit outright. And so = we say things in such a way that our readers feel that bias (which we = would deny) and react to it just as Jacob suggests: "That's icky." But = what has been said has been said. The tone comes across. Our truth is = tainted by tone and a lack of consideration of the other's nature, = sensitivity, age, background, knowledge, education, experience, = preparedness, maturity, level of self-defense-ability, etc. To add a = fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of the page that we do NOT mean what = we have just suggested that we DO mean (in spite of ourselves), does not = get rid of the perception of the audience any more than a judge telling = a jury to "strike that" actually makes them forget what the attorney = just said or implied. To some of the world, Mormons come across as assholes, and that is = unfortunate, seeing as our theology is so wise and impartial and = unbiased all-loving and encourages so much tender acceptance and, in = fact, demands so much respect from others, and insists that we give it = back. But my reading of our theology as stated in the previous sentence = is not accepted by many of our members, or understood by many more, or = actually practiced (once understood) by further others.=20 Ironically, for a religion that touts itself as being the "one true = church" we should in truth be, as my annual reading of the Doctrine and = Covenants continues to impress on me, the most moderately judgmental = people on the earth. But in fact, we are not. Our very certitude should = make us deeply understanding of others because of our confidence, we = have no insecurities to feel the need to defend or argue our points in = any concerted or violent way. In my experience it is the character who = is the most insecure about any given point, who will react with the = greatest amplitude when that subject is triggered.=20 Hence the Evangelical Christians who rail the loudest in battle against = the theology of others, are, I believe, the most insecure people in = their own beliefs. We need not be like them. If we are certain that all = will come out explained in the end, why make enemies along the way? Our = confidence gives us a sense of security which should make us the = opposite of blocked and dogmatically judgmental. If gun control is a = hot-button issue for someone, they will respond differently in = conversation about the topic than someone for whom the issue is benign = EVEN IF THE OPINIONS HELD BY THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE THE SAME.=20 I suggest that any thing we feel particularly "hot" about should be = examined by us very carefully. Why am I reacting the way I am, and does = this say something about me, which has nothing to do with the empirical = or universal rightness or wrongness of my opinion, by my desire that = others share it, and my belief that they are damned or damn wrong if = they do not. To connect this essay somewhat to its predecessor-in-crime, "In Defense = of Obscurity," I outlined therein an allegory about me and my dog. I = suggested that some universal knowledge is dangerous to my dog, because = if we believe that knowledge conveys responsibility (unto whom much is = given much is required) then to withhold certain knowledge from him for = a certain time, might actually protect him from his inability to live up = to the responsibility conveyed in the knowledge, until he is ready for = it. If we hold that such a construct is true, what does this say about = our own empirical and universal truths? What does this say about the = opinion that "some biases are wrong"? If a human being will be judged differently based on what they know, how = can you say that you are right and you are wrong? The very definition of our universal truth, then, of Mormon theology as = to how individuals will be judged, strips away our ability to use that = truth to judge others in their present state of comprehension thereof. God is the judge, we are not. How are we to interpret that parable where = men are engaged to work in the field?. All day long the master goes out = and recruits men to work. Some men work 8 hours, some 7, 6, 5 and on. = Some only work one hour. At the end of the day, every one of them are = paid the same amount of wages. Whoa! Says the guy who worked 8 hours. = That's not fair! That guy was only out there for one hour and he got the = same salvation as me?! What does the Master say to that? Basically: Cool it, bucko! That's the = way it is! And that is the way it is. That is a truth we accept as absolute. The = fact that the guy you are judging today, the one that you condemn out of = hand because he's got it wrong and we've got it right, has every = possibility of "getting it" in the final hour, and getting exactly the = same wages as you get, i.e., everything. Salvation. Exaltation. And God = looks at this persons perspective, background, experience, current = knowledge and individual, specific, relative sphere of understanding, = and judges him DIFFERENTLY than he judges you or I. So, even in an universe of universal truths, subjective reality exists = absolutely. That's my philosophy with respect to loving and understanding my fellow = man. What about getting this essay back to literature? It is the same, = only more so. With respect to writing characters, empirical truths don't matter a hill = of beans (to the characters). Subjective reality is all that matters to = the individuals we create. We must create a realistic world around them = (or, in the case of fantasy, etc., an internally consistent world), yes. = And to do such, authors do research, and are indeed interested in facts = and statistics. But our characters are created one at a time, and we = must recognize that their own experience will produce in them opinions = which may or may not conform to any conclusions that could be made by an = outsider looking at the list of facts. The character can be told truths = which then alters their reality (if they allow it to - in the case of = insanity, things are different), if that is the author's meta-theme or = where the story needs to go. But that individual character must be = created from within an utterly specific context. And that context may = smash the usually-accepted stereotype, or it may conform to it. But it = is disrespectful and, in fact, pointless to attempt to argue otherwise = with respect to literature and our fictional creations therein. I propose that a spirit of moderate judgment will make us better = Christians, better humans, better writers, better artists. And it does = not weaken our beliefs in what is right and wrong. But it will alter who = we talk, how we argue, how we present ideas, how we accept ideas. We can = be right and still be jerks, but we don't need to. Listen, I don't know how the rest of you will do this. But for me, for = my own inner life, for my credo, I've hurt myself too many times by = being a self-righteous prig, to my family and others, to not take this = concept seriously and to consider how to correct it. And in my desire to = become a tremendously insightful artist (for I have no lesser goal; we = must set those standards high, however hard they are to achieve), to = become a writer who is deeply perceptive and companionate and moving and = who creates outstanding characters, etc., etc., I have found that it is = essential for me to cultivate a tremendously open and curiously questing = attitude towards others, that I might explore all the facets which = create actual individual lives, so that I might, some day, be better = able to create my fictional ones.=20 If ever I encounter a situation where I say to myself, "I can't = understand how so-and-so can think that, or do that" that is the moment = red flags go up and I start looking for the answer. How CAN they think = like that? It is essential for an author to know. And rest assured, = there IS an answer, and we can discern it, if we put ourselves in = someone else's shoes and truly perceive their experience. And this = exercise does not alter our own reality. It does not weaken our own = beliefs or make us wishy-washy, but it gives us crucial insights into = others. There is no such thing as a bias that is wrong, from a character's = standpoint. "Bias" by definition, is subjective. Broadening that = characters perceptions, introducing facts and experiences which in form = the characters differently than their original bias might change that = bias to something which we might perceive to be closer to reality, but = that is all that is happening. We are not making something right or = wrong. To the woman who was raped in the cornfield, no amount of = statistical evidence that 98.39% of all rapes happen inside homes will = in any way affect her visceral sense of panic every time she passes a = menacing, eight-foot tall tower of corn: listening, listening, silently, = to her screams of pain -- standing there, doing nothing. That is character building. But everyone must set goals for themselves. Others cannot do it for us. = Nor can we make others change their goals to conform to what we think = they should be. And God understands how long it takes each of us to = achieve these goals, and judges us according to our relative strengths = and weaknesses. He has given us time to work it out. And the guy who = gets in at the last hour is going to get the same value as the guy who = worked it out hours ago. You can't get more relative in judgment than = that. So these are my goals: I will be bold but kind; opinionated but open; unshakeable in testimony, = but hesitatingly absolutist when dealing with others; I will be an = artist, a human, a father, a friend; I will understand all sides without = losing my side; I will diminish no one, but not be lukewarm; I will be a = Christian but love all religions, a Mormon, but love all Christians; I = will understand the individual experience, but also obtain the general = overview of both history and conditions; I will never allow my knowledge = and convictions to make me un-teachable, unable to observe and = appreciate the subjective truths or individual feelings and beliefs of = others; my own unshakeable absolute will be that God knows everything = and that I do not (nor does any man); I will try to write something = every day, to read something every day (including scripture); I will = pray for more faith, more patience, more humility, more wisdom, more = understanding, line upon line; I will try to do all of the above to the = best of my ability, but never take myself too seriously. And if I fail in any of these lofty goals, well then... just shoot me. Err... well, only if I happen to be in America. If I'm in Europe... well, I guess you'll just have to beat me with a = stick. Jongiorgi Enos =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 1 Date: 02 May 2003 23:45:04 -0600 [MOD: Just to clarify, this post came in before Part 2 of Jongiorgi's message was posted, in which he disagrees somewhat more directly with Jacob's positions.] I snipped all of Jongiorgi's post because I think he's largely right in = his point. Which is interesting because at the end he says it is a response = (as in refutation) of stuff I've said. And that's more or less a pattern = with me for interesting reasons--i.e. people who disagree with me will say = stuff in their disagreement I almost entirely agree with. The reason is that there are two fundamentally different ways to discuss behaviors and actions. I tend to come at these discussions from a = highly philosophical stand-point. I like to talk in terms of principles and = ideas. When we discuss principles and ideas, we (of necessity) have to simplify complex and chaotic reality in order to discuss it at all. And I tend = to do so in a particularly "strong" (simplified) manner. I think that = principles are incredibly important because they help us understand the world and = our actions in it. But principles don't exist in a vacuum. Principles exist alongside = other principles and things get really messy when principles interact. In the humble-jumble of life, principles will interact in weird ways that are unpredictable. With dozens of important ideas to choose from, the interactions are mathematically unmanageable, let alone realistically so (particularly given unlimited mixing). Which brings me to the second = way to discuss behaviors and actions--the messy, complex, human way. Often = when discussing principles, an example will be given that shows another = principle that trumps the original one. Every principle (save one) is trumped by every other at some point and in certain circumstances. Teaching a = child obedience must bow to comforting displays of love and openness under = certain circumstances. These exceptions are important because we need to = remember that principles have no force until they're set into the real world with = all the chaotic interactions inherent there. And the wider point of being moderate in judgment is also important. = It's vital that we remain humble, teachable, and introspective. When dealing with people, it is important to recognize that *all* principles take a = back seat to an honest knowledge of Christ's love for that person and our fundamental inability to fully gauge all factors in that individual's = life (even when they are our children). Now, I'm a naturally confident guy, = and I'm pretty strict with the kids. But I've also had the experience of looking into my child's eyes (one sensitive in a way similar to = Jongiorgi's child) and seeing unreasoning fear there--a fear that short circuits everything else I may be doing or trying to accomplish. I hope that = anybody in such a situation will re-evaluate their actions and make some = important and needed change. And I desperately hope that Christ's atonement is = enough to repair the damage of such moments and make it possible to have a = loving and nurturing relationship. In short, I don't find it at all inconsistent to agree in the main with Jongiorgi even as I maintain that it is vitally important for us to = teach strong principles to our children and obedience to rules and our = covenants and agreements. Obviously, the example given is one where the situation required a different lesson be learned (by both parent and child). And similar events and examples can show other exceptions to a parent's requirement to teach with discipline. And I really want to hear those examples so that I can learn from the experiences of others. I just = don't see them as really disagreeing with my original point or the principle originally under discussion (which I believe was that we not be so open minded that our brains fall out, though Jongiorgi doesn't actually say). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Radio Programming Date: 03 May 2003 01:50:00 EDT Travis, Some years ago I got a wild idea to sell Book of Mormons for $10 each or whatever those to wom I sent it to thought it was worth. I asked the head of the Salt Lake City Church Distribution Center if I could do that. He thought I was somewhat silly for asking but said I could sell it for any amont I wanted to. I sent a copy to a bunch of Sudburys nationwide with a letter to send what they thought it was worth or pass it one to someone else as well as an explination aas to what it is. I was delighted to get paid a while later for two copies, $10 each. The idea was to get people to give it a fair read. Often on my mission when we gave it away for nothing that is how much they gave to reading of it. As for your radio show idea. I would just go for it. You know the old saying,"It is eaier to repent afterwards than to get permission". You might ask God what he thinks about it. Or follow the example of early missionaries. My partner and I did a half hour radio show called the Keystone Project Discussion on the Orem station KSTARR for about 6 months. It was great fun. We did it mainly to mainly to "raise the bar of private thinking and public discourse and conversation mainly as it relates to the Book of Mormon and our book The Keystone - The Day Alma Died. It was quite costly and a half hour was too short. And we felt and there was not any time for call-ins which would have made it even more fun. We thought about doing a short book review each week from other authors to help pay for the time, or even other businesses and such. But we have put the whole radio show on hold until we generate some more funds to coninue writing and publishing. Good luck. Or rather God Bless your efforts to "raise the bar". Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 03 May 2003 03:15:16 -0400 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > 1) That medium and message are radically separate. If they ever do touch > > each other, the interaction, like the interface between a tire's contact > > patches and the road, is extremely small. > >They are separate. An author's particular manifestation of a message >becomes intimately integrated with the medium the author chooses to >communicate in (unless he's a poor author), but the message could be >communicated in any number of media. Just take an idea and ask different >authors to write about it and see how radically different the stories >will be. It's this basic difference that's at the heart of our disagreement, I think. If you are right in the above statement, and the "message" of a work is the limit and end of literature, I don't see the point. At least, the reading experience (for me) is robbed of a great deal of its fun, its surprise, its pleasure, and ultimately its worth. At its best, literature is *not* solely about the message and how clearly it can be conveyed. Literary language (artful language) is not simply a medium; you're thus absolutely right when you say that it can't be profitably analogized as a car. Good literary writing is as much about the words themselves--how they sound, how they fit together and/or fly apart aurally and semantically--as it is about the message(s) they carry. You'd like to maintain a separation between the message and the medium. What if the message *is* the medium, or vice versa? You hint toward this yourself when you write that only a poor author fails to realize that there is something more than a message to good writing. I'm not saying, of course, that the message isn't important. But not more than the writing itself--be it simple or complex (or all these things combined). There are significant portions of our experience that cannot be adequately expressed in words. Maybe all our *thoughts* can, and if that's the realm of experience to which your writing is addressed, simple clarity is probably the best way. But I'd argue that you're then writing philosophy, not literature (though, yes, the two are not always inseparable). For those aspects of our experience that words can't quite reach, a different sort of approach is required. Though it's unfair of me to use this example without having read the entire work, the passage of your novel about Sheila's masturbation as you cited it on its own is a good example. You're absolutely right that there is no doubt *in my mind* as to what Sheila was doing. But the description, as clinically clear as it was, gave me no physical nor emotional sense of what she was feeling, of the corporal experience itself. The stuff that brings me back for a second read does so partly (oftener than not, even) because the writer's awareness of the fleshy, visceral meat of her words--in addition to or as a part of their cerebral appeal--helps me feel with Sheila, not just watch or contemplate her. Jongiorgi's example of the several ways of talking about the boy which you so summarily dismissed gets at this. If all you're concerned about is having the reader see the surface of what he did, but not involving me in the action--not in implicating me as the reader in the motivation behind it--the more elaborate sentence is worthless. But literature can be *so* much more than a description of action. Read Garcia Marquez's _One Hundred Years of Solitude_, Lezama Lima's _Paradiso_, Hesse's _Narcissus and Goldmund_, Saramago's _Blindness_, _The Song of Solomon_, or my sister's short stories. Even though these authors sometimes (my sister doesn't) take more than three sentences to describe a scene and I'm still not always sure *exactly* what's going on in a lot of empirical detail, I *feel* it. I like poetry, though, and you've stated categorically that you don't. You feel that your message is at the core of your literary experience, and I don't. We'll probably have to leave it at that. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 03 May 2003 01:13:56 -0600 On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 04:27 PM, Barbara Hume wrote: > At 12:21 PM 5/1/03 -0600, you wrote: >> Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? > > What about Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys? Yeah, and "Fascinating Womanhood?" Steve -- skperry@mac.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Membership on AML-List Date: 03 May 2003 07:48:59 -0700 Tony Markham wrote: > > David and (or) Dianna Graham wrote: > > > I'm not well-read on Mormon lit, so I can't comment on the quality thereof. > > I'm a slow reader and have tons of other artists to go through as well. > > Maybe that makes me unqualified for this list. Hmmm... > > Yikes! There's qualifications? Who knew???? > > Tony Markham > Hey, *I'm* here, and if there's a rank amateur among us, it's me. I came on this list wanting to learn, and boy, did I learn! The only qualifications I know of are the willnigness to be civil and a hunger to know more. Welcome! > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Miracles Date: 03 May 2003 09:30:07 -0600 >I've noticed an interesting thing in connection with miracles >I'm wondering >if others have also noticed in life or in literature. Miracles have no existence beyond that which we chose to give them by interpretation. We can chose to call an experience beyond our current understanding a miracle or a coincidence or, simply, an unexplained phenomenon. Miracles are completely subjective, or they wouldn't be miracles. If objective, then they have their explanation in reality as a mass delusion, or some other psychological phenomenon. My sainted grandmother, a Pentocostal, once claimed to have seen a man healed. "His foot became three inches longer right there in front of my eyes," she claimed. On further discussion, she hadn't actually seen his leg get longer, she hadn't measured it before and after, she had simply relied on the testimony of the person SAYING his leg was longer. I have never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 03 May 2003 10:46:58 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: >Shakespeare loved to invent words. His coinages >have greatly enriched the language, and of course, >coining new words was accepted cultural practice >in his day. It still is. That's why vernacular evolves so quickly, and even the French Academy can't stop it. For a new word to work well it must largely bubble out of the "collective semantic unconscious," so our typical reaction isn't "Huh?" but "Of course!" Like the astronomer who makes his calculations and concludes that there must be a new planet *here* and so points his telescope there, the wordsmith invents the word that we all knew had to be invented, but just didn't think of first. And not just French academicians get annoyed at this anarchic behavior. PM Koizumi recently sent out a memo to his staff complaining that official reports contained too many English "loan words," rather than their good, old Japanese counterparts. These are not simply imported English words, but words with English origins that have been transmogrified. Two examples: "sukin shippu" (skinship, or childrearing with frequent physical contact) and "mai buumu" (my boom, or a personal cause, private obsession). The flip side is that as fast as words get invented, they also change meanings or fall out of favor altogether. That's why annotated copies of Shakespeare (and the KJV) have so many footnotes, to catalog the extinct and fossilized remnants. A fun site that tracks recent inventions: http://www.logophilia.com/WordSpy ivan wolfe wrote: >People did not regularly speak in iambic pentameter >and blank verse. . . . when [the aliens] spoke in blank >verse, it seemed unnatural to the reader Actually, I often don't notice the iambic pentameter until I start counting syllables. I could not have sworn that "Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this sun of York" was blank verse without first counting on my fingers (and "glorious" is only two syallables). Though people obviously did not commonly speak that way, I suspect it was not a reach for the average, educated person. Returning to Japan, in medieval times a common way to pass the time among men and women of letters (basically, anybody who could read) was linked verse (renga). Basically, person one would begin with a fix-syllable haiku phrase, person two would have to "link" to that verse with a syllable/subject-appropriate line, and so on in round-robin fashion. Mastery of linked verse was also considered mandatory for lovers of any sophistication. I don't think it is a stretch to analogize rap to these poetic forms, in that the competent artist is expected to be able to produce a fixed, rhyming form "in real time." Also known as improvisation. Jazz. Ditto goes for the much discussed (in BOM studies) chiasmus. Many rhetorical forms, such as the lowly news story (television and newspaper), have set structures that we are largely unaware of, but that, for example, any veteran reporter could churn out without studied thought. [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 03 May 2003 12:21:38 -0600 Bill Willson wrote: > Surely there is someone out there in AML land who has the imagination and > scientific background to write a novel about an offbeat whacko scientist > that postulates the mathmatical proof of a real God, and in the > mathamatical, scientific world's rush to disprove it a brilliant student of > science and math actually finds a testimony that God does exist, and then > goes the second mile by actually converting his "Whacko" teacher to the > gospel, and baptizes him. Sounds like a fun book to write, but it would be hard. You'd have to actually come up with the mathematical proof and all the rebuttals for the book to be satisfying. I'm not to up to the task. -- 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] D. Michael's Film Lab 3: Twisted Time Lines Date: 03 May 2003 12:27:45 -0600 Annette Lyon wrote: > > Not that it may matter to anyone wanting to attend the film lab, but Sliding > Doors is rated PG-13, not R. I got the R rating off of the Internet Movie Database. But checking back, I notice that was the original rating, and there was a re-editing that changed it to PG-13. I can't promise you which rating we'll be seeing. It depends on which version ended up on DVD. I don't own the DVD and have yet to rent it, so I don't know which rating will show up. PG-13 sounds more reasonable for the version I saw on satellite TV. -- 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] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 03 May 2003 12:39:43 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > As I understand it, each discipline has a 'group leader' person, who selects the ten artists from that discipline who come. My theatre guy is Marvin Payne. In Lit, I think it's Kristen Randle. So you'd need to sleep with Kristen, assuming Guy doesn't object. Well, let's bring back the Mormon Arts Festival again so everybody can come. Those blankety-blank artists, what elitist snobs! -- 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: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Genesis Group June 8 Event Date: 03 May 2003 13:14:10 -0600 Tickets to the June 8th event sponsored by Genesis are free and will be available May 13. You can go to the Church website (Ldschurch.org) and look under events for more information. June 8th is the 25th anniversary of the priesthood revelation. We have titled the event "The Long Promised Day." Gladys Knight will conduct her "Saints Unified Voices" choir. I'm not sure what else will be on the program, but we anticipate that we will fill the tabernacle. If any of you has a media contact (beyond local), please get in touch with me personally to help publicize the event. (Margaret_Young@byu.edu) ________________ 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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 03 May 2003 13:26:56 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Monica and Chandler are trying to have a baby. She comes in and asks him if > he has any plans for that night, and trying to be funny and sexy, he gets a > look in his eye, melodramatically sweeps everything on the kitchen table off > onto the floor, and then gestures at the table with a suggestive expression. > > Monica (a confirmed neat freak), says: "You're trying to turn me on by > making a mess?... KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!" There are those of us who postulate the existence of an audience out there who doesn't know it exists yet. The ones that Deseret Book's ad campaign targets ("What's important to you is important to us") are not that audience. What remains to be demonstrated is how big is that audience and how do we effectively reach and cultivate it? > Mormon horror seems by definition an impossible sell. I have to assume the audience exists. While I still maintain that _Brother Brigham_ is really not a horror story, it's true that the amount of stories I have in me, of any genre, that would please Deseret Book and their safe-seeking customers is small. This postulated audience _must_ exist or I will not be an LDS author. One of those two statements is true. But I do not consider merely the active, temple-recommend-holding, orthodox Mormon community to be the only resource for developing an audience. There are a bunch of inactive Mormons, unorthodox Mormons, cultural Mormons, disaffected Mormons, ex-Mormons, and never-been-Mormons who are intrigued by the culture. I consider them as much of a potential audience as the orthodox Mormons. (I'll take anybody's money.) Deseret Book fiction isn't likely to speak to very many of these people, but they deserve to have their own fiction. > What if you horrify (in a bad way) > and thereby alienate a significant portion of the core audience who bought > you because they were expecting a "safe" LDS story? You could really kill > yourself from a commercial standpoint. I don't consider them my core audience. I scorn that audience. (Not because I really scorn them, but because I'm psyching myself up for the flak I'm going to get from them). > A dilemma, a dilemma. I don't know where I stand. But I do know that I edit > and/or target my work, and that that limits what I "can" and "cannot" do for > the LDS market. Maybe I'm a scardy-cat, but I don't have a lot of time, and > I want my work to sell. So I could never do Mormon Horror. But that's just > me. There are two approaches to "growing" the LDS market. The one that everyone seems to be attempting is envelope-pushing. I don't believe in it. It's slow, fearful, empowers attitudes toward art and morality that I personally disagree with, and satisfies no audience. The orthodox are offended, the unorthodox uninterested. The other approach is to boldly go where no Mormon artist has gone before. To ignore the orthodox audience and aim for the postulated audience that is hungry for meat over milk. Boldy, unapologetically, even obnoxiously. Plan on offending the hell out of Deseret Book's customers. Use that as the marketing strategy. Dismiss the reasoning behind the inevitable complaints with disdain. Stand there with a smirk on your face when someone calls you to repentance. Because you know that every bit of your art is faithful to the gospel. The world is hungry for leaders, and that's what this approach would be. -- 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: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 03 May 2003 14:59:06 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > "I found this book a bit disappointing in that I didn't think the prose style > was up to Anita's usual standard--it seemed to me that she might have pulled > out an earlier work that would sell now because of her name value. >From what I've heard, Barbara is right. This book was one Anita had written years earlier for the national market, but she didn't find a publisher there. When she had a late pregnancy a few years ago, Anita needed some time off from creating and brought out this book for rewrites. Covenant decided to publish them, even though they weren't originally intended for the LDS audience, because they tied into her other popular series books. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Radio Programming Date: 03 May 2003 16:39:54 -0600 At 11:54 PM 5/1/03 -0700, you wrote: >. I don't necessarily want to approach the Church's >PR machine, i.e. speak with the Public Affairs' national radio person, Kim >Farah, and have her tell me what I can and can't do. On the other hand, >perhaps the Church's Public Affairs dept. could give me some good advice. >Or should I just go for it.... First it might be a good idea to do some market research to see whether there's an audience for the kind of show you want to do. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 03 May 2003 16:24:08 -0500 At 04:57 PM 5/2/03 -0700, Jongiorgi Enos wrote: >A dilemma, a dilemma. I don't know where I stand. But I do know that I edit >and/or target my work, and that that limits what I "can" and "cannot" do= for >the LDS market. Maybe I'm a scardy-cat, but I don't have a lot of time, and >I want my work to sell. So I could never do Mormon Horror. But that's just >me. I wasn't sure how much I could safely snip, so I didn't snip any. [MOD: But I did.] However,= =20 the main point I want to address is summarized in the last=20 paragraph. Which should be the primary goal of a writer: to tell the=20 story s/he has to tell, perhaps _needs_ to tell, or to make a living out of= =20 one's writing? Granted, every writer wishes s/he can do both with=20 everything s/he writes, but if that is not possible, which should take=20 priority? (I'll wait for responses before saying any more on this topic.) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam=85 God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 03 May 2003 17:05:01 -0600 Amelia, >I said, "Millennium Approaches from Angels in America was dirt to me for a few reasons. Well crafted dirt, but still dirt in my eyes." I knew that I'd hit some nerves with that line, and I probably shouldn't have said that. It was inappropriate for me to word it that way, and for that I apologize. In the context of my argument, though, it was an example that fit. I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended to be any kind of authority on the play. I only read Millenium Approaches. I considered reading Perestroika (sp?), but I decided not to. Why did I dismiss it as dirt (and why do I still feel the need to dismiss it)? First, I have to explain why I didn't read the second one. The fact that I have this habit of coming on the list and playing Jiminy Cricket is evidence of what a hypocrite I really can be. As I've said, some of my favorite works have questionable material in them. Still, like you and probably everyone else on this list, I feel so strongly about certain principles of the gospel that if/when someone posts something that seems to even superficially contradict them, I want to fight for and defend those principles tooth and nail. Not with all disregard to reason, hopefully. I am slow to arrive at decisions, however, and I take so much time to weigh things out in my mind that once I hit the decision, I tend to really stick with it. So, if someone says that R-rated films or books or plays with similar content are not spiritually dangerous at all, it's almost impossible for me to not retort, "I felt that way once, and this is why I feel differently now." It's that selfish need of mine to be understood, or perhaps I'm presumptuous and I think that one of my life's missions is to teach. I know not. Here's the skinny on why I didn't read Perestroika, though. (You are probably saying, "I can already figure that out.") I don't need anything else I do to expose what a hypocrite I am. If, after reading Millenium Approaches and having a good sense of what Perestroika's content would be like, I said, "But I need to take the whole journey..." etc., then I'd be a hypocrite. Millenium Approaches is easily rated-R, and I'd be surprised if Perestroika were very different, regardless of the message and the craft of the writing. (Obviously, I have a strange infatuation with the word "craft," and for that too I apologize). So, my experience with Angels in America is certainly incomplete, and you have a much deeper understanding of it than I do. But was it well written? I thought so, pretty much. Were his characters real? Definitely. At first I wanted to say, as a good friend of mine commented, "the Mormons were so two dimensional." The way they spoke of their religion was evidence of what really seemed like a purely cultural understanding of the faith. (Harper's line to Louis on the phone about his drinking - "That's a sin." - I almost laughed out loud). I couldn't help but sit there and compare my understanding of the church to the little that was revealed of theirs. Louis sounded like he thought that Mormonism taught that you were supposed to punish yourself for your imperfections - that everyday you were supposed to be more and more perfect, or you were definitely a bad person. Also, he seemed to talk about dysfunctional families, addiction, etc., as these skeletons the church says we're supposed to keep in our closets or something, like they are deep darks secret in the church. (Now, mind you, I know that these things really do happen at times in Mormon culture, and these were just my initial reactions). I didn't just cringe at the language and very nicely worded stage directions describing the two men having sex in the park. I cringed to think that audiences full of individuals, many of which likely knew very little about our religion and it's teachings, were going to sit and sympathize with this poor suffering man who was feeling that his religion was oppressing him. All I could think was, "If you're not building the kingdom in some way, you're tearing it down." While I don't really think that's completely true, and Tony Kushner could probably care less what I would think, I can't fight believing that at least a little bit. Let's pretend this play were written by Eric. If he produced it, I'd like to believe that it would done at Orem Center Stage for a mostly Mormon audience. I would probably go, and then I'd yell at Eric for the yucky content. But seriously, looking at the story, I might love it, because I like Mormon plays that confront Mormon audiences. We are forced to learn. But we are Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our beliefs are not on trial. Our human foibles, our weaknesses, our sins of commission and omission are on trial. A cleaner version of Angels in America (I'm just guessing) would probably disturb and offend and, hopefully, teach. But this wasn't Eric, who I just worship a little too much. This was a stranger to me, a man who probably thought that my religion was a sham and a prison. So, there it was ruined for me. Now, the above statements are not legitimate arguments against the piece. Rather, they're just reactions. Stepping back, I could listen to your arguments and appreciate them. If my desire to understand it and my belief that the journey would be worth it was strong enough, I might have read the second play and then reread them again and again. As I've snootily said before, though, the world's library of works is just too big for me to feel a loss at abandoning this venture. It wasn't worth it to me. Now, I have to ask this question. You know and love this piece, and this is probably an unfair question. But how good can something be if you have to keep rereading it to really see the morality in it? Most great works improve upon revisiting, yes. But, a play that is so offensive doesn't really invite you come back. That remains to be my biggest qualm with it. Thom, Scott, and I talked a little about it once, and I kept saying (probably much to their annoyance), "Well, I bet's it really powerful to watch." Well, Deep Impact is kind of powerful to watch if you're in the right mood. I can't watch it without crying my eyes out. But, Deep Impact is SO very dreadfully done that I could cry that Morgan Freeman doesn't get a better agent. Angels in America is light years better than Deep Impact. So, it's a slightly unfair comparison. But, really, plays and screenplays are to be seen at least as much as they are to be read. I'm not sure if I could've stomached seeing it performed, no matter how brilliant the acting or staging might be. I would almost say that it's an unfair representation if the acting is just brilliant, because that might actually make me like it better than I should. (How many horrible scripts do great actors tend to make look really good?) I know that I don't sound it, but I really do try to stay open to things I read and see. (I sat all the way through Beloved unfortunately). But, after a thoughtful reading (and a desire to connect with the many artists who lauded these pieces and showered them with Tonys when they were produced in New York), I couldn't look at it and say, "Well, that was, despite my expectations, a good play." Maybe the dialogue was completely true to real-life (it probably was), but I had to keep numbing myself to take any of it in. I thought that some of the language was just plain sensational, exhilarating, but not necessary. And I don't think that it's ever necessary to simulate sex on stage or in film (or describe it in books). I think it's fine to refer to it, but please don't make me watch that (or imagine it). So, that's it. The content was my biggest qualm with it. Also, the characters were extremely difficult to sympathize with at all, except for Prior, and his visions were the part that made me most uncomfortable. Kushner may not have taken it lightly, but it still seemed unfair that I was supposed to ignore the fact that some of the phrases were directly quoted from actual revelation to a real prophet. But, to go on and read the second play to get the point of Prior's visions would have been masochism to me. I also understand that there's a part in Perestroika where they discuss the garment. This comment really belongs on the temple thread, but I really do believe in my heart that there are some things that literature and film just don't deserve to play around with. The arts, glorious that they are, reach me best when the mundane is used to teach sacred truths, not the reverse. This statement may not really be applicable to Kushner's use of revelation, etc., but, well, at least that sounded really good to me just now. I can appreciate that the piece, with thorough exploration and consideration, may be very moral in it's message. But, and I don't mean to repeat myself so much, it just didn't seem worth wading through the content to get to the theme. Confront me, yes, but don't rape me and brutalize me. Respectfully, Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 03 May 2003 21:01:56 -0500 This work is very much worth discussing, and it's been several years since it's been discussed on AML-List. I read the plays recently, and actually had a rather grandiose plan of reviewing them for AML-List (and possibly for Irreantum), but the realities of end-of-the-semester have pushed this endeavor back until at least June. I guess what I'm doing right now is signalling my interest in discussing this, and my belief that this is a good thing to discuss here (wearing temporarily my moderator hat), but my current inability to take part in the discussion as I would wish... Jonathan jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 03 May 2003 20:27:40 -0600 Barbara, you are right. And I've read that...sheepish me. It has the supernatural and the slowly building suspense...although it seemed to be forgettable to me. 'Course, I am getting old...er...by the minute. Anytime now I'll turn into a grandma. Kim Madsen -----Original Message----- What about Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys? barbara -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Internation Mormon Lit? Date: 03 May 2003 21:13:34 -0700 Then you've got people like myself, who are writing, and hoping one day to get published, novels, histories, short stories, essays. In fact this group has given me an idea for a Historical Novel which requires reading a History of the Church in Australia, written by the wife of a Bishop I knew, Marjorie Kneale. I have a lot of work, some serious tragedies in that experience. ************************* Clifford, _Irreantum_ magazine would love to see copies of your work. I'm partial to essays as I edit them, but we would love for any and all AML-listers, or other Mormon authors, or authors writing about Mormonism in some way, to submit their best work. Often with essays, I don't mind receiving works in progress, and in fact enjoy working through drafts with potential pieces for publication. So keep _Irreantum_ in mind for publication options. It really is an excellent literary journal. We only accept submissions online at irreantum2@cs.com. Travis Manning Irreantum Essay editor Manning_Travis@hotmail.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: [AML] Does Intent Matter? (was: _Chicago_) Date: 04 May 2003 23:16:41 +0900 I was on vacation when the whole CHICAGO thread started, and rather that sorting through all my old e-mail, I took the lazy way out and deleted everything I missed and started afresh (coming back to >400 messages was just too much). However, I was very interested in what I read of the discussion of CHICAGO, particularly the following: Susan Malmrose: "I don't know how we missed the satire, but we did. I usually find satire funny. This I found appalling. Nothing funny about it anywhere." Richard Dutcher: "I would argue that satire is not exclusively a tool for comedy. You were supposed to be appalled." This continued on as a discussion about whether or not CHICAGO was more about celebrating our debauchery and sinfulness than about anything else, or if by being appalled we (the audience) are supposed to reject the behaviour presented to us. (sorry, I'm summarizing having accidentally deleted the string; and still too lazy to sort through the archives) All of the discussion leads me to ask the following question (and I apologize if this has been discussed before): Does intent of the author/playwright/screenwriter/director/producer even matter when it comes to interpreting the "message" of an artistic endeavor? It is my belief that it doesn't. What matters is the message and interpretation the audience gives to the work. That is why Jongiorgi's recent quotation from "Friends" is so important. "Know your audience." If your audience is disaffected Christians and anti-religious types, then maybe "Piss Christ" will be interpreted the way you intend, but if your audience is active believing Christians (of any faith) then with a crucifix in a bottle of urine or a picture of the Madonna made out of dung your intended message is not likely one that will find resonance. I recently read the book _Jarhead_ by Anthony Swofford, which is his "memoir" of being a USMC sniper during the Gulf War. In it he talks about the intended message of Vietnam war movies. I am quoting him extensively here, and have ***'d out the more offensive vulgarities. He is speaking of when he and his unit first learned they would be going to the Gulf, and what their response was like. The first paragraph is important to understand his mindset for what he goes on to say. "Then we send a few guys downtown to rent all of the war movies they can get their hands on. They also buy a hell of a lot of beer. For three days we sit in our rec room and drink all of the beer and watch all of the damn movies, and we yell "Semper Fi" and we head-butt and beat the crap out of each other and we get off on the various visions of carnage and violence and deceit, the raping and killing and pillaging. We concentrate on the Vietnam films because it's the most recent war, and the successes and failures of that war helped write our training manuals. We rewind and review famous scenes, such as Robert Duvall and his helicopter gunships during _Apocalypse Now_, and in the same film Martin Sheen floating up the fake Vietnamese Congo; we watch Willem Dafoe get shot by a friendly and left on the battlefield in _Platoon_; and we listen closely as Matthew Modine [reportedly raised a Mormon, so there's my tie to Mormon Arts :)] talks trash to a streetwalker in _Full Metal Jacket_. We watch again the ragged, tired, burnt-out fighters walking through the villes and the pretty native women smiling because if they don't smile, the fighters might kill their pigs or burn their cache of rice. We rewind the rape scenes when American soldiers return from the bush after killing many VC to sip cool beers in a thatch bar while whores sit on their laps for a song or two (a song from the fifties when America was still sweet) before they retire to rooms and f*** the whores sweetly. The American boys, brutal, young farm boys or tough city boys, sweetly f*** the whores. Yes, somehow the films convince us that these boys are sweet, even though we know we are much like these boys and the we are no longer sweet. "There is talk that many Vietnam films are antiwar, that the message is war is inhumane and look what happens when you train young American men to fight and kill, they turn their fighting and killing everywhere, they ignore their targets and desecrate the entire country, shooting fully automatic, forgetting they were trained to aim. But actually, Vietnam war films are all pro-war, no matter what the supposed message, what Kubrick or Coppola or Stone intended. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in Omaha or San Francisco or Manhattan will watch the films and weep and decide once and for all that war is inhumane and terrible, and they will tell their friends at church and their family this, but Corporal Johnson at Camp Pendleton and Sergeant Johnson at Travis Air Force Base and Seaman Johnson at Coronado Naval Station and Spec 4 Johnson at Fort Bragg and Lance Corporal Swofford at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base watch the same films and are excited by them, because the magic brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of their fighting skills. Fight, rape, war, pillage, burn. Filmic images of death and carnage are pornography for the military man; with film you are stroking his cock, tickling his balls with the pink feather of history, getting him ready for his real First F***. It doesn't matter how many Mr. and Mrs. Johnsons are antiwar--the actual killers who know how to use the weapons are not." (Anthony Swofford, _Jarhead_, pp 4-7, copyright 2003 by Anthony Swofford) Having never seen _Chicago_, I can't speak from experience, but while Richard says we're supposed to be appalled by the behaviour we see, it doesn't really matter that the playwright intended us to be appalled, if this was really his intention. In our current American Culture most people will see this and say, "That looks like it would have been a great time to live." Just like the average 19 year old marine sees _Platoon_ and sees his life and training glorified. It doesn't matter if Richard Paul Evans' intent was to tell a beautiful love story, the message that some will get is that adultery is OK and there are no real consequences to it. It doesn't matter if the future Mel Gibson movie about the life of Christ is intended to be uplifting and a testament to Him. What will matter to many is how religious leaders of different faiths interpret it, and how they give "their message" of it to their followers. It doesn't matter if the teletubbies are intended to be good clean fun for pre-school age children, some will interpret a purple clad male with a purse, and named tinky-winky, as promoting the "homosexual lifestyle." However, Amelia Parkin spoke briefly in a separate post, that she came to a greater appreciation of _Angels in America_ after coming to a better understanding of Kushner's intent. And others have said similar things over the months I have lurked/semi-participated. So, with that I come back to my original question, does the intended message of a work of art make one iota of difference after that art as been released for public consumption? And I don't mean in a large socio-political view (i.e. boycotting Mel Gibson or the teletubbies, protesting and outlawing the showing of "Piss Christ," or not selling/distributing a book). As a consumer of art, should I be concerned with the intended message, or is it more important for me to explore my reaction to it? I believe the latter is ultimately more personally fulfilling. Rather than asking how I was supposed to feel after partaking, it is more interesting to discover what I felt and why I felt that way, and to what capacity my beliefs and/or actions will change (or not) afterwards. Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Kari Heber Date: 04 May 2003 23:16:42 +0900 After having contributed my longest post to date, and waiting to see if it will come back to me for editing, I figured I had best finally introduce myself. This is always the awkward moment in any relationship, and I really prefer to have others introduce me. My brief history: I was born in SLC and moved to southern Idaho at age 9. Stayed there through high school and then 2 years at Ricks College (I refuse to call it anything else, it's bad enough to say I went to Ricks, but the new name brings even more shame). I served a mission to Great Britain, serving a year in England and a year in north Wales. I think this explains my love of things British, although most who know me would say that I was fairly anglophilic before then (despite being primarily of Scandinavian descent). In true British fashion I really do prefer to be introduced to new people, and will often not speak with people to whom I haven't been introduced. Sad, but true. Not that I purposely shun them, it's just that we've not been introduced. After returning home I went to school at the University of Washington in Seattle (my parents now live in Everett). It was there I met my wife at, of all places, a church dance. (And yes, we had to be introduced!) I then went to medical school and joined the US Navy, and am now serving off my period of indentured servitude having allowed them to pay my way through school and residency. My wife Betsey and I now live in Okinawa, Japan. My wife and I have two children; Caitlin who is soon to be 9, and Dylan who is soon to be 7. (How's that for British, well actually Welsh, names?) We are currently planning on being here for one more year and then moving on back to the Pacific Northwest to work at the hospital in Bremerton, WA (still in the Navy, since they own me until 2008). My ties to Mormon Arts? I am Mormon, and I love to read and watch movies. I consider myself a consumer of others' hard work, having no inclination or talent to attempt to produce movies or literature myself. I tend to ask more questions than I answer, which I hope you all won't find too annoying. And as I have lurked, I have come to realize that not living "west of the Rockies" since 1993, I haven't particularly kept up with lds-themed artistic endeavors. Believe it or not, I hadn't even heard of "Gods Army" until last year (sorry, Richard). I have found this list to be a great way to remain informed, and will continue to lurk and occasionally contribute. Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 04 May 2003 11:46:41 -0600 On Fri, 02 May 2003 01:11:53 -0400 "Amelia Parkin" writes: > i believe that with a close reading, a reader begins to understand > things that an audience never will because of the innate > differences between the experience of watching a play and > reading a play Keep in mind that I am a playwright, an actor and a director of plays and so my comments are colored in a way that may not make sense or seem valid in a scholarly discussion, but, here is the flippant remark to Amelia's comment: So what? As an interdisciplinarian of theatre my deepest held belief is that, for the audience, the distinction between a performance of a play and a careful reading of it does not exist. The vast majority of the audience will NEVER read the play, carefully or otherwise. Never. As far as I'm concerned, it is the playwright's responsibility to ensure that whatever "message" may be contained in the play should be accessible to the artists who will interpret it for the audience. And accessible in such a way that even if the interpreters are not the most gifted practitioners of the field, the "message" will, nonetheless, make some kind of an appearance. If it is indeed impossible for ANY performance of a given play to communicate the deepest meaning of the play, then the playwright has failed. Shakespeare has not survived four hundred years because we were all forced to read him at school. His plays endure because something happens -- a kind of communication that transcends time and place -- between the audience and the playwright through the labors of the interpreters that cannot occur any other way. If the interpreters are masters of their craft, this understanding can occur on ONE viewing of the play; it will not require multiple in depth readings with additional supplementary research. Now, I make no specific judgements about "Angels in America" on this score. I have never seen a production, I have only read the plays ... once. I am not opposed to seeing them; in fact, I will probably try to if ever the opportunity is presented. My first impression on a single reading is this: Kushner is more concerned with the politics of sexuality in America than anything else. I do not share the view that sexuality must be a legislative concern. I am open to the notion that a VIEWING of the play may remove it from a political realm for me and bring it into a new light. Scott Bronson "We do not love better by reaching for perfection. We approach perfection by loving better." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 May 2003 20:20:51 EDT LOST BOYS wasn't sold to a Mormon audience, though it had many "Mormon" ideas. I gave it to a couple of my LDS firends on and they wouldn't go beyond the first chapter because, "I can't stand awful things happening to children." Cathryn Lane -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] RE: Mormon Horror Date: 05 May 2003 07:21:18 +0000 Kim Madsen wrote: Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? Cooper, David Brandt (a pseudonym) "Beyound a Certain Point" A short story in _In Our Lovely Deseret: Mormon Fictions_, edited by Robert Raleigh. Signature, 1998. A pretty creepy story, about a woman who slowly realizes that a party held by the popular young couples in the ward is a spouse-swaping event. I thought it seemed like a kind of Mormon horror, and it worked pretty well, it was one of the better stories is this pretty mediocre anthology. The story by Brian Evenson in this same collection, about a Mormon fundamentalist who tries to dig up Ezra Taft Benson's grave, may have been creepy, but there was no sense of "horror". He certainly can write horror stories, however, very literate ones. I've only really read Altmann's Tounge and a couple other stories, none of which had Mormon themes. I haven't read his stories which include Mormon themes, which are: _Prophets and Brothers_. Rodent Press, 1997. A collection of stories, several of which had appeared in Dialogue. _Father of Lies_. Four Walls Eight Windows, 1998. A novel about a pedophile bishop. _Dark Property_. Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002. A novel set in an apocolyptic future, with a religious cult with some resemblences to the Mormon Church. Someone mentioned OS Card's Lost Boys. He also did a couple of horror novels in the mid-90s, The Treasure Box and Homebody. Neither was particuarly horrific, and I thought they were among his weakest novels. He did several horror short stories early on, which are collected in: _The Changed Man_ Tor, 1992. Not all of them are really horror, but several are. I still remember "Fat Farm" pretty well. The original short story of Lost Boys is also in this collection. Hey, those were great stories, I should read them again. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail 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: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 05 May 2003 11:03:31 -0600 Quoting Barbara Hume : > At 04:20 PM 4/30/03 -0600, you wrote: > >Stansfield, Anita. _The Gable Faces East_. Covenant, 1999, 499 pp, $14.95. > >Reviewed by Katie Parker > I found this book a bit disappointing in that I didn't think the prose > style was up to Anita's usual standard--it seemed to me that she might have > pulled out an earlier work that would sell now because of her name value. This may actually be the case. At the end Stansfield's _For Love Alone_, which was published just before _The Gable Faces East_, there is a note from her to her readers which says in part: "For many years I wrote...historical romantic stories...I had written several of these books before I ever considered writing an LDS novel...I am now going back in time. For those of you who have followed my stories since Michael Hamilton first left Australia to go to BYU, you'll recall him mentioning certain tidbits about his grandparents and great- grandparents. In truth, I created those characters long before I created Michael. Of course, they're not Mormons. My hope is that these books will branch out to a broader audience..." (238) Anyway, it sounds to me like this is something that she wrote earlier. > On the other hand, I thought it stronger than most LDS fiction of this > nature because the characters seemed more like people and less like Object > Lessons. True. > I objected to some of the same things Katie did, although I take exception > to her saying that the characters shouldn't have had certain feelings. One > does not simply decide to have or not to have a feeling, especially in > terms of wanting to have a person. I tend to think that feelings themselves > are not wrong, but you can do wrong things in an attempt to satisfy them. I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're referring to the kissing scenes, I don't think that those feelings are wrong, either. I just thought that they were a bit racy for many who read LDS fiction because it's "clean," or for young adults who read these books because they're "safe." > I disliked two things about the book: the way that Jess treated Alexa, > expecting her to put her life on hold indefinitely while he figured things > out without confiding in her, and the way the writer used Richard as a plot > device, first to separate Jess and Alexa in order to have conflict, and > second to kill him off when it was convenient to put Jess and Alexa back > together. Richard was an appealing character--a truly good man--and his > creator treated him most shabbily! As for the physical attraction the > characters had for each other, that's perfectly normal and natural, and it > annoys me that Mormon readers seem to think that it isn't. As you've guessed, it bothered me more that Alexa treated Jess the way she did. This crisis, as well as Richard's death, all seemed contrived to me. But Richard was without guile. He was a good man. But only destined to be a plot device. > Especially since that's one main reason it's hard to tell a true story in > the Mormon venue: the expectation for characters to behave like people in a > church video, in which dressed-up, smiling children listen attentively to a > scriptural recitation during Family Home Evening without squirming, > giggling, scowling, slumping, belching, whining, cutting their eyes toward > the television, demanding that the cookies be served now, or punching their > siblings. What bothered me most was not that the characters were human and imperfect, but that everything they did was made to be "right." It was right for Alexa to betray Jess and marry Richard, it was God's will that Richard die at that time (conveniently so that Jess and Alexa could reunite). I mentioned my feelings in much fewer words on the LDS FictionReader's list, and several people responded kindly and said that they love all of Anita Stansfield's books; they're so faith promoting, etc. So maybe I'm the only person this has rubbed wrong. I admit that I'm sensitive in this area. I just critiqued a manuscript where a girl gets engaged to a missionary and then starts dating someone else because the missionary wanted her to date and have fun. This bugged me, too. But apparently a lot of other people aren't bugged by this sort of thing. Like I said in my review, no one complained about this in any of the seventeen reviews of _The Gable Faces East_ on the DB website. But this is what scares me most about it: Suppose that this kind of behavior really is wrong. But Anita Stansfield has clearly labeled it as "right," and some readers have clearly labeled her books as "faith promoting." What, then, will they think about this behavior? They'll probably think it's right, too. Anita Stansfield (or any other "faith-promoting" author) could potentially put all kinds of terrible behavior in her books, convincingly portray it as right, have her characters feel the Spirit, and her audience would still come out uplifted and thinking they've learned something good. (Though I do hope that most readers have more sense.) Scary, isn't it? --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ben@parkinsonfamily.org Subject: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 05 May 2003 11:32:55 -0600 (MDT) I've been publishing a series of family histories and have been worrying about their durability. Hard bindings are so expensive for limited editions, I've begun to wonder whether it wouldn't be worth learning the craft as the only economical way to get it done. Can anyone recommend a good book or web-based guide to bookbinding (or other resources)? What about courses or workshops? (I live in Ogden, Utah.) Ben Parkinson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 05 May 2003 11:51:35 -0600 ___ Jongiorgi ___ | Mormon horror seems by definition an impossible sell. ___ Although Orson Scott Card has done a fairly good job selling it. Perhaps the problem is trying to sell it to a purely Mormon audience. (i.e. selling only through Deseret Books or Seagull) I think that there is an open field for Mormon horror. In a way our cosmology and mythology is much more ripe for such literature than even Catholicism. (And you'll note that Catholicism disproportionately is represented in horror) I'm sure that if someone was to visit the folk story collection at BYU they'd find that a disproportionate number of such folk tales are basically horror stories. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] re: In Defense of Obscurity Date: 05 May 2003 12:23:28 -0600 ___ Eugene ___ | But not because Shakespeare himself used obscure language. | Quite to the contrary, he wrote in the vernacular to the | time. Shakespeare became obscure because of the inevitable | evolution of the language. This explains why Shakespeare | is often more "difficult" than the more formal language of | the KJV--vernacular evolves much faster. | ___ Ivan ___ | That's only oartly true - People did not regularly speak in | iambic pentameter and blank verse. ___ But they did often *write* and *recite* in such forms. Thus it was a very common feature from the Renaissance up to the modern era. It is more "alien" to us because our media glut means we don't read and memorize poetry to the extent people once did. Further poetry has "opened" up in forms. What popular forms of poetry the average person encounters today are found in music and is a much simpler form. (This isn't to knock rap, but let's face it - as poetry it is typically very simple in form and structure) Blank verse still is around. David Mamet, for instance, uses it a fair bit. And that is in relatively mainstream films. Of course I *wish* I could write in iambic pentameter at will. And some people do seem to naturally speak poetically. I've met them before. Not necessarily blank verse - although I suspect some form of it is common to them. But you are right. The focus that started in the Renaissance of "speaking well" is now a relatively lost art. ___ Eugene ___ | Ironically, part of Shakespeare's current respectability is | because the obscurity of the language has hidden much of | the bawdy humor and outright vulgarities from modern eyes. ___ Funny story. My friend at BYU had to memorize something like 30 passages from Shakespeare for his Shakespeare class. They were to be from some list of plays they'd studied. He memorized all the bawdy lines just to shock the class. Some of them were actually pretty funny. ___ Michael ___ | The parables of Jesus are loaded with many levels of understanding, | but they are conveyed (the medium, the vehicle) in very simple | language and images. I'm all for complexity, even obscurity, in | concepts. Just not in the medium. ___ I've been teaching Sunday School the past month, and I've taught just that point - trying to bring out to a relatively uninformed audience the layers within simple parables. (And to explain why Jesus seems to obscure when his answers are compared to his questions) Yes the parables are simple and offer simple meanings, but offer deeper and deeper layers depending upon who heard them. They are very interesting texts to analyze as literature - doubly so since the literary analysis opens up religious meaning. Having said that though, not all scriptures are unobscure in medium. Consider the genre of apocalyptic literature. There are few mediums more obscure. Yet it is a genre I love. (And if you get Charlesworth's _Old Testament Apocalypse and Pseudopigrapha_ you can read many more examples) There are many obscure styles in the scriptures. I think there is a reason for this tied to his "information hiding" and how such "encryption" forces us to rely on the spirit. But that's a different topic. ___ Michael ___ | Isaiah was written in Nephi's native language, using cultural | imagery familiar to him. ... Everyone feels spiritually | embarrassed when Nephi says Isaiah is clear to him, and we | don't get it at all. But it isn't necessarily spiritual | insight we are lacking--it's the cultural and linguistic | barriers that are filtering his clear words to us. ___ That's true - however part of that was that the cultural imagery was complex. Jacob even condemns the Jews because of this. ...the Jews were stiffnecked people, and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things they could not understand. Wherefore, because their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall, for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble. (Jacob 4:14) I think this a subtle commentary on Isaiah 28 myself. And certainly it doesn't praise such obscure language. It does explain, I think, why God did it. But I think these things are obscure to *hide* the truths of the gospel from those not prepared for it. And, as such things go, you only see those things in the texts *after* you've been taught it clearly elsewhere. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 05 May 2003 12:52:44 -0600 Kim Madsen wrote: >You have really >piqued my curiosity. To what "research" can you be referring? Well, I better say this pretty quickly. I have never been to the = Mustang Ranch. I have never conducted any research into prostitution = myself. There have been a couple of interesting sociological studies of = legalized prostitution. The book that originally piqued my curiosity = was a book called Brothel: The Mustang Ranch and its Women, by one Alexa = Albert. Interesting sociological study of the place. That book led me = to a couple of others which I can't remember right now, which led in = turn to some time talking to two LDS psychologists who work with women = involved in the sex industry. They couldn't tell me any names, of = course, but they confirmed my research. =20 Quite a bit of research, then, for a ten minute play. But that's what = we do, we writers, right? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 1 Date: 05 May 2003 14:11:51 -0500 Great story by Jon--one I wish I couldn't relate to so well. I'm looking forward to part 2. But here's my thought. As soon as I read it, of course my reaction was to forward it to my husband (hint, hint honey) and then I started thinking about how easy it would be for that story to get clipped and pasted and forwarded all over the internet. Just clip off the end of the post and add a paragraph at the bottom that says something like, "Forward this message to ten people you love. You can choose to read this and show your commitment to becoming a better parent or you can just push delete." It's just the kind of story one of my dear relatives would forward under the subject line "This is great! Very Important! Do not Delete!" Minus the asshole part, probably (depending on the relative). That might be what saves you from being plagiarized with abandon. Lisa Tait ----- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] RE: Does Intent Matter? (was: Temple in Literature) Date: 05 May 2003 14:22:35 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | I'm sure there _are_ artists who have little regard for the | sacred, but they are uninteresting to discuss at the moment. | I'm talking about artists who are trying to be faithful to | the gospel, but are condemned anyway because someone didn't | like what they did. ___ This seems to get to the heart of the matter. At what point do intents count more than what is done? We have two competing traditions. In the one, we recognize that we are to judge according to the desires of ones heart. In the other we recognize that we are judged according to our *works*. Summed up, we have the old maxim, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I think some artists wish to be judged according to their intents and can't understand when people judge them according to their works. Further they face the fact that *works* are interpreted according to the norms of the community you live it. I could proceed with a long linguistic explanation of why this must be so. But I've done that all too often in the past here. So let me just say that any artist who is producing *public* art has to recognize the *public* meaning of what they produce. If you aren't writing public art, then the rules are different. If you are writing public art then you had better be aware of your public. . . I rather liked Jongiorgi's analogy from Friends in this regard. Know your audience. ___ Michael ___ | Often the analogy of a plumber or electrician is evoked. What | church leader would dictate to these professionals how to do | their job? None that has any sense at all. But they feel like | they have every right to dictate to an artist how to do his | job. And the results speak for themselves. ... | | The customer shouldn't dictate to the plumber how to do his | work, but the customer _does_ dictate to the plumber _what_ | work to do. Fix that toilet; stop that leak in the faucet; | unclog that sink. The customer tells the professional what | result he wants, then lets the professional go about doing | it without interference. ___ This is an excellent analogy, although it doesn't quite work as you intend. Consider an electrician who runs wires through the middle of your room. Surely you have the right to object to this style of wiring as opposed to the electrician who carefully runs the wires through the walls so they are not seen. Both jobs end up doing the same thing: getting electricity from point A to point B. However the style is completely different. And in these regards the person hiring the plumber, electrician or other profession has every right to have a say in the style of the enterprise. Indeed I think any consumer who doesn't worry about such things to be a fool. I *always* inquire about the "how" when hiring anyone. To do otherwise is to open yourself up for fraud, abuse, or heartache. Results alone are *never* the sole purview of the professional or artist. To think that it ought to be so to me highlights the huge disconnect between some artists and the public they ostensibly serve. If the artist is doing their art solely for themselves then this doesn't matter. And I fully respect those who do this. I do a lot of artful things purely for the enjoyment of doing it. It is somewhat funny Michael that earlier this week your were criticizing Gene Wolf for the "how" of his writings and suggesting that he could do this only because he didn't care who read his work. Now you seem to be doing a reversal in these matters. Why is it that one sort of "how" is open to public scrutiny while a different sort of "how" is not? Why is "obscurity" or "difficulty" to be condemned while the particular approach to the sacred somehow privileged? It seems an odd contradiction. I don't bring this up as a matter of condemnation. I sincerely am interested in understanding how you reconcile these competing views with regards to the "how" of artistic production. How can you use your electrician example when it seems to undermine your own criticism from earlier on in the week? Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 05 May 2003 14:40:10 -0700 (PDT) --- Barbara Hume wrote: > At 12:21 PM 5/1/03 -0600, you wrote: > >Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? > > What about Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys? > Brian Evenson's "Father of Lies" and "Altmann's Tongue." ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 05 May 2003 19:12:12 -0400 > >What about Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys? > >barbara > OSC's "Homebody" and Treasure Box" as well. Treasure Box scared me. [Hides under the bed] ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ 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: Mormon Arts Retreat Date: 05 May 2003 19:26:36 -0600 I think I would have loved to go to this if I had known about it. Anyhow, about Pat Debenham's comment that art is a job not a calling: Michael, responds, You are right, Pat is wrong (absolute enough for you?) and in usual Cathy-fashion, I suggest: Both of you are right (my children hate this about me, that both can be right. SOMEone's gotta be right, not both, that's all!) It seems to me that Pat was defusing our inner Prima Dona: "Oh, I am such a ferociously creative important cool artist.. . . it's a calling," wiping the brow ostentatiously. I believe he was saying that art is not about US. It's about our process in creating good things, good art. Instead I like to think of art as a sweet way of transcending the everyday; something that happily takes us beyond ordinariness and hopefully takes our readers/observers there too. I remember walking downtown in Salt Lake one day with a couple of my older kids on our way to eat. We ran into a famed member of the Mormon arts community (that general enough for ya'll?). My son talked briefly to the person, with whom he worked betimes, and then the person turned to me, leaned over, smiled oil-ishly, took my hand and said in resonant tones, "Hi . . .I'm Mr Magoo . . . " (not his real name; preserving anonimity). My first response was to say, "Oh, Mr Magoo, and what do YOU do?" as a way of pricking the balloon of his prima dona face. I just smiled and said hello. But there you are. . . I think that's what Pat Debenham was trying to get past. . . Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Date: 05 May 2003 22:44:33 -0700 Thom Duncan notes: "Miracles are completely subjective... > I have never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a > miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. > > I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. > They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they > meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. I agree that miracles are subjective. I have seen miracles. Healings that were independently verified by doctors, before and after X-rays, tumor there, tumor gone. I've seen a child pray and a tornado instantaneously dissipate. I've seen gas tanks go from empty to half full after a prayer. I've seen cars drive with snapped drive shafts cuz they "had" to. And on and on. But of course, any right-minded scientist will come up with the reasonable explanation for any of those things. The signs of Christ's birth among the Nephites were pretty spectacular. The sun goes down but the night doesn't get dark. Pretty wild stuff. Pretty obvious, broadly witnessed, verifiable. But that didn't mean that just a few years later people were saying: "Yeah... but" and explaining it all away. The sign always comes after the faith, and is never sufficient in and of itself to create faith. I think that faith that comes only after a particular sign or "miraculous" event is suspect and tenuous at best. But I can say to any and all that I have seen miracles. Things to make your short hairs curl and your head spin. I've never seen someone raised from the dead. But that doesn't happen all that often. But I've seen some pretty spectacular stuff. My testimony has never relied on those kinds of things. It was there before; it would be there without them. So, no, I don't think they are meant to be independently verified. After all, who would care? If you weren't there, no independent verification matters. And if you were, you don't need any independent verification. You saw what you saw and felt what you felt. Personal, even in public. But I do think that miracles are a very important factor in successful LDS literature. Dramatic works often explore the extremes of human experience. The most intense moment condensed for us to vicariously explore. And if we are at liberty to explore the "dregs" which we've so often discussed here, what about the other extreme? Shouldn't we allow ourselves to explore the other side as well? And isn't (in a way) even more dangerous, controversial, dramatic, shocking, moving, etc., than dealing with simple old murder and mayhem? I think so. After all, Satan can do murder and mayhem. And if that vacuous nullity can do it, anybody can. But the flip side is more rarified, and as writers, vastly more difficult. We should explore that extreme once and a while. After all, who will write of faith if author's who have personal faith do not? So often I see LDS authors exploring the Quinten Tarantino stories of the world and having a lot of fun with them. And I've dallied with that myself. But there are plenty of very qualified people to turn out that. Who is qualified to turn out the other? And if they don't do it who will? I have also seen some incredible negativity directed towards authors who have explored miracles in their work. Some of the most violent criticism has come (to my amazement) from "faithful" followers of a religion. And that has always struck me as strange. Anyway, no doubt this is a personal subject. But the best writing is always very personal, too. Brave and vulnerable. And I don't know a very many more vulnerable subjects than trying to describe something which is so likely to be dismissed, at best, or actively vilified, at worst, than the subject of personally-witnessed miracles. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 05 May 2003 22:59:22 -0700 Eugene Woodbury points out: "I don't think it is a stretch to analogize rap to these poetic forms, > in that the competent artist is expected to be able to produce a > fixed, rhyming form "in real time." Also known as improvisation. Jazz." I just saw "8 Mile" and was pretty amazed at not only the "rap battles", but the revelation (to me) that within that particular culture (if you want to take the screenplay at face value), such a form of expression is so ingrained that it might be spontaneously indulged in say by people standing in a lunch line. It reminded me of blues and yes, jazz, and in its own vulgar way, Shakespeare, Rostand. As to the classical Japanese tendency to versify, I'm slowly making my way though "Tale of Genji" and am astonished by how deeply immersed the culture of the book is in verse and poetical allusions. Cool stuff. I also found, when I was deeply involved in Shakespeare, playing Richard III, for example, I too, was totally immersed for many months in the text, and I found that I, and some of my cast mates, could easily conduct "iambic battles", extemporising in the meter quite trippingly off the tongue! It was fun. I've mostly lost it now, but if I concentrate, it comes back not too hard. I have been tinkering with a play about Captain Moroni written entirely in iambic pentameter, some of it blank and some of it rhyming. Sometimes I'll just pick up the pen and start scatting, just let it flow out and not think about it too much. Some of it is pretty purple and swollen, some of it derivitive. But I'm having fun. The other day, I was thinking about that battle in Alma that gets pretty intense, and I visualized the big M (not unlike Henry V) standing there chatting with the troops. I wrote on a napkin, spontaneoulsy: Commence us now this ugly work of death, For ever God shall surely set us free If we but hold our lasting faith in Him And seek not for the pride in victory, But hold fast to the standard that we bear, That flag we call the Title of Liberty! Commence us now this ugly work of death, But dwell not on the blood that you shall see, For surely we would never bear to shed The blood of men who wanted to leave us be. But these our brethren of the former days Have chosen out the lot that they shall pay. And so we shall attend unto their wish, And feed them back their gall of bitterness! Commence us now this ugly work of death, And when this day is done, the blood shall flow And swell the Sidon here abaft its banks, And Hell to overflowing in her ranks! Oh, would that we would not have to commence, But acting in defense, we shall not shrink To take this ultimatum to its brink! Oh brethren, raise your swords and let us pray, As we commence this ugly work of death On this, a dark and hallowed, rueful day. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 05 May 2003 23:20:52 -0700 D. Michael Martindale wrote: "The other approach is to boldly go where no Mormon artist has gone before. To ignore the orthodox audience and aim for the postulated audience that is hungry for meat over milk. Boldy, unapologetically, even obnoxiously. Plan on offending the hell out of Deseret Book's customers. Use that as the marketing strategy. Dismiss the reasoning behind the inevitable complaints with disdain. Stand there with a smirk on your face when someone calls you to repentance. Because you know that every bit of your art is faithful to the gospel. > > The world is hungry for leaders, and that's what this approach would be." Well, good luck. I mean, more power to ya, buddy. But it sounds to me more like a jubilant manifesto than an actual business plan. How are you actually, really going to do that? I have to be very practical. I make my living doing what I do. Two years from now, I could be back to painting houses, which there's no shame in that, I'm a very good house painter. And I get a lot of reading (books-on-tape) done while I paint houses. But for the moment, I actually live by my pen. I write business plans. I execute marketing strategies. I send out writing samples and resumes. I scour trade publications. I hunt for jobs. I network. I join societies and organizations. I get active. I get seen. I get read. I have large white-boards with projects, schedules, target market strategies, timetables, deadlines. I have to be very practical (in the midst of all my dreaming). And I spend at least as much time conducting the necessary (and mundane) business of my business as I do the actual writing. So HOW do you DO what your wonderful manifesto suggests? In a practical, strategize, step 1, step 2, step 3 kind of way? This is not a facetious question. I mean it literally. Can it be done? Has anyone tried? I admit, I am new to the LDS publishing scene. A virgin, as it were. I've sold scripts and continue to get hired to write scripts. But I've not yet begun to seek publication in the world of LDS lit. But I've done a lot of market research. I've taken LDS publishers out to lunch and had long talks. I have my finger on the pulse of the market. And I don't know how to do, in a practical sense, what you propose. How do you reach that postulated audience with a product that offends the hell out of DB audiences? For me, writing in a vacuum does not put a smirk on my face, no matter how good that manuscript in the closet is. People have to read that meaty stuff, and I don't know how you get it to them. This list is one way, I guess, but how many people are here? 250? And how many subscribe to Irreantum? How do we get the writings of our more fringe artists ("fringe" used in the nicest possible way) OUT into the market? How do we become leaders with a readership of a couple of dozen? Or, how can we expand that readership to a slightly more ubiquitous frame? Any ideas? Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 2 Date: 06 May 2003 02:47:55 -0600 For an article in defense of moderate judgment, I feel pretty = immoderately judged here. Contradictions and "irony" (it's awful to be accused of unintentional irony) are repeatedly found in my statements where none exist--areas where my motivations are explored in detail without = actually knowing what my philosophical foundations are let alone my more = immediate reasoning. This is hardly the first time I've been in such a situation, though, so it is a not-unfamiliar experience. I think the confusion = stems from two sources. First, it is my experience that all calls for non-judgmentalism are themselves inherently judgmental. You cannot call for withholding = judgment without assuming underneath that a) judgment has occurred in the past, = b) judgment is likely to occur in the future, and c) the judgment is wrong. There is nothing moderate about such a stance, whatever labels or = reasons might be offered. It is a judgment. And it can be a particularly frustrating judgment to be on the receiving end of because it is couched = in terms of acceptance and tolerance--automatically putting your opponents = in a defensive position rhetorically. I find that extremely distasteful. Judging is an essential aspect of living and you can no more not-judge = than you can not-live. Every action, every reaction, is a manifestation of judgment. One of the most important revelations of our day occurred = when Joseph Smith added "unrighteously" in the middle of "Judge not that ye = be not judged." The question is, then, what constitutes righteous = judgment. The point being that it is not possible to do what Jongiorgi has claimed = to be doing--or attempting to do. You cannot be non-judgmental. It is a rhetorical impossibility. The act of withholding judgment is itself a = form of judgment. And the effect of Jongiorgi's essay is to tell me that everybody's bias is fine--except for mine. This call for Moderate = Judgment functions as a rally *against* my expressed bias. Which is what I was trying to say when I indicated that certain aspects of Jongiorgi's call = for moderate judgment runs a very real risk of alienating his core audience (depending on how much of your "moderate judgment" flies in the face of = your audience's fundamental biases). Take, for example my "geocentrism". Jongiorgi persists in describing my opinions as being formed by my geography. He goes so far as to describe = it as ironic that I protest the "geocentric" label while espousing = viewpoints that *must* *be* geocentric. His conclusion is that my geography is = what has formed my opinion. Due to this conclusion, Jongiorgi is subject to = some very real and damaging mistakes (hey, I warned him to be careful). = First, it assumes that he has correctly discerned my opinion. He has not and = that has led him to undermine his point. Second, it assumes that he has correctly identified a general characteristic of a geographic location = that is so pervasive that it subconsciously permeates those from (or = identifying with) that area--a dubious proposition at best. Assuming that an = opinion is entirely geocentric is a disservice to your audience, as well as to the opinion expressed--it implies that a change of geography would result in = a change of opinion. This denies cognitive responsibility and puts your audience in a subordinate, inferior position. If opinions are solely informed by geography, then you can safely disregard all those opinions because they would be different if formed in a different area or = different culture. That is a too-easy dismissal and one that will cause you to = miss important areas where actual opinions differ with your assumptions in important ways. Jongiorgi refuses to acknowledge that my opinion or bias might actually = have some validity--or even an aspect or argument he has not yet considered. = His dismissal is too facile to be credible. He continues to attribute my = views to the accident of geography and to dismiss "pages of statistics" = without bothering to understand those statistics, to ask for clarification, or = to counter the argument in any substantive way. Which would be fine if he weren't attributing my opinion to an assumed geocentric bias--without exploring what that geocentric bias might entail, its origins, or the ramifications of that bias. And, ironically, he undermines his call for moderate judgment in the process. And through it all, he only cursorily addresses the point--where *does* reality intersect with characters and bias? He says that *of* *course* = your characters have to be realistic, but that doesn't really answer the question. How much of an artist's efforts should legitimately be spent trying to understand the world around them? Leonardo DaVinci studied anatomy so that his art would be realistic. What is an author's = equivalent? Is there one? Can an author safely rely entirely on the characters in his/her own head and still produce art that resonates with an audience? = I contend that it is not possible to do so. Writers should not only = consider people and learn their biases and opinions, they should also attempt to discern the truth of those biases, where they are justified, and where = they are not. If a story is sufficiently interested in Europeans that their attitude towards American violence becomes significant, then the verity = of those biases are as important as the existence and/or basis for them is. Which brings me to the second source of our confusion and it is what I = tried to explain in my last post. There is a big difference between = statements in a public forum discussing literary and philosophical viewpoints and = actions and statements in a private and personal environment discussing specific situations that are real, complex, and sensitive. The place where my opinion merges with Jongiorgi's is in our actions towards *individuals*. Individual situations are messy. We cannot afford to be absolute or judgmental in our interactions with others. We cannot afford to dismiss = the actions or beliefs of others simply out of hand. Doing so will limit = our own opportunities to learn and gain understanding--oh, and limit our = ability to help others as well. And I think learning and understanding are incredibly important. You = see, it is my opinion that a vital part of our purpose for being here is to = gain understanding. So while we are being careful, kind, loving and learning = the beliefs and opinions of others, it is our duty to evaluate them *in* *detail*. It is too easy to say that a belief is valid simply because someone believes it fervently. It is *much* more difficult to analyze = and consider that belief and discover what depths it may contain and what = truths might be buried beyond the obvious and simplistic initial discussion or surface evaluation. That means that we are continually asking ourselves what is True. And that means that we must continually decide what = things are Untrue. Note that I have assumed that we *can* discern Truth--not necessarily a given in post-modern and/or academic circles. I *hope* = it's a given in this forum, though, because if not, it'd mean we have an even deeper misunderstanding we'll need to hammer out. And the uncomfortable part of this is that it means we will find = ourselves in situations were the people we love and are trying to help and serve believe something we consider Untrue. How we behave in such a situation = is important to who we are. Are we going to be self-righteous prigs? Or = are we going to exercise righteous judgment and show compassion and respect = for the moral agency of that person? It isn't that we withhold judgment, it = is that we withhold the damaging expression of judgment. It is that we recognize our actual stewardships and responsibilities and that we = express love and invitation to those around us--and recognize and respect = *their* stewardships as well (and not just when they do what we think they = should with it). Why is it assumed that just because you think someone is = wrong, that you must disrespect and denigrate them? God *knows* that we are = wrong, but He still respects us and loves us so much that He's willing to let = us stake our eternal lives on our choosing the right. He still treats us = with kindness, mercy and love. Doesn't that mean we should strive for the ability to disagree with someone--to *know* that they are wrong--and = still be able to treat them with kindness, love and respect? So I call for stronger judgment. I ask that we evaluate and learn and = study the world around us. I think we can and *should* seek the fundamental = rules behind human behavior, agency, moral law and our environment. We should learn what motivates people. We should learn the consequences, = spiritual and physical, of obeying the commandments. And of not obeying them. Harrison Ford and Michael Douglas are showing their age in really = startling ways and Steven Spielberg and Sean Connery are not. Why? Could the recently profligate behavior of the first two be having an affect on = their physical appearance? Or is it merely that they've chosen recent roles = that emphasize those aspects of their physical appearance? Or is it merely = my perception based on my disapproval of their choices? Is there a = physical manifestation of some sins? Are there identifiers that your audience = will take to indicate that there are? Will those assumptions bear up under scrutiny if they need to? Academic and artistic detachment are debilitating characteristics of art = and academia. Reality has very real force. Opinions and ideas have power, = it's true. But moral and physical laws have power as well and an idea in conflict with those laws will learn that they have a nasty way of = pushing back. And, more importantly, your audience will have, in addition to = their cultural and religious biases, a nuanced and subtle understanding of = those moral and physical laws--an understanding of universal and spiritual = truths they might or might not actually recognize and/or acknowledge. I believe that those who bother trying to figure out as much as they can will be our better artists. Those who have a strong and nuanced moral framework will be able to create a more complex, more real, depiction of = the framework we *all* work in. Those who spend time continually building = and breaking their preconceived notions will be *much* better artists than = those who do only one or the other. Both together are stronger than either = alone. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 06 May 2003 05:06:37 -0600 katie@aros.net wrote: > But this is what scares me most about it: Suppose that this kind of behavior > really is wrong. But Anita Stansfield has clearly labeled it as "right," and > some readers have clearly labeled her books as "faith promoting." What, then, > will they think about this behavior? They'll probably think it's right, too. > Anita Stansfield (or any other "faith-promoting" author) could potentially put > all kinds of terrible behavior in her books, convincingly portray it as right, > have her characters feel the Spirit, and her audience would still come out > uplifted and thinking they've learned something good. (Though I do hope that > most readers have more sense.) > > Scary, isn't it? Are you saying that people shouldn't rely on the judgment of others, that people should think for themselves when it comes to making judgments about the validity of things in the art they consume, that it may actually be a negative thing to have a place that is considered "safe" to shop for art so that you leave your guard down and just accept everything that's presented there? Imagine 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: cwilson@emerytelcom.net Subject: [AML] TUROW, _Personal Injuries_ Date: 06 May 2003 14:31:53 GMT Just started reading this novel. In it a female undercover agent has being Mormon as part of her cover. She grew up Mormon though she isn't now. She says her dad was a member of the Church, capped C, so this guy must know a little about it. Anyone know his connection? Cathy Wilson This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 06 May 2003 09:00:11 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David >and Dianna Graham > At first I >wanted to say, as a good friend of mine commented, "the >Mormons were so two dimensional." The way they spoke of their >religion was evidence of what really seemed like a purely >cultural understanding of the faith. (Harper's line to Louis >on the phone about his drinking - "That's a sin." - I almost >laughed out loud). I couldn't help but sit there and compare >my understanding of the church to the little that was revealed >of theirs. Why did you feel so compelled? Are you not aware that there ARE cultural Mormons in the church, exactly like Harper? If not, I can introduce you to a few. >Louis sounded like he thought that Mormonism taught >that you were supposed to punish yourself for your >imperfections - that everyday you were supposed to be more and >more perfect, or you were definitely a bad person. This is exactly the way I used to interpret the Church. During my mission, I even created a calendar where I marked off each day that I had remained perfect, free from sin. That lasted about 21 days and then something happened and I blew it. And I felt depressed that I hadn't been able to be perfected. And I started all over again. You've got to understand that this was in the days of Miracle of Forgiveness which raised the bar of personal perfection to unattainable heights. MOF taught that any unrepentant sin, even the most minor, could literally undo any previous progression. Louis was me. Also, he >seemed to talk about dysfunctional families, addiction, etc., >as these skeletons the church says we're supposed to keep in >our closets or something, like they are deep darks secret in >the church. (Now, mind you, I know that these things really do >happen at times in Mormon culture, and these were just my >initial reactions). I didn't just cringe at the language and >very nicely worded stage directions describing the two men >having sex in the park. I cringed to think that audiences full >of individuals, many of which likely knew very little about >our religion and it's teachings, were going to sit and >sympathize with this poor suffering man who was feeling that >his religion was oppressing him. I suspect you are making a bigger deal out of this than the audience might. The play, after all, wasn't about Mormonism. And why shouldn't they sympathize with the character? Mormonism can be very oppressive for some people. Spend a couple minutes over on ex-mormon.org if you want your eyes opened. The church those people talk about seems an alien religion to most of it, but real to those folks. > All I could think was, "If >you're not building the kingdom in some way, you're tearing it >down." While I don't really think that's completely true, and >Tony Kushner could probably care less what I would think, I >can't fight believing that at least a little bit." Tony Kushner is not LDS and isn't under the mandate to build the kingdom in the first place. But you said the key words in this train of thought, "in some way." Build the kingdom in some way. How does one build the kingdom with literature? Did Eric's recent ten minute play Kiss fail to build the kingdom because someone walked out of it? How does learning that temple-endowed LDS women in Vegas make money as prostitutes build the kingdom? I know it does, at least in "some way." Knowledge is part of the kingdom after all. If all one gets from Eric's play is the knowledge that there exist in this church people so good at rationalization that they can live this dual life-style, then that's enough, isn't it? If we can learn from Kusner's play that all people are flawed, sometimes weak, sometimes hypocritical, but that we can all find love in some form or another, isn't that enough of the building of the kingdom of God? Down at the Center Street Theatre, we have received perhaps a half dozen scripts from folks who want us to produce their plays. Most of these plays represent the authors' sincere attempt to not so much tell a story but to convert the world in one fell swoop. It seems the Mormon artists natural tendency to, at first, try and tell our story in sweeping panorama, apparently choosing to interpret the mandate of building the kingdom to mean "converting the world and to cram our story down the audience's throat without regard to such things as good story telling, believable dialogue, and well drawn-out characters. > >Let's pretend this play were written by Eric. If he produced >it, I'd like to believe that it would done at Orem Center >Stage for a mostly Mormon audience. I would probably go, and >then I'd yell at Eric for the yucky content. But seriously, >looking at the story, I might love it, because I like Mormon >plays that confront Mormon audiences. We are forced to learn. >But we are Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our >beliefs are not on trial. Again, I ask, why not? You've just put the kybosh on anyone ever writing plays about any Mormons who are having crises of faith. > Our human foibles, our weaknesses, >our sins of commission and omission are on trial. A cleaner >version of Angels in America (I'm just >guessing) would probably disturb and offend and, hopefully, >teach. But this wasn't Eric, who I just worship a little too >much. This was a stranger to me, a man who probably thought >that my religion was a sham and a prison. So, there it was >ruined for me. Have you read interviews with Tony Kushner? He doesn't hold Mormonism in contempt at all. He just doesn't believe it, which is his right of course. >plain sensational, exhilarating, but not necessary. And I >don't think that it's ever necessary to simulate sex on stage >or in film (or describe it in books). I think it's fine to >refer to it, but please don't make me watch that (or imagine >it). Herein lies, imo, your problem with Angels. You're approaching the piece with your own preconceived notions of what constitutes the proper way to show sex on stage and the only right way to talk about the Church. Unless and until you feel comfortable enough in your own beliefs to where someone else's opinion about it doesn't affect you, you'll never appreciate the brilliance of a play like Angels in America. >So, that's it. The content was my biggest qualm with >it. Also, the characters were extremely difficult to >sympathize with at all, except for Prior, and his visions were >the part that made me most uncomfortable. E What upset me was that Kushner was the first to use our symbolism in his play. We Mormon artists have been so timid over the years, so afraid to break the bonds of what others around us think is appropriate that we avoid using our own symbolism to tell our own story. Now, should the Joseph Smith vision ever be portrayed on stage, knowledgeable theatre goers will say to themselves, "What a rip-off." We should have been the first to use the Moroni motif, not Kushner. But, no, heaven forbid that we share with the world such things. Let's hush up about them, call them sacred and don't share them. Most of are a bunch of cowards. Folks like Richard Dutcher and Eric Samuelsen, who have the courage to tell their stories without holding back are true pioneers. >I also understand that there's a part in Perestroika where >they discuss the garment. This comment really belongs on the >temple thread, but I really do believe in my heart that there >are some things that literature and film just don't deserve to >play around with. Then if you ever hear of my play "Angle of Mercy" in production, don't go see it. The final scene where the character wraps himself in a garment as if it is a blanket may offend you. Dianna, you rock and I hope you know I believe that. Your acting in Wired was marvelous. We disagree on some things but I don't want to misconstrue anything I've said above as meaning anything other than a disagreement on the virtues of Angels in America. Thom Duncan Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Date: 06 May 2003 11:23:29 EDT In a message dated 5/5/03 10:12:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > I have > never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a > miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. > > I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. > They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they > meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. > Glen writes: Even Jesus with his many miracles was not usually desirous of having them independently verified. Why? Even though He did them "that the power of God might be made manifest" at least until the raising of his friend from the dead it was not time to prove in this manner that He was the Son of God, at least so openly and verifiably so. Are miracles meant to be independently verified? I'm not sure. Does this mean or could it mean the same thing as the phrase "consuming it upon our lusts?" A member of our Bishopric came over last night to ask my opinion about an article by our Bishop for the monthly ward news letter. He had been asked to review the article, and as the Bishop was out of town he wanted another opinion about the use of the word "unconditional" love of the Father used by the Bishop. He is the second person, friend, in a month that asked me about this. Both were a bit troubled and certainly confused by an article by Elder Nelson of the Twelve in the February 2003 Ensign, pg. 20 on Divine Love. In this article Elder Nelson seems to be very aware he is making a change in the way we ought to look at God's love and clearly says, "Divine love is conditional." I had previously to last night spent many hours reading, thinking, and writing about this article. I wonder what others experience is with the experience of unconditional love or not? I wonder also if it is not more harmful to teach the conditional nature of divine love as well as the more obvious conditional nature of higher blessings than to make what seems to be an unusual interpretation of scriptures as Elder Nelson does? This seems to be related, at its very core, to the discussion of miracles, what they are and can and should they be independently verifiable. It seems to me that miracles abound, in my life at least, the more I notice, write them down, validate God and angels for providing them, and am otherwise grateful for them as confirmations of divine love the more I experience the presence of the divine in my life and the resultant joy, even ecstasy. I have a brother who is a returned missionary, twice divorced, inactive in the Church, almost or altogether atheist, by his own admission or pride. He told me some time ago that he wants someone to use the power of the priesthood to make his sense of smell work again and prove the priesthood has power. One would not have to be much of a prophet to know his behavior has effected his faith and his lack of believe or faith will probably preclude him receiving a miracle in the manner he is demanding. But he is certainly receiving miracles. He is yet breathing. His body is making red blood cells, thinking, remembering, and thousands of other processes physical, mental, and spiritual I am certain he cannot explain and that are independently verifiable though not often called miracles. It would be a grand miracle, of the greatest kind, if he started doing the daily actions that would give him back the testimony today that he has lost. As the wise Hugh Nibley has said we as natural men do not want gifts very much. We want the glory of doing it ourselves. We have been invited to a veritable banquet, to live in joy on beach front property, yet we are satisfied, in the inner man, with play in mud puddles in the slums. I have seen miracles, independently verifiable and verified, for which I will be eternally grateful. This is not the time or the place to share them, but one alone was confirmation that I have a loving Father who wants me to "drink all of it!" This same Feb. 2003 Ensign pg. 14 has an article entitled Teaching Children Principles of Happiness. Seems to me most of us adults, as well as our children, could use some greater understanding and application of the principles of happiness. Appreciation of and noting well the miracles in our lives seems to be one of the vital principles our literature could teach to a world hungering for ecstasy. Glen Sudbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 06 May 2003 08:53:36 -0600 On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 03:03 PM, Paris Anderson wrote: > What > is NRSV? New Revised Standard Version. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Date: 06 May 2003 11:20:01 -0600 Rather an opposite approach has been taken by the brilliant contemporary = British playwright, Tom Stoppard, who has repeatedly dealt with science = (and philosophy) vs. religion questions. My favorite of his plays, = Jumpers, deals with an elderly and somewhat addled philosopher who = proposes to prove the existence of God in a paper he's about to deliver. = The backdrop for his paper is a world where God is universally presumed = not to exist; it's a flaming, churning, horrendous, violent dystopia. =20 In another terrific play, Hapgood, Stoppard creates a world of spies, = who live in a quantum universe; their spying efforts (and consequently = the play's blocking) have the randomness of quantum theory. Ultimately, = Truth is found in the relationship between a mother and her child. It's = a Levinasian take on physics. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 06 May 2003 11:31:59 -0600 ___ Eugene ___ | That's why vernacular evolves so quickly, and even the French | Academy can't stop it. For a new word to work well it must | largely bubble out of the "collective semantic unconscious," | so our typical reaction isn't "Huh?" but "Of course!" Like | the astronomer who makes his calculations and concludes that | there must be a new planet *here* and so points his telescope | there, the wordsmith invents the word that we all knew had to | be invented, but just didn't think of first. ___ I enjoyed your comments, especially about the changes in Japanese. It reminds me of a story a friend told me of his parents. Apparently they were Japanese, but grew up on an island of fishermen fairly far removed from the Japanese mainland. He learned Japanese from them after they immigrated. He then went to Japan, only to discover that their form of Japanese was a fairly archaic form that didn't have all the excessive politeness that had developed in Japanese culture. It ended up being that he was speaking like a drunken sailor, to borrow a phrase. While we all know of Shakespeare and how much English has changed from the 17th century (and even moreso from Chaucer's era), we often don't realize how much this happens in other languages. For instance one of the great works of French literature is "The Legend of Roland." However it, and much of the great French poetry of the medieval era, couldn't be read in modern French because French had become so simplified. This led to horrid translations of French into French in the 19th century which lost a lot of the character of the poetry and prose. (Imagine Shakespeare translated into a modern vernacular, for instance) Regarding rap, while most forms are, in my opinion, fairly simple poetry, some do impressive work. Typically *not* the forms of hip-hop or rap found in the popular music scene - as with Jazz it tends to be found in a more significant subculture and often includes crosspollinations. Afterall rap in many ways arose partially out of the "talking blues" as well as traditional DJ announcing. In many ways these subcultures among African Americans are the most inventive and active aspects of English. Steven Pinker, the noted MIT scientist has written a lot on their grammatical changes in light of suspected underlying mental structures. (See, for instance _The Language Instinct_) We often see their speech as poor English due to our odd way of mixing old French with old English to produce modern English. He points out a very inventive poetry that in many ways is a more natural reconciliation of the language towards a grammar that our brains wish to impose - and often a far more poetic form. (Which isn't to say it ought to be the public form of discourse. The fact that our own more Latinized form is dominant suggests it ought be followed. But it sure isn't a natural or easy language) [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 06 May 2003 18:03:06 GMT Katie Parker: Richard was without guile. He was a good man. But only destined to be a plot device. _______________ Some days I feel just like that -- only destined to be a plot device. I hope that I may be an effective one, or an interesting one, at least. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Date: 06 May 2003 12:49:38 -0600 Thom Duncan Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 9:30 AM > >I've noticed an interesting thing in connection with miracles I'm wondering if others have also noticed in life or in literature. >> > Miracles have no existence beyond that which we chose to give them by interpretation. We can chose to call an experience beyond our current understanding a miracle or a coincidence or, simply, an unexplained phenomenon. > > Miracles are completely subjective, or they wouldn't be miracles. If objective, then they have their explanation in reality as a mass delusion, or some other psychological phenomenon. > I have never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. > > I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. > They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. > > Thom You are so right Thom, miracles just are. But when they happen to you, it is best not to deny them, and perhaps even share them. I think there is one miracle we as LDS writers can certainly verify or attest to - The writing or transcribing of The Book of Mormon. Evan without actually independently verifying the length of time Joseph Smith jr. had the plates in his possession or if indeed, he in fact had any plates it is still a miraculous achievement for any mortal by themselves, educated or not, to produce this particular work in any amount of time. As far as personal miracles go this indeed is a subjective thing; however, the most haunting and memorable miracle I have experienced was in fact more of (I know this is an oxymoron) an objective experience, personally speaking. When my miracle took place: I know I wasn't dreaming; I know my father had just died the year before; I have come to know, years later, that the man who stood looking down at me, and who had just saved my 12 year old life, was in fact my father's spirit; AND I know that if he hadn't of intervened at that moment in time I would for certain have perished that day. I have gone over this particular experience time and time again. I have lain awake at night puzzling over it, I have looked at the old pictures of my father that I had never seen before the incident. My father left us when I was five and I never saw him alive again after that. I had no idea what he might look like, because I had all but forgotten him. When he died, his body was cremated, so I didn't even get to see his body. Despite all of this when I did see the old pictures almost 30 years later, there was the man who had saved me from certain death. I only looked into his eyes for a brief moment,but I can still see those eyes in my mind. One moment he was there before me looking down and saying, "Your life is a precious gift, be careful with it," and in the next moment, while I looked back at the spot where I would have, should have, been lying crushed to death, this being vanished into thin air. He was not there, and there was no where within a thousand feet that he could have hidden. To me this is a subjective/objective miracle, and it will be until the day I die. On that day I fully expect to have all the facts verified when I speak to my father once again. If you are interested in a more detailed account of this miracle you can find it on my website under non-fiction. The title of the work is "Snatched >From the Jaws of Death." It is a short creative non-fiction essay of about 2000 words. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 06 May 2003 13:21:25 -0600 The NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version, one of many ongoing attempts to render the Bible into modern English. It was the source for this particular Japanese translation. You can get it at any good bookstore, the BYU bookstore, for example (Amazon lists 107 entries under "NRSV"). To get an idea of all the different versions available see the list here: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/english.htm You can read and search and compare online editions of the more popular Bible translations here, and also across multiple languages (this is another one of those massively useful web sites): http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 06 May 2003 12:26:26 -0600 >What? the first great apostate made plain? Where can I get a copy? = What >is NRSV? NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version (whatever that means). It was = the version of choice at Seoul Foreign School (which I attended grades = 1-12). The school had been founded by Christian missionaries and still = maintained a very staunch protestant Christian personality--we had bible = classes regularly in every grade, and every assembly or event started with = a prayer. I read the NRSV at school and the KJV at home and church, and = actually vastly preferred the KJV. That may have been because of the = eighth article of faith, which caused my young and impressionable mind to = eye with suspicion any version of the bible with a pink cover and pronouns = like "you" instead of "thou." Also, I didn't always agree with the = conclusions drawn by my bible teachers at school, and so I learned to = associate that less formal language with their conclusions. =20 As to where you can get a copy--not at Deseret Book, I would imagine. Any = other bookstore or Christian bookstore would have ample copies to choose = from, in addition to all kinds of other versions. There's the NIV (New = International Version), the New KJV, the Modern KJV, the Literal Translatio= n of the Bible (LITV) and so many, many more.... Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Update on My Book Proposal Date: 06 May 2003 15:39:22 -0600 For anyone still following my bush-whacking in the nat'l book marketplace, here's the latest on my book proposal. My agent sent it out to four more publishers: Harcourt, Berkeley, Crossroad, and Beacon Press. She hasn't heard from the first two, and pasted below is a fairly interesting 90-percent-rejection from Crossroad, which is interesting in general as well as regarding my own project, and which may even provoke ideas or directions for your own projects. (If his comments prompt any insights or suggestions and interpretations from you, I'd love to hear. I don't really get everything he's saying or agree with it. He seems to be pretty darn opinionated about his own idea of a book formula.) However, the religion editor at Beacon is really interested and is showing it around the company and seeing if it hits any brick walls. (Beacon is a smaller, Boston-based, Unitarian-backed co. distributed by Houghton Mifflin, and they're really interested in my Boston connections, including my former writing instructor James Carroll at nearby Emerson, whom they know well and are going to speak with about me; hopefully he will remember how much he said he liked my story "Daughters of Hysteria," which ran in Irreantum a coupla years ago. And the editor said they wouldn't even consider it without having a Mormon governor in the State House a few yards away from their offices.) So I'm still getting some serious readings, and hopefully one of them will stick before my agent completely runs out of prospects. Intro note from the agent: Here's the letter I got from Roy Carlisle, who has his own imprint at Crossroad Publishing. The 'Steve' he refers to is one of my authors, Steve Kissing, whose unconventional spiritual coming of age memoir was just published by Crossroad...and edited by Roy. (I think you'd like Steve!) His website is www.runningfromthedevil.com. RE: As God Once Was: Reflections from a Mormon Imagination by Chris Bigelow Hi Linda, Here are some impressions from my reading of the Chris Bigelow proposal. As is, I would not be inclined to publish. Right now your letter and even some of his pitch in the proposal is aimed at the idea behind the book (interest in Mormonism) as a reason to publish but the pitch is not focused on what the book actually is. That former approach makes sense because there is not a clear book here yet. At least it is not coming across to me as a clear and singularly focused story. And when I actually read the material I see that he is covering a lot of different ground and in at least a few different voices. There is the personal voice (like with the cancer) and then there is the reporting voice (like the Australia mission experience) and then the theological explication voice (commentary on the play). They don't all rest easy with each other. But the bigger question is what story is he going to tell? And I am not even sure I know which one he should tell at this point? Maybe a conversation with him would help me figure that out? But right now I don't see a deeper feeling level consistently enough expressed in the proposal to help me believe that the book would capture other seeker's struggles and ambivalence about faith. In other words I don't think you can sell this book on the curiosity factor about Mormonism. A book like this, like Steve's did so well, must capture the deeper universal feeling of the religious seeker or the seeker's religious struggle. He hasn't built the book around that at all but around the Mormon themes [as requested by Harper San Fran--geez]. For an exclusive Mormon audience that might be fine. But not for a general trade house with a religious profile like Crossroad. And as you know I would never want an 11 chapter 90K word MS. I want 3-5 page mini-essays, maybe 30 or so, with about 50K to 60K words max. That was one of the big transformations in Steve's book and it made the whole story zip along as it should. His book is 70K words and that worked out well but I would usually want shorter not longer. So SK's "chapters" (I never use the word anymore if I can avoid it) are about 2250-3000 words each. So you can read for twenty minutes and feel great about "finishing" a whole episode. Perfect reading for a postmodern reader. I am sharing all of those details just to let Chris know that I would need a very different vision for this book in order to believe I could publish it successfully. Right now it really doesn't have a core story holding it together. In his case it might be a bit more arbitrary than it was in Steve's case but it does need a core story to organize the material around and to give us a pitch. Maybe a history of the marriages and family relationships? Which could be used to talk about Mormonism that relates directly to those aspects of life? But right now it is all over the place and as a consequence it doesn't quite feel like it is going anywhere specifically. After checking out the website (www.thesugarbeet.com) the proposal did make more sense. It has the rather random journalistic feel of the odd stories on the site and what holds that together is the satire. But I don't think that works in a book when he is seemingly trying to write a serious book. Hopefully I am right about that but there were long passages in the sample material that made me think that. By the way do tell Chris that the website really is hilarious. This response is not meant to preclude conversation or dialogue at all. In fact it is meant to initiate it. But if you want to sell the book as is, then I am not your man. I imagine you have others reviewing the proposal but let me know if you think it would be helpful to have further conversations. Clearly, Chris is someone, like Steve, who has an eccentric and humorous perspective on life that makes him into a very likable character. So now I need to go find out if my premortal self really did prepare for a life of running! Warmly, Roy Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 06 May 2003 13:35:08 -0600 Perhaps the concept of "seducing" the reader to consider otherwise unpalatable ideas can be better explained as an element of the willing suspension of disbelief. This suspension of disbelief comes about most profoundly when the reader willingly grants to an author's (made up) characters the moral weight of living, breathing human beings. There's something interesting here that relates to uniquely Mormon concepts of godhood, in this ability to create, albeit virtually, beings that independent of their creator take on qualities of conscience that we relate to on their own merits. The key to how the characters see and interpret their world through what they think and say. Dialogue (interior and spoken) is an integral part of "show don't tell" because it represents the mind of the invented character (and, yes, by extension the mind of the author; do the channels of our thoughts represent by extension the mind of God?); and because when done right we accept the dialogue--paradoxically, as I've noted--as an exchange between free agents. Being made privy to such an conversation can be very seductive (the allure of good gossip), all the more so when the author can sample for us the most interesting parts. Formal, structured argument fares poorly in comparison. As Shaw points out in the forward to Saint Joan, for all his brilliance Socrates didn't actually do much more than convince his jury that they were a bunch of idiots. Nicely formed rhetoric, really bad trial strategy. The choir has sung his praises for millennia, but when it counted he couldn't change minds of the people sitting right in front of him. The sense of being "trapped" into thinking about a subject in a certain way (even if it is the "right" way) infuriates more than it convinces or instructs. This is the inherent weakness of the Socratic method, which always implies a Ha! Gotcha! after the QED. True, when manipulation is the expectation starting out--that's why people ride roller coasters, after all--our reaction is to laugh off the manipulation, or at least roll our eyes. Though it is still a short step to the bread and circuses moment that occurs in the schlock horror flick when we stop worrying about who gets killed next, and rather how they will get killed. (The difference between the first and second Indiana Jones movies, the first a camp classic, the second dreck.) We are similarly much more likely to pay attention to personal criticism when it is exchanged between third parties--and we overhear it--than when it is directed at us personally ("Your problem is . . . "). A great example of this is in "Much Ado about Nothing" when Benedick and Beatrice, who spend acts 1 and 2 at dagger points, are induced to romance when they separately overhear (they assume, of course, entirely by accident) their friends speaking of how the one is really in love with the other. They lend more credence to "idle gossip" about themselves than to their own supposed convictions. [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 07 May 2003 00:26:27 -0400 You wrote: >I just saw "8 Mile" and was pretty amazed at not only the "rap battles", but >the revelation (to me) that within that particular culture (if you want to >take the screenplay at face value), such a form of expression is so >ingrained that it might be spontaneously indulged in say by people standing >in a lunch line. That's pretty accurate. While I lived in the 'hood in DC for four years (up until about a month ago), this form of expression was spontaneously indulged-in by kids all over the place -- at least in the places I frequented. At bus stops and restaurants and laundromats and convenience stores and movie theaters. And especially in the hallway outside my apartment door... Eric D. Dixon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 06 May 2003 13:28:03 -0600 > > The other approach is to boldly go where no Mormon artist has gone before. To ignore the orthodox audience and aim for the postulated audience that is hungry for meat over milk. Boldy, unapologetically, even obnoxiously. Plan on offending the hell out of Deseret Book's customers. Use that as the marketing strategy. Dismiss the reasoning behind the inevitable complaints with disdain. Stand there with a smirk on your face when someone calls you to repentance. Because you know that > every bit of your art is faithful to the gospel. > > The world is hungry for leaders, and that's what this approach would be. Lead on D, you are truly a brave man. I wish you well, and I think it will be an interesting phenomena to watch unfold. If you succeed I may try to follow, but . . . maybe not????? I too am not sure who my audience is yet. LDS readers would be good, but perhaps unconverted, soon-to-be LDS, readers would be more like it. Bill Willson http://www.latterdaybard.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 07 May 2003 00:56:05 -0400 i=92d like to respond to both Scott and Dianna in this post (and to thom who= =20 posted while i was writing). i shouldn=92t be writing at all as i am= leaving=20 town tomorrow morning and i still haven=92t packed. but it=92s a wonderful= =20 discussion of one of my favorite works. how can i resist? i=92ll just=20 respond in order, since i don=92t have enough time to construct a coherent,= =20 well thought out response that could function as an essay. be forewarned:= =20 this is long. interesting i hope. first, dianna. i am entirely fine with dianna objecting to angels primarily because of=20 content. but i do want to respond to some of what she wrote. first to do with audience (an issue i=92ll approach from a slightly= different=20 angle in response to Scott): =93I didn't just cringe at the language [etc.]. I cringed to think that=20 audiences full of individuals, many of which likely knew very little about= =20 our religion and it's teachings, were going to sit and sympathize with this= =20 poor suffering man who was feeling that his religion was oppressing him.=94 = =20 [me: should they not sympathize with him for this reason? i do.] and: =93But seriously, looking at the story, I might love it, because I like= Mormon=20 plays that confront Mormon audiences. We are forced to learn. But we are=20 Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our beliefs are not on trial. = =20 Our human foibles, our weaknesses, our sins of commission and omission are= =20 on trial.=94 i initially had a similar response. it bothered me immensely that people=20 would see the idea of mormonism that kushner presents. but it bothered me= =20 because there is truth in it. not the whole truth, but there is some there.= =20 My question in response to the reactions Dianna lists is: should Mormonism= =20 not be treated honestly for fear someone will get the wrong idea of it? now= =20 this is not a critique of dianna. she acknowledges that these statements=20 are merely a reaction and that they are not a valid critique of the work. = =20 but i believe this is a very important question. how can we insist that=20 mormon artists should present reality to mormon audiences but reality should= =20 not be presented to non-mormon audiences or by non-mormons for fear they=20 might get the wrong idea? i realize kushner didn=92t present reality in its= =20 entirety, but he did present some. as far as what is on trial in kushner=92s work: i do not believe our beliefs= =20 are on trial. in fact, the moral message of kushner=92s play actually=20 parallels some very important mormon doctrines. kushner actually reinforces= =20 some of our key beliefs (namely and simply the idea of progression). so i= =20 would disagree with the opinion implicit in what dianna says in the second= =20 passage i quoted above. i would argue that kushner does not put on trial=20 our beliefs but he does put on trial our =93foibles, our weaknesses, our= sins=20 of commission and omission.=94 in fact, i would argue this is the whole= point=20 of using mormonism as one of the three themes of the play is to foreground= =20 these very problems (foibles, weaknesses, and sins of commission and=20 omission). the problem as i see it is that it is difficult to read this play, as a=20 mormon, only once. i had to read it for a class. i had no choice. and my= =20 teacher had suggested (knowing that i am mormon) that perhaps it would be=20 interesting to me as a subject for our term paper. so i read it before the= =20 rest of the class did. and i finished the play and set it down reeling. =20 not because i didn=92t understand the moral message of the play. but= because=20 i felt like kushner associated mormonism with the antithesis of the moral=20 message of the play. i admit. i was very upset. but it didn=92t work for= me=20 to just stay upset. there was something that didn=92t fit. there was some= =20 reaction inside of me that said =93but wait. i agree with the moral message= =20 of this play, not with its antithesis. and i=92m mormon; a rather devout= one.=20 so what does that mean?=94 i read it again not because i could not= perceive=20 its moral message the first time through but because i could not reconcile = =20 kushner=92s treatment of mormonism and his mormon characters with kushner=92= s=20 moral message. i wanted to look again. and this brings me to the next passage from dianna: =93Now, I have to ask this question. You know and love this piece, and this= =20 is probably an unfair question. But how good can something be if you have= =20 to keep rereading it to really see the morality in it?=94 first, please remember i wrote not only a term paper but also a thesis about= =20 this work. i don=92t know how other people do it, but i always re-read the= =20 works i write about. and i re-read more than once. i didn=92t have to keep= =20 rereading it =93to really see the morality in it.=94 I saw that the first= time=20 through, in spite of my powerful aversion to the play=92s treatment of=20 mormons. kushner makes a case for the necessity of progressing, of=20 constructing a better world out of catastrophe. i would simply ask that you= =20 not interpret my may re-readings as evidence that it has to be sifted=20 through a sieve in order to find anything of value. to the contrary. but= =20 it does have to be sifted through a sieve, so to speak, if you=92re going to= =20 write extensively about it. as does any other piece of literature. now i did have to read and re-read in order to get my mind around the mormon= =20 characters in the play. they were so real and so fake at the same time. it= =20 bothered me. why, for instance, does kushner not recognize that mormonism= =20 is just as much a part of joe=92s internal make-up as his homosexuality? it= =20 took me two or three readings to begin to formulate my theory of a double=20 development for the mormon characters in the play; one on the surface and=20 one beneath. the text of the play actually supports the notion that joe is= =20 not entrapped in the prison of mormonism but rather trapped between two very= =20 real aspects of who he is without knowing how to negotiate them. when you= =20 read this play straight through or when you see it straight through, this is= =20 difficult to understand (i=92ll address this again below in response to=20 scott). it took me two or three readings to formulate this idea. and then= =20 it took me more readings to find all the nitty gritty details that support= =20 why i felt this way. maybe i=92m slow, but that=92s what it takes for me. one last response to dianna, quickly: =93I also understand that there's a part in Perestroika where they discuss= the=20 garment.=94 it=92s not so much discussed as used as a prop. the funny thing is that i= =20 believe kushner actually understands this somehow. joe tears off his=20 garment (after having, a few nights previously, explained it to Louis as a= =20 second skin) and declares himself free. louis, in his way, points out to=20 joe that a skin cannot be removed. this resonated with me. we can remove= =20 the object of the garment, but we cannot remove what it stands for. this is= =20 one of the elements of kushner=92s theory of progress. we cannot undo what= =20 has been done (in this instance, joe cannot undo the covenants he has made;= =20 he cannot undo the importance of mormonism in his life). we must instead=20 find a way to reconcile all of the parts of our life, everything that we are= =20 and everything that happens to us and then move forward in a constructive=20 fashion. this, at least in my opinion, actually reaffirms mormon beliefs=20 rather than mocking them. now whether garmeNts should be shown on stage=85i= =20 suppose no comment. as dianna says, it belongs on the temple thread. now for scott (sorry it took so long J): scott sites my reference to the difference between a reading and a viewing= =20 of a play and then remarks: =93but, here is the flippant remark to Amelia's comment: So what?=94 so i=92ll try to explain what. first please don=92t forget my= parenthetical:=20 =93(though watching the play will give you interesting perspective that=20 couldn't be gained by reading it).=94 i understand that a play is written= as=20 a thing to be watched. and that watching a play provides a different=20 experience from reading a play. and i realize that most of the audience=20 members will never read the play; they will only watch it. okay, caveat=20 over. to get to the meat of my =93so what=94, a couple more quotes from scott: =93for the audience, the distinction between a performance of a play and a= =20 careful reading of it does not exist.=94 [me: agreed] and =93playwright's responsibility to ensure that whatever "message" may be=20 contained in the play should be accessible to the artists who will interpret= =20 it for the audience.=94 i agree with scott. if a play cannot communicate through a performance its= =20 message, it probably has failed miserably. i believe kushner=92s play can= =20 very effectively communicate its message in performance while i agree with scott, i insist that a dramatic text is more than just=20 instructions to a director and some actors as to what a performance should= =20 include. it is also a TEXT. it is meant to be read. especially=20 contemporary dramatic literature. perhaps it will only be read by a=20 director. but even such a small audience is one that should give it a close= =20 reading. maybe the average student will not read it over and over, but i=20 would hope that a director intending to create, with the help of actors, a= =20 performance of the play would read it very closely indeed. try to=20 understand all the subtle nuances of the TEXT in order to create an accurate= =20 PERFORMANCE. and, when kushner=92s play is read this closely, it divulges= =20 much that is not easily accessible on a single reading or even a single=20 viewing, no matter how well the director and the actors present the text. back to Scott: =93If it is indeed impossible for ANY performance of a given play to=20 communicate the deepest meaning of the play, then the playwright has failed.= =20 . . . If the interpreters are masters of their craft, this understanding= =20 can occur on ONE viewing of the play; it will not require multiple in depth= =20 readings with additional supplementary research.=94 here, scott, i must humbly disagree with you. i=92ve seen many shakespeare= =20 plays. some of them i=92ve seen more than others. one of my favorites is= =20 hamlet. i=92ve seen everything from old movies to new movies; movies i like= =20 to ones i don=92t; my high school=92s product, a byu production, and a royal= =20 shakespeare production. they were all powerful. and i=92ve read it many=20 times. and every single time i left feeling like i had learned something=20 new from the play that i had not learned from other performances or readings= =20 of the play. this, in my opinion, is what makes it great. if a single=20 production created no understanding it would be a failure. but, to me, the= =20 greatness of shakespeare=92s play is its nuances. its subtleties. its=20 multifacetedness (is that a word?). if a play does not require me to=20 revisit it, i feel like it is fluff. if i can walk away from a single=20 viewing feeling like i get it, then i would object to calling the play=20 great. and if i walk away from seeing it a second time bored because i=20 already knew all that, then there=92s really a problem. and, what=92s even= more=20 incredible to my mind and the reason that i love theatre so much: i believe= =20 that a truly great performance has the same capacity. i can see a great=20 performance of the same play over and over and each time have a different=20 experience. for me, kushner=92s play achieved this. re-reading it was an adventure=20 because every time i picked up the text i found something new, something=20 fascinating, something that made me question myself and my beliefs in=20 important ways. that was my experience. it doesn=92t have to be anyone=20 else=92s. but for me, kushner=92s play is one of the great masterpieces of= the=20 last decade. and, i=92ll say it again. i wrote my THESIS on this play. understanding it= =20 didn=92t necessarily require research and outside sources, although i= believe=20 research can help. but writing an academically sound and trustworthy piece= =20 on the play does require such research. and now on to thom since he posted in the middle of my resposne (sorry--): i would agree with thom that kushner builds the kingdom. in very important= =20 ways. by foregrounding the importance of knowing one=92s self and trying to= =20 build a life accordingly. by insisting on the idea of progressing forwards= =20 out of catastrophe. by demanding love and tolerance. i believe kushner=20 reinforces much of what we believe. and i believe that by doing so he=20 =93builds the kingdom=94 whatever that means. thom says: =93What upset me was that Kushner was the first to use our symbolism in his= =20 play.=94 a friend told me that gene england made a similar comment to her regarding= =20 the play. i think thom is on to something here. we need to be unafraid to= =20 use the elements of our history and our beliefs. i won=92t write more; thom= =20 has done so beautifully. sorry for the length. this is why i generally constrain myself. i can=92t= =20 seem to stop once i get started about something i really love. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Does Intent Matter? Date: 06 May 2003 23:46:31 -0700 On Sun, 4 May 2003 23:16:41 +0900 "Kari Heber" writes: > All of the discussion leads me to ask the following question (and I > apologize if this has been discussed before): Does intent of the > author/playwright/screenwriter/director/producer even matter when it > comes to interpreting the "message" of an artistic endeavor? > > It is my belief that it doesn't. What matters is the message and > interpretation the audience gives to the work. Perhaps, but that comes awfully close to saying that the author didn't intend anything. Kari gives some good examples of why intent doesn't matter, though the long quote from Swofford mostly reminds me of Peter Thorpe's jeremiad, _Why Literature is Bad for You_. Thorpe says that given the amount of time and effort it takes to portray war or any other situation, the only thing art can do is approve. He says this is particularly true of satire, for much the same reason Swofford says it's true of anti-war films (even Cacoyannis's _The Trojan Women_, I would suppose, could be pornography for soldiers who dream of the power expressed in bashing a baby's head against a wall). > If your audience is disaffected Christians and anti-religious > types, then maybe "Piss Christ" will be interpreted the way you > intend, but if your audience is active believing Christians (of any > faith) then with a crucifix in a bottle of urine or a picture of the > Madonna made out of dung your intended message is not > likely one that will find resonance. Or maybe it will. Remember the pronon _on_ is not part of the title. A list member told me a remarkable story at last year's AML gathering about giving a Sunny Schoodle lesson in a campus ward on what it means to be born in a stable with urine and dung all over the place. > Having never seen _Chicago_, I can't speak from experience, but > while Richard says we're supposed to be appalled by the behaviour > we see, it doesn't really matter that the playwright intended us to be > appalled, if this was really his intention. In our current American > Culture most people will see this and say, "That looks like it would > would have been a great time to live." How do you know that? > Just like the average 19 year old marine sees _Platoon_ and > sees his life and training glorified. In her review of _Godfather II_ Pauline Kael says, "Many people who saw _The Godfather_ developed a romantic identification with the Corleones; they longed for the feeling of protection that Don Vito conferred on his loving family. Now that the full story has been told, you'd have to have an insensitivity bordering on moral idiocy to think that the Corleones live a wonderful life, which you'd like to be part of." (Reeling, p. 398) I agree with Kael, but I suspect there are still a lot of people who would watch the wacky TV series Mad Magazine proposed: "Those Crazy Corleones." (Reminds me of a parody I made up to sing everytime a certain Barry Manilow song comes on: I strap on my Colt .45 And maybe a hitman can turn out a hit song Maybe "Don Vito" can be number 1) > It doesn't matter if Richard Paul Evans' intent was to tell a > beautiful love story, the message that some will get is that > adultery is OK and there are no real consequences to it. Yes, except that whatever adultery is in the novel is asexual. > It doesn't matter if the future Mel Gibson movie about the life of > Christ is intended to be uplifting and a testament to Him. What > will matter to many is how religious leaders of different faiths > interpret it, and how they give "their message" of it to their > followers. > > It doesn't matter if the teletubbies are intended to be good clean > fun for pre-school age children, some will interpret a purple > clad male with a purse, and named tinky-winky, as > promoting the "homosexual lifestyle." The point behind all these examples, though is not that intent doesn't matter, but that the author's intent doesn't control our reactions to something. We can use an idea, story, technology for things outside what the author intended. > So, with that I come back to my original question, does the intended > message of a work of art make one iota of difference after that art > has been released for public consumption? Let me suggest one way in which it does, and I'm partly contradicting myself about the author's intent not controlling our reaction. I'm just finishing my second reading of Luther's translation, "Evangelium des Matthaeus." Earlier today I read where the High Priests rip their clothes and say, "This man has blasphemed God, what need have we of further witnesses." (A deeply ironic passage, because even though they've advertised for false witnesses, and many have come to the trial, the High Priests can't find any who have anything to say.) There are people who believe that the man in question, who was subsequently tortured to death, was a blasphemer, and that given the laws of the time he deserved the torture. But I have never heard anyone argue that that is the message of "Evangelium des Matthaeus." Or of Markus, Lukas, oder Johannes. There are many, many different, even conflicting, interpretations of all four works, but I know of no one who has claimed that these four writers felt that the rabbi whose life and death they chronicled deserved such a vicious painful death. If the author's intent matters as little as Swofford says surely someone would be reading the Evangelists' work as a celebration of Roman political power, or to revel in the details of Roman torture. > As a consumer of art, should I be concerned with the intended > message, or is it more important for me to explore my > reaction to it? Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to both explore your reaction to a work and think about what the work is asking you to believe? > I believe the latter is ultimately more personally fulfilling. > Rather than asking how I was supposed to feel after > partaking, it is more interesting to discover what I felt > and why I felt that way, and to what capacity my > beliefs and/or actions will change (or not) afterwards. That phrase about what the work is asking you to believe comes from Reynolds Price's introductory essay to his book of Bible story translations, _A Palpable God_. He uses the phrase to argue that scriptural stories are accounts of real events that happened to real people. Discussing the story of Jacob's wrestle at Penuel in the introductory essay, "A Single Meaning: Notes on the Origins and Life of Narrative," Price says, "a modern reader, religious or not, faced with the final text, whatever its vicissitudes and earlier forms, is likely to ask the central question first--_What does this story ask me to believe?_ Either kind of reader would surely say _It asks me to believe precisely what it says_" (32). Of course, Price is using a rhetorical device. He's well aware that many modern readers don't ask what the story wants them to believe, that there are readers who accept the story as scripture but don't believe it records an actual event. He's also well aware that there are people who don't believe the story precisely because they recognize that it asks them to believe that what is says happened happened. Asking what a story wants you to believe allows Price to examine how Bible stories and held him (and millions more "over nearly four millennia" (33)) in "helpless belief." Which is dream of any storyteller, to give the readers the deep satisfaction and comfort of belief in truth. An interesting fictional treatment of this idea that scripture makes certain demands on us is in Robert A. Christmas's "Another Angel" (in Levi Peterson's anthology, _Greening Wheat_ also in Dialogue 14:2, 1981, and in Christmas's _The Fiction_). It's about a woman on her honeymoon, having married one of her grad school profs who is sort of running away from the Church, and after hearing a bit about the Bof M she decides to trace all the sources JS used to write it for her dissertation. Instead she begins responding to the book's message, very upsetting to her husband. I would also say that based on essays like Lionel Trilling's "On the Teaching of Modern Literature" (in _Beyond Culture_) and John S. Tanner's "Making a Mormon Out of Milton" (BYU Studies 24:2, 1984) that there are ethical and unethical readings of a work of art, and we ought to try to treat works of art ethically. I'll say more about this in another post. Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 06 May 2003 23:34:48 -0600 I have observed that the BASIC saving principles of the gospel are never presented in obscure language. Only the sauces, the dressings and the condiments that makes the meat of the gospel appetizing, tantalizing and delectable. In my mind God would not be a just god if he obscured the saving principles. They need to be plain enough so that even the most feeble minded of his children can comprehend them. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 07 May 2003 00:51:36 -0600 My daughter belonged to a bible study group and said that the Greek translation was very insightful. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Update on My Book Proposal Date: 07 May 2003 00:17:34 -0700 Chris, I am finding your continuing saga fascinating and informative. Nice to have some concrete business development stuff on the list to learn from. It HAS altered how I have come to think about my endless morass of essays (i.e., unpublishable) and realize that there IS a way to mold them to intrigue certain quasi-mainstream buyers. What a revelation! Thanks for blazing the trail! And good luck, darn your hide! Keep us informed. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 07 May 2003 08:00:43 EDT In a message dated 5/5/03 9:15:38 PM, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << Well, let's bring back the Mormon Arts Festival again so everybody can come. Those blankety-blank artists, what elitist snobs! >> Maybe a word of explanation: There have been Mormon Arts Festivals of varying sizes occuring independent of each other for a long time, and will be, and should be. The particular festival Michael would like to bring back (which was great fun, and quite useful, and at which I met great people, many on this list) was sponsored by a group called the Mormon Arts Foundation. The festival, although requiring a fee to participate, was largely underwritten by a small circle of anonymous non-artist donors (in ten years, I haven't discovered who they are) whose dream was to see new "Mormon art" created and put before an ever larger audience. After the first four or five festivals, those donors imagined that maybe their very specific purpose would be served by underwriting the gathering of smaller groups of professional artists. The film group, for example, included only people who had made numerous widely distributed films. All the literature folks had been published by national houses. Some good things were lost in the transition from general festival to invited retreat. For many, dance was the most exciting element of the festival. At the retreat it isn't even represented (although a key address this year was delivered by a choreographer). Diversity, however, was not lost. The visual arts circle has included artists of such varying styles that, outside the church, you'd expect them to be at each other's throats. But here they were, earnestly trying to help one another succeed. The exclusivity is a thorny by-product of the donors' decision. I wasn't invited until the third year. I've attended for three years and refereed the theatre group this year and would love to continue, but I'm not at all certain that I'll be invited again. (I keep getting drawn into acting controversial play readings--just kidding, Eric). The composition of the group has changed from year to year, but being a professional artist seems to be an arbitrary pre-requisite. (Also, being at least known by the various inviters helps. The inviters change, and I know that plans to increase the number and rotation of invitees are in the works, as are plans to increase the donations that would facilitate it.) Regarding elitism, some of us admitted this year that there are probably (way probably) similar gatherings going on elsewhere that would look down on ours as kind of bush-league. Still, I don't think anybody at this year's retreat is eager to find some gathering more bush-league than ours to look down on. Hope this helps, 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: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Biblical Language (was: In Defense of Obscurity) Date: 07 May 2003 08:02:06 -0400 An interesting note about "you" and "thou". When the KJV was being translated "thou" and etc, were the intimate pronoun choices, rather than the archaic, formal forms they are today. (At least according the History of the English Language course I listened to. Have any of you supper smart listers heard to the contrary?) A more modern example of this usage than the KJV would be Louisa May Allcott's _Little Women_. The German professor, to show his great affection for Jo, asks to be allowed to use thee and thou, which, apparently, in his culture had a personal, intimate context. Thus, a modern translation of the scriptures could very well choose "you" over "thou" not as a way of disrespecting, or even modernizing, but choosing the pronoun use that makes God a personal and intimate being rather than a formal, distant one. I realize that at least on of our GAs has spoken of using the more formal language as being more reverent. Personally, I don't think using an archaic pronoun or a vernacular removed from our daily existence is an indication of reverence. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 06 May 2003 00:00:55 -0700 Ronn Blankenship aks: "Which should be the primary goal of a writer: to tell the story s/he has to tell, perhaps _needs_ to tell, or to make a living out of one's writing? Granted, every writer wishes s/he can do both with everything s/he writes, but if that is not possible, which should take priority?" Uhhh, is this a trick question? To make a living. PERIOD. That is the FIRST priority. Any other response is just romantic pap touted by people who don't really want to be writers. Nobody "HAS" to tell any story. Again: romantic pap. We don't write because we HAVE to, we write because we CAN. Any writer who writes because they HAVE TO will eventually go insane. Check your history books. A lot of our best writers went nuts or were nuts to begin with. So the question "can I do both?" is really the wrong question. It's not a question of can I write the stories I "need" to tell AND make a living out of them. The real question is can I write the stories I "need" to write and not eventually go insane. If you are going to do both, i.e., write AND keep your sanity, you can do it ONLY DO IT ONE OF TWO WAYS: 1) You can decide that you are going to be a happy life-long armature. You will write, but not be a writer. You will be content and happy and sane writing the stories you want to write, working a day job which you enjoy and which does not drive you insane, and sharing your stories from time to time with friends, family, on-line discussion groups, etc. And be happy. (Did I say "happy" three times? Yes, because if this scenario makes you unhappy, you will go crazy.) Group 1 people never want to make a living out of their stories, ever. They don't care about that, that was NEVER their goal, so that trick question above does not apply to them. 2) You can decide that you want to write professionally. Not just to write, but to be a writer. Group 2 people only have one option. At the point when they decide they want to be pros (and remember, we are only talking about the SANE writers), you have to learn your craft AND your business. You write the best stories you can, you target them for a market, you do everything you can to sell them to that market, you DO sell them, and then you'll do it all over again, over and over for the rest of your life. It's your JOB. It not some romantic idea of "being a writer" it's your profession, your business, your J - O - B. The artists of this category are so good that they make us FORGET this fact, but that doesn't mean it isn't the truth and nothing but the truth. Being a writer is work, hard work, disciplined work. Day in, day out, nose to the grindstone WORK. Anywhere from one- to ten-thousand words a day. Output, product. The art is in making it LOOK like art. Any other option will eventually lead to insanity. If you can't sell what you write and you WANT to, you'll go crazy. If you don't care, great. You have no either/or dilemma. It does not apply. But if you DO want to be a professional and you DO want to remain sane, you HAVE TO SELL YOUR WORK. There are different ways to do that. But don't for one second tell me that there is a dichotomy between the stories you "HAVE TO TELL" and the stories you "HAVE TO SELL". They are the SAME. And if the stories you are writing DON'T sell (and you WANT them to) you have to do one of two things: 1) Change your stories. Or 2) Change the market you are trying to sell them to. Any other option leads to insanity. So, if Mormon Horror sells, and that's what you "have" to write: great. But if it doesn't sell, you have to either take out the "Mormon" or take out the "Horror". And if you CAN'T do one of those two things that, you'll go crazy. Or, you can change your mind and realize that you were really a category 1 person all along and you never did want to sell the stories you have to tell. So, again, there is no dichotomy, there is no priority, there is no either/or. You only want to write in a vacuum. For you, there is no dilemma. The question above doesn't count. For all the rest of us category 2 people, there is no discussion. The stories have to sell. End of story. This isn't romantic. It isn't hogwash. It's not artsy-fartsy-feel-good-self-motivational crap. It's real. You want to write: write. Everybody should (it's been proven to help arthritis). But if you want to be a WRITER, screw your head on straight, get the dream dust out of your eyes, wake up and smell the Postum, baby. This is life in the real world. And writing is a business. If I make cars, that's my product. If I paint houses, how well I perform my skilled profession is my product. If the customer is not happy, they don't pay. I have to redo the job better. I get more jobs because I get a reputation for being good at what I do. Painting houses. Building cars. If I write books, movies, plays, stories, songs, paint pictures, etc., that is my PRODUCT. It's not art, its a product. SELL IT. THEN... everyone will think you're an artist. Nuff said. Jaded Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 06 May 2003 00:56:58 -0700 Clark Goble states: "I think that there is an open field for Mormon horror. In a way our cosmology and mythology is much more ripe for such literature than even Catholicism. (And you'll note that Catholicism disproportionately is represented in horror) I'm sure that if someone was to visit the folk story collection at BYU they'd find that a disproportionate number of such folk tales are basically horror stories." Yes, but there is a difference between a ghost story and a horror story. Or even a story which acknowledges spirits and extra-normal events and a horror story. And OSC doesn't write Mormon Horror. He's a Mormon, and sometimes he writes something which might be called horror (although even Lost Boys is pretty tame compared to some of the horror I've read). It is a very good point to make that Mormon cosmology is ripe for explorations of the supernatural. This is perhaps why I have always been very comfortable in own explorations of the supernatural. I've had some pretty bizarre encounters, too. I've experienced some intense psychic phenomenon; I've been involved in exorcisms; I've had experiences that would creep out the average Mormon. Even though our cosmology is fully open to such things, and explains their existence and their limits and the uses and disguises to which the Opposition puts such phenomenon to a fair degree of depth, many still experience fear and confusion when confronted with stories about such things. My companion, who was with me when we were involved in the excommunication of a Satan-worshiping LDS witch, was so freaked out he was shaking in his boots and could hardly function for a couple of days, whereas I was not particularly phased. I am sure there are many others who would not be phased, but I am more certain that the vastly greater majority of Mormon audiences do not want exposure to such subject matter in a forum which they consider LDS literature. So when I write supernatural stuff (I guess angels are "supernatural" so I should use a different word) -- when I write horror or more darkly oriented para-normal experiences, my gut tendency is to package such tales for the mainstream market and diminish the LDS element out of respect for the frailer elements of Mormondom. And that's not a satirical or insulting label. We have to respect people's limits to some extent, even though, as artists, our gut impulse is always to push the limits and strain the bounds of our envelope. The fact is that classic Catholicism takes their role as soldiers of Christ in a war against the forces of evil very seriously, in a way which we tend to have forgotten or make light of. I have some Mormon "confrontation-with-the-forces-of-evil" stories which are true, but which I don't necessarily consider "horror", nor have I ever attempted to package or sell to any market; but it would certainly take a lot of coaxing for me to ever consider packaging it for specifically LDS readership. If I did so, I would greatly diminish the sense of dark loathing, and greatly emphasize the light of the priesthood in such confrontations, changing the tember of the story from a "horror" story to a "miracle" story: a different genre altogether. When I'm in the mood to be creeped out, I pick up authors who I know are good at that, but I don't go looking at DB. When someone picks up an OSC book (with a few exceptions) they are not picking up "Mormon literature" they are picking up a sci-fi book or a horror book or an alternate universe fantasy book. It's in the packaging, it's in how it is sold. My contention is that if I wrote a horrifying, scary and inconclusively resolved (i.e., truly "horror" and not "miracle") story about two LDS missionaries confronting satanic forces in a witch coven in Lyon (which I certainly COULD do, and I wouldn't be making all of it up, either), I might get a bite from one of the LDS magazines, and probably could sell it to Signature, but DB, Covenant, etc., would probably never buy it, and if they did, their consumers probably wouldn't. My other contention is that that's okay. I don't want to cram something down anybody's throat. I'd much rather turn the LDS missionaries into a Catholic priest and sell it to Random House nationwide than stick with haunted Elders and a get a 1000-copy print run for Signature on the Wasatch Front. Why limit yourself? If you've spent all your time to write something, and write it well, and making one or two changes can make it accessible to millions but refusing to make those changes keeps you at a print run of 1000, what's the point of that? To "force" Mormons to confront the fight against evil? To make a name for yourself as a bad boy? To smirk at your bishop and tell him it's all gospel-based? I don't get why those would be interesting goals. Broad-minded Mormons or LDS readers who like a varied staple, will find their fodder in all the usual places. I don't have to have my book on DB's shelves to reach them. But if a book IS on DB's shelves, why is it bad that it fits within a given range of categorization? Hey, I don't submit my serial killer screenplay to a YA or middle grade book packager and suggest that it be turned into a series for 12-year-olds. There are market-appropriate guidelines for submission of various genres to various publishers. Successful writers always target their manuscripts to specific buyers' needs. Yes, we try to transcend the genre, yes we always try to write well, but why waste your precious writing time polishing a manuscript for which there is no market? Especially when one or two changes suddenly opens up doors? Okay, I've been hitting this theme pretty hard today in a number of different posts, so I'll shut up. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Does Intent Matter? Date: 07 May 2003 22:53:13 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: > Consider an electrician who runs wires through the middle of your room. > Surely you have the right to object to this style of wiring as opposed > to the electrician who carefully runs the wires through the walls so > they are not seen. Both jobs end up doing the same thing: getting > electricity from point A to point B. However the style is completely > different. And in these regards the person hiring the plumber, > electrician or other profession has every right to have a say in the > style of the enterprise. An electrician running wires through the middle of the room is an incompetent moron. How about if we restrict our analogies to reasonable situations? > If you aren't writing public art, then the rules are different. If you > are writing public art then you had better be aware of your public. . . > I rather liked Jongiorgi's analogy from Friends in this regard. Know > your audience. Knowing your audience is exactly what I'm talking about. I maintain that the church folk who oversee officially commissioned art do _not_ know their audience as well as the artist, so they are requiring changes to the art that are ultimately self-defeating, instead of relying on the expertise of the artist. > Indeed I think any consumer who doesn't worry about such things to be a > fool. I *always* inquire about the "how" when hiring anyone. To do > otherwise is to open yourself up for fraud, abuse, or heartache. If fraud or abuse occurs, you generally need another expert to come identify it, unless you are knowledgeable yourself on the subject. Someone who doesn't have a clue about a profession will often make a fool of himself when he starts criticizing the work of the professional. Inquiring about the how of a professional's work is not a problem. That's a good way to expand one's education, even a good way to make the professional feel like he won't so easily get away with sloppiness with you. But inquiring is quite a different thing from dictating how things should be done. > Results alone are *never* the sole purview of the professional or > artist. To think that it ought to be so to me highlights the huge > disconnect between some artists and the public they ostensibly serve. But I already said the commissioner of the art has complete say in the results. It's when the commissioner starts dictating to the professional how to achieve those results that the trouble starts. If the film "The Agony and the Ecstasy" has any historical validity, I'm glad Michelangelo didn't just give the pope what he asked for in the first place. The "appropriate designs" request was something Michelangelo, being the consummate artist that he was, could not in the end bring himself to do. He had to start over and do something true to his artistic spirit, something that transcended what the pope thought he wanted. In the end, we're all the better for it. If Michelangelo had painted what the pope had asked for, the Sistine Chapel would be as forgettable as much of the LDS church's officially commissioned art is today. > It is somewhat funny > Michael that earlier this week your were criticizing Gene Wolf for the > "how" of his writings and suggesting that he could do this only because > he didn't care who read his work. Now you seem to be doing a reversal > in these matters. Why is it that one sort of "how" is open to public > scrutiny while a different sort of "how" is not? Why is "obscurity" or > "difficulty" to be condemned while the particular approach to the sacred > somehow privileged? These things are not what is and is not privileged. My standing as a reasonably competent artist is where the privilege resides. One professional has every right to criticize the work of another professional by the very fact that he knows what he's talking about. And were there a General Authority who was a truly competent artist (not a mere dabbler in certain arts), I would respect his criticism as much as any other artist. If Neal Maxwell voiced some criticism over my speaking skills, I would listen. > How can you use your > electrician example when it seems to undermine your own criticism from > earlier on in the week? The answer to that of course is, it doesn't. -- 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] Miracles Date: 07 May 2003 22:59:07 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > if we > are at liberty to explore the "dregs" which we've so often discussed here, > what about the other extreme? Shouldn't we allow ourselves to explore the > other side as well? Absolutely. -- 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: Re: [AML] TUROW, _Personal Injuries_ Date: 07 May 2003 14:47:26 -0700 (PDT) --- cwilson@emerytelcom.net wrote: > Just started reading this novel. In it a female undercover agent has > being > Mormon as part of her cover. She grew up Mormon though she isn't now. > She says > her dad was a member of the Church, capped C, so this guy must know a > little > about it. Anyone know his connection? > I wrote a review of this novel which can be found at http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B199948.html Still don't know where Turow got his information about the church, but I didn't find it especially convincing. It's a good book though, like all of Turow's. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 07 May 2003 22:55:11 -0600 Jamie Laulusa wrote: > OSC's "Homebody" and Treasure Box" as well. Treasure Box scared me. [Hides > under the bed] Interesting. For me, _Treasure Box_ is Card's worst work. The first half is as good as anything he wrote, but the second half breaks down into tedious cliches. The ending is lifted wholesale from one or more horror movies. -- 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] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 07 May 2003 15:24:18 -0600 At 10:59 PM 5/5/03 -0700, you wrote: >The other day, I was thinking about that battle in Alma that gets pretty >intense, and I visualized the big M (not unlike Henry V) standing there >chatting with the troops. I liked this very much! Especially that repeated line. Very effective. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 07 May 2003 16:16:10 -0600 Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > Are you saying that people shouldn't rely on the judgment of others, > that people should think for themselves when it comes to making > judgments about the validity of things in the art they consume, that it > may actually be a negative thing to have a place that is considered > "safe" to shop for art so that you leave your guard down and just accept > everything that's presented there? Imagine that. > Maybe. I could also be saying that we need DB to screen out books like these because some people aren't smart enough to do it for themselves. ;-) You're right, people shouldn't rely on others to make their decisions for them. But there are a lot of people out there who do anyway. It may not be right, but it's a reality that LDS authors and publishers need to be aware of. Whether or not LDS bookstores should concern themselves with it is another issue. I still feel that any store has the right to tailor their products to fit the demand of their perceived customer base. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 07 May 2003 23:59:35 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: > much of the great French poetry of the medieval era, couldn't be > read in modern French because French had become so simplified. This led > to horrid translations of French into French in the 19th century which > lost a lot of the character of the poetry and prose. (Imagine > Shakespeare translated into a modern vernacular, for instance) There are muscial performers who use authentically recreated period instruments to play classical music, because our modern instruments don't sound the same, and they want to share what the musical experience was like for audiences back when the classical pieces were first being performed. A comparable situation exists with Shakespeare. It is impossible for us to experience Shakespeare as the original audiences did, because the instruments we use today (language) are different from then. Clark suggests that translating Shakespeare into a modern vernacular would be a dreaful thing, but I ask why? Why shouldn't we be able to experience Shakespeare as the original audiences did? It would be important that the translator knows what he's doing so he can preserve the essence of Shakespeare in the modern vernacular, but to suggest that such a thing would be aesthetically horrendous I can't accept. It's not like it would rob us of the traditional Shakespearean experience we're used to: the original versions would still be around. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 08 May 2003 00:10:01 -0600 Eugene Woodbury wrote: > The sense of being "trapped" into thinking about a subject in a > certain way (even if it is the "right" way) infuriates more than it > convinces or instructs. This is the inherent weakness of the Socratic > method, which always implies a Ha! Gotcha! after the QED. The results of my treatise on clear writing appears to be pigeonholing me somewhere where I don't want to go. Maybe it's because I used the word "message" to stand for story. Anyone who's been on this list for a while knows that I'm very anti-didactic literature. I hope I'm not giving the opposite impression when I discuss clarity in writing. Clarity to me does not mean writing sermons or browbeating my opinions into another brain. It means nothing more than communicating clearly, making the receiving of my ideas effortless. From that point on, totally different rules come into play, rules that suggest the worst thing you can do in literature is sermonize. My attempt to influence a change in people's thinking ought to be very obscure, even to the point where it's obscure to me the author, coming from my subconscious rather than conscious mind. -- 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: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 07 May 2003 13:50:40 -0700 > -----Original Message----- > I also found, when I was deeply involved in Shakespeare, playing Richard > III, for example, I too, was totally immersed for many months in the text, > and I found that I, and some of my cast mates, could easily > conduct "iambic > battles", extemporising in the meter quite trippingly off the > tongue! It was > fun. I've mostly lost it now, but if I concentrate, it comes back not too > hard. > Jon brings to mind an experience from the fifties. I was playing Pompey in Antony and Cleopatra at the San Diego Shakespeare festival, and I watched in awe as the guy (I can no longer remember his name, but he was a journeyman actor- in fact one of the best actors I have ever seen- in his mid to late forties) who played Enobarbus. He was totally immersed in the role but had a terrible time remembering his lines, especially long soliloquies. He always knew where the scene was going but didn't always remember the details in the roadmap. He would improvise constantly in blank verse that was really brilliant. At first it was a real trial to pick up cues and stay with him, and one day I asked Alan Fletcher, the director if there wasn't something he could do to keep ****** on script. (I was a very young college junior at the time). Alan took me by the shoulder, looked me straight in the eye and said "Dick, watch and learn, watch and learn" . By the end of the run, I really knew what he meant. In our culture there are many occasions when language in common use soars, and if we listen, watch and learn, we give our plays the opportunity to use that same soaring language. On a similar note, I personally can't cope with rap, partly because my hearing is so faulty that I can't understand the words, and partially because my paradigm is so stilted that I probably couldn't follow the words if my hearing wasn't all shot and the rhythms seem so repetitive as to be a bore. Having said that, shortly after I hired a young black off-Broadway director/actor to a temp position in our theatre he was directing a Langston Hughes play for us. At the same time he had invited Ossie Davis who happened to be a friend of his to come speak to our students. That night, after Ossie had spent the day in the classroom he attended one of Mical's (our new faculty member, who, by the way, got himself some academic degrees and is still on the faculty, long after my retirement) rehearsal. After the rehearsal, Mical, Ossie, and many of the members of the cast were sitting around chatting and spontaneously began to "do the dozens". To the uninitiated (me too) I think that is the source of rap, but for an hour these folks sat and, in rhyme insulted each other, their respective mothers, me, our department, and the world in one of the most exciting sessions of "repartee" I have ever watched and heard. 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: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 07 May 2003 21:14:48 -0600 At 11:03 AM 5/5/03 -0600, you wrote: >What bothered me most was not that the characters were human and >imperfect, but >that everything they did was made to be "right." I have similar feelings about quite a few of Stansfield's books. It's like when I first read Ayn Rand and George Bernard Shaw as a young person. I found myself frowning in confusion and saying, "Wait a minute! The wrong people are the good guys!" barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Date: 08 May 2003 06:28:29 -0400 katie@aros.net wrote: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list > But this is what scares me most about it: Suppose that this kind of behavior > really is wrong. But Anita Stansfield has clearly labeled it as "right," and > some readers have clearly labeled her books as "faith promoting." What, then, > will they think about this behavior? They'll probably think it's right, too. > Anita Stansfield (or any other "faith-promoting" author) could potentially put > all kinds of terrible behavior in her books, convincingly portray it as right, > have her characters feel the Spirit, and her audience would still come out > uplifted and thinking they've learned something good. (Though I do hope that > most readers have more sense.) > > Scary, isn't it? I think this points to a central problem in our experience of culture as Latter-day Saints. The ability to distinguish wise and unwise acts from the substrate that produced them is really one of the few gifts of the rifts of adolescence that serve us well in adulthood. The reasoning that comfortable situation or person who has been described as heroic = all acts are morally appropriate is the behavior, empirically described, that contributes to fraud and Ponzi schemes in the Mormon Wasatch Front. This also speaks to the crucial difference between the spirit of Christ and the amalgam of superstition, sentimentality, and flaccid theology that constitutes the phenomenon of "The Spirit." While I've long since learned that it is unjust and unwise to deny spiritual experiences to people without sophisticated education (a temptation few with advanced training have not suffered from), I am still concerned when we go out of our way to build a culture of over-simplified sentimentality. It's a tougher, scarier world without that faith aid, but I believe it's a no more God-less world. As a physician I see this repeatedly. When I'm feeling tired, stressed, weak, I tend to want to rely on either a) whatever an esteeemed expert has said, independent of whether she has closely examined the case, and b) rely on solutions that fit well into slogans or come from approved crib sheets. I find that, while many physicians do practice that way, my patients and I benefit from careful and critical examination of the case that recognizes that established wisdom may be wrong and problems may be more complex than anticipated. I do find that medicine is a lot easier the other way, though, and I'm sympathetic to those who would prefer that life/faith/medicine be simpler and problems come wrapped and with care instructions on the label. -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] AML-List Slowdown Date: 09 May 2003 22:36:24 -0500 Folks, Over the next week, I have both a mort of grading and a writing deadline to tackle. I'll try to keep sending out a few messages per day, but will probably not be able to keep up entirely. Your patience appreciated. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Obscurity: A Coda Date: 08 May 2003 15:47:02 -0700 This "coda" will probably come off as more-of-the-same, = beating-a-dead-horse, and otherwise self-indulgent and superfluous, but = since we were on the topic anyway, and to supply an addendum to our = recent discussion about literary obscurity, its pros and cons and = various manifestations and machinations, I wanted to share some quotes I = recently stumbled upon in a book of literary criticism by Barcley Owens, = Cormac McCarthy's Western Novels. I was intrigued by one or two points = he made in the introduction relative to McCarthy's writing and to the = topic of obscurity as a tactic in literary art, which I thought might be = of interest to some of you and which may contribute, at least in the = form of another round of debate, to our discussion. I do not quote Mr. Owens (who is a Ph.D. in American Studies currently = teaching American literature at Big Ben Community College in Washington = State, BTW, in case you don't know him; I certainly had never heard of = him) because he seems to be supporting my original thesis in the "In = Defense of Obscurity" article, but simply because this is an example, = not only of the very topic we have, in our own small way, deemed to = temporarily explore being played out in the larger forum of academia's = study of American lit, but because Owen's comments suggest that Cormac = McCarthy (who to some, at least, definitely falls under the heading of a = writer who can be obscure) is one who's works have achieved both = artistic accolades and national awards (not, in and of themselves, = indicative of anything) as well as a significant measure of popularity = among the "unwashed masses," making him that unique form of literary = animal who is seen as both entertaining to many (an implied prerequisite = to which achievement is often believed to be an easily accessible style) = AND not preclusive to a serious scholarly effort (an implied = prerequisite to which achievement is often believed to be an obscure and = difficult style). McCarthy is increasingly required reading in many = literature courses, he has plentiful and vocal fans (particularly in = internet discussion groups devoted to him, apparently), and his Boarder = Trilogy is not only widely sold, they've made a movie out of one of them = (which was, it has to be admitted, less popular, relatively speaking, = than its literary counterpart). But all in all, this is a writer that = has a achieved a duality that would not, on the surface, be suspected. = He is admittedly obscure, both in real life (he is very private, = mysterious, never grants interviews or does publicity tours) as well as = in text, but he remains popular both among readers who read for = entertainment and readers who are really scholars reading to expand a = critical survey of the American textual landscape. I just re-read and realized that the first six-tenths of that last = paragraph was one long sentence. I apologize for that. You see, I can = write short sentences. But sometimes I don't think that way. So the = longer sentences come out. Sometimes I think in fragmented thoughts. And = so short ones come out. Like this. See? Is it ironic or consistent that a paragraph introducing the topic of = obscurity is in itself murky with multiple clauses? That makes me smile. = It inspires an aside, if you will allow me to indulge in a little bit of = self-analysis here. I don't think it is completely coincidental that I, = who like many different forms of writing styles, from the simple and the = plain to the more ornate and structurally complex, find myself (I notice = only after the fact) using longer and more structurally convoluted = sentences and somewhat more unconventional vocabulary when writing about = this particular topic (literary obscurity) than when writing about other = things! This impulse, be it subconscious or not, is important, as it = relates to that ever-debatable concept of "appropriateness" within a = given context of discussion. I think there is a time and a place for = many different styles, and sometimes the very subject may, thematically, = symbolically, demand a different style (not necessarily a different way = of thinking, but a different way of presenting), precisely in order to = allow the author to create a second, and subliminal, level of = communication in the making of any given point.=20 It may not just the words which say what the author is trying to say, = but the way the words are constructed: the syntax of meaning; the = grammar of symbolism.=20 Just as the greatest books about writing, I find, are short, precise, = punching, to the point, and more often than not, funny (see Trimble's = Writing With Style, Gordon's The Well-Tempered Sentence and The = Transitive Vampire and, of course, the inimitable classic, Strunk & = White's The Elements of Style), I also find that other books about = certain topics exhibit, in their written style, revelations about the = very topic they propose to be discussing. The best do, at any rate. Not = that my writing about any subject is "the best," and not that, though I = have read and enjoyed the writing books I mentioned above, I have = internalized their precepts; I have not. (My use -- or should I say = over-use? -- of commas would be frowned upon by William Strunk very = likely - but I digress within a digression, something Trimble would find = distressing.)=20 For example, books about humor in literature or the art of stand-up = comedy would be deadly if they were delivered in a dry, in-humorous = style. A book about poetry, even the strict, scholarly, metered voice of = a literary criticism of poetry, that was also, in its prose, poetic, = would certainly garner my attention more readily (even if I was = unconscious of why). A book about childhood and/or child psychology = would be wonderfully congruent if it were written in the particularly = festive and celebratory voice of youth, wouldn't you think?=20 And so, is there interest in writing an essay about obscurity (or even = trying to write a SECOND essay about obscurity when one finds that one = has already written one, to use "one" in two different ways) wherein the = sentences are long, the paragraphs even longer, and the words even = longer still?!=20 Probably not, but I can't help myself! End of digression. Barcley Owens on McCarthy's obscurity: "Some early reviewers of Blood Meridian found the narrative voice = overwritten, turgid, even purple. Most readers, myself included, find = the book not only readable but enticingly full of ornate gestures and = tidbits of arcane detail. A layering of tonalities, as found in the = resonating dream sequences or landscape descriptions, has the ability to = radiate experiences beyond our conscious power to understand. McCarthy's = prose gushes like a river, violent as whitewater in places, dreamy and = placid elsewhere; but always underneath, the thematic tow is swift and = deep. So deep that we can't always see the bottom. If we are fishing for = critical approaches, we know there may be all sorts of interesting trout = in the text, down in there somewhere, but efforts to tease them out, to = tie just the right fly, mostly fail. McCarthy is doing what he wants = according to his own agenda, mixing various cultural sources and old = voices, shocking us with inappropriate comedy and horrifying us with a = litany of corpses. In this respect his art imitates his life-critics, = casual readers, and devoted fans be damned. And he is not going to grant = us absolution or bother explaining matters, large or small, within his = books. There will be no authorial exegesis, no addendum, no lectures, no = interviews. What we get, instead, is the thrill of the ride and sights = that leave us dumbstruck, tingling, guilty in our participation. In = Blood Meridian we are part of a great literary crime, a strange drama in = which the devil fiddles, dances, grins, and wins while the rest of = humanity remains ignorant of the proceedings. And none of the "Yes, = but's" about the book as a historical romance or moral parable or epic = tragedy will suffice. We have gotten our money's worth from a writer so = talented he can make us laugh at images of extreme depredation. Certain = scenes in Blood Meridian, like Captain White's head in the jar of = mescal, are cinematic, fusing the bizarre and brutal into shocking, = grotesque juxtaposition. And our own rueful laughs tell us more about = ourselves than we want to admit. We are caught vicariously participating = in a spectacle of gross sensationalism-binging on adrenaline, sweating, = laughing. Despite attempts to sneak back later, to redact the evidence, = to investigate our reactions, to explain away certain scenes as moral, = we cannot forget the initial shock of the novel's violence. We can try = every fly in our academic hats, plumb every intertextual hole in search = of beautiful fish, but after such analysis, we certainly end up with = less than we begin with on that first wild ride down the river." Well now, obviously this author (and, more particularly, this specific = book) is not for everybody, nor do I intend to espouse such literature = by quoting Owen's reaction. In fact, as long as we're being truthful, I = have not yet read Blood Meridian myself and may or may not get around to = it. I was more interested in Owen's comments about literary obscurity in = general than in McCarthy (or Gene Wolfe, or Isaiah, or Shakespeare) = specifics (although I have read some of all four and I like them all - = even thought I know I don't yet "get" them all).=20 Generally speaking, I'll say, as I've said before, the following: = sometimes the weight of the subject matter is so heavy on the author, = the intensity of the experience the author is trying to convey is so = distinct, that the only way of truly conveying the "reality" of that = experience is (to apply Frederick Buechner's metaphor) to open a vein = over the page and let it all gush out in a style which some readers will = certainly find overwritten, turgid, and even purple. But for that = particular author at that particular time over that particular subject, = nothing less will do. Of course the tempering argument is B.R. Myers' essay "A Reader's = Manifesto" for the Atlantic Monthly where he attacks the growing = pretentiousness of American literary prose (and thank you whoever it was = on the List who gave us the link to that article; I don't remember now = who it was who recommended it, but it is excellent, so, again, thanks). = One of Myer's main problems is not the "gushing" quality of prose, per = se, but the mixing of metaphors many modern writers get away with. You = will notice that Owens, above, is consistent in his use of fly-fishing = images throughout his long paragraph, whereas, Myers points out, some = authors will, in one paragraph: "liken a man's body to a loaf of bread, = his flesh to a casement, his head to a melon, his facial features to = fingertips, his eyes to the color of plastic, and his chin to a shelf"!=20 As long as this coda has included a series of admissions, I may as well = continue: I have to admit that the author Myers slams above (Annie = Proulx) is one that I happen to have enjoyed; but that admission, to use = Owen, "tells us more about me than I want to admit." At any rate, yin or yang, shaken or stirred, well done or slightly = blended, I'll end my coda with a final admission and an in-your-face = accusation (might as well keep it entertaining): >From time to time, I like my dose of purple adrenaline splash in the = whitewater pond. And you know what? (The presumption!): All of y'all do too. Jongiorgi ("Royal Coachman") Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] NICHOLS, _Prostitution, Polygamy and Power_ (Review) Date: 08 May 2003 04:26:45 GMT Review Title: Prostitution, Polygamy and Power: Salt Lake City 1847-1918 Author: Jeffrey Nichols Publisher: University of Illinois Press Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 247 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-252-02768-X Price: $34.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle >From time to time, I look at the stack of books I yet need to read and wonder whether writing books isn't really the "oldest profession." Surely the lusts of the flesh take second place to one's gluttony for the printed page. Or maybe not. Prostitution, the selling or trading of sexual favors, has been with mankind for as long as there is reliable recorded history. One may fantasize that one's own culture is free of the practice, but reality indicates otherwise. Indeed, while the City of Enoch may have been pure and free from lusty sins, the City of Brigham evidently wasn't. Jeffrey Nichols has produced an eminently readable, and decidedly balanced, treatment of the seamy underside of early Salt Lake City. Illustrated with detailed maps, the reader can place the actual site of Salt Lake's "Red Light District," a place where alcohol and sex may be had for a price. But Nichols, an assistant professor of history at Westminster College in Salt Lake City, is not out to discredit the Church, nor is he offering a salacious work to be read only after the sun is down and the shades are drawn. An excellent introduction sets the scene: As Salt Lake City began to grow and develop into an important city in the raw U.S. west, the city itself attracted not just Saints, but Gentiles as well. These Gentiles found polygamy to be offensive, and they spared no effort to bring the practice to an end. They viewed polygamy as sanctified sexual excess, rather than the observance of a sacred principle. To illustrate their point, the Church's enemies engaged prostitutes to entice Church leaders, hoping to catch them in verifiable sexual sin, and thus buttress their view that polygamy was, after all, all about sex. At its root, it was really all about power. Who would control Salt Lake City -- the Mormons, or the Gentiles? Prostitution had additional meanings and uses within the Mormon-gentile conflict. For many Mormon men, the presence of women selling sex was a galling symptom of their failure to maintain exclusive control over the city. Prostitution could stand for all of the unwelcome changes that gentiles supposedly brought to Zion, as well as "proof" of the immorality of those who condemned polygamy. Reform in this context could mean a return to Mormon hegemony and the enforcement of the LDS moral code and gender system. Mormons had additional reasons to condemn prostitution when some gentiles equated it with polygamy. Most Mormon women probably shared these views, at least publicly, although many welcomed the end of plural marriage. (p. 5) What follows is a detailed, but very readable, study of the mechanics of prostitution in Salt Lake, the ongoing struggle for power, and the effect it had on Salt Lake society. Chapter One is titled "'Celestial Marriage' vs. 'Polygamic Lascivious Cohabitation'". It outlines the settlement of the Salt Lake valley, the eventual influx of gentiles into the city, and the growing discomfort with polygamy. Newspapers such as the "Tribune" spoke loudly against the practice; writers of "history" and salacious novels equated polygamy with prostitution. Such a charge was not new: From the earliest hints of polygamy, some critics had likened the two practices. John C. Bennett, an early apostate, charged that Mormon leaders kept secret orders of prostitution. Ex-Mormon Sidney Rigdon interpreted Joseph Smith's murder as divine retribution for contracting "a whoring spirit." (p. 23) Much of this chapter is occupied with a recounting of the various efforts, both local and federal, to rid Utah of polygamy. It relates efforts by "outsiders," including a missionary from the Methodist Episcopal church, to establish a rescue home for plural wives who wanted to escape. But one wonders, in the end, how much of this opposition to plural marriage was based on religious and social principle, and how much was mere power play among the locals. Nichols makes a convincing case that, indeed, the desire for control of the new territory played a major part in the fight. In Chapter Two, "Women of the Town," Nichols names names. Several women (whose named I'd not heard before, as I've never studied this aspect of Utah history) spearheaded the practice of prostitution in Salt Lake City. On page 46, the author sketches the city and identifies this "red light district" and its alarming proximity to Temple Square. Those familiar with the layout of Salt Lake City will recognize the coordinates: the area bounded by 100 and 200 South, and Main and State streets, was considered the "Commercial" district, prime territory for the brothels. One can hardly imagine houses of ill repute within spotting distance of the Temple, but this was the reality. Nichols makes an alarming case here that city officials, in an effort to find an acceptable location for the inevitable liquor and prostitution trade, preyed on the large immigrant populations and their comparative poverty. As the author points out: Prostitutes and madams played an active and visible role in the public life of Salt Lake City. Several women began long careers managing brothels in the 1870's and 1880's, and more transient brothel prostitutes, saloon workers, crib workers, and streetwalkers started working in places where their successors could be found decades later. They built a network of prostitution venues, stratified along racial and class lines that reflected those of the surrounding community, that flourished for almost forty years. (p. 45) Nichols (p. 62) talks more about the stratification, along racial lines, of the brothels, although there was at least one mixed-race house, employing at least two non-white women. While "white" brothels were plentiful, it appears that minority, non-Mormon populations were targeted for the trade, perpetuating existing racist and sexist societal attitudes. Readers of this chapter are treated to detailed biographies of the most famous, and successful, madams, and are rewarded, at the end, with photos of the women, as well as some of the men who played prominent roles in the story. Chapter three is titled "The System in Vogue." It explores the parallel paths of the gentrification of Salt Lake City and the evolution of laws and attitudes toward sexual matters. While Church leaders openly advocated the elimination of prostitution, the ever-growing gentile population, along with the ascension within the Mormon community of more pragmatic businessmen, chose regulation rather than prohibition. They knew from history that an outright ban simply wouldn't work. The regulation of prostitution served to perpetuate some of the gender and racial attitudes that existed in larger society. Men were rarely arrested; women bore the brunt of the long arm of the law. In addition: The regulation of prostitution also illustrates racial realities in Salt Lake society. Arrest records make clear official racism. While the "nationality" column in the arrest registers was usually left blank for prostitutes, African American women were often labeled "nig" or "coon." Police identified one woman only as "A China Woman." Japanese surnames were almost never recorded; instead, the police named them, for example, "Minnie Jap" or "Lottie Jap." (p. 94) This chapter goes on to elaborate on various reform measures that were attempted to rein in the prostitution trade in Salt Lake City. It is an interesting tale of morality, power plays, and the drive toward statehood. Chapter Four, "An Extremely Clever Woman," centers on the period surrounding the Reed Smoot controversy, the broader acceptance of Mormons in American society and the election of Smoot to the U.S. Senate. By this time, the anti-Mormon "American" party had control of Salt Lake City politics, naming the continuing practice of plural marriage as evidence of their moral superiority over the resident Mormons. So how did they treat the problem of prostitution in Salt Lake City? ...the Americans established the "Stockade," a new restricted district, and forced most of the city's prostitutes to work there. Dora B. Topham, better known as Belle London, managed the district with the open approval and protection of the municipal authorities. For the first time, a single person dominated the business of prostitution in the city instead of independent madams managing houses within the network of brothels. (p. 135) Controversy over the seamy character of the "Stockade," along with increased concern over the continuation of the practice of plural marriage (despite the 1890 Manifesto), brought into focus the contentious nature of Utah politics. Reformers continued to work toward abolition of prostitution in the city, but the indomitable Miss. Topham, late of Ogden but now settled and prospering in Salt Lake City, succeeded, through legal maneuver and intrinsic good sense, to survive the attacks. This chapter is a fascinating look at a clever businesswoman who found herself at the head of a controversial business in a city populated by warring elements. It is ironic that the creation of the "Stockade" actually brought together two heretofore enemies -- the Mormon faithful and the gentile abolitionists. Together, they viewed the "Stockade" as a great danger to the morality of the city, and they worked together, perhaps for the first time, in pursuit of their common goal to close down the practice. The final chapter is titled "The Future Occupants of the Houses of Ill-Repute." Given the ferocity of opposition to the "Stockade," it should come as no surprise that it ultimately closed down. But this did not bring an end to worries of immorality in Salt Lake City: Reformers considered the closing of the Stockade a great victory, but it was only one battle in an ongoing war against urban immorality. The war exhibited some unique elements but also mirrored progressive national trends. (p. 179) In fact, city living itself was viewed as a root of immorality; the very institutions that defined urban living were producing the evils that the reformers sought to eliminate. Urban residents nationwide boasted of their cities' rapid growth and modern amenities. Some perceived a dark side, however. One nationally known muckraker wrote that "the City -- from scarlet Babylon to smoky Chicago -- has always been the great marketplace of dissipation." Utah's reformers agreed that city life broke down traditional, family-based society, since so many residents lived alone or with virtual strangers, surrounded by temptations. They especially feared for unprotected young women who left rural areas to come to the city to work and play. (p. 179) And Salt Lake City could boast of their big-city amusements -- Saltair is one example, a bathing, drinking and frolicking site along the shores of the Great Salt Lake. Men and women bathing and drinking together? Completely unacceptable. The social decay represented by the red light district, the Stockade, etc., was now fanning out throughout the entire city. Reformers once again sought to bring an end to the evils, but subsequent charges of white slavery, and other contemptible practices, made it clear that the fight was just beginning. In fact, efforts to keep the "Commercial district" -- the legendary gathering place of houses of prostitution -- free of vice ultimately failed. As often as the local authorities cracked down, made arrests and closed businesses, even so did new brothels open to a waiting and willing public. An interesting concluding chapter, a good collection of references, and a helpful index close the book. The temptation to make this kind of book into an anti-Mormon polemic must have been enormous. The presence of brothels and gin joints in early Salt Lake City is an aspect of Mormon history that has been curiously overlooked. Well, maybe not so curiously. Nothing faith-promoting here. But history sometimes intrudes itself into the faith-building process. The responsible historian will address these episodes with a sense of restraint and respect. Nichols has done this very well. Those interested in this period of Utah history will find this book a treasure-trove of detail, rich in the flavor of early Utah, and ultimately enlightening in its scope and its brutal honesty. I highly recommend this book. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 09 May 2003 01:46:37 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > How do we get the writings of our more fringe artists ("fringe" used in the > nicest possible way) OUT into the market? How do we become leaders with a > readership of a couple of dozen? Or, how can we expand that readership to a > slightly more ubiquitous frame? > > Any ideas? If I knew the answers to these questions, I'd be doing it. But because I don't know the answers yet doesn't mean I believe there are no answers. I'm one of those people who deny the existence of "can't." Whenever someone says I can't, I consider it a challenge to figure out how I can. A couple of years ago I had this philosophy of mine confirmed by an event we are all familiar with. At the time we were having a lively debate on this list about whether LDS-specific movies could be made and displayed in regular theaters and be successful. There were those among us who were adamant that such a thing was virtually impossible. The economic logistics wouldn't allow it. At around the same time, a dude named Richard Dutcher came along and did what some of us were saying was impossible. We've all heard how people who say something is impossible are constantly being interrupted by others doing it. I look forward to the day Jongiorgi is interrupted. I suspect he may even rejoice when that day comes. -- 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] re: KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 08 May 2003 17:54:25 -0700 (PDT) In her remarkable play about the Russian Gulag, "Archipelago", that was presented at Brigham Young University in March, LeeAnne Hill Adams writes a morally powerful scene that haunts you. The heroine, Nina Hagen-Torn, leaves her poetry for safe-keeping with the camp manager who has expressed admiration for her writing. She insists that she will deal with her tormenters as human beings. She says: they are not animals. She is then brutalized and watches most of her friends get murdered in the camps. At the end of her sentence she reports to the camp manager. He will obviously soon himself meet with a bullet in the back of his head in some jail. Nevertheless he presents her with her poetry, intact. I have been reading William Taubman's new book "Khrushchev: The Man and His Era." It's a long-awaited, full-scale biography based on the latest post-Soviet sources. It's also very readable; the prose isn't very academic at all:-) Nikita Khrushchev was the dictator of the Soviet Union from 1954-1964. During the Stalinist purges he was one of Stalin's pets. He later said privately of that time he had "blood up to his elbows." His clumsy aggressiveness in Berlin and Cuba almost led to nuclear war with JFK. He was the man who built the Berlin wall. And yet... There is a famous photograph included in the book of him comforting a woman after the liberation of Kiev from Nazi occupation in 1944. His face appears to be full of compassion. It's impossible to imagine Lenin or Stalin in a similar photograph. Khrushchev was a very human man. He denounced Stalin's purges and his "cult of personality" in his 1956 secret speech to the Communist party. This led to a vast scaling-back, if not abolition, of the Gulag. He allowed a degree of openness in the early 1960's that included the publication of Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." It's hard to escape the conclusion that he was a killer with a conscience, Russia's own Tony Soprano. It appears the light of Christ had some influence on this man, leading him to try to make things a little better for his people. After he was deposed in 1964, Russia would have to stagger through 20 more years of stagnation before more reforms could take place. But perestroika was unimaginable without him. Was he a bad "good man" or a good "bad man?" I don't know. The history of Russia in the 20th century is a vast, stirring drama in which you can find examples of every vice and virtue imaginable. It's not something to be trifled with. That why I find repugnant much of Tony Kushner's "Angels in America." (I think I will save any more elaborate comments until I see the version starring Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro and directed by Mike Nichols that is scheduled for sometime in the fall on HBO.) Kushner is a self-proclaimed Marxist who obviously felt the fall of the Soviet Union very deeply. His answer: a "so's-your-old-man" about America. The United States, as symbolized by the evil old Roy Cohn, desperately needs a perestroika, a new millennium of socialist reform. This neatly turns Russian history on its head, and complements his appropriation of Mormon theology for his own purposes. As I say, to suggest an equivalence between the great drama symbolized by Khrushchev and 1980's Reagan America is deeply repugnant. I wonder if any of Kushner's plays have been performed in the new Russia. And whether they have been laughed off the stage. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 08 May 2003 19:43:18 -0700 Nan McCulloch says: > I have observed that the BASIC saving principles of the gospel are never > presented in obscure language. Only the sauces, the dressings and the > condiments that makes the meat of the gospel appetizing, tantalizing and > delectable. In my mind God would not be a just god if he obscured the > saving principles. They need to be plain enough so that even the most > feeble minded of his children can comprehend them. This is absolutely right and I concur completely. It goes back to my theory (not just my theory, of course) about the "protective" element of some scriptural obscurity. Those principles that MUST be known by everyone are made accessible to everyone. I love that scripture that talks about God talking "in a man's own language". This turns the discussion to practical things and communications with God, and the barest essentials of life, eternal though it may be. As Nan points out, there is also the "sauce" of life, the "spices" and the tantalizing extras that fill all of creation. And that is more the domain of ART. Literature, especially literature of the kind that does not propound to be scripture, is almost entirely spice and sauce. Or what would be the point? I read a technical manual to learn about technical things. I read literature for the savor of life. It is interesting to note how insanely complex, layered, mysterious, incomprehensible and sometimes outrageous in its sheer overwhelming proportion creation is. And I'm just talking about the tiny slice of creation we call our home planet. God is certainly into spices. He is a creator of insatiable imagination and energy, and "basic" is not what I would use to describe his universe. The basics are available to all of us. And a surface appreciation of all creation is available, too. But to TRULY appreciate creation, takes a great deal of work. Adam and Eve loved the Garden, but they were always innocents until them moved on and moved in (or out, however you like to look at it). We spend the rest of our lives delving and digging, 99% of the time, absolutely clueless as to what we are looking at, but loving it just the same. That is divine complexity. Occasionally, some form of art will give the barest hint of this, or attempt to describe the sensation of a human who has realized how small they are in the midst of this complexity. Annie Dillard is one of my favorites on this subject. I love that God has given us important basics in simple Mandarin (or even English, for that matter). I also love that God has given us a nearly infinite variety of sauces to savor it in. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 08 May 2003 20:50:22 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- In my mind God would not be a just god if he obscured the saving principles. They need to be plain enough so that even the most feeble minded of his children can comprehend them. I feel qualified to speak for all the feeble minded children of God. I read an article in the Ensun a few years ago written by a lady whose husband had a severe learning disability and was getting help and learning the Gospel through the Stake Idiot Education Class (or something like that.) I wanted to write in and tell them this wonderful, faith-cultivating thing I learned about that topic. I was kind of hoping to share a magnificent treasure I had discovered with other dyslexics and otherwise learning disabled people. Then I got to thinking the Ensun probably wouldn't appreciate it or pass it on. And in the worst case they would turn again and rend me (they can be such swine sometimes.) So I didn't write anything. But I'm really happy this topic comes up again. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if language use to teach certain principles is plain or obscure. God is really sneeky. He has thousands of ways to teach, and most of the most meaningful and profound are non-verbal. It doesn't even matter if you can read. There were several years that I couldn't read at all, and I don't feel stunted spiritually because I couldn't read. If anything my left foot was guided, then my right foot was guided. I ran into people who knew what I needed most. Hell knows I didn't know. What I'm saying is it doesn't take reading skills to learn the Gospel or any universal truths. All it takes is a sincere desire. If you don't have a sincere desire ten thousand books can't teach you. Most spiritual writing is an attempt to describe the indescribable, anyway. I hate to keep refering to him, but there are times when the things Lao Tzu said are too perfect. He said, "The Way (Tao) of heaven cannot be written. The Way that is written is not the true Way." There was a Sufi mystic (I forget his name, and I forget the word he used to describe that estatic moment of union when one realizes one is exactly everything and always was everything). What he said was without "that moment of union" your religeon is like a torn drum. Reading about spirituallity is like reading about eating when you're hungry. It sharpens desire, but isn't very filling. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 08 May 2003 22:14:43 -0600 This is true in German. In German, Du is informal and Sie formal. You = use Du with family, friends, fellow-students, royalty, children, and God. I suspect it was similar with English and thee. When the church was young, thee probably *was* informal. And the saints called each-other "Brother" and "Sister" in order to *de*-formalize = personal address. And Joseph Smith was particularly proud to be called "Brother Joseph" because it indicated to him that he'd made some strides in informalizing the saints to an extent. Of course, that was in the excessively formal Puritan America. These = days, I can see why Church leaders would need forms of address to pull the = other way. In our excessively informal culture, we need to remember that = there are times and places where formal courtesy is called for. It's = interesting that we use the same words to accomplish the opposite purpose. Oh, I should also indicate that personally, I am very informal with God because I got used to it in Germany and frankly, I prefer to keep that relationship an informal one. So far, He hasn't objected in any way I = have been able to determine... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Re: STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ Date: 09 May 2003 05:39:34 +0000 A connection between this Stansfield novel and the Evans book that stands out in my mind is the sexless night spent in each other's arms. Especially since you say the charachters treated it as some kind of proof of their love for each other while still remaining true to something or another. I can see that being a relatively attractive fantasy to young people with both romance and personal worthiness on their minds, and I would certainly not like to see it encouraged to the youth of the Church in novels. I bet the DB people were thinking the same thing. I'd rather they saw Eric's play about the Mormon prostitute, which sounds like it showed how we can rationalize away sinful behavior, then books which tease readers with flirting-with-fire fantasies. If this is why DB is removing books, I have less of a problem with it than I did before. Now if they would include some of the grittier works like Falling From Heaven which talk about things like adultary in really meaningful ways, I would be pretty happy with them. I'd bet this was the scene that caused the book's removal from the DB shelves. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ 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: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 09 May 2003 00:04:31 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >After the first four or five festivals, those donors imagined >that maybe >their very specific purpose would be served by underwriting >the gathering of >smaller groups of professional artists. That's fine with me. The Nauvoo Theatrical Society will carry on the dream. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 08 May 2003 23:30:28 -0700 Tracie Laulusa points out that "When the KJV was being > translated "thou" and etc, were the intimate pronoun choices, rather > than the archaic, formal forms they are today. Actually, they are still the informal, we just perceive them differently today. Saying "thee" and "thou" is really as intimate a form of address as English allows us to use. The Amish and other users of older English still us it as it is used in languages that still have the formal/informal distinction. And anyone who speaks a second language which still uses the "you", "thee" formal/informal will understand the dilemna from a different angle. On my mission in France, many people had trouble addressing God with the "tu" (or "thee") INFORMAL tone rather than the "vous" ("you") formal tone, as we taught them to. They said, "Isn't that being irreverent to God?" When we explained our intimate relationship with Him, familial and familiar, it helped, but not until they had truly developed that kind of relationship with Him. (It is the exact opposite, in truth, from what someone may have said over the English speaking pulpit about reverence. It is about intimacy. But of course, intimacy IS a reverent condition.) Unless you have experienced fluency in a language that uses this distinctions, it is difficult to understand the heart-stopping moment when someone with which you have had a "vous" relationship switches to the "tu" informal address. There is a rush of intimacy, and incredible, vulnerable, warm feeling. I have been jolted many times in my life by these moments of SWITCH, like the clicking of a light bulb. It can be an amazing thing. I've wanted to use such moments in stories, but it is difficult to communicate to English speaking readers. I might try it, though. It is a great feeling. If we really felt that way about God, we would not hesitate to use that kind of language with him. It just takes a change of perspective and a special way of looking at it, and it just clicks. Jongiorgi -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Does Intent Matter? Date: 09 May 2003 08:27:49 -0600 d. mICHAEL WROTE: I maintain that the church folk who oversee officially commissioned art do _not_ know their audience as well as the artist, so they are requiring changes to the art that are ultimately self-defeating, instead of relying on the expertise of the artist. I had a friend who was comissioned by the Church to do a portrait of President Monson. This guy worked from fotographs and got a photographic likeness. I saw the first one and it was perfect. Well, he took it up to Salt Lake and they said Monson's nose was too big in the painting. So he took it home and reworked it, but the nose was still too big. He did that four times, and finally they said, "no, it doesn't look like him." Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Update on My Book Proposal Date: 09 May 2003 09:30:48 -0600 Thanks, Jongiorgi. I hope that at the least I can help play an Elias role for SOMEBODY, even if none of my own projects get off the ground. I just talked to Jana Riess, the religion book review editor at Publishers Weekly, and she said she doesn't know of any Mormon projects in any stages at nat'l publishers except a memoir by Coke Newell at St. Martin's (a follow up to his successful "Latter Days" overview of Mormonism). I just think this dearth is so weird. There are so many books that could be done, if people can figure out a way to help the nat'l pubs see the market. BTW, Jana doesn't agree with the Crossroad editor's assessment of the level of interest in Mormonism, but she does agree with his comments about preferring shorter chapters and smaller-format books--that is a definite trend, she says. Irreantum has a very interesting interview with Jana coming out in our next issue. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 09 May 2003 10:45:16 -0500 A couple of thoughts about why horror doesn't appeal to me as a mormon reader (and maybe not to others) or in a mormon context. First, we believe that Satan only has as much power as we give him. Most Mormons would see a person "possessed" as someone who has chosen to allow the devil to overpower him or her--not as a victim of forces beyond his/her control, which is often the case in horror stories. Second, because we would see "possession" as a result of choices and not victimization, we would not tend to be as afraid of it. It seems to me that a large part of the horror in horror stories is a sense of fear, even doubt, about which force is stronger and will prevail. Can good overcome evil? Mormons think we already know the answer to that. I think, by and large, we experience our religion in a pedestrian way that doesn't prompt us towards much interest in the power of evil. We're too busy thinking about the pinewood derby and the monthly home teaching report to give much thought to whether there are people out there possessed by spirits that can make them shoot fire from their eyes. (Whether or not that is a fair characterization of horror, I think it's the general perception of the genre.) Now, the banality of our religiosity could provide a rich scenario for horror stories--what if the person you home teach turns out to be possessed by an evil spirit? And in Mormon theology what would it really look like to be "possessed"? (I'm thinking of the guy in our student ward who used to get up and talk about Mary as the "strangest kind of widow" every chance he got and tell us that "all the problems in the United States today are the result of communism in the government." He lived in the apartment below us and there were a series of , sorry for the term, right-wing kooks that lived in that place, one after another--which raises the possibility that it really was cursed. But I digress.) The problem with horror is that it seems to be focused on the horror--the evil. There may be an underlying theme or message that has an explicit moral to it--faith is stronger than doubt--or it may want to provoke us to think about matters of faith--is my faith stronger than my doubt? But horror also (and I might argue primarily) functions to scare us--it's after a certain effect. And I would argue that the effect mostly negates the morality underneath it. The morality is just an excuse to help rationalize the effect, which is after all the primary goal. Just a few ignorant and probably irrelevant thoughts. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 09 May 2003 09:43:32 -0600 Tracie Laulusa wrote: > > An interesting note about "you" and "thou". When the KJV was being > translated "thou" and etc, were the intimate pronoun choices, rather > than the archaic, formal forms they are today. (At least according > the History of the English Language course I listened to. Have any of > you supper smart listers heard to the contrary?) In German, there is a formal "you" and an intimate "you." The intimate "you," ("du") was all the "you" German had at one time. Then they decided they needed a formal "you," to refer to kings and stuff, I suppose. They co-opted the concept of a royal "we," took the German word for "they" ("sie"), capitalized it ("Sie"), and that's the formal "you" in German to this day. English, being a Germanic language, also had one form of "you" similar to the German "du" ("thou"). When the Brits got a bug up their butt to have a formal "you" of their own, they co-opted the French "you" ("vous") no doubt thanks to the Norman influence, and produced "you." Unlike German, the English informal "thou" became archaic, and all we use these days is "you." So it's very interesting to compare usage of "du" and "Sie" in German to "thou" and "you" in English when it comes to religious speech. The German Bible uses "du" exclusively, and God is referenced exclusively by "du," even among Mormon Germans. The INFORMAL version. You see, it would be an insult if a German child were to address his father with the formal "Sie." It would be like an American child referring to his father as "Mr. Father." It implies an insulting desire to put distance between two people who should have an intimate relationship. It would be just as insulting for a German to refer to God the Father with "Sie" instead of "du." We American Mormons have it all backward. For some reason we think referring to God with a formal pronoun is showing respect. But he's our Father. Would your dad appreciate you calling him "Mr. Father"? Why do we think God wants us to maintain this distance between him and us? For years, the General Auhtority justified the use of "thou" in prayer as a means of respect, saying that the English "thou" was the formal "you" and represented respect. But that's wrong on two levels. One, it's only respectful to use formal language with people you don't know very well. To imply intimacy with a stranger by using informal language is an insult (just like how I feel when a salesman gets cozy with me by immediately assuming a first-name basis with me). But it's equally insulting to use formal language with someone you _do_ have an intimate relationship with. Two, "thou" never was the formal "you." If it hadn't become archaic, it would be the proper pronoun to address God with today, like German's "du." But it _is_ archaic and is virtually never appropriate in our society today. It imples a formality bordering on stuffiness, or an intent to mock. "You" is the only "you" English has today. Someone must have informed the General Authorities that they got it all wrong, because one day Dallin Oaks switched the argument on us. He acknowledged that "thou" was the informal you of the past, but then said that because it had become archaic, it sounds formal to us today, so we should use it. This addresses problem number #2, but leaves problem #1 alive and well. Paul Dunn told a story once (it had no sports in it, so maybe it's even true) of when he was a mission president in New England. He was sent a hick elder from Idaho and wondered what to do with him in this sophisticated part of the country. The Spirit said to assign him to Cambridge. Dunn balked--an Idaho elder among Ivy Leaguers?--but did it. The elder visited some academic type, and at one point offered to pray. The academic type later told Dunn that he had to keep looking up to see if God were really in the room because the elder sounded like he was really talking to God. I can't imagine praying a prayer like that--speaking so intimately and naturally with God that people have to keep looking up to make sure God isn't in the room with me--using "thee" and "thou." Believe me, I've tried. I'll go ahead and use the formal language when offering public prayers, because I'm acting as a formal spokesperson in a formal setting, so there isn't a great deal of intimacy going on anyway, and public prayers are not occasions when I want to push envelopes. But in more private settings, God is "you" to me. Trying to pray effectively is hard enough as it is. Why set up an extra artificial and completely unnecessary barrier to our efforts? -- 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] Biblical Language Date: 09 May 2003 10:33:13 -0600 At 08:02 AM 5/7/03 -0400, you wrote: >". When the KJV was being >translated "thou" and etc, were the intimate pronoun choices, rather >than the archaic, formal forms they are today. Many languages still have such intimate pronouns, such as the Spanish "tu" instead of "usted." barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 09 May 2003 11:44:52 -0600 ___ Jongiorgi ___ | And OSC doesn't write Mormon Horror. He's a Mormon, and sometimes | he writes something which might be called horror (although even | Lost Boys is pretty tame compared to some of the horror I've read). ___ In Card's early career he often wrote extremely violent and horrific fiction. Indeed his early reputation was as one of the most violent writers in the genre. On horror story which is extremely Mormon but admittedly not adopting Mormon "mythology" is the story of monstrous baby demon that comes after a very promiscuous man. It is basically the personification of his misuse of the creative power of sex. The descriptions are *extremely* disturbing and horrific. He has other stories like that, such as the future dystopia where political prisoners are killed and "resurrected" over and over again by a totalitarian state to make them adopt the party line. I think it was called "1001 Deaths" or something like that. The main character after being electrocuted, boiled in oil, and so forth "overcomes" the State and its views. He, along with a few other prisoners cease to fear death and then overthrow the 1984 like society. Very, very Mormon in its basic take. There are others, such as the fairly horrific _A Planet Called Treason_ which is basically a meditation on Mormon notions of priesthood told within a context of horror and science fiction. _Lost Boys_ is very tame and has more overt Mormonism than any story outside his Alvin Maker or Homecoming series. Still, it is tame as it arises in his later period when age and children have tempered his writing. (I also think the original short story is superior, but that's me) ___ Jongiorgi ___ | Yes, but there is a difference between a ghost story and a horror | story. ___ Certainly, although the lines between genres frequently blur. Consider that old Peter Jackson movie _The Frighteners_. Is that a ghost story, a horror story or a comedy? What about _Blade_? Is that a horror movie, a superhero movie, or a pure action flick? Films rarely fit entirely into a single genre. Those that do typically are extremely derivative, poorly made B movies. Consider even Stephen King novels. What makes them engaging is the characterization and elements that transcend the horror genre. Those that don't successfully do this are also fairly flat and poor novels. (Not that I'm a King fan, but books like _Misery_ are about a lot more than horror) ___ Jongiorgi ___ | Even though our cosmology is fully open to such things, and explains | their existence and their limits and the uses and disguises to which | the Opposition puts such phenomenon to a fair degree of depth, many | still experience fear and confusion when confronted with stories | about such things. ___ This is a good point, although for a reason slightly different than you present. Just as Mormons are uncomfortable discussing the sacred I think they are uncomfortable discussing the opposite extreme. By that I mean that it is typically discussed in guarded terms and many encounters are not openly discussed. I can think of several events from my mission similar to yours that I'd never discuss openly. (I was in Lousiana so you *know* there was a lot of that kind of stuff going on) By folk tales I was more talking about those stories like the missionary who breaks his arm and gets it healed by a healer of some sort. (Depending upon the story it could be a charismatic Christian, a witch, a psychic, etc.) It works but he is bothered for a month and finally goes to the President. The President sees something is wrong and in giving a blessing casts out the devil and immediately the arm is broken again but the problems go away. Just as there are thousands of variations on the missionary story of Elders who go on a road trip and have their land lady send in their letters to the President, there are variations on this story. I can think of a dozen more stories of this sort. My favorite is the one where Elders move into a haunted house and instead of getting freaked out they teach the discussions to the ghosts, have their parents do the temple work, and when the temple work is done the house ceases to be haunted. There are more freakish ones too. One I recall Nibley telling was about a canyon in Canyonlands which was haunted by ghosts. There was a camp site there but no one ever camped long because at night there would be screaming. The story was that it was a bunch of evil lamanites. Personally sounds like a cougar was in the area to me, but the story was of ghosts. (A cougar can sound like a woman screaming) Nibley also has his famous story of sleeping in a haunted battlefield during WWII to try and meet a ghost. (It was haunted from some ancient Greek battle - I forget which one) ___ Jongiorgi ___ | I am sure there are many others who would not be phased, but I | am more certain that the vastly greater majority of Mormon | audiences do not want exposure to such subject matter in a forum | which they consider LDS literature. ___ I think it is more a matter of how it is handled. It really is similar to the temple issue. Indeed the one horrific scene in _Seventh Son_ by Card is a mixing of the two. I personally was somewhat uncomfortable with how Card handled that scene. But just as I think we *can* discuss the temple if we do it obliquely and with respect, I think we can do the opposite. The other choice, which you suggest, is to simply change things enough so it isn't *overtly* Mormon. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Intent Matter? Date: 09 May 2003 11:56:44 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | An electrician running wires through the middle of the | room is an incompetent moron. How about if we restrict | our analogies to reasonable situations? ___ That's my point - your examples are using the "ideal" artist. But no one is an ideal artist anymore than most are the incompetent moron. Yet the reality is somewhere in the middle. I used the more extreme form of your example to highlight what you repressed in your description. There are other less "incompetent moron" variations. They may not use the proper guage of wire, risking electrical fire. They may not ground things properly. I could get more technical, but the danger in using plumbing and electrical examples is that most here haven't done electrician or plumbing work and so wouldn't understand incompetent real world examples. After having to replumb some of the work my uncle did at our cottage, I can certainly think of many examples where things "worked" but certainly were frustrating for later modifications of the plumbing. ___ Michael ___ | Knowing your audience is exactly what I'm talking about. I | maintain that the church folk who oversee officially | commissioned art do _not_ know their audience as well as the | artist, so they are requiring changes to the art that are | ultimately self-defeating, instead of relying on the | expertise of the artist. ___ Yes. I recognize that is what you believe. That's why I found your electrician analogy so interesting. You only bring up the "ideal" who *does* know what is going on perfectly. Alas in the real world I don't believe in these sorts of artists and I *don't* believe artists know their audience better than those who hire them. I know many, many artists *do* think they know their audience well. I think this is why many people are so turned off by artists. I hung around for several years a lot of artists at BYU. That attitude really got on my nerves after a while. After it led to elitism since those who *didn't* appreciate art were ignorant. So the "audience" becomes this self-fulfilling creation. The fact that people do criticize art, especially the general public, *strongly* suggests that artists don't have some privileged notion of their audience. ___ Michael ___ | If fraud or abuse occurs, you generally need another expert | to come identify it, unless you are knowledgeable yourself | on the subject. ___ Not always. Occasionally. It really depends upon the nature of the fraud or abuse. (And whether you bother to look) For instance if an electrician uses an improper guage of wire you need only look it up in a book. Most don't, of course, but that is because it is safely hidden behind walls. ___ Michael ___ | But I already said the commissioner of the art has complete | say in the results. It's when the commissioner starts dictating | to the professional how to achieve those results that the | trouble starts. ___ An other way to state my concern is to ask, "what counts as 'the results'?" For instance if I commission a painting, and I want something done to inspire people, expecting a realistic genre and I get abstract art, is that results or the "how?" It seems your use of "results" is rather vague and ambiguous. Where do *you* draw the line between style and result? [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Six Degrees of Separation Featuring Mormons Date: 09 May 2003 12:08:08 -0600 http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=3D38341§ion=3DSHO= W&subsection=3DTHEATER&year=3D2003&month=3D5&day=3D9 A version of the play/movie but one with Mormons. Excerpts: "As the story's numerous rebellious youthful characters, the cast's younger actors are aptly sullen and disillusioned. Notable is Melissa Strom's Tess Kittredge, choking with anger for her parents and bent on a course of life designed to hurt them. Shea Martin and Melinda Chilton are equally powerful as a na=EFve young Mormon couple taken in by Paul's lies - and, ultimately, destroyed by them." I never saw the movie. Were there Mormon characters in the original? [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 09 May 2003 17:02:10 -0600 ___ Nan ___ | I have observed that the BASIC saving principles of the gospel | are never presented in obscure language. ___ Depends upon what you mean. In some ways the four principles of the gospel: faith, repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost are far more obscure than many so-called deep doctrines. Anyone who claims they really understand the principles is lying, in my opinion. I think that if we wish to properly discuss deep doctrine you study those four. A superficial understanding is given of those principles, of course. But the meaning of them occurs only as we utilize them. Their meaning is forever kept from those who only read of them. To comprehend them is to force ourselves from the text into a direct encounter with God. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Brian Evenson in Dave Eggers' _The Believer_ Date: 09 May 2003 17:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Dave Eggers and the team from "McSweeney's" have a new literary magazine out called "The Believer." Its May 2003 issue has an article about Brian Evenson, by Ben Ehrenreich, titled "The Bad Mormon: Dead Stepfathers With Mouths Full of Bees Are Not Well-Regarded at Brigham Young University." Details can be found at http://www.believermag.com ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 10 May 2003 12:05:31 +0900 Tracie Stated: An interesting note about "you" and "thou". When the KJV was being translated "thou" and etc, were the intimate pronoun choices, rather than the archaic, formal forms they are today. (At least according the History of the English Language course I listened to. Have any of you supper smart listers heard to the contrary?) --------------------- Yes, thee/thou were used as the more familiar forms of "you" in olden times. However, if you take a look the following links, you will find that the original use of thee, thou, thy, and thine were singular, and you/ye and your were plural forms of what is now, in english, "you." This was the most common use of these pronouns; to distinguish between singular and plural, just like "I" and "we" or "him/her" and "them." http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/Y0026600.html: The American Heritage Dictionary defination of y'all and has details on the singular/plural use of thee and you. States that "Thou and thee were quite rare in educated speech in the 16th century, and they disappeared completely from standard English in the 18th." http://www.hf.ntnu.no/engelsk/staff/johannesson/111sos/L11-O03.htm: A fascination page that describes how the use of thee versus you denoted social standing and power. http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html: A good overview of the singular/plural, and also states that the "familiar" use was common from 1450-1650. http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg01581.html: Another small page that describes how thee/thou and plural became used for formal situations and you became used in informal situations. http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~dchesney/theeand.htm: An interesting personal page on the plural/singular use of thee/thou and you in the Bible. Makes the arguement that this is one of the reasons the KJV is a "superior translation." Tracie further states: Thus, a modern translation of the scriptures could very well choose "you" over "thou" not as a way of disrespecting, or even modernizing, but choosing the pronoun use that makes God a personal and intimate being rather than a formal, distant one. I realize that at least on of our GAs has spoken of using the more formal language as being more reverent. Personally, I don't think using an archaic pronoun or a vernacular removed from our daily existence is an indication of reverence. ------------------ Actually, if we were to change all the thees and thous and thines and thys to "you," there would be significant meaning lost. How would we know if Christ is speaking to all the crowd following him (plural "you") or if he is speaking specifically to another person individually (singular "thee")? Ever since I researched this meaning of thee/thy, I have actually enjoyed reading the KJV more than I used to. I find my understanding is enhanced by knowing the singular versus plural meaning of the pronouns used. However, in one point I agree with Tracie, I find the use of thee and thy to be archiac in prayers, and not necessarily an indication of reverance. I happen to speak in modern english. I don't tell my wife "I love thee," even though she is the person I am most familiar with. Why should I converse with God this way? Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare (was: In Defense of Obscurity) Date: 09 May 2003 21:39:57 -0600 At 11:59 PM 5/7/03 -0600, you wrote: >A comparable situation exists with Shakespeare. It is impossible for us >to experience Shakespeare as the original audiences did, because the >instruments we use today (language) are different from then. Clark >suggests that translating Shakespeare into a modern vernacular would be >a dreaful thing, but I ask why? Why shouldn't we be able to experience >Shakespeare as the original audiences did? It would be important that >the translator knows what he's doing so he can preserve the essence of >Shakespeare in the modern vernacular, but to suggest that such a thing >would be aesthetically horrendous I can't accept. It's not like it would >rob us of the traditional Shakespearean experience we're used to: the >original versions would still be around. Trying to translate Shakespeare into current vernacular is a great way to discover how brilliant the original playwright was. He could make a statement, clearly and concisely, in two lines that requires a fat paragraph in modern English. Of course, we can't make it up as we go along the way he could, because the language was more fluid then. The thing is, too, that I'd rather hear Macbeth say, "Lay on Macduff!" than "F*** you, Macduff!" Maybe Jongiorno could do a good job of it. I really liked the iambic pentameter passage he gave us based on the Book of Mormon, so why couldn't he take it the other way? It would be interesting to choose a passage from Shakespeare and have various list members take a stab at rendering it into modern prose. Not only would it be a lot of fun and very enlightening, but I think it would increase our appreciation for the Bard. I'll bet the various interpretations would be quite different from each other. barbara hume [MOD: Okay, I'll formalize it...Anyone up to the challenge?] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Slowdown Date: 09 May 2003 22:56:45 -0500 At 10:36 PM 5/9/03 -0500, Jonathan Langford wrote: >Folks, > >Over the next week, I have both a mort of grading Been looking through the OED again, have you? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam=85 God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 10 May 2003 11:58:59 -0700 I thought the entirety of Treasure Box was incredibly boring. In fact, I can't remember much of anything of his later work that I really liked. I am now reading "Seventh Son" for the first time. I must say I'm enjoying it! "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > Interesting. For me, _Treasure Box_ is Card's worst work. The first half > is as good as anything he wrote, but the second half breaks down into > tedious cliches. The ending is lifted wholesale from one or more horror > movies. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 10 May 2003 21:04:40 -0400 D. Michael Martindale: >Interesting. For me, _Treasure Box_ is Card's worst work. The first half >is as good as anything he wrote, but the second half breaks down into >tedious cliches. The ending is lifted wholesale from one or more horror >movies. > I don't normally "do" horror. I picked up "Treasure Box" at the library because I saw OSC's name, and didn't think to check the catagory. I went into it expecting a regular sci-fi or fantas, so I was a tad confused in the beginning when it looked like it was taking place in the "real" world, but I got used to it, and then it took me completely by suprise when it blew up. I might even call it a traumatic experience, traipsing la-de-da through the daisy fields of whats-his-faces love life and POW! He's eating spiders and his wife doesn't leave footprints. Eeeeah. So that might have contributed to my reaction. I've only recently started watching horror films. Two, actually. "The Sixth Sense" and "The Mothman Prophecies". (The first one rocked and the seond one was a MAJOR disappointment.) So I wouldn't know horror cliches either. All new to me. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Agency and Mormon Lit (was: In Defense of Moderate Judgement, Part 2) Date: 10 May 2003 18:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Jacob Proffitt, in his response to part II of Jon's essay on moderate judgement, writes: "Doesn't that mean we should strive for the ability to disagree with someone--to *know* that they are wrong--and still be able to treat them with kindness, love and respect?" NOTE: The "that" refers back to idea that God knows when we are wrong, yet still loves us and lets us choose for ourselves. Here, I think, is an idea that could spark quality, exciting Mormon fiction. I understand that some of the literary baggage some (many?) of us are carrying from the literature of the 20th century is deeply suspicious of this idea. That we're supposed to all be writing about decay and hypocrisy in the suburbs and hollow men, about how modern life alienates us from nature, history and mystery. And I like to read some of that stuff. Heck, I've even taken to reading the fiction that the "The New Yorker" runs. But, I think that one of the central ideas that could help define Mormon fiction is that of free agency. How does the Mormon understanding of free agency affect how Mormons approach the messy details of life? How can one judge rightously and still treat others with love and respect? What happens when the person on the receiving end rejects, is indifferent to, or accepts that love and respect---especially when he or she knows the underlying judgement/standards of the person trying to offer it? What happens when a Mormon is able to judge but not to love? What are the repercussions for that character and what keeps him or her from being able to love? The variations seem endless. What's more, is that it's possible that the right writer would be able to deal with some of the difficult topics facing Mormon families (homosexuality, infidelity, addiction, affluence/non-affluence, mental illness, etc.) in a way that would speak to 'mainstream' ('Orthodox?' 'convervative?') Mormon readers. This is not to say that those of us interested in Mormon literature shouldn't support fringe/outsider/minority (I can't remember the term that Bruce Jorgensen uses in his excellent essay on the subject which can be found on the Mormon Literature Web site) -oriented fiction. But, in my opinion and (admittedly limited) experience, there haven't been many works of Mormon fiction that have dealt with this issue in a satisfying way. I know that we've talked around this idea before, but any thoughts on how the Mormon doctrine of free agency could specifically influence a particularly Mormon approach to fiction/art/criticism? ~~William Morris __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Goal of Writing (was: Mormon Horror) Date: 10 May 2003 23:34:18 -0500 >Ronn Blankenship aks: "Which should be the primary goal of a writer: to >tell the story s/he has to tell, perhaps _needs_ to tell, or to make a >living out of one's writing? Granted, every writer wishes s/he can do both >with >everything s/he writes, but if that is not possible, which should take >priority?" > To which Jongiorgi replies: >Uhhh, is this a trick question? > >To make a living. PERIOD. That is the FIRST priority. Any other response is >just romantic pap touted by people who don't really want to be writers. I disagree with this, and indeed with much (though not all) that Jongiorgi goes on to say in development of this idea. First, I'm not sure why we put this cachet on being a full-time, self-supporting writer--on making writing a job (to use Jongiorgi's phrase). A lot of the best writing in any time period has been done by people who weren't self-supporting writers. Chaucer. Shakespeare. (Yes, he supported himself with the theater, but my understanding is that he got most of his revenues from part-ownership of the company, and then some from acting, and only a little from the actual writing of plays.) Tolkien. Gene Wolfe. (I think he eventually quit his job as an editor of a technical journal, but he was still doing it when he wrote most of _Book of the New Sun_.) In many cases, superb writing has been done with little expectation that it would ever make money. Yes, most writers want their work to be read, but in many cases, they don't have much anticipation that it will do much more than (at best) earning back the printing costs. A lot of good writing would never have been done if the expectation of making a living had been a prerequisite. And the quality of that writing is high enough that to call it "amateur," while perhaps technically correct (if the definition of amateur is something done for love not money), does damage to the field of art itself if we interpret it as meaning that amateur work is somehow inferior. I'll agree that one mark of a good writer is to know one's audience and adjust one's writing to them. But there are limits to that. I don't think anyone becomes a creative writer simply to make money. Rather, it's to make money by creating particular types of stories, or poems, or whatever, that one cares about. If the message is, you can make a living as a writer if you write something you're completely uninterested in, then I think few if any writers worth their salt would bother with the racket. If someone is so in love with the idea of writing that he or she will do anything he/she has to, simply in order to write and have people read the results, then I think it's unlikely to result in worthwhile art. Now, having said that, I have to back up and admit that I probably come as close as anyone on this list to fitting this description. I have taken pay for doing many different types of writing, including writing that I had little interest in. Writing is quite possibly the only thing I do really well, and so I'm willing to do it, no matter what "it" may be. I like the process of putting thoughts into words, fitting whatever the needs of my client may be. I also don't believe that what I'm doing has any lasting worth as creative work (though at times it does get pretty creative...but never mind that for now). Nor do I think that the fact that I do whatever I have to in order to satisfy my client--my audience--means that my work or myself is any more deserving of serious consideration as a writer. The really good artists, from what I have observed, do not in fact analyze their audiences and write what their audiences will want. Rather, they decide within themselves what stories they want to tell. They may then conduct some audience analysis and market research to decide (a) which, of all the stories they want to tell, are most likely to be successful, and (b) ways they can tweak their stories to help them reach a wider audience. But the audience--the selling--does not ultimately drive the product. Not for most of the really good writers. (Shakespeare is one possible exception.) This is a reverse, for me. I spent time in graduate school working with rhetorical criticism, and I think there's a lot of value to thinking about the rhetorical situation of writing. But in comparing what I was theorizing with what actually happens with real writers, both currently and historically, I decided that there was something to the romantic notion of a writer's vision after all--that it's not all driven by audience and market considerations. So that's what I'd say, ultimately. Yes, it's important to develop discipline--otherwise our works will never get out there. Yes, it's important to market ourselves, and make a living at it, or we may not be able to pay for our habit. But in the end, how we write--our writing habits and motivations--has no clear correlation to the quality of our work. Are we driven to make a living at writing, with a primary goal of commercial success? Good writing has been accomplished that way. Do we think of ourselves as writing for ourselves alone, and only incidentally writing for a market? Good writing has been accomplished that way too. So let's not value one over the other, or create a hierarchy in which either the full-time professional or the amateur is valued more highly. Judge by the work itself, and leave it at that. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: RE: [AML] Miracles Date: 11 May 2003 00:29:12 -0600 (MDT) Thom said: > > Miracles have no existence beyond that which we chose to give them by > interpretation. We can chose to call an experience beyond our current > understanding a miracle or a coincidence or, simply, an unexplained > phenomenon. > > Miracles are completely subjective, or they wouldn't be miracles. If > objective, then they have their explanation in reality as a mass > delusion, or some other psychological phenomenon. My sainted > grandmother, a Pentocostal, once claimed to have seen a man healed. > "His foot became three inches longer right there in front of my eyes," > she claimed. On further discussion, she hadn't actually seen his leg > get longer, she hadn't measured it before and after, she had simply > relied on the testimony of the person SAYING his leg was longer. I have > never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a > miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. > > I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. > They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they > meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. > > Thom > > Reply: These are interesting assertions of personal opinion, but as far as I can tell they bear no relation to the generally accepted doctrines and practices of the LDS church. Indeed, the very concept of "verifiability" evokes an epistemology of scientific materialism which takes as its basic premise the non-existence of God. Some people are more prone to identify marvelous events as miraculous than others, and usually the more education one gets from our godless schools, the more inclied they are toward the kind of agnosticism which requires scientific verification of the divine hand in human experience. "Will you measure our God?," say the priests in the Bower in the Arsacides chapter of Moby-Dick. As I said, two things are required for miracles. First, something divinely marvelous happens which is beyond human understanding and capability. Second, that event is properly seen, understood, and interpreted through spiritual eyes as divine intervention. We should also be aware that not everyone present at the marvelous event sees or understand, or even cares. For example, not everyone at the transfiguration of Brigham Young or at the revelation on tithing that day at the St. George Tabernacle saw the marvelous event. For some, it was just another boring conference session. Fred Pinnegar > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] _Run Lola Run_ (was: In Defense of Obscurity) Date: 11 May 2003 08:51:54 -0600 Let's see if I can divine the impression people have of me after this discussion. You think that I only like very simple, straightforward stuff with a minimum of artistic flourish. Better yet, a complete absence of it. That would not be entirely true. Evidence for that is the film _Run Lola Run_. This is a film from five years ago made in German by a German writer/director. It falls squarely under the category of avant gard. The story is about a girl named Lola with a boyfriend named Manni who works as a drug courier. He had just completed a job where he picked up 100,000 marks that h e was supposed to deliver to his boss. While riding the subway (without a ticket, as he usually does) inspectors boarded. He followed his natural reaction of getting off the train as soon as possible, only to realize he'd left the bag of money on the train. The movie starts with Manni calling Lola, telling her he has to come up with 100,000 marks in twenty minutes, or he's dead. In desperation, he's planning on robbing a nearby store. Lola tells him to wait--she'll try to find the money for him. The techniques of the storytelling are far from transparent. We get a surreal opening scene with crowds of people milling about, with the camera focusing on all the support characters who are the only ones with any significant color to them and the only ones who look directly into the camera, and the only ones standing still instead of milling. The narrator during this scene is also a support character and the last one we focus on as he waxes poetic about how life is like a soccer game, then kicks a soccer ball impossibly high into the air, which the camera follows as it points down to the grouns. As our point of view rises, all the milling people gather together to form letters that spell out the German version of the title: "Lola rennt." Normalcy takes over during the fateful, but energy-charged phone call, and ends with it. As Lola tries to figure out a way to get the money, the camera rotates around her dizzily using stop-motion animation to make things surreal again. Flashes of the people she's thinking about as possible sources of money zip by in a fraction of a second. When she decides on one, she runs out the door and down the stairs, passing a neighbor in her apartment building who has the door open, the TV on, and is talking on the phone. The camera leaves Lola and zooms around the neighbor, then focuses on the TV which is showing an animated cartoon of Lola running down the stairs and confronting a nasty boy with his growling dog. After that quick encounter we're back to live action as Lola runs through town. When she passes one of the supporting characters, we are treated to a "flash forward" of what will happen to that character for the rest of his/her life in about two seconds through a bunch of still photographs with the sound of a camera snapping pictures. Lola fails in her first attempt to get the money, Manni tries to rob the store, and in the process one of them is shot by the police. We suddenly switch to a flashback of the two in bed, quietly discussing their relationship. Thanks to that memory, Lola decides by sheer force of will that not even death is going to separate them, and transports herself back to the beginning so she can try again. With each iteration, Lola does something slightly different, and that influence impacts the lives of all the people she encounters. Through the quick flash forwards, we see how their lives have changed. Whenever a flashback occurs giving us the backstory of why the original phone call is taking place, the director shoots it in black and white. Whenver something is happening in the present, but away from Lola or Manni, it's shot in video. Anything current scene with Lola and Manni is shot in 35mm color film or animation. The flashbacks of Lola and Manni discussing their relationship in bed are flooded with red lighting. And of course the flash forwards are presented in still photography. The soundtrack is in an alternate rock style from the 90s, which I normally don't care for but which works beautifully for the film and therefore makes me like it. Twice the image on the screen is transitioned into by having the top half bang into the bottom half like a clapboard clapping, accompanied by a loud bang. Steadycam movement--more like flight--of the camera pervades the film. Many of the scenes are filmed using a crane shot that is consistently sixty meters high. And because the film is in German, on top of everything else, we have subtitles to read. The vehicle for telling this story is always intruding itself into our consciousness. There is nothing transparent about this film's style. We are always aware of it. Just the sort of thing I would be inclined to hate. Except that _Run Lola Run_ is one of my favorite movies. And there's one reason for it. The style, which constantly intrudes into my awareness, never intrudes into the story. On the contrary, every bit of avant gard technique contributes to the clarity of the storytelling. The style is perfect for this story. The plot and the acting are full of energy, and so is the style. The whole storyline is surreal, so many of the images are too. There is a specific style for presentiong each time period of the story, which helps us to keep track of what's going on in a film that could have easily lost us if shot by a less competent director. The music was perfect running music. _Run Lola Run_ is proof positive that I am fine with an unusual, challenging style, as long as that style contributes to telling the story, rather than detracting from it. The style is bold and exhibitionist, always crying out, "Look at me! Look at me!" But never does it create obscurity. Now you could have enjoyed this magnificent piece of film work and discussed it with other film enthusiasts just last Saturday, like four of us did, if you had only attended D. Michael's Film Lab for May--along with two other fine films that fit the theme "twisted timelines." But since you didn't, you'll just have to set your sites on June's film lab, where we view three films that explore different Christian religions: _Witness_ (Amish), _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ (Greek Orthodox), and Robert Duvall's labor of love _The Apostle_ (Pentecostal). -- 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: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: Re: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 11 May 2003 18:39:47 EDT I found an excellent book, Hand Bookbinding, A Manual of Instruction, ALDREN A. WATSON (Dover Craft Books) at my local art supply store (LIttle Rock, AR). They also had all the supplies mentioned in the book, but everything used can be duplicated with things from your local crafts and fabric stores. (While shopping with my sister in Corna, CA I found that my local art supply store is a treasure trove of stuff that may not be typical everywhere.) The process seems to be pretty time comsuming but doable. I am working on a picture book for the children of my extended family about my husband's grandmother's immigration to America and I've chosen to bind it with a spirial ring binding. I'm laminating the covers and it's easy and not too expensive to punch it and attach the bindings at Kinko's (I can do it for free at work on my lunch hour so my only cost for binding is laminating and buying the ring thingys). They will look more like a cookbook, but I think they will hold together pretty well and look nice. Let you know how it turns out - it's Christmas for everyone on that side of the family. Cathryn Lane -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Signing Off for a While Date: 12 May 2003 06:29:57 +0000 [MOD: Andrew will be greatly missed. And yes, please, someone volunteer to take up the slack with the newspapers! Good luck to Andrew with familial and professional endeavors. He's been a real help to me the last couple of years.] I'm sorry to say I have to sign off the list for a while. Taking care of two kids while trying to finish off my thesis means I never get a chance to go to school to check the messages. I hope to be back in the fall, when I should be done with the dissertation. For the last couple of years I have been going through the SL Tribune, Deseret News, and Daily Herald, and posting Mormon literature/film/theater-related articles to the list. I hope someone will take up this job while I am gone. Please volunteer yourself publically. Mostly just check the weekend papers. The DN and DH are the easiest, as they have "Arts and Entertainment" buttons on their website, which list all the articles in those sections for the last week or so. For the Tribune, you have to look at their Arts or Lifestyle section for each day separately. Jonathon, you might as well take me off the board for now, and no need to cc me on your messages. Chris, I can still do the Irreantum book blurb thingee. When is the next one due? I am sorry to miss all the fun. See you soon, Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] re: Goal of Writing Date: 11 May 2003 15:09:36 -0600 [MOD: Bill's suggested thread title, "Real Writers," is probably better than the one I used--but since mine went out first, and I try to keep us with consistent thread titles as much as possible, I'm afraid that his superior one dies a death. Sigh.] Jon Enos recently said something that bothered me, but at the moment I = decided to ignore it, and pass it off as just controversial rhetoric, = that applied to his own weltanschauung, and not to mine. However after = mulling it over I have decided I need to respond, if I want my world to = remain peaceful and a safe haven for my psyche. What Jon said, and I must paraphrase, and try to recall the gist, as I = did not save the post, was -=20 "A person who says they write because they have to write, or that they = have a story that they have to tell, yet remain unpublished, are not = really writers at all but merely obsessed hobbyists [or something to = that effect]" He also said something to the effect that real writers: sell what they write, If it doesn't sell they change it to what will sell, and he implied that the only real motivation to write is money. Sorry Jon, that may be your reality, however there are other realities = in the world of writers that work equally as well. I agree writing is = hard work, and sometimes it pays very poorly. I believe only about 1 - = 2% of writers ever get rich from their efforts, these I think are also = called authors. That is why in my weltanschauung, and I'm sure other = writers will agree, I write because I just can't not write. I write = because I am a writer, it is something that comes with my genes, I can't = help it or turn away from it. When I have something to say, the only way = I can say it effectively is to write it. I feel that what I write is = important, and that it needs to be written. I want what I write to be = published, but that isn't why I write it. I feel that eventually what I = have written will be read and appreciated by the dying breed of lovers = of the written word. If what I write isn't published until after I leave = this world, so what? Money isn't the be all end all of the writing = world. Writers are born, not manufactured in the English departments of = academia. I don't mean to say that everything I write is publishable. I fill my = wastebaskets regularly with writing that should never see the light of = day. On the other hand many of my writing exercises are wonderful pieces = of wit and charm which make wonderful reading material, but that doesn't = mean they are publishable. Eventually some of it may find its way to the = published pages of my work. Jon, if the money and the market are the only motivator for real = writers, what about Anne Frank? Do you think she was dreaming of the = millions of dollars her work would bring in the world of book = publishing, as she sat in her dimly lit attic scribbling in her diary? What about "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair?" Do you think the = author should have rewritten it as "The Upkeep, Maintenance and Repair = of the Indian Motorcycle," and left out all the dialogue, and story = about the trip, and his relationships with his son and family or his own = personal weltanschauung?=20 What about Beatrix Potter, and her "Tales of Peter Rabbit?" Do you think = she should have given up and put her manuscripts in a trunk in her = attic, just because some money hungry publisher didn't see the vision of = millions of children being tucked in at night after listening to their = parents read one of her wonderful tales? And finally, what about J.K. Rawling? She was told by many prestigious = publishers that her work was unpublishable and would never sell. Did she = quit? Did she take up needle-point? Did she change her story, voice, or = style? No! She is now showing writers and authors the way. I say not all writers become authors, but the majority of good authors = were writers first. Writers are born to be writers. There is no way a = human being would subject themselves to the disappointment, frustration, = rejection, and criticism that writers experience, just for money. I made = most of my money surveying, mapping, and writing legal descriptions. = Now, because I love the written word, books, and the creative process = called writing, I plan to spend the rest of my life doing it. I will do = it because I love it, and because it is part of my genetic make up. I = was born a writer and that is how I will die. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com=20 And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or = services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cherry Silver" Subject: [AML] LDS Women Call for Papers Date: 11 May 2003 16:23:50 -0600 The Smith Institute at BYU is sponsoring a scholarly conference on LDS = women in the 20th century next March that may interest a number of our = list members. I would appreciate your posting the following = announcement with information on how to contact the Smith Institute and = download the call for papers. Those interested in attending will need = to submit their names in advance to be on the mailing list for an = invitation. Thanks, Cherry Silver A CALL FOR PAPERS=20 The Smith Institute will sponsor a one-day symposium, to be held at BYU = on 20 March 2004, focused on Latter-day Saint women's lives in the = twentieth century. We are soliciting proposals for scholarly papers and = particularly welcome papers that place Mormon women within the context = of religious and historical studies.=20 Proposals should include a one-page abstract for each paper and a = one-page vita for each participant (including full-name, mail and e-mail = addresses, and phone number). Proposals are due 1 July 2003 to Symposium = co-chairs Carol Cornwall Madsen and Cherry B. Silver at = ldswomen-history@byu.edu The committee will respond to submissions by 15 = August 2003.=20 For more information, access the website at = http://smithinstitute.byu.edu then click on News/Announcements to = download the call for papers as a pdf document.=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity Date: 11 May 2003 19:36:48 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | A comparable situation exists with Shakespeare. It is impossible | for us to experience Shakespeare as the original audiences did, | because the instruments we use today (language) are different | from then. Clark suggests that translating Shakespeare into a | modern vernacular would be a dreaful thing, but I ask why? ___ It is the classic problem of translating poetry from one language to an other. It is an almost impossible task. Occasionally good or interesting translations are possible. The KJV of the Psalms for instance are very good poetry. But it is hardly reading them the way a Jew would have read them in Hebrew. Often the best "translations" are fairly interpretive in nature. Ezra Pound's translations of Chinese poetry are a great example. Great poetry. Horrible as a translation though. I'm not opposed to updating Shakespeare. Indeed there has been a lot of this done in Hollywood, often aimed at the teen market. i.e. _O_, _10 Things I Hate About You_ and so forth. Even a lot of movies that aren't so much translations are inspired by the Bard. Thus we have the postmodern "translation" of _Hamlet_ in Tom Stoppard's _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. An other inquiry into Hamlet from the point of view of our two minor characters can be found in Bob and Doug McKensie's _Strange Brew_. So don't get me wrong. I'm all for updating Shakespeare. I just am opposed to suggesting that this is somehow equivalent to reading Shakespeare as he is. Further the benefit to Shakespeare is that his English really *isn't* that far removed from us. That's why Mel Gibson's _Hamlet_ was completely understandable. Same with Kenneth Branaugh's many films of Shakesperian works. It isn't hard to understand. The greater barrier is, I think, less the language than it is trying to read a play as if it were a book. Plays are meant to be performed. I think Mormons, because of our reading of the KJV actually have a leg up in this regard. We're more familiar with Elizabethan English than many other Americans. If we read our scriptures regularly with our children they certainly will be a leg up on their competitors in school. Plus they can understand Shakespeare better. Want to help your kids? Get them reading and understanding the KJV. For all its flaws (and I by and large agree with the language problem) being able to read it is a huge advantage. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] ROGERS, "Heubener" (Deseret News) Date: 12 May 2003 06:24:45 +0000 Deseret News Sunday, May 11, 2003 'Huebener' a story of conviction By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret News theater editor "Huebener," directed by the playwright, Thomas Rogers, is the dramatic, true-life story of three LDS youths in Nazi Germany. The play opens Wednesday in the Bountiful Performing Arts Center's Black Box Theatre. The central characters are Helmuth Huebener, Rudi Wobbe and Karl-Heinz Schnibbe, who defied Hitler's regime more than 60 years ago by standing up for their LDS beliefs and distributing anti-Hitler leaflets. Brought to trial, Huebener was executed, while Schnibbe and Wobbe were imprisoned. Schnibbe, now in his late 70s, was the oldest of the three resistance fighters and is now a longtime resident of Salt Lake City. Schnibbe has met with Rogers' cast during their rehearsals, sharing personal insights into the story. (Rogers wrote the play in 1976 when he was a professor at Brigham Young University.) Huebener and his friends have been the subject of several new books and a recent documentary that was broadcast on KBYU-Ch. 11 and is available on video. The double-cast ensemble includes Chris Hunt and Brian Yarrington, alternating in the title role; Matt Elggren, single-cast as Wobbe; and Mickell Wright and Ben Johns sharing the role of Schnibbe. Single-cast players include Andrew Kirk as Gerhard Kunkel, Candy Revels as Emma Huebener, Phil Edmunds as Johannes Sudrow, Rosemary Rogers as Anneliese Sudrow and Courtney Lassetter as the Prosecutor. Key roles that are double-cast include Hugo Huebener, played by Ray Hunt and Monte Fautin; Arnold Zoellner, played by Bob Walkingshaw and Gordon Johnson; the Officer, played by Shane Kester and Rocky Revels; and Jonni Duewer, played by Nathan Keyes and Joey Lambertsen. (Lambertsen is the great-grandson of the Sunday School teacher to whom Huebener wrote one of his last letters before being executed; the text of the letter is used in Rogers' script.) If you go . . . What: "Huebener" Where: Black Box Theatre, Bountiful Performing Arts Center, 745 S. Main, Bountiful When: 7:30 p.m., Wednesday-June 11 How much: $7 for adults, $5 for students Phone: 294-7469 Web: www.bpac.cc Also: Karl-Heinz Schnibbe will be the special guest at a 6 p.m. reception prior to Saturday's performance; tickets are $20 (to include light refreshments). 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] MILLET, "Passage of Glory" Date: 12 May 2003 06:43:42 +0000 BYU-Newsnet BYU professor will sing the role of Joseph Smith in new musical By Tiffany Rueckert NewsNet Staff Writer - 6 May 2003 A BYU professor is being featured in the premiere of a new dramatic musical on Wednesday, May 6, and Thursday, May 7, at the Provo Tabernacle. "Passage of Glory," a Mormon oratorio written by Robert Millet, is the dramatic retelling of the restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Lawrence Vincent, head of opera at BYU, will sing the role of Joseph Smith throughout the oratorio. "I am thrilled to be a part of 'Passage of Glory,'" said Vincent. Vincent decided to leave his teaching career 21 years ago to pursue professional singing. He spent 15 years singing in Europe with Trierer Choir in Germany, the Vienna Volks Opera and Vienna State Opera before coming to BYU in 1997. Vincent said he has anticipated the time when the gospel and the story of the restoration would be put to music, and said he is excited that the time is here. He has spent time trying to analyze what the prophet would have been feeling. "It is a huge responsibility to assume a character like Joseph Smith," said Vincent Unlike "Messiah" and many other oratorios that are scripture set to music, "Passage to Glory" is a musical drama in which the singers are the characters in the story. Each segment of the play represents a different geographical area that played a part in the early history of the church. Millet is an internationally published composer and arranger. Millet said he feels a personal commitment and connection to the pioneers. "As they went west they created a new state of mind, a new culture, and new music," he said. "No group has a personality like the Mormons. Through trials they became more than they could have become otherwise. They truly sang to the Lord a new song," Inspiration for "Passage of Glory" came to Millett while he was earning his master's degree at Brigham Young University. As a student announcer at KBYU-FM, he wondered why no one had written the history of the Church in music. He envisioned it as one continuous work rather than a collection of songs. Vincent will be joined by three Utah Valley musical groups and five soloists in the presentation of the oratorio, directed by Bryce Rytting. The Utah Valley Symphony and singers from the choir of the Orem Institute of Religion will join the 100 voices of Wasatch Chorale. Soloists will include tenor Lawrence Vincent, head of opera at BYU; Susan Alexander-Boren, accomplished actress and award-winning soprano; Colleen Butler, the voice of Mary, mother of James, in this spring's production of Savior of the World in Salt Lake City; Clayne Robison, baritone soloist; J. Areden Hopkin, musical director of the Wasatch Chorale and head of vocal studies at BYU; and Andrew Crane, head of vocal music at Provo High School. The performance begins at 7:30 p.m. Tickets for the event are available at Keith Jorgensens, Best in Music, Summerhays, Bill Harris Music, Bert Murdock Music, and at the door. Admission is $8 for adults, or $15 for families. _________________________________________________________________ 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: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 12 May 2003 09:52:44 -0400 Most Mormon reaction to Kushner reminds me of the scene early in Amadaeus when Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) is thoroughly peeved with God for inspiring a raucous buffoon with sublime and transcendent genius. How could God heap such gifts and talents into the soul of one so undeserving? Presumably he, Salieri, is a much more disciplined craftsman, more righteous, and ought to be heir to the greater musical endowment. But no, and he does what he can to destroy Mozart. I think it just kills most LDS that Kushner, queer, has been endowed with a genius that surpasses any of ours. This queer also had the effrontery to tell, what has, to date, been the most critically-acclaimed piece of Mormon Literature, mmm, ever. Let's all join Salieri in a fervent fist-shaking at the heavens and in unison, "Arrrgh!" Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Date: 12 May 2003 09:17:38 -0700 I have seen healing affected, and seen doctors trying desperately to come to some other conclusion. I watched a haze of pain drain from a woman's eyes and saw her walk, which she hadn't done in over two years. Her doctor was so shaken he just kept stammering and gulping. That is only one experience of several. Miracles do happen that are objectively measurable--but by far and away they are most subjective and for good reasons. The Israelites had plenty of objective miracles right in front of their faces and they still turned to the golden calf. Objective miracles force us too close to God, and if there's anything in the world that terrifying it's being close to God. Most people, I believe, would prefer to live with a little-used, occasionally felt Gift of the Holy Ghost. A nice warm feeling now and then, but not too often or too strong. Closeness to God means that one can no longer hide. Not that it's ever possible to hide, but the comfortable cloak of doubt makes it easier to hug sins tight and pretend that God doesn't mind. Nothing in the world is more terrifying than the knowledge that every evasion, every cruelty, any nasty little thing you ever did is right there, present and known, and not only the deed but the thought and feeling behind it. That's only the first part of the scariness. The worst part is that He knows it all, and you know He knows, and He loves you anyway. So I don't think that objective miracles are going to become commonplace even when Jesus reigns personally. People will be living in the paradisiacal millennial world and pretending that Jesus isn't really paying that much attention. Peace doesn't mean everybody will be righteous all the time. They'll remember dimly when He arrived and the whole world saw Him arrive, but they'll cover over that knowledge with the common concerns of daily living. They'll pretend to themselves that there are such things as special effects and propaganda, and though they might even resent the peaceful world it takes some kind of suffering to get a revolution going. This includes plenty of Mormons as well. Rationalization is a way of life for the human race, and even Jesus reigning personally on the Earth won't change it that much. I just saw the movie _Signs_ which is really a movie about a miracle in several parts. That's the sort of miracle that happens constantly and aren't often recognized. Coincidences in a particular order for a particular reason. The reason that God works that way is to allow us to retain that security blanket of doubt. He doesn't want to scare everybody too much. If He were suddenly to appear on the floor of the Senate the whole world would scream in fright. For the most part, people really don't want to KNOW. They don't mind believing, but they would just as soon have faith. Knowledge is just too much responsibility, and if there is one common thread throughout human history it is the constant attempts to avoid responsibility. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Date: 12 May 2003 10:44:24 -0600 > I wrote: > > The sense of being "trapped" into thinking about a subject in a > > certain way (even if it is the "right" way) infuriates more than it > > convinces or instructs . This is the inherent weakness of the Socratic > > method, which always implies a Ha! Gotcha! after the QED. > > D. Michael Martindale wrote: > The results of my treatise on clear writing appears to be pigeonholing > me somewhere where I don't want to go. Maybe it's because I used the > word "message" to stand for story. Anyone who's been on this list for a > while knows that I'm very anti-didactic literature. I had assumed that that was the point I was making: didactic argument in fiction--no matter how well structured--pointing towards an obvious conclusion will convince only the choir. And the more clever the argument, the more insufferable. This in an effort to split the different between Justin Halverson's 4/24 post about "trap[ping] your reader into a single, clearly identifiable, unequivocal reading of your work," a conclusion I don't think follows from your contention that "Difficult thoughts need enticing, effortless paths." Hence my analogy to gossip. Attempting to convince another person to change his mind through clear-cut debate is very, very difficult. So difficult that it is often only self-indulgent. Any missionary who's ever "Bible-bashed" knows that the exercise is full of sound and fury (a lot like professional sports), rarely signifying anything of lasting importance. To pull another example from Shakespeare, note Iago's strategy with Othello, a strategy couched in the "logic" of hearsay, playing on jealousy and insecurity, not rational thought. Yet the intent--of Iago, and Iago's creator--is clear. Clear that Iago had to make it "easy" for Othello to begin to rationalize the looming crime, something he otherwise would never have contemplated. We don't feel manipulated observing this manipulation because it rings true to our knowledge of human nature--according to our understanding of authorial intent. And we know as well that the author has been honest about his intentions from the start. This wraps around to Kari Heber's recent posting. Yes, if you are writing for the New Era (which I did for a spell), your audience is well defined (by the editors, to start with). I was happy to write the best stories I could within those constraints. But in most cases it becomes impossible--even in Utah Valley--to separate an author's *intended* audience from the audience that decides quite on its own that it belongs in it (or not). In any case, authorial intent must be considered, if only as a yardstick against which to judge the final product. The author must have *intended* something, or could write nothing of consequence. Getting back to the original point, often when encountering an overly dense narrative, a plot that fails to live up to the original promise of the story, a muddled moral, my suspicion grows that the author didn't really have anything clear in mind starting out, or lost his way somewhere along the line. Muddying the water can be a good way to disguise that deep water is really a puddle. There are, to be sure, masterful creators of Rorschach texts. Some ink blots *are* interesting to look at by themselves, regardless of context. I can enjoy "Rorschach art," even when it leaves me with no clear understanding of what is meant by it. So art as a philosophical catalyst is an important part of the craft. But there are limits to this sort of thing. Stretching this metaphor further, I suspect that many excesses in literary deconstruction are "enabled" by the misapplied dynamics of group therapy--a bunch of critics sitting around explaining to the author what he *really* thinks and feels, the author obviously not being capable to doing so for himself. Maybe he isn't. But if that is the case, I'm not sure we should be so eager to do it for him. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Genesis Events to Celebrate the 25th Anniversary Date: 12 May 2003 13:11:51 -0600 We are stuck in some red tape awaiting approval of graphics, etc., but we need to get our events publicized, so I thought AML listers might help. Please spread the word! Here's what's coming up: Friday June 6th 7:00 in the Bountiful Regional Center: _I Am Jane_, directed by Thom Duncan. Admission free. No children under age 6. Saturday June 7th: 9:00 temple session for Genesis members in SL temple 2:00 Matinee performance of _I Am Jane_ in the Bountiful Regional Center 4:00-7:00 p.m. Pot luck picnic for Genesis members in Anszak Park, Midvale. If you have African American friends who want to know about Genesis, please feel free to invite them to this. Sunday June 8th: Genesis Group meeting in the tabernacle (temple square), featuring the Saints Voices Unified Choir conducted by Gladys Knight. Again, no children under age 6. ________________ 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: [AML] Working as a Mormon Writer (was: Mormon Horror) Date: 12 May 2003 23:09:09 -0700 D. Michael Martindale notes: "We've all heard how people who say something is impossible are constantly being interrupted by others doing it. I look forward to the day Jongiorgi is interrupted. I suspect he may even rejoice when that day comes." I will rejoice, certainly, and I think that condtitions are improving and opportunities expanding every year. As a side-note, however, it is NOT a foregone conclusion that LDS Cinema is yet a fiancially viable medium. Halestorm is being modestly successful (financially), but they are staying to a strict formulae which will ultimatly be restrictive to the growth of the body of LDS Cinema work. If we can't expand the bubble it will eventually burst. I obviously have a lot of hopes in that regard, or I would not be expending the huge amounts of time and energy I am in not only contributing to the field, but to more and more hanging my own financial hat on this very peg. If this bubble bursts, I'll go with it and I'll be back to painting houses. So I am not some jaded outsider when I ask some of my hard questions. I am not even asking them rhetorically, really, or asking them of others. I am asking them of myself in a very realistic, practial way every day. I don't have the liberty of relying on my day job, writing unpublishable stuff and then complaining about it, waiting until the world changes and everybody "evolves" enough to finally read all my fine material I've been hiding away for so long. I have to get down and dirty in the trenches every single day and if that means I make some compromises here and there, so be it. But I don't HAVE to kick against the pricks. I don't HAVE to write Mormon horror. Why can't I make my horror story mainstream, sell it nationally, do well, and then I can write anything I want? Why can't I write my LDS stories "mainstream DB" but better than anything else out there, sell it to DB or Covenant, do well, and then get away with a little bit more next time? Some "artists" are horrified by such statements. Anything that even suggests compromise to the market is their personal vision of a Stephen King nightmare. But it doesn't need to be. In my odd professional nitch, geting hired to write scripts that other people already have strong ideas about, I am constantly forced into other people's stories, other people's marketing parameters, having to include or exclude certain elements based on demographic, and some of it is like jumping through hoops. When I did a thing for Animal Planet, they were a blend of insanely specific yet insanely vague. They wanted an animal-related story; it had to be scary and edgy; but no animal could be seen to directly harm a human (unless they were totally provoked and just acting in thier natural way); no predators, but you could have predetors under certain conditions; family oriented; funny; female lead; special effects have to be within the overall 2M budget, etc., etc., etc. It was a nightmare. But what it did was force my and my partners at the time into a level of creativity. We had to get around our restrictions and still come up with something we were proud of. It CAN be done. Writing within specific parameters still allows a huge amount of lee-way. And sometimes the mental work of overcoming the limits of the job parameters made us come up with the best stuff. I have several stories to illustrate this point further, one that happend to me, and then the famous one with Brian DePalma and "The Untouchables", but I'm too tired tonight to type them out. Suffice it to say that restrictions can be turned into the mother of invention. Good work can be done within market limits just as it can be done outside of it. And yes, market limits have to be tested all of the time, I'm not suggesting they can't be. But citing Richard's success in the face of all the nay-sayers is too easy an argument to just let slide. I'm close to Richard and I suffer vicariously with him in his travails. Don't let the initial success fool you for one second. This is a brutally-hard market. Sure, "God's Army" proved it "could be done", and Richard flew out of the gate at high speed. But since then he's hit a big friggin' BRICK WALL of opposition and I don't know how it's going to pan out. RD may be forced back into the hollywood indie stream and out of LDS cinema, and that might be okay. At least his films will still be cutting edge, regardless of the genre he eventually is forced (by economic nessessity) to work in. He's gonna keep trying, I'm gonna keep trying, my friends Mark Potter, Curtis Taylor, and about 90 others I don't know will all keep trying. I'm polishing a script right now that (knock-on-wood) this time next year will be a big laughing-stock or a big success. Who knows. But I will not be interrupted by the success of others while I'm sitting around shaking my fists at circumstance! I'm working my fingers to the bone, in every genre I've got it in me to do, playing whatever market cards it makes sense to follow, and I'm gonna keep at it untill some of the goobers stick to the wall! But I don't want to burn any bridges while I'm at it. I had a nice conversation this week with Church Headquarters. They are interested in exploring one of my plays, putting it through the grueling process of getting approval and final polish through the Correlation Committee (a more horrifying process is unknown to many an LDS writer), and I agreed to that. I am totally open to that process. Not on every piece I write, but for that one, why not? I want to please Church Headquarters with some of what I do. Not all of it, but some of it. I want to please mainstream audiences with some of what I do. Not all of it, but some of it. I can do both. But I will have to conform to certain essential restrictions in either case. I'm not a Neil LaBute every day of my life, but I'm not a Gerald Lund every day of my life, either. But there is no reason I have to go try and cram Neil LaBute stuff down the Correlation Committee's throat. Balance, openness, creativity, acceptance of assignments and parameters, all of these things are part of the BUSINESS of being an LDS writer. I refuse to completely alienate my ability to work directly for Church Headquarters from time to time, because as an active member of the church I feel that that is my CALLING. I HAVE to give something back. Call it an "artistic tithe" if you will. So I don't want to do anything that would make them never want to call me again. But I think that still gives me a lot of lee-way. Look at OSC's career. Lots of envelope-pushing, yet he's still in good with the guys at the top of the tower when he needs to be. I recognize that not everyone is going to WANT that, and that's okay. To each their own. But I'm going to do everything I can to cultivate a broad and diverse body of work and a successful career both, and in order to do that, I'm going to have to target market, shape and mold projects for specific outlets, never run screaming from limits, and never stop working for one second. When I'm at a pitch meeting at a studio, I'm just a writer. But when I'm on this forum, I'm an LDS writer. They are two different animals, and I can be both of them, but not necessarily at the same time. If I can get LDS readers to like my "Luna Tigris" (with its suggestions of sex and blood and guts and shapeshifting and Taoist universe), then wonderful. But I don't expect it. If I can get national audiences to read and like "The Long Walk of Patience Loader" (with its love and prayers and miracles and faith and handcarts and Mormon pioneers), then wonderful. But I don't expect it. And I don't feel even remotely limited by those two dualities. Writing and marketing are two different things. But to succeed in this business you have to do both. You don't even have to do both WELL. As we have seen, many LDS writers are not good writers, but they are excellent marketers, and so they have a version of success. And if you are a fabulous writer but not a very good marketer, the quality of your writing will eventually find someone who will buy it and go out and do your marketing for you. So you don't have to do both well, but you have to do BOTH, and the better you can get at both the better off you will be. Now not everyone wants to write professionally. Fine. But if you want to be read AT ALL, you have to at least submit your writing for publication from time to time. And so you still have to think of market. It is silly to waste postage sending your LDS memoir to a magazine for lesbian evangelical Christians. You have to research your market, find your target, search out publishers in that niche, and submit your manuscript to THEM. Anything else is just burning stamps. This is not a negative reality, its a positive one. This is not a limiting sense of realism, it is a liberating realization. In the end, Michael did not have any answers to my somewhat rhetorical questions. But he believes that there ARE answers. I do too. But the answers may be hard to swallow and not what we want to hear. All I'm saying is that I'm prepared to hear them, and to act on them when I do. I'm not going to sit around in the mean time and wait to be interrupted, but if while I'm working somebody has success I didn't think they could have, certainly, I will rejoice. Listen, I worked a mock craps table doing theatre in Alaska. I saw people bet on and then roll hard eights. I've seen it. It DOES happen. But the odds are against it. Hey, it's your time and it's your money. Do what you want. Me, I play the odds. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 13 May 2003 00:12:23 -0700 Hey, great post by Clark. But then, could we expect otherwise? I've never read any of the early Card shorts, so I was very interested to hear about the ones Clark mentions. I'll have to go back and check them out. I do think, though, that "Mormonisms" which we recognize within a story, but which mainstream audiences have no clue about... does that count? I guess it does. But it's not like that is "teaching the gospel" or anything. It's just that Card's LDS theology invades his construct of the universe, so that even his speculative fiction (and I think one branch of horror is a close cousin to speculative fiction; both ask "what if's" to allow extreme events, and then study the characters reacting to them) asks questions which are colored by that universe. The story about the baby demon punishing the promiscuous man is just as Puritanical, even Evangelical as it is "Mormon". What about some of the extreme Jewish and Islamic punishments for promiscuity? These are literal horror when practiced in extremely conservative societies today, and if OSC weren't openly Mormon, we might not think for a second about applying a Mormon label to some of his themes. This is not to contradict Clark's excellent points, but to expand a bit on why we sometimes limit ourselves when we (as LDS members) happen to be writing mainstream fiction. I mean, when I am not writing an explicitly LDS story, I do not consciously think of myself as an LDS writer. I don't think non-LDS readers would think I was, either. But LDS readers would, I suspect, struggle to find all kinds of clues in my non-LDS work of my "Mormonism". No doubt OSC really DOES consciously include and explore lots of allegories and other thematic elements of his faith in his mainstream work. But, is there a point when, say, an Anne Perry, or whomever, just writes detective stories, or romance stories or science fiction stories and we forget completely that this writer just so happens to also, in their real life, be a member of the church? This is taking this into a totally different line of questioning, but are we ALWAYS "LDS writers"? Should we be if we aren't? Don't know, but I often feel like we box ourselves in too much and we get in trouble both ways. Our mainstream stuff gets too colored by our religious feelings, or our LDS stuff tries to get too worldly. I may be overgeneralizing, or even completely wrong. But is a horror story a "Mormon horror" story just cuz it's written by a guy who makes a home teaching call 25 minutes after wrapping up his eight hours at the keyboard cranking out pulp fiction? Anyway, thanks for citing all of these early OSC stories. > Certainly, although the lines between genres frequently blur. Consider > that old Peter Jackson movie _The Frighteners_. Is that a ghost story, > a horror story or a comedy? What about _Blade_? Is that a horror > movie, a superhero movie, or a pure action flick? > Films rarely fit entirely into a single genre. Very true, and blending genres is a lot of fun, but has to be handled carefully to work. And you are completely right about your take on Stephen King: he works when the characters work and otherwise the novels are often poor. Nail on the head. I am a King fan; I am often thrilled and I am often disappointed. But when his characters are spot on, he sings like no American writer in any genre. You just have to sift through the gunk to get to it. > Just as Mormons are uncomfortable discussing the sacred I > think they are uncomfortable discussing the opposite extreme. By that I > mean that it is typically discussed in guarded terms and many encounters > are not openly discussed. I think you are probably right about this. It is perhaps telling that I grew up in a family that frequently spent our Sunday afternoons with hours of sharing stories exploring all kinds of extremes of experience, including many of the "folk stories" (possibly myths) you cited later in your post. Those discussions also included many supernatural experiences had by some of my family members. My paternal grandmother was quite the visionary in her life, and always pretty frank about telling us some of her experiences, many of which were wonderful, but some of which were pure horror. She had no doubt that Satan was real. She'd seen too much evidence. And as for the point made in someone else's post, don't remember who now (sorry), about "the priesthood can always overcome the opposition, so it's not all that scarry," I beg to differ. What about a woman all alone attacked by evil spirits? What about a priesthood holder who's not that confident in his faith and may not be ABLE to just put his arm to the square and end the event just like that? I know of some good, faithful LDS people who've had their hearts nearly leap out of thier chests in experiences they could not explain and their membership didn't make it any less frightening. And I myself, in a stupid, stupid painting accident, did not properly ventilate an apartment I was shooting with oil-based primer. When I finally passed out from the fumes that had attacked my brain, I lay on the carpet in a drug-fume-indueced stupor and I could HEAR the knashing voices of the spirits that wanted to enter me. I couldn't see them, but I'll never forget those voices. I felt helpless, stoned, half-conscious and completly powerless to focus my mind enough to pray, yet I was aware of legions of negative spirits all around me. Very real, very strange, very horrible. > I can think of several events from my mission similar to yours that I'd > never discuss openly. (I was in Lousiana so you *know* there was a lot > of that kind of stuff going on) I'm sure you WAS, vodoo buddy! So, the question is, despite all of my railings to the contrary, should these stories be explored for a specifically LDS readership? D. Michael sounds like he very much thinks so, and thinks it's worth cultivating an audience for such tales. I've said publically it's a waste of time. Am I wrong? I know I could make my own contribution to the genre, based on both my actual life experience and on my imagination. Would it actually help anyone? Whould it "do any good in the world today"? or should that even be the goal? Clark is probably right in his conclusion: > I think it is more a matter of how it is handled. It really is similar > to the temple issue. just as I think we *can* discuss > the temple if we do it obliquely and with respect, I think we can do the > opposite. Would it be positive if we made the effort and created (or to be less egotistical) revived a genre of LDS "horror"? We'd have to coin a new name for it. "Opposition Literature" for example, or "Stories of the Ongoing War In Heaven On Earth". If we called it "Mormon Horror" our detractors would shorten it to "MoHo" and that'd be bad -- we'd be laughed out of town. Would Irreantum consider such boundary-bending literature? (See: I CAN be convinced, and I can change my mind.) Keep working on me. I may come around and become a proponent of MoHo yet. My first story submission will be called "Camera." It'll be about my grandmother being attacked by spirits in the night and then being saved by three men who entered her house with camera-like apparati that they used to "chase" the evil presences away. Very creepy. True story, to boot. Or so my grandmother said. But who knows? She's dead. Jongiorgi ("Scream-Ripper") Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Goal of Writing Date: 13 May 2003 01:05:41 -0700 Jonathan Langford (writing as himself) says: "So let's not value one over the other, or create a hierarchy in which either the full-time professional or the amateur is valued more highly. Judge by the work itself, and leave it at that." Ooooooooooo... Okay. You win. Jon-the-humbled-Giorgi P.S. - Seriously, Jonathan is "judging moderately" and has to be praised. Some of what I say on this list I really believe vehemently (most of what I say is that way), but some of it is just for the childish (and often foolish) glee of whacking at the hornet's nest to see what will come out. My response to Ronn was more of the hornet-whacking kind. I've written privately since I was 12; my professional forays are actually very recent. I've only been a full-time writer for about five months now, and sometimes the pressure is terrifying. I was much more relaxed when I worked full-time and wrote at nights and weekends. What got missed was spending time with my kids, which I get to do on evenings and weekends now. I write when they are in school and in bed. So this way is much better, if it can be sustained, but it usually can't. And it is true that Gene Wolfe felt a sense of liberty and relaxation writing "New Sun" while working full-time. He never had to worry about his meal ticket, so could relax and polish to his heart's content. Take four years to write the long novel (or tetrology) that ultimately allowed him to retire and write full-time, which he's been doing ever since. Anthony Trollop worked full-time all of his writing life and was as prolific (and as popular) as any of us should ever hope to be. My sister, Ginger (who I am trying to get to join the list, so you may be "meeting" her soon), has been a writer since she was in her teens, and a very good one at that. Now in her mid-twenties, a busy new mother, she has gone back to her writing. She is refinding the same cathartic joy it has always had for her, but, interestingly enough, she is starting to yearn for publication. I am introducing her to venues for that purpose. Now those venues (the List, Irreantum, etc.), will certainly not make her any money. No living will come of it, and she will be very happy to be a published writer, an "amateur" writer of high quality. Ginger wants to be a professional mother. She doesn't want a stressful career. My writing career is often stressful. I find that much of my greatest pleaser during the writing week, is had pounding out these ridiculous essays for the list! No money in that! Writing for love is always the first urge, and that love must be sustained throughout life or the writing will become stale and pedestrian. But ultimately, we crave publication, and that entails an awareness of market and a certain discipline. But Jonathan said all of that. The real passion behind the venom of my Ronn response was directed at that group (which I have not encountered on the AML list, but in other forums) of writers (I use that term liberally) who really are not writers at all. They say they want to be writers, but they don't love it. They love the IDEA of it. They don't write much. They haunt groups and workshops and they whine and complain but they have neither love nor discipline. To those people, I wouldn't change one word of my in-your-face writing-is-a-job schpeel. And if it woke them up, ticked them off or just made them go away, I'd be happy either way. To the dedicated amateur (and I have a friend who is a brilliant novelist, two award-winning, but not very high-selling books under her belt; she's a much better writer than I -- who have a little bit of the schlock in me -- but she must teach lit at an NY college to make ends meet and allow her to keep on writing), to the published, but not financially independent, to the teacher/writers (who form, probably, the majority of us), to all of these, my tirade is moot and silly. They write, they work, they publish or not. And yet... and yet. Among that professional group, the "professional amateurs" let us call them, there is a distinctness about their discipline that, though it is suffused with their love, is absolute. They write. They edit. They re-write. They work. There is a caliber of craft that makes them "professional" regardless of whether their writing is their only source of income or not. "Telling the story they need to tell" does not preclude the editing, the polishing, the blood, sweat and tears. It is not a sloppy state. It is a professional, making-a-living state of mind, and these are the best writers, regardless of their actual state of income from writing. And so I speak of becoming that kind of writer. It starts from the love, but then it must move to "the living" phase (whether that "living" is literal in dollars and cents or not). Then, it is nice if it also comes back around to the "love phase" again. But if we have not achieved the "making-a-living phase" in our work (in the philosophical sense), such a state should, in my opinion, be set as an important goal. It is another of one of my obnoxious opinions that, present company exempted (and this opinion is being tested by the stuff I've been reading in Irreantum, and some of the published work of some of you here on the list) that LDS writers are, generally speaking, with many wonderful exceptions, and again, present company excepted, a damn-lazy bunch. The quality of the writing, the quality of the editing, the solidity of story structure, the standard of the prose, is so mediocre (and this I've found in writers who ARE making their living from their book sales) that these are not, in my mind "PROFESSIONAL" writers of the kind that I espoused in my essay or aspire to be myself. I'll never sell as many books as Gerald Lund, but I'll never write dialogue as wooden, either. So, in the end, my "make-a-living" argument is philosophical and not literal. In that sense, I stand by it, Jonathan's moderating commentary notwithstanding. Jon Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 13 May 2003 07:09:22 -0600 I sent these two note directly to Benson. I guess I should have sent them to the list. About bookbinding: My wife bought a book for me a few year ago (I only just barely lent it to my nice or I'd give you the exact title) that's really good. I think it's called "Hand Bookbinding." It's (I think) by Dover Press. It's about 8 1/2 x 11 and has a light blue cover. My wife got it from Amazon.com. A good sorce of supplies is Talasonline.com (I think). Book binding is a curious art. It's so easy when you start out. It becomes almost impossible after a few years. write to me if you have questions. The size of the book is a big deal and the dimentions of the finished page. What size run are you thinking of? --AND-- I'm on the web looking for a machine that would fold concertinas for me. I went onto amazon.com to see if that book about bookbinding was there. It's called "Hand Bookbinding" by Aldren A. Watson. It costs $30.00. It's an excellent book, though. It will show you how to make your own tools. There are a lot of tools for book binding that are not absolutely necessary. You can get by with just a needles and thread, a pot of glue and something to cut the boards for the cover. "Davey" board is usually used for covers. It is kind of expensive and it's really hard to cut. I used to cut it with a utility knife, making several passes to get one cut, but I could never get a square cover board. Finally, I bought a small board cutter for about $400. I absolutely love it. and if you're planning to bind a run of any size it's that only way. I've done several runs of 20-30 books. It's the only way to go if you are going to use davey board. I have toyed with the idea of using cheap wall paneling for cover boards. You could cut that on a table saw. I have use paneling for covers before and the only difference is it's a little stiffer. Good Luck, send me a note and tell me how it goes. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 13 May 2003 07:54:38 -0500 For what they're worth, here are my musings from a while back about the Thee and Thou business. Hopefully this link will work - it should take you to my essay called "Prayer Lingo.": http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/63/story_6377_1.html&boardID=10493 This appears in www.beliefnet.com. Linda in Evanston, IL -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 13 May 2003 08:20:43 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lisa Tait >The problem with horror is that it seems to be focused on the >horror--the evil. There may be an underlying theme or message >that has an explicit moral to it--faith is stronger than >doubt--or it may want to provoke us to think about matters of >faith--is my faith stronger than my doubt? But horror also >(and I might argue primarily) functions to scare us--it's >after a certain effect. And I would argue that the effect >mostly negates the morality underneath it. Not exactly true. True horror is about as black and white a literature there is. Evil is clearly evil and good is clearly good. Stephen King write morality tales. The bad guys always get it in the end. If you want a form of literature that teaches the basic virtues of life, then you want horror. Read the Book of Revelation if you want the scare of your life. But how does it end. The greatest happy ending in the history of spiritual writing. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 13 May 2003 09:37:38 -0500 A little folderol on this topic....The following is from the Washington Post Style Invitational Contest that asks writers to submit "instructions" for something (anything), but written in the style of a famous person. The winning entry, contributed by Jeff Brechlin of Potomac Falls, was "The Hokey Pokey" by William Shakespeare: O proud left foot, that ventures quick within Then soon upon a backward journey lithe. Anon, once more the gesture, then begin: Command sinistral pedestal to writhe. Commence thou then the fervid Hokey-Poke, Mad gyration, hips in wanton swirl. To spin! a wilde release from Heaven's yoke. Blessid dervish! Surely canst go, girl. The Hoke, the Poke -- banish now thy doubt Verily, I say, 'tis what it's all about. Barbara Hume proposed a different challenge: "It would be interesting to choose a passage from Shakespeare and have various list members take a stab at rendering it into modern prose. Not only would it be a lot of fun and very enlightening, but I think it would increase our appreciation for the Bard. I'll bet the various interpretations would be quite different from each other." I look forward to reading the responses. Linda -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 13 May 2003 11:23:13 -0400 >It would be interesting to choose a passage from Shakespeare and have=20 >various list members take a stab at rendering it into modern prose. Not only would= =20 it be a lot of fun and very enlightening, but I think it would increase our appreciation for the Bard. I'll bet the various interpretations would be=20 quite different from each other. > >barbara hume > >[MOD: Okay, I'll formalize it...Anyone up to the challenge?] > I wrote "Five-Minute Much Ado" a while ago for a website called Five-Minute= =20 Voyager that you can find at this address: http://3sygma.com/fiveminute/. = =20 There, you will find "fivers" of all things sci-fi along with some=20 Shakespeare, but not this one. My fiver is "in process", as it has been for= =20 a year now. It's not exactly what you asked for, but it's what I have to=20 offer. ~Jamie Laulusa Five-Minute Much Ado [At Leanoto=92s house] Messenger: Extra! Extra! Don Pedro won whichever border skirmish it was=20 this week, and if anyone died they weren=92t anyone we need to care about. He=92= s bringing his entourage here so y=92all can marry off any extra daughters you= =20 got lying around. Beatrice: Do you know Benedick? Messenger: Why, do you like him? Beatrice: No. *** Benedick: I hate women. Beatrice: I hate men more. Benedick: Do not Beatrice: Do too. Benedick: Do not Beatrice: Do too. Don Pedro: We=92ll stay for a month. I like this place. Leanato: We like all of you, too, even your brother, Don Jon. Don Pedro: Jon, what do we say to the nice man? Don Jon: =91nk you. *** Claudio: Whoa, that Hero is such a babe. I want to marry her. Benedick: What, are you crazy? Claudio: Don Pedro, can I marry Hero? Please? Pretty Please? Don Pedro: Go ahead. Hey, tell you what, I=92ll even help you. Claudio: Yipee-skipee! Borachio: Ooo, Don Jon=92s gonna have fun with this. *** Don Jon: I hate people! All of them! Especially my brother! Borachio: Hey, DJ, your brother hooking Hero and Claudio up tonight. If we= =20 mess things up, it=92ll make him mad. Don Jon: Oh goody! [At the masque] Beatrice: Benedick is so stupid! Benedick (in disguise): I am n=97I mean=97I=92ll tell him you said so. Beatrice: Suuure you will. *** Don Jon: Claudio, you are such a sucker. Ol=92 DP is planning on marrying= =20 Hero himself. Benedick: Beatrice called me stupid! Claudio: I think I=92m gonna cry. Benedick: It wasn=92t that big a deal. *** Don Pedro: What=92s the matter Claudio? Claudio: Nothing. Don Pedro: No, really. Claudio: Nothing Beatrice: He=92s pouting. Don Pedro: Well, I don=92t know why, =91cause betrothed people should be= happy. You=92re going to marry Hero. Claudio: Oh wow. Hero: I love you, Claudio. Claudio: I love you, Hero. Bea: Ugh, I can=92t stand the mushy stuff. Don Pedro: Will you marry me, Beatrice. Beatrice: No. Don Pedro: Can I set you up with Benedick then? Hero: Oo! Oo! I want to help! *** Don Jon: My evil plans foiled! Borachio: I=92ve got another idea, and since it involves me making out with Margaret, I like it a lot better than the last one. Don Jon: Well, just as long as it works. *** [In the gardens] Don Pedro: OH WOW! You mean BEATRICE is in LOVE with BENEDICK?! Leanato: Yup. DON PEDRO: OH WOW! Benedick (in hiding): Eep! *** Ursula: OH WOW! You mean BENEDICK is in LOVE with BEATRICE?! Hero: Yup. Ursula: OH WOW! Beatrice (in hiding): Eep! [Outside Hero=92s Window] Don Jon: Said the Bad Guy to poor Claudio Do you see what I see? In the window there, Claudio? Do you see what I see? Don Pedro: Gasp! It=92s Hero sucking face with Borachio! Claudio: I think I=92m gonna cry. *** [Somewhere else] Night Watch: We are the Night Watch The mighty mighty night Watch Everywhere we go People wanna know=85 Dogberry: OK, men, you keep watch here and wait for Evil Miscreants, like,= =20 I dunno, Borachio confessing to defiling Hero=92s honor as a maid. Then we=20 promptly fail to tell anyone until Claudio=92s denounced her and Leanato is forced to= =20 kill her. Watchman #1: Hey, it=92d be a short play otherwise. *** Borachio and Conrad: Hee-hee, whisper-whisper Nightwatch: Gotcha! Borachio: Crap. *** [At the Wedding] Friar: Do you, Claud=97 Claudio: No. Friar: I haven=92t gotten there yet. Claudio: I don=92t want her anymore. Hero: I think I=92m gonna cry. Claudio: You=92re such a ho. Besides, Hero is a dumb name for a girl. = Let=92s=20 go. Leanato: Crap, that means I have to kill Hero. Friar: Let=92s not and say we did. Benedick: =85Hey, that=92s a good idea. Leanato: I get it. If we say she=92s dead, and then can prove her= innocence,=20 then Claudio will be sorry and won=92t mind that we didn=92t kill her. What do= we do first? Friar: Clear the stage so Beatrice and Benedick can swear undying love to=20 each other under the misguided impression that the other thought of it first. Benedick: I love you, Beatrice. Beatrice: Good, kill Claudio. Benedick: Do I have to? *** [Somewhere else] Conrad: You=92re an ass. Dogberry: He called me ass! Sexton: Hero=92s dead. Dogberry: He called me ass! Watchman: Does that mean we can tell people now? Dogberry: He called me ass! *** Leanato: You made me kill my daughter, and now I=92m going to kill you. Claudio: Right. You and what army? Leanato: Grr! Claudio: Hey, Benedick, those stupid old guys threatened to kill me. Ha-ha. Ben: I=92m going to help them. Claudio: Eep. *** Dogberry: Borachio has confessed that it wasn=92t Hero at the window at all,= =20 and Conrad called me ass, it was Margaret, so you all went and killed her for nothing, and don't forget I'm an ass Watchman #2: No, I don't think we'll be forgetting that anytime soon. Leanato: I hope you=92re very ashamed of yourself. As punishment you must= =20 marry Hero=92s cousin who looks, acts and talks exactly like her. In fact, for= all=20 the character development Hero got, you probably won=92t be able to tell the difference. Claudio: And this is supposed to be a punishment? *** Benedick: Man, this poem sucks. Does =93lady=94 even rhyme with =93baby=94? Beatrice: Hey you. Benedick: Kiss me. Beatrice: No. Benedick: Awww.. Beatrice: Oh well, if you insist. Ursula: Yea! Don Jon=92s Evil Plot is revealed and Hero is alive again! Benedick: Hello, we were kissing. *** Don Pedro: Sniffle Claudio: Wah! I wish Hero were still alive. Hero: Sic! Claudio: Hero! (Claudio and Hero make kissy faces) Benedick: Do you love me Beatrice. Beatrice: I don=92t think so. Do you love me? Benedick: I don=92t think so. Beatrice: Well, it was a nice thought. Let=92s be friends. Benedick: Works for me. Claudio: Except I have this poem I stole from his pocket, and it says he=20 loves her. Benedick: Dang it! Hero: And I have a letter from Beatrice that says she loves him. Beatrice: Dang it! Benedick: Alright, alright, let=92s get married. Beatrice: Oh, OK. Messenger: Hey, we caught Don Jon! Benedick: He=92s always spoiling our fun. Take him away and let=92s dance! Crowd: Yea! The End _________________________________________________________________ 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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ Date: 12 May 2003 10:57:15 -0600 Andrew Hall wrote: > > A connection between this Stansfield novel and the Evans book > that stands out in my mind is the sexless night spent in each > other's arms. Especially since you say the charachters > treated it as some kind of proof of their love for each other > while still remaining true to something or another. I can > see that being a relatively attractive fantasy to young > people with both romance and personal worthiness on their > minds, and I would certainly not like to see it encouraged to > the youth of the Church in novels. > I bet the DB people were thinking the same thing. > I'd bet this was the scene that caused the book's removal from > the DB shelves. Could be, could be. But that begs the question, why didn't they just say so? Why didn't they spell it out as clearly as you did? The fact that they obfuscated with dubious reasons and suddenly decided to go on a pogrom of all titles makes me think otherwise. -- 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] Goal of Writing Date: 13 May 2003 11:44:30 -0600 ___ Jonathan ___ | I'll agree that one mark of a good writer is to know one's | audience and adjust one's writing to them. But there are | limits to that. ___ Since we've been discussing this point in various threads but this is a good point. *None* of us fully knows our audience. We make guesses and gauge our communication accordingly. Fortunately in speech (and to a lesser extent email) we have some feedback that lets us explain or rework things. Art typically doesn't have this mechanism. It often means that for every good work by an artist there are hundreds or thousands of false starts, failed projects, and other "learning" endeavors. Often the audience discovers art rather than art discovering the audience. Lots of works are "ahead of their time" or simply never get noticed. So it is an imperfect business. So just to clarify I've *not* been saying that knowing ones audience is easy or always even possible. Typically the audience doesn't even know themselves. We have all these hidden desires, intents, and the like. Often we don't even know we like something until we see it. (Or taste it, or hear it...) It's a kind of societal collective unconsciousness that makes art so interesting. In a sense art of any kind can be a mirror in which we see parts of ourselves or our society we never noticed before. Unfortunately for every work that does this there are thousands upon thousands that don't. And rarely does the artist know in advance when they've achieved their ends. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 13 May 2003 01:40:29 -0700 Barbara Hume ask about Modernizing Shakespeare. Jonathan asks: Anyone up to the challenge? Probably not, but here goes for grins: We've just come through a time that sucked. It was like a cold day in hell. Now everything is looking up. Things are going pretty well. All thanks to this damn Prince here, this kid from that house called York. Now people are walking around town with funky hats on. Vivid lids. Instead of packing heat around in our waist-bands, our guns are mounted up on the walls. 'Stead of sirens, we've got, "How you doin' Hoss?"; "Hey, baby -- How YOU doin'?" Gang-banging, rap-battle clangin' war: that's out. Now, instead of hoppin' up front in our cars and cruising the streets gunnin' for someone, Blood's is slippin' into the back seat to boff their very finest cherry sweets to the rhythm of the bass-line. You dig? 'Cept for ME. Look at me. What do you see? I'm not made for slippin' into back seats. You see that, no? I'm no Cuba Gooding. Ain't no Denzel. I'm not built or stacked or ripped or cut or chiseled or fine, so fine. I was cheated. And no gym time gonna fix these twisted chops to sweet licks. The chicks see that trick for truth pretty quick. You get it, Slick? I'm TICKED! I'm so pissed at Mother Nature I could spit! Look what that bitch did to me! The body I'm stuck with's so damn ugly, speaking of bitches, I walk by, even the DOGS is left in stitches! You dig? I'm not having a good time, in some back seat, sipping wine. Nobody's even look at twisted me... Unless that is, I go downtown to a rap battle, and standing in the hot lights Of those blaring spot lights I cant and ramp about my own deformity To everybody's mocking, hawking glee. You see? So, catch this. If I can't be a lover, I'm gonna be a fighter And piss in the wind of your summer time. You just watch me. See if I don't. I'm gonna hate this time and everybody in it. That prince of York's head's gonna spin it. You'll watch me do it and while I do it, you'll grin it. Of that I guarantee. You dig? >From "Richard 313" Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Does Intent Matter? Date: 13 May 2003 11:31:39 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: > That's my point - your examples are using the "ideal" artist.' > There are other less "incompetent moron" variations. They may not use > the proper guage of wire, risking electrical fire. They may not ground > things properly. I could get more technical, but the danger in using > plumbing and electrical examples is that most here haven't done > electrician or plumbing work and so wouldn't understand incompetent real > world examples. After having to replumb some of the work my uncle did > at our cottage, I can certainly think of many examples where things > "worked" but certainly were frustrating for later modifications of the > plumbing. Was your uncle a journeyman plumber? Yes, few artists are perfect. Like few of any other profession. So does that we mean we allow people who know nothing about a profession make the decisions instead of the imperfect professional? > Yes. I recognize that is what you believe. That's why I found your > electrician analogy so interesting. You only bring up the "ideal" who > *does* know what is going on perfectly. Alas in the real world I don't > believe in these sorts of artists and I *don't* believe artists know > their audience better than those who hire them. The world is full of people who think they know the audience better than the professionals. Let's take Anne Perry as an example. Mesmerized by her succes in the mystery genre, for which she is a true professional and knows her audience, she decides she knows what it takes to write a fantasy novel. So she writes "Tathea." And the bulk of the fantasy audience can't stand it. Because Anne Perry doesn't know what she's doing in that genre. Millions of would-be authors think they know the audience and embark to write the Great American Novel. And the vast majority of those efforts are pathetic. Because, like Anne Perry, none of them bothered to learn what the professionals learn. Much as I love to hate Hollywood, there are a tons of people who think they know the movie-going audience better than they, but don't have a clue what it takes to create a successful film. When I decided to write my first screenplay, I (wisely) studied up on the proper technique and format. I discovered something that I already knew as a vague principle, but which was driven home to me at a visceral level as I studied: telling stories in movies is much different than telling them in novels. > I know many, many artists *do* think they know their audience well. I > think this is why many people are so turned off by artists. I hung > around for several years a lot of artists at BYU. That attitude really > got on my nerves after a while. After it led to elitism since those who > *didn't* appreciate art were ignorant. So the "audience" becomes this > self-fulfilling creation. > > The fact that people do criticize art, especially the general public, > *strongly* suggests that artists don't have some privileged notion of > their audience. I take issue with this. What is the artist attempting to do? Maybe he's trying to affect his audience this way, by telling them disturbing stories that make them think. Maybe these reactions are indications he knows his audience very well. But without question there is a wide variation in the competence of artists. Just like every other profession. There are artists who are full of themselves and let their ego get in the way of their professional competence. Just like other professions. So tell me what you think of people who self-diagnose or who represent themselves in court because doctors and lawyers have a wide variation in competence from one practitioner to the next and many of them are full of themselves and irritate their clients? Johnny Cochrane irritates the scrud out of me. I am loaded with criticism of him. And if I am ever charged with murder, I'd love to have him represent me. I assure you, I wouldn't dictate how he did it. This all means you ought to do with artists the same thing you do with any other professional. Your homework. Find things out, get recommendations, check out their previous work. If you're happy with what you learn, hire them. And then step back and trust them do the job you hired them to do. > An other way to state my concern is to ask, "what counts as 'the > results'?" > > For instance if I commission a painting, and I want something done to > inspire people, expecting a realistic genre and I get abstract art, is > that results or the "how?" It seems your use of "results" is rather > vague and ambiguous. Where do *you* draw the line between style and > result? The same way Damon Knight defines science fiction. "Science fiction is whatever I'm pointing at when I say 'That's science fiction.' " The line is wherever I'm pointing when I say, "That's the line." Since art is one of those subjective things, there is no hard-and-fast line. So you do what I already suggested you do. Study the art of the artists you're considering. If you want realism and they do abstract, don't hire them. Make an intelligent choice on who to use and be as clear as you can about the results you want, then go away and let them be the professionals they are. Don't keep coming back and saying "Monson's nose is too big" until finally it doesn't look like Monson at all. (Apparently acknowledging that a General Authority's nose is big is yet another official method of dissing the servants of God.) -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 13 May 2003 14:54:24 -0600 > "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > For me, _Treasure Box_ is Card's worst work. The > > first half is as good as anything he wrote, but the > > second half breaks down into tedious cliches. The > > ending is lifted wholesale from one or more horror movies. I've always thought that Lost Boys would have worked just as well without ostensibly Mormon characters (M. Night Shyamalan made that point), but that Treasure Box failed precisely because it wasn't a "Mormon" horror novel. Although it's impossible not to read Card's Mormonism into the character of the protagonist, the lack of this explicit context in the novel itself denies him justification and strategy for righteous action or reaction. The "traditional" horror novel (which Treasure Box tries to be more than Lost Boys), like the crime novel, presents us with a Manichean view of the universe, which starkly defines the difference between good and evil (a thing that needs defining from time to time). A world that contains devils, the genre suggests, must also contain angels. This is one reason why Catholicism is so often used as the backdrop in horror: sourced reference material. Another reason is that when you're talking about contemporary representations of an eternal struggle, you need institutions and authorities with deep roots to buttress your side of the argument. Note how the ecumenical C.S. Lewis (who was Anglican, but never presented Anglicanism as truer than any other sect) meets Merlin up with Christianity in That Hideous Strength (the best "horror" novel ever written). The morally relative rationalizations of the present just won't do by themselves. And speaking of sourced reference material: can you think of any other television show that gives as much respect to people looking stuff up in books as Buffy and Angel? Mulder and Scully (I loved all the X-Files episodes that brought Scully's nascent Catholicism to the fore) didn't seem to do that much reading, but at least they would always go ask the people who would look the stuff up in their books or secret files, or whatever. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] Alternative Press (was Mormon Horror) Date: 13 May 2003 14:37:03 -0600 > Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > > > How do we get the writings of our more fringe artists ("fringe" used in the > > nicest possible way) OUT into the market? How do we become leaders with a > > readership of a couple of dozen? Or, how can we expand that readership to a > > slightly more ubiquitous frame? > > > > Any ideas? > Funny how this keeps coming up. Especially, when someone as highly esteemed as Benson Parkinson half-way proposes the same idea I've had. I've proposed this idea many times, but no one seems interested. Maybe there will be some interest this time. I'm doing a book right now of my great-grandfather's writings, and I think I've just solved the last problem. I propose creating a small press, perhaps called, "AML Books." We could choose a promising manuscript, typeset it, print it and hand bind it. We could do like ten copies. We could put one copy in a box to keep in the garage of the AML President (just in case the are archeologists some time in the future that might be interested in LDS literature at the turn of the 21st century), and we could sell the other copies at the AML convention. The author would retain the copyright, and the proceeds from the sales would be donated to the AML. We could do a Coptic binding which looks really cool and unique. They take a lot longer to do, but they look a lot more dignified than case bindings. Is anyone interested? Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] Finding Meaning in Plays (was: KUSHNER, _Angels in America_) Date: 13 May 2003 15:09:06 -0600 On Wed, 07 May 2003 00:56:05 -0400 "Amelia Parkin" writes: > now for scott (sorry it took so long J): > i agree with scott. if a play cannot communicate through a > performance its message, it probably has failed miserably. > while i agree with scott, i insist that a dramatic text is more > than just instructions to a director and some actors as to > what a performance should include. it is also a TEXT. it is > meant to be read. especially contemporary dramatic > literature. perhaps it will only be read by a director. I will add the actors and designers as well. Which does not much effect your next statement ... > but even such a small audience is one that should give it a > close reading. maybe the average student will not read it > over and over, but i would hope that a director intending to > create, with the help of actors, a performance of the play > would read it very closely indeed. try to understand all the > subtle nuances of the TEXT in order to create an accurate > PERFORMANCE. Exactly my point. This is what I was referring to when I said: "If the interpreters are masters of their craft, this understanding can occur on ONE viewing of the play" This is what the rehearsal process is for. The director and the actors and the designers spend TIME with the text. They analyze it. They dissect it. They tear it apart and put it back together again several times hoping to build a better version each time. Stanislavski thought a full year of rehearsal was just about right before a play was ready for public consumption. > here, scott, i must humbly disagree with you. i've seen many > shakespeare plays. ... one of my favorites is hamlet. i've seen > everything from old movies to new movies; movies i like to ones > i don't; my high school's product, a byu production, and a royal > shakespeare production. they were all powerful. and i've read it > many times. and every single time i left feeling like i had learned > something new from the play that i had not learned from other > performances or readings of the play. this, in my opinion, is > what makes it great. Yes. All great writing has depth. And my guess is if your very first introduction to Hamlet had been a disaster -- say, a performance done by Peter Quince and Bottom and the rest of the crew from Midsummer Night's Dream -- then you would have been hard pressed to return to the play. Except that Hamlet is SO good, that even a group of imbeciles could not destroy the full essence of the thing. You confess above that even the productions you didn't like were powerful. Which tells me that the playwright was skilled enough to make at least some aspect of the message accessible to the interpreters. > i can see a great performance of the same play over and > over and each time have a different experience. Of course. There are two reasons for this NOT happening: The play has no depth or is so obtuse as to render its depth unfathomable; or the interpreters have no brains. Let me make a point about why it DOES happen that way. It is not that the nature of the thing itself has changed -- there is usually very little change in the aspects of any single production of a given play. They rehearse it to find the optimum performance. Once they feel they have found it, there's little point in making changes after that -- but that YOU have changed. Figuratively speaking, your arms have lengthened, enabling you to dig a little deeper into what is being presented. All of this brings up a subject that is really tangential to this discussion, but this seems as good a time and place as any to mention it: Concepts. I fear that I would do very poorly in a graduate directing program anywhere in the US these days. The thrust of these programs seems to be developing a "concept" for your project. In other words, finding a single aspect or category of aspects to draw out of the play and focus on. In other words, finding a critical stance toward the play and explicating it. Hogwash. Shakespeare had it right when he said, "The play's the thing." As a director I dread hearing the phrase, "What's your concept for this production?" "Uh, well, I think we will rehearse the play, and then ... um ... we will perform it." Concepts are limiting in my opinion. I have no problem with having a little fun now and then. I usually enjoy seeing Shakespeare's play set in various times and places. All that really says is that the play is universal in scope. As long as design concepts like that are not prohibitive in terms of what the actors and director can do I have no problem with the idea. I mean, really -- back to the subject at hand -- let's find EVERYTHING we can in the text and find a way to play it all. scott bronson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 13 May 2003 18:04:59 -0600 At 11:30 PM 5/8/03 -0700, you wrote: >Unless you have experienced fluency in a language that uses this >distinctions, it is difficult to understand the heart-stopping moment when >someone with which you have had a "vous" relationship switches to the "tu" >informal address. There is a rush of intimacy, and incredible, vulnerable, >warm feeling. I have been jolted many times in my life by these moments of >SWITCH, like the clicking of a light bulb. It can be an amazing thing. I've >wanted to use such moments in stories, but it is difficult to communicate to >English speaking readers. I might try it, though. It is a great feeling. In the England of two hundred years ago--a period I've been researching heavily--an aristocrat was called by his title. Suppose that your father is the Duke of Lancaster, and you have the courtesy title of the Earl of York. People address him as "your grace" and his intimates address him as Lancaster. You are addressed as "my lord" and your intimates call you "York." This includes your close friends, perhaps even your mother and your wife. When your father dies, you inherit his title and people start addressing your as "your grace" and calling you "Lancaster." What is your actual name? Who knows? If the woman who loves you agrees to call you "Marcus" and allows you to use her Christian name, it creates that same incredible feeling of intimacy you speak of. Of course, if you're a cobbler or a pig farmer, you're known as Tom your whole life. barbara hum -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: [AML] Marden J. Clark, 1916-2003 Date: 16 May 2003 18:23:48 -0700 Toward the end he sailed into an incredible mildness. Goodness existed. He knew that. --W. H. Auden "Herman Melville" Marden J. Clark was born July 13, 1916 in Morgan, Morgan County, Utah, third son of Ella Jean Boyce and Wallace Rich Clark. That's a sentence no child wants to write because, having written it you have to write the other sentence. He said of his birth, "Grandma Annie doesn't mention it. Neither my father nor my mother made any immediate record of it. So all I have is a birth certificate signed by C. C. R. Pugmire as Physician or Midwife (actually a physician) and by Gilbert Francis as Registrar. It assures me that I was 'born alive' (a great comfort to me!)." His childhood was filled with all the usual joys and hazards of farm life, like swimming in the Weber River and almost drowning once, and nearly getting eaten by a sow when he was two or three, and his father left him in a bucket by the pigpen, and he managed to get into the pen. It was a vivid memory and he carried a scar near his temple throughout life. Marden and his friends were pranksters, according to stories he passed down, hiding the music teacher's car (the poor man didn't think to look in his garage till he got a muffled phone call), stealing his uncle's apples, tipping over a neighbor's outhouse on Halloween. It became a contest of sorts, and the last time they tipped it over she had staked it down with heavy gauge wire so effectively it took them a good long while to get the stakes out, and when the outhouse went over on its door they heard a scream from inside. He wrote a book of stories about all this called _Morgan Triumphs_, Morgan naming both the narrator and the town he lives in. The stories carry an edge of pain they didn't when I heard them growing up, an old man looking back from experience at innocent pranks to find them less innocent than he thought. "Who triumphed over whom?" the narrator asks at the end. Marden drove truck during the Depression and got in quite a few wrecks. (And regaled Robert Penn Warren with stories of the wrecks, slipping and sliding through the snow to the resort where Warren's family stayed while he gave some readings at BYU in early 1976 (possibly 75)). He drove the family car into a light pole shortly after he met Bessie Lloyd Soderborg on a blind date at BYU around November 1939. Elation at a good night kiss had something to do with his not noticing the pole, which should have been across the street from the lane he was driving in. Marden went to Los Angeles in 1940 to work as an airplane mechanic, and ended up a draftsman for Lockheed. By the time his wage rose to 90 cents an hour he had set a date with Bessie and took a bus back to Salt Lake where they were married Oct 25, 1941 in the Salt Lake Temple. They checked into Hotel Temple Square, where one brother each called often enough that the young couple told the desk No More Calls. Marden and Bessie had two children in Los Angeles, Diane and Dennis, and returned to Salt Lake when Marden reported for induction into the army on Bessie's 26th birthday, August 6, 1945, but a doctor looking at his bad back as he walked away from his physical, called him back and sent him home. They went dancing at the Hotel Utah that night, celebrating Bessie's birthday, the bomb and the impending end of the war. He got a Master's degree from BYU in 1948 and a doctorate a few years later from the University of Washington, writing the first full-length study of Robert Penn Warren's fiction. The dissertation was never published, but 20 years later when his son Dennis was studying Library Science at the UW he said it was the most checked-out dissertation in the library. Marden and Bessie settled into BYU and Provo and he taught at BYU while not doing more important things, like following his brother-in-law Lloyd Soderborg's advice, "Why don't you build yourself a home?" ("Me. Who had never managed to pound a nail without bending it.") adding Sherri and Kevin to the family, and growing many gardens. One night while correcting a bunch of Freshman English papers Marden got a call from his father. "Marden, don't be alarmed, but Mother may be dying." He couldn't go back to his papers, and started playing with a phrase he used with his mother, talking about her arthritic fingers. You're just playing a joke I told her. No human bones, these I touch That clutch like talons at my sympathy. At first he felt guilty taking time away from grading papers to write poetry. By the time he retired in 1981 he felt guilty taking time away from his writing to grade papers. A few years after earning his doctorate Marden and Bessie added Harlow and Krista to the family, and then a son-in-law, a daughter-in-law and grandchildren. In the 1970-71 school year he served as Fulbright Professor at the University of Oulu Finland. The family (half-family, by then) stopped at Westfalia Autowerk en route to Helsinki and picked up a WV Vanagon in which they toured and camped across Europe after the school year was over. Harlow and Krista fought for the seat behind the drivers seat, so they could kneel on it and hear Marden's stories about Odysseus and all the others who wandered Greece and the other areas they drove through. Marden was called as a high councillor for a BYU stake in the late 1970s, becoming bishop in 1979. The stake president was released shortly after that, and another about 5 years later. One day Marden was talking to Robert Matthews, his stake president, and mentioned he had been in office 10 years, and Pres. Matthews released him shortly. About a dozen years later Bro. Matthews was the sealer when Marden and Bessie's grandson Colin married Hyun Ju Lee in the American Fork temple. Marden and Bessie loved working with young couples their grandchildren's age, and it helped him move out of academic life. "I miss my students, but I don't miss grading papers at all," he said. Marden was not able to serve a mission. The Depression and the War intervened and by the time he was released as bishop he and Bessie were too old--maybe. But not too old for the Kennedy Center at BYU, who asked them to go to China and teach at the University of Qing Dao. No proselyting, but they could talk religion if people asked, and some did. On retirement in 1981, after a third of a century teaching Robert Frost and other poets of the New England autumn Marden and Bessie and bought a Datsun truck, with a cap and rigged up a bed and porta-potty in the back and headed out to see the leaves that always waited until he was safely mid-semester to show their true colors. (We later hauled many a load of good sheep manure from a former student in that truck.) They traveled also to the Holy Land, India, China, South America, Australia, New Zealand and Africa, every continent but Antarctica, which they passed near on a ship. Marden began writing a religion column for the Daily Herald in Sept. 1994 called Matter Unorganized. The column’s organizing principle was a celebration of nature, people, family, the world generally as witness of God’s love. And there was his garden. He wrote about it, drew sustenance and joy from it, brought his ward members to raid it and taught his children to grow green and living things. The column continued until August 2002, about 400 in all, and, Bessie says, more readers than for anything else he had written. One of his last columns appeared in the movie _The R. M._ when the camera focuses several seconds on the newspaper a character is reading. He was an avid supporter of Mormon literature and culture, and presented many times at Association of Mormon Letters conferences. He was the first person named as a lifetime member of AML. And no matter what you say in between there's always that last sentence you have to write. Marden developed a heart murmur, which found its way into his annual Christmas poem ("my murmuring heart"), and the doctor thought he might have three good years but wouldn't survive heart surgery to repair the leaky valve. He had at least three good years, but Bessie found him asking questions like "Have we had Thanksgiving yet," in December, and he had me plant peas between the raspberries. Something ate the peas as they came up. We did get to plant three good rows of beans, though. The last thing we planted together, he encouraging me as always not to bother with a measuring stick, just put them in the ground. I called my father last Friday, May 9, mildly rainy, and asked if he wanted me to go over and mow the lawn. I would have normally gone anyway, but was hoping to get over to the high school and interview a couple of Lady Viking track stars. Went window shopping to Media Play for Mother's Day presents for Donna and when I got home after 2:00 Donna told me that just after I'd called her she got a call from my parents' neighbors, the Sheffields (the ones we call to send someone over to have my parents put their phone back on the hook when the phone is busy for quite a while straight). An ambulance had come and taken my mother to the hospital. This all happened shortly after I had talked with Dad. My mother has a sore foot and he was trying to help her to the bathroom and she ended up on the floor because her foot hurt too much to stand on it, and he tried to drag her on a rug. Couldn't get her back on her feet. He called the ambulance a little after 1:00 p.m., and asked the Sheffields to call us. When we finally got the babies taken care of that Donna sits, and got to the hospital they were through giving Mom an IV. She has cellulitis, a skin infection. We went home and Sherri and Krista and I made vegetable soup. Dad complained of pain in the pit of his stomach. We thought perhaps it was stress, and talked to the doctor when we took Mom back for her antibiotics. Stephen Biddulph from across the street called us, "What happened?" We had him come over later and give blessings. I anointed and he blessed Dad, so he would feel up to anointing Mom for Steve to bless her. The ER doctors said to try clear liquids, but he couldn't keep anything down. The what-if game says why didn't we get him into the hospital immediately. That might have stopped a bad urinary tract infection. But there was worse. In March when Krista took Dad to the doctor he dropped his drawers and showed the doctor his hernias. Again, not a good candidate for surgery. When Krista took Dad to the ER last night the catscan showed a blocked bowel. Apparently the intestine fell into the hernia. Sherri, and then Valerie (Dennis's wife, staying with Mom) called us just before 10:00 and said he had gone into cardiac arrest and the doctors were working to revive him. We turned off the tv and I grabbed some books to untede the waiting room tedium. (Brothers in Valour by Michael O. Tunnell, Soldier Boys by Dean Hughes and Saints at War--I seem drawn lately to the period just before I was born--and some picture books.) They said he was in room 7 of the ER, but it was empty. I asked about it and the nurse (a social worker, actually) said, "They haven't brought him back yet. Let me take you down there. As we walked down the hall I saw staff wheeling a gurney, sheet pulled up over a head. Bad omen. I caught a glance of silver hair. Worse omen. "Dad didn't make it," Krista said. Marden J. Clark died at 10:20 on May 15, 2002 in Provo Utah, leaving behind a wife of nearly 62 years, 6 children, 20 grandchildren, 8 great grandchildren, two sisters and many friends, students and colleagues throughout the world. There, that wasn't so hard to write was it? Only took all day--between everything else. Like Samuel Clemens riding out on Halley's Comet he left with the lunar eclipse (you can't avoid the poetic implications of that). He was preceded in death by two grandchildren, three brothers and three sisters, five brothers in law (he talked to one or two while getting some medication at the doctor's office and my mother saw an angel with a sword and folded wings), two sisters in law, his and Bessie’s parents and many friends and neighbors. There will be a memorial service Tuesday May 20, 11:00 a.m. at Oak Hills Stake Center. 925 E. North Temple Dr. in Provo. Just north and west of the temple. The family suggests that, in lieu of floral arrangements, people donate to the Food and Care Coalition of Utah Valley (60 North 300 West, Provo, UT 84601), or bring cut flowers from their gardens. Harlow S. Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Signing Off for a While Date: 13 May 2003 18:39:16 -0700 (PDT) I'm really sorry to see Andrew leave, for now. His posts are always terrific and insightful. I could maybe pick up the slack with the newspapers, unless you have something else in mind. [MOD: I? Nothing else in mind so far. Please feel free to step up to the plate, R.W.] ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 13 May 2003 18:20:35 -0600 At 11:44 AM 5/9/03 -0600, you wrote: >Nibley also has >his famous story of sleeping in a haunted battlefield during WWII to try >and meet a ghost. (It was haunted from some ancient Greek battle - I >forget which one) I saw a program on the History Channel about ghosts of Civil War soldiers haunting some buildings near Gettysburg. For example, a couple of women took the elevator to the basement, and when the door opened they saw a battlefield surgery going on, with horribly wounded soldiers undergoing amputation and other icks. The women pounded on the "close" button until the door closed and went back up. After that, only a boring business basement was there. I should think that if you die in battle, the one benefit would be that you would then go someplace nicer, leaving your shattered body behind. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 13 May 2003 18:11:50 -0600 (MDT) > This is true in German. In German, Du is informal and Sie formal. You = > use > Du with family, friends, fellow-students, royalty, children, and God. I > suspect it was similar with English and thee. > Oh, I should also indicate that personally, I am very informal with God > because I got used to it in Germany and frankly, I prefer to keep that > relationship an informal one. So far, He hasn't objected in any way I = > have > been able to determine... > > Jacob Proffitt Maybe this is a cultural thing. In Lotion and Thai, being informal with God is horrid. There are actually several levels of pronouns in these languages. There is a very informal one (gutter language, I won't even try to transliterate it) an informal one ("chaw" for you, "khoy" for me/I) a slightly more formal one (where you refer to other people according to where they would be if they were related to you, if the man is old enough to be my father, I call him "paw" or if the lady is old enough to be my older sister, I call her "euay" - I refer to myself as "khanoy" which basically means "little me/I"), and more formal one (for kings, gov't officials and such) and a highly formal one for gods and diety (crosses over a bit with the one for kings - linguists would likely say they are the same level, "phaong"). Anyway, despite the fact that in the Greek there is no difference in the pronouns used to address men and gods, the NT in Lao must use the different pronouns because if we used the anything less than the high pronoun with God and Jesus, Laotions would never read it, because to them it would be rude and innappropriate. Ane Laos has no Puritanical background to its culture, so stop using the Puritans as straw man scapegoat. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report May 2 03 Date: 13 May 2003 19:34:26 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 2, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 28 Piglet's Big Movie 269,900 463 45 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 22,413,215 33 The Core 161,889 589 38 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 30,486,630 59 Final Destination 2 33,766 56 94 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 46,809,423 81 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 14,327 10 815 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,545,767 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 85 The R.M. 12,363 17 94 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 930,425 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. 96 The Cremaster Cycle 8,133 1 10 Mathew Barney 26,054 (writer/producer/director/actor) 111 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 4,444 3 1095 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,186,747 129 China: The Panda Adventure 1,677 3 647 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,041,389 131 Galapagos 1,446 4 1284 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,007,719 150 Jack Weyland's Charly 446 1 220 Adam Anderegg (director) 813,685 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. HENDERSHOT'S NEXT FILM - Prolific Latter-day Saint feature film director Eric Hendershot has announced his next film. Although Hendershot has directed 10 feature-length films already, this will be his first theatrical release. The title is "Pinewood Derby." 4 dads cross over from friendly competition to maniacal obsession as they prepare their sons wooden cars to race in a Cub Scout Pinewood Derby. The film will be produced through Hendershot's production company Pure Entertainment. Funding is already in place and production is moving forward. "Pinewood Derby" is a registered trademark of the Boy Scouts of America. The production has written permission from BSA to use the trademark names and concept. Hendershot's previous films include: Clubhouse Detectives in: Big Trouble; Clubhouse Detectives in: Search of a Lost Princess; Clubhouse Detectives in: Scavenger Hunt; Horse Crazy; Baby Bedlam; Message in a Cell Phone; A Kid Called Danger; Angels in the Attic; The Robin Hood Gang; Clubhouse Detectives. CHARLY DVD RELEASED TODAY - As a part of the festivities of the DVD/video release of "Charly", the following signing events are planned: Tuesday, May 6, 2003 ZCMI Deseret Book, Downtown Salt Lake - Noon - 2pm With Heather Beers ("Charly") Friday, May 9, 2003 Jordan Commons, Sandy (Doug Wright Movie Show) - 10am - 11am With Heather Beers Fort Union Media Play - Noon - 1pm With Heather Beers Cottonwood Deseret Book - 7pm - 8pm With Heather Beers Orem Media Play - 6pm - 8pm With Adam Anderegg (Director) and Aaron Merrill (Composer/Producer of Soundtrack) Riverdale Media Play - Noon - 2pm with Bernie Diamond ("Mr. Rafferty") HANDCART ON DVD AND VHS JUNE 3RD - From a press release: Handcart's theatrical run has ended and we are quickly getting ready for the release of the video. We have the "Handcart: Special Edition" DVD and VHS. The VHS will have the special edition cut of the film. The DVD will be a two disc set that includes the New Cut on disc one, and disc two will include an extended documentary on the making of the film, from raising money to the production, from post production to the "garage" distribution that put the film into 50 theaters nationwide. Also available will be the soundtrack by Eric Hansen on CD. All products will be distributed by Thompson Productions and available at LDS bookstores and other locations. MORE HANDCART - Another press release: Handcart will be available on June 3. It will be available on VHS and DVD. Both will have the new cut of the film. We have counted about 75 changes to the film, thus we are calling it "The Special Edition". It is made up of changes that was too late to make for the theatrical release, plus changes made from comments made from the good honest members of the church who loved the film, but wished for more. We actually went back out and filmed a few more scenes, filmed cutaways to existing scenes, and did a few digital effects. We also recut the story structure of the film to flow better. The DVD Special Edition is a 2 disk set, disc 1 is the film and commentary and disc 2 are special features, including an hour long documentary on the making of the film called "Pushing Handcart". It is mostly about how we pushed the film out of the door with little money to our name, as well as how I distributed the film by myself out of my garage. Kind of fun. Also includes deleted scenes and outtakes, as well as 5 evolving previews made in raising money for the film. We will also be releasing the Motion Picture Sountrack on CD. All products are available from Thompson Productions. Deseret Book is one of the first to pick it up. HANDCART PRESALES BEGIN - LDS Video Store (http://www.ldsvideostore.com) appears to be one of the first places taking pre-orders for the DVD/video release of Kels Goodman's theatrically distributed feature film "Handcart." Deseret Book has also committed to carrying the product. The official release date is June 3, 2003. WORK AND THE STORY SITE UPDATED - According to the trailer newly posted on "The Work and the Story" website over the weekend, the movie will be in theaters in August 2003. A new slogan appears at the end of the trailer: "The Work and the Story: Keeping the SIN out of MORMON CINEMA" Also, note that the a scene with Richard Moll is featured in the trailer. Moll is best known for playing "Bull," the large, bald, somewhat dim-headed bailiff on the popular sitcom "Night Court." Note that Kirby Heyborne is featured much more prominently on the website and in the trailer than before. Heyborne and Moll now both receive poster billing, which they did not before. "THE R.M." DVD RELEASE SCHEDULED - According to the trailer on the new "Charly" DVD, "The R.M." will be released on video and DVD in September 2003. CAST AND CREW SOUGHT FOR ECTO - Forwarding from Action! Acting: The independent feature "Ecto: Home Grown Nuclear Acceleration" is seeking key crew. Looking for DP, Gaffer, Best Boy, Production Sound, Post Production Sound, Sketch Artist, and Key Grip. Production format is Mini-DV with an end title running time of about 60 minutes. Final mix and distribution format will be DVD with 5.1 audio. If you want to work on an extremely unique local independent production that will truly flex your technical skill and ability in a creative and fun way, please send information to Director/Producer Jared Buttars at ectomail@buttars.com. You may visit the movie site at www.ectofilm.com to learn more. Internship credit may be available to you if you are currently attending school. Check with your counselor. This is a non-paid position, but one that will assist in the gaining of experience, exposure, and flat out be a blast to work on. NEW DOLLAR THEATER IN PROVO - See http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/43717 for article. "TIMELINE" DELAYED - Science Fiction News is reporting that "Timeline," the blockbuster time-travel film starring Latter-day Saint actor Paul Walker in the lead role, has been delayed and will probably be released in November. A summer release had been planned. The schedule has been pushed back after difficulty scheduling re-shoots with the 8 key actors, all of whom have been busily employed on other projects. Also, The Music From the Movies Web site reported that producers have dumped Jerry Goldsmith's score for Richard Donner's Timeline movie and have turned to composer Brian Tyler (Frank Herbert's Children of Dune). KNIGHT RIDER MOVIE AND SERIES - Current news about new incarnations of two TV series created by legendary Latter-day Saint TV producer Glen A. Larson: See http://www.scifi.com/sfw/current/news.html GALACTICA GAME DEVELOPING - Warthog is developing a prequel video game based on the Battlestar Galactica TV series for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox. The Battlestar Galactica game will join the DVD and home-video release of the original TV series, as well as the SCI FI Channel's upcoming miniseries, to celebrate the franchise's 25th anniversary. The game, to be released by Vivendi Universal Interactive, puts players in the role of Ensign Adama, 40 years before the events of the original television show. Players will get to pilot retro versions of the famous Colonial Viper attack fighters, as well as an all-new Colonial heavy bomber and the familiar Cylon Raider. Vivendi Universal Interactive is owned by Vivendi Universal, which also owns SCIFI.COM. SHAPE OF THINGS REVIEWS - Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things" opens this Friday in limited release, mainly L.A. and New York, before expanding elsewhere. With 10 reviews counted, the RottenTomatoes.com score is currently 70% favorable reviews, with 10 reviews counted. Here are early reviews, many from the Sundance Film Festival premiere of the movie: Slant Magazine (1.5 stars out of 4) - http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3D665 Steve Rhodes (3 stars out of 4) - http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/347/34749 Filmcritic.com (4.5 stars out of 5) CriminyPete.com (4.1 out of 5) - http://www.criminypete.com/theshapeofthings.html Hollywood Reporter - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hollywoodreporter/reviews/article_display.j sp?vnu_content_id=3D1805678 Boxoffice.com (4.5 stars out of 5) - http://www.boxoffice.com/scripts/fiw.dll?GetReview?&where=ID&terms=7356 Killer Movie Reviews (4 out of 5) - http://www.killermoviereviews.com/main.php?nextlink=display&dId=246 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] _Run Lola Run_ (was: In Defense of Obscurity) Date: 14 May 2003 08:06:51 -0400 D. Michael, I have to respond to this because Run Lola Run is a film I really like, too. You have to admit that the story line is 'very simple, straightforward stuff.' Characters are shallow, remain virtually undeveloped. Do you see this film, then, as being more about film technology, medium, than about anything that you can call a narrative? I've actually thought a lot about this film, and I think there's a lot more going on than meets the eye, in terms of plot. Most good stories with simple, unadorned storytelling techniques are incredibly profound. But... I'm curious what you think about this in the Lola film? Wish I could have been at the film lab--post-histoire is always a fun topic to banter about. Laraine Wilkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 1 Date: 13 May 2003 15:55:24 -0700 So, a friend of mine e-mails me this clip. The clip is from that often = caustic show "South Park". You know, it's that show with the two squat = little cartoon kids who curse. Anyway, this clip is really funny. I'll = try and describe the scene. Scene opens: you're in Hell. A huge crowd of people are milling around, = confused, wondering where they are. Steam rises from blackened, = cone-shaped vents in the floor of a massive cavern. An entire mountain = range of volcanoes erupts in the far background. Suddenly, a speaker squawks with feedback and all heads turn to face a = podium where some guy who looks like he knows what he's doing is = preparing to speak. The guy talks with a bored, disinterested, = done-this-a-million-times kind of tone. Everybody listens. "People, people. Excuse me. Can I have everybody's attention here? We've = got a lot to cover today, so let's just get right started with the = orientation. Uh, for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, yes, = this is Hell. You know: 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter here, blah, = blah, blah.' Okay, the first item of business on the agenda today -" Someone interrupts him from the crowd: "Hey! Wait a minute! This is-there's been some kind of mistake! I don't = belong here!" The guy talking is wearing a suit and tie. Looks very clean cut. He = keeps protesting: "I was a very devout Protestant my whole life. This is nuts. I don't = belong in Hell!" Others in the crowd take up the outcry. One voice calls out of the = cacophony: "Yeah! And I was a devoted Jehovah's Witness. What am I doing here?!" The Orientation Director taps for order and replies: "Uh, well sir, you have the same problem as this other gentleman. You = were both in the wrong religion." There is a gasp and a wave of mutters = through the crowd. Several voices ask: "What was the right religion?!" The moderator is glad to answer (after all, it's so obvious): "Uh, well, that would be Mormon. The correct answer is Mormon." At this revelation, there is a sudden reaction from the crowd: a kind of = collective Homer Simpson "DOU!"; a gasp with the communicative = inflection: "Damn! I KNEW it!" It's a pretty funny clip. That last sound effect of the collective = I-knew-it gasp is particularly hilarious. Now obviously, the "South Park" creators (both of whom spent some time = growing up in Utah, I think, which is why they occasionally rib the = Church in their show) are fiddling in this scene with high satire. They = don't believe the punch-line of their joke is true for one second. In = fact, what they are doing is the very opposite: making fun of the fact = that they think WE believe the punch-line of their joke is true. "Look = folks," they seem to be saying, "These guys actually believe they are = the one true religion and all the rest of us are going to hell. Isn't = that worthy of a chuckle?" There are many jokes with the same bent. One I recall has someone = arriving in Heaven, being taken on a tour of the place, and after a = while he realizes that 1) he and his tour guide have been whispering, = and 2) a large portion of Heaven has been walled off from the rest. When = he asks his guide about these two observations, the guide explains that = the walled-off section of Heaven is the neighborhood reserved for = Mormons. The reason the other residents of Heaven whisper when they are = near to the wall, is so as not to disillusion their Mormon confreres. As = the guide explains it, in a whisper: "They think they're the only one's = here." Such jokes and scenes attempt to extract humor out of differences = between groups. The classic "Us vs. Them" scenario. When I was a kid, I = wrote a poem of word-plays about this condition called "Folk of Us." It = went something like this: Me, Myself, and the Both of Us, Besat themselves to tea; Seeing they were the three of Us, The odd man out was Me. Sitting down beside Myself, With Both upon Me's knee, Two chairs made sufficient shelf For seating sippers, three. Lifting up a china'd lid, Myself exclaimed with glee, "There's just enough here sugar hid To sweeten mine and Me's!" Then Both cried out in load protest, "The sugar's in short supply, Because you two did eat the rest With You, Yourself, and I!" But Me could drink no bitter sip, Myself could sop no black; But Both would hear none of their lip, And gulped his with a smack! Myself smacked Both aside his head, And Both, he threw his cup; Then Me took over, while Myself bled, And promptly beat Both up! The three tea drinkers kicked and scratched And fought from tea till two, Till dashed and bruised, all collapsed, A'swollen black and blue. At last, Me shook his battered head, All dripping blood and phlegm, Said, "Look here: We don't want Us folks dead, So let's beat up on Them!"... In my opinion, LDS artists today face two great "Us vs. Them" scenarios = which affect our work, our outlooks, even our personalities. The first = scenario is the most obvious, and while I will touch on it herein, I'm = less interested in that aspect for now. The second scenario is more = subtle, and the primary topic for this essay. The first "Us vs. Them" scenario, as I see it, has to do with the = classic battle-cry: "Mormon Artists Against the World." Historically = misunderstood, the very concept of a "Home Literature" suggests an = insular exclusivity. We must write our own literature because 1) the = world will not provide for us and 2) the world will most likely reject = what we provide for them. So we write for ourselves. Fine and good. This isolated creativity, of course, is at odds with reality, because = unlike our more monastic brethren of Catholic or Buddhist history, or = the practical day-to-day isolation of groups such as the Amish, we = believe, at least in our more modern incarnation, in being "In the = World, but not of it." Not OF it, perhaps; but IN it, we are. Being in the world, we partake of it, probably more now, as a culture, = than ever before. Debate as we might about R-rated films or explicit = novels, we like a lot of what we find. When we set goals for ourselves = about what kind of artists we would like to be, we use examples from the = world. "Where are our Meltons, our Shakespeares, our Beethovens?" We = think they are better than us, and we feel a mild sense of inferiority = which sometimes saddles us with defensiveness. And so to overcome our inferiority complex (if it exists) I often find = LDS artists trying to be as worldly as they think they can get away = with. I do it, too. And the result is an inner conflict. Another aspect of this first "Us vs. Them" scenario has been debated = wonderfully by various members of the Association for Mormon Letters = through the internet forum, under the title "Artistic Relativism," = coined by Jonathan Langford from Jacob Proffitt's question, "What role, = if any, does objective reality play in our art and what role do = universal truths play in our philosophy?" This is the third in a trilogy of essays all titled with the unwieldy = prefix "In Defense Of." Some of the topics I meandered around in the = first and second installments, "In Defense of Obscurity" and "In Defense = of Moderate Judgment, Parts 1 & 2" come to a head in this essay, which, = for sake of length, will be broken up into three parts itself. But my = conclusions are still in flux, and the various implications and = iterations of the concepts I'm attempting to explore plague me with = indecisiveness still, even after the exercise of so many words. In a corollary discussion to the "artistic relativism" spin of = Proffitt's important question, several of us considered how we (LDS = artists) interact with the world around us. I proposed a philosophy of = "moderate judgment," which for some was just vague enough to be = infuriating. But in this particular "Us vs. Them" the ax cuts both ways, = and we often find ourselves at philosophical odds with others, and in = difficulty as to how to interact with one another, particularly with = respect to the presentation of our various writings, both fiction and = non. Travis Manning found himself in a frustrating position of being excluded = from a Presbyterian writer's group because they felt that his creative = non-fiction would too often bring up Mormon issue which would be at odds = with their own belief system. Or that was perhaps the reason. Stephen Carter mentions a class wherein students read various = religiously-oriented texts. He notes and laments: "I can see why my = classmates (and, frankly, so did I) liked the contemporary writers = better. They give you the feeling that you'll be listened to. But at the = same time, there is this tic in me that says, 'But gosh darn-it, there = is something true, and to stand for it is the greatest act a human can = perform.' Reconciling these two impulses is difficult, and I think = sloughing off either of them is a step in the wrong direction. The = Presbyterians Travis is wrestling with are falling off one side of the = horse, while the contemporary writers I read are falling off the other = side. How to stay on the horse?" An excellent question. One of my concerns in attempting to formulate my = "moderate judgment" essay was with Carter's idea of "being listened to." = How can we expect others to listen to Us if we don't at least in some = way respect and listen to Them? But at what point does that openness and = (to use an expression I don't like because it is indefinable and = misleading) "non-judgmentalism" become merely passivity and lack of = moral conviction? Jacob Proffitt strongly stated the following, with respect to = considering other people's philosophies: "I don't believe that other = philosophies are wrong. I do, however, believe them to be inferior. If I = didn't, I would be an adherent of those philosophies. I think that = should be a given. There's a certain dishonesty in trying to maintain = that you don't consider philosophies different from your own inferior. = Is it arrogant to believe other philosophies inferior? Well, to me, it = is only arrogance if it leads to being unteachable. In thinking it over, = I'd have to say that an additional quality is required for it to be = arrogant: the belief that your philosophy is complete and without flaw. = I don't believe that. I find other philosophies fascinating and enjoy = learning about/from them. Frankly, many of them have some great things = to teach us. If I find something better, I'm more than willing to add it = to my own philosophy. It's a very free-market, capitalist, American way = of looking at philosophy (and one way where at least my brand of = Mormonism really does qualify as Bloom's "American Religion"). It is the = essence of the 13th Article of Faith. So while Judaism is inferior to = Mormonism, that doesn't mean that Gitai's work doesn't contain valuable = insights that we might do well to explore. It doesn't mean that I'm = prepared to dismiss Jewish thought or Jewish artists, though I'll = probably discard some parts of their art. But then, I discard parts of = *every* art. And while I recoil at Jacob's physically voicing such an overtly = offensive sentence clause as: "Judaism is inferior to Mormonism," how = can I respond to the obvious retort which is begged by my revulsion: "If = you disagree, why are you a Mormon and not a converted Jew?"! Eugene Woodbury dealt with this at length in an excellent essay talking = about offending others with our belief in our (and therefore mutually = exclusive) truth. He says that we say, in effect, we are true and you = are not and then, to quote: "...We say, Hey, don't take it so personally. Well, if you take your = non-Mormon Christian faith seriously, how do you not? Here's this = upstart religion, and to concede the legitimacy of its claims means to = discredit your own. (I think that is also the essence of general Protestant antagonism towards the Catholic church.)=20 "The great irony in all this is that the Mormon view of salvation is = ultimately the most liberal of all the Christian faiths. So liberal that = you might be prompted to ask, why the need to evangelize? But as long as = we lay claim to JSH 1:19, 20, should we not then admit that there can be = no true fraternity with the non-Mormon believer? "Because an implicit attitude of condescension will be communicated in = the dialog: the unspoken 'Yes, but ... we're right and you're not' that = follows any deferential statement--that you (the 'gentile') are never = going to know everything unless you're first one of us (unless, in order = to find out, you talk to anti-Mormons who are rude enough to publish the = details of things like the temple; unfortunately, information from such = sources often comes with large helpings of bitterness and = vituperation)." End of quote.=20 Of course, to digress onto a topic I don't really want to talk about, = but it is interesting, we are kidding ourselves if we think we have a = lock on the "we-are-right-you-are-wrong" stance. As Eugene points out = about Protestant and Catholic conflicts, what religion DOESN'T to some = extent express an "Us vs. Them" outlook? I could spend a whole paper = detailing a broad swath of comparative religious studies showing that, = Unitarians perhaps excepted, everyone feels that way who feels strongly = about their religion. To cite just one example, what about Islam? With over 1 billion = adherents, and currently the fastest growing religion in the world, = Islam (which means "surrender" or "submission" to god) openly = acknowledges its belief that non-members are tough-out-of-luck in = Allah's eternal scheme of things. They, like us, also believe the Bible = to be true, in part, but not the whole truth, which resides in the = Qur'an (only in it's Arabic original, that is). Muslims believe that = Jews and Christians started out on the right path, but both groups = distorted the true religion of Islam and are now living in apostasy. The = believe we have much truth and goodness, but have lost the fullness of = the gospel of Islam, especially the specific ordinances and practices of = the Five Pillars which are essential to ultimate salvation by the grace = of Allah. I'm oversimplifying and generalizing, of course. But does any = of this sound familiar?=20 And while most Muslims are kind and generous to all those outside their = religion (in fact, on my mission, Muslims were infinitely more = hospitable to us than Christians, and I taught MANY more cold call, = tracting discussions to Muslims than any other demographic group), = certain radical denominations therein take their exclusionary beliefs to = the ultimate extreme, saying that all infidels are worthy of death! I = would be guessing, but I would bet dollars-to-doughnuts that the total = number of people on the earth who believe that little gem of thought far = outweigh the total number of active, practicing Mormons on the planet. = So we are far from exclusive in our bizarre paradox of having to love = our neighbors and yet, in Proffitt's turn of phrase, recognize their = beliefs as "inferior". Going back to Woodbury, his commentary goes on to make some other = interesting points: "Additionally," he says, "I think there is the = general perception that Mormons are constantly changing the rules while = the game is being played. We're the One True Religion, but what do we = (now) believe about polygamy? (I do wonder, having polygamists in the = family tree.) About King Follett? (A work of 19th-century Socratic and = Transcendentalist literature that belongs alongside Emerson and = Thoreau.) Faith vs. Works? (2 Nephi 25:23 gets it right, but does that = mean we're saved by grace, or no?) Infallibility? (If we believe that = the Bible is only as true as it was translated correctly, why do we = cling so tenaciously to the King James?) "Or is this all simply the current 'face' we're putting on our doctrine? = Are we saying, Well, we won't talk about such things if it offends you, = but we'll still assert them behind your back? "At the root of the problem I see a profound confusion. When Mormons = articulate a belief-set in a work of art--novel, play, film, etc.-are we = representing only ourselves? The community? The church? Are we governed = how we will be interpreted--whether 51 percent of the churchgoing public = says yea or nay? When I write for a public forum, I am representing what = the church believes, or asserting a personal interpretation of what I = believe the gospel is? And can it be held against me if it doesn't = conform closely enough to "doctrine"? Does JSH 1:19, 20 remain a = necessary and fundamental part of our catechism? "I don't think a "Mormon art" (not to be confused with art that comes = from artists who happen to be Mormons) can fully develop until such = questions are resolved. That is, until freely answering the question = doesn't subject you to the "Do you bet your life?" fine print that again = forces you to qualify, qualify, qualify, not only what we say to our own = community, but what we say to those outside it." End of Eugene Woodbury = quotes. These are questions for another time. Woodbury's comments, however, = segue me into the second of the two "Us vs. Them" scenarios which = concern me. It is this second scenario which I have clumsily titled the = "Church/Art Paradox" of this essay. And that is the seeming division of = camps which I have encountered in my entire life among LDS artists, = wherein I notice that LDS artists consider themselves one camp, and the = institutional Church (the leaders, and even the "run-of-the-mill" = members within the perceived generalization of 'Mormon culture') as the = other camp.=20 This "Us vs. Them" scenario is more subtle and, in a way, more = troubling. For ultimately, as suggested repeatedly by the arc of events = in the Book of Mormon and even, more humbly, in my little poem above, it = is internal division and strife which will ultimately destroy us, more = than our conflicts with outside forces. So while, in sister essays to this one, I argued for caution in both = forming and expressing our bias of "rightness" when regarding and = communicating with others (i.e., the "Us and Them" of "the World"), it = is perhaps infinitely more important that we apply such cautions within = our own community (i.e., creating a sense of "Us and Them" between LDS = artists and general LDS audiences and between artists and the hierarchy = of the institutional Church). But seeing as this introduction has gobbled up seven pages already, part = 1 of this essay must end here, and will be picked up in parts 2 and 3 at = a later date. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 2 Date: 13 May 2003 15:56:33 -0700 Several times in my life, I have had close friends and even family = members, struggle deeply with their faith in the Church. Some have = struggled simply to live certain commandments, never doubting their = faith in the existence of a god, or in the veracity of the Church Of = Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. Others have deeply doubted the = veracity of the Church itself, but not the existence of a god. Still = others, have wondered sincerely if any supreme being or organizing force = exists in the universe at all. But for each, their struggle was sincere, = and potentially life-changing, and therefore, as an artist, I think = deeply informing and important. For each of these individuals, friends and loved ones, such questions = were and are intensely personal. And in each case, I have found myself = suffering with them, but helpless to do anything except provide a = listening ear and whatever words of comfort or counsel happened to come = into my mind at the time. As observers of the world, as artists, = teachers, readers and human beings, experiencing such struggles = vicariously with our friends can be as educational as they are painful = and difficult. One of these experiences came over a year ago with a friend I'll call = simply, "J.C." J.C. had a lot of problems, the Church only comprising = one small segment of his greater life struggle. A bitter divorce and = many sour experiences had brought him to a juncture where he sought to = change every aspect of his life, cutting ties and reshaping his entire = existence. We spent many long hours in deep conversation over the course = of this transition. I was his friend, and his Elder's Quorum President, = both. Managing the tenuous balance between those two roles in our = discussions was difficult, and ultimately abandoned. In the end, I could = only be his friend. Finally, he asked me to help him draft a formal letter to our bishop = requesting that his name be removed from the records of the Church. = Along with his excommunication, came a loss of Melchizedek priesthood, = the breaking of a temple sealing to wife and two children, the severing = of all ties with Church membership (except for a few of his closest = friends), and a complete reevaluation of his fundamental beliefs in god. = As a friend, I helped him write that letter. There are times when it is = not pleasant to have a reputation among friends and relatives as being = the resident writer. Among J.C.'s many complaints about the church, were several that have = come up in discussions among AML members, and about which I think each = of us struggle-the faithful and the doubting alike. One of J.C.'s lines = of complaint could be summarized simply as the following question:=20 "If the Church is true, why are there so many bozos in it?"=20 Or: "If the church is so true, why is there so much mediocrity in = members of the church." Oversimplified, certainly, but basically, that was his question. And by = its implication, the question forms his charge: "People should be better = in the One True Church than they are." Other friends of mine have asked and implied, effectively, the same = thing. And I find this attitude, or variations thereof, very much alive = within the smaller circle of LDS artists. Art has often created for itself an elitist mirage. I think one of the = reasons for this is that same insecurity which often plagues the Church, = culturally, as a whole. Artists are an often misunderstood and sometimes = maligned group. They struggle with deep emotions and difficult issues, = and sometimes the audience doesn't want to hear, or doesn't understand. = Out of defensiveness, many artists create an "Us vs. Them" scenario in = their mind that pits them against the very audience they are trying to = attract. This is sometimes true among Mormon artists as well. In the AML discussions-in-print, we have frequently bemoaned the more = frustrating aspects of our LDS "culture," disparaging with several = aspects of it. These frustrating cultural manifestations impact our = work, both practically and artistically.=20 Practically, we wonder, from a business standpoint, what we will be = "allowed" to publish; is there censorship in Deseret Book's recent = policy announcements?; is our readership too close-minded to read = certain things, even if they are published?; where are the outlets for = our more fringe-dwelling, but active and sincere voices?; are certain = discussions suppressed in the culture of the Church?; should those = discussion be suppressed if they are?; does the concept of "sacred" mean = for the artist that he must be "silent" (a conclusion argued against = vehemently by D. Michael Martindale); etcetera, etcetera.=20 Artistically, we wonder how to address certain elements of conflict, the = portrayal of evil, the consequences of sin, the portrayal of miracles. = We self-censor, in attempting to achieve a balance between what we want = to say, and what we think we CAN say. We either juggle these market = forces, or find ourselves ostracized. From time to time (I think it = rare, but perhaps not as rare as I naively think), an artist is directly = censored by an immediate Church leader creating long-lasting feelings of = hurt and confusion. Etcetera, etcetera. The result is that we become, as artists, critical of our own community = in deep-seated ways. We see an overall gauze of mediocrity, flashes of = outright stupidity, bold hypocrisy, or just plain ignorance, in our own = culture, both generally and in direct response to our own work. We see = the commercially successful work of others and judge it to be inferior, = and then, by extension, judge the culture that could produce and = financially support such work as inferior as well. So if it's inferior (like the Jews, the Muslims and everybody else) what = does that leave us with? Especially since the Jews, for example, who we = by default must consider theologically inferior to Mormons, are really = who Mormon artists most aspire to be like!: bold, funny, = self-deprecating, moving, overcoming in the face of persecution, = culturally intimate and obscure in the presentational style of their = work, and yet, after all, globally recognized as excellent. A paradox. Again. In struggling with complaints about the inferiority of own culture = recently, Clark Goble said, among other things: "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... = There is a danger when we criticize based upon culture just as much as = when we blindly accept based upon culture."=20 True, but I'll ask J.C.' question again: "If the Church is true, why are = they're so many bozos in it?" I see around me, in the LDS artistic community at least, lingering and = seemingly perpetual agonizing over these dilemmas. This comes across, = sometimes, as a desire to try to "make" or "force" our culture into = being more open and receptive; into training up a better artistic = community; into being less mediocre in most of our artistic = manifestations; into achieving a level of excellence which we have = achieved in certain areas but not in others, particularly in the = dangerous and complex field of the professional arts; and often, and = most emotionally, trying to force our leaders in the "institutional = Church" to understand us, accept us, quit censoring and judging us. These are issues which I've struggled with personally since I was 12, = and which I have witnessed my community struggle with, sometimes = violently, ever since.=20 R. W. Rasband comments about this personal struggle, citing a metaphor = from Philip Roth (a Jew, by the way, ) imagining a man being shot = out of a cannon at a "cultural wall," a metaphorical construct created = by the culture we are raised in that separates us from other = perspectives (and, if I may be so bold as to appropriate it, refers back = to the wall in Heaven in the joke I told in part 1 of this essay!). Such = a man (and in this case, Roth is referring to his characters which he = creates fictionally, shoots at their own cultural walls, and then = watches the results through the medium of his novels) might find himself = smashed against the wall and destroyed; others plunge half-way thorough = and lie bleeding in the hole; some pierce the wall and fly into "the = great unknown space beyond." Rasband then says: "In my own case the wall is cultural Mormonism. Hugh = Nibley once said, 'There are things about the church that appall me, but = I know that the gospel is true.' ... I too have a spiritual witness of = the gospel but have come to really dislike what some people's popular = ideas about the gospel are, and I really struggle with the implications. = So I guess I lay torn and bleeding in the hole in the wall." This struggle is not to be belittled. And yet, in our own inner turmoil, = have we forgotten some of the defendable aspects of "moderate judgment" = which I espoused earlier we should apply to others, but which I now must = point out that we might gain from if we applied them to ourselves? I'll explore this more in part three of this essay in a section dealing = with an exchange D. Michael Martindale and I back in March. But first, = I'd like to address the idea of all the "bozos" in the Church; the idea = of the "common" or "mediocre" in our culture. Martindale talks about the "Least Common Denominator" in a culture. This = mathematical idea of the LCD is a negative concept, when applied to a = culture and its various artistic expressions, suggesting mediocrity. I = do not deny that the LCD exists. I would like to propose a different = spin on it, however. Or, I do not mean a different spin to negate the = concept of LCD. But I believe there are different levels of LCD which = should be split out and identified. The bottom-most level of Least Common Denominator is, I believe, willful = mediocrity. The acceptance of mendacity out of sheer laziness or fear. = This is a deplorable condition, and I am certain that D. Michael and I = feel the same way about it. But not all LCD conditions are of this kind. In another, unrelated essay, I bemoaned the "blank stares" I sometimes = get when I make a particularly involved comment in Sunday School. I got = back several responses, some of which suggested that I should celebrate = certain aspects of the "blank stare" school, or at least recognize = different reasons for it. In the first of this trilogy of essays (I suppose "sextet of essays" is = really more accurate) I described a fictional scenario about a dog and = his master. I suggested that the dog, only being evolved to a certain = degree, could not be asked by his master to do certain things outside of = his ability, and then expected to have his existence hinge on his = ability to perform such unattainable tasks. This formed the basis for a = theory of obscurity in scripture as a protective device, because I = maintain that God wants us to evolve at our own rates, and is interested = in saving us, not in damning us before our ability to comprehend engages = our free agency. Thus that aspect of obscurity which I defended = presupposes the concept that each of us evolves at different rates and = that God has structured his Plan of Salvation to encompass all of these = individuals. My second essay (or second and third, depending on how you count), took = that one step further and suggested that if we are all at different = levels of development, and if God has worked out individual plans, or = rather, timetables, for each of us, then, in some literal sense, truth = is relative, conditional upon an individual's state of readiness, which = God knows, but which we are not capable of judging. That syllogism forms = the basis for my argument in defense of moderate judgment. If such a = situation is acceptable for "the world" (the "Them" outside of our = cultural Mormonism), why is it not applicable to the "Us"? Some "blank stare" people stare blankly because they are not ready, yet, = to "hear" what is being said. The "hearing" would engage them in some = responsibility for the knowledge on their part, something they are not = ready for. This is a second, and higher, level on the LCD ladder. I = choose to call this the "Least of these my brethren" or "As fast as the = slowest man" conditions of the gospel. When I was in Boy Scouts, we were taught how fast we had to hike. There = was a rule. You had to hike so fast. You know what the speed was? As = fast as the slowest man. The as-fast-as-the-slowest-man-rule is not very fun. It means that those = who want to plow on ahead cannot do so. It means that we have to keep = hanging back, in boredom, in frustration, in order to assist, help, keep = company with, get to know, mourn with, those who may be running at = different speeds. This is the ultimate Christian imagery of hiking. If a = man constrain you to walk a mile, go with him twain.=20 If you have agreed to be a part of this group (this culture, this = Church), Christ is saying, I have two programs for you. One is that you = perfect yourself. This you will accomplish as fast and go as far as you = can. There is a second program. That of helping to warn, perfect and = serving your neighbor. This program will require you to hike as fast as = the slowest man. I never said it would be liberating, but then again, it = is. Once you loose yourself in the service of another, you find yourself = flying free. There are a myriad of scriptural examples of this concept. We are told = that the gospel is adapted "for the weakest of these thy brethren." We = know that things come to us "line upon line." And therein lies the explanation for some of the most frustrating = cultural aspects of our religious institution. And therein also lies = more argument of moderate judgment. If this gospel is "adapted", = "modified", "watered down", changes through time, adds or takes away = certain requirements or elements based on history, time and place, the = needs of society, God's goals and overall timetable, then we cannot = assume our knowledge, ordinances, regulations, perceptions or truth are = in any way, yet, complete. This tempers our approach to the faith and = capacities of others, both within and without the cultural bounds of = Church membership. The word "average" has a very real meaning. And, quite frankly folks, = most people are average. That's what the word means. It's not a = flattering thought, to be average. So we try to use other, politically = correct variations of the term. We spin ourselves into believing that = most of us are above average and that average really means sub-par. But = average does not mean sub-par. Sub-par means sub-par, average means = average and above average means what it means. Most people are average. Everyone is average at something. I am average = at many things. I have only average to below average manual dexterity. = My typing is above average, my ability to play sports, average. I am an = above average reader, but not an exceptional one. I am an above average = cook. I am a below average mathematician. I am an above average teacher. = I am an average singer. I am an average driver. I am an average lover. I = truly excel in only a few categories. All told, I am a pretty average = person. Average is okay. But it ISN'T exceptional. Exceptional people are exceptional. There are not that many of them. The gospel is adapted for the weakest. There are a lot of average people = in the church. Average people are not exception. They are just average. = And most of us qualify. Hence, an overview of the culture will reveal, = as expected, a lot of mediocrity, a lot of slow hikers, a lot of = averages in every category. The problem is that the pursuit of art is considered, culturally, = exceptional. But it may not be. It may not be any more than any other = profession or trade. I love the Zen ideal of mastery in a chosen = pursuit. This philosophy-turned-religion has made arts out of the most = ordinary things by pushing them to their extraordinary limits. I like = the idea of seeking to obtain such limits in every aspect of life, but I = recognize that I will be unable to master, at best, more than one or two = things in my lifetime. We are forced, by circumstance, to specialize. In = one or two ways, each of us may be exceptional. In all the rest, we are = average. Artists crave for an elite society while God wants a complete society. God's culture is one where the weak are free to grow, for eons, if = necessary, into exceptional beings, and not find themselves rejected = because they have not yet evolved as fast or as far as some of their = brothers and sisters think they should.=20 We must allow our culture to be filled with "blank stare people"! That = must be okay with us or we have missed the whole point of the exercise. Some of my artist friends will argue that the problem is that so many = of these "less-evolved" people are in leadership positions. That there = are so many "average leaders". And that these average folk (or, to use = Michael's LCD terminology) these LCD people are the ones in authority, = passing judgment (immoderate at best) over us artists.=20 Some will say that it is the average that reject the outstanding; it is = the masses of the common who reject the exceptional performers who are = forced, by the mendacity of the mass, to exist at the culture's fringe. = And this may be true. So what? Can't take the heat? Hard to be humble? Hard to be patient? = Sure it is. Recent comments by Elder Holland and President Hinckley in the April = 2003 Conference about pitching our tents on the outskirts, conformity to = certain ideals not being evil, and the forum or room for dissenting = views within our culture were illuminating and exceptionally important = for us to consider. Especially among us as LDS artists. I often ask myself why many members of the Church do not try harder. = Perhaps the reason is that they don't really have to. Gospel basics WILL = get you through this life. Obviously Joseph Smith taught that whatever = degree of greater light and intelligence you can get will go with you = and serve you well. But that additional knowledge (just like the dog = learning he has to wash the car) is dangerous. And so many average = members of the Church balance their awareness that improving themselves = will avail them versus the safety and complacency of staying within = their status quo. The Brother of Jared was chastised for being complacent for four years = and not seeking for further light and knowledge from God, and = ultimately, so will we all. But each evolves at their own pace, and = railing and spewing and crying about the slowness of the slowest hiker = avails us little. And if it weakens our testimony about the verity of = the Church, then it is worse than of no avail, it is intensely = dangerous. My conclusion in this second half of this third essay is that we must = allow the LCD element of our culture to exist, not allow it to drive us = to apostasy or emotional suicide, and while doing our best to work at = gently, coaxingly, massaging it forward, seek satisfaction in personal = evolution and stop railing counterproductively at the lack of evolution = of others. In the final installment of this series, as I did in part two with a = discussion Jacob Proffitt and I had been having, I will respond more = directly D. Michael Martindale's remarks from this past March under the = heading "The Role of LDS Writers". I will also try to explain what I = mean by the "Church/Art Paradox" and why I think we can live in harmony = with the seeming cultural discord created thereby. And I will attempt to = tie these thoughts into how they may affect our literary work. Between the "Us-es" and the "Thems," there are, in the end, only Us-es. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 14 May 2003 09:25:02 -0400 Do tell us what the "Nauvoo Theatrical Society" is! At 12:04 AM -0600 5/9/03, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >>After the first four or five festivals, those donors imagined >>that maybe >>their very specific purpose would be served by underwriting >>the gathering of >>smaller groups of professional artists. > >That's fine with me. The Nauvoo Theatrical Society will carry on the >dream. > >Thom Duncan > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Six Degrees of Separation Featuring Mormons Date: 14 May 2003 14:15:27 -0600 In the play version of Six Degrees, the na=EFve characters who Clark = refers to are not specifically designated 'Mormon', but they do say = they're from Utah, and I think we're meant to think of them as LDS. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 14 May 2003 18:31:41 -0700 (PDT) (Here is an old post of mine, dated October 30, 1996. Ben Parkinson asked me to write it back then. I can't believe it has been that long ago. It was written under difficult personal circumstances; my mother had only recently had her incapacitating stroke, the effects of which would finally kill her in 1998. I suppose this column is dedicated to her memory.) CLOWNS AND WITCHES ALL SAY BOO: HALLOWEEN, HORROR, AND LDS READERS--a guest column by R.W. Rasband "This is *not* going to have a happy ending."--Morgan Freeman, _Seven_ "The negative, by implication, suggests the other."--Athol Fugard When I was a kid, we had great Halloween parties at Primary. We would all come to church after school in our costumes and have punch and cookies. We would sing some of the Halloween songs published every October in "The Children's Friend:" Halloween, Halloween, lots of fun on Halloween! Black cats and ghosts, skeletons too, Clowns and witches all say "boo"! Pumpkins with eyes all shiny and bright, Make us shiver with fright. Halloween, Halloween, we love Halloween! My mom used to dress up as a witch and travel to the different ward parties, leading the singing and telling scary stories like "The Golden Arm." Our memories of childhood are powerful. Kids feel things so intensely. Maybe Halloween is necessary so kids can get a grip on their fears, objectify them, play with them, and banish them (for a while.) I still remember the great pleasure I got staying up late on Friday night watching "Nightmare Theater" on television on channel 4, which showed old Frankenstein, Dracula and Wolf Man movies. Judging from the popularity of R.L. Stine's _Goosebumps_ series, kids still need that thrill. Halloween is of course the great holiday for the horror genre. If we define "horror" as art about the things that most frighten us, it includes not just schlock paperbacks but also Isaac Bashevis Singer. We Mormons have a difficult relationship with the genre. Because so many of us prefer didactic, "happy-ending" fiction (and also try to avoid anything that smacks of the "occult") we stay away from horror. But we also recognize that there are transcendent spiritual realities that invade our everyday, quotidian lives. Literature of the fantastic (horror, fantasy, science fiction) allows us to deal with these realities in a way that "realistic", naturalistic fiction can't. It's been said that Salt Lake City is the nation's capital for "haunted houses/spook alleys" in October; a lot of us have a taste for this stuff. Horror stories fulfill an ancient human need to confront the radical evil that can exist in the world. It's done in stories as old as _Beowulf_ and as new as John Gardner's _Grendel_. Why do things go so badly for so many? A story is told about the late Latter-day Saint teacher Lowell L. Bennion. A young man told Bro. Bennion he had a great fear of the devil. Bro. Bennion emphatically told the youth, "You just tell Satan to go to Hell!" Horror stories help us do that by taking us to the extreme places in the human condition, purging us of our terror, getting us to laugh at our demons, and leading us to feel pity for our poor suffering friends. Finishing a story like Paul Bowles' _Allal_ or Joe R. Lansdale's _Night They Missed The Horror Show_ can leave you feeling wrung out. But you also get some knowledge you couldn't otherwise get in your safe, humdrum life. Two Mormon writers who write horror are Orson Scott Card and Brian Evenson. Card has written one novel, _Lost Boys_, that was explicitly marketed as horror. His massive short story collection, _Maps in a Mirror_, has a selection devoted to horror (although he prefers to avoid the label.) My favorite of these is _Freeway Games_, a hair-raising tale that those of us who drive in the wide-open West can understand only too well. Brian Evenson has published a fine collection of stories, _Altmann's Tongue_, that is very disturbing in its understanding of our darker impulses. The story _The Munich Window: A Persecution_ rivals Jim Thompson in its chilling anatomization of a psychopathic personality. _Killing Cats_ is an astute look at how we can go over to the dark side if we aren't careful. Evenson would prefer not to be known as a genre writer, but horror fans have discovered him. He has received write-ups in the last two "Year's Best Fantasy and Horror" collections. Here are some of his thoughts about horror fiction: In terms of the morality of the horror story, I think there's probably two ways to look at it. First, many such stories can be read as cautionary tales and as an extension of the original purpose of the fairy tales (the original endings of fairy tales were often violent.) Second, I think some of the best literature with a connection to horror creates an open space in which the reader is forced to exercise his or her morality. In that sense, it is very moral indeed. (Brian Evenson to R.W. Rasband 27 Sept. 1996, personal communication reprinted by permission.) In the spirit of Evenson's "open spaces" here are some personal recommendations for Halloween reading that I believe have moral merit: "The Collected Stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer"--the essential book by the Nobel Prize winner. "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris--compassion and understanding are the lessons we take away from this much admired, very violent thriller. "The October Country" by Ray Bradbury--the essence of Halloween distilled into one unforgettable collection. "The Devil's Own Work by Alan Judd--This terrific novel works on several levels: (1) a spine-tingling horror story, (2)a homage to Ford Madox Ford's classic "The Good Soldier", and (3) a witty satire of post-modernism and other academic fads. "Ironweed" by William Kennedy--this classic novel takes place on Halloween and All Saints Day 1938, as the spirits of the dead roam the earth and lead the vagrant hero to redemption. "The Sandman" by Neal Gaiman--This astonishing, literate comic book fantasy (which is collected is several soft-cover volumes) is about immortal beings who may be multiple gods. Read it and see if you can't find startling parallels to LDS theology. "Savage Art: A Biography of Jim Thompson" by Robert Polito--This National Book Award-winning biography of the great noir master explicates the morality of horrific fiction and shows it is as American as apple pie. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 15 May 2003 08:26:41 -0700 A reader of my most recent review (Seventh Seal) reports to me that she listened to the book on tape, and an entire storyline was omitted from the tape. Is this common? I'd always thought books on tape were a recitation of the entire book. -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 16 May 2003 17:12:13 -0700 Nicely done -- but why is it in the Buddhism section? Linda Kimball wrote: > > For what they're worth, here are my musings from a while back about the Thee > and Thou business. Hopefully this link will work - it should take you to my > essay called "Prayer Lingo.": > http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/63/story_6377_1.html&boardID=10493 > This appears in www.beliefnet.com. > Linda in Evanston, IL > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Reed A Russell" Subject: [AML] _The Believer_ and Brian Evenson Date: 16 May 2003 11:15:55 -0500 Listmembers, There is a new, very good-looking magazine on the stands called The Believer. Volume 1 - number 2, which just came out, features a story on Brian Evenson. It's essentially a review of his work. The subtitle reads: "Brian Evenson's violent and inventive fiction borrows as much from the European avant-garde as it does from Cormac McCarthy and Hieronymus Bosch ? a sacrilegious combination that got him kicked out of the Mormon church." I know his work was too unsettling for BYU brass and so he left his teaching post, but as far as I know he has not been "kicked out" of the church. ??? BTW, next month's issue has a piece by Brian Evenson on the work of Steve Erickson. Check it out. http://www.believermag.com/ Reed Russell= -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 16 May 2003 17:14:38 -0700 Just this morning I picked up a book at a thrift store (not DI -- yes, I do prostitute myself from time to time) called "Shakespeare in the Red" -- retelling Shakespeare from the point of view of Soviet Russia (it's an old book). Can't wait to dip into it. Linda Kimball wrote: > > A little folderol on this topic....The following is from the Washington Post > Style Invitational Contest that asks writers to submit "instructions" for > something (anything), but written in the style of a famous person. The > winning entry, contributed by Jeff Brechlin of Potomac Falls, was "The Hokey > Pokey" by William Shakespeare: > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 16 May 2003 21:43:03 -0600 (MDT) > Not exactly true. True horror is about as black and white a literature > there is. Evil is clearly evil and good is clearly good. Stephen King > write morality tales. The bad guys always get it in the end. If you > want a form of literature that teaches the basic virtues of life, then > you want horror. > > Thom > I can't agree totally with that. I've read quite a bit of King, and while evil is always evil and good is always good - the bad guy does not always get it in the end. There are quite a few of his tales ("The Boogeyman" for one example) where bad quite clearly wins (although it is a shame and clearly labled as such). --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Gagging of Neil LaBute Date: 16 May 2003 10:46:41 -0600 The film adaptation of Neil LaBute's play _The Shape of Things to Come_ opened in Salt Lake City today. Dutifully, the Salt Lake Tribune presented a review of the film (three out of four stars), but also included a side article titled "Neil LaBute Melds Stage and Screen." The article opens with: "A wall shown in the final scene of Neil LaBute's 'The Shape of Things' features a quote from novelist Han Suyin: 'Moralists have no place in an art gallery.' " That alone would be worthy of a discussion thread, and I invite anyone who is interested to jump off from that quote to do so. The article goes on to contrast how big of a moralist LaBute has been in his work, that quote appearing in his film notwithstanding. But here's the part of the article that really caught my eye and made me want to write about it online: === What LaBute will not be writing soon will be stories with overtly Mormon characters. After his 1999 trilogy of one-act monologues, "Bash: Latter-day Plays," LaBute--who converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during his days at BYU--was disfellowshipped by his local ecclesiastical leaders. LaBute is working to restore his status as a participating church member, in part by avoiding writing about LDS characters. "Beyond that, I'm just trying to be a guy who thinks through everything that comes out of his pen, rather than just letting it flow," LaBute said. His disfellowship "is not a final state. You have to either move forward or backward. I hopefully am moving in a positive direction." When asked if he considers himself a good Mormon, LaBute said, "I do, but one can always be better. In my case, I could probably be a lot better. I'm a couple rungs down, but I've still got some climbing strength in me." === Now I've seen the play "bash" (my lack of capitaliziation is the correct form of the title). It's challenging, it's disturbing. But disfellowshipment over it? It's also moral, in that backwards cautionary tale sort of way. This is the second time I've read an article attributing his disfellowshipment to the play. Of course, when Sonia Johnson was excommunicated, all the news media said it was for her support of the ERA. To this day, when her name is evoked, that reason is stated. But it's not true. So maybe everyone is getting the reason for LaBute's disfellowshipment wrong. But LaBute clearly seems to believe the play was a catalytic reason. The first article I read quoted him as saying that was the reason. This article doesn't, but makes it sound very much like he considers writing plays about Mormons a bad way to regain his full standing. Put simply, it looks very much like Neil LaBute wrote a play somebody in authority over him didn't like, and LaBute the artist has been subdued and gagged as a result. If the play was an attack on the church or some such thing, I might feel differently. But having seen the play, I know how bad it was. It wasn't disfellowshipment-worthy bad. Levi Peterson should be disfellowshipped for his writings if Labute was for this play. Maybe this very fact is an indication that something else was going on besides the play that resulted in official action against LaBute. I don't know, and I really can never know, given the confidential nature of church action. I will forever be at the mercy of trusting what LaBute says about it. Some people present that fact as an argument for why I should feel better about the situation. It doesn't make me feel better. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ Date: 17 May 2003 07:34:03 -0600 Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > Andrew Hall wrote: > > I'd bet this was the scene that caused the book's removal from > > the DB shelves. > > Could be, could be. But that begs the question, why didn't they just say > so? Why didn't they spell it out as clearly as you did? The fact that > they obfuscated with dubious reasons and suddenly decided to go on a > pogrom of all titles makes me think otherwise. To my understanding, this isn't what DB is trying to do at all. They haven't been publicizing the list of books that they've pulled. The public only hears about it when some disgruntled author or someone else in the know lets the news get out. DB, in fact, has tried to be quiet about it. I'm guessing that they're trying to meet the needs of their customers, not by pointing out a bunch of "bad" books, but by trying to ensure that the customers will simply not find anything questionable on their shelves when they come to shop. They haven't (to my knowledge) put out a public list of "banned" books with reasons for "banning." Even though we've made it into one, I don't believe they're trying to be an authoritative censorship machine. They're just trying to stock what they believe their customers want. --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 17 May 2003 18:25:14 -0600 Tony Markham said: >Most Mormon reaction to Kushner reminds me of the scene early in Amadaeus when >Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) is thoroughly peeved with God for inspiring a raucous >buffoon with sublime and transcendent genius. How could God heap such gifts and >talents into the soul of one so undeserving? Presumably he, Salieri, is a much >more disciplined craftsman, more righteous, and ought to be heir to the greater >musical endowment. But no, and he does what he can to destroy Mozart. >I think it just kills most LDS that Kushner, queer, has been endowed with a >genius that surpasses any of ours. This queer also had the effrontery to tell, >what has, to date, been the most critically-acclaimed piece of Mormon Literature, >mmm, ever. Let's all join Salieri in a fervent fist-shaking at the heavens and >in unison, "Arrrgh!" >Tony Markham No, Tony. The above comparison would apply to the Artists' Personal Lives thread and something like Polanski's _The Pianist_. Shame on you for not allowing us to dislike someone's play and then accusing us of basing our judgement solely on the author's character and lifestyle. If I were going to take on a Salieri attitude about something lovely produced by a gay man, then I would shake my fist at the heavens for making Terrence McNally capable of writing _Master Class_, or for giving Stephen Sondheim the ability to compose such masterpieces as he has. (I wanted to pick a title, but seriously, is there anything he's composed that wasn't exceptional?) (I'm going to pretend that McNally didn't write _Corpus Christi_, of which I have no opinion seeing as I've not read it). Speaking of _Amadeus_, though, have you ever seen the play performed live? So incredible! I saw the '99 Broadway revival two weeks after it opened. Unfortunately, it was a matinee, and David Suchet was not performing. Rocco Sisto, his standby, (and the original Marquis de Sade when the stage production of _Quills_was being workshopped) was delightful, however, and that production was just chilling. I still sigh just thinking of it. After that, Milos Forman's film just doesn't do it for me anymore. Toodles! Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] KRAKAUER, _Under the Banner of Heaven_ Date: 17 May 2003 15:34:22 -0700 (PDT) Jon Krakauer, the author of the popular and acclaimed books "Into the Wild", and "Into Thin Air" has written a new non-fiction book due out in June titled "Under The Banner of Heaven." It's a history of violence on the Mormon fringes of polygamy and blood atonement, from the 19th century to the 1984 Lafferty murders. Details can be found at: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05162003/utah/57358.asp ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: [AML] FITZGERALD (tr.), _The Aeneid_ (Review) Date: 17 May 2003 11:00:15 -0600 Somewhat tangential to the thread of Modernizing Shakespeare, but the Fitzgerald translation of Vergil's Aeneid I think proves that "modern" translations can be made to work very well. It's also a good example of how religious and cultural contexts largely foreign to us don't get in the way of a good story. Vergil, _The Aeneid_, translated by Robert Fitzgerald, Vintage Books, 1983, 442 pages. Includes a postscript by the translator and a glossary. Translated by Eugene Woodbury Many an adolescent's curiosity in the "classics," starting with the Bible, has been wrecked by the wrong translation being foisted upon him. Now, I adore the language of the King James Bible, just as I adore Shakespeare. But I must remind myself that Shakespeare's characters didn't sound Shakespearean to Shakespeare's audiences. They spoke the common tongue. Shakespeare, after all, had to fill the cheap seats to make a living. And the King James translators crafted language that would be read aloud in churches to often illiterate audiences. The author must always consider the audience, and so must any publisher of a modern version. The Fitzgerald translation of Vergil's Aeneid is such a case in point. I never could abide the Dryden long enough to get past the first page. All that incessant rhyming. (This compunction to rhyme in translated verse I don't understand--haiku, for example--since you are imposing a form on a form already distorted by translation.) The Robert Fitzgerald translation (Vintage Books) may not be definitive (I'm in no position to speak authoritatively on the subject) but it's more than good enough. The Theodore Williams version I think scans better, but the language and grammar can be hard going. Fitzgerald achieves naturalness without sounding glib. Granted, even with the hurdle of the narrative voice mostly surmounted, there are still obstacles: lots and lots of names I have no idea how to pronounce, bounteous references to historical incidents and heroic characters I know too little about, portentous foreshadowings such as Hannibal crossing the Alps and Caesar crossing the Rubicon which I missed completely until I read Fitzgerald's commentary at the end. Nevertheless, a good story is a good story, and this is a ripping good yarn. A strong authorial voice (it helps to read it aloud in your head as you go along) and a narrative construction guaranteed to entertain the plebeians while sneaking in enough high-brow commentary to keep the patrician intellectuals tuned in. It convinces me that, indeed, Sam Raimi is the definitive modern interpreter of the Greco-Roman dramatic tradition. Of course, Shakespeare accomplished the same. And like Shakespeare, Vergil is a master of the concrete metaphor and the action verb, as well being an astute observer of human behavior. His analysis of how small dust-ups can lead (or be lead) to all-out war resonates with today's geopolitical quagmires. There's something for everybody. Today, it'd be called, Aeneas: the miniseries. Every element of modern dramatic style is touched upon at some point: man against man, man against nature, man against god, man against himself. You've got romance, adventure, political intrigue, a whole chapter just for sport enthusiasts, and lots of action scenes. With lots of explicit detail about who stabbed who and where the blood and guts went. And this isn't depersonalized violence. Before some poor piker gets his head whacked off, Vergil takes a few moments to tell us who he is, where he came from, what he had for breakfast, and how he loved his mom. It's a bit disturbing, frankly. This all plays out under the gaze of the Roman pantheon, which is half the fun. Jupiter is trying very hard to be a good deist--not getting involved in these human squabbles except to answer pleas based on individual merit--except that Juno and Venus are running around getting the rest of the gods involved in their knock-down, drag-out, proxy war. Juno hates the Trojans with a white-hot passion. Aeneas, leader of the Trojans, is Venus's son by a mortal father (these gods are unapologetically polyandrous). Growing up with that Botticellian image fixed firmly in my mind, Vergil's Venus was a pleasant surprise. None of this demure, floating in on the half-shell stuff. She's tough, feisty, cunning, loyal (that is, to Aeneas; when she snuggles up to husband Vulcan to get him to crank out some quality armaments for the Trojans, he grouses, You know, I'd do it even if you didn't sleep with me). There are a number of strong female characters. Camilla, for example, kicks Trojan butt all over the place, and Juturna, Turnus's nymph half-sister, does a lot of Juno's dirty work, mostly in order to keep her brother (the villain in the piece) from getting killed by Aeneas. Though in the ends-justify-being-mean department, Juno is way ahead of all of them. Husband Jupiter finally pulls her aside and says, Enough already. In an ironic twist, Juno wins for losing: as part of the deal, the Trojan identity and language is subsumed by that of the Etruscan Italians. Fitzgerald comments on the curiosity of the Romans (way, way after the fact) identifying with the Trojans in their founding myth--and there is a fair amount of trashing of the Greek demigods (i.e., all the enemies of the Trojans) in the tale. I guess it was a way of one-upping Greek civilization while stealing from it. What impressed me the most overall what the extent to which The Aeneid fits into the modern, western, narrative tradition, both in style and subject matter. And, additionally, how un-odd the religious context is. Many scenes of sacrificing animals and beseeching the gods could easily be confused with Old Testament accounts. Consider as well the concept of the hero being the child of a god and mortal parent. And you can imagine an easy transition from patron god to patron saint; Vergil I think would be at home with the melodramatics of Touched by an Angel. For example, like Juno and Venus, Camilla's patron god, Diana, is limited in the extent to which she can interfere with Fate and keep Camilla from harm once she decides to join forces with Turnus. Human free will seems to a great extent to rule the liberty of the gods. It's the kind of thing that makes me believe that Rome never fell. Rather, in the same way that China absorbed its numerous invaders, instead of conquering Rome, Northern Europe became Rome, and so brought to Britain and then to America that self-dramatizing view of ourselves in relationship to god and nature and the rest of the universe. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Beliefs on Trial (was KUSHNER, _Angels in America_) Date: 18 May 2003 06:30:29 -0600 Thom Duncan wrote: > >Dianna Graham > > > >But we are Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our > >beliefs are not on trial. > > Again, I ask, why not? You've just put the kybosh on anyone ever > writing plays about any Mormons who are having crises of faith. I maintain that we should put our beliefs on trial. How else will we find out if they can withstand the test? And if they don't, shouldn't we find that out instead of deluding ourselves for a lifetime? I've been amazed for some time that a people who claim they are able to learn the truth for certainty, thanks to the power of the Holy Ghost, can be so terrified of letting their faith be put to the test. If we're so sure that our beliefs are right, what are we afraid of? Or asking the question in the flip way, if we're so terrified of having our beliefs put to the test, why shouldn't someone think that we have no faith in them? The fact is, I've put many of my beliefs on trial throughout the years, and a number of them have failed the test. I grew up believing drinking caffeinated drinks was against the word of wisdom. When I put that belief to the test, it failed. That was the first such experience I remember having. Since then I have put a number of cherished beliefs to the test that I just "knew" were right, and they have failed. All of my core religious beliefs have been put to the test, often involuntarily on my part. Yet the core beliefs have remained; they have survived the test, and my faith is stronger as a result. Now what's so bad about that? This is why I have no regard for the approach to literature or film or whatever that demands we do nothing but affirm faith, that we ignore the uncomfortable parts of life that don't jive with our cherished beliefs, that we reserve any part of the LDS experience as untouchable by literature--including sex, including the temple, including garments. Treating these things with the respect they deserve, yes, but untouchable? In my mind, that's tantamount to an admission of weakness of faith. We have to protect our beliefs like smothering mommies, because they are too fragile to stand on their own. -- 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: Lavina Fielding Anderson Subject: Re: [AML] Marden J. Clark, 1916-2003 Date: 18 May 2003 18:51:05 -0600 At 06:23 PM 5/16/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Toward the end he sailed into an incredible mildness. >Goodness existed. He knew that. >--W. H. Auden "Herman Melville" Chase (Stan and Violet's son) read some lovely poems at the graveside dedication: Bryant's Thanatopsis, McGee's "High Flight," and Gerard Manley Hopkins "God's Grandeur." There really IS something about saying it right, isn't there? I hope some of Marden's own words will be spoken at his farewell. My heart is with you and Bessie and the rest of the family. Love, Lavina -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christian Sorensen" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 19 May 2003 13:32:28 -0600 A book on tape is only a recitation of the entire book if it's an unabridged book on tape. Many books on tape are not complete recitations, most often for time considerations. The publisher will determine how many tapes/CDs they want to produce, and it is then left to the author (or perhaps editor, depending on the work) to cut the manuscript down to that word count. Most authors will try to cut nonessential scenes, but sometimes it may be easiest to simply cut a storyline. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 16 May 2003 22:41:30 -0600 > Barbara Hume proposed a different challenge: "It would be interesting to > choose a passage from Shakespeare and have various list members take a stab > at rendering it into modern prose. All right, This is MacBeth Is this a dagger I see before me? Come, let me clutch thee I touch thee not, but see thee yet My version: What the hell . . .? Son of a . . .. Holy Sheep Shit! Holy Sheep Shit! Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Press Date: 19 May 2003 08:25:34 -0400 At 2:37 PM -0600 5/13/03, you wrote: >I propose creating a small press, perhaps called, "AML Books." We could >choose a promising manuscript, typeset it, print it and hand bind it. We >could do like ten copies. We could put one copy in a box to keep in the >garage of the AML President (just in case the are archeologists some time in >the future that might be interested in LDS literature at the turn of the >21st century), and we could sell the other copies at the AML convention. >The author would retain the copyright, and the proceeds from the sales would >be donated to the AML. We could do a Coptic binding which looks really cool >and unique. They take a lot longer to do, but they look a lot more >dignified than case bindings. > >Paris Anderson Actually, I'm somewhat interested. However, I think some modifications to the idea might be in order. If I understand you correctly, you want to assure that promising manuscripts are published, even when no publisher finds them economically viable, for any number of possible reasons. One of the major reasons at the moment is simply that there are very few, if any, LDS publishers willing to risk money on these "fringe" projects. You are essentially proposing that worthy projects be published in a hand-made limited edition. I have some experience with this, since I was involved in publishing "Silent Notes Taken" last year in such an edition. We sold 50 copies of a hand-bound, limited edition for $100 each, mainly to friends and family of the 11 authors and to LDS book collectors. We have since published a more-reasonably-priced ($14.95) paperback edition. [Note: If you don't include the time of the person who bound the 50 copies, the hand-bound edition made a profit. Off hand, I'm not sure what happens when you include the cost of that person's time.] In my view, the biggest problem with this model is that so few copies are distributed. If this literature is to gain an audience, or even be seen as an important precursor to other literature in the future, it needs to be read by a minimal audience. It needs to be where future academics can find it (i.e., in academic libraries) and it needs to be seen as something other than the normally poor-quality self-published books that are often done in small quantities. Even with 50 copies in circulation, a book published this way is simply not likely to have much influence. (Of course, who gets the copies is important. Copies sold/given to libraries (HBLL, Marriott, etc) are crucial in this respect, as are copies for "opinion leaders," academics that cover this literature, etc. From what I've seen elsewhere, I think what this literature needs is some kind of subsidy publishing. Non-profit literary organizations have a long history of either publishing small quantities of what they consider as important works, or of subsidizing publication of those works by other publishers. Here in the US non-profit organizations sometimes give grants to writers to get their work finished. Elsewhere even governments give the grants, and some countries pay to have important works translated into other languages. (now there's an idea!) I guess I would simply point out that this idea could work either way. You could do the publishing (and deal with the marketing and distribution work needed), or you could subsidize the publication of important works. Personally (and I am somewhat biased), I would suggest the latter. Its simpler, and as long as there are enough interested publishers, you might get more bang for your buck, because the publisher would then pay a portion of the costs of publication. As I said above, I'm somewhat interested in pursuing this. I'd love to see what others think. Kent -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 19 May 2003 10:26:46 -0600 > Maybe this is a cultural thing. In Lotion > and Thai, being informal with God is horrid. True of Japanese as well. God is always addressed using the high honorific. However, if you consider the sociolinguistic development of the language, I don't think analogues to the byproducts of European feudalism are misplaced. In modern Japan, honorifics are dealt with much the same way the King James language is dealt with in the average Sacrament meeting: grumble about its often confusing complexities, its often misogynistic overtones, but as Ivan Wolfe notes, dreadfully embarrassed to be caught not using it appropriately. Foreigners--read, missionaries--still regularly stick foot-in-mouth by messing up even simple honorific forms (though, interesting, because most missionaries are also familiar with the King James language of the Bible, they don't make this mistake with deity, just with normal people: addressing the bishop using the familiar pronoun, for example). Still, the strictures are relaxing bit by bit, as I think they must in any society that has egalitarian aspirations. And there's the rub. Honorific language in Japanese evolved out of rigid feudal hierarchies; how you address God, after all, is also how you once addressed the emperor or the shogun, or, for that matter, some petty, high-minded local official who happened to be related to the right people. And is it not a stated purpose of the gospel to challenge unjust but "accepted" cultural practices and strive towards higher ideals? Take Marxism, for example. Give totalitarian governments credit for at least one thing: they can clean up the orthography of a language. In the name of universal literacy the regimes of mainland China simplified and in the case of North Korea completely eliminated the complex Kanji orthographies. Japan has since WWII taken some hesitant steps towards simplifying the Kanji, but nothing so bold as China. Taiwan, in a predictable reactionary manner, clung to the older forms--which now presents considerable problems to the church's efforts to standardize genealogical record keeping if they someday intend to accommodate China's billion-plus population as well. At any rate, of course the ends don't justify the means (though if *I* were dictator of the world, English orthography is the first thing I'd fix). Unfortunately, that's what it would take. Culture and language are so intertwined that its mechanisms are largely transparent to the speakers themselves, and a "sense" of grammar can take on a moral weight removed from actual meaning. We judge what is acceptable by what "sounds right," not by any codex we whip out on a regular basis like constitutional scholars, so that our use of King James grammar is more often botched than not, the same way we regularly mistake the nominative "I" with the objective "me," and overcorrect when displacing the preposition from the end of the sentence. Still, institutions like the church could greatly move things forward on their own, for example, by authorizing "modern" English language versions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Not that I'm expecting it to happen any time soon. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 19 May 2003 12:04:39 -0600 Ivan Wolfe said... >Maybe this is a cultural thing.=20 .. and then went on to give some good examples from Laotian. I agree. = Using language to define our relationship with God is far from absolute, = and depends largely on how we see the world, and how we use language to = define our role in a world that God has created. We use hundreds of = (corrupted) languages on this planet, but each one seems to have a way of = addressing God in a special way. Speaking another person's language is without question in my opinion the = best way to get completely inside their head and understand how they see = the world (which is why language/ literature and an understanding of world = literature is so vital to any attempt at real cross-cultural negotiations--= it's another reason why return missionaries are so highly regarded in the = State Department). Since I only really speak Thai (my Korean is useless = these days), I'll use my experience with that language to illustrate. =20 What I find fascinating about Thai (and several other Asian languages) is = that you can understand the relationship between two people very specifical= ly by how they talk about themselves. When I address a friend my age, I = use my own name as a personal pronoun. If I'm addressing someone of a = similar age and status to whom I've just been introduced, or if relationshi= ps haven't been firmly established, I might use "we" when referring to = myself. When talking to someone younger I refer to myself using an = untranslatable word that means "older person" (A fascinating aside - if = you need to show that they are important to you, you use this same pronoun = to address them. For example, if I'm in the market and a vendor wants my = business they will address me this way, even if it's obvious I'm younger.) = When I address my parents, or really anyone I perceive as being a close = and intimate parental figure, I can call myself "little mouse." There = are so, so many more... Also, it's interesting that men have a personal pronoun that they can use = in almost every adult situation, similar to "I." There is a corresponding = female pronoun, but it is rarely used in everyday life, and almost sounds = archaic or at least extraordinarily formal when used seriously (I mostly = heard it in Sacrament meeting talks). Sometimes very close friends will = use it in conversation, almost playfully. Or when people, men or women, = are angry and are trying to make a point or be condescending they might = use that pronoun. There's an entire dissertation on how Thais view the = sexes waiting to be written.... But back to the discussion at hand. In Thai there is an entirely separate = set of vocabulary for royalty and for deity. There are royal words for = "hand," "speak," and just about everything else, including personal = pronouns. They are so rarely used these days, that sometimes the = missionaries (who know the vocab from reading scriptures, where they are = used to describe God) sometimes have to teach the vocab to investigators = reading scripture and encountering the royal word for "mouth" for the = first time. When referring to themselves in prayer Thais use an untranslatable = royal-use personal pronoun. I've also noticed that many members call = themselves a stylized version of "child of God." Both are formal, and = both are different from any personal pronouns that you would use in = everyday life situations. This is very reflective of Thai society and = culture as a whole. Some members are wishing for a new translation of the Book of Mormon, one = that doesn't use so much stylized language. Instead of translating the = Book of Mormon into Thai the way Thais speak or read, the translation is = much more of a word for word translation from the English. The only = problem with that is, Thais don't think the same way that English-speakers = do. With investigators, missionaries sometimes have to translate the = meaning of the scripture into more understandable Thai. As more and more = Thais grow up in the Church, understanding the language of the current = BofM translation won't be a problem. But for converts, it can be almost = like learning another dialect. This conflict doesn't have anything to do with personal pronouns, however. = My guess is that even if a new translation is completed, the personal = pronouns will stay the same, because that's how Thais view themelves in = the world. Other grammatical issues and royal-use language might be = updated, but I doubt if the pronouns ever will be. My point? We all address God in special ways that differ from nation to = nation and from person to person. I grew up on KJV language, and that's = how I feel most comfortable when talking to my Heavenly Father. When = praying in English (his second language), my husband uses "you" but when = praying in Thai, he uses royal-use pronouns. The trick is finding what works for you, and respecting what works for = them.... Mary Jane Ungrangsee -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 19 May 2003 13:48:31 -0700 Thanks -- this is the info I've gotten. I wonder how different this is from "reading" a Readers Digest Condensed Book. My guess is that RD won't cut out entire storylines. I will always opt for the print version of just about anything. On Mon, 19 May 2003 13:32:28 -0600, Christian Sorensen wrote: > A book on tape is only a recitation of the entire book if it's an > unabridged book on tape. M [snip] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 19 May 2003 13:55:06 -0700 Christian Sorensen wrote: > A book on tape is only a recitation of the entire book if it's an > unabridged book on tape. Many books on tape are not complete > recitations, most often for time considerations. The publisher will > determine how many tapes/CDs they want to produce, and it is then left > to the author (or perhaps editor, depending on the work) to cut the > manuscript down to that word count. Most authors will try to cut > nonessential scenes, but sometimes it may be easiest to simply cut a > storyline. > This is exactly what happened to me when I was with Covenant. My first book came to just over 60,000 words in print, but had to be abridged to around 32,000 to fit on the allotted two tapes. (180 minutes, spoken at approx. 180 words per minute ... or something like that) It was an excruciating process for me, but I eventually made it happen. But with book two, which totaled around 75,000 words, it was just impossible. I trimmed and trimmed, but just couldn't get it down to 32,000 words. I eventually had to eliminate an entire sideline story to make it work. I've always wondered and worried about readers who might READ book three after LISTENING to book two, since there are references in book three to that certain missing storyline. (book three was never available on tape) But I had no choice in the matter. Either I abridged the manuscript to fit the tape requirements, or someone else would do it for me (i.e. my editor). I much preferred to do the abridging myself. UNwriting those two books was just about the hardest writing I've ever done. -BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 19 May 2003 09:28:27 -0600 >I wrote "Five-Minute Much Ado" a while ago Cool! also clever. The "eep" made me laugh, which is what a comedy is supposed to do, right? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare Date: 19 May 2003 09:21:29 -0600 At 02:40 AM 5/13/03, you wrote: >Barbara Hume ask about Modernizing Shakespeare. > >Jonathan asks: Anyone up to the challenge? > >Probably not, but here goes for grins: > > >We've just come through a time that sucked. It was like a cold day in >hell. Very clever! Very entertaining! And very good at serving its purpose--sending me running back to the original Bard, whose lines I can understand much more readily! barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 19 May 2003 15:19:48 -0600 Tony Markham wrote, "I think it just kills most LDS that Kushner, queer, has been endowed with a genius that surpasses any of ours. This queer also had the effrontery to tell, what has, to date, been the most critically-acclaimed piece of Mormon Literature, mmm, ever. Let's all join Salieri in a fervent fist-shaking at the heavens and in unison, "Arrrgh!" Jonathon kindly said that my first attempt at responding to Tony's bald assertion was too personal; therefore, he wouldn't post it. So I'll try again. You see, I get kind of defensive when someone talks of "most LDS" as if a very large group of good folk occupy some lower echelon of the moral high ground. You have to admit, "most" is a pretty large number-more than 50% for sure, more than the "vast majority" I'd guess, something approaching "all." Well, actually both my wife and I guessed it was close to "all." Nevertheless, let's be generous and use "vast majority" as a measuring stick for "most." And let's assume that when Tony talks about those LDS who would walk out of a Kushner play the moment they read in the Introduction to their "Playbill" that Kushner dedicated the play to his partner, Sam (I made up the name cause I don't have a clue if Kushner even has a partner, let alone one named Sam), he was talking about, at the very least, white, male Republicans because they're against everything. Right? And if you live in Orem, Utah, that must add points. Thought invading Iraq to bomb women and children was a good idea? More points. Own a handgun? Even more points. Pretty soon, I figure that I've probably scored the maximum number of points possible on the "most LDS" scale, and I'm hurt that Tony thinks I'd walk out of a Kushner play because he was gay. I mean, I may like Bush and I do live in Utah County, but I also pick up trash on the Provo River trail, even if it's not a Stake project. And I wasn't against seeking an 18th UN resolution before we dropped MOABs on daycare facilities in Basra. Can I subtract a few points? Oh, and one of my favorite blogs is AndrewSullivan.com, written by a gay, white, Republican (I have no idea how to allocate points in this case, but it must count for something). And then I thought, maybe, just maybe I didn't fit in the "most LDS" category after all. But then I looked up and down my Orem, Utah street and thought, "well he must have meant some of these good folk that I call friends and whom I pray with each Sunday. Did he really think they were all so bigoted that they'd walk out of a Kushner play?" And that's when I paraphrased the Peter Finch line from "Network" in my response-in case my response needed a literary hook. You know the line, especially those of you who watch R-rated movies: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take . . ." And that's when Jonathon said I got too personal. So, sorry Tony, but maybe now you can see how your unsupported assertion could be taken personally by a member of this list, and why someone else on the list wrote, "shame on you." Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Date: 19 May 2003 17:13:47 -0600 >On Behalf Of Kent S. Larsen II >Do tell us what the "Nauvoo Theatrical Society" is! The Nauvoo Theatrical Society is a not-for-profit corporation which produces original LDS theatre. The organization was founded by myself and list member Scott Bronson. We have thus far produced four shows, "My Turn on Earth," "Joyful Noise," "The Way We're Wired," and "Stones." Until recently, we were in residence at the Center Street Theatre in Orem Utah. We have shut down production there and are moving to another theatre nearby. As soon as the contract is signed, we'll officially announce the new location, where we hope to continue producing new and original LDS plays and musicals. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 19 May 2003 18:42:24 -0500 I have no idea why my essay (supposedly accessible from the Mormon section) has a Buddhism header! :-) I never noticed that before. I imagine the Buddhists are a little confused, too. Linda -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] re: _The Believer_ and Brian Evenson Date: 19 May 2003 21:31:11 -0400 Hello, If you read the Bison Books edition of Altmann's Tongue, you'll find a very detailed portrait of his exit from the church. Ultimately, he asked to have his name removed from the records of the church. he was not excommunicated. He implies in his statement that the attacks on his fiction during the BYU incident forced him to realize that he could not be a part of the community, so vaguely in that sense, you could say he'd been driven from the church, but the final removal from the records of the church was at his insistence. -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language [Composite Response] Date: 19 May 2003 20:55:43 -0500 At 10:26 AM 5/19/03 -0600, Eugene Woodbury wrote: >Still, institutions like the church could greatly move things forward >on their own, for example, by authorizing "modern" English language >versions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Not >that I'm expecting it to happen any time soon. Somebody did produce a so-called "modern English" version of the Book of=20 Mormon several years ago. (Probably somebody else here will remember the=20 details.) At 12:04 PM 5/19/03 -0600, Mary Jane Jones wrote: >What I find fascinating about Thai (and several other Asian languages) is= =20 >that you can understand the relationship between two people very=20 >specifically by how they talk about themselves. When I address a friend=20 >my age, I use my own name as a personal pronoun. If I'm addressing someone= =20 >of a similar age and status to whom I've just been introduced, or if=20 >relationships haven't been firmly established, I might use "we" when=20 >referring to myself. When talking to someone younger I refer to myself=20 >using an untranslatable word that means "older person" (A fascinating=20 >aside - if you need to show that they are important to you, you use this=20 >same pronoun to address them. For example, if I'm in the market and a=20 >vendor wants my business they will address me this way, even if it's=20 >obvious I'm younger.) Whereas the business practice in the US these days is apparently to convey= =20 a sense of familiarity by using the mark's^H^H^H^H^H^H prospective=20 customer's first name right from the start. Whenever an unfamiliar voice=20 on the phone asks to speak to "Ronald," I know immediately it's a=20 telemarketer.=B9 Whether it was due to my being raised in the South and= so=20 taught to say "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am" or being of the age I am, I expect= =20 any stranger asking me for money to address me as "Mister Blankenship." _____ =B9That's when I turn the tables by asking, "Who's calling, please?" to get= =20 them to identify the company they are calling for, then I can tell them to= =20 take this number off their calling list. Some idiots won't identify=20 themselves but keep asking, "Is this Ronald?" and then perhaps wonder (not= =20 that I care) why I say "No one here is interested in anything you're=20 selling. Please take this number off your calling list," and hang up. -- Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship who hates spam in all forms mailto: ronn.blankenship@att.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Press Date: 19 May 2003 22:01:47 -0600 If I could only figure out how to get good distribution, because to get reviewed you need distribution, and how are we ever going to break out of the backwater without being reviewed...? Anyone with understanding of the distribution, review, and book calendar process who's willing to share their expertise with me, please contact me off-list. I've got a lot of dominoes set up, and I just need to solve a couple of problems before I take my shot. Thanks for your input. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Paul ELIE, _The Life You Save May Be Your Own_ Date: 19 May 2003 16:33:38 -0400 Hello, Don't think of this as a review, just a rushed recommendation and some spontaneous reflections. A friend introduced me to Paul's work. I've found it germaine to this list and its stated interests in developing a Mormon culture of literature. Paul is a Catholic, and the book is a mixture of biography, lit crit, and just plain old storytelling about 4 key Catholic writers who, Paul claims, engaged in parallel pilgrimages. They are Thomas Merton (famous monk, wrote "Seven Storey Mountain"), Dorothy Day (famous activist, founder of Catholic Workers, wrote "The Long Loneliness), Flannery O'Connor (Southern master of the grotesque, wrote "Wise Blood"), and Walker Percy (Southern polymath, wrote "The Moviegoer"). I've found the reading fascinating as I see confirmed the profound religious faith and mysticism involved in writing excellent literature that would not fit into traditional religious categories. It makes me wonder whether there isn't the possibility of our generating some such literature of our own. I think for many there's the desire to know that Mormonism is mainstream, that, among other things, Mormons have their own authors too. But these four writers aren't about that, they're about exploring the passionate, confusing, all-consuming quest for God in their literature, springing from a base of faith in God and the possibility of communion with him, but not a description of a journey that can never be undertaken. I think Catholicism is big enough to include all of them. I'm not sure that Mormonism is that big yet. I know this can be a controversial topic, and I don't want to get anyone's dander somewhere it wasn't before, but I strongly recommend this book to people trying to understand what it means to write religious literature as a Mormon. I think Paul captures the pilgrimages of these distinctive but united figures quite admirably, and I hope that some of us can write true fiction that arises from those same hungers, passions, and insights. It's still in hardcover, but it's cheap at the online booksellers. I find the descriptions of the inner lives of these writers quite moving and impressive. Though I'd heard of O'Connor's Catholicism, I'd never realized Percy's background, and I'm excited to re-read Moviegoer with that knowledge in mind (regardless of the critical rules i'd be violating). -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds Date: 19 May 2003 22:02:52 -0600 A long time ago the Laird Jim wrote: > Those I don't respect are those who > hold no opinions, or who say "it's only an opinion," as if all opinions > are true. I don't hold any opinions I think are untrue...therefore if > yours opposes mine one of us is wrong. Perhaps both, but naturally I > won't think so unless convinced. People who just shrug and say "it's > only an opinion" therefore will never convince me, and so the opinion > remains unchallenged. Which is a bad thing. As one of those who has (fairly strong) opinions but who doesn't require that anyone else share my opinions, I just have to quibble with Jim a bit. I believe that the vast majority of arguments are completely irrelevant and prove nothing. Which side wins those arguments is equally irrelevant in most cases, as is who loses. Because the point of the discussion for me is not about winning or losing, but rather about understanding and expanding my own mind and ability to act and react in my world. This is an area where Jim and I probably disagree at a fundamental level. I understand the argument that says vigorous disagreement is the only way to break through complacence, challenge ossified assumptions, and create truly original thought. I also understand the argument that says there is a single most correct answer to every question, a single most correct truth (or book, or religion, or way of cooking rice). I understand the arguments, I just disagree with some of the foundations on which they're built. I start from a particular set of fundamental assumptions. Elegant and admirable argumentation built up from another set of assumptions doesn't move me--not because I'm not smart enough to get it, but because I start from a different base point. I value some facts differently and weight some ideas with more or less importance, thus I come to different conclusions despite equivalent evidence. Too often we become exasperated that someone isn't getting our point, when in fact that someone *is* getting the point but just doesn't see it as a particularly telling or transformational idea. I think both sides in that kind of argument can not only be admirable and worthy of respect, but can in fact be equally right in an absolute sense. Perhaps that makes me a relativist. That's okay with me, because I believe that the vast majority of the social, ethical, legal, and political debates that people take such strong stands on have many correct answers. It's why there will be a judgment at the last day, not a simple score card. For example, I don't think any of the currently defined political parties is true, and I won't bear my testimony of the correctness of any of them. Each has some good ideas; each misses the boat on some things. The best I can do is seek the best answers I can and support the development of the plans I think best. It may turn out that there was a better way than the plan I supported. In Santaquin recently there's been quite a debate over a patch of ground about a block away from my home. Some want to put single family homes in to protect the value of the other single family homes in the area. Others want to put in condominiums, duplexes, and townhomes to maximize returns on their land investment and meet federal guidelines for medium-density housing. Some want the city to purchase the land and put in a park. The local school district already owns some of it and plans to put a school in there some time over the next decade. After the fire and mudslides of the last few years, some want to leave the land undeveloped and believe the rest of us who live in the area should clear off. I went to some of the city council meetings where different plans were presented (each of them approved by the planning commission, btw). In each case, a different group of citizens came forward to complain. Each group made some excellent points, and I think each group was right to some degree. Each also brought up strong objections to the current plan, and made some excellent negative points in addition to their positive points. What is the one and correct way to develop that space (or not develop it)? I don't know. But I saw at least three reasonable plans, all of which could succeed or fail in different ways and depending on an enormous number of variables. It turns out that I missed the meeting where the final plan was approved, but I know they approved something because the main road leading my house has been blocked for a week while heavy vehicles cut road beds and levelled ground in that space. I could worry about that, but I'm not going to. I trust the city council to make as good a decision as they can and know that good citizens have made themselves part of the process (many of whom I adamantly disagree with; I nearly got thrown out of one council meeting for making rude comments to a particular councilwoman about the proper uses of tax dollars; the mayor banged his gavel so hard that it lept off the table, fell to the ground, and rolled a good ten feet away; the councilwoman later suggested I run for the council in the next election). I know that some of the council made up their minds early in the process and no argument would budge them (and believe more than one of them is getting a kickback of some kind), but I also believe that the balance of the body is good and made a good decision. I don't know--and believe that I can't know--what the "most correct" answer to that particular question is. What's the best way to develop that piece of ground? I'm not convinced that the answer really matters, and I'm not convinced that most of the arguments about the Most Correct way to read literature, make films, establish public policy, carry out war (or peace), buy books, sell books, distribute books, listen to music, choose breakfast cereals, or carry out debates or public discussions are really leading us to a single Most Correct understanding. Yes, there are some absolutes. But the *vast* majority of the points that we argue about--that we develop hatreds against others for, that we even kill other s in defense of--don't deserve the power we give them and don't have a single most correct answer. In most cases I think there are many right answers and even more adequate (if not optimal) ones. In other words, I don't think it should be about winning or losing. It should be about accomplishing good to the best of our abilities, and allowing good ideas from other people to be heard, understood, and sometimes even accepted and enacted. That determines how I comport myself during discussions, and how I consider the results of those discussions later in the quiet of my own mind. It's why I think Eric Samuelsen and Richard Dutcher will always be more successful entertainers than I will. They have strong opinions and share those opinions forcefully. They have strong ideas about the best way to depict an idea or concept. They create strong reactions--for and against. And that's good. It's part of a whole continuum of presentation, art, and entertainment. But I don't think either one of them has the one and only correct answer or has built the one and only true depiction of anything. More popular than some--absolutely. Less popular than others--of course. Better than all those artists who are less popular--I'm not ready to grant that any more than I'm willing to grant that those artists more popular than they are have produced better art (or more effective arguments). The Wachowski brothers have developed two films that were wildly popular and that contain less meaningful philosophical content in over four hours of film than any ten minutes of either Dutcher or Samuelsen. I guess that means that the Matrix franchise won the argument, but I'm not sure exactly what Andy or Larry Wachowski proved in so doing. And I'm not sure it really matters all that much in the end, because I like those whole lot of them--whoever the winner was. Just an opinion. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 19 May 2003 22:06:01 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > The fact that the only two LDS novels I've worked on to date both > include temple scenes as vital parts of the story only demonstrates how > integral the temple is to our lives. At the risk of opening a closed discussion and picking too small a nit, it seems to me that the fact you have included temple scenes in your only two LDS novels proves that *you* have a need to put them in there. I'm not sure it says anything at all about the culture at large except as you happen to be one member of it. It's that old universal thing again. Every human who feels part of a community assumes commonality of ideas and approach on a wide variety of issues related to that community. When one member is bothered by another's expression of those issues our natural response is to wonder which of the two is the more "correct" representative of the community at large--and to re-evaluate our own presence in the community in light of what we perceive the answer to be. My theory is that every single human being on the earth is essentially isolated from every other human being on the earth (a theory based entirely on my own viewpoint, btw; I make no claims as to its universality--I may be the only broken person on the planet, and admit freely to that possibility). The only viewpoint we can truly see is our own, and even that is influenced by myriad chemical, social, and other factors. For me this idea goes beyond the question of whether anyone truly communicates with anyone else. Obviously we communicate well enough to have developed extraordinary technologies and art and explorations of philosophy. Yet it seems to me that beneath it all is the desire to end the unbearable, stifling solitude that each of us feels at some level and to some degree. Not just the desire to feel part of a group, but an acceptance that we actually *belong* there, that we are not the incomprehensible aliens that we fear we might be. Which is what makes "My god, my god; why have you foresaken me?" such a powerful statement for me. It's arguably the only recorded instance of true despair in the life of the Savior. And yet it's an isolation that I think is part and parcel of this mortal existence--necessary even for God himself to experience in mortality--and thus part of the overall plan and required if we are ever to become more than we are. To find a hope, a faith in the midst of nearly perfect isolation; to act as though others are truly equal to us though we have absolutely no way to confirm that knowledge ourselves. I've offered my theory of private religion before, but I think it plays here. Inside our heads we have a set of beliefs and absolutely no way to compare the complex interaction of ideas and behaviors and assumptions and conclusions that exist inside our own heads against a single, orthodox yardstick. Our need to be part of the community--to be adjudicated right and good and valid--is so powerful that we defend our perception of inclusion against those arguments (or even perceptions) that suggest otherwise. Which is why people get so prickly about deeply personal or intimate experiences. If my experience is substantially different from yours, what basis do I have to determine which is more correct, more valid? So people reject--often violently--those ideas that seem to call their own experience into question, or that seem to make light of their own experience. It's a defense of their very definition of self. So... That was really a digression on another topic touched off by Michael's post (of over a month ago; sorry--I'm just now going through the 430+ unread AML-List messages in my box), more than a comment on what he said. I guess my comment is that I think Michael is within his right as an isolated human being on planet Earth to try to explain what it is that's inside his own head--whether it be literal belief or fantastic exploration--and see if it resonates with anyone else. But I also think it's the right of his readers to claim that his vision does not equate to their own and to express that dissonance--and ask the inevitable question: Whose vision is most correct? It's part of the game of writing to an audience. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 19 May 2003 22:07:14 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Justin Halverson wrote: > > > How do we draw the line? > > Here's how: if you feel uncomfortable writing about it, don't. If your > story requires that you write about it, write a different story--don't > cheat the first story by writing it dishonestly to make it > "appropriate." If someone else _does_ feel comfortable writing about it, > let them. Give them the benefit of a doubt that they are trying to do > good as they see it. While I'm pretty sure I understand the point(s) you're making here (be true to the story you want to tell and don't pander to a particular audience at the expense of that story), I have to say that I violently disagree with the idea that we should steer clear of writing stories that make us uncomfortable. In my (admittedly warped and maladjusted) mind, the stories we should be looking most closely at--the stories we should be telling most often and most loudly--are precisely those that make us most uncomfortable. They should be stories that ask questions as much as (or more so than) positing answers. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir and getting no useful work done, either for the audience or for yourself as author. Nothing changes, and no one grows. How you draw the line as to what details to include or not is a matter that only the individual author can address. Tell the story truly. But I also believe that there are many ways that the same author can tell the same story truly. One way might require explicit detail, ugly situations, or foul language. Another might require none of that. But both can be equally powerful and true. So rather than shying away from a story because our first inclination is to tell in one way using one set of esthetic assumptions that we're not comfortable with, I would argue that we should press ourselves to find other ways to tell that story truly that don't violate our esthetic. Isn't that part of art? To choose a form and the limitations it imposes and work to reach beyond the easy and the obvious to something more concentrated and powerful? Let the other guy work according to his own devices. But be willing to push yourself and your chosen set of devices to tell stories that are hard for you to tell. Not always, but sometimes. That's how we grow and expand as artists. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 19 May 2003 22:23:37 -0600 Tony Markham wrote: > I think it just kills most LDS that Kushner, queer, has been endowed with a > genius that surpasses any of ours. This queer also had the effrontery to tell, > what has, to date, been the most critically-acclaimed piece of Mormon Literature, > mmm, ever. Let's all join Salieri in a fervent fist-shaking at the heavens and > in unison, "Arrrgh!" Certainly true for some. But I believe it's true for a lot fewer Mormons than you might think. Things change, sometimes. Even for Mormons. FWIW. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] PETERSEN, _Hugh Nibley_ (Review) Date: 20 May 2003 05:00:22 GMT Review Title: Hugh Nibley, "A Consecrated Life" Author: Boyd Jay Petersen Publisher: Greg Kofford Books, Inc. Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 480 Binding: Hardcover ISBN: 1-58958-019-2 Price: $32.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (Please note that I am reviewing a pre-publication copy of the book.) I am reviewing this book months after its official release. Much has already been said; this review may be somewhat superfluous. In keeping with this, I will avoid doing a chapter by chapter analysis, as I generally do, and instead speak more broadly about the book and its subject. I've had the pleasure of visiting with Petersen and his wife Zina (the term "better half" really does apply here...), and enjoying pizza and salad with them, and with Hugh and Phyllis Nibley. One can't really appreciate who Nibley is without such personal contact. I entered the evening with a great appreciation for his vast contributions to Mormon scholarship. I left with a sense that he was, after all, a genuine human being, a kind and pleasant dinner companion, and a very good sport. What a combination! You can't read very far into this book before you learn that Boyd Petersen is Hugh Nibley's son-in-law. It is, therefore, to be expected that his book will be more hagiography than real biography. As it turns out, "A Consecrated Life" is an honest, although admiring, panoramic look at the life of a man who, arguably, has influenced Mormon thought more than any other living person. And I mean this literally. For good or ill, Hugh Nibley has become something of a lightning rod within Mormonism. He is a man who is not entirely trusted by either extreme wing of the Church. The liberals find him too ready to accept traditional Mormon teaching; the conservatives find him too eager to buck the system and confront the powers-that-be. He stands in the broad center, fending off attacks both sides. It is this elusive quality of Nibley's character that Petersen brings out so nicely. In a curious mix of biography and ideology, Petersen weaves a series of excellent essays on Nibley's intellectual and cultural life into a date-defined biographical narrative. The reader is brought comfortably, from anecdotes of both his grandparents and his parents, through Nibley's childhood. war years, and forward, only to be jolted, at unexpected places, with these ideological essays. I tried my best to invent a rationale for the insertion of the essays. They certainly didn't fit into the chronology. After the first instance, I gave up. (I did figure out the first one -- Petersen relates a detail about Nibley hearing the stories of Mark Twain from his father, and follows this with an essay on "Hugh Nibley as Social Critic." Was this intentional? I don't know.) I wondered if a reader wouldn't benefit from skipping the essays, reading all the biographical matter first, and then going back and reading the essays. Should I re-read the book, I'll likely take this approach. In fact, this may be seen as one of the potential strengths of this book. If you are simply interested in Nibley's thought, you can read the essays and benefit from them. I didn't sense that a grasp of the biographical material was necessary to appreciate the thought and methods of Hugh Nibley as explicated in the essays. One impression the reader will surely get is that Hugh Nibley is, after all is said and done, a walking enigma. How does one establish oneself as an iconoclast (which he surely is) while at the same time being an icon? I suppose variations in your audience make this possible, but it requires a capable and adroit thinker to pull this off. Most will agree that Nibley accomplishes this. To appreciate this aspect of Nibley, one need only read the chapter titled "'The Clown of the Professions':Hugh Nibley and Scholarship." By the time we get to this point in the book, we realize there is no need to establish Hugh Nibley's credentials as a scholar. What may surprise the reader is Nibley's near-contempt for the scholarly establishment. Loaded with credentials, he eschews them as evidence of competence. He relates his own impatience with pseudo-scholars, amid catcalls from some of his detractors who accuse him of being worthy of the epithet. I believe that most readers will come away from this book with a deep and abiding appreciation for Hugh Nibley's contributions to Scripture and Temple study. And while his voluminous writings are available in book form, we are reminded of the good old days when the essays that comprise these volumes appeared in "The Improvement Era" for all to read and enjoy. I've been neglecting the biographical chapters. They are often as interesting as the man himself. Hugh Nibley has led a unique and challenging life. So much of Mormonism is in his blood. From pioneer and polygamous stock, through college, war and marriage, life among the Hopi Indians, establishing his place among both the scholars and the great thinkers of the Church, and in a place where he has become something of an untouchable in Mormonism (who else, after all, could have delivered the infamous "Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift" talk?), Hugh Nibley is, in a word, a legend. But Nibley isn't without his faults. Petersen is careful to make clear that he isn't entirely objective in his view of his father-in-law. There is, after all a personal relationship here, and it is to be expected to influence the book. What really matters, in my opinion, is whether such faults are either covered or avoided altogether. Petersen does a fine job of combining affection and respect with the careful and critical eye of the biographer. If the reader is a bit skeptical about a family member writing this book, one need only read the first few chapters to recognize that Petersen is no Gibbons, and this is no work of unquestioned adulation. And it will be helpful to understand that, as a family member, Petersen had access to materials that others might not have obtained. Those closest to Hugh Nibley knew him best, and they, according to Petersen, were very generous in their openness and granting of access to letters and other mementos. This book has already attracted an enormous amount of interest, and has, as has been noted, been widely discussed. Now it remains only to be widely read. Allow me to suggest several reasons: 1. However you may view Hugh Nibley as scholar and writer, you cannot avoid the huge impact he has had in Mormon thought and scholarship. Mormonism has few authentic intellectuals: B.H. Roberts and John A. Widtsoe may come to mind in such discussions. Hugh Nibley certainly belongs in their rank. 2. And this is not to say that I always agree with everything he says or writes. It is only to say that he is an impressive repository of knowledge on so many subjects, in such amazing depth and with such breathtaking complexity. Such men (and women) are to be treasured in Mormonism, whether you ultimately agree with them or not. 3. I've wondered who will take Nibley's place when he's gone. Is there a successor in the wings? If so, I don't know who it is. Yes, there are some impressive scholars in Mormonism, but I'm not aware of any real contenders. I will gladly accept correction on this point. Will there ever again be such an irrascible, irrepressible, unstoppable person in Mormonism? Will there ever be another Hugh Nibley? Will the forces of conformity prevent such? I don't know; I fervently hope not. Boyd Petersen is to be congratulated for a fine work, a book rich in detail, compassionate in tone, honest in aspect. He approaches that most complex of subjects -- a wild card in a deck of same suits -- and fleshed him out so that we all can appreciate a life well lived. I cannot recommend this book highly enough. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 20 May 2003 04:57:31 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >Thanks -- this is the info I've gotten. I wonder how >different this is >from "reading" a Readers Digest Condensed Book. My guess is >that RD won't >cut out entire storylines. Wrong. Their edited version of _Jaws_ cut out a sub-plot where the scientist character has an affair with the Police Chief's wife. I read both versions, and, in this case, the RD version was much better. The original was overwritten by about a hundred pages with a sub-plot of gratuitous sex scenes. I kept saying, "Get back to the shark! Get back to the shark!" Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] BofM as American Aeneid (was: FITZGERALD, _The Aeneid_, Review) Date: 20 May 2003 13:07:14 +1000 Eugene Woodbury concluded his review: > Fitzgerald comments on the curiosity of the Romans (way, way after the > fact) identifying with the Trojans in their founding myth--and there > is a fair amount of trashing of the Greek demigods (i.e., all the > enemies of the Trojans) in the tale. I guess it was a way of > one-upping Greek civilization while stealing from it. > > What impressed me the most overall what the extent to which The Aeneid > fits into the modern, western, narrative tradition, both in style and > subject matter. And, additionally, how un-odd the religious context > is. Many scenes of sacrificing animals and beseeching the gods could > easily be confused with Old Testament accounts. Consider as well the > concept of the hero being the child of a god and mortal parent. And > you can imagine an easy transition from patron god to patron saint; > Vergil I think would be at home with the melodramatics of Touched by > an Angel. For example, like Juno and Venus, Camilla's patron god, > Diana, is limited in the extent to which she can interfere with Fate > and keep Camilla from harm once she decides to join forces with > Turnus. Human free will seems to a great extent to rule the liberty of > the gods. > > It's the kind of thing that makes me believe that Rome never fell. > Rather, in the same way that China absorbed its numerous invaders, > instead of conquering Rome, Northern Europe became Rome, and so > brought to Britain and then to America that self-dramatizing view of > ourselves in relationship to god and nature and the rest of the > universe. That's a very nice link between the Aeneid and our own (Western) tradition, Eugene. I've often been meaning to raise on the list a little tid-bit I encountered when I was first investigating the Church seven years ago: it was an obscure reference (well, I can't remember where I saw it) to the Book of Mormon as "the American Aeneid". It certainly piqued my attention, since I'd really gotten into the Aeneid in my last year of studying Latin at school, and it became one of my favourite ancient texts. Partly because of how wonderfully heterogeneous it is, even slightly post-modern (beaucoups avant la lettre). I've always wondered what the LDS (literary) take was on this labelling. I'm sure there's a body of writing on comparisons between Virgil's and Joseph Smith's productions. Let me do some background on this (playing fast and loose with the facts, which is what I love to do). The Romans, as you all know, basically looked to the Greeks as the origin of all that was good and refined in their civilization. The Greeks had the literature, the history, the epics - if you were a rich Roman and wanted a top-notch tutor for your son, you always got a Greek to do the job, never a local. Yes, the Romans inherited the Greek talent for empire-building and ramped it up a notch, they were superior engineers, managers and road-builders, and became fabulously wealthy, but there was always the nagging sense of something like cultural inferiority. After all, the Greeks had their great national epics - the Iliad and Odyssey, their "Old Testament" if you will - and claimed descent from the gods. Not to mention little things like philosophy, mathematics, rhetoric, architecture... the list goes on. And the Romans could only look on in envy, eternally reduced to being reproducers and imitators, knowing that their connection to the gods, and to the cultural fruits of that divinity, was only going to be second-hand, no matter how hard they worked at extending and perfecting those very same achievements. So, Rome grows, Julius Caesar gets powerful and then is stabbed (Et tu, Brute?), and there's a power struggle out of which Augustus emerges triumphant. Calls himself "Caesar" Augustus because it sounds cool. Bloody purges ensue, all the usual trappings of a dictator seizing power by force. We need only look at Hitler, Stalin, or even Kim Jong-Il (and his father), and we know what this is all about. Their tastes run to heroic statues, panegyric verses extolling their goodness and glory, and big parades with lots of banners. Meanwhile, just to give more background to all of this, Roman poets have been trying like crazy for several centuries to write the Great Roman Epic. You know, the one that will show that Romans _are_ the equals of the Greeks and have just as noble (indeed, divine) a heritage. Well, so far they've all been flops. Second-rate hackwork that's not even a patch on Homer. But more than ever, it's the holy grail of Roman literature, to "invent" an epic to show that the new world of the Romans is just as good as the old world of the Greeks. Augustus, like all arrivistes, is eager to legitimate his accession to power and makes it known that an Epic is now required. Along comes Virgil, who's lucky enough to have been born at this time. He knows what's required of him - to make the Boss look good. But he's also an artist of talent and sensitivity, and knows that he's required to walk the tightrope between his artistic integrity and sheer survival. In our times, there's something of a comparison to Shostakovich under Stalin, who was torn between his desire to be a patriotic Russian and serve his people, and his own integrity - it was a hard not to give in and compose stuff like the "Song of Stalin" etc. And to this day, there are people who will not listen to Shostakovich because of the taint of compromise under totalitarian rule, just as there are those who will not read Virgil for the same reasons. Even so, Shostakovich's most consciously Stalin-appeasing work, his Fifth Symphony, is probably his most popular and is still today on the programs of many orchestras around the work. So anyway, Virgil gives it his all, and this time he nails it. He comes up with the goods, and it's actually a masterpiece - and even better, it pays subtle flattery to the regime of the time and meets with Augustus's approval. And the odd product that it is (a self-consciously literary work written to look like a pre-literate oral epic), it enters the canon at once and never leaves. It is at once modern and ancient. Self-knowing, and yet bold and direct. And most of all, it does what all before have tried to do and failed - it makes the connection between the gods and the Romans, and singles them out for special destiny while still operating in the familiar realm of the Greek epics. There's Aeneas, who's a minor prince in the Trojan court but here finally steps forward to get his due recognition. His mother is the goddess Venus which, you know, helps some (as Eugene points out in his post). He flees from the wreckage of defeated Troy, floats around, washes up in the arms of Dido, the Queen of Carthage and falls in love (against orders). Those Upstairs are not pleased with this development, and he's reminded that he has a destiny to fulfil, so get cracking. He dutifully drops Dido like a stone, leaving her to cast herself on a pyre in grief. Already this guy's an emotional dead zone, but then nation-founding isn't for wimps, you see. He gets to Latium (home of the Latins, the future Romans) and is feted, but then quickly makes enemies. The losing faction puts up their guy, Turnus, to battle Aeneas to decide the thing once and for all. Now by this time, we know that Aeneas can't lose - he's got an unfair advantage (mum), and because Virgil is writing in a literary age, he creates subtle psychological interest by making Turnus the one with all the noble qualities, going to his doom like a man. Aeneas wins, but then that's only because he's a goody-goody and a mummy's boy to boot. And the whole epic ends on a big downer, the righteous death of Turnus, and the tainted victory of Aeneas. But then, that's the truth about dictators, isn't it? And if they're sufficiently blind, they'll say: yes, Aeneas won because he was strong, knew his destiny and didn't shirk. And nice guys are losers, who die. Now, out of all that there are some parallels with the BoM, as well as many instructive differences. For one thing, nineteenth century America wasn't ruled by a dictator. The very opposite, in fact. It was ruled by a complete newcomer to the position, liberty (an Enlightenment legacy). There was also the Big Idea in town which hadn't yet attained full growth, manifest destiny. But (without belabouring the point), it was a new world formed somewhat after the manner of the old one, but decidedly aware of itself as new. And the big national epic of the Christian founders was, of course, the Bible. Everywhere in America the rush of blood to the head from the Revolution was leading to new types of communities, new ideas, new forms of creativity. Emerson and Thoreau, et al. Since the new world was certainly as good as the old (Europe), and asserting this in the cultural realm was a priority. So, someone writes an epic about a small group escaping the fall of a great ancient city who migrate to the new world and establish themselves there with a divine mandate. Well, that's the thesis. It's got some big holes (all right, huge), but there are enough points of contact to make it interesting. And the central point, that America needed a religious epic tying it to the ancient stories of the Israelites just as the Romans needed an epic tying them to the gods and ancient religious traditions inherited from the Greeks, has some resonance regardless of the holes. More interesting to me is to find out what has been written about this. Does anyone know? I haven't read enough Harold Bloom to know if he makes the connection, and I don't recall Hugh Nibley making the explicit link, although it would hardly be a leap for him, since he makes connections all over the place between founding myths and migrations all over the ancient world. I'm also very interested in the angle on this from the BoM-as-literature perspective - I'm always keen for viewpoints on that side of things, which I wish AML-List would do more often! I'll have to contribute some more ideas of my own (as soon as I assemble them): I don't know, how about a comparison of Mosiah 18:30 and themes in the opening of Keats' "Endymion"? Or something on Mormon's narrative techniques in describing war? Or something much more fruitful... Out of time. Don't have Jongiorgi's staying power. Jason Covell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ******************************************************************************************************* 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: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 20 May 2003 13:31:11 -0600 ___ Jon ___ | I do think, though, that "Mormonisms" which we recognize within | a story, but which mainstream audiences have no clue about... | does that count? ___ Just to bring this out, while we discuss "subtle" elements of Mormon philosophy in Card's works, even the overt Mormonism in the Alvin Maker or Homecoming series tends to go over most non-Mormons heads. For instance I told a non-Mormon friend of mine a few years back that Alvin Maker was an alternative universe history of Mormonism. They were shocked. I actually think Card may have been inspired by a similar book that was a history of medieval Catholicism but in a world where magic also existed. (Forget the name of the series - it's been some time since I read it) ___ Jon ___ | The story about the baby demon punishing the promiscuous man | is just as Puritanical, even Evangelical as it is "Mormon". ___ I'd have to reread the story, but as I recall there were a few elements that went beyond the Evangelical. However you are right, we do share many views in common with other Christian movements. By including Mormonism I don't think we need only include what is *uniquely* Mormonism. (And I'd suggest that there is little "uniquely" Mormon in terms of ideas - at best just some historical events, such as Card used in Alvin Maker or Homecoming. Most LDS ideas can be found elsewhere.) ___ Jon ___ | This is taking this into a totally different line of questioning, | but are we ALWAYS "LDS writers"? ___ We are always who we are. In a sense I guess I'm just arguing for an authentic kind of writing. There are interesting elements to build off of that arise out of our Mormonism. But Card's most Mormon stories are also his least overtly Mormon stories in my view. It was when his natural views bubble out. Bringing in Mormon structure or history, such as in Homecoming, often feels claustrophobic because he is trying *so* hard to make it fit the story. When it enters the story unconsciously it feels much more authentic. I'd almost quote Shakespeare and say, "to thine own self be true," but I'm of the camp that sees Shakespeare as being somewhat complex in that quote, given the speaker. (Polonius) Further I always cringe when I hear that quote since I often disagree with it. Most importantly, good authors can adopt literary personaes that aren't their own. Still, the basics of the story come out of them. When it is imposed by a preconceived rigid structure, the works suffer. Literature isn't like technical writing where you have a strong outline you follow. You might have an initial plan, but if the final product still contains that plan, then probably something has gone wrong. Not always, of course, but I can always pick out the stories where the author has been following a self-imposed "goal" that undercuts the logical flow of the story. Stories have a logic of their own that must be adhered to. That logic partially arises out of the subconscious of the author (and partially the conscious) but when it is betrayed, the work suffers. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 20 May 2003 07:23:05 -0600 >But with book two, which totaled around 75,000 words, it was just >impossible. I trimmed and trimmed, but just couldn't get it down to 32,000 >words. I eventually had to eliminate an entire sideline story to make it work. I read a segment on a Web site in which Diana Gabaldon, who has written five 900-page books in the Outlander series, talked about the abridgment for tape of one of these books. She said, "Here's the passage as I wrote it." She then presented a lengthy passage that took me about half an hour to read. She said, "Here's how it came out on the abridged tape." There was one sentence. Of course, I think she needs editing--she throws in every possible detail. If you want to be in the world she created, the unabridged is best (I LOVE the unabridged books read by Davina Porter). But if you just want to find out what happens next, the other version would work best for you. I think it would be sad to have to cut out the passages that give the book its meaning in order to present bare plot. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Run Lola Run_ Date: 20 May 2003 10:42:19 -0600 lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu wrote: > I have to respond to this because Run Lola Run is a film I really like, too. > You have to admit that the story line is 'very simple, straightforward stuff.' > Characters are shallow, remain virtually undeveloped. Do you see this film, > then, as being more about film technology, medium, than about anything that > you can call a narrative? I've actually thought a lot about this film, and I > think there's a lot more going on than meets the eye, in terms of plot. Most > good stories with simple, unadorned storytelling techniques are incredibly > profound. But... I'm curious what you think about this in the Lola film? I think I'd like to hear what more you think is going on in the plot. To me, Lola is about fun. The plot is a fun exercise, I'd say a satirical exercise, on how choices we make affect us and others. The style of presenting the plot is loaded with fun--that's obvious to the most casual of observers. But I know my Germans. I went on a mission there and I took several years of German in high school and college. I was immersed in the German mind set quite a bit. I have no doubt there's a lot more going on in Lola than fun. But the severely existential postwar German mindset is an unpleasant one for me to dwell in. Lola definitely celebrates that mindset, since the whole movie starts by calling life a mere soccer game. So I'm not sure I even want to venture into the realm of exploring the deeper meanings of Lola. -- 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: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mormon Ideas of Friendship Date: 21 May 2003 18:02:02 -0500 Every now and then, in exploring some corner or another of my own internal mental landscape, I realize yet one more way that being Mormon has affected--often in previously unrecognized fashion--my way of looking at the world. This happened recently to me while thinking about the subject of friendship. Okay. I probably need to share some of where I'm coming from to make sense of this. Recently--within the past year--I've been making efforts to reconnect with an old friend from pre-college days. We were best friends from third grade until around the time I went to college, but then drifted apart. As we've spoken a half-dozen times and conversed via email, I've sensed a politely unexpressed question from his side of the conversation about why I'm doing all this. Yes, we were good friends who had a lot of fun together as 10-, 12-, and 16-year-olds. Yes, it's good to stay in touch. But after all, our lives don't really intersect in any meaningful way anymore. Why try to do any more than that? And I'm brought face to face with the fact that the two of us are (and perhaps always were) working off two different pages when it comes to defining friendships. For my friend, I think that friendship meant that you enjoy each other's company, share interests, and do things together. For me, such activities were only the surface manifestation of a deeper, fundamentally spiritual connection that was the essence of friendship. To him, for a friendship to end meant that it had simply run its course and was no longer relevant to one's life. To me, for a friendship to end was a tragedy, indicative perhaps that it had never really been a friendship at all. Now of course there's nothing distinctively Mormon about either of these views. The idea of friends as soul mates, in some sense, has a long and venerable history. It's a very romantic notion of friendship. Whether one buys into it or not probably has a great deal to do with one's emotional makeup. I was the sort who wanted deep, permanent friendships, and so I tended to buy into the cultural ideas around me that built up that sort of friendship. All of this--my friend's and my different ways of looking at friendship, and how it affected our relationship--are old hat, known since I was in my mid-20s at least. What came new to me a couple of days ago was the thought that this difference may have had something to do with Mormon doctrine and my own Mormon way of viewing life. That there may have been a religious basis to my friend's and my different ways of viewing friendship. **** One of the characteristics of Mormon doctrine is its tendency to interpret in literal terms ideas that most of the religious world takes as metaphorical. We are God's children. All humans are brothers. We're supposed to become like God. God is like humans, and vice versa. What God does is a lot like raising children, and vice versa. All of these are examples of ideas that we, so to speak, place on a literal footing, so that while others may say the same things we do, we mean very different things by those statements. Another of those statements, I think, is the idea that personal relationships are eternal. Yes, many Christian religions have the idea that we'll be together with friends in the afterlife. But for many of them, it seems (I hope I'm not misstating things here) like a rather vague proposition, as the afterlife in general seems relatively vague. A kind of large, undifferentiated fellowship. There's even sometimes the sense that strong personal connections are a limiting sort of thing that we'll grow out of, as part of attaining the kind of universal perspective that God possesses. Mormon thinking reverses this. Rather, our eternal relationships are radically personalized--starting, but by no means limited to, the idea of eternal marriage to a specific mate. There is no undifferentiated afterlife in our theology, but rather an eternity of work which, to the degree we understand it, is in many ways startlingly similar to much of what we do in this life. And as best we can tell, we'll be working in teams, in close connection with individuals who continue to be as distinct as they are in this life. Given this context, the idea of eternal friendships takes on a wholly literal, practical interpretation. We may feel that we recognize people in this life because we used to get together twice a week to do the spiritual equivalent of shooting hoops. Separations in this life are, in the eternal scheme of things, mere interruptions in an ongoing relationship. The best of earthly friendships is not an unrealistic exception, but rather a representation--a type and a shadow--of what we ought to be working and planning for in the eternities. That may sound like a mere theoretical distinction. But as my experience with my Catholic friend suggests, it's possible for such a difference in perspective to lead to very real differences in how two people view their own real-world friendship. What seems like a purely hypothetical difference can--and I think, in my case, did--make a certain set of expectations about friendship seem wholly reasonable from my perspective, that probably seemed quite odd to my friend. **** How does, or can, this affect us as Mormon readers and writers? I have to start by acknowledging that my own interpretation of friendship is by no means the only possible Mormon attitude. Many active members of the Church, I'm sure, would take a very different view than mine. And as I suggested before, it's not really a *different* view of friendship, but rather one that looks very much like one of the most common, popular ideas in modern American culture, the romantic idea of Friends as Knit Souls. If anything, it's primarily the justification beneath that makes the difference. And yet that difference can, I think, be important. Important so that attitudes that seem similar can be slightly, subtly...off. We are, after all, such a practical people. So much focused on irrigating the desert and building homes and sending missionaries all over the place and stuff like that. And then we come out with these outlandish statements and beliefs that let others know that we really are different at some level that they find hard to grasp. We seem adult, and yet--in my case at least--I find it very hard to let go of a notion of personal connections which I think most of my colleagues (university professors and the like) would, I think, find fundamentally adolescent. To me, however, it does not seem romantic, or idealistic, or juvenile. Rather, eminently practical. Realistic, even. What to do with this difference? Well, there's a lot of potentially fertile ground in subtle, well-depicted friendships and relationships between Mormons and non-Mormons, of which I don't know if there are that many in our literature. But this is only one example of an I think largely unmined area in our literature. I'm not aware of very much literature out there that really deals with the tension between membership in the Church and the other communities to which a committed, believing Church member may belong. Most of our literature seems to be either internal to Church culture, or focusing on the inner life of the individual, or seeing the outside world as the opposition that (in some sense) must be faced. Literature that does dwell on the tension between the Mormon world and the external world seems to do so from the perspective of someone who is on his or her way in or out of the culture. There's not much on the negotiation that comes from living simultaneously in two worlds and being committed to both. We've talked on the list here about the experiences of those Mormons who feel alienated from groups where they feel that they'd like to belong: Christian groups, academic groups, groups of writers. Groups where we share the interest and behavior, but where a few basic assumptions seem fundamentally different, and where that difference winds up looming larger than we sometimes think it should--where our being Mormon seems to get in the way of our other identities in ways that we, and others, find somewhat bewildering. (In science fiction, it's the ever-recurring question from many other sf&f readers at how you can be an sf&f enthusiast, and talk about the ideas of the literature, and still be a committed religionist, particularly from one seen as being conservative. We Mormon sf&f fans are, to some of our coreaders, something of a living contradiction.) I'm convinced that all of us act not only on the basis of interests and emotion, but ideas as well. Mormonism is largely a religion of ideas, and ideas that are in some ways radically different from other religious ideas around us. I think that makes us, in some ways, subtly different--in ways sometimes that we don't recognize ourselves. I'd like to see our literature deal with this more thoroughly--not necessarily with the ideas themselves, but rather with the impact those ideas have how we live. Any thoughts? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] RE: Beliefs on Trial Date: 20 May 2003 14:55:05 -0600 Michael Martindale quoted Thom Duncan: > >Dianna Graham > > > >But we are Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our > >beliefs are not on trial. > > Again, I ask, why not? You've just put the kybosh on anyone ever > writing plays about any Mormons who are having crises of faith. And Michael said: >I maintain that we should put our beliefs on trial. How else will we find out if they can >withstand the test? And if they don't, shouldn't we find that out instead of deluding ourselves >for a lifetime? [snip] Once again, words have failed to communicate my point. But first, I was unable to respond to the statement that Thom made. I stand accused of condemning plays about Mormons who are having crises of faith. The truth is I don't feel that way at all. Even in my post on Kushner's play, I acknowledged that if a play like this had been written (with cleaner content) by a Mormon and presented for a Mormon audience, I would probably love it. I guess I wouldn't even mind much if it were presented to a predominantly non-LDS audience (though that was initially an issue of mine when I read the play). I don't need a happy ending. I don't need a piece to say, even in subtext, that the church is true and everyone needs to be a Mormon. I'd take a Cabaret ending anyday. The audience can decide for itself. Regarding Kushner's play I will kind of reiterate what I really concluded in the first post. I hate plays and films with intense profanity, vulgarity, sexuality, etc. If a piece is just loaded with nudity, profanity, and or violence, I have to step back and reconsider if it's even worth it for me. With Kushner's play, it was just not worth it. I have to tell an experience I had that seems to relate to the play for me. The first summer after my mission, I was doing stock in Jackson, WY, and my closest friends were pretty much all of the gay men in the cast. It was kind of funny being the only heterosexual at many of our evening outings (though some of the men were in the closet and were trying to convince me otherwise). Anyway, a lot of them were LDS, some fighting against their tendency, some living dual lives, and one really struggling with some mistakes he'd made. My closest friends, however, were the three men who were not LDS (one in the closet, two out). I think I was convinced that I was in love with one of them. Well, when the summer ended, I kept in touch with the two "outies" from Wyoming via e-mail, and I stayed in close touch with the "innie" from Salt Lake (now an "outie"). After about three or four months via email with the Wyoming friends, I just stopped communicating with them, because I couldn't stand it anymore. They were both constantly forwarding extremely perverse messages to me. It was dirty spam, and I was so sick of all of the images I was having to fight out of my head whenever I opened my email. It was ridiculous. They had cleaned up their language when we were together in Wyoming out of respect to me (I didn't really ask them to, they just did it). Long distance, however, they would just include me in their email loops and completely disregard who one of their friends was. I was supposed to be glad that they included me as they sent on graphic photos and stories which usually featured nudity, various sex acts, language akin to "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert," and so forth. It seemed so unfair that I wasn't supposed to pay any attention to it or hope for more respect from them, or that I must be a prig for not really thinking it was funny. I needed to take them as they were, etc. And I loved these guys. I didn't mind hearing about their very strained love affair with each other. I didn't mind the occasional expletive in conversation. I cared about them and valued their friendship. I wasn't valuable to them, though. Their excitement and interest in filth was so much more important than my feelings. What right would I have to judge the way they talked to and entertained each other? When I read plays like Kushner's play or see films that are as graphic, I feel the same way. I don't mean anything to them. They don't care about me. I'm a pious, judgmental, self-righteous b**** who has no right to judge them for their lifestyles and language. It's not very fair, though. I want to love these characters. I want to empathize with them, and I think many audience members feel that way. Most people are not so anxious to elevate themselves above the characters in the piece as they are sometimes accused of being. We want to love them. After awhile of being abused, though, we have every right to say that we've had enough. It's like the whole nudity issue for me. I don't think that nudity is completely bad in art. (Though I'm not going to sit here and pretentiously say, "As long as it's old, it's okay." I understand that 1920's French porn is as naughty as 2003 American porn )(and let's not even go into some of the dirty thoughts that can accompany a viewing of Michelangelo's *David* or Myron's *Discobolus*...). I've worked with a lot of actors who've done nudity, and they've always said, "It was great. I suddenly felt so free. I totally recommend it. You need to overcome your inhibitions." Did they ever wonder about how the audience felt, though? Did the audience want to see all of their bits and parts? I guess, if the audience knows well in advance, and they're going to see it anyway, then that's their problem or they must be okay with it. IMO, though, audiences are way too willing to subject themselves to filth out of respect to the artist. They want to be cultured, so they'll brave it. (Or maybe that's just how it is at first. After awhile, it may be something they really enjoy). And I'm not just talking about whether or not the audience may be made to feel uncomfortable. I'm fine with being uncomfortable if it's something that's going to help me be a better person. The Way We're Wired openly discusses some of the horrible abuse that goes on in some marriages in the church. It may make the audience uncomfortable, but it will increase awareness, humility, and, hopefully, will give members a greater desire to look out for their fellow man. Back to nudity and harsh content, I know artists can only do so much to influence the audience's reaction, but when a piece becomes so self-centered that the artist takes no responsibility for the audience's feelings, it's called masturbation. About putting our beliefs on trial, Michael, I can appreciate the logic there. I was impressed with the scene in "God's Army" where (if I'm remembering it correctly) the two missionaries were completely unable to resolve their investigators' concern about blacks and the priesthood. It was a little jarring, but great. I don't think it's bad to put our beliefs on trial in literature. (I wish I could cite something else right now that would apply, but you can probably think of a lot of good examples). It's especially good, I think, to challenge Mormon folklore. I would enjoy writing or seeing something written about someone's experience in the Young Ambassadors. Really, though, I had such a frustrating experience in that performing group. It was such a test of my faith to feel like I was supposed to fit my square-peg self into the round hole of "pretty" Mormonism (or maybe I was a round peg and it was a very square hole). I questioned how spiritual an individual I was for not being emotionally moved by a lot of Mormon pop. I was never called on for prayers or talks in firesides, and for some reason, something in the atmosphere told me that it was because I wasn't spiritual enough, I didn't seem to really have a strong enough testimony, or I didn't wear enough make-up or something. It was very interesting. That would be an intriguing experience to recreate in a book, play, or film (though it might ruffle some feathers somewhere). It would be good to see a play where moving to Utah seems to be the first step away from the church for certain people. I don't know if this truly applies to your point, Michael, but I am trying catch on to you. Now, the church and it's teachings are put on trial all of the time. That's fine. It makes sense, and I can really appreciate that it's wise for us to step back from time to time to really make sure that we are worshipping the right God and in the right way. (That's how I would define your testing of the caffeine issue). I think that can be one of the greatest things that Mormon lit can do for Mormons. I just have to question the need to keep reexamining some truths over and over again. I won't word this well, I know it, and it'll make me sick. It's just, something in your post really stuck out to me. Here it is: >All of my core religious beliefs have been put to the test, often involuntarily on my part. Yet >the core beliefs have remained; they have survived the test, and my faith is stronger as a >result. Now what's so bad about that? "Often involuntary on my part." Our beliefs are going to be tested all over the place, often involuntarily on our parts. Until the beautiful millenial day, we are never going to be free of our beliefs being attacked by other people or by circumstances beyond our control. There is always going to be some lawsuit against the "evil church that harbors sex offenders", some genetic evidence that the Book of Mormon must not be true, and there will always be bishops who treat rape victims like they were to blame for their suffering. There will always be temple recommend holding Mormons who are sexually or ritually abusing their children, and some general authority is very likely going to say something that makes no sense to us at least once a decade (and some may write books that pretend to be encyclopedias on Mormonism but really just have a lot of personal opinion in it posing as doctrine). (I hope this last one doesn't happen, though). I think some of the above would make great subjects for Mormon literature, though I recognize that it could also be dangerous ground to tread. Any good literature does put our beliefs on trial, so my statement "Our beliefs are not on trial" was very deserving of scrutiny. I asked a question a long time ago about seeking out material that contained harsh content, the "dregs" is how I referred to it. I can't get this thought out, and it's killing me. Okay, Alma 34, regarding the seed of faith. Now, the seed is planted, and we have a desire to believe, and we put it on trial, and the seed begins to swell up and grow. As we nurture it more and more, hope becomes faith, which eventually becomes knowledge. Okay, the Holy Ghost is part of this. So, we have this faith plant since we planted a seed and let it grow. Now, translated to Person - Person seeks to know truth of gospel, seed is planted and nurtured, testimony is gained. Now he or she is on path and is trying to increase in faith and is trying to progress. Now, Person really likes movies and really wants to see all of the well made films out there. So, Person goes to most of them, and every once in awhile, Person watches films that have explicit sex but really good messages. So, the plant is a little dislodged in the soil. Or maybe Person is writing books or plays with very moral messages about people who do bad things, and the book or plays have intense language and/or nudity. The plant dehydrates a bit, but Person gives it a little water and the plant stays alive and grows a little. After about fifty years, a once five inch plant is now, say, five feet high. What would happen, though, if Person focused on nurturing the plant a bit more, instead of constantly tugging on it and challenging it's roots. Now we don't want to overshelter the plant and keep it from really taking root. It doesn't mean that person throws out all of his Pink Floyd cassettes. Person still has to be in the world and let the plant get some air and sun and adversity, but he could be nurturing the plant with eternal truth. He could be fortifying it with stories of individuals pulling themselves out of the dregs. He could be instilling in the plant a greater faith in and appreciation for a merciful God who loaned that person the seed in the first place. And, of course, often beyond the control of Person, wind and other outside influences are going to pop up from time to time and make sure that the plant is properly rooted. I'm not trying to sound condescending. I'm sorry if this comes off that way. I just think that we really need to be careful how deeply delved we can get into the world in what we read, watch, and create. On an ACTF trip some years back, George Nelson was talking to one of the students about whether or not to use some of the profanity written into her scene for Irene Ryans. George made such a great comment. He pointed out how the actors from the Y just stood out from the rest of the actors so much. The cleanliness of our material was one of those things that set us apart, and that our acting just shined or something. (That was definitely paraphrasing). You could probably guess what he meant, though. I totally agree. Not to be prideful, be we were not allowed to depend on tricks of any sort. We had to be much more imaginative. Are we afraid of coming off as prideful, or superior? What if one of us wrote Cabaret (can you tell I'm very fond of that show)? How might it have been received then? Would the biggest applause for us have been that our MC musical numbers were so naughty? I really wonder. Well, thank you for joining me in an adventure through the stream of Dianna's consciousness. Love to all, Dianna Graham ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 20 May 2003 14:10:08 -0600 I promise, I'm not trying to resurrect political threads here. But you = know me, I'm very interested in pop culture, and there are two TV shows = that I'd like to talk about, while, I promise, bringing this back to = Mormon Letters in a sec. I'm a big fan of two TV shows; in fact, they're the only two shows I = NEVER miss. West Wing, on NBC, and 24, on Fox. I think they're both = extraordinarily well written, and of course, as a political junkie, I = like watching political issues play themselves out. Both, as it = happens, deal with a fictional President of the United States--Martin = Sheen rather famously plays President Bartlet on West Wing, and Dennis = Haysbert plays President Palmer on 24. And on both series, POTUS has = been recently removed from office through the legal authority specified = in the 25th Amendment. Now that just seems really interesting to me, that the good ol' 25th = Amendment would be central to plot twists in two shows airing basically = the same week. (I'm hedging a bit there, because I don't actually know = when either show airs, believe it or not. I'm never free weekday = nights. I tape the shows, and my wife and I watch them together.) Anyway, what with the war and all, we've had THREE presidents of the US = of A vying for our attention. I mean, President Bush has been on quite = a bit lately too. He hasn't been removed via the 25th, as far as I know, = but there is a kind of unreality surrounding his appearances as well. = This isn't a partisan attack or anything; just that televised war has a = kind of surreal edge to it, doesn't it? I've never fought in combat, = but I have a good friend and also a nephew in Iraq right now, and so I = know it's real, but it doesn't feel real. What's real to me isn't my = friend, it's the high state of anxiety and fear I see in his wife's face = when I talk to her. Even though, statistically, he's actually fairly = safe in Iraq right now. But I care for his family, and pray for his = safe return. And yet and yet. I'm saying this badly right now, but viscerally, I'm = much more caught up in President Palmer's melodramatic and spectacular = predicament than I am in President Bush's far more prosaic, but of = course far more actually deadly, one, even though President Bush's = actions directly affect friends and family. This is absurd, but also = true; 24, a Hollywood entertainment (on Fox!), is really superbly done, = while the other is reality, but also a managed and carefully mediated = reality, and so we find ourselves comparing their merits as TV programs. = We're not actually seeing actual war, sort of; instead we're seeing = what embedded journalists are able to see and report, mediated by = 'expert' commentary. It's also a show, also an entertainment, if you = will. And it can't compare with 24. Real war is sort of boring in = comparison to a really professional quality fake war.=20 24 is an amazing show, frankly. Its main gimmick (the show purports to = be in 'real time' following, over 24 episodes, one hour each of an = extended 24 hour long story) compresses dramatic action, of course, but = more than that, it breaks enough 'rules' of accepted dramaturgical = practice that it gets away with breaking accepted dramatic moral rules. = Example: early in this season, Jack Bauer (superbly played by Kiefer = Sutherland), has the responsibility of infiltrating a gang of home-grown = terrorists who might be linked to other terrorists who have planted a = nuclear device in Los Angeles. The stakes are high, in other words. He = asks his supervisors to release to his custody a police informant, who = is under police custody, who had previously ratted out the gang Bauer = wants to infiltrate. And as soon as this informant appears, Jack Bauer, = our hero (the white-hat-wearing hero of a melodrama!), shoots the = informant in the chest, and then saws off his head with a hacksaw. = Early in the series, in other words, where we're trying to get some = audience sympathy for our hero and some interest in the story, our hero = coldbloodedly murders someone. It's horrifying. We also keep watching. = And we ask ourselves, well, is it worth it? Kill one guy, and stop = some really bad guys from murdering several million. Weigh it morally. Last week, Jack's daughter, Kim, calls him on her cell phone. Her = employer, an abusive jerk, has her cornered in a closet. She knocked = him out, and took his gun, but he's waking up. He's promised to kill = her. What advice does Dad have for her? Shoot him, Dad says. Shoot him = twice. Make sure he's dead. =20 We are so far beyond James Bond or Shane or Luke Skywalker at this = point, it's not even funny. It's hard to say Jack Bauer is an = anti-hero; he's a straight laced, by the book anti-terrorist expert. = But he tortures people, he kills people--he's right on the 'do these = ends justify these means' line. And that's exciting to me, to confound = our narrative expectations, and at the same time, question and even = undercut the moral expectations we have for narrative. I think it's = healthy and valuable, to pull us out of narrative ruts. Absolutely = anyone can die, for one thing, not just the bad guy, and maybe the good = guy's plucky comic sidekick.=20 And here's the thing. On 24 and on West Wing, you can see the writers' = calculus. It goes like this: I can have the character make this decision, or that decision? I can = make this choice or that choice? I can have this bad thing happen, or = this worse thing? And the writers consistently, on the best TV shows, = make the tougher call. Okay, President Palmer (on 24) has a policy decision to make--should he, = or should he not send a military strike against nations who have = sponsered terrorism? He sends the planes off. But then there's = evidence that those states may be innocent. So he recalls the planes. = The cabinet hates this choice. They meet. They can remove him from = office, using the 25th amendment. I'm watching the show and I'm = thinking, if he wins that vote, he's in a stronger position. If he = loses that vote, he's in a weaker position. Which would I write? Well, = for the writers of 24, he has to lose that vote. It backs him even more = into a corner. It makes his predicament even worse. So that's what they = choose. At one point, this season, they even took it this far: Jack Bauer has = been captured by the baddies, who torture him. He's in serious trouble. = A doctor says what all doctors say on these shows "You can't give him = X! If you give him X, he could die!" And so, of course, they give him = X. But on 24, the writers then have two choices. James Bond, if you = give him X, doesn't die, because he's Superman. He can't die. But Jack = Bauer dies. That was the cliffhanger one week. Our hero was dead. Of course, he = couldn't stay dead. The baddies found a doctor to do the electric = paddle thing and revive him. But his death/revival has consequences. = Jack still has a bad ticker, now. He's more vulnerable. His situation = is worse. It's great melodramatic writing. (Same thing on West Wing. President = Bartlet's daughter has been kidnapped. There's no Vice-President. = Bartlet feels he can't make the tough calls now; he can't be objective. = So he invokes the 25th, and makes his bitterest political enemy, the = Speaker of the House (John Goodman, entering the Oval Office like a = battleship smashing through the waves of the North Atlantic), acting = President. It's a choice; to make the acting President someone the rest = of the staff can't stand. It makes their decisions tougher. Good = writing.) But is it good writing generally? I think so. I think that painting yourself into narrative corners = constitutes good writing. I think far too much Mormon writing takes the = easy way out. So, you write a scene where a Priesthood holder gives a blessing to his = daughter. She's ill, dying even, and he loves her, and he gives her a = blessing. It could work; she could be saved. But what if she's not? = Isn't that a lot more interesting? Isn't it more complicated, more = challenging? =20 I'm not saying all good writing is good melodramatic writing. I am = saying that we should avoid giving our characters an easy out. I think = there's a lot to be said for giving our characters a really tough time. = =20 Get stuck. That's the most valuable advice I can remember from an old = favorite book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Get stuck. = Let the cabinet vote go the wrong way. Let the hero die. Avoid the = easy answers--which some times may be to have the character die. =20 And watch 24, if you have to on DVD. The first season is on DVD and is = remarkable. The second season is better. And it ends tonight. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 19 May 2003 22:09:56 -0600 Dianna Graham wrote: > Here's what's been on my brain lately, though. Do some Latter-Day Saints > who are trying not to be stuck in a fluffy little bubble seek out grit in > their reading and viewing? Do we ever tell ourselves the lie "Out there is > the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it"? Do we ever make it a > little mission of ours to find the outer limits of liberality in > Mormonism/Latter-Day Saintism and hang out at those outer limits? Okay, I'm > getting very Buffy here with my speak, so I may be losing some of you. > Still, I'd love some feedback. I think this is a fascinating question. Do Mormons seek out the spiritually dangerous *specifically in order to address and overcome it,* thus making of themselves more well-rounded spiritual beings? Should they? My simple response is that I see no reason to seek out the ugly; it tends to find me whether I'm looking for it or not. The last two years have been pretty weird for me. Without ever seeking a single ugly thing I've managed to survive a forest fire, mudslides, rage at my neighbor, 18 months of unemployment, financial devastation, consideration of suicide, a brief return to alcohol, and a new job with radical career change and the nearly constant, crippling self-doubt that comes along with it. In other words, challenges present themselves. Without seeking out anything I've had plenty of opportunity to come fact-to-face with some questions I would rather not have dealt with. As a result of that unhappy set of experiences, I think I'm now a marginally more compassionate human being than I used to be. I certainly feel more humble, though I'm not prepared to quantify that just yet. I know I get mad at other people less often than I used to. The point being that there are many kinds of trials, many kinds of struggles. Some involve sin--the intentional choice to pursue something we believe to be wrong. Some deal with events that cause us to rethink our assumptions--and see prior acts as unacceptable in light of new knowledge, and change our actions going forward. Some are about direct moral struggle, and others are about simple temporal survival. I know that it was very hard for me to be overly worried about what was "most correct" when I had no income and no hope of gaining it. Poverty can be an absolutely overwhelming condition. As I explained to my father when he tried to offer spiritual council to me last year, "Right now all problems look like money to me; I don't even know how to think about what you're saying." I wouldn't recommend running out and immersing yourself in ugliness just for the sake of having experienced it. But if you have, then I would strongly recommend that you mine the experience for everything it's worth and draw as much value as you can from it so that the experience is to your ultimate benefit. But the one thing I would suggest most of all is to keep your critical eye focused inward. It does little or no good to try to claim moral superiority for the things you've suffered--the claim itself suggests that you're more interested in winning some sort of suffering contest (and thus justifying your own excesses) than being a better human being. Ugly experience should teach us compassion for others, not create walls of separation. Unfortunately, it's often impossible for us to share the full extent of our own experiences. I recently wrote to a friend who was frustrated at the lack of support he had received after a car crash that had killed one child and has essentially crippled everyone else. His frustration was that people didn't want to hear him talk about his experience, that they didn't *understand* the despair that he felt, and so he felt isolated and alone. There are only a very few people who can truly appreciate his experience. The understanding and validation he seeks may never come, because the number of people who know his pain is small. But if there is someone who knows that pain and is willing to tell that story to a general audience, then maybe he can find some small sense of community and understanding after all. Ugly experience or not. Different stories speak to different people. Different details resonate with different experiences. One of the ways to turn experience to the good is to understand it and share it. And if no one ever accepts our experience as worthy, so be it. It was still good for us to share it, and in the end it can still be to our ultimate spiritual good as well. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Does Intent Matter? Date: 19 May 2003 22:15:29 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Yes, few artists are perfect. Like few of any other profession. So does > that we mean we allow people who know nothing about a profession make > the decisions instead of the imperfect professional? But that's the way the business is run, isn't it? Publishers are not artists; they're business owners who want to make as much money with as little investment as possible. They're largely held in thrall by distributors who are even less concerned with art than publishers, but who do the ugly work of tracking shipments and payments and sales so that (eventually) the author gets paid. They aren't in it for the art; they're in it for the money. And if the art ain't selling, they'll drop your ass in a hot second and find someone who will make them money. If art is marketable, they'll market it; otherwise they'll give it a pass and the art can rot. Unless you want to publish with an art house that's in it for the goal of getting some good work out to a very small audience without losing too much money. We can be mad about the way the world is or we can find a way to work it to our advantage. Quite of bit of Jongiorgi's rant against non-professionals bugs me, but he makes at least one point that I can only applaud and repeat--if you're serious about getting published you'll find a way. If you want publication more than you want validation of your unique value as a human being, you'll sell. It may not satisfy your soul, but it will pay for sodas and Internet access. And if you're really, really good--and willing to make choices that support crass commercialism over pure art in some circumstances--you can both satisfy your soul and your accountant at the same time. It's a matter of which choices you're willing to make--and follow through on. Having said that, I see nothing at all wrong with small presses or specialty publishers and the people who both read and write for them. A great many successful writers spend an inordinate amount of time reading books that don't sell huge numbers of copies, and admit that a fair amount of their own inspiration comes from sources that are not household names. It's all part of the continuum, and there is nothing at all wrong with writing for publication in smaller venues if that's what you want to do. One can be just as influential in impacting the thoughts of a generation by inspiring a popular author as by being that author. It's part of why I would like to see some more people write explicitly Mormon stories that don't fall into the traditional DB/Covenant mold. I think there's a niche (between 2K and 20K readers right now; could be developed to a loyal group of 10-50K readers) out there who are interested in well-wrought stories that look at life as seen through the peculiar lens of Mormon spiritual constructs. I also believe that there's a breakout novel or two to be had from the currently active group of Mormon writers. Not a crap shoot, but a consistent statistical occurence--someone will tell the story that transcends the local or regional mind and speaks to larger community. When that happens, all who write Mormon stories will be raised one step higher in the food chain and greater opportunity will exist for tellers of overtly Mormon stories. Does that mean Mormons should only write Mormon stories? Of course not. We should tell the stories that meet our goals as humans and as writers. That Mormon fiction doesn't sell well only proves that it's a young market. No one particularly cared about shark stories until Peter Benchley knocked our socks off (or bit them off, as it were). No one cared about Greek weddings until a particular big fat one came along. No, it's not likely any given story will be the breakout piece--especially if it's only published through a regional press. Like it not, _The Christmas Box_ didn't really break out until it was picked up nationally--and after an enormous amount of dogged self-promotion by Brother Evans. Somewhere out there is a gifted author/huckster who can put it all together. I think I've met him--or at least his soul brother. In fact, I think I've met several candidates who could do equally well in the role. I'm just trying to figure out how to get that/those author(s) in front of a broad enough audience that mathematical probability has a fighting chance. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 19 May 2003 22:15:51 -0600 Andrew Hall wrote: > Someone mentioned OS Card's Lost Boys. He also did a couple of > horror novels in the mid-90s, The Treasure Box and Homebody. > Neither was particuarly horrific, and I thought they were among > his weakest novels. He did several horror short stories early on, which are > collected in: > _The Changed Man_ Tor, 1992. > Not all of them are really horror, but several are. I still > remember "Fat Farm" pretty well. The original short story of > Lost Boys is also in this collection. Hey, those were great > stories, I should read them again. It seems to me that Card actually started with something very much like horror, though with a vaguely sf twist. Stories like "Closing the Timelid" and "Euminides in the Fourth Floor Lavatory" and "Queitus" and even "Thoughts of My Head" would qualify as a sort of Weird Tales sort of horror. Other stories, like his short story "Kingsmeat" or his novel "Wyrms" certainly contain horrific elements, though I would stop short of calling them horror in the Dean Koontz vein. What I haven't seen a lot of are traditional horror stories from a Mormon standpoint. Unlike even the Jews with their golems and other homunculi, Mormonism doesn't really have a "dark side" of documented horrors. Yes, horrific stories of ordinarily horrible things happening to good people, but not a lot of theologically supported monsters, creatures, or ghouls, and no standard book of exorcism or counterspells to the dreaded seventh book of Moses. One could certainly speculate such things (we had a discussion over on the LDSF list a few years ago about clones being used as new homes for Legion and his compatriots in subversion of the correct order of things), but the lack of officially defined nasty critters seems like a pretty substantial hill to climb. It would require extraordinary imagination and delivery. Difficult, but possible. Who's up to the challenge? Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 2 Date: 19 May 2003 22:16:13 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Among J.C.'s many complaints about the church, were several that have = > come up in discussions among AML members, and about which I think each = > of us struggle-the faithful and the doubting alike. One of J.C.'s lines = > of complaint could be summarized simply as the following question:=20 > > "If the Church is true, why are there so many bozos in it?"=20 > > Or: "If the church is so true, why is there so much mediocrity in = > members of the church." Might I suggest Marden Clarke's fine essay "Liberating Form" as an interesting take on this question--or at least one that resonates strongly with it. I read it in his anthology of the same title; it was originally published in Dialogue, I believe, back in 1974 or so. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Alternative Press Date: 20 May 2003 20:21:16 -0600 I really wasn't thinking of finding an audience for anyone. I wasn't thinking of promoting Mormon Literature. I was thinking more along the lines of making a permanent record of something cool. A record that would last more than ten years. I know only ten copies of a book is really insignificant, but I don't think anyone could do more than that and still keep the cost at --0.00--. There are people who want to push Mormon literature and have it recognized--and it would be great if that happened--but I'm not one of those people. I want to make a record of Mormon literature. It's too easy to throw away a stack of papers. It's easy to lose something in a computer. But it's not easy to throw away something that looks cool. If your grandson came across a ratty-looking paperback that you had cherished, he would probably throw it away. But if he found a cool-looking book that was unlike any other book he had ever seen he would probably think there was something "Special" about it. He would probably keep it around--might even give it to his grandson. I might do only two or three books in my life, but each of those books will be a hundred times more likely to survive a hundred years. If you had read Scott Bronson's "The Whipping Boy" you would understand why this is important. Certain stories have to exist. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] FLETCHER, _Rule a Wife, Have a Wife_ Date: 21 May 2003 14:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Article from deseretnews.com 'RULE A WIFE' A DELIGHTFUL ROMP While Shakespeare's plays stay in heavy rotation hundreds of years later, one of his contemporaries, John Fletcher, who was every bit as famous as the Bard back in that day, has been left playing a distant second fiddle. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C505034185%2C00.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 21 May 2003 18:38:49 -0700 Don't worry. Buddhism isn't all that bad. I wanted to become a Zen student while I was selling vacuum cleaners for a living. But it didn't work out -- I was required to give up all attachments. (And yes, I do know of the Zen student who asked the hot dog vendor to make him one with everything...) Linda Kimball wrote: > > I have no idea why my essay (supposedly accessible from the Mormon section) > has a Buddhism header! :-) I never noticed that before. I imagine the > Buddhists are a little confused, too. > Linda > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Books on Tape Date: 21 May 2003 18:43:07 -0700 Thom Duncan wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > >Thanks -- this is the info I've gotten. I wonder how > >different this is > >from "reading" a Readers Digest Condensed Book. My guess is > >that RD won't > >cut out entire storylines. > > Wrong. Their edited version of _Jaws_ cut out a sub-plot where the > scientist character has an affair with the Police Chief's wife. I read > both versions, and, in this case, the RD version was much better. The > original was overwritten by about a hundred pages with a sub-plot of > gratuitous sex scenes. I kept saying, "Get back to the shark! Get back > to the shark!" > > Thom Duncan > The difference, I think, is that the "Dove" storyline is a major component of the story that the author was trying to tell. By omitting this part of the book (it may be more than 1/3 of the book!), you have to leave out some of the major LDS characters, and a part of the story that was clearly intended to be told. Maybe I'm wrong -- perhaps you have to read the book to see what I'm talking about. -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 22 May 2003 10:23:06 -0400 Do "most LDS" even know about this play? I'd never heard of it before this conversation came up. Granted, I'm bearly out of High School and haven't had time to discover all the Dirty Little Secrets of the World. But I'm pretty sure that if I surveyed my ward about what they thought of Kushner and his plays "most" of them would have no idea what I was talking about. Or maybe I'm the only one. ~Jamie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Alma 32 Date: 22 May 2003 09:11:03 -0600 In my last post, I cited Alma and mistakenly claimed that the seed of faith lesson was in Alma 34. I actually checked last night, and it was 32, sorry. Love, Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Beliefs on Trial Date: 22 May 2003 09:40:13 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David >and Dianna Graham > >I'm not trying to sound condescending. I'm sorry if this >comes off that way. I just think that we really need to be >careful how deeply delved we can get into the world in what we >read, watch, and create. On an ACTF trip some years back, >George Nelson was talking to one of the students about whether >or not to use some of the profanity written into her scene for >Irene Ryans. George made such a great comment. He pointed >out how the actors from the Y just stood out from the rest of >the actors so much. The cleanliness of our material was one >of those things that set us apart, and that our acting just >shined or something. (That was definitely paraphrasing). You >could probably guess what he meant, though. I totally agree. >Not to be prideful, be we were not allowed to depend on tricks >of any sort. We had to be much more imaginative. So how many awards did the BYU students win for their shining acting ability? Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 22 May 2003 11:04:20 -0600 Though to put things in the proper statistical context, "most" Mormons have never heard of Tony Kushner, far fewer will ever contemplate seeing one of his plays, and only some fraction of them will actually see one of his plays. It is highly unlikely that those who do would attend without a good idea of what to expect. Granted, the odds of inflicting offense on the audience would improve somewhat if, say, Angels in America were to show up on PBS and be carried by KUED. But then we could discuss the kind of Mormons who watch prime time PBS on a regular basis. The cultural worlds we occupy, even under the rubric of a common church or state, can be very self-selecting. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Ideas of Friendship Date: 22 May 2003 12:37:10 -0700 (PDT) This is a great topic to explore, and one I think we rarely delve into as LDS authors. Jonathan wrote: Most of our literature seems to be either internal to Church culture, or focusing on the inner life of the individual, or seeing the outside world as the opposition that (in some sense) must be faced. >From what I've read, when authors focus on the tension between LDS and non-LDS as friends, neighbors, and community members, it usually serves as more of a plot device to: 1) get the nons safely converted; 2) test the hero or heroine's adherence to Gospel principles when the nons go astray; or 3) point out how much better is the LDS way of life. Rarely do we see co-existence, tolerance, or genuine friendship as valid story resolutions. This seems to be particularly true of LDS romantic fiction. I've yet to see a novel where the LDS protagonist marries a non-member and it doesn't end in total disaster (followed, of course, by a romance with, and marriage to a worthy member). It would be great to see more works that deal with the friendship aspect, too. We tend to be such a peculiar people that we often forget we can actually love others without converting them. [Marie Knowlton] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] ROGERS, _Huebener_ Review (FW) Date: 22 May 2003 14:29:14 -0600 'Huebener' is a well-scripted, powerful piece By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret News theater editor HUEBENER, Black Box Theatre, Bountiful Performing Arts Center, through June 11 (294-7469). Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes (one intermission). BOUNTIFUL - This intense, emotionally moving drama focuses on the true-life story of a German teenager who - with three friends - attempts to thwart Hitler's Nazi regime. Helmuth Huebener is not just a daring young man, he's also a member of a tiny branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hamburg. Both he and his branch president - a member of the Nazi party - are torn between being true to their own ideals and one of the church's central beliefs: "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates . . . and sustaining the law." It's an awkward and dangerous time for both Huebener and President Arnold Zoellner in a drama that spans one year, from October 1941 to the fall of 1942 in war-torn Germany. (Playwright Thomas Rodgers, who wrote the play in the mid-1970s, is directing this first-ever Salt Lake-area production.) The mixed cast of seasoned performers and youthful talent gives the drama a realistic edge. Huebener and his young friends - played on Friday night by Chris Hunt, Matt Elggren, Mickell Wright and Nathan Keyes - deliver just the right touch of teenage bravado. They're out to change the world for the better, regardless of the cost. And for Huebener (Hunt), the cost is deadly. There are some fine performances - Bob Walkingshaw as the tormented President Zoellner, Candy Revels as Huebener's mother, Emma; Phil Edmunds and Rosemary Rogers as Emma's parents, and Shane Kester as the mean Nazi officer who tries - but fails - to beat Helmuth and his young colleagues into submission. Andrew Kirk is single-cast as Helmuth's half-brother, Gerhard, who gives the family a radio. (The fact that Gerhard is Emma's son by a previous marriage is not clear in the dialogue; this fact was gleaned from a copy of the script.) The radio is a key element in the drama. Helmuth's clandestine, nighttime sessions of listening to BBC broadcasts - and learning the truth about the German government's lies - is what motivates the young man to print inflammatory fliers (on the LDS branch's mimeograph machine), inciting people to question Hitler's motives. One of the most dramatic moments in the production is the first scene in Act Two, when President Zoellner asks the first counselor to give the opening prayer on Sunday morning - then has him read the prayer from a paper he's already written out for him. The first counselor (played on Friday night by the playwright) is obviously very uncomfortable with the situation - delivering a highly political, scripted prayer. This is followed by an announcement that Helmuth has been excommunicated- an act that takes the small congregation, and the lad's grandfather, by surprise. Later, in a German prison cell, Helmuth himself ponders what the Prophet Joseph Smith faced in Carthage Jail - "going like a lamb to the slaughter, but calm as a summer's morn." Rogers' script is powerful and provocative, but it could use some tinkering and tightening. The Bountiful Performing Arts Center's tiny stage also has some built-in problems. The scene changes are lengthy and noisy, detracting from the intensity of the unfolding drama. But "Huebener" is an important piece of literature, focusing on a major incident in the church's history in Europe. It deserves a broad audience. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 22 May 2003 14:31:44 -0600 'Massacre' Novelist May Face LDS Excommunication By Patty Henetz The Associated Press [printed in Salt Lake Tribune] Nineteenth-century polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre are hypersensitive subjects in Mormon history. Judith Freeman wrote about both in her 2002 novel, Red Water. Now she believes she may be excommunicated. In July, six months after the novel's publication, the president of the Los Angeles stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michael Fairclough, wrote Freeman a letter inviting her to meet with him "to discuss your feelings about the church and what, if anything, should be done about them." A lapsed Mormon who hasn't been to church for 30 years, Freeman said she found Fairclough's letter ominous, and considered it a disciplinary summons. "This letter was intended to silence or punish or intimidate me as a writer," she said. While Freeman hasn't been active in the church for decades, neither has she asked to have her name removed from membership rolls. The notion that church authorities might do that for her "brought up all kinds of feelings," Freeman said. "One of the feelings was, 'I'm about to be ejected from the tribe,' a tribe my ancestors had served for generations." In his letter, Fairclough said he was generally aware of her reputation as a gifted writer. "I am also aware of public reports that you have long since become disaffected with, and estranged from, the Church," he wrote. In an interview, Fairclough denied his letter was a prelude to church discipline. "I just wanted to talk to her," he said. "I haven't read the book. I've only read about it." In Red Water, which won a 2002 Utah Book Award, three of John D. Lee's wives tell the story of the 1857 massacre in southern Utah of more than 120 Arkansas pioneers bound for California. Lee, the adopted son of church prophet Brigham Young, was the only man found guilty for the killings. On March 23, 1877, he was taken back to the scene of the crime, where a firing squad sat him on his coffin and shot him to death. Church leaders at first blamed the massacre on Piute Indians, then on apocalyptic fanatics on the frontier led by Lee. Historians continue to argue about the tragedy to this day, with some saying church prophet Young incited the mob and allowed Lee to be his scapegoat. Others maintain Young couldn't have known the settlers would attack the wagon train. In 1999, crews preparing a new monument to honor the Mountain Meadows victims inadvertently uncovered the scattered bones of at least 28 adults and children, some of whose skulls bore bullet holes. The conclusion they'd been shot at close range implicated the Mormons. But at the dedication of the memorial, church prophet and President Gordon B. Hinckley, while saying the church had a moral responsibility to remember the victims, refused to acknowledge any church complicity in the massacre. "Let the book of the past be closed," he said. For years, the story of the killings had been suppressed. Freeman said that when she was growing up, she knew only vaguely that something terrible happened at Mountain Meadows, but she, like many other Mormons, believed Indians did it. In 1996, after three of her novels and a short-story collection had been published, Freeman discovered Juanita Brooks' 1950 history, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, and decided she had to write a novel about it. That meant she had to write about polygamy, too. Freeman said that as a child with polygamous ancestors on both sides, she was taught a romantic view of polygamy, that everyone was happy and everyone worked together. But as she immersed herself in the 19th century diaries, including those of her own ancestors, Freeman concluded that polygamy, which church founder Joseph Smith said was an edict from God, caused plural wives to suffer emotionally and physically from the hunger and harshness and emotional privations of their lives. The Mormon church outlawed polygamy in 1890. It excommunicates practitioners and denies any affiliation with modern-day polygamous sects that consider themselves the true practitioners of original Mormon doctrine. Lee was excommunicated in 1870 for his part in the massacre. The church quietly restored his membership in 1961. In Red Water, Lee's excommunication terrified his wives, dependent on him for sustenance on Earth and a place in heaven. Emma explains that "to be excommunicated was to become a pariah, an outcast, in this world, and to join the realm of the damned in the next." Freeman said Mormon doctrine on excommunication, ingrained in her since childhood, contributed to her dismay over Fairclough's letter. Other Mormon artists have run into similar trouble with the church. Tom Rogers in 1976 wrote the play "Huebener," the story of a 17-year-old German Mormon boy who was guillotined for resisting the Nazi party; his bishop was a party member trying to protect the church. After its initial run at Brigham Young University, Rogers was told he couldn't produce "Huebener" again. English professor Brian Evenson left BYU in 1995 for the University of Denver and eventually left the church amid Mormon criticism of the dark themes and parallels to Mormonism in his fiction. Playwright and film director Neil LaBute was barred from taking sacrament and participating in church priesthood activities for creating despicable Mormon characters. Meanwhile, interest in Mountain Meadows remains high. A history of the massacre, Blood of the Prophets, by Will Bagley, was published last year. Two other versions by journalists are about to be released, and church historians are writing their own book. "I think many people in the church would be relieved to face the truth because then they could move on," Freeman said. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 22 May 2003 16:54:17 -0500 Folks, I want to enlist your help and ideas with a project I am beginning work on. I will try to be brief. I am working on a paper about my grandmother, Wanda Snow Petersen. I think she embodies an important tradition in Mormon letters--the humble, dutiful compiler of family history stories, primarily for her family's benefit. Now, Grandma was not a professional writer (though she was friends with a couple of future standouts in her years at BYU--Sam Taylor and Virginia Sorenson). But she was a serious writer. She didn't look to make money off her writing, but she produced almost as much as someone who did. She was a state president of the League of Utah Writers and she belonged to the Pen Women for many years. She wrote for newspapers; she wrote a study of the Lehi Sugar Factory (which I think was commissioned by the Alpine School District); she compiled a book of stories about American Fork pioneers. She (self-)published half a dozen books of family history, three of which she tried to sell in bookstores with little success. She was a school teacher, a farm wife, "president of everything she joined" (to quote her daughter), and a lifelong (passionate) Democrat. Many of the strains of Mormon history come together in her life. She was a Snow (her grandfather was a brother of Erastus) with Mormon roots all the way back to Joseph Smith; her grandmother was a handcart pioneer from England. Her grandfather, and later her husband's family, were Danish immigrants. Both her parents were born of polygamy. And both were of Victorian vintage. She could write of the pioneer lifestyle (making soap and cutting rags for rugs; wash day and haymaking) because she had lived it to a great extent. The little towns in Carbon and Emery county where she grew up were among the last places in Utah (probably in the U.S.) to achieve "modernization." She did not have running water or electricity in her home until she was nearly 40. She was humble, self-effacing, and absolutely delightful. What I'm looking for is some contextualization of her life, and that of her generation. The general topic of this paper is LDS women in the 20th century. It's broad, and I'm not narrowing it down yet. I'm looking for suggestions for further reading, maybe for other studies that could serve as models. Some possibilities: **The writing of Mormon family history. Anything about this--the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers movement, for example. Or writing family history in general. There might be useful ideas in introductions to works that wouldn't otherwise apply--maybe someone who has written about his family. **Women writing about themselves; theories about women's writing, women's life stories. Also, writing biography or writing history. **20th century lives and the changes people like my grandmother witnessed in their lifetimes. (I'm reading "The Greatest Generation." It's not all that helpful because it's so focused on WWII but it is great reading.) I'm particularly interested in this in the Mormon context. Anybody know of good work on 20th century Mormonism? I know that I'm being very general here. And those suggestions are only a few possibilities. I'm hoping to jog your interests or memories. To that end, does anyone have any suggestions? You never know what might resonate or apply, so speak up. Thanks! Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 22 May 2003 17:12:03 -0700 (PDT) I'm sorry, but "The West Wing" has been sucking wind since 9/11. Remember two years ago at the close of season two, when Bartlet's MS secret had been exposed and a huge scandal had erupted. We know that Aaron Sorkin's template for his show was the Clinton administration, without the squalor. It was fairly obvious that his narrative plan for season three was to refight "the Clinton wars" only on Sorkin's terms: nasty Republicans try to destroy flawed but noble Democratic president. Donna was even slated to be the girlfriend of the House Republican counsel of the committee trying to impeach Bartlet. Then came the terrorist attacks, and that stuff suddenly seemed to most people to be a distant, sordid, trivial memory. Sorkin had to wrap up that storyline quickly in a few perfunctory episodes, and has been flailing around ever since trying to say something relevant about the new political situation. Thus the plotlines have gotten more and more "melodramatic" (some would say hysterical.) The show started out as a serious drama about politics, laced with literate, sophisticated comedy. Now its a soap opera and Sorkin's heart is no longer in it, since he's leaving now at the end of only four seasons. Joseph Smith once said, no man knows my history. You wouldn't believe it if I told you everything: I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't experienced it. And it was Philip Roth who said in the 1960's that the novelist was constrained by his imagination, whereas reality was constantly running away with itself, making it impossible for the artist to keep up. God does appear to be fond of melodrama, of spectacular surprises. Look at the course of Joseph Smith's life. Read the newspapers of the last twenty years about events both great and small. Read your own journals, if you keep them, and marvel at the transformations your own life takes over time. I've tried to watch "24" but can't get into it. Too much contrived adrenalin. God's surprises are at once sharper and more subtle than anything most American commercial television can come up with. That's why I'm so sorry to see "Buffy" go. Now there's a show that gives the mythic credit where it belongs: not to us, but to The Big Guy in charge of Everything. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 21 May 2003 18:41:04 -0700 There are several. There is the "Easy to Read BOM" and then there is a "Reading Guide to the BOM" which was, in earlier incarnations, "Mormon's Story" and then something else. I can easily get the details if there's interest. Of course, you do well to get the new version of BOM from the RLDS (Community of Christ) Church. It's the missionary edition, and they remove "and it came to pass" and modernize other language. It really makes a difference. Many will also remember "A Voice from the Dust," an early attempt to tweak the book to make it more readable. "Ronn! Blankenship" wrote: > > At 10:26 AM 5/19/03 -0600, Eugene Woodbury wrote: > > >Still, institutions like the church could greatly move things forward > >on their own, for example, by authorizing "modern" English language > >versions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Not > >that I'm expecting it to happen any time soon. > > Somebody did produce a so-called "modern English" version of the Book of > Mormon several years ago. (Probably somebody else here will remember the > details.) > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Gagging of Neil LaBute Date: 19 May 2003 22:18:07 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Put simply, it looks very much like Neil LaBute wrote a play somebody in > authority over him didn't like, and LaBute the artist has been subdued > and gagged as a result. Neil made a choice, as all of us do. Was the ecclesiastical authority correct? Don't know, and to a very real degree I don't care. If _The Matrix Reloaded_ has any actual philosophical content, it's the idea that the choices we're faced with are not always fair, and there's no such thing as absolute, unfettered, uninfluenced freedom. What I find interesting is that Neil looked at some aspects of his work and decided they were less important to him than active membership in the Church. Is he now less of an artist than he was before? I'm not sure why he would be. It's an artistic choice like any other. Neil made it. What might he have written if he hadn't decided to steer away from some stories? Who knows? It's an unanswerable question, and any claim that all of Neil's work must now be somehow diluted or less powerful is to do a great disservice to Neil the living artist, imo. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no choices to made, if we didn't have to stub off entire avenues of possibility by making certain choices? But from where I stand, that's the way the world operates. The best you can do is make your choices, take your chances, and do the best you can with what you have. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: Banned Book from Cedar Fort Date: 19 May 2003 22:19:22 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I'd refuse to allow the prurience, even if it meant losing the contract. > But showing Mormons as nutcases--maybe. Do all the devil possession > movies involving Catholics make Catholics look like nutcases, or do > people just realize it's meant as a sort of fantasy? Either way, it > wouldn't deter me from having the book published. But aren't the Catholics usually the good guys who ride in with their crucifixes, holy water, and published books of standard exorcisms, volumes one through three? The point being that the Catholics solve the problem rather than being the problem, and the question of the culture's general validity or specific theological correctness is never questioned--the crucifix always works, unless the single, solitary individual doesn't have sufficient faith to power it up. The institution itself is rarely on trial. Totally different animals. If we can tell stories with Mormons as both good and bad guys--*and portray both sides fairly*--without then going on to make grand interpretational statements about "Mormonism" then I'm game for it. Experience has taught me that most Mormon authors put Mormons in their stories either to prove or disprove Mormonism as a social or religious concept, rather than as a spiritual framework for establishing the peculiar and inventive neuroses of individual human beings. We need to grow up. Yes, some Mormon writers should defend The Faith, if that's the story they need to tell. But others should explore what faith as a general concept means from the viewpoint of one Mormon (just one, not all of them). We don't all have to grind our axes against the institution all the time in every story. Do we? We sure seem to spend a lot of time at it. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mom" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Date: 22 May 2003 23:50:10 -0600 You're right about this. I saw _Angels in America_ in Houston and I was the only person in my ward that had any interest in seeing it. I had to beg a friend to see it with me. Then I moved to Utah and needed to find someone to go with me to see _Peristroika_. I had to track down a former Mormon drama coach to see the play with me. I wouldn't have asked any of my ward members to attend the play with me. But, I certainly knew what to expect, before going to the play. Having seen Part I and Part II of _Angels in America_, I definately want to read the play. I just haven't gotten around to doing it. I have lived here 8 years and I still don't have any friends who I think would enjoy seeing _Angels in America_. Most members of the church have absolutely no interest in Kushner's play. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 23 May 2003 01:35:17 -0600 ___ Scott ___ | Unlike even the Jews with their golems and other homunculi, | Mormonism doesn't really have a "dark side" of documented | horrors. Yes, horrific stories of ordinarily horrible | things happening to good people, but not a lot of | theologically supported monsters, creatures, or ghouls, | and no standard book of exorcism or counterspells to the | dreaded seventh book of Moses. ___ I'm surprised you say this. I think we have a rather robust set of "monsters" that is, as I mentioned last week, well recorded by folklorists. Without descending into the folklore that only a few have possibly read, consider just what is published by General Authorities. We have the quaint tradition of Cain. The story (probably false) reprinted in _Miracle of Forgiveness_ of David Patten meeting a hairy man who walked along his wagon generated the folk tradition that Cain is Sasquatch. We thus have our own "wandering Jew" or even variation of Faustus in Cain. If that isn't an interesting monster story equal to all the Renaissance stories of golems gone awry, I don't know what is. Cain is marked not just so that others around him won't kill him, but so that he won't die. He becomes the evil (or pitiful) doppleganger of the three Nephites or John the beloved. We have an interesting variation on the old Enoch legends of the Watchers in which the fallen angels are actually a race of semisubstantial beings living here on earth. It is a ghost story done one up. For they hate humans and are in a conspiracy to degrade humans. In a sense it is the story of _X-Files_ only with a far more sinister overtone. Once you combine it with the remnant of John Birchers mixing politics and religion in High Priest lessons then things get really interesting. Given how many science fiction stories either intentionally borrow from the Enoch legends or unintentionally recreate it, it is interesting how our "Watchers" are so much more interesting and so tied to LDS conspiracy theories even in the scriptures. There are lots of other stories, such as the lamanite angels guarding the temple from sons of perdition. (I forget which temple: either the SLC or Logan) There is the story of the angel of light on the river in the D&C. Our "demons" are far more crafty and interesting than those in most horror stories. They are very intelligent and appear to work by manipulation rather than the crude violence of most horror novels. (Actually far more scary, in my mind) The notion of a devil in LDS thought always makes me think of the father in Hamlet. You recall the scene where the ghost of his father speaks to Hamlet? Yet the words the ghost speaks to Hamlet are in effect the parallel of the poison but in the father's ear by his brother. And in the play Hamlet's madness is partially faked but partially the result of this intrigue that throws the castle into turmoil. One can even speculate over whether the ghost is even Hamlet's father. of course after leaving that bit of "horror" the rest of the play is more traditional. But this notion of the "whisperer" or wormtongue is always prominent in literature and Mormonism has at least a few billion of them purportedly here on earth right now. If you want to change things around so the religious aspect isn't quite so "obvious" then make it a science fiction or fantasy story. What if there were a billion aliens on the earth that no one could see. Further what if they were trapped and became, over thousands of years, bitter towards the inhabitants of the earth. What would that be like? There are similar horror stories. Consider John Carpenter's _They Live_. Horrible movie in my opinion, but a fairly similar setup. The golem of Jewish Kabbalism became the Frankenstein story which was the forerunner of the robot gone out of control. (Hal being one famous modern example of the golem) The ultimate moral of these stories is the danger of power uncontrolled - the idea that technology can run amok. What is the moral of Cain? Probably the same as the wandering jew legend or the Faustus. One can't help but remember Byron's _Cain_ and wonder if it isn't a mixing of the two stories. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jen Wahlquist" Subject: RE: [AML] FLETCHER, _Rule a Wife, Have a Wife_ Date: 23 May 2003 07:53:27 -0600 I saw "Rule a Wife, Have a Wife" Wednesday evening and thoroughly enjoyed it. The acting and pacing are top rate. I particularly enjoyed the play's creative approaches -- modernizing the dialogue, setting the play in the California of the 1830s instead of in Spain, and slyly involving the audience in the action. If you arrive early enough to sit on the front row, you might end up with a small but enjoyable part in the play. Kudos to Eric. --Jen Wahlquist -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 23 May 2003 07:58:37 -0600 'Massacre' Novelist May Face LDS Excommunication By Patty Henetz The Associated Press [printed in Salt Lake Tribune] Nineteenth-century polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre are hypersensitive subjects in Mormon history. Judith Freeman wrote about both in her 2002 novel, Red Water. Now she believes she may be excommunicated. I have empathy for anyone who has lost his faith or who faces possible church discipline. I have empathy for those who may have to dish the discipline it out. However, this story has the fingerprints of Thomas Murphy's publicist all over it. First, where's the news? Freeman received her letter last July--almost a year ago. Why the sudden fuss now? Second, note the preemptive strike and that she's attributing all the meaning to the letter. Her stake president was pretty straight forward that he wanted just wanted to speak with her. (Have they, by the way?) Third, do you find it odd that an educated Mormon--one who has three published novels--didn't know about Juanita Brooks' "Mountain Meadows Massacre" until 1996? Yes, she's hasn't been to church in some 30 years, but Brooks' book stands side-by-side with Fawn Brodie's book as the most famous non-church, church book ever published (Brooks' book, of course, is the much, much better book). Finally, what's with the quote at the end? "'I think many people in the church would be relieved to face the truth because then they could move on,' Freeman said." The Mountain Meadows Massacre story has been out there since at least 1930 with BH Roberts' Comprehensive History and certainly since 1950 with Brooks' history. (My wife says she learned about it in seminary. I can't remember if I was, but then I slept through four years of seminary.) Seems to me that the only people who won't move on are those with a vested interest in keeping it, and anything else sensational about Mormonism, alive. I'm not sure Freeman has a vested interest, but those promoting her story do. Oh, Judith may have a vested interest after all. I note that the paperback edition of her novel, Red Water, was published last month. Maybe that's why a year-old letter is suddenly news. By the way, long-suppressed may have worked in 1930--maybe. Seventy-three years later, don't you think it's time to acknowledge that the story is no longer even close to suppressed? I mean Roberts, Brooks, even Joseph Fielding Smith (though he had more Indians than white men doing the deed) all wrote about it by 1950. Bagley's book last year. Two more coming out soon, and then a Church historian--Turley, I believe--is writing one. (Turley's book on the Hoffman affair, Victim, is the best of the lot on that matter.) And don't forget the Trib's on-going effort to keep the matter on the front pages--I remember something like a seven-part series on the Massacre a year or two ago. Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 23 May 2003 08:49:12 -0600 >From 'Massacre' Novelist May Face LDS Excommunication By Patty Henetz The Associated Press [printed in Salt Lake Tribune] "Other Mormon artists have run into similar trouble with the church. Tom Rogers in 1976 wrote the play "Huebener," the story of a 17-year-old German Mormon boy who was guillotined for resisting the Nazi party; his bishop was a party member trying to protect the church. After its initial run at Brigham Young University, Rogers was told he couldn't produce "Huebener" again." Does anyone on the list know the story here? I'm virtually certain that I've seen the play advertised at BYU one, maybe two times since 1991, but I could be mistaken since there is a documentary about Huebener sponsored by the College of Humanities called "Truth and Conviction," and the advertisements could have been for it. Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 23 May 2003 09:05:34 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Scott Parkin >There are only a very few people who can truly appreciate his >experience. The understanding and validation he seeks may >never come, because the number of people who know his pain is >small. Ah, the power of literature! This, imo, is where we LDS authors should spend most of our time -- in lifting up the hands of those who mourn. Let the official church teach the principles in black and white if they want, let their teachings offer watered-down principles to the majority of the Saints. But the LDS writer -- let us write about the truly downtrodden: those who fall through the cracks in our otherwise highly organized social system. For example, Margaret Young's _Heresies of Nature_ addresses issues a person will likely never find in a church publication. Our other artists fill similar gaps in the church's explanations about divorce, homosexuality, race relations, etc. They are called General Authorities for a reason. They teach the general populace with understandably generalized principles which may not seem to work in every situation. I have been a member for forty years, have attended every family relations class offered in Sunday School, have read the official church literature on marital relations but nothing prepared me to deal with my wife walking out on me after 30 years of marriage. But the book I am writing about this experience is helping me greatly and, I hope, will someday help others. We have a special mantle, I believe. Poets and prophets have similar mantles to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, only ours is more localized. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] re: Judith Freeman Excommunication? Date: 23 May 2003 09:51:26 -0700 'Massacre' Novelist May Face LDS Excommunication By Patty Henetz The Associated Press [printed in Salt Lake Tribune] Nineteenth-century polygamy and the Mountain Meadows Massacre are hypersensitive subjects in Mormon history. Judith Freeman wrote about both in her 2002 novel, Red Water. Now she believes she may be excommunicated. In July, six months after the novel's publication, the president of the Los Angeles stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michael Fairclough, wrote Freeman a letter inviting her to meet with him "to discuss your feelings about the church and what, if anything, should be done about them." A lapsed Mormon who hasn't been to church for 30 years, Freeman said she found Fairclough's letter ominous, and considered it a disciplinary summons. "This letter was intended to silence or punish or intimidate me as a writer," she said.... **************************************************************************** ******** I will have to say, I have not read Freeman's novel. You know, I love the Salt Lake Tribune, but once in a while they go around digging up stories that have strong heresaical elements. Here's what I mean. Imagine you are Judith Freeman's stake president. What would your responsibility be? If I were he, I would be concerned for the eternal welfare of all those I had stewardship over. For liberal media, a discussion between a stake president and an author automatically becomes a witch hunt, when I would think this is further from the truth than can possibly be imagined. Freeman hasn't been active in the church for 30 years. Perhaps she's been stewing about religion, about her personal testimony, and perhaps she needs some spiritual guidance and encouragement. Perhaps her stake president hears about her book, and realizes that the timing might be right for a meaningful dialogue on spiritual matters. Before the Tribune attempts to lynch stake presidents, I think they need to back off. How did the Tribune hear about this story? Obviously Freeman approached the media about it as the church does not broadcast the who, what, when, where of stake president interviews. I don't know. Now that Freeman has really gone public with her concerns with the church, with her alleged dissatisfaction with the church, perhaps excommunication is best for the healing process of separation from your baptismal covenants. Do excommunication proceedings need to all be public? What about the healing process of the soul? Where is there room for the artist to heal when s/he is undergoing some egotrip with their name in the headlines. If Freeman is going public with her concerns, obviously she doesn't understand the role of her stake president, and obviously she is out of line. "For The Tribune is an honorable newspaper, so are they all, all honorable newspapers." Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 21 May 2003 10:59:08 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > While I'm pretty sure I understand the point(s) you're making here (be true to > the story you want to tell and don't pander to a particular audience at the > expense of that story), I have to say that I violently disagree with the idea > that we should steer clear of writing stories that make us uncomfortable. I disagree with that idea too. My idea was that you should steer clear of writing stories that make you uncomfortable if you won't write the uncomfortable story, but will water it down to where it's comfortable. > How you draw the line as to what details to include or not is a matter that only > the individual author can address. Tell the story truly. But I also believe that > there are many ways that the same author can tell the same story truly. One way > might require explicit detail, ugly situations, or foul language. Another might > require none of that. But both can be equally powerful and true. That's fine with me, as long as the story isn't compromised. If you get around the difficult part by being ingenious and creative and coming up with an approach that maintains the story's power, like some people enjoy pointing out that the Hayes rules for films way back when forced filmmakers to be more creative about presenting certain things and may have actually made the films better, then go for it. If you compromise the power in the name of appropriateness, then I believe you're artistically sinning. But what I can't help but wonder is, why can't we have both worlds? Why can't we not shy away from the difficult things _and_ be ingenious and creative in our presentation? Wouldn't that enhance the power of the story? For me, the Hayes argument is merely a disguised attempt to promote appropriateness over artistic integrity. > So rather than shying away from a story because our first inclination is to tell > in one way using one set of esthetic assumptions that we're not comfortable > with, I would argue that we should press ourselves to find other ways to tell > that story truly that don't violate our esthetic. Isn't that part of art? To > choose a form and the limitations it imposes and work to reach beyond the easy > and the obvious to something more concentrated and powerful? Not really. That can be an approach to art. But truly great artists have been those who break the limitations of a form and still produce something great--something even greater that could never have been created had the limitation been honoreds. Beethoven comes to mind. ALl the great romantic composers come to mind, who cast aside the classical limitations. > Let the other guy work according to his own devices. Always, that's a subtext of anything I say. But if I believe his choices compromise the power of his story, I'll be vocal about it in my role as critic. -- 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] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 21 May 2003 11:06:32 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > > Dianna Graham wrote: > > > Here's what's been on my brain lately, though. Do some Latter-Day Saints > > who are trying not to be stuck in a fluffy little bubble seek out grit in > > their reading and viewing? Do we ever tell ourselves the lie "Out there is > > the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it"? > I think this is a fascinating question. Do Mormons seek out the spiritually > dangerous *specifically in order to address and overcome it,* thus making of > themselves more well-rounded spiritual beings? Should they? > > My simple response is that I see no reason to seek out the ugly; it tends to > find me whether I'm looking for it or not. This represents what frustrates me about this whole topic. Scott pegged it exactly. Those who like their art "appropriate" think we artists who push the Deseret Book envelope are just trying to be boat rockers. We are trying to go out and find ugliness and include it in our art just to irritate Deseret Book customers or ingratiate ourselves with Babylon. Scott reveals the truth. Ugliness finds us, and we want to come to terms with it in our art, without the artificial and (in my opinion) counterproductive if not downright destructive limitations that the word "appropriate" represents. Here's my simple and probably soon-to-be-trash-compacted metaphor: we spill something on the carpet and want to grab a cloth to wipe it up. Deseret Book customers scold us for getting the nice white cloth all dirty. Can't we wipe over there where it's already clean, where there is no spill to slime up the cloth? -- 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: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 23 May 2003 14:30:02 -0600 Juanita Brooks, Quicksand and Cactus, an autobiography of her first 30 years, or Levi Peterson's Biography of her. Alan Mitchell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "webmaster" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report 16 May 03 Date: 23 May 2003 16:39:25 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 16, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 23 Piglet's Big Movie 160,251 373 59 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 22,822,301 25 The Shape of Things 135,004 60 10 Neil LaBute 384,365 (writer/director/producer) 64 Final Destination 2 27,585 42 108 A.J. Cook (2nd-billed actor) 46,896,664 70 The Core 21,407 94 52 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 30,625,303 73 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 19,459 9 829 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,603,104 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 81 The Cremaster Cycle 14,509 2 24 Mathew Barney 59,162 (writer/producer/director/actor) 95 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 6,912 3 1109 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,223,374 127 China: The Panda Adventure 1,189 2 661 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,046,462 JUNE 3RD RELEASES - "A Pioneer Miracle" is expected to hit store shelves on video and DVD June 3rd, 2003 with a suggested retail price of $11.95. This short LDS-themed film from director/cinematographer T.C. Christensen stars Caitlin E.J. Meyer. Production designer: Darin Andersen ("Handcart", "Y2K"). Thomson Productions is the distributor. T.C. Christensen's films have been among Thomson's best selling titles. Other films distributed by Thomson and directed by Christensen include "Mouth of Babes", "The Touch of the Master's Hand" and "Bug Off!" Christensen is currently in pre-production stages on the feature film adaptation of "Saturday's Warrior," which he will co-direct with Elizabeth Hansen and also serve as Director of Photography. We were invited to a screening of "A Pioneer Miracle" but were unable to attend. However, having seen many Christensen films we are certain that this will be a high-quality production which will look fantastic. Christian Vuissa's award-winning LDS-themed short film "Roots & Wings", which for months now has only been available on video from BYU and from LDS Video Store, will also be available for the first time ever on DVD on June 3rd. Thomson is the new distributor of "Roots & Wings" on video and DVD. The director has said that the DVD will have a director's commentary track. "Roots & Wings" received the AML (Association for Mormon Letters) Award for Film last year as the best Latter-day Saint film of the year. In receiving this award, "Roots & Wings" was specifically chosen over films such as "Out of Step" (named by AML as a runner-up), "The Snell Show" (the short film which won the highest award at this year's Slamdance Film Festival, also named as an AML Award runner-up this year), "Jack Weyland's Charly" (which received an AML award for screenplay adaptation), and two theatrical releases not cited by AML: "The Singles Ward," and "Handcart." The theatrically released feature film "Handcart" will also hit shelves June 3rd, with a special edition double-disc DVD, a video (also featuring the new special edition re-edited and enhanced version of the film). The soundtrack CD is also being released that day. Work on the Handcart DVD and video release by the folks at Shinebox has pushed back the DVD release of their science fiction feature-length film "Missy." But once "Handcart" is released, they will finish preparing "Missy" for its long-anticipated DVD release. "Missy" and "Handcart" both star Jaelan Petrie. Petrie is also one of the stars of the upcoming Bill Shira feature film "Where Rivers Meet." Petrie, a blend of the best aspects of Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, and Vin Diesel also stars in Shinebox's short film "Sea Angel" (now in post-production), and he has a brief role as a bigoted anti-Mormon mugger in John Lyde's popular direct-to-video film "The Field is White." * * * DE AZEVEDO AND SATURDAY'S WARRIOR - We have confirmed that Lex de Azevedo is slated to be the composer for the upcoming "Saturday's Warrior" feature film. De Azevedo is the original composer of the music that combined with Doug Stewart's writing and lyrics to create the "Saturday's Warrior" stage musical. de Azevedo's only real previous theatrical releases are "The Swan Princess" (1994) and "Swan Princess 2". He also scored the feature-length family films "Baker's Hawk" (1976), "Against a Crooked Sky" (1975) and "Where the Red Fern Grows" (1974), some of which may have had very minor theatrical releases. "Baker's Hawk", at least, was shown some in theaters. Most of de Azevedo's film scoring work has been for videos, including tons of Living Scriptures videos, "In Search of Ancient Cumorah", "My Turn on Earth" with Carol Lynn Pearson, "A Time to Love" with Carol Lynn Pearson, the Church film "The Lost Manuscript", and "Gloria: The Life of Christ" (executive produced by Sheri Dew). HAIRY TALE DIRECT TO VIDEO - It had been expected that "Hairy Tale" starring Roma Downey (star of the recently ended Utah-filmed "Touched by an Angel" TV series) and non-churchgoing Latter-day Saint actor Matthew Modine was going to be released this past weekend. However, Warner Bros. has removed this movie from their theatrical schedule altogether. Expect it to premiere on cable or video sometime later this year or maybe in 2004. ON LABUTE - Articles about BYU graduate Neil LaBute appeared in both the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune this week Excerpt from the Salt Lake Tribune article: [QUOTE] What LaBute will not be writing soon will be stories with overtly Mormon characters. After his 1999 trilogy of one-act monologues, "Bash: Latter-day Plays," LaBute -- who converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during his days at BYU -- was disfellowshipped by his local ecclesiastical leaders. LaBute is working to restore his status as a participating church member, in part by avoiding writing about LDS characters. "Beyond that, I'm just trying to be a guy who thinks through everything that comes out of his pen, rather than just letting it flow," LaBute said. His disfellowship "is not a final state. You have to either move forward or backward. I hopefully am moving in a positive direction." When asked if he considers himself a good Mormon, LaBute said, "I do, but one can always be better. In my case, I could probably be a lot better. I'm a couple rungs down, but I've still got some climbing strength in me." [END QUOTE] Scores from Reviews Nationwide given to Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things": Numerical average of these graded scores: 70.2 (out of 100). RottenTomatoes.com freshness score: 66.3%, 83 reviews counted: 55 positive; 28 negative. RUNELORDS STILL MOVING FORWARD - These things take time, so be patient, but as anticipated, Runelords seems to be moving ever so slowly closer to the big screen. The Runelords series is written by active Latter-day Saint writer Dave Wolverton, under name "Dave Farland." Wolverton, a convert to the Church, lives in Utah County with his family. He is probably the best-selling LDS science fiction author writing today, aside from Card and Hickman. From http://www.scifi.com/sfw/current/news.html: [QUOTE] Runelords Film Optioned - Story Island Entertainment, Origin Entertainment and Entertainment Business Group have acquired the feature-film and game rights to the best-selling fantasy novel series The Runelords by David Wolverton, writing as David Farland, Variety reported. Terry Kahn will write the film script; the film will be produced by Wolverton, David McBrayer and Richard Shaw at Origin and EBG's Rob Holt and John J. Lee Jr., the trade paper reported. The first Runelords novel was published in 1997, followed by Brotherhood of the Wolf and Wizardborn. This fall the fourth installment in the series, Lair of Bones, will be released by Tor, a division of St. Martin's Press, the trade paper reported. The film is being readied for a fall 2004 theatrical release, with the first role-playing video game intended to hit retail shelves in time for the 2004 holiday season, the trade paper reported. [END QUOTE] In other Latter-day Saint-related science fiction/fantasy news, SciFi.com reported: "Ashton Kutcher's agent told IGN FilmForce that rumors about his starring in a Knight Rider movie are only that. 'It's a possibility, but that's all,' the agent said. 'He hasn't even seen a script.'" [The popular syndicated "Knight Rider" TV series was created by legendary Latter-day Saint television writer/producer Glen A. Larson. Here's the fun question to ponder: Which leading LDS science fiction writer will win the race to have one of his works adapted to the big screen? Of course, Card's "Ender's Game" is supposed to be with a studio... A ton of Card's other works are optioned... Hickman was one of the primary creators of "Dungeons & Dragons," which was made into a movie, but that movie wasn't a direct adaptation of one of his books or stories. I think it's impossible to guess who will have something in theaters next. Of course, all of these guys are latecomers compared to LDS science fiction writers of previous generations. The late Raymond F. Jones was as popular and important as Orson Scott Card in his day, and his book "This Island Earth" was adapted into the same-titled 1955 movie which was the "Star Wars" of its decade. A short story by LDS author Samuel W. Taylor was the basis for Disney's huge hit "The Absent Minded Professor" (1961), its sequel "Son of Flubber" (1963) and the 1997 Robin Williams movie "Flubber" (1997), as well as a 1988 TV movie. There's also been some small screen adaptations of LDS s.f. authors' writing. Zenna Henderson's "People" stories were adapted into a not-so-great 1972 TV movie starring William Shatner. It's almost certain that they'll see a quality big-screen adaptation some day (aside from the Disney "Witch Mountain" movies which many people think ripped off Henderson's stories). James C. Christensen's book _Voyage of the Basset_ was adapted as the TV miniseries "Voyage of the Unicorn" (2001), which is really quite good and under-appreciated. And we're not even counting Latter-day Saint screenwriters who have written screenplays made directly into science fiction feature films, TV movies and TV series. These include: Ken Daurio, Cinco Paul, David Howard, Brian Nissen, Glen A. Larson, Ernie Wallengren, Bruce Neibaur, Boyd Kirkland, Chris Conkling, Leo D. Paur and Glenn L. Anderson. SPEAKING OF LDS SCI-FI - The official website for the upcoming Battlestar Galactica miniseries is at: http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/. The miniseries will premiere on the Sci-Fi Channel in December 2003. The site includes info about the release of the video games, the brand new DVD of the movie and the TV series, and the new miniseries. Battlestar Galactica was created by Latter-day Saint TV producer and writer Glen A. Larson, and featured many motifs and themes drawn directly from LDS doctrine, practice and history. Larson does not appear to be involved in the creation of the miniseries, which was written by Ronald D. Moore of "Star Trek" fame and directed by Michael Rymer (director of the 2003 Anne Rice adaptation "Queen of the Damned"). CONTROVERSIAL LDS WRITER PLOTS TO DESTROY MANKIND - Many newspapers ran this story. One source is here: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=276487 7 Sci-Fi Legend Card Lends Words to New Video Game Sun May 18, 2003 02:03 PM ET By Ben Berkowitz LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Science fiction novelist Orson Scott Card sees the future -- create a story that will beget a video game that, in turn, gives birth to both a book and a movie. Then go to the bank. In collaboration with privately held game developer Majesco Sales, Card is writing the dialogue and helping to cast voice actors for a new video game called "Advent Rising," in which an alien species tries to destroy mankind before it can unite the universe. Card, a tall man with a dry wit and a very public sense of spirituality, has written numerous novels contemplating alternate histories and the salvation of mankind. He says the new project is in many ways no different. But he is doing more than just writing the game -- when it is done, he told Reuters he plans to write a book based on the game's story, the first in a planned trilogy. And there is more to come. "We have dreams of making it work as a movie," he said in an interview at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, the games industry trade show that ended on Friday. The game is intended to focus heavily on the idea of humans and their moral and personal power. "We're going a long way past the 'shoot-everything-that-moves' kind of games," Card said. "There are choices, really brutally hard choices, you make that affect game play from a moral standpoint," he said. Card was the first author to win the science fiction Hugo and Nebula prizes for best novel two years in a row. But rather than galactic flights of fancy, his books, like "Ender's Game" and "Seventh Son," all have a more serious side to them, a sense that he intends to bring to the video game world. FULL ARSENAL The new game, set for release in the spring of 2004, starts the player out with a full arsenal of weapons, rather than the traditional model of starting with nothing. "You become the weapon," said Donald Mustard, the designer on the PC and Xbox game for developer GlyphX. "You feel like the power is in you and the tools you get," Card added. Card, who at one time served as a Mormon missionary in Brazil, co-wrote the musical "Barefoot to Zion," which was part of the Mormon Church's celebration of the 150th anniversary of its settlers' arrival in Utah with his brother, Arlen Card. He also writes a Web log called The Ornery American (http://www.ornery.org/). But for the moment he is occupied with the game, which he and Majesco plan to make the foundation for a movie. Card is directly involved in casting the actors who will provide the voices for the title. "I'll be there to rewrite around actors," he said. The author, who has worked with game companies like Lucas Arts in past and whose son is a game developer, said that beside writing has always been interested in both games and other performance arts like stage directing. "I sort of kept my hand in here and there," he said. "For me the novels are a sideline." MOYER SPEAKS OUT - John E. Moyer, the screenwriter of "The Singles Ward" and "The R.M." weighs in on the state of LDS Cinema on his personal web site. These are provocative articles, and we suggest that most people should NOT read it. No offensive language or anything, but his ideas are NOT what you usually hear from filmmakers and writers. And he talks numbers. And he names names. (Actually, what we really mean is that you should read these articles - RIGHT NOW! - that is, unless you are faint of heart or worried he might be writing about you.) Nuts and bolts ideas about LDS Cinema financing, production and distribution. http://www.johnmoyer.net/a_lot_of_people_are_weighing_in.htm http://www.johnmoyer.net/a_lot_of_people_are_weighing_in_part_2.htm http://www.johnmoyer.net/a_mighty_change_of_heart.htm AUDITION NEWS FROM AND ACTION! ACTORS STUDIO - Tiffany Goodenough with CustoMovie is casting a short film in SLC, UT. [Forwarded from Michelle K. Wright, And Action! Actor's Studio] Auditions for our movie titled "13:59" We will be filming June and July. Each scene will have a different cast and will take about one day each. Non-paying, we will feed our cast on the day we shoot. Auditions will be Tues. May 20th at Murray Park, SLC, UT - Pavilion #1. Auditions will be from noon to 4:00 pm. Scripts will be at the audition. Contact us at contact@customovie.net to let us know if you can make it. The movie is a short, about 20 minutes long. It will be sent to as many film festivals as we can afford to, starting with Sundance. Credits will be given to anyone who is willing to help out, and if by some chance the movie makes money, everyone will be paid. PG 13 Rating. Language, Brief, mild adult content. Synopsis: Every country panicked during WW3. Every bomb on the planet is set off and they are all in the air. The earth will be totally annihilated within 13 hours and 59 minutes. We are showing what people around the world are doing on their last day of life. What would you do in your last 14 hours of life? CAST BREAKDOWN: Men and women 18- 40s Man, Woman 65+ Woman-early 20s, beautiful, must know how to dance Woman petite 3 teenage boys woman early 30s athletic woman 50-60 years old 4 men 20s athletic 2 children brown hair (male or female) 5 kids any age heavy set man Chinese women Women and men who can speak with an English accent Men who can speak with and Australian accent Men and women with mid-eastern look (pass for Afghanistan) We could also use an extra hand for crew who has worked on lighting and production design and has an open schedule Thanks Tiffany Goodenough CustoMovie productions contact@customovie.net DAY OF DEFENSE SINGER AUDITIONS - VOCAL AUDITIONS will be held Thursday, 6-9 p.m., at Spirit West Studios, 2525 S. State, for one of the theme songs for the soundtrack of a new film, "Day of Defense." Experienced male and female vocalists, 18 or over, are invited to audition. Come prepared with a one-minute solo. Bring a minus track CD or tape. There will also be a piano at the studio but not an accompanist. You may also sing a capella. Any style can be used for the audition, but the producers are looking specifically for pop/rock music. Audition times will be based on the order of arrival. Those arriving before 6 or after 9 will not be seen. This is a paid job and requires the signing of a contract, if selected. Those who already have a label or an agent may have to obtain a waiver. You must be willing to sign a waiver at the audition to allow filming of the audition piece. For further information, contact Saline Hunsaker by e-mail only at salina@dayofdefense.com. FILM ACTING CLASS FOR KIDS - Rob Diamond and The Actor's Lounge is proud to announce "Lounge Kids"; the first and only film acting class for kids taught by Heather Whelan. We cover Auditioning, Cold Reading, Scene Study, Business Basic and Self Esteem. Classes are Tuesdays from 4:30 to 6:30 at the Redman Movies and Stories Building at 1240 E 2100 S in Sugarhouse on the Fifth floor. (Private lessons are also available.) As always, The Actor's Lounge studies every Thursday and Saturday for adults of every level. Come see why The Lounge produces some of the best talent in Salt Lake City. Call Heather Whelan at 801-550-0149 to reserve your spot. LIKEN THE SCRIPTURES - From http://www.onesouthstudios.com/lts/index.htm: Liken The Scriptures is a series of Movie-Musicals centered around the Book of Mormon. 6-year-old Spencer Anderson has a hard time paying attention in Primary. Fortunately, his Primary teacher, Sister Larsen, knows just what Spencer needs in order to make the scripture stories exciting, and all it takes is a little imagination. But not even Sister Larsen can predict the amazing outcome of Spencer's imagination. Join Spencer in his imagination, where Book of Mormon stories not only come to life, but turn into full musical productions! Discover wholesome musical entertainment ideal for your family's library, which just happens to be centered on scripture stories! The humor and content are appropriate and exciting for all ages -- even the grown-ups! Soon, your entire family will be "Liken the Scriptures!" In Episode 1: Nephi And The Brass Plates, we meet Nephi -- young, strong, handsome, and very optimistic (too much so, according to certain brothers). Though he and his brothers have different attitudes about the challenge of getting the brass plates from Laban, they make the journey, only to discover that the very eccentric Laban does NOT want to give up any of his precious riches. Songs include Nephi's upbeat "Life Could Not Be Better," and a stirring duet between Nephi and Sariah entitled "Thy Arms Around Me." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 23 May 2003 21:58:07 -0600 "gtaggart" wrote:> "Other Mormon artists have run into similar trouble with the church. > Tom Rogers in 1976 wrote the play "Huebener," the story of a > 17-year-old > German Mormon boy who was guillotined for resisting the Nazi party; his > bishop was a party member trying to protect the church. After its > initial > run at Brigham Young University, Rogers was told he couldn't produce > "Huebener" again." He may have been told that in 1976, but I saw Huebner at BYU in the 80's. Maybe it was in '88. I also saw "Road to Golgotha," another play of his, at about the same time. Maybe that was in '82. I guess that proves that even literate people are given to gossip. I'm thinking some people like to pretend they are persecuted for there art. Maybe that validates their art. Maybe that validates them as human beings. Maybe it's true some people are persecuted for their art, but I have to think maybe they're being persecuted because they're pricks and art is just a scapegoat. This Freeman thing sounds fishy to me. It almost sounds like it was planned, like a marketing ploy. I mean, the story was in the paper even before she found out what the stake president wanted to say. (Hey, maybe we can raise interest in your book if we start a rumor that the Church is displeased by it. And you can pretend to be distraught for some reason. Like maybe you care about being ostracized from something you choose to neglect 30 years ago.) Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: [AML] Re: Beliefs on Trial Date: 24 May 2003 00:41:07 -0400 I want to respond to a couple of threads here: "Beliefs on Trial" and "Artists' Personal Lives, or just Good Readin'". I'll apologize in advance for disjointedness. hopefully it will all make some sense. In her original post, quite some time ago, Dianna Graham poses this question: "Here's what's been on my brain lately, though. Do some Latter-Day Saints who are trying not to be stuck in a fluffy little bubble seek out grit in their reading and viewing? Do we ever tell ourselves the lie "Out there is the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it"?" initially i responded to Dianna's mention of Kushner's play in her post. but i want to reply to this, too. i object to the entire premise of the question. i don't read what i read or watch what i watch because i'm "trying not to be stuck in a fluffly little bubble". and i don't read what i read or watch what i watch because i'm seeking grit or dregs or slime or dirt. i consume the art i love because i seek truth and beauty. i don't think i'm in a bubble. being concerned with such a thing strikes me as all wrong. it has to do with the surface rather than the substance. it's like listening to a certain radio show only because i think it's the expected thing to do rather than becuase i enjoy it. i don't even think twice about whether it's expected (by anyone, mormon or non) that i read certain books or watch certain movies. i read something because *I* want to. anything else is pure hypocrisy. and i don't consider the art that i consume to be grit. i don't think it's dirt or slime. i think it's art. it's a subjective thing. so i believe kushner's play to be a work of genius and dianna does not. neither of us is wrong. i would simply ask that you not judge my choice of which art i will consume as being a choice to wallow in the mire in the name of gaining experience. it is a choice to partake of something that i believe to be beautiful and uplifitng. and i approach every work of art i consume with the intent to find the beauty therein so i can leave edified. about a month ago, i did something i had never before done. i threw away a book. _lo's diary_ by some italian woman whose name escapes me. it's a re-write of _lolita_, which i love. i thought it would be interesting to read the same story from the perspective of lolita. it was a waste of my time. i didn't throw it away because it was smut or dirty or represented dregs, though i'm sure many people would have called it those things. i threw it away because it did nothing in order to help me gain a more perfect understanding of my world and of the truth. in essence i agree with dianna. i won't partake of something that makes me feel dirty or degraded. i won't consume art that does not provide me with a more complete understanding of the world. i would simply ask that i not be identified as a *seeker* of dregs and grit because i am willing to read something that contains "dirty" language or to watch a film that portrays sexual acts. in a more recent post, dianna relates her experience with friends who forwarded her objectionable material through email and explains that she felt like the didn't value her as much as the filth they passed on to her. she then compares this situation to the relationship between an author/work/actors and the audience. but i don't think the comparison works. there is a vast difference between a personal relationship and the relationship between a piece of art and an audience. i don't think it's the place of the actors to wonder about how the audience will feel at seeing them nude on stage or screen. i think it is their responsibility to do their best to create a work of art, one that has the power to potentially move their audience. and i believe the audience needs to partake of a work of art responsibly. they must determine for themselves what their threshold is for violence, language, and sex or any other potential content of art. if an author wants to reach a certain audience and knows that said audience is highly likely to object to foul language or graphic sex, then it is the author's responsibility to not include material that will prevent him from reaching his chosen audience. but that is the extent of his limitations--his own choice of audience. i hope this doesn't sound cold, but of course the individual members of an audience mean nothing to the actors and the author of a play. why should they? this is the thing about art. it is a dialogue. but it is the strangest possible kind of dialogue because it does not exist between two individuals who can make equal contributions. it leaves the author as an object. something that he can no longer mold and change. something he can't really explain any further. and the moment it is consumed it changes, evolves, melds according to the experiences and the contexts and the beliefs of the individual who consumes it. if an author spent his time trying to anticipate all of the possible reactions to his work, he wouldn't ever complete the work. i don't really believe completely in art for art's sake or that art is divorced from its audience and its culture. but i do believe it to a certain extent. in a recent issue of the UTNE Reader, Toni Morrison is quoted as saying something (major paraphrase) along the lines of how important it is to just let the beauty of the world be enough. to just let it be without having to share it or record it. it is enough that beauty simply exists. and somehow i think an artist, a true artist, lets the creation of his work be enough. it is created for itself and for the artist himself. yes, it will be consumed and criticized and loved and hated. but just the act of creation itself was enough, even if it was never shared. so i don't buy the idea of a relationship between the artist and the audience that dictates that the artist must be careful to not trod on the toes of the audience. i believe, instead, the audience must simply keep its toes from being trod on. that means that when the audience has had enough of being "abused" they do have and hopefully will exercise the right to say enough, to paraphrase dianna. i very much believe that we choose what we see. i know so many people who hate bad language, for instance. and every time they hear it, they're offended. well, wouldn't it be better if every time we heard it, we didn't hear it? does that make sense? i think that by letting ourselves be so attuned to the presence of something marginally bad that it bothers us intensely everytime we encounter it, we are actually letting that bad thing exercise an inordinate amount of control over our minds. i have some very dear friends, for instance, who swear. now i could have met these people and been so horrified that they swear in their common speech that i never got to know them. but then i would be missing out on something beautiful in my world. i wouldn't know people who have helped me change who i am for the better. and all because i let a word exercise undue control over my mind. please. we have more strength than that. i hear the argument all the time that we shouldn't subject ourselves to bad things because even if it doesn't keep us entirely from spiritually progressing, couldn't we progress more if we weren't around such things? but i could argue on the other hand that wouldn't it be better to overlook the bad and let the beautiful and the true nourish us; that it would be better and we would grow more if we spent less time worrying about the existence of the ugly and concentrating on the beauty that co-exists quite peacefully with it. i don't make either argument, though. it's too personal. every individual has their threshold and it is for them to determine where it is and what they should and should not partake of in order to maintain their optimum spiritual growth. so dianna won't read kushner's play because it will abuse her. and i will read it and enjoy it and continue to be just fine with the fact that many others will not. but i won't read the novels of cormac mccarthy and i'm leary to read the works of brian evenson because graphic violence upsets me. and my friend ed in the meantime will continue to find mccarthy to be one of the greatest novelists of our time. amelia _________________________________________________________________ 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: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] BYU Actors Date: 23 May 2003 23:16:55 -0600 Thom asked: >So how many awards did the BYU students win for their shining acting ability? Can anyone help and confirm this for me? I don't know about the years when I wasn't officially a student at the Y (and I'm going to include my mission time in this) but between 1993 and 1998, three of our students (Kevin Rahm, Mireille Enos, and Stephanie Breinholt) won the National Irene Ryan's competition. Also, Jason Tatom and Colleen Baum were finalists on the National level. We've had a few random ACTF awards here and there, AND in 1999, when the semi-finalists for the our region were announced, six of us were BYU students. Now, Thom, was that just an inquiry or a bit of sarcasm? Dianna -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marvin Perkins" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] _The Eleventh Hour_ Press Release Date: 27 May 2003 12:42:38 -0500 Hello Friends; Many of you have been asking how you can help to support the documentary headed up by BYU Student Body President Rob Foster. Here is information obtained from Rob. Thanks in advance for your continued support, and I personally can't wait to see the finished product. Marvin Perkins Director African American Relations Southern California Public Affairs Council The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ---------- Press Release: The Eleventh Hour: Blacks in the LDS Church During the inflammatory civil rights battles in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s, many blacks joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a church with a racist reputation for their history of denying blacks the opportunity for ordination into the LDS Church Priesthood until 1978. This feature-length documentary film will tell the true stories of blacks and their interactions with the LDS Church. “The Eleventh Hour” will introduce us to the first pre-Civil War black converts to Mormonism in the 1830s. It will remind us both of the civil rights activists who fought the LDS Church in the 1960’s-1970s and of the black Mormons who stayed with the Church during these turbulent times. In addition, “The Eleventh Hour” will take a closer look at the complex and often violent race/religious struggles in the broader American social landscape of the times. The documentary will conclude with the stories of current black Mormon priests, leaders, Church authorities, and members. Produced by first-time documentary producers Robert J. Foster and Wayne Lee, “The Eleventh Hour” will be directed by Richard Dutcher. Producer Robert J. Foster was the first African American Student Body President at Brigham Young University. Producer Wayne L. Lee, an African American Filmmaker, is the founder and director of the Gloria Film Festival. Richard Dutcher is the writer and director of “Brigham City” and “God’s Army.” Donations are being accepted through The Edification Foundation, a National Heritage Foundation at 37 East Center Street Provo, Utah 84606. You can also call at The Edification Foundation, a 501(c) (3) non-profit organization, supports activities and organizations that edify, educate, and entertain. For more information on “The Eleventh Hour: Blacks in the LDS Church” please view our website at www.the11thhourlaborers.org. You may also email Robert J Foster at Robert_J_Foster@hotmail.com or at (801) 344-8764 or 801-319-5190 c. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 24 May 2003 06:16:43 +0000 R.W. Rasband wrote: > > I've tried to watch "24" but can't get into it. Too much contrived >adrenalin. God's surprises are at once sharper and more subtle than >anything most American commercial television can come up with. That's why >I'm so sorry to see "Buffy" go. Now there's a show that gives the mythic >credit where it belongs: not to us, but to The Big Guy in charge of >Everything. > That's interesting, since Buffy's creator and exec producer is an avowed atheist, and the show seems notably lacking in any central source of divine power. This isn't any kind of value judgment on the show, which I like a lot, more of a comment on the tendency to find our own meanings in various "mythic" entertainments. Could you look at Lord of the Rings and tell it was created by a devout Christian, Star Wars by a Jewish man, or Buffy by an atheist? If you dig deep enough, maybe, but I'm as struck by the similarities in these created mythologies as by their differences. And I've also heard all three invoked in reference to Mormon doctrine (though RW's Buffy reference is the first on that front, I'm now imagining a potential sacrament talk comparing Angel or Spike or, heaven forbid, Faith to Alma the Younger -) I recently even spoke to someone who was struck by the "religious message" in the new X-men movie (and hey, I like those movies, but honestly, if they've got a message it's along the lines of "Don't hate people because they're different, now watch the pretty actors beat each other up, and drink Dr. Pepper"). If you find inspiration in one of these sources, more power to you, but I think that drawing parallels too closely between these invented cosmologies and an external religious view threatens to distort both the fiction and the nonfiction versions. (I'd make an exception, perhaps, for the Chronicles of Narnia or other fantasy works that are created explicitly as parallels for the principles of a certain faith. Even then, though, it seems that the author has used the fantasy cosmos because it allows some leeway that's not there in realistic fiction.) Carrie _________________________________________________________________ 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: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 24 May 2003 06:02:38 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of gtaggart > Rogers was told he couldn't produce "Huebener" again." > >Does anyone on the list know the story here? I'm virtually >certain that I've seen the play advertised at BYU one, maybe >two times since 1991, but I could be mistaken since there is a >documentary about Huebener sponsored by the College of >Humanities called "Truth and Conviction," and the >advertisements could have been for it. Tom was prevented from having his play produced while he was employed at BYU. He has since retired, and is no longer under the same restriction. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? Date: 24 May 2003 06:10:55 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Travis >K. Manning >Imagine you >are Judith Freeman's stake president. What would your >responsibility be? Well, first of all, I would read the novel and then decide if I needed to talk to the author or not. And then, after reading it, I would ignore further action regardless of its content. > Do excommunication proceedings need to all be >public? Personally, I think they should. I say this having known people who, insofar as I read the Church Handbook of Instructions, have been wrongly excommunicated. (It happens. Even Stake Presidents are human.) I have another acquaintance who was excommunicated for something he had written but the idea is so repugnant to most people, that the rumor has circulated that he must have been exed for adultery. In his case, it would be nice if his circumstances could be made public so that those who have unrighteous judged the reasons for his excommunication can know the truth. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 24 May 2003 09:56:43 -0600 See my comment at the end of these two. Thom Duncan ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:05 AM Scott Parkin said: > >There are only a very few people who can truly appreciate his > >experience. The understanding and validation he seeks may > >never come, because the number of people who know his pain is > >small. >Thom Duncan replied: > Ah, the power of literature! This, imo, is where we LDS authors should > spend most of our time -- in lifting up the hands of those who mourn. > snip< > But the LDS writer -- let us write about the truly downtrodden: those > who fall through the cracks in our otherwise highly organized social > system. >snip< > divorce, homosexuality, race relations, etc. > >snip< > We have a special mantle, I believe. Poets and prophets have similar mantles to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, only ours is more localized. I'm curious, perhaps ignorantly so, as to why Thom makes the distinction between *We* (autors/writers) and poets-- which he has pigeonholed with prophets. In my mind, a prophet is the mouthpiece and spokesman for God, and a poet is just another writer/author who prefers the super minimalist approach to their writing, and leaves most of the plot, implication, and conclusion to the reader. Perhaps anyone who writes inspired words to assuage the downtrodden and comfort the afflicted, should be considered, or lumped in with the prophets. ???? never-the-less, (imho) prophets are and should definitely be in a realm all by themselves. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 24 May 2003 10:12:06 -0600 D. Michael Martindale" Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 11:06 AM > Scott reveals the truth. Ugliness finds us, and we want to come to terms > with it in our art, without the artificial and (in my opinion) > counterproductive if not downright destructive limitations that the word > "appropriate" represents. > > Here's my simple and probably soon-to-be-trash-compacted metaphor: we > spill something on the carpet and want to grab a cloth to wipe it up. > Deseret Book customers scold us for getting the nice white cloth all > dirty. Can't we wipe over there where it's already clean, where there is > no spill to slime up the cloth? > So, DB thinks we should leave the mess on the carpet, and clean where it's already clean? Maybe we should use a rag to clean up the mess and either wash the rag or trash it, but we should clean up our messes and get on with life. I guess that's why we have newspapers, and freedom of the press. Yesterdays news is today's fish wrapper. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 24 May 2003 11:01:26 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > But what I can't help but wonder is, why can't we have both worlds? Why > can't we not shy away from the difficult things _and_ be ingenious and > creative in our presentation? Wouldn't that enhance the power of the > story? For me, the Hayes argument is merely a disguised attempt to > promote appropriateness over artistic integrity. The Hayes argument admits to limitations and urges artists to work a little harder to find new ways to tell the story. In other words, to be more artistic and inventive in how they tell their stories--while still being true to the story they want to tell. Work within the limits of the marketplace so you can sell your work, but stretch your own imagination to tell more extensive stories within those limits. Simple artistic pragmatism. Would it be better if there were no social or cultural limitations on how and what we express? I don't think so. It would be a calamity of inopportunity for the would-be artist. If there's no convention of limitation to expression, then there's no need for meta-expression. The only differentiation between the artist and the rest of the world becomes technique, and presentation goes from being a question of art to a question of engineering. As to why artists can't be more ingeneous in their presentation...I don't know. Maybe most working artists just aren't that talented and can't apply that kind of extraordinary inventiveness to their works. My personal observance is that artists can be every bit as lazy as anyone else and often settle for the convenient way of communicating an idea rather than the most effective one. Which is not all that hard to understand, and not specifically worthy of condemnation. It's a balancing act between innovation and familiarity. Of course we'd (generally) rather do something the easy way if we can and save our extra effort for the things that we think really matter--and many details in even fine art, while important, are not *the* reason for the piece and do not rise to the demands of ultimate creativity. If every detail were equal, nothing would ever get done. But good art is work and involves more than just doing what comes natural. It involves mastery of craft and creative redefinition of the standard rules. It involves finding ways to innovatively stretch the boundaries, not just ignore them then call everyone else banal for still caring about ancient strictures dusty old conventions. To me, at least. Or at least sometimes. You pick your battles, you understand your audience, and you choose the approach that will stretch not only the audience, but that will stretch yourself as well. I see the audience as co-sojourner, not hapless target. Part of that may be that I know I don't have the ability to do truly spectacular art that forces people to swallow their assumptions and admit to my brilliance. I'm not that good and don't see myself ever becoming so. So I have to bring people along a familiar--and even comforting--path of ideas and images that are not as jarring. I take a familiar image and turn it only a little off-center so that people see a little more of what that image can mean to other people. Not radical stuff, that. It's improving on the known rather than creating the unknown from whole cloth. It's making slow changes over time that eventually lead to a completely different viewpoint, not a sudden departure from the norm. And while it may not be spectacular, I still think it's art. > > So rather than shying away from a story because our first inclination is to tell > > in one way using one set of esthetic assumptions that we're not comfortable > > with, I would argue that we should press ourselves to find other ways to tell > > that story truly that don't violate our esthetic. Isn't that part of art? To > > choose a form and the limitations it imposes and work to reach beyond the easy > > and the obvious to something more concentrated and powerful? > > Not really. That can be an approach to art. But truly great artists have > been those who break the limitations of a form and still produce > something great--something even greater that could never have been > created had the limitation been honoreds. Beethoven comes to mind. ALl > the great romantic composers come to mind, who cast aside the classical > limitations. I think we're talking about two different things here. Beethoven was an unbelievably strict formalist. Not as strict as Bach and those who went before him, but still very strongly bound by the rules and conventions of his craft. It's what allowed him to compose when he was deaf--he was working to forms and rules that he knew would work whether he heard them or not. To my mind he innovated within the form, stretching the boundaries but not shattering the rules. And it was that strict adherence to convention, but innovative approach within it, that facilitated both an expanded set of definitions of how/when/why things were done, and a general acceptance of that innovation by those most prone to keep the old formula. Others then followed in behind and stretched the boundaries even further, and within a short time music had been completely transformed. Not in one great blast, but in a series of microtransformations--most of which Beethoven himself never did in his own work. And I suspect that a great many of the less-great classical composers did the majority of the actual rule-breaking and transformation of the public esthetic. They pushed a little further than the public really cared for, and so Beethoven was able to benefit from a combination of rare genious and audience recognition to create material that was both daring and yet still firmly founded in the familiar. So yes, you can ignore all social or artistic convention and do your thing--the modern market enables that more than any prior market in history. But I think you'll find that you're not nearly as popular as the guy who effectively combines innovation with convention, who expands the rules while still playing within them. > > Let the other guy work according to his own devices. > > Always, that's a subtext of anything I say. But if I believe his choices > compromise the power of his story, I'll be vocal about it in my role as > critic. Absolutely! And well you should be. But remember that the freedom to condemn one artist for his choices also enables the condemnation of another artist for his choices. Rage against that guy's banal mundanity--and accept that others will rage against your callous disregard of social convention and the rules of polite society. Draw conclusions about that guy's fitness to speak or his moral authority or right to his choices, and you demand that people apply a similar standard back to your own work. It's the way the game is played--when you create an either/or situation, you risk exclusion by the rules of your own argument. And that's okay as long as we keep the goose/gander truism in mind. It's what got so many people so vocally angry at Dutcher when he publicly criticized Hale. He violated the gentleman's agreement ("I won't make fun of your momma if you don't make fun of mine") and demanded a level of scrutiny of his own artistic purity and perfection that hadn't been applied before. A scrutiny which he weathered just fine, because he changed the discussion from one of absolute statements about artistic merit to one of clarity on his own opinion of what constitutes good--and he left it at that. I wish Gerald Lund would be less right-wing conservative in his political works. I wish he would be more creative in imagining alternate futures where the current Constitution wasn't ratified. But in the end I can't condemn him as inadequate for his choices, I can only wonder why so few other visions have been published (and start working on my own near-future sf Mormon utopia novel). I did that with Linda Adams. I wish other authors would write about different apocalyptic visions, but I have to accept that Linda wrote a fine piece within the limits and assumptions she chose for herself--and managed to be quite subversive within the normal assumptions of those limits. Wanting a more expansive apocalyptic vision doesn't require me to condemn Linda's choices or to condemn her work. I just don't see "bowing to convention" as a universal artistic evil. It's the legitimate artistic choice of a whole set of artists, and as such is not proof of artistic corruption, spiritual inadequacy, or technical incapability. (It may be proof of all of those things, but because I don't know it seems politic to leave those kinds of judgments alone.) If not enough people are innovating (by your standard), then the two things that make most sense to me are to 1) issue the general challenge to do more, and 2) to step up and take your own shot. It's why I have less power as a critic--I haven't taken my own shot though I claim to be an artist, and people rightly dismiss me because of it. I fail by the standards of my own argument. It's also why (I think) producing artists tend to do less criticism, and effective critics tend to do very little of their own art. Where you and I appear to to most disagree is that I think you can take your shot in small chunks spread over many works that evolve the market over time, whereas you appear to want radical revolution overnight. Same goal, different methodologies. And both are part of a whole and healthy artistic/critical community. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 26 May 2003 13:40:30 -0500 Okay. Granted that in the Church, we now use thees and thous and thys and thines for deity, out of respect, even though historically it's the familiar case. Even accepting all this, though, I'm bothered by something I'll call "thee-language creep"--that is, using this language for non-deity, just because it's in proximity to discussion of deity. The worst example I know (and it's a doozy) is from the new (1985 hymn book edition) fourth verse to Come, Listen to a Prophet's Voice, by Bruce R. McConkie: Then heed the words of truth and light that flow from fountains pure. Yea, keep His law with all thy might till thine election's sure, Till thou shalt hear the holy voice assure eternal reign, While joy and cheer attend thy choice, as one who shall obtain. Now, the context of this makes it very clear that the person being addressed is *not* God. So why the thou and thys? Clearly, because someone (presumably Bruce R. McConkie himself) thought that when you're in "reverence mode" it's simply wrong to use yous (hey, I like the sound of that--use yous), and an editing committee either missed it or (more likely) wasn't allowed to do anything to change it, for what we could call political reasons. (I have to admit that I dislike this verse for other reasons too. It's a complete change from the subject matter of the rest of the song, and the tone is utterly different as well. What virtues there are in "I Believe in Christ" are entirely missing here, so far as I can tell. But that's technically a different topic.) Now, I love the thees and thous and thys and thines. They're *pretty*. And my cultural reading of Mormonism tells me that they aren't going away anytime soon. But can't we please, please try to do them right? At least in official publications like hymns? Jonathan Langford Whining for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 24 May 2003 20:24:27 -0600 At 04:54 PM 5/22/03 -0500, you wrote: >I know that I'm being very general here. And those suggestions are only a >few possibilities. I'm hoping to jog your interests or memories. To that >end, does anyone have any suggestions? You never know what might resonate or >apply, so speak up. If you're talking about Mormon women in our time, do you want to narrow your field by discussing those women who come from this long-term heritage? May Mormon women are converts themselves or are children of recent converts. What's the difference to an LDS woman's life if it has always resonated to stories of the pioneers, or if the church was a choice made far into modern times? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply (was: Judith Freeman Excommunication?) Date: 27 May 2003 11:57:23 -0600 Tom Rogers had a letter to the Tribune the other day in which he stated that he was never called or questioned about "Huebner." He took the paper to task for stating otherwise. Roy Schmidt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 27 May 2003 12:28:44 -0600 I was wrong. I posted recently on the Judith Freeman article in the Tribune. I stated that it appeared to me that Tom Murphey's publicist's fingerprints were all over that story because of the way Freeman appeared to have done a preemptive strike on her Stake President, among other things. I was wrong. I have it on good authority that Freeman only raised the issue because Doug Fabrizio of America West asked her if she had received any attention from the Church because of her book. The AP writer Patty Henetz apparently heard the interview and then called Freeman to discuss. Maybe there's more to how this story developed, but at this point, I'll admit that I went off half-cocked on Judith. Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 24 May 2003 11:04:53 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: > I'm surprised you say this. I think we have a rather robust set of > "monsters" that is, as I mentioned last week, well recorded by > folklorists. Without descending into the folklore that only a few have > possibly read, consider just what is published by General Authorities. Most of what you describe are human monsters, not supernatural critters. Cain is a monster of his own making, begun as a man. Cain as a general figure of world folklore is hardly new, and Mormon theology offers little new speculation (though the Yeti thing is fun, it still falls within the cursed man definition). The Wandering Jew concept is a lot of fun, but again I don't see Mormon theology or cultural history adding a similar character. Yes, we have the Three Nephites who were *blessed* to see all the days of Man at their own request by dint of their own righteousness, rather than cursed to walk the earth in repentence of an original sin. And while there have been any number of folkloric sightings, the Three Nephites are generally considered the good guys and seem to appear in recognizably human form. In other words, they're just us folks. Cain may have a problem with hyperpilosity, but he's just another of us folks--though an exceptionally unhappy one. > We have an interesting variation on the old Enoch legends of the > Watchers in which the fallen angels are actually a race of > semisubstantial beings living here on earth. It is a ghost story done > one up. For they hate humans and are in a conspiracy to degrade > humans. In a sense it is the story of _X-Files_ only with a far more > sinister overtone. Once you combine it with the remnant of John > Birchers mixing politics and religion in High Priest lessons then > things get really interesting. I have not the slightest idea what you're referring to here--at least in terms of the Watchers of Enoch. For me, at least, the lore is far from common. In any case, they sound like ordinary people, not supernatural creatures. Again, just us folks, though in a very different context. > Given how many science fiction stories either intentionally borrow from > the Enoch legends or unintentionally recreate it, it is interesting how > our "Watchers" are so much more interesting and so tied to LDS > conspiracy theories even in the scriptures. Are conspiracy theories the same thing as horror? Horrible, yes; but horrifying? Where's the slime and the ooze and the undead Cthulu zombie children with the mark of the beast tattooed under their left armpit? Where's the specifically Mormon-flavored, consistent, and generally accepted interaction with inhuman/unhuman creatures? My point wasn't that Mormons don't have odd lore or even theologically supported stories of miracles or cursings, but that those things tend to be very mundane and clearly tied to real people. Most of the odder things we seem to have inherited from popular Christianity--and we see it as clearly fantastic and mostly silly. Or so it seems to me. But I admit that I don't hang out with Mormon mystics or spiritualists. > There are lots of other stories, such as the lamanite angels guarding > the temple from sons of perdition. (I forget which temple: either the > SLC or Logan) There is the story of the angel of light on the river in > the D&C. Again, I don't recall either of these stories. They don't seem like generally accepted supernatural/horrific lore to me. I don't recall hearing a lot of talk or speculation on these stories, and so I tend to see them as having little traction or resonance in the culture at large. Not that they don't have their adherent, but that they don't rise to the level of common knowledge and repeated speculation. > The golem of Jewish Kabbalism became the Frankenstein story which was > the forerunner of the robot gone out of control. I never suggested that Mormons didn't play with the symbols and unique critters provided to us by other religions. But I'm not sure how seriously we take them as literal things, and I'm not sure that Mormon culture itself celebrates them. Of course we're educated to the myths of the broader culture. My question is how many of them are really and truly considered real and powerful in the specifically Mormon culture--and how many of these stories are we regularly telling each other? Not many, from where I sit. Which again begs the question--what mannikens or homunculi or other nonhuman/pseudo-human supernatural beings *are* part of the Mormon horror lore? I argue that our Satan and his demons are nearly the exact opposite of the traditional elements of popular horror--we think we understand them (they're just angry people) and have the clear power to stop them. With a few exceptions (the handshake thing comes to mind) we have little in the way of the lore of detection or exposure of secret evil beings living among us, and only one standard method of exorcism. Satan has neither tail nor horns; at worst he looks like Al Pacino. In other words, he's just one of us folks. Not supernatural at all. Not even extra-natural. Comprehensible, and thus no longer scary in the same way as the slavering beast of the Id made real. Sure, we can tell those stories, but they're stories based on external musings and acknowledgement of other peoples' lore--they're always metaphors rather than objective reporting of literally possible reality. Or so it seems to me. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 24 May 2003 12:54:02 -0600 ___ Me ___ | We have an interesting variation on the old Enoch legends | of the Watchers in which the fallen angels are actually a | race of semisubstantial beings living here on earth. ___ A few people emailed me about this. I started just replying to each of them but then figured it'd be easier to just reply to the whole list. I guess a lot of people aren't that familiar with the Watchers from the Enoch legends. They actually have popped up in fiction a lot the past few years in everything from Highlander to Buffy to various other movies. They're a great story. If you want some great classic stories of these sorts, I'd suggest Charlesworth's _Old Testament Pseudepigrpha_. It is two volumes and includes the main variations of Enoch. If you don't want to buy a copy (and beware there are lots of poor translations out there) then the following is a good online version. It's a very old translation so it isn't quite as good as modern versions and doesn't include variations from the Dead Sea Scrolls. http://www.projecttimothy.org/Book_of_Enoch.htm Nibley quotes these texts (there are many different Enoch stories) in his book _Enoch the Prophet_, which is probably more of interest to lay Mormons not quite as into looking up sources. It basically is a variation of the fallen angels story and is similar to the Mormon views of sons of Perdition - with a twist. A bunch of angels are cast out of the heavenly council and come to earth. Here they intermarry with mortals and produce a race of giants (Nephilim). They also introduce forbidden technologies, science and magic. These texts are typically assumed to be expansions on Genesis 6:4 "In those days, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings." Some tie these beings to the building of the Tower of Babel. Others say that they was the cause of the flood. Exactly what the "truth" (if any) behind these stories in Mormon terms is unclear. Some read it as the falling away of priesthood leaders. Others see it as a corrupted accounts of the fall of sons of perdition. I've even heard others who use it as a kind of LDS version of pre-Adamites and who are trying to harmonize science and the stories of Adam through Noah. Some of the other variations of Enoch are very interesting to Mormons since they parallel Nephi's vision in the Book of Mormon in many ways. They also typically involve a lot which Mormons would consider the endowment. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Judith Freeman Excommunication? (FW) Date: 24 May 2003 13:17:50 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > 'Massacre' Novelist May Face LDS Excommunication > By Patty Henetz > The Associated Press [printed in Salt Lake Tribune] > Other Mormon artists have run into similar trouble with the church. > Tom Rogers in 1976 wrote the play "Huebener," the story of a 17-year-old > German Mormon boy who was guillotined for resisting the Nazi party; his > bishop was a party member trying to protect the church. After its initial > run at Brigham Young University, Rogers was told he couldn't produce > "Huebener" again. > English professor Brian Evenson left BYU in 1995 for the University of > Denver and eventually left the church amid Mormon criticism of the dark > themes and parallels to Mormonism in his fiction. > Playwright and film director Neil LaBute was barred from taking > sacrament and participating in church priesthood activities for creating > despicable Mormon characters. I'm still not feeling better, not even after Scott Parkin's indefatigable efforts to be peacemaker. There's an evident pattern here that should be disturbing to LDS artists everywhere. -- 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] Alma 32 Date: 24 May 2003 20:36:41 -0600 At 09:11 AM 5/22/03 -0600, you wrote: >In my last post, I cited Alma and mistakenly claimed that the seed of faith >lesson was in Alma 34. I actually checked last night, and it was 32, sorry. That chapter was instrumental in my conversion to the church. The missionaries had taken me to a sacrament meeting, and it was boring, and I was squirming. So one of the elders opened the Book of Mormon to this chapter and told me to read it. That business about the experiment made sense to me and started me taking the whole thing seriously. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 25 May 2003 16:28:05 -0600 Lisa, You want to take a serious look at "The Relief Society Magazine". It = began publishing way back (19th century, I believe) and continued into the = 1970s. Your Grandmother just might have an article or two in it. It was a = serious magazine and included literary criticism, scholarly works, fiction = contests, and other things that would raise eyebrows in current LDS publications. = I have a bunch of issues spanning the entire history of the publication (though not complete of course). I snap them up every time I run across them (just picked up 70 odd in a DI recently). It'd be cool if someone could compile an archive. I've been toying with the idea of doing that = for years. Serious copyright issues apply, of course... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 25 May 2003 17:12:33 -0600 ---Original Message From: Scott Parkin > What I haven't seen a lot of are traditional horror stories=20 > from a Mormon standpoint. Unlike even the Jews with their=20 > golems and other homunculi, Mormonism doesn't really have a=20 > "dark side" of documented horrors. Yes, horrific stories of=20 > ordinarily horrible things happening to good people, but not=20 > a lot of theologically supported monsters, creatures, or=20 > ghouls, and no standard book of exorcism or counterspells to=20 > the dreaded seventh book of Moses. Hmm. I can't think of many monsters that truly haunt Mormons. I've = heard a number of second-hand stories of exorcism, of course. I've witnessed = some semi-scary things first-hand. Nothing you could base an entire book, = movie or play on, though. The trouble is, Mormons aren't terribly afraid of external spiritual assailants. Kind of hard to be *too* frightened when = the first priesthood-holder to arrive deals with the problem in a relatively brief, even perfunctory way. And I've never heard of one that persisted beyond the first encounter. There's not even a satisfying ritual or exorcism involved. It's tough because for Mormons, we just don't fear outside evil nearly as much as we fear internal personal failure and external human-based agents. To make it work, you'd have to make a more subtle villain. A lurker = with subtle influence and amazing persistence. Something that subtle would = be really hard to depict well, though it could potentially be *very* scary. You'd have to build the dread and horror up and you'd still face the = problem that any direct confrontation is pretty perfunctory--come to think of = it, though, build it up over time and give it sufficient hubris it could certainly bluff enough to isolate an individual and make their life miserable (and a kind of self-selecting misery, too). And you could = work all the ritual you want to into it with the assumption that an evil = entity would delight in misleading you into thinking such things worked (and instilling a false sense of security). And I've always wondered if Christ's retort when accused of using Beelzebub's power to cast out devils might not be what we assume--"[I]f Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" Well, Satan's kingdom *won't* stand. Christ's = statement could as easily be read as a taunt as it can as a proof that Satan = cannot cast out Satan. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] Neil LaBute's Work Date: 24 May 2003 06:38:33 +0000 there's been some recent discussion about whether Neil LaBute is compromising his art for the sake of church approval. i've never seen any of LaBute's plays or films because I've been turned off of them by some very negative reviews. Interestingly, these reviews haven't come from LDS sources - I've read very few LDS views of his work - but in fairly liberal outlets, notably the New Yorker and Salon. Both of these magazines ran extremely negative reviews of his most recent film Shape of Things," and it strikes me that they object to many of the same things LDS audiences would object to, but for different reasons. Both David Denby in the New Yorker and the Salon reviewer (name escapes me) argued that LaBute designs his art with the goal of shocking viewer sensibilities, at the expense of character and plot. The Salon reviewer went farther and noted that the film wasn't even shocking to most contemporary sensibiliites (the line was something like, "this would be the edgiest movie of the year, if the year were 1982.") I'm curious about how these reviews might relate to LDS views of LaBute's work - might he be trying to shock with a view of an LDS audience that is in some way behind the cultural curve (and for the most part, as someone mentioned about Kushner's plays, not seeing the films anyway)? Does this relate to the comment by, I believe, Dianna, that some LDS viewers and artists go out of their way to seek out "filth" in order to prove they are above it? Is there perhaps a moralism in LaBute's work that would make it less palatable to more socially liberal critics? And I guess all of this leads to the big questions about whether I should see thes films even though I anticipate disliking them quite a bit - I hate to be in the role of having a negative view of something I haven't seen or read, but I'd like to think there's some artistic value that will outweigh the nastiness. Carrie _________________________________________________________________ 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: AML Subject: [AML] New Irreantum Issue Date: 27 May 2003 17:18:20 -0700 If you're interested in Mormon-related fiction, poetry, memoirs, film, and drama, we invite you to read IRREANTUM, the literary quarterly printed by the nonprofit Association for Mormon Letters (AML). Take a moment and browse the contents of our newest 100-page issue, listed below. If you'd like to order this issue or a 4-issue subscription, use our order form at http://www.aml-online.org/irreantum/order-form.html. (If you already subscribe to IRREANTUM, please forward this message to others. If you don't wish to receive occasional news from the AML, use the UNSUBSCRIBE link at the bottom of this e-mail.) IRREANTUM: Spring 2003 Issue Interviews: Jana Riess (National religion book review editor) Douglas Alder (Novelist) Orson Scott Card (Novelist) (Reprinted from The Door Magazine) Novel Excerpt: Sons of Bear Lake, by Douglas D. Alder Essays: Los escogidos y los despreciados: Latino Influences in LDS Literature By John Alba Cutler Elegant Angst: Mining the Treasures of Mormon Personal Essays, 1982-2001 By Cherry B. Silver Relief Society Women Read the Tao Te Ching: Stories of a Mormon Book Club By Melody Warnick The Legacy of Legacy By D. Michael Martindale, IRREANTUM Film Editor Story: Thin, Scarlet Line, by Katherine Woodbury Poetry: Good Friday, Lance Larsen By Road, and By Sky, Lance Larsen This World, Not the Next, Lance Larsen Almost Two, Janean Justham Drawing, Kevin Klein Baptism, Kris Bluth Boogeyman, Sundy Watanabe Reviews Year in Review: 2002, by Andrew Hall A Mystery Novel Addresses a Larger Mystery A review of Paul Edwards's The Angel Acronym Strong Characters, Rewarding Read A review of Douglas D. Alder's Sons of Bear Lake Humor, Emotion, and Suspense A review of Kerry Blair's Closing In For the Defense: The Life of Hugh Winder Nibley A review of Boyd Petersen's Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life Heartwarming Lessons from a Lifetime of Sharing A review of George Durrant's Scones for the Heart Stone and Sea A review of Margaret Blair Young's Heresies of Nature Clean and Likable, Though Lacking Substance A review of Cheri Crane's The Girls Next Door Marriage Proposal Yields Perceptive Look at LDS Culture A review of Carolyn Howard-Johnson's This Is the Place Thrice Retelling John D. Lee A review of Judith Freeman's Red Water Mormon Feminist Memoir A review of Alison Comish Thorne's Leave the Dishes in the Sink: Adventures of an Activist in Conservative Utah Threads Offers Audience Appeal A review of Sammie Justesen's Common Threads Sinful Concoction Yields Hilarity A review Linda Hoffman Kimball's The Marketing of Sister B Mormon Literary Scene AML-List Highlights: Pain and Art Filling Our Minds Love and Adultery and Consequences To order this issue or a 4-issue subscription, use our order form at http://www.aml-online.org/irreantum/order-form.html. ==================================================================== Update your profile here: http://aml.u.tclk.net/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp Unsubscribe here: http://aml.u.tclk.net/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp.u Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://www.email-publisher.com/ -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 27 May 2003 19:25:06 -0500 A strange thought that's been floating around my brain for the last couple of weeks... One of the boys in our ward came over early to pick up his younger brother, who was playing at our house. He explained that he had been visiting a female friend, but that her parents had left, and the rule is that he's not allowed to be over at a girl's house if no one else is there. (He's 16, by the way.) And I started thinking... What would the rules be for a young man in pretty much the same circumstances, except that his attraction happens to be to other guys rather than girls? Is he allowed to visit his best friend's house when the parents aren't there? Can the door be closed when he's in his friends' rooms? What about sleepovers? What about scout campouts? What about participation in scouting, for that matter? And I started realizing that there's a lot of room for both comic and not-so-comic treatment of this type of situation in Mormon literature, if you take as a starting point the premise of a same sex-attracted (SSA) Mormon youth who's trying his darndest to negotiate the social and behavioral expectations that come with trying to live by Church guidelines, but adapting them to his (or her) own somewhat different circumstances. I can hardly stop grinning over the potential Sugar Beet articles. Part of the humor, of course, comes from the disjunction with reality. While there are, statistics assure us, a whole lot of SSA youth in the Church, we seem an awfully long way from thinking of this as simply another of the trials that some of our youth have to deal with. It's easy enough to imagine the angst-ridden story that comes out of this situation; much harder and more surreal to imagine the boy, family, etc., simply trying to deal with it in a matter-of-fact way. (I actually asked the question of the young man in question: If you were the dad, and you had a son who liked boys instead of girls, what rule would you put in place for your son? He gave me a strange look and said that in that case, he wouldn't let his son out of the house until he had been treated and gotten over it. An answer illuminating, I think, for its utter lack of understanding of the problem. Did I mention that this is one of the sharpest young men in our ward, and that his father is in our stake presidency?) Maybe it's a mistake to try to deal with this issue in our literature at all. And if you do, maybe it's unrealistic to expect that it can take anything other than center stage in any story where it appears--and in a pretty somber, ponderous sort of way. Still, I can't help but think it ought to be different from that--that a literature that *handles* SSA, instead of either ignoring or being taken over by it, would likely be both better literature and a better contribution to our religious community. There's been some discussion of Kushner on the list recently. I won't go into my view of the plays for the moment, except simply to say: these aren't stories about what it means to be SSA and Mormon. That isn't part of what Kushner is interested in writing about. But there is, I think, space for some really good stories that deal with this. I don't know where they would be published, I don't know who would read them; but I'd like to see them written. Am I alone in seeing this as a potential opportunity for Mormon writers? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] RE: ROGERS, _Heubener_ (was: Judith Freeman Excommunication?) Date: 26 May 2003 18:40:44 -0600 [MOD: This is a compilation of two posts from Margaret on this topic.] I've just returned from Kirtland, where I stayed with the delightful and brilliant Neal Chandler. I brought home with me a play he has written about Huebener. It is predictably brilliant--through told from a much different perspective than Tom Rogers's play (in which I portrayed Helmuth's mother some 30 years ago). You can read Tom's play in his collection of plays _God's Fools_. I am hoping to give the play I brought home with me to Thom Duncan for consideration for his theater. You can read more about Huebener in _The Price_ by Karl Heinz Schnibbe (one of Helmuth Huebener's co-conspiritors) and Alan Keele. And there is a fairly new documentary out about the case. My husband has visited Huebener's execution cell, which lists Helmuth as a member of "the American cult, the Mormon Church." Oh, and I wrote a piece about acting in _Huebener_, published in _Dialogue_ many years ago (and I don't have my vita with me and have no idea which issue it was in.) I now regret the title, of course: "Doing Huebener." But I was young when I wrote it. [second post]: _Huebener_ was produced twice at BYU. Once in 1976 (right?) and again in the eighties. I was a little surprised that it was produced a second time, because the first run had been controversial. It was a hit, but controversial. We were extended 2 weeks and invited to take the play to California. Because some Church authorities were concerned about some issues (such as the effect of the story of German saints and probably also the idea of anarchy), we were not allowed to accept that invitation. I was glad to see that the controversy faded over the years. I would love to see Neal Chandler's version of the same story done, too. It is from an entirely different perspective (the branch president basically puts himself on trial) and is a very different play. I happen to be a major Neal Chandler fan, and long for a reprinting of his short story collection _Benediction_--some of the funniest stuff to come out of anyone's head. His story of Huebener is not funny at all, but full of the depth he brings to any project. ________________ 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: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] PETERSEN, _Hugh Nibley_ (Review) Date: 26 May 2003 18:58:13 -0600 Congrats to Boyd, who received the Mormon History Association award for best biography. ________________ 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: Gideon Burton Subject: RE: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 27 May 2003 10:36:41 -0600 On Mormon women in the 20th century, you should browse the works of = Claudia Bushman, Mary Bradford, Carol Cornwall Madsen, Jesse Embry, Jill Mulvay Derr, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher. There is a conference being held on this topic on March 20, 2004 at BYU sponsored by the Joseph Fielding = Smith Institute for LDS History (more info, query at = ldswomen-history@byu.edu).=20 Here are some sources that may be relevant to your inquiry: Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach and Kathryn MacKay. "Women in = Twentieth-Century Utah." In Utah's History, eds. Richard D. Poll, et al. Provo, Utah: = Brigham Young University Press, 1978, pp. 563-86. Nichols, Julie J. "The Extraordinary in the Ordinary: Women's Stories, Women's Lives." Dialogue 25.2 (Summer 1992): 73-78 Snedecor, Barbara Elliott. "On Being Female: A Voice of Contentment." Dialogue 25.3 (Fall 1992): 155-163. Jan Shipps, "In and Out of Time," in Mormonism: The Story of a New = Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985),109-30. Beecher, Maureen Ursenbach. "Each in Her Own Time: Four Zinas." Dialogue 26.2 (Summer 1993): 119-135 Derr, Jill Mulvay; Janath Russell Cannon; and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992. (but also see Peggy Pascoe's review of this in Dialogue 27.2 [Summer 1994]: 237-245) Derr, Jill Mulvay. Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987. Holladay, Valerie. "The Path of the Wanderer: Autobiographical Theory = and the Personal Essay." Dialogue 32.3 (Fall 1999): 83-91 You might also look at this non-LDS source: Gerda Lerner, "The Cult of Domesticity," Michael Gordon, ed., The = American Family in Its Historical and Social Context (New York: St. Martin's = Press, 1983), 372-92. Gideon O. Burton 3113 JKHB Department of English Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-3525 Visit Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric http://rhetoric.byu.edu The Mormon Literature Database http://MormonLit.lib.byu.edu =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 27 May 2003 09:47:31 -0700 That is the reason I don't watch West Wing. It's a soap opera. I haven't watched soap opera's since I was 4 years old. I can't stand more than 5 minutes. I watched an episode of West Wing in the first season and the jury was out as to whether it was a soap opera--watched part of another episode and that was enough for me. Soap opera mixed with political lies. Just what I always wanted. I gave up soap operas when I was a little kid because I thought they were a bad influence on me. I'm old enough not to worry much about bad influences but I still can't bear them. Strange but true. That was also the day I officially became Pro-Life. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: [AML] RE: ROGERS, _Heubener_ Date: 27 May 2003 13:04:46 -0600 >-----Original Message----- > "gtaggart" wrote:> "Other Mormon artists have run into >similar trouble with the church. >> Tom Rogers in 1976 wrote the play "Huebener," the story of a >> 17-year-old German Mormon boy who was guillotined for resisting the >> Nazi party; his bishop was a party member trying to protect the >> church. After its initial >> run at Brigham Young University, Rogers was told he couldn't produce >> "Huebener" again." > >He may have been told that in 1976, but I saw Huebner at BYU >in the 80's. Maybe it was in '88. I also saw "Road to >Golgotha," another play of his, at about the same time. What you saw probably wasn't Tom's. In the 80's, there was another play about the same subject written by another person. [MOD: I also remember this "other" play. Titled _Heubener against the Reich_, if I recall correctly. One of the faculty members in the German dept. was author or coauthor. Alan Keele, perhaps?] Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 28 May 2003 03:21:01 -0700 Jonathan, Were you intentionally trying to coax me out of my lurkerhood? Naturally, any treatment of this subject would depend heavily on the message the writer wanted to promote. Anyone who says that fiction isn't trying to promote a point of view has no credibility with me. Well, I do admit that sometimes the intent is to raise a question rather than promote a point of view. Either way, a point of view will inevitably be presented in the story. If it were me, the question I would raise in a story would not be actually about same-sex attraction but about the value of such boundaries in contrast to the value of frank and forthright discussion with youth about the virtues of chastity and the dangers of breaking the law of chastity. Stated boundaries are good, but as this situation shows, they cannot cover everything that may tempt a young person. Some effort needs to be made by parents to cover with openness the bases that the boundaries don't cover. Boundaries notwithstanding, only a commitment on the part of a youth to principles of chastity and virtue will arm him or her against the temptations that will undoubtedly arise. That, to me, is a much more interesting dilemma for a story. It seems to me that a same-sex attracted youth would be the perfect character and provide the perfect dilemma to explore in such a story. The dilemma is not only his, but is also owned by any characters who know about his feelings. How does his bishop handle it? How do his parents handle it? How do his fellow priests handle it? There is a corner of a room in the Church's message about same-sex attraction that is surrounded by painted floors. Can't get out of that corner without stepping in the paint. They have unofficially bought into point of view put forth by Dr. Dean Byrd in _Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ_. That point of view relies on a theory of same-sex attraction genesis in a young man that says that same-sex attraction is a result of a disconnect between a boy and his male peers. The therapy that is born out of this theory involves helping him to connect in non-sexual but emotionally intimate ways with his peers. It says that he is attracted to boys because of the workings of the "mysterious other" concept. That concept is that men are attracted to women because they are a mystery to men. We're all attracted to mysteries, it seems. When a boy sees his own sex as being the mysterious other, it results in the same kind of sexual attraction toward males as other men experience toward females. If this theory is accurate, and I'm not here to promote it in the least, then it would naturally follow that anyone trying to help a young man deal with his same-sex attraction would want to encourage, rather than discourage, his friendships with his male peers. He would also not want to impose any notions in the boy's mind that would further widen the gap between how he sees himself and how he sees other boys. They would want to encourage him to adopt a masculine self-image. Telling him he can't be alone with boys his own age would only serve to send the message to him that rather than keep the male version of the boundaries, he needs to keep the female version. Let me illustrate. I know a lot of LDS men who are same-sex attracted. A "straight" man who also knows some of these men was concerned when a couple of the men went on a hike together. He gave the example of how inappropriate it would be considered for him to give a female sister a ride to a meeting and be alone with her in his car. He felt that the same standard should apply to men who are same-sex attracted, only it should be applied to being alone with other men. I asked him, "So, which one of the two men who went on the hike is the woman and would you like to break the news to him that despite your efforts to get him to see himself as a man that you want him to abide by rules that are created for women? Do you really want him to feel like you think he is a woman?" I also asked, "Do you then think it would be OK for me to give rides to women and be alone with them in my car? After all, I'm not attracted to women." Well, he got my point. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If encouraging a connectedness with masculinity is the cure-all for homosexuality in men, then you can't discourage it with boundaries that widen the gap. I think it is an excellent topic for Mormon literature. I have had a story on this subject in the works for about twenty years. The dang question keeps getting rearranged on me. I held my tongue throughout the Kushner discussion, not without some effort. I've already had my say on the subject, which can be found in the list archives. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 28 May 2003 09:25:16 -0500 Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 5:28 PM Yeah, I want to look at the RS Magazine. For my dissertation. Seriously. I started on the Young Woman's Journal for my thesis and I plan to spend a career looking at periodicals, both LDS and non. Periodicals are great history because they are a snapshot of the time that produced them. What makes me really sick is that my grandma had a huge stash of old RS Magazines at one time. She threw them out not more than ten years ago, which was about three years before I realized what a treasure they would have been. I am coming to Utah next week for a quick research trip. I'll be staying in American Fork. Where are the best places to look for old RS Magazines etc? Besides DI--and which DI? How about very old Mormon books? I want to find a copy of Representative Women of Deseret and of Susa Young Gates's biography of Brigham Young. Can anyone suggest further reading about farming and farm culture in Utah? Danish/Scandinavian immigrants? Thanks. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ben@parkinsonfamily.org Subject: [AML] (TRIB) Thomas F. ROGERS on _Huebener_ Date: 28 May 2003 09:29:58 -0600 (MDT) [MOD: Thanks to Ben for forwarding this.] Forwarded from the Salt Lake Tribune, 26 May 2003 'Huebener' Author Although the brief reference to my play "Huebener" in an Associated Press article about Judith Freeman and other Mormon writers (Tribune, May 22) is fairly accurate, I regret the implication readers might easily read into it that I was ever threatened with excommunication by LDS ecclesiastical authorities. Immediately after discussing Freeman's dismay about possible excommunication, the article states that "Other Mormon artists have run into similar trouble with the church," and then invokes my name. The misleading term here is "similar." I was never threatened with excommunication or reprimanded for the play in any way. The play was in fact allowed to continue its long extended run in 1976 and was presented again, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, on the BYU main stage. The LDS Church News ran a full-page article about Helmuth Huebener last December, and BYU also recently produced a frequently aired documentary dealing with the same events. In a farewell letter at the time of my retirement in 2000, BYU President Merrill Bateman, himself an LDS general authority, even commended me for having written the play. Since "Huebener" is presently running at the Bountiful Performing Arts Center, I would not want potential viewers or cast members to misread the article and presume that the play is under some kind of onus or that its author is not in good standing with the LDS Church. Thomas F. Rogers Bountiful -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] BYU Actors Date: 27 May 2003 13:11:59 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >Now, Thom, was that just an inquiry or a bit of sarcasm? I sincerely wanted to know but, yes, it was a bit or sarcasm as well. I contend, unlike George Nelson, that BYU actors who refrain from swearing, etc. are not necessarily better, though they are immediately different. I've attended enough BYU performances to know that there are amazing actors and directors there. I've also seen some performances that gave me pause. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Date: 27 May 2003 13:15:50 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Bill Willson >prophets. ???? never-the-less, (imho) prophets are and should >definitely be in a realm all by themselves. > Which is why I used the term "similar" in describing their mantles. They are not the same, they have different responsibilities, different stewardships, if you will. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply Date: 27 May 2003 13:20:19 -0600 He was never called or questioned about "Heubner" in relation to the Freedman case but he was called on the carpet after the play was performed at BYU. Read all about it in _BYU, Household of Faith_. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gideon Burton Subject: [AML] Orson Scott Card and L.E. Modesitt Jr. at June Seminar Date: 27 May 2003 13:06:49 -0600 Those in the Cedar City area may be interested in this opportunity to = study with Orson Scott Card in June --- I am a faculty member in PE. =A0I just got this information and wondered = if anyone in English is interested in reading/writing science fiction. = =A0I=92ve taken classes from George Wythe College and my daughter is a student = there. =A0Their offerings are excellent and this course is limited to a total = of 17 people. =A0If you know anyone that may be interested, pass it on. Shane Schulthies. ------ Forwarded Message Dear George Wythe College Students and Friends,=20 =A0 I have been trying to get Orson Scott Card to come contribute to the = June Seminar on the Classical Nature of Science Fiction and Fantasy for some = time now. =A0After learning what we are doing with the seminar, and how it is focussing on leadership training and writing, Mr. Card and his wife = finally agreed to come. =A0In addition, L.E. Modesitt Jr. will also be coming = for the two days following Mr. Card's visit. =A0That's two amazing authors who = will mentor us through their works and give us insight into writing and publishing our own works. =A0 =A0 I promised them both that the class would be small so that there could = be an academic intimacy. =A0It is in this regard that I am writing you. =A0We = have 10 more spots open for this seminar. =A0Those wanting to come must be = enrolled in either the full month or the two-week portion of the June Seminar. = =A0Even if you can only come to the 4-day portion with Mr. Card and Mr. Modesitt, = you must be enrolled for the month or two-week. =A0 =A0 If you or someone you know wants to come, please call GWC before = Wednesday (May 28) as we are only accepting 10 more participants. =A0It will be a = great seminar and I would love to see you there. =A0 =A0 In addition, the August Seminar on Presidential Biographies will be excellent and I would invite you to consider that as well. =A0Good luck = in your studies and preparations. =A0Information at = www.gwc.edu/summer_seminars =A0 =A0 Warmest Regards,=20 =A0 Dr. Andrew Groft Provost Email: agroft@gwc.edu=20 Website: www.gwc.edu =A0 Phone: 435-586-6570=20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 27 May 2003 14:20:37 -0500 Barbara Hume: If you're talking about Mormon women in our time, do you want to narrow > your field by discussing those women who come from this long-term heritage? > May Mormon women are converts themselves or are children of recent > converts. What's the difference to an LDS woman's life if it has always > resonated to stories of the pioneers, or if the church was a choice made > far into modern times? This is a very good point. I am sure there is room for a lot of work to be done on women converts in the 20th century. For my project, the long-term heritage is essential because my grandmother is of pioneer stock, and this was central to her sense of self and history. The stories of church history were, literally, her family stories. On a related note: Over the weekend it occurred to me to wonder whether there is a particularly Mormon way of observing Memorial Day. For us it was always a day to pile in the car and drive down to Carbon and Emery counties to 'decorate' the graves of our ancestors, always with flowers from our own yard of course. I was at least 25 years old before it dawned on me that Memorial Day was supposed to be a patriotic holiday. For me, it was a day of remembering and honoring our ancestors. Is this a Mormon thing? Or a generational thing? Anybody know anything about how Memorial Day has been perceived and observed over the years? Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Biblical Language Date: 27 May 2003 13:36:20 -0700 Jonathan railed on Bruce R. the other day for his verse in "Come Listen To a Prophet's Voice" which, he feels, succumbs to what he calls ""thee-language creep". There may be another reason for it, though, one which is defensable. When I read the verse (quoted below), I simply saw it as a case of misguided poetry. Old Bruce was so immersed in KJB-land that he simply waxed poetic and liked the sound of all those thees and thous. Then, on further reflection, it struck me that there may have been a very specific choice for that tense form. What if, for example, McConkie was trying to point up the fact that when we reach the veil, when it comes right down to individual salvation, it is a very personal, one-on-one kind of experience. We are not going to be saved "as a Church", right? We are not going to be saved because our parents have always been faithful members. How are we going to be saved? Only if WE (meaning "each ONE of us") do what we have to do to get ourselves right with god. So, what if McConkie wasn't waxing poetical and what if he didn't screw up the "thee-language creep"? What if there was no error? What if he was trying to make a very specific, subtle, and artistic point using the exact, though archaic, form? When he says "you" in English, it is not clear if he is meaning you (the individual) or you (the group). But when he says "thee" and "thou", it is clear that he means "you the individual". So, read the verse again with that in mind: > > Then heed the words of truth and light that flow from fountains pure. > Yea, keep His law with all thy might till thine election's sure, > Till thou shalt hear the holy voice assure eternal reign, > While joy and cheer attend thy choice, as one who shall obtain. > Suddenly, this becomes is a very specific and inditing charge. No group salvation here. It is YOU (yes, you specifically: THEE) who must "keep His law" with all your might. Nobody else can do it for you. And when your (yes, your specifically: THY) election is made sure, it won't mean that your spouse's election is automatically made sure, or your kids' or your neighbors'. This salvation he is discussing is a very personal thing, and though the hymn is meant to be sung as a group, this verse's message is for each of us AS SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS. Hence the appropriateness of the individual form of you: thee and thou. Maybe. I don't know. But by Johnathan forcing me to re-read and think about it, that is what struck me. Later Langford says: > Now, I love the thees and thous and thys and thines. They're *pretty*. Yes, that was my first reacition. "Poetic". But they have a function as well, even if we have mostly forgotten what that funciton is. As word-smiths, why not be able to use all the arsenal we have at our disposal (archaic or not) to twinge our language to its utmost potential? Thees and thous can be used, especially in a religious setting, where there is at least a passing familiarity with the old form (however misunderstood it may be), to add an emphasis which we do not usually have with our multiple usage "you". Jongiorgi Enos P.S. "Use Yous" is a classic! I'll have to remember that. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 27 May 2003 14:50:07 -0600 > Carrie Pruett wrote: > If you find inspiration in one of > these sources, more power to you, > but I think that drawing parallels > too closely between these invented > cosmologies and an external religious > view threatens to distort both the > fiction and the nonfiction versions. I think, succumbing to the spotlight of sudden fame, Joseph Campbell conned himself and George Lucas into believing that _Stars Wars_ was more than it set out to be--and that explains why all the episodes since the first two (the first two produced, that is) have been so awful: Lucas wanted so badly to be profound he forgot the basics of good storytelling that he had intuitively grasped the first time around. Likewise, the only good reason to consume art is because we like it, not because like cod liver oil it is proclaimed to be "good for us." Hopefully, when analyzing why we like it we will discover something of value in our choices. And it is certainly possible (though only to degrees) to modify ("educate") our tastes so that our preferences change (ones hopes for the better, whatever "better" is). But I believe that universals are at work in any case. They must be, of course, or the "bestseller" and the "blockbuster" would not exist. Nor cookbooks, nor any genre, for that matter. Rather than be scorned, popular art and culture should be examined for the nature of these universals. (When radio astronomers started detecting the same frequency of background radiation everywhere they looked, they knew they were onto something big.) Romance novels, for example, constitute something like 40 or 50 percent of the trade paperback market. Instead of dismissing the genre as "escapism" (as J.R.R. Tolkien reportedly remarked to C.S. Lewis on the subject: "The people who hate escapism most are jailers"), I'd prefer non-condescending explanations of what makes it so popular, what readers are looking for when they read. Sure, Joseph Campbell got carried away with his exegeses of _Star Wars_, but he wasn't all wet. Anybody willing to give up chocolate because so many people like it? I believe that "popular art" exists in the first place because the world works in a certain way. Drama and music work in certain ways (referring now to Scott Parkin's point), and more often than not don't work when those rules are abused. You could call it the cosmic anthropic principle, or you could call it social conditioning. Joseph Campbell saw these patterns arising out of the big bang of cultural evolution. C.S. Lewis and others have argued that if God created the world, then God would have infused himself through it, and so these "God memes" are going to show up everywhere. Whatever the epistemological reasoning, I think they're right. I would argue that writers/directors/producers like Joss Whedon and Chris Carter manage to produce such religiously significant work precisely because they don't set out deliberately to do it in a color-by-numbers fashion, but have made themselves accessible to those ubiquitous memes, and are able channel them through a disciplined, creative process without throwing up false roadblocks along the way. So rather than the "conservative" Christian response that reflexively says, "Magic bad, magic bad," they possess the gifts to recognize those essential story universals--what perhaps could be described as Platonic reflections of the mind of God. Even a jaded atheist can read about Saul's encounter with the witch at Endor, and then Macbeth's similar run-in, and, believing the one is as made-up as the other, still say, Mmmm, they've got something here that really works. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Sickbed Reading & Viewing Date: 27 May 2003 15:03:53 -0600 On a personal note, and asking for help. I'm having surgery soon. It's not anything life-threatening, but the = surgery will involve my right foot and leg. I'm therefore going to be = spending a month, more or less, flat on my back in bed. And at least = some of that time I'll be spending on drugs. Now, here's my dirty secret; I'm kinda looking forward to it. No = responsibilities, no work, just a certain amount of pain, offset by the = fact that I will be able to do nothing but watch movies and read books. = For a solid month. =20 So here's my query, what do you guys recommend? Anything in particular = that you think would make for good reading/viewing for an invalid? = Remember, I love movies, like R Rated ones just fine, and don't much = care for sci/fantasy fiction. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 27 May 2003 16:03:30 -0600 Regarding this current best-selling novel, has its overlap with Mormon belief (if not outright doctrine) been discussed yet? Here's part of a blurb from Publishers Weekly: "What if Jesus Christ had a tryst with Mary Magdalene, and the interlude produced a child? Such a possibility--yielding a so-called royal bloodline--provides the framework for Brown's latest thriller (after Angels and Demons), an exhaustively researched page-turner about secret religious societies, ancient coverups and savage vengeance." Isn't it a very common Mormon belief that indeed M. Magdalene was the Savior's earthly wife--in fact, one of several? In my own family descended from Heber C. Kimball, it's whispered that Joseph Smith told Heber that Heber was related by BLOOD to Jesus (which means I would be too, perhaps one molecule of blood in my pinky toe). We thought this tidbit was included in the first edition of Orson Whitney's bio of Heber and removed from later editions, but I couldn't find it in the first edition in my father-in-law's library. Anyone know anything about any of these matters? Someone ought to do a novel speculating on the Savior's domestic/married life. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 27 May 2003 19:22:26 -0700 You're right, these are great. I haven't seen any at DI lately. But I found out that they have a new policy of throwing away *anything* that looks like a magazine. Sheesh. I need to talk to them about stopping that, if they can find someone who knows the difference between a RS magazine and a ten year old copy of Good Housekeeping. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net > -----Original Message----- > You want to take a serious look at "The Relief Society Magazine". -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] LDSBA Convention Passes Date: 27 May 2003 17:13:53 -0600 If you want to attend this year's LDS Booksellers convention, the AML can provide you with a complimentary pass IF you are a current dues-paying member or board/staff member of the AML. If you would like a pass, e-mail me directly with your street mailing address. For more info on the convention, including dates, visit http://www.ldsba.com/convention.html. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 28 May 2003 10:30:11 -0500 Rex writes: >Jonathan, > >Were you intentionally trying to coax me out of my lurkerhood? Whatever works... He goes on to say: >There is a corner of a room in the Church's message about same-sex attraction >that is surrounded by painted floors. [...] They have unofficially bought >into point of view put >forth by Dr. Dean Byrd in _Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ_. That >point of view relies on a theory of same-sex attraction genesis in a young man >that says that same-sex attraction is a result of a disconnect between a >boy and >his male peers. The therapy that is born out of this theory involves >helping him >to connect in non-sexual but emotionally intimate ways with his peers. [snip] >If this theory is accurate, and I'm not here to promote it in the least, >then it >would naturally follow that anyone trying to help a young man deal with his >same-sex attraction would want to encourage, rather than discourage, his >friendships with his male peers. I think this describes the dilemma very well. I'd add that hedging such situations with restrictions, while it may provide for greater immediate safety, also can have the effect of emphasizing their sexual potential. Counterproductive, if your goal is to encourage "nonsexual but emotionally intimate" relationships. (This, of course, is also an issue with the restrictions we place on male-female interactions in the Church. I sometimes wonder whether the positive value of guidelines such as "never give a ride to someone of the opposite sex if you're married to someone else" isn't ultimately negated by their potential to make us that much more aware of the sexual potential of such situations. Which isn't to say that such rules don't have their place...but I worry that applying them in an across-the-board manner may have downsides that we don't often acknowledge. Reducing opportunity while sexualizing context seems like a short-term strategy to me.) On another note: Rex, you seem to have misgivings about Dean Byrd's theory. Would you mind sharing them with us? I at least would really like to know. In fact, if it's not too much work, perhaps you could outline some of the competing theories of causation of same-sex attraction (at least those that one encounters most frequently in the Church and in the surrounding culture) and what you see as the pros and cons of each theory, particularly from an LDS perspective. And I hope you won't be too shy about restating your opinion of Kushner's work when I finally produce my delayed review of the plays. You may have said it before, but on the other hand, one of the joys of a list such as this one is that as time and composition changes, one can have a new conversation on an old topic. Your feedback would be a welcome addition to that conversation. Jonathan Langford Speaking as AML-List member, not moderator jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 28 May 2003 11:01:49 -0600 I'm just another lurker brought out of the woodwork by an interesting topic. I think Jonathan has asked some good questions and Rex has made some good points. Both in the real world and in fiction, I think one of the most interesting situations to find a youth struggling with SSA in is the mission field. Being with a person that you could potentially be attracted to for 24 hours a day when you aren't supposed to be thinking about things like that is just an awkward situation, and there's no easy solution--the Church isn't about to assign an elder and a sister as companions just because one or both claim to be attracted to members of the same sex. And it's not even a question of trust or moral integrity--if someone is serving a mission then it's understood that whoever signed their papers trusts them to do all they can to stay morally clean. The real issue is the inner struggle of the individual. Put a "straight" nineteen-year-old boy in an apartment with one or even up to five or seven girls his age, and chances are he's going to have a hard time keeping his thoughts clean while his roommates are walking around in their underwear or towels. This is probably why a lot of young men struggling with SSA choose not to serve missions, even if they're totally worthy to do so. Actuallly seeing these kinds of issues explored in fiction is another question. The Mormon market tends to shy away from such controversial issues (though we seem to be opening up to more and more as time goes on), while the national market generally wouldn't touch a book that even considers the possibility of choosing to change one's sexuality with a ten foot pole (that is, they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, not that anyone is trying to change their sexuality with a ten foot pole :) ). The only piece of fiction that I can think of that deals with the unique conflicts of homosexuality and Mormonism is John Bennion's "The Interview" (included in _Breeding Leah and Other Stories_, I believe). He does a fairly good job of exploring the topic, and it makes for a very interesting story, but a short story can only skim the surface of such a complex issue. The topic really deserves several novels and short stories--there are so many Mormons (and other Christians, for that matter) that struggle with SSA, in so many situations and stages of life, each with stories that most people have never heard or even thought of. And then there's the question of authenticity. Should only authors who have personally experienced SSA and truly understand it write characters with SSA? Can John Bennion, who to my knowledge has never been attracted to men, write a convincing gay character? The truth is, no one can be a judge of that because while the main character of "The Interview" may not ring true to one person, he probably will ring true to others. In general I think arguments for authenticity are usually ridiculous, but nevertheless there will always be people who say that no one can write about something they haven't personally experienced. At any rate, I'd like to see more books where SSA in a Mormon context plays some sort of role--either as the focus of the book or a minor subplot. I, for one, am working on a collection of short stories about characters who struggle with SSA, as well as a novel or two, but convincing someone that they're worth publishing will be the real accomplishment. I hope others do the same. I'm looking forward to reading yours, Rex. --Ben Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 27 May 2003 20:46:17 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | I can't think of many monsters that truly haunt Mormons. I've | heard a number of second-hand stories of exorcism, of course. | I've witnessed some semi-scary things first-hand. Nothing you | could base an entire book, movie or play on, though. The | trouble is, Mormons aren't terribly afraid of external | spiritual assailants. Kind of hard to be *too* frightened | when the first priesthood-holder to arrive deals with the | problem in a relatively brief, even perfunctory way. ___ The idea that all evil spirits can be dealt with in a "brief, even=20 perfunctory way" seems incorrect. At a minimum we have Matthew 17:21=20 where Jesus say, "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." =20= If the twelve apostles couldn't do it, I rather doubt I could do it=20 were I the first priesthood holder to arrive. Even if we bring in the "de-mythologizing" view towards the scriptures=20= and consider that perhaps this was a case of bi-polar disorder,=20 dementia or schizophrenia we still have problems. Consider, for=20 example, the case told by Wilford Woodruf: "When Brother Kimball, Brother George A. Smith and myself went to=20 London, we encountered these evil spirits.=A0 They sought to destroy = us.=A0=20 The very first house that was opened to us was filled with devils.=A0=20 They had gathered there for our destruction, so that we should not=20 plant the Gospel in that great city.=A0 Brother Kimball went to=20 Manchester on some business, and left Brother George A. Smith and=20 myself there.=A0 One night we sat up till 11 o=92clock, talking = Mormonism,=20 and then we went to bed.=A0 We had only just laid down when these = spirits=20 rested upon us, and we were in a very fair way of losing our lives.=A0 = It=20 was as if a strong man had me by the throat, trying to choke me to=20 death.=A0 In the midst of this a spirit told me to pray.=A0 I did so, = and=20 while praying, the door opened, the room was filled with light, and=20 three messengers came in.=A0 Who they were I know not.=A0 They came and=20= laid their hands upon us, and rebuked those powers, and thereby saved=20 our lives." See: http://home.attbi.com/~mevans41/greaterthings/moaww.html It seems to me that stories of evil spirits not only aren't=20 "perfunctory" but that we have a rather colorful history of them. =20 There are numerous other examples among the early brethren of similar=20 events. And lets not even get into the stories of "running men" among=20= the Navajo as encountered by missionaries. My favorite one was about the sister missionaries living in a mobile=20 home out in the desert in Arizona. A bunch of running men (shape=20 shifting shamans or witches among the Navajo) start circling their=20 home. Then they start running up the walls, over the roof and down the=20= other side. The sisters pray for a bunch of Lamanite warriors to=20 protect them and soon the sounds of running on the walls and roof cease. I actually heard that one from the district leader who was a missionary=20= teacher in the MTC. I don't know how much I buy it. (Significantly=20 the sisters never go outside to actually *see* what is going on out=20 there) But it does lead to an interesting story. There are many other=20= such stories I've heard from missionaries. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] DRAPER & DRAPER, _Seventh Seal_ (Review) Date: 15 May 2003 03:36:00 GMT Review Title: Seventh Seal, A Novel of the Last Days Author: Jessica and Richard D. Draper Publisher: Covenant Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 499 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 1-59156-190-6 Price: $16.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (If you're planning to read this book, don't read this review. I give away the entire plot.) The world of Christian publishing has been rocked by the unprecedented success of the "Left Behind" series of endtime novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. The series is now about a dozen volumes, and there's no sign that they'll be letting up any time soon. There's now a children's edition, several have been filmed, and advance orders for each new volume are breaking sales records for Christian books. As the first-listed author, LaHaye is thought by some as the one who wrote the books. It's actually Jenkins, a professional ghost writer, who does the writing. LaHaye just checks the theology to ensure doctrinal soundness (from their point of view). The success of the series is marked by large displays known as "Left Behind Headquarters," stationed in larger Christian bookstores, and the opening of the Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. No kidding. The Drapers are likewise listed as co-authors of the present volume, but more honestly, the writer (Jessica) is listed first, while the expert on prophecy (Richard) is listed second. I appreciate this proper credit being given. "Seventh Seal" is yet another attempt by a Mormon author to avoid being "left behind" in the flood of endtime novels showing up in the bookstores. Of course, this book presents the story from a Mormon perspective. Draper is presented as an authority on prophecy, and can thus be expected to see that the book is in line with official Church teaching. Why is the LaHaye/Jenkins series so popular? To be fair, Jenkins is a very good writer. His situations are compelling and coherent, and his theology is consistent, in line with the fundamentalist, dispensationalist point of view. Even with a faulty premise, a well-written book can carry a reader's interest. At 499 pages, "Seventh Seal" needs to be written well. We shall soon see whether this is so. There are several storylines presented in this book. The first involves a giant pharmaceutical research firm known as MedaGen. It has been swallowing up other pharmaceutical firms in an effort to gain a monopoly in the industry. Supported by a Senator Garlick, who has his own agenda (and doesn't mind cutting ethical corners), they buy up a firm that employed Chris Galen, a brilliant scientist working on a cure for diabetes. The day after the takeover, Chris shows up for work, logs in to his computer with his username (ChrisG), and is told he has to change his password immediately. He does so, is logged in, and discovers that he has access to someone else's files. That someone else is Gregor Christoff. Galen's username has been changed to GalenC; Christoff's username is now ChrisG. (Get it?) To Chris' surprise, Christoff is working on a supersecret project, developing a cure-all drug, called AllSafe, that will benefit all mankind. The problem with the drug is that it requires constant booster shots, an incredible chance for this company to make a huge profit, since they are the only ones who manufacture the vaccine and the boosters. But they aren't planning on telling anyone about the need for booster shots. And the evil Senator Garlick is complicit in making vaccination mandatory for all citizens! Human tests on the vaccine are conducted, and the subjects from whom the booster shots are withheld died a terrible death, their immune systems completely breaking down. Chris, a good Mormon, can't let this pass by. He comes home to his wife, Merry, explains what he's discovered, and they are determined to expose the nefarious plot. Now, if you think that Galen's access to "top secret" files was too easy, you're right. It is just preposterous to think that computer security in a large, ambitious and rather paranoid firm, could be that weak. With the takeover, the authors make a point of extolling the new security measures. Cameras, armed guards, etc. They're leaving nothing to chance. The idea that the system just let him in to see the files, when the company knew that any disclosure of these files could run their plans for world conquest, is ridiculous. When Chris is killed in an auto accident, Merry has to carry on the work. Using deceit, she obtains employment at MedaGen. She uses an assumed name and a truncated resume. She uses her position to gain access to the sensitive files so that she can expose the plot. When one of her supervisors learns that she's actually the late Chris Galen's wife, she flees the city with her infant daughter, making her way to Salt Lake City to enlist the help of the Church in exposing the plot. (Church headquarters, by the way, has been moved to Independence, Missouri. I never quite figured out why some leadership remained in Salt Lake City. The impression I had gotten was that they had pretty well cleared out. But this is just a minor bit of inexplicable information; I decided to let it pass.) But let's move on to another storyline. It seems that gangs are taking over the country, roving about, selling drugs and killing their competition. A young man named Dove, and his older brother Benny, are caught up in the trade. But Dove wants to better his life, so he's going to school, and several gang members are going to school with him. They've commandeered a local taco shop as their headquarters, and there they eat mole, do homework, and plot murders, protection schemes and drug sales. The gang turns on Dove and his brother Benny, and they kill Benny, but they only maim Dove. He is rescued by some local Mormon Native Americans. He reads the Book of Mormon, is baptized, and goes out in the spirit of Captain Moroni to battle the bad guys. Who are the "bad guys"? The worst of them is The General. He has developed biological weapons, and is using them to wipe out entire populations along the Mexican-American border. (The story, by the way, takes place in San Diego and environs.) His chief assistant, a fellow named Slick, is a really evil fellow. Dove and his compatriots must find some way to stop The General, and they must go through Slick to get to him. Ultimately they meet on the battlefield, but more about that later. Interwoven throughout the book are letters of a Nigerian man to his son who is serving a mission in Japan. I counted about 40 pages of these letters. Each one reads like a Conference talk, but filled with prophetic warnings and what was intended to sound like a solid understanding of endtime dangers. I found several of these letters to be somewhat odious, and it was never explained why the writer's ethnicity (Nigerian) mattered. The Galen and Dove stories are the central threads. There are several others, but they are unimportant to the storyline. In keeping with the "Seventh Seal" theme, however, there are plenty of earthquakes and other natural disasters that cause unrelated havoc around the world. The first third or so of this book is, well, just dreadful. Happily, the writing gets better as the book moves on, but only to fall completely apart at the end. In some places, the writing is just so overwrought that it becomes nearly unreadable. Consider the following, from an early portion of the book: Sure enough, the mercenary femme was shooting at Rose out of her own pile of industrial debris, her assets bouncing in a way calculated to distract her opponents, and returned fire with two howitzer-sized hand cannons. The barrel disappeared into independent atoms, and Cesare's ego went down in a burst of crimson glop that completely obscured his vision. (p. 69) I don't know where to begin in commenting on such prose. Writers will sometimes fish for modifying words that will enhance their nouns and verbs. And often they will pad their writing with verbiage that seems to them flowery and articulate. Sometimes they make good choices; sometimes they don't. And when a writer lives to modify every noun and every verb, you eventually run out of adjectives and adverbs. You simply run out of ways of saying the same thing, and so you resort to awkward and misguided writing. I was glad to see that the authors decided to give up their endless quest for modifiers as the book went on, and chose to focus on character and plot. The writing becomes more spare, more precise. And, in fact, the book becomes an enjoyable read, with plenty of suspense and some surprises. But how many readers will hang on long enough to discover that there is something worth reading further on? Frankly, if I weren't reading the book for review, I would never have finished it. Two larger problems plague this book, and they are worth noting. First, there is a (barely disguised) conservative Republican agenda, a contempt for what might be termed the political left (and even for the political middle) and an embracing of the political right. The Drapers thus deliver something of a political tract that is better left to political writers. Draper has one of her characters, the Nigerian fellow who writes to his missionary son, saying the following: Too many people equate legal with moral. The result is a society that plays word games (as the modern damnable proverb says, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is") and thereby feels moral. (p. 118) A gratuitous swipe at Bill Clinton? "Damnable proverb"? Sure, why not. As long as you're blaming all the ills of our society on a) liberals and b) the Whore of Babylon (as this father does), you may as well sweep as many of the wicked ones into your net as possible. Later, again in the context of one of these letters, the authors take another swipe at the left: According to all we hear, it [AllSafe] guarantees complete safety against any and all infections. The "porn industry" and other immoral elements of society are rallying behind it. The religious gay community (yes, there is one), answering the charge that AIDS was God's curse against their perversion, is boasting that AllSafe is the divine sign that God accepts their lifestyle. (p. 363-4) That any person living in the present, no less the future, should find a community of gay Christians to be surprising is just astonishing. To group them with the "porn industry and other "immoral elements of society" will surely cause offense among some Latter-day Saints. There is no denying that there is a political agenda interwoven throughout the book. The second problem is the Drapers' tendency to minimize, mock and treat with contempt those who are unlike them. Typical is the following. The context is a series of protests being held against the Church at its new headquarters in Jackson County, MO: Another protest replaced the Christian political rally; the signs were the same, the slogans on the signs changed. "The Mormons are pouring money into illegal political pressure!" a gay rights protester snarled. The triangle tattoo on his forehead distorted as he scowled... (p. 158) If you're detecting a homophobic bent to the book, you're right. And when you're reduced to depicting gay rights protesters as having "triangle tattoos on their heads, then, well, your credibility, in my opinion, is gone. But let's move on. At several points, the plot choices are simply inexplicable. A few examples: When Merry Galen reaches Salt Lake City, she reports to a General Authority, gets the wheels moving to expose the dangers of AllSafe, and then wants nothing more than to rest. During the past few weeks, she has been relentlessly pursued by the murderous minions of MedaGen, who have access to an enormous amount of personal information, including Merry's friends, the places she frequents, her phone and credit card records, etc. When the Church offers to secure an apartment for her, she opts to stay with her in-laws, who live in Provo. What??? Does she really think the super-sleuths at MedaGen don't know where the in-laws live? Does she think that they won't look there first? Oddly, no one tells her this is a really bad idea. Our friend Dove, who has been baptized and is now out fighting the bad guys, captures the baddest of the guys, the aforementioned Slick, who has a direct link to The General, the mastermind behind the whole nefarious biological weapons plot. (It isn't apparent that there is any intersection between the Dove story and the Galen plotline. At least I couldn't find one, other than the implied evil that undergirded the bad people who populate this book.) Dove is reluctant to outright kill Slick. And so he offers Slick a deal -- if he will just stop doing bad things, and go back to The General and tell him to stop doing bad things, too, he'll let him go. Huh???? Frankly, I don't know what to say. Happily, Slick makes one last attempt to kill Dove, and Dove ends up blowing him away. Sigh, all's well that ends well. There is, of course, a lot of moral ambiguity in this book. Take Merry Galen. She lies to get her job, steals information from the computer, etc. While the authors are quick to condemn, among others, alcohol and coffee drinkers, they stand silent at the incredible moral laxness of some of the main characters. Dove, newly baptized, goes forth to assemble an army of killers and arsonists. What's going on here? One of Merry's friends has a daughter who is an accomplished liar, and manages to fend off an attack by some MedaGen goons. Her ability to lie in times of crisis is lauded. The great tragedy of this book is the lost opportunity. I mentioned LaHaye and Jenkins earlier. Jenkins is a good writer; the books sell well. At there are lengthy segments of this book that are written very well. Some of the action scenes are gripping and suspenseful. And once the Drapers decide to put aside their conservative religious and political agenda, they put together an exciting story. But I can't see the sense in wading through nearly 500 pages to get to the good writing. I express a (cautious) hope that the Drapers give it another try. And I would offer the following advice: 1. Tone down the moralizing and demeaning references to people who are not like you. They are unworthy of good Mormon literature. There are any number of fine authors within the LDS community who have proven that you can discuss these issues and maintain some credibility in the process. Your own extreme right-wing bias makes your argument less credible. 2. Avoid having so many storylines, they're just too confusing, too difficult to follow. You introduce so many characters at the beginning of the book that the reader will have a great deal of trouble remembering "who's who." If you must populate your books with so many characters, at least give the reader a list of characters. 3. Be sensitive to plot turns that cause the reader to wonder about the intelligence of the characters. Some of the situations are just too facile to be believable. I really can't recommend this book. I'm sorry about that. The Drapers seem well-intentioned, and I wish them well in their future endeavors. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 27 May 2003 21:07:15 -0600 ___ Scott ___ | Most of what you describe are human monsters, not supernatural | critters. Cain is a monster of his own making, begun as a man. | Cain as a general figure of world folklore is hardly new, and | Mormon theology offers little new speculation (though the Yeti | thing is fun, it still falls within the cursed man definition). ___ Hmm. I think your definition is a tad restrictive. Would werewolves and vampires be monsters according to your definition? It seems that the Cain tales have far more in common with those than with a "human monster." After all we have a character who becomes hair, who is cursed to wander the earth, who is evil, and who *can't die*. That last element is what puts it into the horror when combined with evil. (Otherwise it'd probably just be an episode of "Highlander") The problem is that many monsters are very human. Consider the story of Beowulf. This was retold in an existential fashion by John Gardner as _Grendel_. In it one of the classic monster stories is retold in a very human fashion. The grendel character becomes fairly sympathetic. Indeed when I first read that story I immediately thought of our LDS legends of Cain. It seems to me that the most interesting horror stories typically involve the cursed man. Many retellings of Dracula are like that (the Francis Ford Coppola telling being the best example). I'd say that the vast majority of Stephen King's horror novels - including those involving monsters - are of this sort. (At least of the ones I've read) ___ Scott ___ | I have not the slightest idea what you're referring to here--at | least in terms of the Watchers of Enoch. For me, at least, the | lore is far from common. ___ I posted some links on this over the weekend. Once your familiar with the story you will see it in a lot of literature: both horrific and more of the fantasy type. ___ Scott ___ | In any case, they sound like ordinary people, not supernatural | creatures. ___ No. They are monstrous giants who are half-breeds between angels and humans. Admittedly for Mormons that is less of a difference, but for the Jews of the period that was significant. ___ Clark ___ | There are lots of other stories, such as the lamanite angels | guarding the temple from sons of perdition. (I forget which | temple: either the SLC or Logan) There is the story of the | angel of light on the river in the D&C. | ___ Scott ___ | Again, I don't recall either of these stories. They don't seem | like generally accepted supernatural/horrific lore to me. I don't | recall hearing a lot of talk or speculation on these stories, | and so I tend to see them as having little traction or resonance | in the culture at large. ___ The latter is quite well known. It is referenced in 2 Cor 11:14 and 2 Ne 9:9 among other places. But Joseph encountered him on the banks of the Susquehanna. It's discussed in D&C 128. Surely you've read *that* portion of Mormon history. (Just joking, but I find it funny that a noted encounter between Joseph Smith and the devil is said to not be "generally accepted supernatural/horrific lore.") The former I don't have a reference for handy. I'm sure you could find it easily when googling. It's a noted story of one of the temples. I forget which one though. But I've heard it told numerous times by general authorities. ___ Scott ___ | But I'm not sure how seriously we take them as literal things, | and I'm not sure that Mormon culture itself celebrates them. ___ There certainly is a strong "pragmatic" streak in Mormonism which downplays the so-called supernatural. But I've heard in Utah *so* many of these stories. On my mission I heard far, far more. I don't think that they are as uncommon as you suggest. As I mentioned a few professors at BYU have studied these folk tales in depth and they have a collection at the HBLL that any prospective writers might find interesting. As for how well they resonate, I think the fact that they arise from within our culture suggests they will resonate quite strongly. If anything they would resonate far more than the typical horror monster you find at present - most of which I find extremely silly. The only ones that work for me are ones that occur within a strict Science Fiction narrative, such as _Alien_. I find most monster stories silly because I simply can't suspend disbelief enough to believe in the reality of the monster. Even within the given narrative. ___ Scott ___ | Satan has neither tail nor horns; at worst he looks like Al | Pacino. ___ Ever see the film _Angel Heart_? Probably a movie I wished I *hadn't* seen. Robert DeNiro is the devil. Very horrific. Yet the devil is much more subdued and more akin to what you present. Very disturbing movie. I also think that a lot of David Lynch movies work as horror. Heavens, even the Twin Peaks TV series was horrific. Further it contains all those fairly LDS types of horror I mentioned, including the conspiracies. ___ Scott ___ | Sure, we can tell those stories, but they're stories based on | external musings and acknowledgement of other peoples' lore-- | they're always metaphors rather than objective reporting of | literally possible reality. ___ Sounds to me like you just disbelieve a lot of the horrific elements in our history. (Which is fine, I think a lot of "encounters with the devil" probably have a better naturalistic explanation) I wonder if you think that horror is possible in any context. It sounds like you could never accept the horror as anything but metaphor. I think the way David Lynch directs horror is one way of adopting both. But I suspect that it simply is a genre you'll never accept. (Perhaps reading between the lines, but if not then it seems you hold a double standard towards LDS horror) Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 28 May 2003 05:27:30 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Scott Parkin > >In other words, they're just us folks. Cain may have a problem >with hyperpilosity, but he's just another of us folks--though >an exceptionally unhappy one. In the as-yet unpublished (except for a brief appearnace in an electronic format published by me) sequel to my Moroni Smith Series, _Moroni Smith: In Search of the Gold Plates_, Cain makes a rather dramatic and somewhat horrific appearance, endowed with all the evil powers that one would expect of a centuries old villain. Doctrinally correct? Hardly. But it sure was fun to write him. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 28 May 2003 10:34:57 -0400 **************************** > There are lots of other stories, such as the lamanite angels guarding > the temple from sons of perdition. (I forget which temple: either the > SLC or Logan) There is the story of the angel of light on the river in > the D&C. Again, I don't recall either of these stories. They don't seem like generally accepted supernatural/horrific lore to me. I don't recall hearing a lot of talk or speculation on these stories, and so I tend to see them as having little traction or resonance in the culture at large. Not that they don't have their adherent, but that they don't rise to the level of common knowledge and repeated speculation. My question is how many of them are really and truly considered real and powerful in the specifically Mormon culture--and how many of these stories are we regularly telling each other? ***************************** I've heard these stories (especially the lamanite angels, though they were more specifically the sons of Helaman) mentioned several times in seminary classes, Priesthood lessons, and Church-sponsored Boy Scout campfires at least as often as I've heard "non-Mormon" horror stories. And I grew up outside the shadow of the everlasting hills, even. Probably these are most common--just like horror stories, I would think--among the teenage crowd. Adults don't seem to tell each other horror stories of any kind "regularly," and certainly not as often as kids out late. Missionaries, too, tell these sorts of stories a lot (that's, come to think of it, maybe the most fruitful "field" for Mormon horror). Even if logically the antagonists in those stories--possessions, encounters with Cain in any of his various forms, etc.--are human, they aren't told that way. Cain, et al. may have been human once, but in the collective imagination (of teenagers through missionary-age, I'd say) he's taken on a very extra-human vibe. Freddy Krueger was human once, too, right? Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] ROGERS, _Heubener_ Date: 28 May 2003 09:44:05 -0600 I'll admit to a huge memory problem (These kind of problems go along with head injuries). I remember these two plays because in Road to Golgatha I was a Russian Major and Thom was chairman of the Russian department. All Russian student went to see it because it was set in the USSR. Thom was cast in the play he played a drunk. In one scene he started to cry. It was a horrible sob that enveloped his entire soul, and terrifyingly, the sobbing turn into maniacal laughter. He wasn't wearing any socks. That's all I can remember of that play. In the Huebner play the only scene I remember is when the Branch President was on the phone. I don't think there was any dialogue. But after the play Thom was sitting at a table near the stairs in the HFAC. He was signing copies of a collection of plays he had put together. I believe they were $10.00. I wanted to buy one, but I didn't have the money. I wanted to shake Thom's hand and congradulate him and tell him I appreciated the play. We had become friends scine I left BYU. As I approached the table Thom gave me his adorable smile, handed me a book and shook my hand. And right at that moment I loved him more than all the world. I remember that. I still have that book somewhere, too. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] PETERSEN, _Hugh Nibley_ (Review) Date: 28 May 2003 08:44:26 -0700 Indeed! And congrats back to you, I've just heard that the third volume of your trilogy is ready for the shelves. I can't wait to read it! ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net > -----Original Message----- > Congrats to Boyd, who received the Mormon History Association award for > best biography. > > ________________ > Margaret Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 28 May 2003 11:03:10 -0600 The Laird saith: >That is the reason I don't watch West Wing. It's a soap opera. I >haven't watched soap opera's since I was 4 years old. I can't stand >more than 5 minutes. I watched an episode of West Wing in the first >season and the jury was out as to whether it was a soap opera--watched >part of another episode and that was enough for me. Soap opera mixed >with political lies. Then you've deprived yourself of some very moving episodes where (gasp!) Republicans were actually portrayed as noble folk. I offer this assessment on the assumption that, judging from this and past posts, you would probably enjoy the show more if its President were a conservative instead of a liberal. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me. The West Wing is continuously exhilarating, and often moving. There was an episode where President Bartlett talked to some young seaman who was the only surviving member of an attack. Another episode where a Senator speaks for thirty-six hours to get the President to cave on an issue because that Senator's grandson would have been harmed by the Executive policy still finds me short of breath when I think of it. The writers have not pulled punches, and have equally doled out character flaws to members of both parties. The President was caught in a lie to the people, for instance, which also cost him the election. The season closer was him turning over the government to the Republican Speaker of the House. It is a wonderful show. Definitely NOT soap opera. Also for what it's worth, they have also had some interesting debates on Abortion issues. Of course, if one is content in one's feelings about Pro-Life, such even handed debates would be a waste of time. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 28 May 2003 12:05:33 -0600 Lisa Tait wrote: >I am coming to Utah next week for a quick research trip. I'll be staying in >American Fork. Where are the best places to look for old RS Magazines etc? >Besides DI--and which DI? How about very old Mormon books? I want to find a >copy of Representative Women of Deseret and of Susa Young Gates's biography >of Brigham Young. Look up the books you want in the BYU Lee Library catalog before you come. I bet most of what you want are there. And if you have the call numbers looked up, you won't have to waste as much time while you're here. >Can anyone suggest further reading about farming and farm culture in Utah? Try Allan Kent Powell, ed., _Utah History Encyclopedia_ or Arrington, _Great Basin Kingdom_. >Danish/Scandinavian immigrants? There are a couple articles in BYU Studies about Scandinavian converts/immigrants: Bjarnason, Loftur, "The Land of Song and Saga" (1969), 9:2:209. Woods, Fred E., "Fire on Ice: The Conversion and Life of Gutmundur Gutmundsson" (2000), 39:2:56. Woods, Fred E., and Nicholas J. Evans, "Latter-day Saint Scandinavian Migration through Hull, England, 1852-1894" (2002), 41:4:75. Other sources: Andrew Jenson, _History of the Scandinavian Mission_ (Salt Lake: Deseret News, 1927). William Mulder, _Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scandinavia_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975; reprint, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2000). Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gideon Burton Subject: [AML] R.S. Magazine (was: 20th Century Mormon Women) Date: 28 May 2003 10:54:47 -0600 The Relief Society Magazine is awesome! What a treasure trove of LDS history, folklore, literature, etc. I'm glad Jacob mentioned it, and everyone should know about a new online resource that has indexed most = of the R.S Magazine, including all of the birthdays and recipes (the latter sorted by category, even). This has been put together by Connie Lamb, = one of the BYU librarians on the Mormon Literature Database committee. The URL = is http://web.lib.byu.edu/rsmag/index.php. Soon we will be entering the = many plays, poems, and literary lessons from the R.S. Magazine into the = Mormon Literature Database. Gideon O. Burton 3113 JKHB Department of English Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-3525 Visit Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric http://rhetoric.byu.edu The Mormon Literature Database http://MormonLit.lib.byu.edu =20 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 28 May 2003 15:42:39 -0400 >On a related note: Over the weekend it occurred to me to wonder whether >there is a particularly Mormon way of observing Memorial Day. For us it was >always a day to pile in the car and drive down to Carbon and Emery counties >to 'decorate' the graves of our ancestors, always with flowers from our own >yard of course. I was at least 25 years old before it dawned on me that >Memorial Day was supposed to be a patriotic holiday. For me, it was a day of >remembering and honoring our ancestors. Is this a Mormon thing? Or a >generational thing? Anybody know anything about how Memorial Day has been >perceived and observed over the years? > >Lisa Tait I live just five miles from little Boalsburg, PA, which has a statue and a plaque declaring it the "birthplace" of Memorial Day. I'll see what I can find out. Justin Halverson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply Date: 28 May 2003 13:48:49 -0600 I'd love to see a summary of that article about _Huebener_, Thom--that's in Bergera's book, right? Since I was very much there, I want to see how someone who wasn't there portrayed the experience. Obviously, I don't know about any personal conversations Tom Rogers had with Church authorities, but I do know who attended the play and what their response was. And since Tom's next project was a play about John D. Lee, it doesn't appear that anything was said to dissuade him from writing about potentially controversial subjects! ________________ 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 Thom Duncan Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:20 PM He was never called or questioned about "Heubner" in relation to the Freedman case but he was called on the carpet after the play was performed at BYU. Read all about it in _BYU, Household of Faith_. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply Date: 28 May 2003 13:50:00 -0600 [MOD: I have to chime in regarding what I think is a miscommunication here. So far as I can tell, no one is saying that Tom Rogers got into trouble for writing the play. However, I do know that for a number of years after it was initially performed, it was "not available for performance," and this, as I understand, is because of a request Tom had received from an authority who (I think) felt that performance of the subject matter would be somehow divisive, possibly (this is my own speculation) because of lingering bad feelings among Church members who were living at the time the events of the play took place. I hasten to add that this is only my impression; Tom is a good friend of mine, but I've never asked him about this particular incident. I offer this explanation as illustrating how what Thom (Duncan) says and what Tom (Rogers) says can both be true.] Thom wrote, "He was never called or questioned about "Heubner" in relation to the Freedman case but he was called on the carpet after the play was performed at BYU. Read all about it in _BYU, Household of Faith_." So, you're saying Rogers is lying when he writes, "I was never threatened with excommunication or reprimanded for the play in any way. The play was in fact allowed to continue its long extended run in 1976 and was presented again, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, on the BYU main stage"? Greg Taggart -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Neil LaBute's Work Date: 28 May 2003 13:53:25 -0600 Carrie Pruett wrote: >there's been some recent discussion about whether Neil LaBute >is compromising his art for the sake of church approval. i've never >seen any of LaBute's plays or films because I've been turned off >of them by some very negative reviews. =20 I saw The Shape of Things in London with a group of BYU students. I was = a bit disappointed by the play, frankly. The reviews in London papers = were either rave or pan, nothing in-between, with the rave saying stuff = like 'if you only go see one play this year, this is the one must see = play in London.' I thought the play did not hold up well under scrutiny, = and really needed to be seen more as a kind of morality play, an = extended metaphor about art and the artist's responsibility, than as = anything that as a realistic portrayal of any actual university = situation. (SPOILER ALERT: Specifically, I can't imagine a grad student = in art having a committee that would let her get away with doing what = Eve does). =20 (Parenthetic digression: TSOT's view of art itself I found rather = strangely old fashioned. It reminded me of this unaccountable London = hit, this unfunny piece of dreck, billed a comedy, titled Art. The joke = in this play is that a guy has purchased, at a greatly inflated price, a = painting that is nothing but a canvas painted all white. This is meant = to be shocking and avant-garde and but what a doofus he is for being = taken in by it. An all-white canvas avant-garde? When, in 1958?) =20 But my students loved it. I mean, LOVED it. The Shape of Things, I = mean; it was far and away the most talked about, argued over play we = saw. I had an assignment where they had to do a close reading and = analysis of one play they'd seen, and Shape of Things was the = overwhelming choice. Neil, like most naturalists--Zola, Strindberg, David Mamet--is also a = moralist. He depicts extreme situations, and asks us to compare our own = moral behavior and attitudes to that of the characters. At his best, = his plays are brilliant in achieving that rather limited goal. When I = saw In The Company of Men at BYU in '92, I was deeply moved and = disturbed and distressed by it. I knew that I had never treated another = human being as wretchedly as those two male characters treated the one = female character. But had I ever come close? Had I ever partaken of = those attitudes, at all, for even one minute? I felt it led me to soul = searching and repentance and humility. I thought it was brilliant. =20 I've seen all of the films and seen or read most of his plays. I think = he's the best writer in the world in exploring one little niche of = contemptible human behavior. I think he dissects that niche with great = skill and insight. I don't think he's trying to shock or offend people = unnecessarily. I think he's trying to ask audiences to perform a kind = of moral gut check. Since that's his goal, I do think it implies a very = different view of 'audience' than he's generally presumed to have. I = think he anticipates his plays will be seen by an audience capable of = and interested in that sort of profound moral self-examination. =20 Personally, I have never found any of Neil's plays shocking. What do I = find shocking? Well, for example, the Lars von Trier film Breaking the = Waves, that's shocking. That film shocked me and disturbed me so = seriously that I couldn't sleep for days. Any of you know that film? = Dude, that film still haunts me.=20 That same Salon review that Carrie cited, which is very negative, also = makes a point of pointing out that Neil is a serious artist, and one who = deserves to be taken seriously. That, I think, is an important point to = make. Like him or not, he's doing something very few other artists are = even trying. I think he's an important artist, and I plan to see all = his work I can get to. He's worth it. If in fact Neil was disfellowshipped for writing Bash (and I fully admit = that I do not and will never know the specifics of that Church action), = but if that was what it was for, well that seems to me a perfect example = of ecclesiastical abuse. I'm not accusing Neil's bishop of = ecclesiastical abuse, mind you. I don't know enough, and will never know = enough, to make such a judgment. I will only say this, ecclesiastical = abuse happens. D&C 121 tells us, in fact, that we should anticipate it = happening with some regularity. But if Neil was disfellowshipped without = cause, well, that's distasteful and unpleasant, but it's also not valid. = God will sort it out in the end.=20 Bash is a disturbing play, I suppose. That's a good thing. He shows = people talking about doing awful things. It's okay for an artist to do = that. The 'it makes the Church look bad' argument just doesn't cut it. = Portraying Mormons as people capable of doing awful things does not make = the Church look bad. It makes it look like a Church whose members are = capable of doing dreadful things. So what? =20 If you're going to see Neil's work, I suggest you start with In the = Company of Men. Then make a decision about the rest of it. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 28 May 2003 14:18:54 -0600 Actually, a lot has been published on SSA in Mormondom--including Marybeth Raynes (Sp?) book, which title eludes me at the moment--something with "peculiar" in it. Obviously, Robert Hodson Van Wagoner's _Dancing Naked_. The already mentioned _Angels in America_. ________________ 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: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 28 May 2003 14:25:35 -0600 At 02:50 PM 5/27/03 -0600, you wrote: >Romance novels, for example, constitute something like 40 or 50 >percent of the trade paperback market. Instead of dismissing the genre >as "escapism" (as J.R.R. Tolkien reportedly remarked to C.S. Lewis on >the subject: "The people who hate escapism most are jailers"), I'd >prefer non-condescending explanations of what makes it so popular, >what readers are looking for when they read. I wrote an essay on this subject for the next issue of Irreantum. If Chris Bigelow likes it well enough to run it, you'll have your explanation! And if that essay doesn't do it for you, I can give you more detail. I recommend a book called Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women, edited by Jayne Ann Krentz, in which several romance writers explain the appeal of romance fiction. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 28 May 2003 14:32:46 -0600 At 10:30 AM 5/28/03 -0500, you wrote: >(This, of course, is also an issue with the restrictions we place on >male-female interactions in the Church. I sometimes wonder whether the >positive value of guidelines such as "never give a ride to someone of the >opposite sex if you're married to someone else" isn't ultimately negated by >their potential to make us that much more aware of the sexual potential of >such situations. Which isn't to say that such rules don't have their >place...but I worry that applying them in an across-the-board manner may >have downsides that we don't often acknowledge. Reducing opportunity while >sexualizing context seems like a short-term strategy to me.) I think this guideline is insulting to men. It implies that they are all closet rapists and must never be given an opportunity to take advantage of a woman. It is so Victorian. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 28 May 2003 14:55:55 -0600 The belief that Mary M. was Jesus' wife is certainly not unique to Mormonism. It is a pretty solid suggestion, believed by many in the Christian world, recognizing that it would have been VERY unusual for a man Jesus' age to NOT be married. In fact, it would've been regarded an affront to the culture. The wedding feast wherein Jesus turned water to wine is commonly regarded (not just within Mormonism) as Jesus' own wedding. And didn't Scorsese include something about Jesus' married (or at least non-celibate) life in _The Life of Christ_? I haven't seen the film. It's my brother-in-law's all-time favorite. ________________ 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: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 28 May 2003 14:57:59 -0600 ---Original Message From: Lisa Tait > What makes me really sick is that my grandma had a huge stash > of old RS Magazines at one time. She threw them out not more > than ten years ago, which was about three years before I > realized what a treasure they would have been. Ouch! My condolences. My grandmother sold all of my grandfather's Louis L'Amours before I got around to letting her know I wanted them. > I am coming to Utah next week for a quick research trip. I'll > be staying in American Fork. Where are the best places to > look for old RS Magazines etc? Besides DI--and which DI? DI's are the best place I've found to look, but that isn't saying much. I don't normally find them there and I search the two or three closest on a relatively regular basis. Maybe that's why... I should go to Toole or something... Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 28 May 2003 16:23:02 -0500 >Isn't it a very common Mormon belief that indeed M. Magdalene was the >Savior's earthly wife--in fact, one of several? Not one I've ever heard! The closest thing to that that I've ever come across is the supposition that as your "average" (as was supposed) Jewish man, Jesus would have probably been married. (Not to mention the highest-level-celestial kingdom-marriage-godhood thing.) However, I've never come across any statement saying who he may have been married to, and the idea of having children seems to have some strange practicall implications. I'd be interested to see documentation of this sort of thing. On the other hand, it makes for interesting speculative fiction. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ 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: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 28 May 2003 15:31:27 -0600 ---Original Message From: Carrie Pruett > That's interesting, since Buffy's creator and exec producer=20 > is an avowed atheist, and the show seems notably lacking in=20 > any central source of divine power. This isn't any kind of=20 > value judgment on the show, which I like a lot, more of a=20 > comment on the tendency to find our own meanings in various=20 > "mythic" entertainments. Could you look at Lord of the Rings=20 > and tell it was created by a devout Christian, Star Wars by a=20 > Jewish man, or Buffy by an atheist? And what they have in common is the battle between Good vs. Evil and how = the fight affects both sides. The beauty of Buffy (beyond being played by = Sarah Michelle Gellar :) is that the heroes fight against stacked odds and = they take damage and have to pick themselves up and decide whether or not = they're going to do it again. Kind of like Lord of the Rings. And to some = extent Star Wars. The reason those stories resonate so well with me, at any = rate, is this universal theme of fighting the "good" fight. Any time you have = the fight of Good vs. Evil you open up universals that can resonate with = your audience and draw them in. Particularly when the author is honest = enough to confront the reality of the struggle. The good guys get hurt. They struggle. They make mistakes. They hurt innocents sometimes. But they = try very hard anyway. They bleed. They pay the price. And they continue = on anyway, knowing that they'll get hurt again, that they'll make more mistakes, but that they're still going to *try* because the alternative = is to give up and let evil win. And *that*'s where you pull in all the Mormons. And Joss Whedon is brave. He doesn't flinch from the consequences of = his characters' actions--which sets him apart from all the crappy teen = angsty stuff out there these days. Messing with magic you don't understand = turns a classmate into a rodent? Well, that rodent is still there the day they graduate two years later because they still haven't figured out how to = undo the rash experiment. And what other series has the heroine trying to = cope with paying the bills and having to find unskilled work that can fit a = hefty demon-slaying hobby? And what if magically returning a loved one from = an early grave means pulling them out of heavenly bliss just so they can protect you once more? Think you deserve thanks for it, even if they = really love you and you were in real need? And Joss also tries to connect with universal themes. I mean, he = created Buffy with the question, "What if the lone blonde in the dark turns out = to be the hunter?" But he made his most significant artistic leap when he connected to everyday teen angst (and by extension, everyday everyone angst). I mean, most teenagers feel like the world will end if they = don't get their way. They feel misunderstood and like they face overwhelming = odds in a society that doesn't see and feel the things that they see and = feel. Well, Buffy takes those typical teen angsty things and blows them up. = The world *will* end unless she can get to the dance club by midnight. Her = mom really won't understand the explanation of just where the hell has she = been, anyway (usually, that's a more apt question than mom knows). It's a = really honest look at alienation, acceptance, and the struggle to understand = and love one another. Jacob Proffitt (Buffy? What's Buffy?) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 28 May 2003 15:59:55 -0600 Scott Parkin wrote: > Would it be better if there were no social or cultural limitations on how and > what we express? I don't think so. It would be a calamity of inopportunity for > the would-be artist. If there's no convention of limitation to expression, then > there's no need for meta-expression. The only differentiation between the artist > and the rest of the world becomes technique, and presentation goes from being a > question of art to a question of engineering. This illustrates a deep difference of approach. On the one side is the "Hayes" approach: I will externally force limitations on you because I don't trust you to be wise in your own decisions. The other side is to allow the individual to decide for himself where limitations should be. You extoll the virtues of the first approach. I find that approach reprehensible. That approach is fundamentally flawed on several levels. First of all, it is merely a rehash of the scheme of the original do-gooder, Lucifer. We couldn't be trusted to work out our own salvation, so Lucifer had to come in and see to it for us. Second of all, it is pure arrogance. One individual sets himself up as the definer of where the limitations should be. (What was so transcendent about Hayes' morality that he should be the one drawing the line?) Thirdly, the value judgment on where to draw the line is so interwoven with individual perception and experience that it is impossible to come up with a workable universal definition. All efforts of one individual to police another all boil down to one fact: the one individual does not trust the judgment of the other and somehow thinks he has the moral obligation to micromanage the value decisions of the other. This is so counter to the plan of God that I can't understand why we even need to argue the issue. God himself is willing to leave moral decisions to the individual. Why do we think we have the right to do that which even God refuses to do? > As to why artists can't be more ingeneous in their presentation...I don't know. > Maybe most working artists just aren't that talented and can't apply that kind > of extraordinary inventiveness to their works. My personal observance is that > artists can be every bit as lazy as anyone else and often settle for the > convenient way of communicating an idea rather than the most effective one. And therefore we should force limitations on all artists because some, many, or even most take the lazy approach? > But good art is work and involves more than just doing what comes natural. It > involves mastery of craft and creative redefinition of the standard rules. It > involves finding ways to innovatively stretch the boundaries, not just ignore > them then call everyone else banal for still caring about ancient strictures > dusty old conventions. > So yes, you can ignore all social or artistic convention and do your thing--the > modern market enables that more than any prior market in history. But I think > you'll find that you're not nearly as popular as the guy who effectively > combines innovation with convention, who expands the rules while still playing > within them. But what are we talking about here? I'm all for an artist being intelligent in his creativity, using and playing off of conventions and expectations to achieve a new thing. But that's not what I thought we were talking about. I thought we were talking about an external force demanding that the artist work within certain limitations, so if he wants to express things outside the limitations, he has to do so sneakily, which we then label creative genius. I'd rather see a Hayes-free film industry where most of the films are crap, but a few genius filmmakers stand out by choosing of their own accord to work within limitations, rather than a one-size-fits-all set of rules that everyone has to work under. It's the same force-free strategy God uses to groom more gods: a few geniuses choose to stand out while the rest of us are funneled away to lesser kingdoms; as opposed to Lucifer's one-size-fits-all plan of gathering us all back together into the society of gods, whether we belong there or not. > Absolutely! And well you should be. But remember that the freedom to condemn one > artist for his choices also enables the condemnation of another artist for his > choices. Rage against that guy's banal mundanity--and accept that others will > rage against your callous disregard of social convention and the rules of polite > society. Draw conclusions about that guy's fitness to speak or his moral > authority or right to his choices, and you demand that people apply a similar > standard back to your own work. I accept it and they are welcome to it. The one thing I will not put up with is graduating from criticism to attempting to use force to bend me to their aesthetic or moral will. > I wish Gerald Lund would be less right-wing conservative in his political works. > I wish he would be more creative in imagining alternate futures where the > current Constitution wasn't ratified. But in the end I can't condemn him as > inadequate for his choices, I can only wonder why so few other visions have been > published (and start working on my own near-future sf Mormon utopia novel). Gerals Lund didn't create the environment where so few other visions are published. Those who like Gerald Lund and have elevated their tastes to moral certitude, thereby justifying criticism on moral grounds of those who don't write like Gerald Lund, are the ones who created that environment. When have I ever balked at someone artistically criticizing me? It's only when they arrogantly equate their tastes with morality and judge my spiritual worthiness by that standard that I cry foul. > Wanting a more > expansive apocalyptic vision doesn't require me to condemn Linda's choices or to > condemn her work. Condemn, no. Criticize, yes. Criticism implies artistic judgment. Condemnation implies moral judgment. > I just don't see "bowing to convention" as a universal artistic evil. If it results in boring cliches, I do. If it's fresh in its conventionality, then it's not really quite conventional, is it? > Where you and I appear to to most disagree is that I think you can take your > shot in small chunks spread over many works that evolve the market over time, > whereas you appear to want radical revolution overnight. Same goal, different > methodologies. And both are part of a whole and healthy artistic/critical > community. I don't _want_ radical revolution overnight. I want to tell the stories I want to tell. I want people to buy them and read them. If the current market doesn't allow that, then I may need radical overnight revolution to have it. In fact, I have no interest in revolutionizing the Deseret Book customer at all. Let him buy the books he likes. Let Deseret Book keep providing those books. I want to find and develop an audience that I believe is out there, distinct from the Deseret Book customer. I don't believe incrementally pushing the envelope of the Deseret Book customer's sensibilities is the way to reach that audience. That audience doesn't have the Deseret Book customer's sensibilities and won't even notice such envelope pushing. I believe the only effective way to reach that audience is to aim directly and loudly at it, and ignore the hypocritical outcry of those Deseret Book customers who will condemn (not criticize) someone for doing it. My frustration and my desire for revolution does not revolve around the readers, but around the publishers. Is there no visionary publisher who sees an opportunity to reach out and corner a market waiting to be served? -- 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: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] Nauvoo Theatrical Society Date: 28 May 2003 15:14:41 -0600 I'm hearing all sorts of rumblings about the Nauvoo Theatrical Society and the Center Street Theater. Is it true that the NTS is moving to a different venue? I've heard that another party with an interest in "LDS theater" is taking over the Center Street Theater. Thom, could you update us? I attended (and thoroughly enjoyed) both "My Turn on Earth" and "Joyful Noise" and I would hate to see this good thing come to an end. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 28 May 2003 17:43:12 -0600 ___ Christopher ___ | Isn't it a very common Mormon belief that indeed M. Magdalene | was the Savior's earthly wife--in fact, one of several? ___ Yes. It was taught fairly frequently early in the church. There are two reasons for this. One is the idea that marriage was essential for all and has to be done prior to the resurrection. Thus Jesus must have been married. That combined with Jesus first visiting Mary after his resurrection led many to see them as married. There were a few other scriptures tied to the endowment that led to this as well, but it would probably be inappropriate to discuss those here. The other reason was the general "Masonic culture" that Joseph and the early leaders were part of. (Using that term fairly loosely) The idea of the secret lineage of Christ was part and parcel of that tradition. A lot of masonic inspired "research" goes through this. (I put research in quotes, since it is more a creative history than real scholarship) Examples of this are _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_, _The Hyrum Prophecy_, _The Templar Revelation_ and so forth. Not really worth reading (and I've only glanced through them) The idea that Mary was Jesus' wife is actually very, very early. I believe that various gnostic groups took up this tradition. Unfortunately it has been a while since I last studied gnosticism in depth, so I can't quote off any texts off the top of my head. I suspect that the Gospel of Philip, which discusses marriage in a mirrored room off from the Holy of Holies mentions it. But I'd have to check to be sure. Anyway, not only did the early brethren think Jesus had children but they felt that the patriarchal order and being an "heir according to the flesh" entailed that lineage. Thus we have comments like the following from George Q. Canon. "there are those in this audience who are descendants of the old 12 Apostles and, shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Savior himself. His seed is represented in this body of men." (_The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson_, pg. 70) This appears to be a combination of certain masonic beliefs combined with scripture. Not technically doctrine of course. And I suspect few today would accept it. But if you reread scriptures like D&C 86:8-10 or D&C 124:91 it puts an interesting twist on it. That this reading of D&C 86 entailed these traditions can be seen in some of Orson Hyde's discourses. . . .it may excite still more when they are told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their veins, they are not the chosen or elect of God. Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ, but remember that in the last days, secret and hidden things must come to light, and that your life also (which is the blood) is hid with Christ in God. (Orson Hyde, JD, 4:260) The history is rather interesting, if not always consistent. Trying to speculate about connections to the early 19th century cultural views are also somewhat interesting. As I mentioned, it is hardly a church doctrine. And some might find it an offensive notion. So some care should be taken in discussing this history. (Hopefully the above didn't offend any here) Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _The Shape of Things_ Date: 28 May 2003 14:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Great review of LaBute's new movie "The Shape of Things" at "National Review" which confirms something I've long suspected: he is definitely *not* a liberal: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hudgins052803.asp ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: [AML] Award-Winning LDS Actors/Singers (was BYU Actors) Date: 28 May 2003 18:48:14 -0700 > Thom asked: > >So how many awards did the BYU students win for their shining acting > ability? I don't know about BYU students, but my niece, Lisa Hopkins, a Yale acting student, is receiving a Tony Award on June 8. She is one of the Mimis in Baz Luhrman's "La Boheme" on Broadway, and all ten principal singers in the cast are receiving special Tony's (already announced). She is also a good Mormon girl and a return missionary. So there are some award-winning LDS actors/singers out there. Richard Hopkins -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] re: Buffy and God? Date: 28 May 2003 18:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Oh, boy. Buffy and God. Where to start? For one thing, I am very aware that "Buffy" is "just a TV show." But such is its power that its admirers talk about it as if it were metaphysically real. Which I suppose in some ways, it is :-) A good place to begin is by trying this link: http://thedoormagazine.com/archives/buffy.html There's the time at the beginning of last year's final season when Spike self-mortifyingly burned himself on the giant cross. Buffy has (twice) willingly given her life to save the world. Alternatively, substitute for the title "Slayer" the title "Prophet" and you can see Buffy's trials and tribulations in a whole new light. There's a good collection of essays, "Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer" edited by Rhonda V. Wilcox and David Lavery. In it, you will find an interesting piece titled "Sometimes You Need A Story: American Christianity, Vampires, and Buffy" by Gregory Erickson. He leans heavily on Harold Bloom's "The American Religion" and includes this provocative statement: "The unique American God is 'an experiential God, radical within our own being' (Bloom 45). This God stems from an American originality that can produce a Sunnydale or a Book of Mormon." (pp. 117) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 28 May 2003 20:56:38 -0700 Re: Cain myth. Yes! Fun indeed! Back when I was with Pacific Island Films, Santia and I pitched a concept for a horror-action screenplay we called "Master Mahan." It was ostensibly a Bigfoot thriller wherein it is revealed that Cain himself is the old footprint-leaver... and he's scary as hell. People looked at us like we'd gone completely insane. They liked the shock scenes, but ultimately passed on the concept as a whole. I can imagine how fun he would be to write though, and maybe someday I'll take a crack at him. Go, Thom! (grin!) Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] re: _The Eleventh Hour_ Press Release Date: 28 May 2003 21:59:22 -0700 Something tells me Margaret Young will also be in the credits somewhere, doing something, acting in it herself, if she thought she could get away with it. Just a hunch. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: robertslaven@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 29 May 2003 00:15:21 -0700 >Are conspiracy theories the same thing as horror? Horrible, yes; but horrifying? >Where's the slime and the ooze and the undead Cthulu zombie children with the >mark of the beast tattooed under their left armpit? Where's the specifically >Mormon-flavored, consistent, and generally accepted interaction with >inhuman/unhuman creatures? IMHO, the all-time star Mormon monster in literature is Sister LeSueur in Orson Scott Card's _Lost Boys_ (the novel, not the short story). She's a champ. Bonus points for anyone who knows (no peeking in French-English dictionaries, now, and all you who went on Francophone missions give the other kids a chance) what 'sueur' means in French. Hint: It's pronounced almost exactly like the English word 'sewer' (where your effluent goes, not 'one who sews'), but with the accent on the second syllable. Robert (avec beaucoup de sueur maintenant, parce qu'il a fini l'arbitrage de deux jeux de hockey avec patins roulees) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Duvall" Subject: [AML] RE: R.S. Magazine (was: 20th Century Mormon Women) Date: 29 May 2003 08:48:22 -0600 The Relief Society Magazine was published from 1914 to 1970. A complete run is found in Special Collections in the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU. A database index of the Relief Society Magazine has been completed by Connie Lamb of the Harold B. Library and can be found at: http://web.lib.byu.edu/rsmag Scott Duvall Assistant Director, Harold B. Lee Library for Special Collections -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 29 May 2003 07:50:58 -0700 Jonathan, Comparing different approaches to SSA is a tall order and I promise I'll make the attempt on Friday afternoon. As for my misgivings about Byrd's approach, I should first state that he is not the author of that approach. He is just considered the foremost LDS authority on that approach. It was originally called, "Reparative Therapy" by a Josephi Nicolosi. Today, the common terminology is Gender Affirmative Therapy. The changing terminology is part of why I have misgivings. It's a work in progress, I guess. I used to be amused every year at the Evergreen conference in Salt Lake City as I saw the theory of the year being presented. The theories were all similar, but someone was always finding a new spin to put on it. My main nit to pick is in not as much in how the theory is portrayed by professionals as in the way same-sex attracted men who are looking for a solution focus on the parts that they like and ignore some of the other parts. For example, Nicolosi, who literally wrote the book on the subject, said that men should not expect that his approach would completely rid them of same-sex feelings. He said it would empower them to work toward experiencing opposite-sex attractions but that most would never have a complete reversal. Despite that, the men who go into that therapy go into it with the hope and expectation for a complete cure. Unfortunately, the therapists who practice that kind of therapy don't do much to brace their clients for reality. Nicolosi doesn't promise a cure, but the therapists who practice his methods and the clients who rely on them expect a cure. Briefly, for now, the idea behind this therapy is that by fostering healthy male relationships, clients can begin to feel part of the world of masculinity, which will decrease same-sex attracted feelings and enhance whatever opposite-sex attracted feelings are there. Even with this brief and inadequate description of the model, I have some problems, but I'll save that for a future attempt at writing about it. I will say that I know many, many men who have gone through this therapy with therapists who are more realistic in their approach and have seen some wonderful strides in men who are trying to manage their same-sex attraction in a way that lets them be married, father children, and have happy lives. Sadly, I've seen those with the greater expectations be sorely disappointed. More about how I approach my own SSA later. My story explores much of this, or it will if I ever get the time to write it. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 29 May 2003 09:39:01 -0600 Isn't it a very common Mormon belief that indeed M. Magdalene was the > Savior's earthly wife--in fact, one of several? Bruce McConkie's sister Margaret Pope is our Sunday School teacher and happened to mention that very "common Mormon belief" in our Sunday school class last Sunday. And sisters Mary and Martha were also his wives! YES! But does anyone know the story that after his resurrection he ended up in France with a huge family of kids and that's why the "cloth" ended up in Turin? Marilyn Brown (having returned to the list for a time!). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] 20th Century Mormon Women: An Inquiry Date: 29 May 2003 12:48:11 -0600 On Wed, 28 May 2003 09:25:16 -0500, Lisa Tait wrote: >What makes me really sick is that my grandma had a huge stash of old RS >Magazines at one time. She threw them out not more than ten years ago, = which >was about three years before I realized what a treasure they would have >been. We inherited our first stash from my great-grandmother, who never threw anything away--fortunately for us. Jacob was mistaken about the extent = of our collection: we have a solid 25-year run, but our earliest is 1941. I would love to see the ones from World War I. >I am coming to Utah next week for a quick research trip. I'll be staying= in >American Fork. Where are the best places to look for old RS Magazines = etc? >Besides DI--and which DI? How about very old Mormon books? I want to = find a >copy of Representative Women of Deseret and of Susa Young Gates's = biography >of Brigham Young. DI is a good source for the RS magazine, but it depends on where you = look, because they don't seem to come in very often. We have three or four = that we haunt, and the last big haul came from Kearns in Salt Lake. American =46ork has a good DI, but not necessarily for church materials. = Basically, DI isn't a reliable source; we only started seriously looking about two = months ago, and had only one large payoff. If you're lucky, you might be able to find the bound editions...I think = it was a service subscribers could take advantage of, to have a year's run bound in a very nice cover with the issue and year stamped on the front. These might be available from antiquarian dealers too. =46or very old Mormon books, it's a good idea to call some of the local antiquarian dealers. I know there are several around here, but it's not really my line, so I can't recommend any in particular. Benchmark Books = is good for the more recent stuff and occasionally has older works as well. Good luck in your search! Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] (S.L. Trib) Mormon TV Writer Dies Date: 30 May 2003 11:36:48 -0600 TV Writer, Former Utahn, Dies By Vince Horiuchi The Salt Lake Tribune Ernest Ferrin Wallengren, a former Utahn whose television writing credits in Hollywood ranged from family fare like "The Waltons" and "Touched by an Angel" to the surf and swimsuits of "Baywatch," died Tuesday from Lou Gehrig's disease. He was 50. Wallengren was born Dec. 15, 1952 in Heber City, to a family who owned the Homestead resort in nearby Midway. He served a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Central America in 1974 and attended the University of Utah, but moved to Los Angeles with his family so his mother, also a television writer, could pursue her career. After graduating from Loyola Marymount University with a degree in communication, Wallengren got a staff writing job for the family drama "The Waltons," a show his mother worked on, too. "He called up the creator on his own and got a meeting with him and pitched him a story, and [show creator Earl] Hamner hired him," said Wallengren's brother, Mark Wallengren. "Ernie loved writing the family shows, and his proudest is starting with 'The Waltons.' " Wallengren subsequently wrote for many television series, including "Little House on the Prairie," "Eight Is Enough," the primetime soap opera "Falcon Crest," "Knight Rider," "Diagnosis Murder" and the reincarnation of "Flipper." The last show he worked on was the PAX drama "Doc," starring Billy Ray Cyrus. Wallengren also was an executive producer and writer for the first season of "Baywatch," the syndicated hit about a group of well-endowed beach lifeguards. But he bailed from the series early on. "He thought the show was too T&A and was too trashy and didn't feel comfortable writing it sometimes," said Mark, a Los Angeles morning radio DJ. Wallengren first experienced the symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's Disease, in October 2000. Eventually, it left him a quadriplegic. Wallengren wrote about the disease, which attacks nerve cells in the brain, for one episode of "Doc," about a country doctor in New York. He was honored for that episode with the National Courage Award from the Muscular Dystrophy Association. "He had a very blessed life and was just so unbelievably positive to the end," said his brother. Wallengren is survived by his wife, Cheryl; two daughters and three sons; his father Del in Salt Lake City; mother Claire in Calabasas, Calif.; and five brothers and sisters. Services are Saturday at the Canoga Park LDS Stake Center in Canoga Park, Calif. Burial will be at Pierce Brothers Valley Oaks Memorial Park in Westlake Village, Calif. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantum proofers needed Date: 30 May 2003 13:39:36 -0600 The spring 2003 issue of Irreantum will be ready for proofreading next week. If you would like to volunteer to read a PDF file for typos and errors, please contact me directly. The file will likely be sent out on June 4, with a one-week turnaround time. Remember, this volunteer service is resume-able proofing experience. If you need references, the AML will vouch for proofing work well done. Chris Bigelow chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Sickbed Reading & Viewing (Comp 1) Date: 30 May 2003 17:56:49 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From pchamberlain@westcon.net Wed May 28 13:50:44 2003 I would do the Christopher Guest compendium. This is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show. The extended DVDs would be the best. Also "The Producers" is a good fascist romp with Gene Wilder, Zero Mostel and written by Mel Brooks. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net >From susanpc@platformcreative.com Wed May 28 14:08:51 2003 Some off-the-beaten-path movies you may not have seen (and may be pretty hard to find): Rubin & Ed--A Trent Harris film, he made that Mormon sci fi flick which I never saw, this stars Crispin Glover and Johnny Fever from WKRP in a bizarre buddy film. After Hours--An 80's Scorsese comedy, one of my faves. Stranger Than Paradise--Haven't seen this in 15 years or so, but I used to watch it quite a bit. It's very slow, in black and white. A Jim Jarmusch film. Birdy--A buddy movie masquerading as a Vietnam war movie. Matthew Modine and Nick Cage. Modine plays a weird kid who goes crazy in the war, and Cage is his best friend who after being sent home injured comes to the mental hospital to try and jar him out of his catatonic state. So most of the movie is flashbacks to them as teens and also their experiences in the war. Probably has my favorite ending of any movie, ever. Totorro--A Japanese animated kids' movie, but I love it. A young girl whose mother is in the hospital has to go stay in the country with her grandma and encounters magical creatures. It's wonderfully done. Good luck with your surgery. I've been in the hospital more than once (diabetic) and sometimes I find myself craving that time of just lying there with everyone else taking care of everything. :) Susan Malmrose >From debbro@voyager.net Wed May 28 14:25:13 2003 Sickbed reading and viewing is the time to read and watch the things you normally wouldn't. Some might look at this as an opportunity to expand th= eir minds and get through that stack of books you have next to your bed or toilet, but if they haven't caught your interest by now, why would they w= hen you're down? So I say, go to the thrift store and grab a stack of trashy romances or bodice rippers and western novels. And enjoy them for what th= ey are. Brain candy. And if you're like me, you'll be rewriting the thing as you read it. If anyone says anything, tell them its research for your nex= t novel whose main character is a R.S. President who's secret vice is she reads trashy romance novels and bodice rippers till her Bishop catches he= r reading one during a welfare meeting.=0D Now, as for movies, you can't go wrong with Highlander movies. All fo= ur. Then, please please please watch for me, Triple XXX and Secretary. I'm no= t allowed to bring those home. I also thought Ghostship was good enough to rent. And then for pure enjoyment sake, anything by the Veggie Tales. I always thought they were stupid (this opinion was based on having never watched them) but then on a whim bought their movie Jonah, and it was hilarious, and good. I even caught on to how they manage to drive, eat, w= alk and so on with no hands and feet. =0D Good luck and good healing. =0D Debbie Brown (who just had knee surgery 14 days ago)=0D >From barbara@techvoice.com Wed May 28 14:27:13 2003 Have you ever seen a movie from 1968 called Cactus Flower? It stars Walter Mattheau, Ingrid Bergman, and a 22-year-old Goldie Hawn. I find it highly entertaining--it's one of my favorite movies to watch when I'm sick and want to take my mind off it. Arsenic and Old Lace with Cary Grant is another good one. barbara hume >From rrasband@yahoo.com Wed May 28 17:47:34 2003 "Straight Man" by Richard Russo. A great novelist; his funniest book. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com >From aorullian@juno.com Thu May 29 00:09:09 2003 try these movies if you haven't already: "the dekalog" or "three colors trilogy" (krzysztof kieslowski--orem library has these), "time regained" (french, based on proust), "the neon bible" (terence davies--based on the toole novel), and "night of the hunter" (charles laughton). if you feel daring, check out "breaking the waves" (von trier). aaron orullian >From bas37@email.byu.edu Thu May 29 00:40:53 2003 Best movies I've seen recently: To Be Or Not To Be - Jack Benny plays a Jewish actor in Poland during the Nazi occupation. He and his troupe must act like Nazi's to escape. Very funny stuff. (Don't mistake it for the piece of hud remake by Mel Brooks.) Midnight Run - I watch this movie at least once a year. Charles Grodin and Robert DeNiro. Proves that these two are the greatest comic actors working right now. (although DeNiro is only funny when he plays it straight and doesn't mug. Luckily, this movie has the nonmugging DeNiro.) Best book I've read recently Amarillo Slim in a World of Fat People: Autobiography of the greatest gambler who ever lives. The opening paragraph says, "In my humble opinion, I'm no ordinary hustler. You see, neighbor, I never go looking for a sucker; I look for a champion and make a sucker out of him." It's true, the way this guy gambles and hustles is amazing. Happy reading and viewing, Bryan Austin Summers >From Jacob@proffitt.com Thu May 29 14:57:38 2003 Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here. Try Georgette Heyer. I've = been reading her pretty steadily for the last month or so. I don't know = why--I'm just in the mood I suppose. It's the best of the Regency Romance genre = and the characters are very engaging, the stories complex, the dialogue delightful, and overall they're pretty easy reads. If you've ever = wondered about the romance genre but never bothered trying to find out more, Georgette Heyer is a good place dip your feet. Which isn't surprising = since she pretty much invented the Regency Romance as its own category. She = had extensive contemporary records from the period and a compulsive need to research that give her books a depth that less fastidious authors lack. = I'd personally recommend _The Grand Sophy_ as the strongest of her books, = though I'm sure others on the list would suggest others. And the further bonus is that they're reprinting many of her books. Jacob Proffitt >From jenwahlquist@earthlink.net Fri May 30 11:27:10 2003 Hi, Eric: A month off with nothing to do but read and watch movies? I'm almost drooling . . . well, all right, the pain thing might not be so great. Anyway, I am recommending two books: the first, which I have just finished, is John Grisham's The King of Torts (which one could easily read as a modern-day morality play). The second is a fascinating and beautiful hardback book by John Bowker (former dean of Trinity College at Cambridge, Adjunct Professor at University of Pennsylvania, and currently a Fellow at Gresham College in London) called God: A Brief History: The Human Search for Eternal Truth. I am reading it in preparation for my Mythology in Legend and Literature class that starts Monday. I saved about $12.00 by ordering the book from Amazon.com. If you would like to borrow a VHS videotape, I can loan you my Ken Burns documentary on the life of Mark Twain (a genuine delight - both Twain and the film). Best wishes, --Jen Wahlquist -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature