From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 29 May 2003 13:21:04 -0600 On Tue, 27 May 2003 16:03:30 -0600 Christopher Bigelow writes: > Someone ought to do a novel > speculating on the Savior's domestic/married life. For quite some time I wanted to write a play with Jesus as a character -- not some offstage entity -- on just the subject that you have suggested. I had decided to write a one-act that took place in the garden outside his tomb; a conversation between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. My suspicion is -- if they were married to one another -- the conversation was a bit longer than what is offered in the scriptures. I finally came to the conclusion that as much as I want to write it, there will not be an audience for it ... yet. So, I wrote "Tombs" instead. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 29 May 2003 14:37:08 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > 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=20 > 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 you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to base an = entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. Any new encounter is just = that, a new encounter with little or no continuity from previous events. LDS = myth and theology would have to be stretched a bit thin to create a spiritual antagonist that persists enough to create something we'd call Horror. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Young Subject: [AML] _I Am Jane_ Performance Date: 29 May 2003 17:07:06 -0600 Margaret (i.e., Margaret Blair Young) and I would like to invite all AML members--and anyone else you would like to tell--to attend the play I AM JANE. It will be performed Friday, June 6 at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday, June 7 at 2:00 p.m. in the Bountiful Regional Center (just off Interstate 15 at exit 318). There is no charge for admission and no ticket required. Seating will be open, with seats available on a first come, first seated basis. Many of you are acquainted with this play, written by Margaret and winner of the 2000 AML Award for drama. It tells the stories of Jane Manning James, Elijah Abel, and other early African-American members of the Church. In reality, the play is a collaboration, incorporating music (mainly Negro spirituals) and the actual words of Jane Manning James and others. Moving, illuminating, and at times humorous, it presents the faith, the pain, and the endurance of some of the great Latter-day Saints of the first decades of the Church. We hope you can come. Bruce and Margaret Young -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] Role of Artists (was: Artist's Personal Lives...) Date: 29 May 2003 17:13:33 -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 So Thom, to answer my original question- I'm curious, perhaps ignorantly so, as to why you make the distinction between *We* (authors/writers) and poets-- which you have pigeonholed with prophets? My point is, don't you consider poets to be writers too? Or are you attributing poets with some sort of higher plain of inspiration similar to revelation from God? I personally think poets and writers are in the same milieu or of the same ilk. No? We may be inspired it's true, but our inspiration comes from living and experiencing life. [Bill Willson] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 2 Date: 29 May 2003 23:20:40 -0700 On Mon, 19 May 2003 22:16:13 Scott Parkin , replying to a question from Jongiorgi Enos's friend J.C. ("If the Church is true, why are there so many bozos in it?" Or: "If the church is so true, why is there so much mediocrity in=20 members of the church.") writes: =20 > Might I suggest Marden Clarke's fine essay "Liberating Form" as an=20 > interesting take on this question--or at least one that resonates=20 > strongly with it. I read it in his anthology of the same title; it was=20 > originally published in Dialogue, I believe, back in 1974 or so. Thanks for thinking of this, Scott. Someone at his memorial service, Bert Wilson I think, told about him getting a rejection slip for some poems, which mentioned that they were two strongly focused on his family. "Why can't I be the poet who writes about his family?" he asked. He wrote a lot about his family, and "Liberating Form" was about me. It starts by discussing a Fathers and Sons outing up Spanish Fork Canyon (probably the one where a little rock hit our windshield on the way up the canyon at just the right place and frequency to shatter it, though being safety glass it mostly stayed in the frame) and an exercise, a set of questions to talk about, which led to an interesting conversation. He says the questions were a form which gathered together and released energy in a way that wouldn't have happened if there had been no form, then talks about what forms do in literature to concentrate creative energy and release it, then talks about the Church as a liberating form.=20 He wrote it up as a Sacrament Meeting talk, then sent it off to Lavina Fielding Anderson at the Ensign, and she published a shortened version in June 1977, p. 43-45. A longer version was also printed in BYU Studies, Autumn 1974, p. 29=9640. Then he used it for the title essay of a 1992 collection. Drop me a note if you'd like to read it. He told me once that he was implicitly addressing the concerns of people who were uncomfortable with social or intellectual or other restrictions in the Church and thinking of leaving. It was his plea to them to stay and let the Church act as the form that concentrated then liberated their energies. Harlow S. Clark O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horseman thereof. II Kings 2:12, 13:14 Renounce war and proclaim peace --Joseph Smith, Aug. 6 ________________________________________________________________ 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: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Cooperative Publishing (was: Does Intent Matter?) Date: 30 May 2003 02:41:12 -0700 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. . . . *************************************************** Travis: Do authors really need to get paid? If so, how much? A strange question, I know. Why can't we just make books and never do accounting paperwork? I HATE PAPERWORK WITH A PASSION!! Recently I interned for a college press, Eastern Washington U. Press, and many of their authors don't make jack (granted, I don't have the numbers). But there's something to be said for an academic press, or other small publisher, going it alone, producing art for art's sake. Yes, to do it right, one has to be very, very organized (which most writers tend not to be). I recently read a few articles about self-publishing groups. The first, "Report on the Fiction Collective" (1980) by Gene Lyon was about a group of writers that got together to publish works they thought important (their own works, essentially). And I quote Mr. Lyons, quoting Ronald Sukenick, a founding member of the Fiction Collective: "The group's answer has been to establish 'not a publishing house, but a 'not-for profit' cooperative conduit for quality fiction, the first of its kind in this country, in which writers make all business decisions and do all editorial and copy work.' Since its founding in 1974, the Fiction Collective has published more than twenty titles, for each of which the author has put up $3,000 or more of his or her own money to cover production expenses. Books are accepted or rejected by a vote of the membership, consisting of previously published writers. Copyediting chores are shared." And again, Lyon: "We have more mediocre fiction writers, poets, and critics than we need. What we lack is readers. Most of the Fiction Collective's members would do themselves and the rest of us a favor by knocking off the boasting and the bitching for a while and getting back to the classroom to train some." The Fiction Collective failed because what they essentially did is subcontract out all the tasks of publishing, and, yes, they published twenty-some-odd books, but the books were just that: odd (from what I've read and heard). Another group, the Alice James Cooperative is still thriving (Alice, as in the brilliant sister of the famed Henry and William). In an article in _The Art of Literary Publishing_, a collection of essays on publishing, edited by Bill Henderson (of Pushcart founding fame), Marjorie Fletcher explains the need for alternative presses: "The alternative I find most interesting is cooperative publishing. In 1973, with two men and four women, all poets, I helped found the Alice James Poetry Cooperative. Certainly, the double burden of acting as both a writer and publisher is not desirable for an entire career; but, when a significant number of like-minded authors are faced with inhospitable publishers, one effective solution is to band together for the purpose of printing and distributing books that those writers judge meritorious. And now, when the businessmen who run our large houses display a frightening inability to distinguish literature from spaghetti, one way to insure that quality poetry and fiction will be issued in the future is to form publishing ventures that are owned and run by authors. "Publishing, however, is demanding. At Alice James all authors are required to attend regular meetings, to share office duties and work on production for approximately one year. Together we prepare mammoth mailings. We apply for grants. We fill orders. And mail books to distributors, debate current issues, trek to bookfairs, keep financial records, send out review copies, consult with the printer, dun bookstores for long overdue payments, draft press releases, pay bills. Somebody has to write the academics that, "no, we do not hand out free copies." Someone has to empty the wastebasket. Although Alice James now employs part-time help, for five years only the authors performed the tasks necessary for publishing. "Even though publishing demands time and energy, the member of a writers' cooperative gains several distinct benefits. An author who, in concert with other authors, operates the house which publishes his or her work effectively influences two crucial areas: the appearance of the volume and the marketing effort made after publication. Although the cooperative has final approval, at Alice James all authors select the art for their covers, design a format for their interiours, choose a typeface, consult with our printer. With the support and advice of experienced members, each assumes primary responsibility for the production of his or her volume. Then, once the books are printed, the author becomes involved in promotion. He or she draws up a list of reviewers who will receive copies, incluiding those who might be sympathetic--e.g. gay reviewers, traditionalists, feminists. Each author also compiles a list of individuals to who ordering information is mailed. And every author in the cooperative has the opportunity to effect the tenor of publicity by soliciting pre-publication comments, by writing blurbs and press releases. To an extent unknown in commercial houses, Alice James' authors can control both the physical aspects of their books and the sales efforts. Also, because all decisions are made by writers, the basic interests of an Alice James author seldom conflict with the publisher. For instance, not only will the cooperative never shred books, but it is our intent to keep every book issued in print; and, because we are thoroughly committed to each manuscript accepted, the cooperative promotes each book equally and does not favor one title over another." Whew!!! Food for thought. There are many subsequent issues to discuss, but for now, I got to get some sleep. It's nearly 3 a.m. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: [AML] Richard Paul EVANS, _The Last Promise_ (Review) Date: 30 May 2003 11:55:47 -0600 Richard Paul Evans _The Last Promise_ E. P. Dutton, 2002 Hardcover, 290 pages ISBN: 0525946969 List price: $22.95 Reviewed by Eugene Woodbury When Deseret Book CEO Sheri Dew announced the store's revised buying guidelines late last year--and specifically that Richard Paul Evan's latest novel, _The Last Promise_, hadn't made the cut--my immediate reaction was to snort in derision. A bunch of sanctimonious, neo-Victorian fussbudgets trying to micromanage our moral lives, under the guise of what Dew had the audacity to claim was a "business decision." Then I read the book. Deseret Book may indeed be run by a bunch of sanctimonious, neo-Victorian fussbudgets, whose recently-discovered principles in this case only gave a bad book much free publicity (I read the book, to start with). But they are right to insist that _The Last Promise_ does not deserve the imprimatur of any institution even peripherally related to the church. This isn't the primary reason, but the overwrought title is itself ultimately germane to nothing, as the "last promise" (indeed, not made until the last 40 pages of the book) is quickly broken, which I suppose should be read to mean: this is the last promise people like this should make to anybody. It is, in fact, a category romance of sub-par quality. I hasten to add that I have nothing against category romances--an unjustly slighted genre, I believe--just bad writing in general, and especially pretentious, bad writing. If nothing else, _The Last Promise_ will quickly exhaust any fondness you might have had for the epigram-as-chapter-heading style. Writing about a subject Evans knows something about might have also clarified what was worth promising in the first place. Eliana, our heroine, is ostensibly "a devout Catholic," though by all indications what the author knows about Catholics he picked up on the Vatican tour. He keeps her away from any actual worship, keeps her from breathing a word to any actual priest, because "the priest at the small church near the villa used copious amounts of incense in his worship," and the incense gives her son asthma. Alas, "She had tried other churches in the area and found them all to be the same" (p. 10). Convenient, that. The only discernable point to this bit of biographical background is to enable her to marry the scion of an Italian winery without turning the whole thing into a comedy. Straining credulity further, he has her growing up in Vernal, Utah. You would think that a Catholic growing up in Utah would have something to say about the plentitude of Mormons there, and the inevitable clash of small-town religious cultures. Nope. You would not know from reading this book that any Mormons live in Utah. Thus do the incongruities gush forth. It would not have been so insurmountable a problem had Evans played around more with the obvious subtext, analogizing the non-Mormon in Utah to the fish-out-of-water American in Italy, for example. Instead, he shies from the intriguing dramatic possibilities and resorts to hackneyed story devices that are old by category romance standards. To sum up: impossibly beautiful wife (Eliana) is trapped in a loveless marriage to philandering rogue of husband (Maurizio). One day a handsome American expatriate with a mysterious past (Ross) rents a flat in the family villa. But when you get right down to it, it's really no different than those silly French farces about the wife who discovers her husband is cheating on her and gets even by cheating on him back with the house guests. Except that Evans' version isn't even indecently humorous. Okay, Evans can't actually have them sleeping together. No, wait, they do sleep together, the loophole being that they only "sleep." Evans has claimed that the snogging going on when they're awake is "not adultery." Yes, and Bill Clinton did not have "sex" with "that woman," and "didn't inhale," either. If it is facile to assert (as I do) that any explicit description of sexual behavior is, *ipso facto*, immoral, then it is equally facile to argue that a narrative somehow garners a patina of respectability solely because of its *lack* of explicit content. At any rate, I wasn't aware that copulation alone defined adultery. Stranger still, given Evans' protestations, are his several references to the Vestal Virgins, who are remembered for the grisly fate that awaited them if they fell from "virginal grace." In a climactic scene (p. 221), Eliana interrupts Ross's tour group, and as the whole crowd stops to admire an exhibit of *The Vestals* asks in a loud voice if it was "worth it" to these women to break their vows, considering the punishment that awaited them. To which Ross answers, "I guess only the Vestals could say. But apparently eighteen of them though so." Now, exactly how are we supposed to read *that*? Evans rationalizes this morally muddy relationship with he-hit-me-first logic. Short version: if your husband is a jerk, it's okay to get emotionally involved with another man. Fifteen billion times we are reminded of what a louse Maurizio is. The narrative from his point-of-view exists only to damn his character with cheap shots and borderline ethnic slurs. Our first introduction to the Italian male (not Maurizio) consists of the following: "Just then a man, shirtless, maybe in his later fifties with a belly hanging over his swimsuit and a cigar clamped between his front teeth, stopped in front of her chair." Eliana later helpfully explains that "the Italian men regard a lone woman the same way they would a bill on the sidewalk." And Evans (in authorial voice) confirms that "It was true" (p. 4). True or not, it's not the point. I'm reminded of the Dilbert strip in which one of Dilbert's colleagues confides to Dogbert, "I criticize my coworkers to make myself look smart." To which Dogbert replies, "Apparently it isn't working . . . . Oh, remind me to add nuts to my grocery list." Evans thinks this is a workable strategy. So we are further reminded that none of the wives of Maurizio's friends "expected their husbands' help in domestic matters," either (p. 15). The marriage counselor Eliana drags her husband to sides with him and tells her that it's all her problem (p. 16). And the husband of Eliana's sister-in-law, Anna, "left her for a young Swiss woman she discovered he had been having an affair with for more than seven years" (p. 53). Ross, in contrast, is described by every Italian woman he encounters as *bello*, and a hotel receptionist he's known for about five minutes offers to sleep with him (p. 200). "We'd have fun," she tells him (p. 202). Oh, and Maurizio is also the World's Worst Father *Ever*. It's simply not enough that he be immature, irresponsible, or a workaholic. We are supposed to believe that the man is utterly indifferent to his son's existence, that he "never inquires about his son's health" (p. 13), has "no idea how to take care of his own son's basic needs" (p. 15), and uses him only as a pawn to keep his wife a kept woman. And we are supposed to believe as well that the son, in turn, should deny biology and the essential incalculables of human nature and be able to transfer all his affection, at the drop of the proverbial hat, to a complete stranger. By page 116 we find Eliana telling Ross, "[Alessio] was so upset that he missed you the last time. I had to promise him that he could stay up until you came." And by the end of the novel, Maurizio is confessing to Eliana, "He's not really my son . . . . He doesn't call me father . . . . He hates me" (p. 261). Of the six impossible things I'm willing to believe before breakfast, this isn't one of them. But, gee, doesn't it make divorce the easy next step to take. Still, Evans must reduce the Maurizio to wife-beating status to make the case compelling enough. The literary ends do not justify the means. While Maurizio is undoubtedly a jerk, the thesis, "My husband is a jerk," is a thin and unrewarding source of conflict. This is not to say that infidelity or bad parenting should be lightly excused, but it's not like he's smuggling drugs or harboring terrorists. The man has tact, if nothing else. He doesn't bring it home, like, *ahem*, his stupid wife. And why, your grandmother would ask, should he change his behavior when he can have his cake and get the milk for free? All Eliana has to say in her defense is that she married "too young." Too young--she was in college. So she went to the store one day to pick up a rich, handsome, Italian husband, and, darn, if she'd only waited a day or two she could have gotten a better model, and on sale, to boot. Were she a conservative John Paul II American Catholic, that would have made things interesting. But the obvious contention, "I can't divorce you because I'm Catholic," is never raised. Instead, she stays in the marriage, we are told, because she's afraid she would lose custody of her child, a child whose existence is exploited by Evans for all shoddy manner of story conveniences. (When in doubt, send the sick kid to the E.R.) It is a valid concern--the reasons sound fairly convincing, once you accept the Maurizio-as-monster caricature--but such a concern should lead to the weighing of freedom and happiness, and the making of deals with your own personal devils. Even as compromised a woman as Hillary Clinton reportedly whacked Bill with an ashtray on occasion, and then went out and made a life for herself. Sure, her not-yet-erstwhile husband being President of the United States sure helped. Call it metaphysical alimony. And Eliana is hardly a single mother struggling to survive on scant child support payments. In exchange for her husband's money, she lives a comfortable, almost royal (no kidding, Evans makes her by marriage a *de jure* countess), if dilatory existence. She does nothing to change the state of her life, a curious contrast with Birdman-of-Alcatraz Ross. That's the sinkhole the book crumbles into and never crawls out of: she's BORING. No wonder her husband never comes home, to a beautiful but dull woman who mopes and sighs and makes dinners he won't eat and dabbles at paintings no one will see, and spends an awful lot of time doing laundry for just three people (a glaring lapse: a man of Maurizio's stature and resources, if for no other reason than sheer vanity, would hire help for these menial tasks). Early on, in one of Evans' many head-hopping digressions, we are treated to Maurizio's thoughts on the subject. In a passage that feels like the author was responding to an editor's suggestion that he try to show the husband's side of things, the reader is rewarded with a several hundred words of the man's stream-of-consciousness, detailing his coping strategy with this dysfunctional relationship: "*American women are crazy*, [Maurizio] thought. *She works all day to make me a meal, then sulks through it* . . . . "Eliana would sulk for a while then she'd blow, inevitably launching into a tirade about how little time he spend at home or why he hadn't bothered to call her . . . . Either way, [she] didn't have the stomach for conflict that he had. She would go off for a while then come back and be civil--*be a good wife*. "*Always the same foolishness*, he thought. *If she wants me home so much, why does she make it so damn miserable to come home?*" (pp.31-32). Why, indeed? But having raised them, Evans never effectively counters these charges. He only tells us that Eliana "blamed herself for not seeing it coming," and then reverses himself a page later, asserting that she "felt the victim of a marital bait and switch" (p. 16). Victim turns out to be her primary occupation. Based on the themes of her General Conference addresses, I can believe that this is what raised Sheri Dew's hackles most of all. Evans is climbing on his best-seller soapbox to preach a medieval theme I've encountered in other Mormon romances, that of the Great Wheel of Fate. Climb aboard at the wrong instance and your life is doomed till it rolls around and rights itself. We are supposed to admire the protagonist merely for hanging on and letting go when the sunny side of life shows up like a stop on a Disneyland amusement ride. Had Evans eliminated the implied infidelity business from the start, he would then have had to address this problem with human agency. Were Eliana already divorced, for example, but in the interest of her sickly child living in her ex's villa and growing dependent on his largess, and he on the free child care and the warm house to come home to--and were it not strongly implied that, despite his travails, Ross still had bucks in the bank--this would force her to make a decision of her own volition, not wait for heaven to smile upon her, the ball to drop into the right slot at the roulette table. To write the story right, though, you would have to have some insights into why the Hillarys end up with the Bills in the first place. I'm not convinced that Evans has a clue. And we're not necessarily talking about deep psychology. As Slate's "Dear Prudence" advice columnist advised a reader in a similar quandary, the quandary that Eliana apparently blew through without a second thought: "My dear, when it comes to making a judgment about a man's character, what else is there besides his past? It is through one's history that you learn about judgments, morals, and choices." Judgements, morals, and hard choices are the last things on anybody's mind in _The Last Promise_. Which is why Evans can't begin the book without first rationalizing his choice of subject matter. Though here he does demonstrate some talent in composition. Evans introduces himself in a self-deprecating account of the Famous Author Nobody's Heard Of, bumbling around Italy with his family. One day he's relaxing poolside at a country club outside Florence and is told this story by a gorgeous, sunbathing woman he strikes up a conversation with. Unfortunately, this promising narrative voice is soon drowned out by the drone of a loquacious, self-important guy who's got you cornered on a five-hour bus trip and is convinced that you are dying to hear his profoundly superficial life story. But who only convinces you that this is the last time you're riding this particular bus anywhere, thank you very much. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: [AML] RE: Memorial Day (was: 20th Century Mormon Women) Date: 30 May 2003 20:16:05 -0400 You will also find plaques and statues proclaiming Carbondale, Illinois and Murphysboro, Illinois (about ten miles from each other proclaiming the same thing. (General Jonathon Logan is widely given credit for founding Memorial Day and he was from - and drew his Yankee regiment from - Southern Illinois) As for me and my house, all through my childhood in Idaho the day was called Decoration Day and was spent much as Lisa described her days, although our trips were generally to Lund, Idaho, for the same general purpose. I have never thought about it before, but there might have been some uniquely Mormon nature to our celebration of "Decoration Day" in Mormon Country. The research might lean to "non-Mormon" areas to see how celebration was done in the first half of the twentieth century in those areas. Richard Johnson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 30 May 2003 17:20:06 -0700 Thom, when did his lie (about the MS, I suppose) cost him an election? I watch the program all the time, and don't recall this. I remember the problem with the lie, but not the loss of an election. And I agree with your assessment of the show. It takes a pretty even hand. And with the departure of Aaron Sorkin this coming year, I wonder what direction the show will take. > 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. > -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 30 May 2003 20:28:54 -0400 If you refer to LDS writing Joseph Fielding Smith wrote rather extensively about the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen as did several other authorities in that time period and earlier. Outside Mormon writing the only material with which I'm familiar came from Jews (came up in a panel at the World Festival of the Yiddish Spirit which was held in 1979 and roused some irritation from both Jewish and Gentile attendees _in this context, Mormons are included with the Gentiles, I certainly heard about it in Priesthood meeting, because I was one of the organizers of the festival) [Richard Johnson] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 30 May 2003 19:33:32 -0600 _Peculiar People_was edited by Ron Schow, my friend Wayne Schow and Marybeth Raynes with a forward by Lowell L. Bennion. It was published in 1991 by Signature Books. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 31 May 2003 10:40:33 +0900 barbara states, regarding car rides with the opposite sex: 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 ----------------- I always thought the reasoning was to protect men from the sexually repressed women of the church who would jump on one of us given any opportunity. ;) Kari Heber Okinawa Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 30 May 2003 21:21:27 -0600 ___ Marilyn ___ | 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! ___ It's actually a fairly widespread belief even today. Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde frequently taught this a lot typically in his polygamy apologetics of the 1850's and 1860's. It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. (Orson Hyde, JD 4:259) So not only did they read Jesus' encounters with women in terms of marriage they even described the events at the marriage when water was turned to wine as Christ's own marriage. (Presumably why he was worried about running out of refreshments ) I'm not sure I buy the polygamy angle, (it was already fairly uncommon in the first century) but I actually do find the Mary angle fairly persuasive. As I mentioned yesterday there is a very early tradition they were married. Plus, according to LDS doctrine, a marriage would be necessary prior to the resurrection. As I mentioned, The Gospel of Philip alludes to this. There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. (59) The more interesting part is unfortunately fragmentary, but reads as follows. (ellipses in block quotes represent missing text) As for the Wisdom [Sophia - a gnostic demigod like figure] who is called "the barren" she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [...]. The rest of [the disciples...] They said to him, "Why do you lover her more than all of us?" (64-65) The text is important since it speaks of marriage so much, reflecting many teachings found is esoteric Judaism as well. While given a definite gnostic thrust, the basic form is interesting to Mormons. Adam and Eve were originally one. When they were separated death started. When they were reunited in the bridal chamber, death will be no more. A bridal chamber is not for the animals nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women, but it is for free men and virgins. Through the holy spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten through Christ in the two. (69) It goes on and I know many Mormon apologists, including Hugh Nibley have quoted this. But the context strongly suggests a sacred marriage for redemption in the Holy of Holies which is a bridal chamber. This is then tied to the resurrection. It strongly implies that Mary Magdalene is Jesus' wife and that this is the image of these patterns of how to overcome the fall of Adam. All in all not really church doctrine, but kind of an interesting literary aside. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] Sickbed Reading & Viewing Date: 30 May 2003 23:55:23 -0400 You wrote: >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. _Miller's Crossing_ and _Barton Fink_ have just been released for the first time on DVD: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008RH3L/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008RH3J/ They'd both make my top 10 list of all-time favorite movies. And _Barton Fink_ is about a playwright in Hollywood, no less. Very loosely inspired by Clifford Odets... Those are both by the Coen Brothers. If you dig them at all, even slightly, I recommend also watching _Blood Simple_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005LC4P/ And after you watch it, watch it again with the DVD's commentary track. It's one of the funniest things I've ever heard, in any medium, at any time. If you can give a nod to a sort-of-SF film, watch _Donnie Darko_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005V3Z4/ It's only nominally a SF film, involving time travel -- but it's really almost more of a Gothic ghost story/'80s teen high school movie tribute, thrown into a blender with the SF. I watched this three times in a row a few weeks ago. My favorite film of 2002, _Spirited Away_, has just been released on DVD: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005JLEU/ I recently read a graphic novel that I can't get out of my head -- _Cages_, by Dave McKean: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561633194/ McKean has created the art for lots of Neil Gaiman-written projects, but this is another level. Almost 500 pages, every one of them breathtakingly gorgeous. And it has a compelling story, if you're into that sort of thing... And speaking of Neil Gaiman, his novel _American Gods_ was one of the best books I read last year: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380789035/ You could kinda call it fantasy, I suppose, but not in any conventional sense. Another one of the best novels I read last year was Lynda Barry's _Cruddy_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068483846X/ It's brilliant, but be warned -- it gets pretty harrowing at times. Barry is primarily a cartoonist, though, and _100 Demons_ is her best work in that medium: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570613370/ Very infectious -- I've read it probably a dozen times. I just finished reading _The Mind Game_ by Hector Macdonald, which I highly recommend (and which my dad recommended to me): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345440234/ This won't come out until September, so it doesn't really qualify for your request, but I think you'll probably be interested in James Bovard's _Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403963681/ Bovard is one of the foremost chroniclers of government abuse of power. This time it's all about Bush Jr. and his pals, and if his past work is an indication, it should be pretty exhaustive. Keep an eye out for it this fall. That's probably enough, eh? If you want more recommendations, lemme know. I've got a million of 'em. Eric D. Dixon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 30 May 2003 22:10:10 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > 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. You and I appear to be having completely different discussions. And I don't think I said what you seem to say I said. My argument about the "Hayes" approach is merely an attempt to recognize that there are, in fact, social and cultural limits in the marketplace (and I'm not limiting this discussion to the Mormon marketplace; there are limits in all marketplaces--the alleged "free market" is one of the biggest cultural myths we have). *Given the fact of those limits,* would-be artists *who feel limited or constrained* can either moan about the injustice of it all or they can get down to business and try to work around the perceived limits. You can either stretch the established conventions of your field, or ignore them and try to revolt against the establishment. (You can also work happily within those limits if you don't find them onerous, an option that some reject out of hand as an invalid artistic choice--which rejection I myself reject.) Is the fact of those limits fair? I never said it was. Is it good? I make no judgments about that at all; it doesn't matter whether it's good or not, it's just the way it is, imo. To me the question is how you're going to deal with that external limiting force, not whether the force should exist or not. That's it. Pure pragmastism, with the desire to publish *something* winning out over some concept of artistic purity for me. Nothing about what stories should or shouldn't be told; no judgments about who is worthy and who isn't. Simple recognition of market forces and their impact on one's ability to sell--aka, be heard. But...and I have included this big but in every single note I've written on the subject...it's up to the individual artist to do what seems right to them, to tell their story truly to the best of their ability--and by whatever means or convention seems most correct to them. Where's the arrogance in that? Do your own thing--that's somehow arrogant? Baloney. It's a great deal more liberal than saying that all art must be subversive or all art must be uncomfortable or all art *MUST* fit any other preconceived mold--liberal, conservative, or otherwise. To me arrogance is saying that only one set of criteria is valid and anyone who doesn't fit it is silly, pitiable, or otherwise unworthy of respect. I'll say it yet again--do what you think works for you. In the end it's your ideas and your private testimony and your integrity on the line and you have to be able to look yourself in the face and be happy with what you see. But not all paths lead to the same critical or popular or financial success. And because you choose one method does not make the rest of us artistically ignorant, incapable, arrogant, stupid, untalented, or any of the other long list of epithets that are commonly thrown at those with more conservative artistic tendencies. I don't believe that there is only one true and correct approach to art, so rather than demean and diminish those who choose a different path or work from a different set of assumptions I choose to cheerlead all the players and egg on every single person who aspires to express themselves to do their thing the best way they know how (while always striving to do better), with honesty and integrity and truth to their own vision. I want to see it all, not just a particular subset. And if it doesn't speak to me, I can ask for more without decrying anyone as incompetent, dishonest, or unworthy. Because the fact is that the incompetent are irrelevant to me, and I'm not qualified to make those other judgments. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (S.L. Trib) Mormon TV Writer Dies Date: 31 May 2003 02:17:37 EDT It was sad to read that Ernie Wallengren had died. I met him a couple of years after moving to Los Angeles. He was in my ward in Encino. I quickly sought him out. He was a successful t.v. writer; I was an aspiring film writer. He even attended a script reading of "Girl Crazy" several weeks before we started filming. He had some good notes, and he was encouraging. A genuinely good man. I'm sad that he's gone. Richard -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply Date: 31 May 2003 08:28:28 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >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. The sources are in the end notes. I asked Tom if the conversation he is said to have had with a superior at BYU (according to the book) was true and he said it was. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Tom Rogers Reply Date: 31 May 2003 08:33:22 -0600 > >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"? Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list No, Tom was never threatened with excommunication. The play was allowed to continue its run. But he did have a discussion with certain General Authorities who feared that efforts to establish a temple in Germany would be harmed by his play. It's all in _BYU Household of Faith_, by Bergera. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Nauvoo Theatrical Society Date: 31 May 2003 08:45:50 -0600 NTS is moving but I can't say where yet, as we haven't signed the contract. The move will be very helpful for us. Our rent will be half of what it was in the old location. We will have our second season up and running in September. There is another group taking over the space of where the Center Street Theatre was and will operate under another name. They will be doing original LDS plays, as I understand, but -- how shall I say this? -- geared toward a less sophisticated audience than the NTS tries to hit. The contract with our new landlord will be inked this next week, when we'll make it public. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Award-Winning LDS Actors/Singers (was BYU Actors) Date: 31 May 2003 08:49:43 -0600 This is exciting news. I always watch the Tonys and will look forward to this year's broadcast for yet another reason. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature Date: 31 May 2003 12:17:19 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: > You extoll the virtues of the first approach. No I don't. I accept the challenge--and opportunity--that the "Hayes" approach presents and recognize that there's no such thing as a truly free market or a truly unfettered institution. Given the fact of limits in the marketplace, I choose to look for ways around the barrier (or to make it an exceptionally fine and esthetically pleasing barrier) rather than flinging myself against it and weeping bitterly at the injustice of it all. One note--I'm talking about a general approach to writing that takes into account the fact of market limitations, not defending the specific actions of the Hayes Commission. I do not defend the Hayes Commission as either a good idea or the incarnation of some high moral principle, and never have. > 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. Except that Lucifer didn't give a shake about anyone but himself, which is why he was able to even conceive of such a plan. He just didn't accept that anyone else's ideas mattered, or that anyone else had innate worth or value. This is hardly a position monopolized by the alleged do-gooders in this discussion. What Lucifer didn't trust was our ability to work out *his* salvation; he didn't give a fig about ours. I don't think it's as simple as no choice versus unlimited choice. Choice exists in a context and carries consequences. The way I see it Lucifer argued that we eliminate the consequence by eliminating the choice; Christ argued that we defer the consequences and create a buffer so that people can eventually discover and commit to a choice and decide who and what they really want to be--able to choose wrongly without being immediately destroyed, and allowing for a reversal of most choices before the bill comes due. The choices still Choice only exists in the presense of opposition, else it's merely arbitrary selection and hardly rises to the level of art (imo). I may not like the opposition, but I require it in order to have an ability to choose otherwise. If there is no barrier, what is there to break down? If there is no opposition, what do we argue against (or for)? I'm not saying we need to go set up arbitrary oppositions--they happen all by themselves, and we have to deal with them whether we want to or not. Even then, most choices end up being between functional equals, not polar opposites in my view. I would never have appointed Hayes in the first place, but somehow he got appointed. Now all that's left is how we're going to deal with the modern incarnation. > 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?) You keep talking about arrogance as though it were a sin of only one end of the spectrum. My point is that arrogance exists all up and down the continuum, and--like the limits imposed by the Hayes Commission--it's merely a fact that needs to be dealt with. The fact of someone's arrogance proves nothing to me except that they are certain they've found a better answer and want others to see the value of it. Which makes every single artist arrogant by definition. As for Hayes himself, I have no idea what his opinions were and I don't really care. The fact is that he had the power (if not the moral authority) to dictate policy and see that policy enforced. What good does it do to rage, to point out again and again that there is in fact a limiting policy in place? It's there. Change it if you can, but deal with it in any case. And understand that while others may deal with it differently, they're not necessarily morally inferior for their different approach. > 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. No arguments there. That's why I cheerlead for everyone to tell their own story their own way, and the critics be damned. > 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. There's a broader philosophical question here that I've written (and discarded) about twenty pages of material on because it doesn't really deal with issues of Mormon literature. I don't think the question is anywhere near as clear or the answer anywhere near as simple as you've presented it here. It seems to me that the question of ultimate justice and the responsibilities we each have to each other requires that we look out for each other to the best of our abilities--as the very definition of God's plan, not the negation of it. If we overstep perfect order in our efforts to look out for the well-being of others, then our sin is one of excessive zeal rather than corrupt intent. Fortunately, the technology has not yet been developed that can actually force me to think in any particular way, or that can keep me from having my own opinions. But that's a completely different discussion. > 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? But God doesn't refuse. He has established judges in Israel tasked to adjudicate the moral decisions of their congregations. An imperfect system at times, but one that has been consistently re-established in each dispensation. God tells us what to do and how to behave all the time. The plan of salvation defers the ultimate consequences of our moral decisions until a later day after we've had every chance to change our minds, but a judgment of the moral decisions of each and every person *will* happen, and those people will not be able to deny the righteousness of that judgment. In the specific case of Hayes, whether he had the moral right or not he had the technical authority. Someone bestowed that authority on him, and the industry either had to adapt or die. It chose to adapt. On the general question, there's no such thing as pure freedom--certainly not in the publishing industry. The only guaranteed freedom any of us has is the freedom to starve. In the mean time, we're commanded to create the world we want to live in, which includes defining rules, guidelines, and laws. That different people have different visions is hardly a surprise. >>> 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? No, therefore some artists are lazy and don't push themselves beyond easy choices. It's a completely separate question from the Hayes discussion. I have never--not even once--suggested that anyone force any choice on anyone else in terms of how they tell their stories or what stories they choose to tell. I have suggested that some stories have limited audiences, and some approaches are inherently limiting given the conditions of the modern market. I believe publishers have the right to reject any book, regardless of the personal integrity--or even artistic quality--of the author. But that's not even close to advocating forced limitations on an artist's expression, and I frankly resent the suggestion when I have been a consistent advocate for a more expansive literature. > 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'm talking about the fact that market limitations exist. Period. Whether they're created by the Hayes Commission, Deseret Book, the alleged New York "I Hate Anything Religious and Especially Mormon" cartel, or the Christian Right, the market is full of arbitrary limits that make it easier to sell some kinds of work and harder to sell others. Now the question is how we're going to deal with those limits. I don't advocate the creation or enforcement of any arbitrary limitations, but I accept that they happen--whatever the sources may be. Given those limits, the artist can either give up in despair, rage against the machine, or find a way to produce (and sell) true and worthwhile art despite those limits. If that requires a particular genious, fine. But just because an artist takes a pragmatic approach and chooses to work within the limits rather than straining against them doesn't make that artist inartistic--it only makes them pragmatic and causes certain kinds of genious to emerge. Could other genious emerge if those limits didn't exist? Certainly. But what might have been is an impossible game to play. IMO. > ...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. I have to quibble with this. Lucifer's plan would have created one and only one god--himself. We could not have progressed under his plan, and would have ended up having lost our chance at godhood. > 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 just don't get this. Who's forcing anyone to bend to anything? If you want to publish in a certain market you have to play the game they establish. That's true at DB, Random House, Harper, Morrow, or any other publisher. If you don't want to play the game they require, you have to go elsewhere or establish a new game. Is it fair? No, but what's fair got to do with anything? Fair has never been a core operating principle in the publishing world, and it seems even less established in Hollywood. You've got to play the game as it is and beat the market by its own rules before you can gain the power to change the rules. That may mean dealing with a smaller publisher with less PR or marketing budget and experience. That may mean pounding the pavement to push your own book even after everyone else has walked away from you. I just don't see this world of perfect opportunity you seem to be looking for. It doesn't exist, as far as I can tell. At least not in this dark and dreary world. All that's left is the question of pragmatic artistry and whether your individual genious is marketable under current conditions--or whether you can make yourself marketable. So far I've had limited success with my own work, but I have published and continue to publish so I'm not completely hopeless by market standards. Though I'm certainly in the low income/low prestige segment. Which is okay with me...for now. > 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. So tell them. But telling the story you want to tell does not guarantee an audience, wide distribution, or a decent royalty check. The cost of freedom is that not everything gets published, and much of what's published does not reach a wide readership. > ...and ignore the > hypocritical outcry of those Deseret Book customers who will condemn > (not criticize) someone for doing it. So what if they condemn? If they're not your audience, then forget them. Why waste your time and energy raging at a bunch of alleged hypocrites who won't be swayed by your accusation? Beside, from my perspective the charge of hypocrisy is usually unfair. Most people don't have sufficient knowledge or haven't formalized their beliefs enough to be true hypocrites; most are just reacting to an only vaguely realized fear. Lazy, perhaps; hyprocrites--not usually. > 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? Apparently not. Or at least not by your definitions. Every publisher I know of has requirements and limitations--limits of budget, reach, know-how, energy, size, distribution, legitimacy, and vision. It's not as easy as hanging out your shingle and declaring yourself to be a revolution--every publisher has to discover, cultivate, and earn an audience. Most publishers languish or fail. Many can only afford to do one or two books a year. I think the vision you're talking about exists, but I'm not sure the audience is as primed as you think they are. Publishers are unbelievably pragmatic beasts and will go where the market (aka, the audience) tells them. So far, at least, there just hasn't been the massive outcry. Even if Paris hand presses his books, the target audience numbers in the dozens or low hundreds--not enough cash flow to appeal to a large, established publisher with the ability to reach large numbers of readers. I'm close to being as dissatisfied with the current Mormon publ;ishing marketplace as you are. I think there's a readership, but they don't think of themselves are readers of Mormon literature--they're interested in good work, and have come to believe that such work is not produced by and for Mormons, so they look elsewhere. Not because they hate the idea of Mormon stories, but because they don't believe there's a consistent high-quality source. I think the readers exist but have never see a reason to think of themselves as an audience. Someone needs to take the time and the energy (and the money) to develop that market. I'm slowly trying to create an alternative press of my own, but am running up against my own limitations as a human being and an entrepeneur. And I already know that however expansive I think my vision is, any number of critics will decry me as just another inadequate response, another pale shadow because I have no intention of publishing every book I receive. I will select based on my own ideas of what's good and worthwhile, and since it's my money and time that will back it up, I claim the right to make those judgments by my own standard and to reject perfectly good books that fall below my priority line. That's the way the game is played. If some people think my books come too close to the edge, I expect to hear from them. And because they're not my audience, I will note their comments and mine them for what good I can, then ignore them as irrelevant to my effort. The same goes for those who charge that I stop short of true realism. I can't serve all audiences and I have no intention of trying. It may not be hard to corner a particular market. The question is whether there's enough cash potential to make that market worth cornering. If not, the wait may be infinitely long and the acclaim equally small. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 31 May 2003 15:04:14 -0400 Rex, I have a question about this theory and its practical application. And since I know very little about it, I'm directing that questino to you. It seems that based on your last post (which is below) the theory postulates that SSA or gay men are not part of a masculine world and are therefore attracted to men who are a part of that world. If this is true, that would imply that gay men are not attracted to other gay men but rather to men who are firmly entrenched in a world of masculinity. This seems wrong to me, partly based on just common sense and partly based on my friendships with several gay men. Attraction does not draw boundaries at sexual orientation. i've been attracted to both straight and gay men. I can't imagine that a gay man doesn't experience the same thing. The theory, as you have summarized it (again I acknowledge my lack of a complete understanding) seems to suggest that SSA or homosexuality is about some kind of socio-psychological geography. It's not about anything truly essential or interior but rather about an individual's relationship to his world. I'm not denying this as a possibility. However, I do find it a bit strange that the help for this "problem" (the quotation marks because I don't see it as a problem but I won't go into that here) is to shore up the ideas of a masculine world and a feminine world and to help people find where they should be in those worlds. It almost seems insulting to me to imply that attraction revolves around desiring the other. In ways, it does. but in many many ways it does not. Anyway, I'm just wondering how Byrd and Nicolosi address this problem (the idea that gay men are not attracted to each other; only, rather, to "masculine" (and by implication straight) men). amelia -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 31 May 2003 08:51:51 -0600 Sweat. Thom >-----Original Message----- >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. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Smithsonian Exhibit Includes "Funeral Potatoes" Date: 31 May 2003 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Salt Lake Tribune Article: 'Funeral Potatoes' a Utah Tradition by Kathy Stephenson Centuries from now, anthropologists will be stumped. Instead of grains, fishbones and animal carcasses to help them understand the eating habits of Utahns, there will be petrified pans of "Funeral Potatoes." Also called "Yummy Potatoes", "Heavenly Potatoes", and "Disappearing Potatoes", this baked casserole is the mainstay at post-funeral dinners for many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The creamy concoction is one of the offerings representing Utah in "Key Ingredients: America by Food" a new Smithsonian Institute traveling exhibit... Full story: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/may/05312003/utah/61867.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: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Griffin, "Theocracy U.S.A." Date: 31 May 2003 15:08:58 -0700 (PDT) A bit of nasty Mormon-bashing from "Crisis", the conservative Catholic magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2003/Griffin.htm ===== 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: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 31 May 2003 19:35:39 -0600 > Hmm. I think your definition is a tad restrictive. I know. And as a result I think we've been talking at slightly cross purposes. A bit of explanation on where I'm coming from... I write (among other things) science fiction, fantasy, and light horror. As it turns out, I'm none too clear on the distinctions among those categories. It seems to me that one of the foundational elements of each of these kinds of stories is the mystery--who did it; what is it; how to I escape/solve the problem/end the threat? Similarly, each of these three story types often explores the non-human or semi-human as both metaphorical human, and as true alien. I can also argue that each form deals with the horrors of the exagerrated behaviors and/or attributes of human, semi-human, and alien. So from where I sit, it looks like sf, fantasy, and horror use essentially the same elements and are differentiated mainly by the source of the problem. As a result Smallville, Buffy, Highlander, Alien, MutantX, Touched By an Angel, The Matrix, The Green Mile, Dracula, The Twilight Zone, Spawn, The Princess Bride, and Tales from the Crypt are all pretty much the same for me. The only difference is the rational basis for the horror/threat elements. Science fiction claims an evolutionary or genetically manipulated source for the horror--aka, completely rational and founded in knowable sciences (or at least straight-line speculation on knowable science), even when the horror itself seems unknowable. CHUD is clearly a horror. But it's not supernatural; it's science. Same with the Alien franchise. True aliens can be as horrific as we can justify within the bounds of genetics, evolution, and environmental stress. That they're alien and incomprehensible only adds to the conflict and heightens the tension. Their powers are such as can be defined and understood within a purely rational framework once we've discovered and understood the key element at the core of that behavior. Fantasy (generally) claims either a natural or technological source for the horror. Creatures are naturally occurring beings from an unseen world that coexists with ours. Faeries, trolls, gnomes, viles, demons, giants, elves and the like may be more ancient of origin than the rest of us, but they're natural elements of the landscape. They have power, but that power is directly accessible to the rest of us--in fact, it seems a basic element of most magic is access to the common power available to all creatures. Again, ordinary humanity can both rationally understand, and gain access to the powers of, fantastic creatures. It seems to me that Horror claims an extra-natural or super-natural source for its horrors. In other words, power from a world that intersects with ours but that operates by a different set of rules that may be understood (though it seems rarely are), but cannot be subjugated or controlled. Creatures are what they are, but their being bears no specific reference to the natural world. In many ways they are the ultimate aliens. Power is something that can only be bestowed, not learned--in other words, power to act against the horror comes from outside the knowable world, not as a result of manipulating or controlling it as in fantasy and science fiction. I know, it's an artificial separation, but it's the best way I know how to articulate the fuzzy distinction in my mind. It also illustrates why a lot of traditional horror stories have be dubbed "dark fantasy" over the past few years--it reflects the distinction between natural (if horrible) and supernatural (completely outside our control). "The Picture of Dorian Gray" is horror, because though the interaction between Gray and the portrait is consistent and knowable, the power that drives it is extranatural and immutable. Here's where my particular heresy kicks in. Traditional stories of the power of God (and devils) fall into the horror category for me. The power of God is supernatural and beyond both our control and our access. Divine justice may occur, but does so on its own timetable and by its own methods, with our individual faith playing an immediate role in the caging of the horror, but the ultimate destruction of that horror being left in other hands. Except that Mormons believe that the power of God is not only controllable (within limits) but is actually accessible--and even attainable--by ordinary humans. In other words, Mormon theological constructs actually fall under my arbitrary definition of Fantasy (or even science fiction, though that's a stretch) rather than Horror because we see God's power as ultranatural and a reflection of an accessible unseen world rather than supernatural and a reflection of an inaccessible unseen world. Thus, my question about Mormon horror. It seems that our oddities are actually hypernatural rather supernatural. We may not know the rules, but believe they are knowable and that we can interact as participants in the events of the unseen world rather than as pure victims as traditional horror seems to suggest. >Would werewolves and vampires be monsters according to your definition? Yes. They're supernatural and non-rational. Their source is completely unknown, unless they're considered demons or devils. Traditional lore has it that one is not a vampire or werewolf by nature; it's either a choice or an accident (usually an accident) with the power to become a vampire or werewolf coming as a bestowal of transforming power from an external source, not some innate or natural transformation brought on by the psyche. (And yes, there's a discussion to be had about those who choose to become werewolves or vampires and how that effort reflects the true state of their soul, but the fact is that one doesn't become one of these critters by an act of will--it's always an external bestowal. The modern retellings--like the recent Dracula film--actually attempt to change the story from horror to dark fantasy by creating a rational basis for the original creation of the vampire; though in this case I still think the traditional Christian motif held and Dracula's change was seen as the result of a curse from god rather than a predictable outcome of a set of rational procedures--aka, it stayed horror despite the attempt to recast it as dark fantasy.) It's an arbitrary distinction for me. But it's the model I work from. > 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. And for most of Christianity, that would qualify as horror--the unknowable, alien power of God working according to an inaccessible set of rules and beholden to no human (or even semi-divine) intervention creates a montrous creature that has no natural explanation. But because Mormons see the power of God as not only understandable but directly accessible and manipulable, because Mormons accept the idea that each and every human can and will become immortal (unkillable), and because Cain himself is seen not as a victim of capricious fate but a direct result of his own choice and a predictable outcome of his actions (he knew and understood the power he was messing with), his transformation into a grotesquery is more about technology than about supernatural phenomenon. For Mormons. In my opinion. > 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. The apparent humanity of monsters doesn't change the supernatural manner of their creation. Which is why I think that Satan stories would actually qualify wholesale as Mormon horror. He is the one character who is a nearly perfect agent unto himself and who has the power of himself to act (at least for a time). More importantly, because he works according to an alien conceptual framework, he becomes at least anti-natural, and possibly supernatural. His works and power become unknowable and incomprehensible. > | 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.") At the risk of being humorless, I never argued the general concept of Satan as deceiver or his reasonably well documented efforts to appear as an angel of light (or even how to detect him in that guise as documented in D&C 129). I argued the general awareness and common retelling of the specifically named stories--"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 story in D&C 128 is a single reference to Michael detecting the fact of Satan trying to pretend to be an angel of light. D&C 128 itself offers precious few details (none that I could find), and the detailed version of that story seems far from a tale told over the fire every night, in my experience. Even the relatively detailed excuse offered by Korihor in Alma 30:58 stops short of being a complete and richly described story, and draws few (none that I could find) details about either the commonality of such appearances or the generally understood details of such encounters (Korihor himself was easily fooled; the story must not have been all that common even in his own day). Admitting that I haven't read Joseph Smith's own history of those events, I still see the distance between the fact that Satan attempted to deceive Joseph on the Susquehanna (and was immediately debunked by a legitimate angel), and the idea that a detailed story based around that fact is common lore and generally spoken of in the Church, to be at least a small leap. The Book of Enoch dropped out of the standard canon more than a few years ago, was never part of the standard works of the Mormon church, is generally viewed as folklore by the rank and file that are aware of it (how many ordinary Mormons have actually read some or all of the pseudepigrapha or apocrypha?), and is still fairly regularly debated (at least in terms of perfect authenticity) even among scholars. I'm aware of derivative works taken from that source (that you have documented nicely), but I would argue that most people are aware of those derivations (aka made up stories) than they are about the primary source. And none of those references give me details on Lamanite angels guarding either the Salt Lake or Logan temple from sons of perdition. An extremely informal and unscientific survey of immediate family members and friendly neighbors has turned up no additional detail for me. I remain unaware of that as a commonly told story, funny as my ignorance may be to you. And I didn't easily find it while googling--at least not in the brief (about 20 minute) expedition I went on. I don't dispute its existence, only how commonly it's known and told within the general culture. > 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. Yes. Wonderful film. Not one I've watched again, though. Too much of the pop-mystical-voodoo thing for me to take as serious speculative theology. Too creepy to watch just for fun. > 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) Yup. Actually, that's not quite right. I believe that a great many things have happened that I find difficult to accept. Not impossible, just difficult. And because extended musing on whether or not someone really saw a Lamanite angel kicking the stuffings out of a Son of Perdition in the Logan temple don't really strike me as useful (if they did or didn't, that doesn't change my beliefs in the basics of the gospel as it's been taught to me so far). So I don't spend a lot of time on it; I have other sets of speculations that interest me more. I have an admittedly limited and warped view of what constitutes horror. The fact of a monster isn't horror for me. The fact of a curse or the possibility of an unseen world don't fall outside the realm of rational explanation for me. Whether that's because of my Mormonness or because I'm just a gullible guy trying to hide behind the facade of rationality, I don't know. But funny or not, I don't hear a lot of uniquely Mormon horror stories being told at the gatherings of Mormons that I attend, and the horrific stories that are told strike me as extremely rational in light of some of the basic assumptions of Mormon theology. I think Mormons tell horror stories as often as anyone else (I've told and sold quite a few light horror stories and recently finished a story about a sort of were-creature). But I think most of those are just stories, not reflections of deep cultural lore and closely held belief in commonality of mystical experience. And I admit freely that I may well be wrong. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Kimura" Subject: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 31 May 2003 20:53:11 -0500 "Paint Your "Wagon" Starring Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood and Jean Seberg Directed by Joshua Logan Written by Paddy Chayefsky, Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe Paramount. 1969 Reviewed by Kim Kimura, LDS Video Store "Paint Your Wagon" is the #1 LDS in box office history featuring a lead character openly identified in the movie as a Latter-day Saint.* "The Other Side of Heaven" is #2. After a successful Broadway run, Paramount spent an estimated $20 million to turn this production into a feature film. It was the 7th most successful movie released in 1969. It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Musical Score. Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood star as California prospectors. A town full of male prospectors force a Mormon man (John Mitchum) traveling through town to "sell" his second wife (Jean Seberg) to the highest bidder. Surprisingly, the strong-willed Latter-day Saint woman agrees to the idea, and ends up married to the rough-hewn prospector played by Lee Marvin. But while her husband is away from the town, Seberg falls in love with Eastwood and declares she would like both him and Marvin as her husbands. "Paint Your Wagon" was directed by non-Latter-day Saint director Joshua Logan, and remains one of his best loved films. Logan received Academy Award nominations for Best Director for "Sayonara" (1957) and "Picnic" (1955), and his film "Fanny" (1961) was nominated for Best Picture. He also directed such popular movies as "South Pacific" (1958), "Camelot" (1967) and "Bus Stop" (1956). The movie's male leads, Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood, are both Academy Award winners. Lead actress Jean Seberg, as the Latter-day Saint woman who marries them both, received nominations for BAFTA and Golden Globe awards. Now, be aware that this is not technically "LDS Cinema," because the filmmakers who made this movie were not Latter-day Saints and the movie wasn't made for a Latter-day Saint market. This is a big-budget Hollywood film made by non-LDS filmmakers. Despite the fact that Jean Seberg's character is a Latter-day Saint, there is little about her or about the movie as a whole that is particularly LDS, except for the plural marriage plot device. As a lead actress, Seberg is very much an admirable character and she exhibits high ideals. Mormonism is only mentioned by name in the scene where Seberg, her husband, and his first wife come into town; it isn't necessarily portrayed favorably, but nothing mean-spirited is intended by the portrayal either. Basically the hundreds of men in a mining town without women admire or are jealous or resentful of a man with TWO wives. The fact that the husband is willing to offer his wife to the highest bidder doesn't speak well of his character, but he at first flatly refuses the idea, and only agrees to it when Seberg pressures him to. She is clearly tired of her marriage and resentful of her husband's first wife. I thought these scenes were very funny and entertaining. There are some humorous lines such as "Brigham Young has 26 wives, and look at the trouble I'm having with just the two of you!" This is a period piece, set 150 years ago. None of it is intended as an attack on the Church, and I think most Church members would not be offended by the movie's Mormon-related content, which is actually a small portion of the overall film. Also be aware that the movie takes place almost entirely within a frontier town with somewhat earthy and definitely non-religious sensibilities. The rated earns its PG-13 rating, mostly for general thematic content. There is some mild language and some mild profanity. The film depicts no nudity, although after getting married to Lee Marvin, Jean Seberg's character is seen in a cleavage-revealing outfit. There are also two topless mannequins outside the saloon, carved out of wood but painted realistically. The mining town eventually expands and brings in more women, some of whom it employs as prostitutes. For me one of the most bothersome scenes is when Lee Marvin's character brings the twenty-something virgin son of a farming family to the room of a prostitute. Absolutely nothing is shown on screen, but it is quite clear what happens, and Marvin thinks arranging this was all in good fun. Fortunately for the overall moral tone of the movie, the characters played by Seberg and Eastwood are both outraged by Marvin's actions. In fact, Seberg immediately kicks Marvin (her husband) out of her home for doing this. "Paint Your Wagon" is a well-made, entertaining movie. But it should be watched for its own merits, not to learn anything about Latter-day Saints. The Church-related aspects are there mostly as a plot device. You would have to decide for yourself if Seberg's high ideals and beliefs, despite living in a ribald mining town, are a result of her maintaining her identity as a Latter-day Saint, or simply a reflection of a generally noble character. Also interesting is the question about whether her taking two husbands, in what she specifically refers to as "plural marriage," stems from beliefs as a Latter-day Saint, or from a willingness to abandon normal societal conventions for the sake of expediency. I enjoy "Paint Your Wagon," but be aware that it isn't necessarily a "family movie." 264 minutes / Color / Stereo / Region 1 DVD encoding / Widescreen Optional English subtitles for the hearing impaired. * "Paint Your Wagon" grossed $31.6 million at the U.S. box office, making it by far the most successful movie ever released featuring a lead character openly identified as a Latter-day Saint. "Ocean's Eleven" grossed far more (3 decades later), but the 2 characters identified as Mormons in the movie are not really lead characters, although they could be called 2 of the main characters, as they are two of the titular eleven. Also, their status as Mormons has no bearing on the plot. The religious affiliation of Jean Seberg's character in "Paint Your Wagon" is the central plot point. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] Diane WIRTH, _Parallels_ (Review) Date: 01 Jun 2003 04:25:27 GMT Review Title: Parallels - Mesoamerican and Ancient Middle Eastern Traditions Author: Diane E. Wirth Publisher: Stonecliff Publishing Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 211 Binding: Large paperback ISBN: 0-9602096-0-3 Price: $17.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Upon first hearing of this book from a friend at FARMS, I asked him whether he thought this kind of book would be beyond my ability to evaluate adequately. He assured me that it was indeed written at a level which I could understand. He was quite right. Wirth's book is a wonderful primer on a subject of so much discussion in Mormon circles -- the parallels (hence the title) between traditions found in the ancient Middle East and those known of the ancient tribes of Mesoamerica. Mind you, there's no shortage of books on this subject. The student wishing to learn can find a wide variety of such works. But Wirth's book is unique in two ways: 1) the work speaks to a non-Mormon audience -- there's hardly a mention of Mormonism anywhere except in the bibliographical endnotes; and 2) it serves well as a primer for those wanting to dip into the subject of ancient cultures and history, but are either unable, or unwilling, to devote the time needed to study the more weight tomes. The design of the book is very straightforward. Following some introductory thoughts, in which Wirth states her premises and lays out the design of her own thoughts, she treats the subject thematically, showing, through prose and illustration, parallels she perceives between the civilizations. In her opening words, she addresses directly the dispute between the "isolationist" and "diffusionist" schools of thought regarding the peopling of the American continent. It is beyond the scope of this review to explain this issue, other than to say that "isolationists" see a single source of population movement -- from the north -- accounting for the population of the continent, while the "diffusionist" sees the issue as more complex, involving more than one migration from more than one ancient civilization. It is clear that she comes down on the side of the diffusionists -- it is sensible that a believing Latter-day Saint would find the isolationist viewpoint unacceptable. The issue becomes, what does the evidence indicate? Can either side show definitively that one or the other theory is true? I don't think there is that kind of certainty. Wirth tries to show that the diffusionist theory is reasonable. The chapter titles are as follows: 1. Bearded Foreigners? 2. Osiris and Hun Hunahpu 3. Creation and Re-Creation 4. Fish Traditions 5. Symbolism in Genealogy 6. The King and the World Tree 7. Mesoamerican and Egyptian Scribes 8. Womb of Earth -- Womb of Sky 9. Mountain of Creation 10. Miscellaneous Parallels Each chapter centers around its theme by offering examples from both cultures and shows how parallels can be seen. Her attention to organization and detail is so helpful to the beginning learner. She opens each chapter with a brief introduction, and closes with a helpful summary of the data found therein. Using scripture, ancient writing, oral tradition and surviving symbology as her basis, Wirth takes the reader step by step through some of the more amazing parallels that exist between the civilizations. At the end of the book, the author supplies us with helpful comparative charts. Also arranged thematically, one may quickly research ideas and methods, and instantly find their parallels in the ancient civilizations. As one begins a study in this area, such charts are invaluable. And for the more ambitious student, a lengthy bibliography is supplied. It is important to note that Wirth does not assume a level of academic competence in her readers. Scholars may find the vernacular approach to be a bit put-offish, but most readers, I believe will find the common-sense approach to the subject both helpful and approachable. "Parallels" should be considered by any student wishing to either get started, or to more fully organize, a study of the subject. My bookshelf has many books on this topic; some are quite weighty and intimidating. This book fills a need in the current atmosphere of Mormon life -- the need for greater study versus the frantic pace of modern life that makes reading huge tomes impractical. This is a book that can be enjoyed at every level, and deserves a wide audience. Some may quarrel with the parallels presented, but no Latter-day Saint who cares about this issue (and all should!) can deny that resources are available. "Parallels" is an example of an entry-level book that is both competent and readable. Wirth is to be congratulated for taking the step of self-publishing. I hope that this book is eventually carried by Deseret Book and other independent LDS bookstores. I recommend it as a fine beginning text, and hope that it was wide circulation. Stonecliff Publishing is located at: P.O. Box 911060 St. George, UT 84791 435-652-8279 stonecliffpub@aol.com ----------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] R.S. Magazine Date: 01 Jun 2003 15:12:33 -0600 ---Original Message From: Gideon Burton >=20 > The Relief Society Magazine is awesome! What a treasure trove=20 > of LDS history, folklore, literature, etc. I'm glad Jacob=20 > mentioned it, and everyone should know about a new online=20 > resource that has indexed most of the R.S Magazine, including=20 > all of the birthdays and recipes (the latter sorted by=20 > category, even). This has been put together by Connie Lamb,=20 > one of the BYU librarians on the Mormon Literature Database=20 > committee. The URL is http://web.lib.byu.edu/rsmag/index.php.=20 > Soon we will be entering the many plays, poems, and literary=20 > lessons from the R.S. Magazine into the Mormon Literature Database. Cool. An index. Way awesome and I'm glad you posted that link. Any = plans to post the actual articles/poems/lessons etc.? I know that's = potentially a copyright nightmare, but it doesn't have to be. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone (was: SSA in Mormon Lit) Date: 01 Jun 2003 15:35:04 -0600 ---Original Message From: Barbara Hume > At 10:30 AM 5/28/03 -0500, you wrote: > >(This, of course, is also an issue with the restrictions we place on=20 > >male-female interactions in the Church. I sometimes wonder=20 > whether the=20 > >positive value of guidelines such as "never give a ride to=20 > someone of=20 > >the opposite sex if you're married to someone else" isn't ultimately=20 > >negated by their potential to make us that much more aware of the=20 > >sexual potential of such situations. Which isn't to say that such=20 > >rules don't have their place...but I worry that applying them in an=20 > >across-the-board manner may have downsides that we don't often=20 > >acknowledge. Reducing opportunity while sexualizing context=20 > seems like=20 > >a short-term strategy to me.) >=20 > I think this guideline is insulting to men. It implies that=20 > they are all=20 > closet rapists and must never be given an opportunity to take=20 > advantage of=20 > a woman. It is so Victorian. If it's insulting, I think it's insulting to both men and women. I'm = not so sure it's insulting, though. I *do* think that you misread the = underlying purpose of the policy. I don't think it is to protect women from = rapists. I think it is to protect both from misunderstandings. I think it is to protect from developing a gradual partiality that could lead to = emotional attachment, falling in love and broken homes. And I think it is, in = extreme cases, to protect both from accusations (potentially false) of abuse = and/or infidelity. It's a conservative policy--protective of both men and women--and one = that I think needs to be broken from time to time, but only with understanding, careful thought and/or spiritual prompting. I consider it a guideline = and one that is necessary due to the fallen world we live in. It'd be = better if we didn't need it, if everyone would behave with honor and honesty at = all times, but we don't live in such a world and we should acknowledge that = by being careful in our conduct. In this case, the extra steps to adhere = to the policy are worth the effort because the stakes can be so very high = (even if relatively rare). It can take very little to break a family apart, particularly when accompanied by the additional stresses provided by = church and work. A vicious rumor that cannot be repudiated can have tragic consequences. And even if the effects aren't permanent, they can be = very damaging all the same. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit. Date: 01 Jun 2003 21:49:27 -0700 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_. Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Margaret Young ********************************************* "For 10 points, Wink . . . .": _Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation_, edited by Ron Schow & Marybeth Raynes (foreword by Lowell L. Bennion), Signature Books, 1991, 373 pp. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 4: EXPLORING RELIGIONS Date: 02 Jun 2003 00:10:29 -0600 INFORMATION ON D. MICHAEL'S FILM LABS, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR, CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.wwno.com/filmlab ======= D. Michael's Film Lab No. 4 Saturday, June 14, 2003, in the Salt Lake area. "EXPLORING RELIGIONS" Religion, such a vital part of the human condition, often gets short shrift in Hollywood movies. For Lab #4, we'll view three exceptions to this rule: three films where a specific Christian religion is depicted with sensitivity and respect. We'll go from Amish to Greek Orthodox to Pentecostal with three great films. 3:00 pm - Witness Peter Weir, 1985 runtime 112 min R, some violence, brief nudity Harrison Ford as a cop with a dumb name (John Book) shows us he can act. A young Lukas Haas as an Amish boy traveling with his mother to visit relatives witnesses a murder, and Ford is on the case. But when Ford finds out that the murder was committed by a fellow cop, he realizes justice will not be served and the only thing that matters is saving the boy's life. He brings the mother and son back to their Amish village, and, passing out from a serious wound, remains there himself until he can recuperate. This film explores the clashing differences between the rustic, deeply religious Amish community and the cynical hard-nosed life of a big city cop, without once ever showing disrespect to any of the characters (well, except for the cookie-cutter crooked cop villains, but they don't count). 6:00 pm - My Big Fat Greek Wedding Joel Zwick, 2002 runtime 96 min PG, sensuality, language An endearing biographical love story about a Greek Orthodox girl who has a hard time fitting into the mold her family has planned for her. Rather than become a "married Greek baby factory," she wants to go to school and work with computers. The women of the family conspire to help her achieve her goals by manipulating the hardnosed father into thinking it all was his idea. But the aftermath of all this disturbs everybody as she falls in love with someone not of her faith, and -- horror of horrors! -- not Greek. This lighthearted portrait of a faith-based subculture in America has so many parallels to LDS culture that it's a must-see for every Mormon, who will be able to appreciate its humor and challenges in a way that many fellow Americans will not. 9:00 pm - The Apostle Robert Duvall, 1997 runtime 134 min PG-13, thematic elements, one brief scene of violence Robert Duvall directs and stars in this project dear to his heart, that he tried for years to bring to realization. Duvall is a Southern Pentecostal preacher who loves his calling to obsession. This drives his wife into the arms of another man whom in a desperate fit of passion Duvall clubs, accidentally killing him. He must flee his church, his community, and his family. He struggles with God to understand what has happened, and believes he receives forgiveness and a new calling as an apostle. He wanders, moved by the spirit, and comes across a Louisiana community where he starts a new church and reinvigorates a scattered flock. The Apostle is a masterpiece film recreating a religious culture that is prevalent in America, but misunderstood by many, especially among Mormons. It has the feel of authenticity, the power of genuine religious devotion, and a conversion scene with Billy Bob Thornton that should be a case study for any LDS storyteller. RULES OF ATTENDANCE: Because space is limited, please RSVP to dmichael@wwno.com. You will then receive directions for finding the location, which is in Sandy, Utah. You may attend any or all of the films. Discussion will follow the viewing of each film, analyzing and critiquing the merits and weaknesses and impact of the film from an artistic, cultural, and yes, even moral standpoint. No expertise is required to participate. Just a vocal opinion and a respect for the opinions of others. (Personal attacks will not be tolerated!) No admission is charged (this is just friends gathering to watch movies together), but we like to pool our resources and order out for something to eat, since it's a long time to go hungry! PLEASE be considerate of others and do not bring anyone who will not be interested in viewing the films or be disruptive in any way. Be honest with yourselves--if your kids are little hellions, leave them home! No babysitting facilities are available!! We don't want to enforce age requirements, but we will enforce considerate behavior. Also be aware that there will be no attempt to select films or maintain a discussion that is "family friendly" (unless the theme is specifically intended to be family friendly). Frankness (but not crudeness) is an acceptable part of the discussion. YOU are responsible for deciding if attendance is appropriate for any particular individual, not us. Everyone attends at their own risk. We ain't got no commercial liability insurance. This is just for fun. You are welcome to bring pillows or blankets or beanbags if you like casually relaxing on the floor. Dress is as casual as you want to get. Heck, you can come naked for all I care (but others may care). D. Michael is the final arbiter of all rules. Come join us! It's bound to be fun. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 02 Jun 2003 09:39:11 -0700 So long as it's a soap opera, it doesn't matter what politics the actors pretend to. It tastes like a soap opera--melodrama all the way. The new Star Trek show and Smallville are morphing the same direction. I haven't watched the latest Star Trek since the "eugenics is GOOD!" episode, and after missing practically a season of Smallville I watched it again and I'm done with it too. West Wing is inherently a political lie, however. Compassion is entirely out of place in the current political left. It is merely a pose. But that is only the small part of the lie. The big part is the drama of Washington. It isn't dramatic--it's small, and mean, and brutal. Petty beyond the reach of contempt. There are very few decent people running the government, and they have very little power. Two of them happen to be from Arizona, which makes me happy--about forty reps in the House have started a tag-team filibuster-like parliamentary maneuver that has saved about $120 billion in pork over the past six-seven years. What they do is not dramatic, however. It's tactical and its very very dull. Inventing melodrama in Washington is just a propaganda method, and if the president depicted were based on an amalgam of Washington, Lincoln and TR, except wiser, I still wouldn't watch it. Soap opera is soap opera. The influence is always for the debit side of the soul. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 02 Jun 2003 11:19:12 -0600 ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > The idea that all evil spirits can be dealt with in a "brief, even > perfunctory way" seems incorrect. At a minimum we have Matthew 17:21 > where Jesus say, "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and > fasting." > If the twelve apostles couldn't do it, I rather doubt I could do it > were I the first priesthood holder to arrive. Jacob Proffit wrote: Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to base an entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. Any new encounter is just that, a new encounter with little or no continuity from previous events. LDS myth and theology would have to be stretched a bit thin to create a spiritual antagonist that persists enough to create something we'd call Horror. That's not really true. If you're going to stick to pure LDS myth and theology as it's been passed down I suppose it is. But that's not writing. That's typing. If you write a story that uses your own understanding of LDS myth and theology influenced by your own experience it very well could turn out to be LDS horror. The book I'm working on with American Book would be classified as LDS Horror, if you're in the third grade. If you're in the fourth grade it would be Magical Realism. It doesn't stretch LDS myth. If anything it gives weight to the darkest fears in the unique LDS perspective. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 02 Jun 2003 11:21:59 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to >base an entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. >Any new encounter is just that, a new encounter with little or >no continuity from previous events. LDS myth and theology >would have to be stretched a bit thin to create a spiritual >antagonist that persists enough to create something we'd call Horror. You're assuming that the Mormon audience would know much about the correct attitude of spirits. I suggest that they do not so that an imaginative author could make any version of this story work. I base my assumption on Mormon's not knowing their own theology on the popularity among LDS readers of the Tim LeHaye _Left Behind_ series of apocalyptic novels. Nary a single incident in any of those books comes even close to our teachings on the subject but most Mormon readers either don't know that or don't care. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Role of Artists Date: 02 Jun 2003 11:23:52 -0600 If I made a distinction between writers and poets, I did it by mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 02 Jun 2003 11:40:39 -0600 ___ Jacob ___ | Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to | base an entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. | Any new encounter is just that, a new encounter with little | or no continuity from previous events. LDS myth and theology | would have to be stretched a bit thin to create a spiritual | antagonist that persists enough to create something we'd call | Horror. ___ Well I think there are two components to this. The first is what the story is like. If you are looking for the traditional "haunting" story, then yes. There will be differences. But I don't think this entails there can't be a story. Simply that the story will take a different form from the more Catholic or Protestant inspired narratives. However even having said that I *don't* think that rebuked spirits simply disappear permanently. In those few cases I have fairly reliable knowledge it didn't work that way. (Including all the normal caveats due to my skeptical scientific nature) There was one story from early church history that illustrated this, but unfortunately I can't find the source right now and am too busy to look further. I guess I'll just say that I don't think your presentation correct. As I understand it a rebuke might free people from a particular event. You might even dedicate a house to prevent problems there. However in some cases the rebuke isn't permanent for a place, depending upon what activities are going on there. Likewise a rebuke doesn't guarantee the person to be free from future encounters, as we see in the life of Joseph Smith. I think I also pointed out the difference between the LDS conception of such things and Catholic views last week. The LDS view tends to see such forces as involved in a conspiracy. Perhaps the members of the "conspiracy" are weak and open to their own passions. But I think that does have implications for how one would tell the story. We really don't have the idea of dead evil humans haunting an area. (Although such stories do pop up in LDS folk stories - but the theological issues are more problematic) At best we have the tradition of evil sons of perdition utilizing such traditions for their own evil means. So yeah. The horror story won't be the typical story. It will involve something that is more of a chess game. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing though. And I have read stories of that sort before. I had mentioned the beginning of Hamlet last week as one way this can happen - a son of perdition whispering into someone's ear to cause problems, while pretending to be a loved one of that person. (In Hamlet's case his "dead father" as a devil telling him to get revenge for his death) Of course not being a fictional author, I'm probably not equipped to tell people what fiction is good. However I personally do think there are interesting stories of this sort. Indeed just the historical accounts are very, very interesting. Although admittedly a lot of people aren't as familiar with them. Even acknowledging that a lot of them involve perhaps exaggerated interpretations and the like, there really is a very interesting tradition of these stories. Especially during the time of Joseph Smith although there are plenty from Utah as well. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 02 Jun 2003 11:58:53 -0600 ___ Eugene ___ | 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. ___ I actually think the third one had the strongest story of all three. Its problem was much more direction and then a few questionable art direction decisions. (i.e. the Ewoks) Had it had a different director though I think it could really have been quite well. It is true that Lucas started doing a kind of "writing by democracy" where he did polls and the like to try and find archetypes. However in doing this he imposed structure over the natural flow of a story to such an extent that there was little real story. I think with the last two a lot of problems were once again direction as well as just a lack of skill with writing. The biggest problem though is that "structures" are imposed on the story. I know structuralism was very popular in the mid 20th century, but if Lucas doesn't show its problems, I don't know what would. Structuralism tends to lose the heart of a story. ___ Eugene ___ | 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. ___ While Campbell certainly adopted structuralism of the Levi-Strauss sort, he also adopted the kind of psychological structuralism of Freud and Jung. As such he was actually rather typical of the whole "mythic interpretation movement." I think Eliadi was a much better scholar of that genre, and more careful as well. Campbell tended to come up with structures and then make stories fit his structures. As such he often distorted them or downplayed the differences far too much. I think these approaches are interesting. We can see this general approach to texts in Mormon figures like Hugh Nibley. While I think Nibley avoids some of the problems that Campbell runs into, due to his belief in revelation, there still are problems. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 02 Jun 2003 13:40:29 -0600 As I recall it, Bartlett's lie almost costs him an election, but he ends = up winning anyway. With Sorkin leaving, the focus supposedly will be on the personal lives = of the characters. More soap, in other words. Jury's out, of course, = on whether or not this is a good idea. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] (S.L. Trib) NELSON, LEE, _Huck Finn_ Date: 02 Jun 2003 14:03:36 -0600 Nelson Massacres the Book Twain Tried to Destroy By Martin Naparsteck Special to The Tribune Huck Finn & Tom Sawyer Among the Indians By Mark Twain and Lee Nelson; Council Press; $18.95 Utah author Lee Nelson says he has "finished" an incomplete novel by Mark Twain, Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Indians. He also says, in an author's note, that "I do not presume to know how Mark Twain wanted to finish the story." On the first count he is wrong, which proves that on the second he is right. He has not finished Twain's incomplete novel; rather, he has written a separate novel in which he misrepresents Twain's world view, alters the characters of Huck and the slave Jim to the point of gross distortion, and concocts a plot that, if he believed in truth in advertising, should have led him to retitle the book Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Mormons. Twain published The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in 1876 and the far superior The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in 1884. In 1885 he wrote, according to his autobiography, 36,000 words of another novel, narrated by Huck and with Tom and Jim as "heroes." He wrote, also, that he "destroyed" the manuscript "for fear I might some day finish it." He adds, "I believed that that trio had done work enough in this world and were entitled to a permanent rest." (Actually, Tom and Huck would return in two lesser novels published in the mid-1890s, Tom Sawyer Abroad and Tom Sawyer Detective.) Among the Indians has been published before. A Twain manuscript with 16,000 words survived the author's destructive intent, and Life magazine published it in 1968. The University of California Press has an edition in print. It can be found easily, for free, online. Nelson (best-known for The Storm Testament, and part owner of the company that published his novel) has kept the Twain part intact: the first 56 pages, when Indians kill most members of a white family heading West and kidnap the two survivors, teenage Peggy and her little sister Flaxy. Huck and Tom set out to free them. Tom's view of Indians is key to understanding Twain's direction. A typical example: "They're the noblest human beings that's ever been in the world. If a white man tells you a thing, do you know it's true? No, you don't; because generally it's a lie. But if an Injun tells you a thing, you can bet on it every time for the petrified fact; because you can't get an Injun to lie." When the Indians in Twain's tales lie, murder, and presumably rape, and Huck challenges his view, Tom says he learned about Indians by reading novels by James Fenimore Cooper. In a famous essay, "The Literary Offense of Fenimore Cooper" (1895), Twain writes that Cooper violates "114 offenses against literary art out of a possible 115." Among the Indians is clearly an earlier attack on Cooper's habit of creating cartoonish characters who perform impossible deeds. It is a counterbalance to the silliness of characterization and plot that dominated Cooper's writing. Twain was among our greatest writers, Cooper among our silliest. Nelson, sadly, learned to write by imitating Cooper, not Twain. In his part (four times as long as Twain's), Peggy is repeatedly raped, first by the Indians, then by white traders. She becomes pregnant, has a miscarriage, falls in love with Huck and marries him. Jim is captured by Indians, who treat him better than whites ever did. Huck, who far more than Tom is the hero of this book, meets Porter Rockwell and Bill Hickman, Mormon gunslingers, whom he describes as Cooper-style heroes. At one point, soldiers quiver in fear at the mere sight of Hickman and Rockwell; it's a scene similar to one in Zane Grey's Riders of the Purple Sage, in which the Mormon-hating Lassiter frightens Mormons about to whip an innocent man just by showing up. It's a silly scene in Grey's book and just as bad in Nelson's. It is a scene unlike anything Twain ever wrote, the type of scene Twain ridiculed in his essay. The portrayals of Hickman and Rockwell and the constant praise for Brigham Young (who does not appear in the novel) make Nelson's part of the novel seem church-sanctioned. Tom Sawyer reads and enjoys the Book of Mormon. Although most of the story takes place in 1857-58, during the so-called Mormon War, there is not a single mention of the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, in which Mormons murdered more than 100 members of a wagon train. Twain wrote about the massacre in an appendix to Roughing It (1872). In that travel book, he also devoted several chapters to making fun of Mormons (example: He always thought polygamy was a great evil until he visited Salt Lake City and saw what Mormon women looked like). Twain's Among the Indians was a criticism of Cooper. Nelson's is faith-promoting drivel. Twain deserves better. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: [AML] RE: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 02 Jun 2003 22:35:48 -0400 I confess that I, the most conservative of the conservative have generally ignored this guideline all my life, and don't expect to change now. Richard Johnson -----Original Message----- barbara states, regarding car rides with the opposite sex: 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: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Re: Memorial Day Date: 02 Jun 2003 15:24:07 -0700 > 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? This interests me so I took a quick glance around online. Memorial Day started out as a way of honoring those who died in the Civil War, but it isn't clear where and when the actual first observance of it happened. One web page I came across said this: "In recent years, it has also become a special day to honor family members and friends who we wish to remember - regardless of whether or not they served the in the armed forces." http://www.birthdayexpress.com/bexpress/planning/MemorialDay.asp My family never did anything for Memorial Day when I was growing up. (My family isn't LDS anyway.) But I've tried to make it the day I go and visit the graves of my brother, sister and nephew. I have a thing for cemeteries, though, and also usually visit Jimi Hendrix's grave. Disappointed I didn't have a chance to do it this year. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 02 Jun 2003 14:09:37 -0700 > 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!). All of my husband's LDS family members believe it, I'm pretty sure. Although I can remember his grandmother telling me Christ couldn't have been married to Mary Magdalene because she had been a prostitute. It had to have been Mary and Martha. I always figured a former prostitute is just who Christ would have married. Although of course it's not necessarily true that she was one. I personally do tend to believe he was married and had children. But it's not something that's very important to me at this point. I have had the possibility of it taught to me in Gospel Doctrine class before (the reasons why it would have been likely). Susan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: [AML] Leif ENGER, _Peace Like A River_ Date: 03 Jun 2003 00:30:28 EDT [Cathryn's thread title: Why Can't We Write Something Like This?] I've just finished reading LEIF ENGER, "Peace Like A River", and while I felt no need to shake my fist at the heavens shouting "agghh" because Kushner could write something brilliant like "Angles in America" I am envious and covetous of Enger's ability to produce the kind of novel I hope that someone LDS could someday produce. "Peace Like A River" is about the kind of faith that produces miracles in the lives of ordinary and even flawed people. Without a bit of preaching it persuades the reader to at least wonder what it would be like if they, like the narrator, believed. Ruben Land is the novel's asthmatic protagonist. His father, Jerimiah, is a true believer in the King James Bible and possessed of a Brother of Jared sort of faith and the ability to exercise that faith to bring about large and small miracles, mostly healings. Add a brother who lures two teenaged predators to his home in order to murder them, a little sister who confronts life by composing cowboy epics in rhymed verse, an air stream trailer, burning seams of coal and a few other unusual but fully believable characters. Whenever I raved about this book to friends they would ask, "What's it about?" I would start to relate the plot and it sounded weird to me, too, but don't let the weirdness keep you from reading it. There seems to be no desire to mask the religious nature of the story and the straight forward storytelling seems to appeal to many; it's sold well and won awards. The fictional Ruben frequently tells us that he doesn't expect the reader to believe his tale but he is compelled to tell it as he knows it. Maybe that tone is what makes this so successful and what LDS storytellers need to learn how to do. I can't help but compare "Peace" to NORMAN MCLEAN "A River Runs Through It". Both relate religious life and thought as an essential part of the story in a matter of fact way. The best example I know of, in Mormon literature, which integrates someone's religious struggles into the story is "Brigham City", but I think the writing in "Peace Like A River" is far more beautiful. (Of course BC is a movie and PLAR a novel, sort of like comparing apples and oranges and not exactly fair.) Too many of our LDS novels seem want to end with a baptism, conversion or at least repentance. We so much want to convince and convert the world that the greatest amount of our literature is dressed up missionary tracts. Mormon audiences might have a problem with the religious faith of the father in this story producing the miracles that the character Ruben witnesses and receives. I think many LDS people would be unwilling to acknowledge that a non priesthood holder could produce genuine, from the Lord results. I would have reacted that way a few years ago but I've spent the last ten years rubbing shoulders with Arkansas church goers (non LDS) and found many to be deeply committed to Christ, full of faith and some of the finest folk I've ever known. Since early childhood I've gauged my favorite books by how they make me feel. When I get a good one I have a warm, full, satisfied feeling in my midsection. I think it's exactly how I felt when as an infant I was fed, dry and warm and cared for. I've become more sophisticated in my evaluation of literature over the years but once in a while I can still find one that produces that feeling. It feeds my soul and I translate that feeling into my first, best comfort. "Peace Like A River" feeds me. I hope that we could somehow get this caliber of literature produced, heck, I think that Deseret Book would even sell it. Cathryn Lane -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 02 Jun 2003 23:19:29 -0500 Barbara Hume: [on riding in cars with the opposite sex} 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. _______________ I figure there's no sense finding out if you're right or not. [grin] Actually, aside from some temptation to which more are susceptible than they think, I believe it has to do with perceptions. Brother Smith and Sister Jones (not their real names, of course) drove up to Church one Sunday. Her husband was out of town and his wife was ill. I shook her hand and said, "Good morning, Sister Smith." She never rode alone with him again. 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: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: [AML] re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 03 Jun 2003 04:36:14 +0000 >barbara states, regarding car rides with the opposite sex: >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. you know, this is one of the things that strikes me as most lamentable among the social "non-doctrine doctrines" that circulate within the Church. possibilities for male/female friendship are SO constricted, starting with the merrie miss/blazer divide when you're what? Ten? The implication that men and women don't really have anything to offer each other outside of marital, family, or home teacher/priesthood holder type relationships seems absolutely pervasive in the church. I haven't been active in the church for a decade (since my freshman year in college), I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in my generation (mid twenties), outside of the church (or some other religions of course), who think that sharing a house or apartment, much less a car ride, with someone of the opposite sex is a big deal - or that it makes them any more or less likely to have sex with each other -but I never even considered forming serious platonic friendships with men until my mid 20s - whereas, among others in my generation, and even moreso with people a little younger than me, it seems much more common. I'm sure this is partly an individual thing, but I think it is tied to the church. We're trained early on to see boys as either potential mates and priesthood holders or potential sexual predators (and, even creepier, both at once -) I've even heard sacrament talks asserting that a married person who has close friends of the opposite sex is committing a form of adultery. what's up with this? Mission rules are one thing, but what about grownups with individual judgment? Have others had similar experiences with intergender friendships in or out of the church? It seems that this issue could present its own challenges in writing for or about Mormons, quite aside from the SSA issue. Carrie _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: robertslaven@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 03 Jun 2003 13:03:25 -0600 > From: "Brown" > Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ > > 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 > schoolclass 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!). > That latter idea (although I can't remember if they referred to the Shroud of Turin in it) was well-explored in an odd book, _The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail_. Forget the authors, but it was very popular in the 1980's, and is still widely available. The idea was that the Holy Grail ('san graal', perhaps) wasn't really a cup. It was really the Holy Blood ('sang real' in French), i.e. the (biological) descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. Talk about which European royal families were attached (Merovingians, whoever they were, figure prominently). Whoever got set up as King of Jerusalem for the brief period when the Crusaders successfully occupied Palestine was supposedly the 'true heir'. Lots about the Knights Templar, secret Masonic rituals, etc. etc. I think a lot of the book is pretty fudgy, but there are some interesting tidbits. (Their supposition that Jesus didn't really die on the cross, but merely suffered from a particular kind of shock before he was taken down and recovered, for example, is no surprise.) And, of course, they're not the only ones to have pursued such a line. (In fact, didn't Meridian Magazine just have an article about a genealogical relationship between the House of David and the House of Windsor? Didn't read it, just saw a title in an e-mail from them. Probably worth a look.) Robert -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 03 Jun 2003 17:40:54 -0700 Amelia, Thanks for an opportunity that I think will help me answer you and also be certain to relate it somehow to literature. Your question is interesting and I hope I can answer it clearly. As I said, I'm not necessarily an advocate of the theory myself, but the majority of my SSA friends do subscribe to it, so I hear it a lot. It seems to work for them, but since I haven't tried it for myself, cannot vouch for it. I can relate to much of the theory. I'm just not sold on the therapy that is based on the theory. I will use myself to answer your question. First, the theory doesn't say that SSA men are not part of the masculine world. It says they don't feel part of the masculine world. It's one word, but it changes the meaning a great deal. This kind of SSA man, according to the theory, is the one who was always picked last for sports, couldn't ever get good at basketball, liked doing the things that society tells him is not masculine. He doesn't feel connected. Other males seem like a mystery to him. Then there are those that not only feel apart from the male world, but feel abused by it. My father abandoned my mother when she was pregnant with me. Because my mother had to go to work to support us, she left me with her sister and her mother while she worked. For the first three years of my life, I was nurtured and cared for completely in a world populated almost exclusively by women. When my mother married my stepfather when I was three, there was, in his family, an older male who beat and molested me for six years. My stepfather believed that boys should show neither emotion nor affection. All of the men in my life were harsh or abusive. All of the women were caring and kind. So, if the theory is correct, you add to my sense that men are the mysterious other the idea that things masculine are evil and hurtful, and you have a boy who is attracted to males but also afraid of them. I rejected masculinity. My attractions were to men who seemed kind and confident. It would not have mattered what they considered their sexual orientation to be. It only mattered that they didn't act like what I thought men were like. This played out in my choice of literature and media. Edmund Dantes had me going both ways. I loved how he tried to bless the lives of those he loved, but his vengeance scared me. Edmund Dantes had more effect on me that any character in all of literature. I read Alexandre DUMAS, _The Count of Monte Cristo_ (unabridged) when I was fifteen. It was in him I learned the futility of revenge and the sweetness of service. When the good in Dantes won out, I decided what I would do with my life and my past. Oddly, if I had any enjoyment of female characters at all, it was the bad girl of a story. I dearly loved Milady. Hated it when the musketeers paid to have her head chopped off and sent her down the river. I enjoyed fictional characters who were the opposite of my notions of what people were really like. Now, Amelia, as with anything that attempts to explain human behavior, you will always find exceptions. A friend once said to me, "I always loved manly men. Fems make me ill. I would be attracted to a man I thought was very masculine. If I tried to seduce him and he had sex with me, I would hate him for doing something so unmasculine as having sex with me." Poor guy. He's in a bind. "Masculine" does not at all imply "straight." That's a stereotype that doesn't hold very well, but just check the personal ads to see that the preferences and biases in the gay world are plentiful. How many men in the male-to-male section advertise themselves as "straight-acting" or want someone who is straight acting? It's highly desirable to be straight acting. Like you, I am attracted to gay or straight and always masculine, but if I had not chosen a different life, I would only pursue that attraction with someone I thought would be willing to cooperate with it. So, yes, despite being attracted to masculinity, gay men are going to be attracted to each other. They may be attracted to straight men too, but the potential for it going anywhere isn't there, so why waste time with it? Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 03 Jun 2003 18:25:29 -0700 Jonathan asked me to enumerate some of the different theories about the origins of same-sex attraction. Well, of course there's the old born-that-way theory which has two variations. 1. A genetic component 2. A prenatal component Though it may be slow in reaching Utah, the idea of a gay gene is rapidly losing support in the gay community. They're not saying there isn't a gay gene and they're not saying there is. They aren't pushing it anymore as an explanation of how people become sexually attracted to their own gender. Why? Well, the Human Genome Project. If someone ever identifies a gay gene and invents a way to erase it _in vitro_, parents will be able to prevent homosexual children. Wouldn't that be an interesting Future-Shock novel? This fear was brought home to me by a lesbian guest speaker in a class about cultural diversity. She is considered a leader in this area. She said that finding a gay gene could very easily bring about the end of queer culture and she was not in favor of holding to the argument that people are born homosexual. Interestingly, she still believes that her homosexuality is inevitable enough to have divorced her husband the moment she realized she was a lesbian. She saw no other way. If they don't want to hold out hope for the discovery of a gay gene, then there must be something that happens to a fetus that causes it. Believing that allows you to keep a born-that-way stance, but it also opens up another potential threat to queer culture. If someone finds out what trauma might cause it in the womb and women are guaranteed the right to an abortion, parents may opt to abort gay fetuses. Imagine a story about a future Mormon couple who go to the obstetrician and are told that their baby will be born gay and are offered an abortion. [MOD: Wow! Now *that's* a speculative fiction idea!] So, if it isn't genetic and it isn't prenatal, that leaves the idea of a lifestyle choice. Well, that's where I've been for a long time, but it doesn't sell well with me, because if I know one thing, I did not ever consciously choose to be the way I am. Granted, I did choose how I would deal with it, but there was not some pivotal moment where I decided I'd be gay. There was only the defining moment where I knew that the teachings of the Church about marriage and eternity were true, and that I had to choose whether my sexual orientation or my testimony would guide my choices. In many ways, it confounds me that the gay community doesn't latch onto an environmental cause as its preferred explanation. There is still room in such an explanation to hang upon it calls for tolerance, respect, and equal rights. There is still room to say they don't know what causes it but that people should respect their right to choose how they will deal with it. Some say that gender affirmative therapy is dangerous and harmful. Well, I know dozens of men who have gone through it and feel it did them a lot of good. It's not for me, but I support their right to seek whatever kind of therapy they want. A case could be made for the availability of gay affirmative therapy, which seeks to help a person "come out" and be comfortable with his or her sexuality. Right now, the American Psychological Association has made gay affirmative therapy the only acceptable treatment. Their _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_ (DSM-IV) elimated any reference to homosexuality as a treatable condition. A leader in the fight to have that alteration was a Dr. Robert L. Spitzer. Many years later, in an attempt to settle the question, he conducted a study that showed his own original opinion to be wrong. He found men who actually had changed their orientation sufficiently to allow them to marry women and become fathers. The APA rejected his research, one of their own most eminent researchers. DSM-V is due to come out. I wonder if his name will even appear in the prominent position it has occupied in the past. The entire question of the genesis of homosexual feelings if far more political than scientific. A final theory about causality that I find interesting as it relates to the masculinity discussion. Some have adopted the view that homosexual men are not less masculine, but are hyper-masculine.Imagine some surge of testosterone in the male fetus at some point in development that causes a change to the way his little brain operates, elevating him to a new level of masculinity that needs a male sexual partner. To my way of thinking, it sets up an ugly hierarchy with homosexual men at the top and straight women at the bottom: hypermasculine males attracted down to masculine males; masculine males attracted down to lesbians or straight women; lesbian (masculine women) attracted down to straight (feminine) women. Conjures up imagines of a grim future society as well. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 04 Jun 2003 08:39:35 -0600 My bad. I used the word "also" but had meant to write "almost." The "almost" being what President Bartlett's advisors thought the lie would amount to. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Sickbed Reading & Viewing (Comp 2) Date: 04 Jun 2003 21:15:10 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From barbara@techvoice.com Fri May 30 17:58:13 2003 At 05:56 PM 5/30/03 -0500, you wrote: >. Try Georgette Heyer. . . 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. The Grand Sophy is definitely one of her best. The Unknown Ajax is another favorite of mine. They are not too heavy on the romance element, so they appeal to readers who are Real Men. Right now I'm reading Regency Buck, in which the second chapter gives a rather gruesomely detailed description of an actual boxing match between Cribb and Molyneaux. As for the suggestion about reading trashy romance novels . . . you might try reading the untrashy ones instead. Watch Midnight Run only if you're totally desensitized to the f-word. The story is good and the acting is marvelous (Grodin is seriously underrated), but the language definitely drives me right out of the room. barbara hume >From eew@eewoodbury.com Sat May 31 12:12:22 2003 I second My Neighbor Totoro, and recommend three more Hayao Miyazaki titles (excellent dubs produced by Miramax/Disney) currently available: Spirited Away - If you want to know where the spirit of Walt Disney currently resides, it's at Studio Ghibli in Japan. This year's Academy award winner for best animated feature film. (Watch for the dust bunnies from Totoro.) Princess Mononoke - the most sophisticated "eco-drama" ever made, IMHO. Set during Japan's medieval period. Miyazaki acknowledges that preservation and progress can never be truly reconciled, and never preaches. Kiki's Delivery Service - begins by positing that witches can fly, but that's not what it's about. Takes place in that ideal European Mediterranean city that we all know must exist somewhere. Also seconded: Krzysztof Kieslowski's Red. Books: A collected Chandler and Conan Doyle should always be close by. Braum Stoker's Dracula is a thumping good read, and a reminder how faithful Joss Whedon actually was to the original. Yes, this triology could be classified as fantasy, but comparable to Lewis's Narnia series. Pullman takes as his source material Milton's Paradise Lost and turns heaven on its head: His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman 1. The Golden Compass 2. The Subtle Knife 3. The Amber Spyglass Three more great young adult novels: Blood and Chocolate (Annette Curtis Klaus) The Killer's Cousin (Nancy Werlin) Owl in Love (Patrice Kindl) More fantasy (though it is contemporary, like Buffy): each of K.A. Applegate's 12-part "Everworld" series (beginning with The Search for Senna) is a fast, fun read. And you will learn more about world mythology than you thought you knew. Speaking of Y/A fiction, two of my favorite teen-angst movies. Christian Slater stars in both, and could be taken for a young Jack Nicholsen in the second: Pump up the Volume Heathers Eugene Woodbury >From ddgraham@netutah.net Sat May 31 16:36:43 2003 Hey, Eric! First, I just wanted to say that we had a blast at Rule a Wife, Have a Wife. It's exciting to see so much talent taking that many risks at one time. It also made me reminiscent of a particular Greek piece I was in years ago, where I had the opportunity to flex my muscles in more ways than one. Sad to say it, but I miss college a little. I need to go back again someday... I'd like to recommend a few of my favorites, and if I'm lucky, you've not seen a couple of them. Well, first of all, Eric, I recommend that you have a Kathryn Hepburn and Merryl Streep fest. For that matter, make sure to throw in a little bit of Christopher Walken. He's so special. The Hepburn fest must include Suddenly Last Summer (just for creepy hoots), The Rainmaker (for the quaintness of the piece), The Lion in Winter (mais oui), and The Madwoman of Chaillot (and then you have to tell me how that movie is, because I haven't actually seen it but it sounds to so good!). Merryl movies - well, you've probably seen all of these, but definitely include her two Oscar winners if you're just in the mood to bask in Merryl. But, you must also include Postcards from the Edge and Defending Your Life for the sheer fun of it. And on the Christopher Walken note, if you're not too susceptible to depression, The Deer Hunter is one of my all-time favorites. Did I tell you that the first time I saw that one I sobbed for over an hour, from about the time DeNiro returned to the US w/out Walken to the breakfast scene after the funeral? I believe the word is actually convulsing (especially during the Russian roullette scene - the second one, not the first). So maybe you're not in a crying mood. If you're willing to only watch part of a film, Blast from the Past has some of my favorite Walken moments. But, as you likely know, the second half of the movie is really not worth watching. Some other nice ones are Persuasion (if you're feeling romantic), Enchanted April (if you're depressed), Kurosawa's Dreams (if you desire to see Scorcese in a straw hat), Burnt by the Sun (exquisite - you must have seen and loved it), AND (if you need cheering up)Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) and The Money Pit. Hey, if you want to borrow my Buffy seasons one through three, they're yours. :) I'll stop now, but I really wish we could all have a movie fest at your house. That would be fun. We'd all wait on you hand and foot while we invade your home. Oh, yeah, when you get in the mood for some very fun light reading, definitely read everything ever published by Salinger (especially the ones about the Glass family). Love, Dianna Graham >From rhammett@hiwaay.net Mon Jun 02 22:03:50 2003 Eric Dixon mentioned Gaiman's _American Gods_--I found it a fascinating read. I'm a moderate Gaiman fan; his _Neverwhere_ is one of the best books I've ever read. _Good Omens_ (with Pratchett) and _Gods_ were fascinating, too. He can construct a world that seems familiar, and then shift it about 60 degrees into a place nearly entirely Other. The London of _Neverwhere_...the US of _Gods_...They seem _more_ real than the London and US that I'm familiar with. It's not an alternate history thing, not Card's Alvin Maker series or anything by Turtledove. Things aren't that different, and they are contemporary. Card nearly completely fails to create this type of...depth for me in Alvin Maker. I keep reading Alvin Maker to see what happens next in the chain of events, similar to why I read Harry Potter. In reading _Neverwhere_ I wanted to be there, I was there. But it's not because Gaiman creates a pretty place. I've not read his comics, but as far as I know, he's stuck to dark places. And sometimes they're too dark for me. Vivisection in _Neverwhere_. The wife's death scene in _Gods_, which is almost the glue that holds the book together...it was too much for me. I almost stopped reading the book. I don't know if the brutality contributes to the amazing depth I experience when I read his books -- superficially, I don't see that it does. I haven't read Evenson's stuff--has anybody read both, and can you tell me if there's any similarity? Does the violence actually make me like the book better, even though I can barely read it? As for other sickbed reading, Terry Pratchett is one of the best satirists ever. He's written around 30 books, most set in his fantasy setting "Discworld", which he is careful to tell us has no relation to the roundworld we're familiar with. I'd recommend _Small Gods_ and _Reaper Man_. He also writes characters who you care about, and you might be surprised who some of them are. And certainly none of Gaiman's ultra-graphic violence, although it might feel violent occasionally as Pratchett gently skewers your sacred cows. Generally light reading, with a heart and a point. I wish there were Mormon writing that inspired me like they do. I wish the _scriptures_ could move me like that. Maybe Evenson has some Gaiman-like potential--Labute certainly does. But no Pratchetts...but as far as I know, there's only one on the entire Roundworld anyway. Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Griffin, "Theocracy U.S.A." (Comp 1) Date: 04 Jun 2003 21:15:19 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From lajackson@juno.com Tue Jun 03 14:58:08 2003 R.W. Rasband: A bit of nasty Mormon-bashing from "Crisis", the conservative Catholic magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2003/Griffin.htm _______________ Whoever did the fact checking didn't do very well, did they? Do folks still check stuff before they print it, or is that just too passe nowadays? Larry Jackson >From eric_samuelsen@byu.edu Tue Jun 03 15:15:15 2003 Pretty tiresome piece. A lot of it is just silly; most Salt Lake = residents have never, except for their missions, been more than an hour = outside city limits? That's just bizarre. He offers no evidence for = it, and it sure don't square with my observations. =20 Eric Samuelsen >From jongiorgi@sunset.net Tue Jun 03 15:36:06 2003 My father used to say: "Just because you're paranoid, does not mean they're not out to get you." I always laughed at that, but it contains a kernel of truth. I'd like to put a spin on that saying: "Just because it's a little one-sided, does mean it's completely false." I read Griffin's article, and I found it to be more truthful than not. Certainly one-sided, certainly biased, certainly quick to gloss over Catholicism's historical oddities with one line while harping on Mormonism's historical oddities with paragraph after paragraph. And while much of his major observations are easy to ignore, I found about a dozen smaller observations-in-passing to be dead-on accurate, and deeply indicting to the sub-sub culture of Wasatch area LDS culture. Someone once said to me, there are only four kinds of critics in this world: 1) Those that like you for the right reasons. 2) Those that like you for the wrong reasons. 3) Those that don't like you for the wrong reasons. 4) Those that don't like you for the right reasons. And the ONLY ones we have to worry about, are the last ones. It is not necessary to give any time or consideration to those who praise us, be they right or wrong, nor is it necessary to give any time or consideration to those who damn us for the wrong reasons. But when someone condemns some aspect of our behavior or culture which is in any way accurate, it behooves us to pay very close attention, and try to fix the problem. Some of the social (not GOSPEL) problems which Griffin's article identifies we have also, many times, identified here on the list, so there is no doubt that there is a certain circle which is very aware of these issues. The difficulty comes in fixing it... which is debatable and probably impossible. But I, frankly, found too much of importance in Griffin's article to completely dismiss it as just "nasty bashing." There is some bashing, sure, and some negative exaggeration of things which are only occasionally true (which he slants to lead readers to believe are generally true). But a lot of it is spot on (and some of it is even complementary); but his reasons for being uncomfortable in SLC are exactly the same reasons why I (a devout member of the church) choose to no longer live along the Wasatch Front now that I have children to rear. I think Robert Griffin and I could have a meaningful conversation, and he might even expand, tone down or otherwise modify certain sections of his article after we talked. But a distressing amount of what he said struck me as incontestable (particularly with respect to statistics about divorce, teen pregnancy, suicide, clinical depression, etc.), and if not incontestable, at least highly defensible (such as a certain local social insecurity, a notable lack of cultural diversity, a tendency to live in denial, a Kinkadian world view). All is not well in "Zion" (as was prophesied would be the case). We have yet to see SLC become one of the most wicked places on the face of the earth, but it will eventually. Hey, I LOVE to visit there, and I find so much that is of good report there that I always have a pleasant stay. But raise my kids there? It strikes terror into my heart. Besides, we put too much of a burden on the Wasatch Front, one which it was never meant to take. It isn't "Zion." It's a launching point for the eventual creation of a Global Zion (which will ultimately be headquartered in New Jerusalem, NOT SLC!). SLC is just a temporary headquarters, necessary for a time. Now we must expand and refocus, socially, culturally, to broader horizons. Having spent some of my most important formative years in Independence, MO, I've always considered THAT our Center Stake of Zion, and SLC is just an important and convenient stopping-ground on our millennial journey towards the end of days. But is SLC the end-all-be-all? Hardly. It need not be. And while some of the social problem prevalent in that specific region are also endemic to the Church globally, most of them are NOT globally identifiable to LDS culture, but are solely regional. The question is, how can the arts be used as an instrument in cultural enlightenment, or can it? I don't think we need necessarily dwell, in our literature, on the nasty underbelly of modern SLC culture, but neither do I think we need be overglossy about it, either. And, as has been called for by our overseas correspondents, what about viewpoints from outside the Intermountain West perspective, or even the US perspective? I think it will become more and more important to cultivate such alternate (extra-Utah) viewpoints, be they stories, books or films, as time goes on. At any rate, here was just one biased journalist's take after a six-month stay in SLC. I have to say: He's not all wrong. Jongiorgi Enos >From jeff.needle@general.com Tue Jun 03 16:15:37 2003 Nasty indeed. It seems mean-spirited, and not exactly accurate in some places. The writer tends toward absolutes and broad brush strokes, not a good idea when desiring credibility. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net >From scottparkin@pxi.net Tue Jun 03 19:25:08 2003 I thought it was cute. Catholics complaining about the dark side of Mormon history? That's so cute I can hardly stand it. They make some excellent points. All is not perfect in Zion, and in more than a few cases all is not even adequate, no less well. We have a lot of work to do. If we've created an imperfect Zion, that puts us in company with every other group that's ever lived on the planet--religious, political, or social. But, as the article itself pointed out, at least we're trying. I think that's worth something. Maybe we really are human after all. It's nice of someone to finally notice. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Richard Paul EVANS, _The Last Promise_ (Comp 1) Date: 04 Jun 2003 21:15:25 -0500 [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From jeff.needle@general.com Mon Jun 02 12:59:26 2003 I must say, this is one of the most wonderfully entertaining reviews I've read in a long time. Thanks for it! I shall avoid this book, even at DI. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle >From gob2@email.byu.edu Mon Jun 02 22:09:38 2003 Nicely written review! I think I enjoyed it more than I would have the book! Gideon Burton >From eric_samuelsen@byu.edu Tue Jun 03 15:38:22 2003 Extremely funny review, which I enjoyed reading a good deal more than = the book itself. A couple of minor points where Eugene and I disagree. Eugene says that Ross and Eliana sleep together, but do not do the = nasty. I have to say, he must be a far more careful reader than I was. = I read that passage a couple of times, and could not for the life of me = figure out what was going on. Evans says they stay chaste and pure, and = he wrote the dang thing. And I absolutely agree with Eugene about the = idiocy of the scene in question. Where we differ is, I found it an = utterly incoherent idiocy. =20 Eugene also consistently drew a parallel between this story and the = Clinton marriage. I disagree, to this degree. Bill and Hillary Clinton = are interesting. They're complex human beings, both of them quite = brilliant, both capable of utter foolishness. Whether you're on the left = or the right politically, you must admit this; loathe him or tolerate = him or like him, Bill Clinton was never dull. Whereas Eliana and Ross = are never interesting.=20 (Eugene thinks Eliana is boring. But surely you agree that they both = are.)=20 Finally this. Much of the debate over The Last Promise had to with = morality, and the upholding of moral standards. But I can't imagine = anyone reading this book and being thereby prompted to commit adultery, = or even this kind of quasi emotional adultery that supposedly these two = characters are involved with. Why would you? Why do something this = dull? Heck, if I were to commit adultery, which I'm not planning on = doing but just suppose, sure I'd be racked with guilt and I'd damage = people I love dearly, and it would be the dumbest thing I've ever done, = and I'd end up suffering endless torment in hell, and all that, but I'd = hope that, for at least one second, I'd have had SOME fun. =20 Kudos to Eugene for doing what I could not tolerate doing myself; = reading the book carefully enough to actually review it coherently. So = here's my question? Is this book immoral? I don't mean it's immoral = because of the activity it sort of depicts. I mean, is it moral to = write this badly? Don't we have some obligation to our readers to be, = at least occasionally, interesting? Does this book violate that = relationship, reader and writer? I mean, is it morally wrong to write a = snore of a book? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report 23 May 03 Date: 03 Jun 2003 23:43:17 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 23, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 31 Piglet's Big Movie 126,830 292 66 Ken Sansom (3rd-billed actor) 23,024,988 36 The Shape of Things 104,911 56 17 Neil LaBute 551,774 (writer/director/producer) 81 The Cremaster Cycle 47,839 5 31 Mathew Barney 124,485 (writer/producer/director/actor) 52 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 35,996 9 836 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,657,737 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 70 The Core 13,485 33 59 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 30,649,458 77 China: The Panda Adventure 7,273 3 668 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,109,649 89 Galapagos 3,275 3 1305 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,029,632 NEW JOSEPH SMITH FILMS COMPLETED - On Saturday, May 24th, the new visitors center films -- including the new "First Vision" film for Palmyra and Kirtland -- were screened for invited guests in the North Visitors' Center on Temple Square. From what I have seen they look very good. Now I have yet one more reason to plan a trip to Kirtland and Palmyra! HITTING THEATERS NATIONWIDE THIS WEEKEND - "Wrong Turn", the feature film starring non-churchgoing Latter-day Saint actress Eliza Dushku, opens in just two days, on coming Friday, May 30. The movie will open in about 1,500 theaters nationwide. Other movies opening on the same day (both with wider appear) are the Disney/Pixar undersea feature "Finding Nemo" opening in over 3,200 theaters, and the heist flick "The Italian Job" opening in over 2,500 theaters. "Wrong Turn" has been described as a true "hard core" horror movie -- a big budget ($10 million) film reminiscent of classic ultra-low-budget slashers such as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Hills Have Eyes", and "Deliverance." In the film, Dushku and her young friends find themselves stranded in the mountains of West Virginia where, of course, they end up being chased by cannibalistic mountain men. Dushku is the top-billed actress. ALSO COMING SOON: Celebrated Latter-day Saint filmmaker Eric Hendershot's latest family movie, "Clubhouse Detectives in: Search of a Lost Princess", premiers on HBO the next day: June 1st. The release of T.C. Christensen's new short film "A Pioneer Miracle" (starring Caitlin E.J. Meyer) is just a week away. Also hitting store shelves in the next two weeks: the DVD release of Christian Vuissa's award-winning "Roots & Wings" (complete with a Susan Teh documentary and a director's commentary track), as well as the long-awaited DVD/video release of Kels Goodman's feature film "Handcart." FORGOTTEN VOYAGE TO AIR ON PBS - LDS filmmaker Scott Tiffany's documentary "Forgotten Voyage" -- about the Latter-day Saint pioneers who traveled via ship to California and ended up founding the city of San Francisco, will air as a featured program on PBS this summer in Utah on Pioneer Day, July 24. Tiffany, a New York City-based filmmaker, does most of his work for the History and Discovery cable TV channels, but this was a project he did independently. A superbly made and fascinating documentary, this film won the Best Documentary Award at last year's Salt Lake City Film Festival. "Forgotten Voyage" is available at some LDS bookstores and from LDS Video Store at: http://www.ldsvideostore.com/ForgottenVoyage.htm CARMEN RASMUSSEN: THE MOVIE - What would be bigger news than [fill in the blank here with the biggest film news you can imagine]? How about... a CARMEN RASMUSEN MOVIE!!! According to IMDb.com, the Latter-day Saint singing superstar Carmen Rasmusen (who recently placed 6th out of over 50,000 contestants in FOX's "American Idol" competition) is slated to appear as "Jennifer Thomes" in a Warner Brothers movie titled "The Cinderella Story." According to IMDB.com, the movie's star is actress Hilary Duff, the star of Disney's "Lizzie McGuire" TV shows and the recent box office ROI hit "The Lizzie McGuire Movie." The director for "The Cinderella Story" is listed as Mark Rosman, who also directs the "Lizzie McGuire" TV series and has directed a bunch of other stuff you've never heard of. "The Cinderella Story" is said to be scheduled to begin filming in Los Angeles in July 2003, with a 2004 release date. The movie also stars Alexz Johnson, Rupert Grint, Courtnee Draper, Ebonnie Masini and Joshua Jackson. Earlier LDS Reality TV girl Julie Stoffer ("The Real World") made a cameo appearance in LDS-themed feature comedy "The Single Ward" (2001), and "Survivor" first runner-up Neleh Dennis has STILL not been in a movie! (She was asked to appear, and she wanted to appear, in a recently released movie, but it was filmed while she was still under contract with CBS, and the role had to go to somebody else.) From the look of things, Carmen's role will be more (we hope) than a few-second cameo like Stoffer's in "The Singles Ward." According to other sources, "The Cinderella Story" will be a theatrical release. It is a family comedy about a young girl (Hilary Duff) who transforms from a dork into a babe. Kind of like Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things," except not evil. (Carmen, hopefully, will not be relegated to the Aaron Eckhart role.) "The Cinderella Story," has been described as a cross between "Cinderella" and "Clueless." Duff, whose mother is co-producing, will be paid $2 million. Carmen will be paid less. Much, much less. CONTROVERSIAL NEW TUFTS/KNUDSEN FILM - BYU's newspaper The Daily Universe ran an article about the proposed Tufts/Knudsen film "For Time and All Eternity. Read the article, "LDS filmakers on a quest for reality" by Tiffany Rueckert, here: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/44245 Interested in participating? Here's the audition information, quoting from the press release and website of the production company: "For Time and All Eternity" is a low-budget, independent feature documentary ("reality" format) about Latter-day Saint marriages; dating, courtship, getting married forever, etc. The filmmakers are looking for a guy who is going who is going to ask a girl to marry him this summer and plans to marry her shortly after (month or two engagement.) She cannot know, but you have to be positive she'll say "yes." The film follows the couple from engagement to wedding day... although all that time we will not be filming. This will be a light-hearted, funny, serious, and a close-look into your relationship (the psychology of), your family, the Gospel ... it will be a very cool film! Dates: 1. It will be filmed where the right couple lives. If SLC or Provo, great. 2. No traditional auditions, but I will interview with qualified applicants 3. Shooting June 2003 to July/ August (tailored to couples plans.) 4. Non-paying. 5. Release on VHS/DVD in November/December 2003 The filmmakers are also looking for a DV editor with epic skills on Final Cut Pro 2/3/4 (you don't need to have a system) and a Director of Photography (someone creative who loves hand-held reality format and experience with Canon XL1s or Sony PD150, or have your own equipment that's of better quality.) Anyone interested in the project: Go to the web site, find the application section and fill out whatever information you'd like to provide. It's not all required. Or you can email Trevor Hill directly. Contact: Trevor C. Hill, Disco Bay Films, AUM Film Institute, trevor@aumfilm.org (website: www.aumfilm.org/time_eternity) SUSAN TEH DOCUMENTARY ON NEW VUISSA DVD - The DVD release of Christian Vuissa's award-winning LDS-themed film "Roots & Wings" will be released in June. The film receive the Association for Mormon Letters Film Award, beating out such films as "The Singles Ward", "Out of Step", "The Snell Show", "Jack Weyland's Charly" and "Handcart." "Roots & Wings" has previously only been available on video. The DVD features a full-length director's commentary track as well as a "making of" documentary filmed by experienced LDS Singaporean documentary filmmaker Susan Teh, and edited by Ludwig Einklang (the editor of "Roots & Wings"). The DVD can currently be purchased only at LDS Video Store, but is expected to appear on shelves in LDS bookstores around the country. In other Vuissa news: Christian Vuissa's short film "Unfolding" will be released on video and DVD in August. The DVD will feature a director's commentary track and several deleted scenes. Vuissa, the founder of the LDS Film Festival, is also working on some other very exciting projects that you will love hearing about at a future date. NEW CHARLY REVIEW ON MERIDIAN - There is a new review of "Jack Weyland's Charly" at Meridian Magazine. The review is written by film composer Thomas C. Baggaley (who is also the LDSFilm.com co-webmaster and most recently wrote the music for Christian Vuissa's "Unfolding"). See http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/030523charly.html PAYCHECK: Production has begun on Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks' SF thriller film Paycheck, directed by John Woo and starring Ben Affleck, Aaron Eckhart [a Latter-day Saint actor] and Uma Thurman. Based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, Paycheck is being shot in Vancouver, B.C. ARTICLE ABOUT RUDOLPH VALENTINO'S MORMON WIFE - Valentino's wife Natacha Rambova, although an ethnic Mormon, is not known to have been a churchgoer. See "Valentino's 2nd wife was born in Salt Lake," an excerpt from a new biography of Valentino, printed this week in the Deseret News at: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505034950,00.html THUNDERBIRD INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL will be held June 5-8, at Southern Utah University. Elizabeth's office (D-581) has 2 VIP passes that are available on a first-come, first-served basis. The festival will premiere "Heart of America," which portrays the events leading up to a school shooting. For more information on the festival, visit www.thunderbirdfilmfestival.suu.edu "Roots and Wings" will play at the Thunderbird International Film Festival, Friday, June 6, at 6 pm, at the Southern Utah University Theatre. "The Snell Show" and "Peluca" will be included in "The Best of 2002" from the LDS Film Festival, at the Thunderbird International Film Festival, Saturday, June 7, at 6 pm, at the Southern Utah University Theatre. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Sickbed Reading & Viewing Date: 04 Jun 2003 00:12:46 -0700 Good luck on your Surgery, Eric. Books I've actually read that I'd recommend: The Sharpest Sight and Bone Game by Louis Owens Mississippi Trial, 1955 by Chris Crowe Brothers in Valour by Michael O. Tunnell Soldier Boys, by Dean Hughes Three Gospels, by Reynolds Price. Lovely translations, lovely introductions. His own gospel ain't bad either. Vital Provisions (or The Collected Poems) by Reynolds Price. "The Dream of a House" and "Nine Mysteries" are some of my favorite poems. The Girl from Cardigan, stories by Leslie Norris Sequences, poems by Leslie Norris Walking the White Fields, collected poems (before Sequences) by Leslie Norris. Surviving the Flood by Stephen Minot Jesus Tales by Romulus Linney Two wonderful sets of stories taken from / inspired by scripture and folk traditions, which of course calls to mind The Virgin and the Tower by Ann Chamberlain, narrated by the daughter of Mahonri Moriancumr If I had access to an academic library: Wolfsong, by Louis Owens Mixedblood Messages, by Louis Owens--Particularly to see what he has to say about Sherman Alexie. I hear he takes Alexie to taks for nihilism. Winter in the Blood and The Indian Lawyer by James Welch and probably his book of poems, Riding the Earthboy 40. (I could get these from my brother. Turns out he wrote his story "Answer to Prayer" (in Levi Peterson's anthology Greening Wheat for Welch's class at the UW, and has all of Welch's stuff). I'd also like to read The Heartsong of Charging Elk, the only Welch PG library has. And, as long as we're talking about Indians in Wild West Shows, definitely read Paris Anderson's Tough Luck: Sitting Bull's Friend. Waiting for the Flash by Paris Anderson Singled Out, by Eric Samuelsen When Truth Was Treason by Allen Keele and Douglas Tobler. A documentary history of the Helmuth Huebener case. I'd also like to read the Gunter Grass novel that mentions Huebener A Common Room, Essays by Reynolds Price Walker Percy's posthumous essay collection, Signposts in a Strange Land Mirriam Wesson's novel, Render up the Body. (Mimi Wesson is one of NPR's legal correspondents, and I heard Liane Hansen interviewing her about the novel one Sunday, then happened across it in the BYU Library. Something I came across by Chester Himes in the BYU Library that he considered too spicy to publish in the US, I think. Moses, Man of the Mountains, by Zora Neale Hurston. >From my own library: Nightland by Louis Owens Try finishing Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy, which I have twice gotten half way through, then read The Thanatos Syndrome and maybe The Moviegoer and Lancelot. I'd also read more of The Message in the Bottle. The Price by Karl-Heinz Schnibbe and Allen Keele Before the Blood Tribunal by Rudi Wobbe and Jerry Borrowman Two more accounts of the Huebener group House on the Sound, by Marilyn Brown. Growing up Native American, ed. Patricia Riley, includes an essay by Louis Owens The Inferno by Dante Allighieri, tr. John Ciardi, which for some strange reason I picked off my father's shelf a week or so before his death and started reading. Never read it before. I'd also like to look at Dorothy Sayer's translation, Hell. If I could find a copy I'd try finishing Jeremy Leven's comic retelling of The Inferno, Satan: His Psychoanalysis and Cure by the Unfortuante Dr. Kassler, JSPS. I stopped reading it because I had to take it back to Skedaddle Public Lib (or UW or King County), and because I got to a patch of fairly explicit sex, but mostly because I could tell there was a very sad part coming up about Dr. Kassler's children and the end of his marriage, and it was difficult at the time to read about parents bereft of living children. Still is. I'd try and finish Wartime, by Paul Fussell. I'd also like to find a copy of his The Great War and Modern Memory. I'd also like to finish Paul Hendrickson's The Living and the Dead: Robert MacNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War. For Movies, I think I'd start with Crosby, Hope and Lamore (sp?) The Road to Morocco, and continue with the other Road movies, The Man from the Diners Club, with Danny Kaye Monty Python ik die Holien Graile (I don't know if that's spellt right, but I do know moose bites can be painful even without the Danish slashes through the Os.) The Searchers, with John Wayne And if I was ambitious I'd probably find the printout of my father's autobiography, Awake at Four, and reread three unpublished stories he left. "Casino" is a fantasy about all the slot machines in Las Vegas simaltaneously paying out mega-jackpots, drowning the city in money. "Tim and Dring-o the Elf of the Spring-o" is a fantasy about trying to find water (money) to run the dryfarm in the depths of the Depression. "Aryan Jew" is a superb SF story with an implausible premise, trying to innoculate people against radiation, but with only a very few words it could be changed to allo-history: WWII was won by a biological weapon and the Cold War was a biological weapons race. I mentioned this to him a few times and he said, "Go ahead and do it." Of course this is a wish list. Who knows how much I'd actually read. (Might be a good time to read Clarel, Moby Dick or Billy Budd, too. I love that part about the urge to knock people's hats off and bring up the rear of every funeral procession I see.) If I could get an Internet connection I'd read AML-List. Harlow S. 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: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 10:37:24 -0600 At 07:35 PM 5/31/03 -0600, you wrote: >So from where I sit, it looks like sf, fantasy, and horror use essentially the >same elements and are differentiated mainly by the source of the problem. As a >result Smallville, Buffy, Highlander, Alien, MutantX, Touched By an Angel, The >Matrix, The Green Mile, Dracula, The Twilight Zone, Spawn, The Princess Bride, >and Tales from the Crypt are all pretty much the same for me. The only >difference is the rational basis for the horror/threat elements. I found Scott's discussion of this viewpoint quite thought-provoking. To me, the worlds he mentions in this list fall into quite different categories. I think it might have to do with the concept of an unknowable and uncontrollable force--a concept that Mormons, as Scott points out, tend to reject. I reject the notion that a force of evil has power that we have no way to deal with--that we are completely helpless victims of that evil. For that reason, I dislike horror, because it says that if Satan wishes to impregnate me with his baby, he has the ability to do it, and I can't stop him. (Gad, even I am not that desperate. ) I still have that desire that young children feel so strongly--the desire for justice. I know that in this world, injustice abounds. But I dislike stories in which the injustice is allowed to stand at the end. I don't expect everyone to have the same viewpoint, but that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 04 Jun 2003 10:51:18 -0600 At 08:53 PM 5/31/03 -0500, you wrote: >The fact >that the husband is willing to offer his wife to the highest bidder doesn't >speak well of his character, but he at first flatly refuses the idea, and >only agrees to it when Seberg pressures him to. She is clearly tired of her >marriage and resentful of her husband's first wife. I still remember a line from that movie in which this man says, "Out here in Californy, I ain't no Mormon," which shows he wasn't much of one in the first place. Had I been in Seberg's place, I also would have wanted to get away from him and his witchy first wife. I don't think Lee Marvin's drunken, homely miner character would have seemed a very pleasant alternative, at least until she found out about his good heart. But Clint Eastwood's sweet-natured and handsome character was so appealing that I understood why she decided that polygamy should serve the goose as well as the gander. They didn't use the term "Latter-day Saint" at all, did they? They were just playing on the one-joke stereotype of Mormons. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] LDSBA Convention Passes Date: 05 Jun 2003 11:36:32 -0600 Has anyone noticed that the LDS Booksellers Convention and the Sunstone Symposium are both scheduled for the exact same days (except for an extra day for Sunstone)? Considering AML is sponsoring a Sunstone session and an LDSBA table, we need to be sure to coordinate things. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 13:16:07 -0600 At 11:21 AM 6/2/03 -0600, you wrote: >I base my assumption on Mormon's not knowing their own theology on the >popularity among LDS readers of the Tim LeHaye _Left Behind_ series of >apocalyptic novels. Nary a single incident in any of those books comes >even close to our teachings on the subject but most Mormon readers >either don't know that or don't care. I know it, and the stories require quite a bit of suspension of disbelief. But to me, it's like reading any fantasy: if the writing is good enough and the characters catch my interest, I read it for the story. There are plenty of places I skip over, but the writers got me interested in the characters in the first book, and now I want to know what happens to them--although it feels funny to be placed in a religious situation in which Salt Lake City and the Book of Mormon have no significance. At least he didn't trash us the way he did the Catholics. To me, the feel of the books is much like that of Terry Brooks' fantasy series about the Knight of the Word. Lots of ugly stuff there to pass over lightly, but the good vs. evil story appeals to me. Unless the writer makes the wrong side win. In this series, you have to accept the Evangelicals as the good guys. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 13:22:26 -0600 Scott, I suspect we are speaking somewhat at cross purposes. And I admit that I am in the unenviable position of speaking on narrative without being a fiction writer. I suppose that I find the issue interesting because from a *historical* narrative there are so many interesting narratives that could be characterized as horror. In the fictional sense I admit that I'm a little "hypocritical" as I don't like horror as a genre. I rarely read it. Even the ones I do read tend to be only tangentally horror. For instance the only King books I've read are books like The Gunslinger series, _Misery_, _The Stand_ and so forth. About the only pure horror fiction I read and enjoy are the works of H.P. Lovecraft. I fully agree with your critique of the difference between science fiction and horror. However I think I'll stick with my issue of the difficulty in separating them. For instance I think _Alien_ and _The Thing_ are masterworks of horror film. Yet their grounding is based upon a kind of science and not the supernatural. I'd assert, however, that one can keep the basic narrative and switch from a supernatural base to a "realistic" base. Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that a sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. I think that is right. As I mentioned the Frankenstein story parallels very closely the old Golem stories of the Renaissance. The only difference is that Frankstein uses a kind of scientific base rather than a Kabbalistic magical base. (Although even there the divide isn't clear since the "electricity" of Frankenstein was based upon the notion of vitalism which was a kind of bridge between magic and science. It was only discredited upon the discovery of the composition of uric acid) Perhaps I don't distinguish in a narrative sense this demarcation between "supernatural" and "science" because I've spent quite a bit of time seeing how superstitions became science. It wasn't a clear shift. Many famous early scientists were both "magicians" and scientists. Boyle and Newton were the two clear examples. But before them John Dee or Giordano Bruno were even better examples, and far more "magicians" than scientists. As I mentioned the issue of "vitalism" in the 19th century was basically the idea of a vital fluid that is the source of life. While it sounds superstitious to us now, at the time it was discussed within scientific circles. Likewise the nature of Aether is superstitious to us now, but only because of the discovery of the fixed speed of light. Prior to that aether had all the connotations of its place is speculative philosophy and magic but was considered scientifically. My point is that "science" is a moving target. Further even when science discards certain ideas, such as aether or vitalism, it tends to keep some of the *narrative* connotations. A great example are the recent science fiction stories of virtual realities. The Matrix is the one everyone knows although it was drawing on a lot of science fiction literature from before. Yet, as the authors obviously recognized, the difference between virtual reality discussions in a science fiction setting and very similar issues in neoPlatonism, gnosticism or other movements, tends to be fairly negligible. Likewise wit many, many other narratives. This gets us back to Mormonism. We are somewhat uncommon in the Judeo - Christian - Islamic tradition in that we are strong materialists. Thus to us the distinction between the supernatural and science was always considered false. Anything not reducible to science is simply error and not the supernatural. Our narratives tend to reflect this. So in one sense *any* LDS Horror will be science fiction because of the way we construct our narratives. So in one sense it is true that there can be no LDS horror of the classic sort. Yet at the same time that same shift that occurred in science where much of the narrative connotation remained even while the foundations shifted appears in Mormonism. That's why I think the vampire or werewolf stories are applicable to the Cain legends. (I consider them legends as the people telling the stories of Cain aren't always considered good sources or necessarily trustworthy) In a sense all we've done is taken these legends and shifted the grounds. No longer is the phenomena intrinsically unexplainable - a result of God's pronouncement. Rather God works according to natural laws - perhaps laws not understood but still ultimately understandable. To me the horror element in horror comes not from the grounds (whether supernatural or science fiction) but the structure of the narrative. Thus to me Campbell's "Who Goes There" which became _The Thing_ is both good science fiction and good horror. Same with _Alien_. It is the old legend of the demon in the monastary updated in a science fiction context. Further it is the *same* narrative that we see in _Halloween_, _Friday the Thirteenth_ or a dozen other slasher stories. The difference is that it is done well and keeps the sense of horror and suspense! _Terminator_ uses the exact same narrative and also adopts a science fiction ground, but intentionally drops the horror elements. Thus it is no longer a horror story. To put simply what I've droned on about now, I think horror has less to do with the "supernatural" and more to do with a style of writing that invokes a fear of the unknown. It is a manifestation of our basic fear of the dark. It is playing with that fear in a kind of empathetic way that I think characterizes good horror. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 12:31:00 -0700 Thom Duncan wrote: > I base my assumption on Mormon's not knowing their own theology on the > popularity among LDS readers of the Tim LeHaye _Left Behind_ series of > apocalyptic novels. Nary a single incident in any of those books comes > even close to our teachings on the subject but most Mormon readers > either don't know that or don't care. Isn't "suspension of disbelief" a kind of acceptable "I don't care" mode of thinking that allows the entire construct of fictional entertainment to work at all? (Not that Thom is implying what I'm about to say) but I don't think it's a mark of ignorance to enjoy (or through the volume of market consumption to assume that a niche has "popularized" and therefore, for entertainment purposes anyway, "accepted" a given thing) that may not fit your actual belief system. I enjoy lots of things and consume a lot of entertainment that doesn't fit into my actually belief system. My consumption of it or enjoyment of it makes no statement whatsoever about what I know and/or believe. I SUSPEND that disbelief when I consume or enjoy a given entertainment product. The Left Behind stuff which I have sampled is pretty straight-forward fun, and it only asks you to suspend your disbelief (albeit hugely) about one thing. Once you give the authors the right to play with the Rapture, anything else they do goes. So its relative simplicity might account for part of its popularity. Also, Mormons do believe in a total social upheaval at the end of days, and so this one particular vision of it is entertaining, even if it doesn't quite follow the mold we think will happen. Actually, I have no problem with suspending my disbelief about the specifics of a Rapturous disappearance, but so many of the little details about their hypothesized future world have already, in the short number of year since they started the series, been proven so wildly wrong (state of the U.S.S.R., world currency, etc.), that I have a big problem with their speculative future history generally, regardless of acceptance of a Rapture. They are not great futurists. But given the yarn they've chosen to weave, Jenkins is a good, straight-forward writer. I think any construct, "Mormon Horror" or whatever, that you just decide to go for and play straight, no apologies, might be accepted by audiences who are prepared to suspend their disbelief. But my initial doubts about the commercial viability of such a sub-genre for our "own people" as it were, is that I have detected a consumer trend among Mormons which allows them, for some reason, to judge those "out of the fold" very liberally, and to judge those "in the fold" very conservatively. There is a Mormon double standard in pop culture. If Stephen King does something, it may be frowned upon, but there is still a market segment that will secretly read and like it. But if Richard Dutcher does something (or Neil LaBute, or whatever) he will get blasted in a different way, I think. If a story has supernatural themes which we don't believe in, but its a "worldly story" just for fun, I think LDS readers who enjoy that genre will suspend their disbelief and have a good time, if they like that sort of thing. But the second the same kind of story purports to be "Mormon" in any way, suddenly, LDS audiences feel like they are in the spotlight, and they get hugely defensive, begin to bristle, and tend to reject the story, EVEN IF THE ELEMENTS ARE THE SAME THINGS THEY WOULD ENJOY IN ANOTHER NON-LDS STORY! It's just a theory and my opinion, but I think I've detected such a double standard. Hence, I think OSC or whomever has success just telling their stories as 'worldly' (however "informed" by Mormonism they may be) than they would if told as a genuine "Mormon Horror" genre. This is why I don't consider most of OSC "Mormon Horror". Just cuz its written by a Mormon does not make it "Mormon" in genre. If I, a practicing Mormon, write a mainstream story, its not "Mormon" in genre. If Flannery O'Connor writes a detective novel, its not going to be marketed as "Catholic Literature". If I write an openly LDS genre story, it will be marketed as such. If I write a straight sci-fi book, it will be read by sci-fi fans. Now, if some LDS buyer know I am LDS, he may pick up my sci-fi book just to check it out even if he is not a sci-fi fan, due to our common "mormonness" but this does not a target market make. That's just a slight market wash-over and it is not going to great a great volume of sales. I have argued (particularly among the budding legions of filmmakers) to very carefully consider the LDS themes in their product. If it CAN be cut, then it should be cut, you don't have an LDS story. If it CANNOT be cut, if the LDS thematic element is so essential to the story that it could not be told in any other way, then you know you have an LDS genre film (story, whatever). Obviously there are no hard and fast rules, especially now, when things are growing and expanding so much. Artists should be allowed a lot of lee-way for experimentation. But market forces do have to be considered to some extent. But I've been saying that too much lately. Whatever. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 14:07:20 -0600 A few other thoughts. ___ Paris ___ | Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to base | an entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. ___ Where do they go? I don't think this is quite accurate. They may stop what they are doing. But they don't simply "vanish." ___ Thom ___ | I base my assumption on Mormon's not knowing their own | theology on the popularity among LDS readers of the Tim | LeHaye _Left Behind_ series of apocalyptic novels. Nary | a single incident in any of those books comes even close | to our teachings on the subject but most Mormon readers | either don't know that or don't care. ___ This is an excellent point. I should add that a lot of Mormon folk tales also have serious theological problems. The "life after death" narratives in particular are often problematic. ___ Scott ___ | Similarly, each of these three story types often explores | the non-human or semi-human as both metaphorical human, | and as true alien. ___ I actually agree with you regarding metaphor or allegory. I'm not sure I'd put it quite like that. But I do think that any story *has* to have some connection to us. You can have the thriller aspects but to really be a great story it should have something more. That "something more" might be some attribute of humanity. It doesn't always have to be like that. But even adventure narratives like _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ have an underlying theme that tends to put them over the top. Put an other way to care about the characters or events there must be something about them that relate to you the viewer or reader. If they don't have that then you don't really care much. I think this is what the sign of good writing is. And I think that is ultimately more important than the nature of ones genre. Especially in these days where all narratives have already been told and what differentiates a story is *how* it is told. ___ Clark ___ | Would werewolves and vampires be monsters according to | your definition? | ___ Scott ___ | Yes. They're supernatural and non-rational. ___ However both can be rationalized. There are many tellings of the vampire story that rationalizes it as a virus or something similar. Put an other way, doesn't your view tend to just end up being whether the foundation is explained in the story? Appeals to "God did it" don't count. Yet, for most people the difference between science and magic is pretty negligible. You see this all the time when discussing books or films with people. You point out huge problems and people just shrug. They either say, "who cares if it is possible" to a much more "why should viewers care?" In other words if readers don't care about foundations how can foundations provide a clear distinction? For the average person most of what a scientist takes for granted is unknowable. The difference between scientist and magician is rather blurred for the typical person. (And many narratives reflect this, as I mentioned in my other post) [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 04 Jun 2003 15:10:41 -0600 Clark wrote: > I actually think the third one had the strongest > story of all three. Its problem was much more > direction and then a few questionable art direction > decisions. (i.e. the Ewoks) Had it had a different > director though I think it could really have been quite > well. The only satisfactory way that Star Wars III could have ended (for me) was either for Luke to kill his father (Darth Vader) or (poor second choice) for Darth Vader to take the Emperor down with him. Either fall on his sword or willingly sacrifice himself. First, on a moral level, were Darth Vader to grasp any sense of the monster he had become--which we are supposed to believe he did (literal deathbed repentance)--he and Luke, if he were any kind of "Jedi," would have recognized the necessity of such an "atonement." Second, the Greeks already established the necessary archetypes, with Oedipus and Antigone. There's some of that (me thinks, unintentionally--more Lucas figuring out what he's doing while he's doing it--but we'll ignore that) in Star Wars II, with Luke competing romantically for his sister. You could analogize Luke losing his hand to Oedipus losing his eyes, and etc., but at any rate, the way this myth plays out, dad's got to die and the son's got to do it. Anything else (i.e., the way Lucas wrote it) is a cop-out. Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 15:34:40 -0600 Clark wrote: > The horror story won't be the typical story. It will > involve something that is more of a chess game. A great way to put it. Most genre "horror" I don't find very horrifying--gross, perhaps, or tense or startling, but for horror to be horrifying it must involve the possibility of damnation, which requires a convincing belief in heaven and hell, and a threatening end game with one's soul on the line. That's why I think Lewis's _The Hideous Strength_ and _Perelandra_ qualify not only as the scariest horror novels I've ever read, but solid examples of "Christian horror" (not an oxymoron, it turns out). Though perhaps what many Mormons would find horrifying about _Perelandra_ is that Lewis convincingly--with a chess-like precision--has Lucifer arguing for the popular (and I think, too glib) Mormon version of Eden and the Fall. I would toss in as well _The Last Battle_ from the Narnia series, a frightening and violent apocalyptic story (I'm a bit surprised that the people who get offended at Harry Potter aren't offended by _The Last Battle_, though I suppose the Lewis name inoculates it). And for good measure, perhaps the scariest movie I've ever seen. I saw it twenty years ago, haven't seen it since, and still can't get it out of my mind (Anthony Perkins getting chewed up by the robot is all the more horrifying for the *lack* of special effects goo): Disney's (don't laugh) _The Black Hole_. A great homage to Milton, if nothing else. [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 04 Jun 2003 15:46:40 -0600 I would love it, as part of my own continuing education, if Clark would = expand on these tantalizing notions of structuralism. As they appear in = the last two Star Wars films, or elsewhere. I found his comments = provocative, but frustratingly so. As for the last two Star Wars films, I thought the biggest problems with = them were the scripts, the art direction, the cinematography, the = editing, the Foley work, the sound editing, the gaffing, the acting and = the musical scores. The story was incoherent and uninteresting, the = characters were uninteresting and badly acted, and don't get me started = on that love story. Otherwise, they were fine. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 04 Jun 2003 16:02:05 -0600 The Laird Jim, writing about West Wing: >So long as it's a soap opera, it doesn't matter what politics the=20 >actors pretend to. It tastes like a soap opera--melodrama all the way. = I have no intention in engaging the good Laird again on the uneven = playing field of politics. I would say instead that the characters on = West Wing are multi-faceted and fully rounded, the dialogue is witty and = quick paced, and the direction is first rate. I especially love the = astonishingly well composed long tracking shots, the unobtrusive = Steadicam work. =20 The defining characteristics of melodrama, as defined by such experts in = the field as David Grimsted and Katherine Kelly, are a) morally = polarized characters--villains and heros, b) an emphasis on spectacle = and physical combat, c) poetic justice--villains punished and heros = rewarded, d) comic sidekicks for both heros and villains, e) = event-filled plots, f) cultural conservatism (as opposed to political or = social conservatism). 24 is, in my opinion, one of the great shows in = the history of television, but it is a melodrama. West Wing is not. = Nor have they 'invented melodrama in Washington' as a 'propaganda = method.' The President on The West Wing is a Democrat, and his advisors = are generally liberal. The basic dynamics of the show, however, revolve = around spirited, intelligent arguments about public policy issues. And, = for at least some of us, it's riveting. What can we learn in the field of Mormon letters about this show. One = remarkable thing: that it's possible to create accessible popular = entertainment around complex, interesting ideas. Seeing Michael Frayn's = brilliant play Copenhagen in London reminded me just how exhilarating a = play about ideas can be; in this case, science. Tom Stoppard's = brilliant comedies show this as well. =20 Didactic literature fails not because it's didactic; in most cases it = fails because its ideas are stale, shopworn, obvious. But it's quite = possible to create a dialectical drama or literature, literature that = explores complex and interesting ideas, be they political or scientific = or, I suppose, religious. Instead of a Book of Mormon film, why not a = film about the Doctrine and Covenants? Not the history, the IDEAS. = Wow. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] (S.L. Trib) NELSON, LEE, _Huck Finn_ Date: 04 Jun 2003 18:46:33 -0700 Wow, pretty strong stuff! I saw the book at Ensign Books the other day, and thought I read something in the blurb about the Twain family giving permission to Nelson to "finish" the book. Am I remembering correctly? And, if so, I wonder how those negotiations went, and whether they had final say on the finished product. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jared Walters Subject: Re: [AML] Narrative Choices Date: 04 Jun 2003 20:08:04 -0600 Please define "soap opera" in your terms and are there any shows out there on TV that don't fall into your "soap" category. When you make a political drama, you have to choose some party to represent the fictional administration. I doubt they flipped the proverbial coin to make the choice, but if the creators are left wingers then it's their prerogative to make the show to push their agenda. In political dramas, you can't win. You lean far to one side and you alienate part of your audience and get accused of running a propaganda outfit. You try to balance the politics of the show and you'll get accused of being patronizing or too politically correct and it's not cool to be PC is it? In my opinion, the west wing is one of the better written shows on TV (or was now that Aaron Sorkin quit). Everyone has their own taste in shows, to each his own. I think people like to believe that life in public service is more exciting than what we see on CNN and C-SPAN which is one of the reasons why the show appeals to people. I mean if filmmakers were to play it straight-up when making a biopic of someone, it would make for boring cinema of Oliver Stone proportions. The idea is try to get the viewer to identify with the character their life as dull as it may be in reality. That's what drama is all about. To simply call a show a "soap opera" comes across as to me as a shallow term people like to use to cheapen the credibility of the show given a soap's reputation in today's media. [Jared Walters] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 04 Jun 2003 20:12:18 -0600 > I base my assumption on Mormon's not knowing their own theology on the > popularity among LDS readers of the Tim LeHaye _Left Behind_ series of > apocalyptic novels. Nary a single incident in any of those books comes > even close to our teachings on the subject but most Mormon readers > either don't know that or don't care. > > Thom Thom, I don't follow that reasoning. That's like saying that I don't understnad LDS theology because I read Robert Jordan's Conan novels, and those sure don't have much that follows along the LDS tradition. I enjoy the Left Behind books, because I can allow myself to live in the authors fantasy world (I do treat it as an alternate reality). I believe most LDS who love to read them have the same thoughts. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 04 Jun 2003 20:40:20 -0600 ___ Susan ___ | I always figured a former prostitute is just who Christ | would have married. Although of course it's not | necessarily true that she was one. ___ It would have been an echo of Hosea where the Lord commands that prophet to marry a prostitute. That's always a fun book to discuss in Gospel Doctrine class. Really does upset people which in turn raises lots of interesting issues about how people view the atonement. After all if we take the atonement seriously what would be wrong with Jesus marrying a former prostitute? BTW - Susan. I'd had to install my OS again. So thanks for posting. I'd lost your email. ___ Robert ___ | In fact, didn't Meridian Magazine just have an article | about a genealogical relationship between the House of | David and the House of Windsor? ___ Yes. Meridian magazine for some odd reason has lots of very pseudo-scientific articles. I forget the author - Pratt I think - but he has lots of very questionable and far out hobby horses but writes as if his ideas are mainstream. They can be found in the folk doctrine of the church but he tends to present them as more than folk doctrine. And when he discusses science. . . Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Leif ENGER, _Peace Like A River_ Date: 04 Jun 2003 22:43:33 -0400 I, too, very much enjoyed Peace Like a River, though it lost me in a few places. Too prosy. I think you're a bit wrong about member's beliefs regarding priesthood holders. I doubt they would believe that even priesthood holders would need to miraculously walk on air while in deep thought (it's been a while so I hope that's accurate.) While I believe most members believe that miracles are possible, I haven't found many who believe that miracles such as those are going to be part of their daily existence. Do you know the song the title comes from? I think it adds a bit of coloring to the dynamics of the story. It isn't just that the brother lures the reprobates to the house. In a way they deserved what they got. The contrast is in how the Dad chooses peace, and the brother chooses aggression. And the Dad has to struggle to choose that peace, and it's not founded on weakness. Rueben tries at least once to choose peace by being weak, and that is not the way. (at least in my poor recollection.) Well, enough of my late night rambling. While I didn't find it the most riveting book of the century, I thought it was well written, Christian without preachiness, and I look forward to reading more from this author. Tracie Laulusa ----- Original Message ----- > I've just finished reading LEIF ENGER, "Peace Like A River", and while > I felt no need to shake my fist at the heavens shouting "agghh" because > Kushner could write something brilliant like "Angles in America" I am envious and > covetous of Enger's ability to produce the kind of novel I hope that someone > LDS could someday produce. "Peace Like A River" is about the kind of faith that > produces miracles in the lives of ordinary and even flawed people. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 04 Jun 2003 23:16:11 EDT In a message dated 6/4/03 08:12:50 PM, rexgoode@msn.com writes: << Imagine a story about a future Mormon couple who go to the obstetrician and are told that their baby will be born gay and are offered an abortion. [MOD: Wow! Now *that's* a speculative fiction idea!] >> Though not involving a Mormon couple, this idea was the basis for a movie made by ShowTime (I think) around 1997 (I think) called "Twilight of the Golds." I takes places a few years in the future. The main character, played by Brendan Fraser, is gay. His sister is expecting a baby, and his brother-in-law works for some sort of genetics firm that has developed a test for homosexuality, and without telling his wife he runs the test, only to find out their son will be homosexual. Eventually he tells the family, and the big debate is whether to abort the fetus and the ensuing frustration of Brendan as he realizes that if HIS parents had had that option, he wouldn't be alive. Interesting movie. John Perry Provo -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 04 Jun 2003 23:38:09 -0500 At 11:19 PM 6/2/03 -0500, lajackson@juno.com wrote: >Barbara Hume: >[on riding in cars with the opposite sex} > >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. > >_______________ > >I figure there's no sense finding out if you're right or not. >[grin] > >Actually, aside from some temptation to which more are >susceptible than they think, I believe it has to do with >perceptions. Brother Smith and Sister Jones (not their >real names, of course) drove up to Church one Sunday. >Her husband was out of town and his wife was ill. > >I shook her hand and said, "Good morning, Sister Smith." >She never rode alone with him again. Was that by accident (you had never met the real Sister Smith before that)= =20 or on purpose? (Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid question, but there are some=20 people who might have done it on purpose as a joke=B9 . . . and others =97= not=20 saying you are one =97 who may consider themselves the moral conscience of= =20 the ward, enforcing the "no riding in cars with members of the opposite sex= =20 other than your spouse" rule . . . ) _____ =B9No comments from the people who know me in RL. -- 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: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 05 Jun 2003 08:16:22 -0500 And something related that drives me crazy is the men, even when we are quite friendly with each other, that always insist on calling me "Sister Tait." I know it's supposedly "proper" but I experience it as a distancing mechanism. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 05 Jun 2003 08:25:33 -0600 Rex Goode wrote: > > In many ways, it confounds me that the gay community doesn't latch onto an > environmental cause as its preferred explanation. There is still room in such an > explanation to hang upon it calls for tolerance, respect, and equal rights. > There is still room to say they don't know what causes it but that people should > respect their right to choose how they will deal with it. > Some say that gender affirmative therapy is dangerous and harmful. This baffles me as well. I'm not sure if it's been brought up on this list before, but there was a situation that had to do with this controversy here in Provo a few months ago. BYUTV (or KBYU, I don't remember which) was going to air some talks that had recently been given at some conference on campus. The talks were about overcoming homosexuality. Members of the gay and lesbian community in Utah Valley and Salt Lake called in to protest, using the "gender affirmative therapy is dangerous and harmful" argument, and BYU chose to pull the talks from their schedule, rather than risk offending members of the gay and lesbian community. I understand that BYU is not out to offend anyone, but I find it curious that they chose to cater to the audience who is opposed to the Church's official position, rather than the potential viewers who support the Church's position and might have benefited from these talks. The argument for the gay and lesbian stance on this issue that I've heard is something like, "well, no one would dare broadcast a talk on overcoming blackness or womanhood, so why should they broadcast a talk about overcoming homosexuality?" The problem with this argument is that being gay is not the same as being a woman or being black. Yes, it is true that no one chooses who they are naturally attracted to, just as it is true that no one chooses their race or gender. So as far as that goes, yes the situations are parallel. However, there is a big gap between being attracted to someone and having sex with that person--sexuality, ultimately, is more precisely defined by who you have sex with than by who you're attracted to. And yes, that is a choice. Wasn't the whole point of the civil rights movement that no one should have to behave according to society's prescribed conceptions just because they are born a certain race or gender? That a woman has the right to take on what had traditionally been a man's role, and a black man has the right to do what had traditionally been reserved for white men? And yet, here we are in the twenty-first century with people telling us that if you're born with (or otherwise acquire) an attraction to members of the same sex, you don't have the right to choose whether you want to take on the role traditionally prescribed to homosexuals or the role traditionally prescribed to heterosexuals. You'd think that people who have fought so long and so hard for acceptance and understanding would be more accepting and understanding of people who come from similar circumstances but have made different choices. The truth is, a philosophy that says you can choose whether you want to adopt a gay lifestyle or not would not be threatening to gay individuals who are conscious that they have made a choice and are comfortable with it. I, for one, prefer to live in a world where I make the decisions, rather than hide behind the pretext that nature is making those decisions for me. [Ben Christensen] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] MOD Message: Signing Posts Date: 05 Jun 2003 22:19:36 -0500 Folks, Just a reminder to everyone to sign your posts. When you don't, I have to copy and paste from the "From" line. If the name isn't evident there, I have to send a query before posting the message. A small matter, but one that can help keep things moving more smoothly... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 05 Jun 2003 08:44:25 -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_. I'm going to have to challenge you on this one, Margaret (and anyone else). You've listed three--a collection of essays, a novel, and a play. I've already mentioned John Bennion's short story, "The Interview," and there's also Erin Eldridge's Deseret Book-published _Born That Way_ (which I understand is more about her overcoming alcoholism than lesbianism). That's a total of five. If you were referring to self-help/doctrinal books such as Dean Byrd's book, then I could probably come up with a five or six more. Considering that some statistics suggest that homosexuals make up as much as ten percent of the population (I think that's a stretch, but I would say it's at least five percent), and there's no reason to think Mormons are any exception to this, we really don't have a lot of literature about SSA in Mormondom. I'd love for anyone to prove me wrong on this, if you have more examples that haven't been mentioned. [Ben Christensen] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 05 Jun 2003 09:00:35 -0600 Susan Malmrose wrote: > All of my husband's LDS family members believe it, I'm pretty sure. Although I can > remember his grandmother telling me Christ couldn't have been married to Mary > Magdalene because she had been a prostitute. It had to have been Mary and Martha. > > I always figured a former prostitute is just who Christ would have married. Although > of course it's not necessarily true that she was one. Not only unnecessarily true, it's a real stretch from the facts in the scriptures. It's an assumption that's made based on--I have no idea. A prostitute figures in the tale of Christ at one point, and Mary Magdelene had seven devils cast out of her. Therefore, Mary was a prostitute. Yeah, makes sense to me. -- 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: robertslaven@shaw.ca Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 05 Jun 2003 09:22:15 -0600 >Jonathan asked me to enumerate some of the different theories about the origins >of same-sex attraction. > >Well, of course there's the old born-that-way theory which has two variations. Whether it's genetic or prenatal, I suspect there is almost certainly some physiological and/or biochemical basis to a predilection for same-sex attraction, much as there is growing evidence for similar predilections to addictions, for example. However, I'm firmly convinced that it's only a predilection, *not* a cast-in-stone component of our lives. (Much as with addictions; if you have a tendency towards addiction, but grow up as a Nice Mormon Boy/Girl and never even try booze/smokes/drugs/porn/whatever, maybe you just won't get addicted....) >Though it may be slow in reaching Utah, the idea of a gay gene is rapidly losing >support in the gay community. They're not saying there isn't a gay gene and >they're not saying there is. They aren't pushing it anymore as an explanation of >how people become sexually attracted to their own gender. Why? Well, the Human >Genome Project. If someone ever identifies a gay gene and invents a way to erase >it _in vitro_, parents will be able to prevent homosexual children. Wouldn't >that be an interesting Future-Shock novel? > >This fear was brought home to me by a lesbian guest speaker in a class about >cultural diversity. She is considered a leader in this area. She said that >finding a gay gene could very easily bring about the end of queer culture and >she was not in favor of holding to the argument that people are born homosexual. >Interestingly, she still believes that her homosexuality is inevitable enough to >have divorced her husband the moment she realized she was a lesbian. She saw no >other way. > >If they don't want to hold out hope for the discovery of a gay gene, then there >must be something that happens to a fetus that causes it. Believing that allows >you to keep a born-that-way stance, but it also opens up another potential >threat to queer culture. If someone finds out what trauma might cause it in the >womb and women are guaranteed the right to an abortion, parents may opt to abort >gay fetuses. Imagine a story about a future Mormon couple who go to the >obstetrician and are told that their baby will be born gay and are offered an >abortion. > >[MOD: Wow! Now *that's* a speculative fiction idea!] ObLit: So as not to queer [yeah, bad pun] its chances of publication, I will refrain from broadcasting my short story 'Preggos' to all and sundry on the list. However, those of you who like this idea are welcome to email me privately and ask to review it, as that wouldn't count as publication. (It's out at my fourth try with an SF magazine right now.) It's not exactly in line with Rex's ideas, but it's within spitting distance. >In many ways, it confounds me that the gay community doesn't latch onto an >environmental cause as its preferred explanation. There is still room in such an >explanation to hang upon it calls for tolerance, respect, and equal rights. >There is still room to say they don't know what causes it but that people should >respect their right to choose how they will deal with it. Given all the evidence of estrogen-like compounds messing up sexual issues with us and other animals -- Finnish studies on sperm counts and motility come to mind -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if we found that SSA is more common now than, say, a century ago, thanks to pollution. (I'm remembering one of my favourite quotes, from a researcher who had discovered a troubling problem with a popular herbicide. It appears that he wanted to avoid being the kind of scientist who makes dramatic and unsupported statements, but that he also wanted to get across the danger posed. Hence the immortal quote: "I'm not saying it's safe for humans. I'm not saying its unsafe for humans. All I'm saying is it that it makes hermaphrodites of frogs." -- Tyrone B. Hayes of UC Berkeley commenting on atrazine, a common weed killer that causes frogs to develop multiple sex organs.) >From a political perspective, I agree to a large extent with Rex's comments on tolerance, respect, and equal rights. On the one hand, I have a really hard time with extending the definition of marriage, and with same-sex couples adopting unrelated children. (One SS parent adopting the biological child of their partner is less of an issue with me.) On the other hand, we opened Pandora's box w.r.t. marriage when we (as a society) started including 'common-law relationships' -- having done that, how can we fairly close the door on legal recognition of any other form of conjugal relationship? -- and I think I'd rather a child was adopted into a loving SS home than a series of foster homes and/or an abusive heterosexual household. Still, though, it's a shame that the point of view espoused by the gospel is almost completely ignored out there in the rest of the world. I can't think of a non-member who could read, say, Elder Oaks' Ensign article of a few years back and not come away ranting about it from one point of view or the other. Robert -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (S.L. Trib) NELSON, LEE, _Huck Finn_ Date: 05 Jun 2003 12:09:01 EDT In a message dated 6/4/2003 4:52:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Chris.Bigelow@UnicityNetwork.com writes: > Nelson Massacres the Book Twain Tried to Destroy > I have not read Lee Nelson's novel, but I would like to steer everyone toward Greg Matthew's excellent novel, THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN. It is a sequel published in 1983 by Crown. A fantastic novel which is very true to Huck's voice. Honestly, I enjoyed it more than Twain's novel. In fact, several times when reading it, I laughed so hard I started to choke. When I heard of Nelson's novel, I thought it strange that he would attempt to do something that Greg Matthews had succeeded at doing 20 years ago. Anyway, if you like books that make you laugh out loud, I highly highly recommend it. Richard Dutcher -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 05 Jun 2003 10:20:19 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Rex Goode >First, the theory doesn't say that SSA men are not part of the >masculine world. It says they don't feel part of the masculine >world. It's one word, but it changes the meaning a great deal. >This kind of SSA man, according to the theory, is the one who >was always picked last for sports, couldn't ever get good at >basketball, liked doing the things that society tells him is >not masculine. He doesn't feel connected. Other males seem >like a mystery to him. Does the theory account for males like me who, despite having lived through all the above, and who still find other males a mystery, are still hopelessly heterosexual? Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 05 Jun 2003 12:09:50 -0600 At 02:09 PM 6/2/03 -0700, you wrote: >Although I can >remember his grandmother telling me Christ couldn't have been married to Mary >Magdalene because she had been a prostitute. It had to have been Mary and >Martha. Does the Bible ever say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Or is it one of those notions that spring up, such as that the sin in the Garden of Eden was a sexual sin? And why would Jesus leave two women to be widows, knowing he was going to be murdered and had no wordly goods to leave them? Say, could that be a reason to bring back to life the brother they lived with, and who most likely provided for them? Actually, why leave one widow? Why marry more that one woman anyway? Polygamy was not customary at that time among the Jews, was it? When I was a Protestant, I was taught that the Catholics edited out of the Bible anything that conflicted with their teachings, such as any references to Mary's other children by Joseph. Imagine my shock to discover that the Mormons had a version of the New Testament partially edited by Joseph Smith! It does seem to me that a marriage, even in that misogynistic culture, would be important enough to mention in Jesus' life story. Wouldn't Luke's determined research have turned up such a fact? Could this whole notion of Jesus marrying more than one woman spring up to support the polygamous practices of the Mormon Church? I'm asking these questions sincerely, not having researched these areas. barbara hume. a long-time Mormon now but still with Protestant training -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] BYU Books for Young Readers Symposium Date: 05 Jun 2003 14:25:13 -0600 BYU Books for Young Readers Symposium -- July 18-19, 2003 Guests include Bethanne Anderson, Franny Billingsley, Susan Fletcher, Russell Freedman, David Small, Laurence Yep. For more information, go to http://www.ce.byu.eu/cw/childlit. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 05 Jun 2003 20:08:11 GMT Ronn! Blankenship: Larry Jackson wrote: >She never rode alone with him again. Was that by accident . . . or on purpose? (Forgive me if this sounds like a stupid question, but there are some people who might have done it on purpose as a joke . . . and others . . . who may consider themselves the moral conscience of the ward, enforcing the "no riding in cars with members of the opposite sex other than your spouse" rule . . . ) _______________ It was on purpose, and I was sending a message. Which brings up some questions to be answered in the next great literary LDS novel on friendship, relationship, love, and marriage: Was it appropriate or was it improper? Was this meddling into business that was none of mine? Was I being a "moral conscience" enforcer or a friend? Does it make a difference whether it was done loudly and in public or quietly so no one else could hear? Does who they were or who I was make any difference? Are there other circumstances in the lives of those involved that would make such a comment either proper or improper? Besides telling more of the story, how should I handle this scene when I write my book? Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ 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: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 05 Jun 2003 22:48:27 -0700 [MOD: This post by Jongiorgi does not go over the lines--in my view--but I sense that potential for the discussion to go in several directions that would be off-topic for AML-List. Let me outline some of these off-topic directions: * Arguing either for or against the Church's position on SSA * Arguing either for or against the Church's political involvement in the SSA issue Please note that sharing stories and experiences, as Jongiorgi has done, is appropriate. Sharing thoughts and perspectives that may relate to the Church's views on SSA is also appropriate, so long as it doesn't become a debate (open or concealed) about what the Church's position is or should be. And keep in mind that the discussion as a whole is appropriate not because SSA is on-topic for AML-List, but rather because of the literary dimensions of treating SSA in Mormon literature. So far, it's been a good discussion and everyone's been pretty good at keeping to the rules and the Mormon lit connection. I just want to act proactively now to remind us all of what the rules are, so that the discussion can continue in a (relatively) easy-to-moderate sort of way...] >From Robert Slaven: > From a political perspective, I agree to a large extent with Rex's comments on tolerance, respect, and equal >rights. On the one hand, I have a really hard time with extending the definition of marriage, and with same-sex >couples adopting unrelated children. (One SS parent adopting the biological child of their partner is less of >an issue with me.) On the other hand, we opened Pandora's box w.r.t. marriage when we (as a society) >started including 'common-law relationships' -- having done that, how can we fairly close the door on legal >recognition of any other form of conjugal relationship? -- and I think I'd rather a child was adopted into a loving >SS home than a series of foster homes and/or an abusive heterosexual household. Its all a tough, complex issue. I came head to head with it a few years back when California became the pilot state for a referendum on so-called Gay Marriage. Due to my close relationships with many in the gay community, and the long history of friends in and out of the Church suffering with (or in some cases quite comfortable with) their SSA, and the pretty much across the board don't-ask-don't-tell-we're-more-terrified-of-this-topic-than-we-are-of-polyg amy feeling we get about it so often in the church, I basically keep my trap shut on this topic (although I have benefited greatly, and greatly enjoyed, the SSA thread as it has developed here recently, in my current state of quasi-lurkerhood as I attempt to meet some deadlines). Anyway, since the entire nation was looking to CA to see whether the bill was passed or not (the thinking was that if CA passed it, many other states would follow; but if CA didn't pass it, it would be effectively tabled for a while, politically), the local Area Authorities asked the GA's if they could use Church resources for an active campaign to try and thwart the measure. The GA's said yes, apparently, but didn't make any general policy statement, and let the Area Authorities handle it. For a period of several months leading up to the election, we had a situation that I had never seen before, and which was to me, quite shocking. Over the pulpit, in Sacrament Meeting, local leadership read letters espousing a particular political stance and STRONGLY encouraged, not only members to vote a certain way, but asked us to get very involved civically, putting signs up in our yards and performing volunteer hours telephoning people prior to the election, all of this conducted AT CHURCH. I'd never seen anything like it. For a policy that usually keeps the Church totally out of such things (we state our belief structure, religiously, over the pulpit and then tell you to go out and make whatever informed decision you want to make, politically), suddenly I was in a Church that was actively (even aggressively) pushing my public vote in a certain direction. It was a pretty uncomfortable situation for me. I don't care what the specific topic of discussion, aggressive political preaching over the pulpit radically offensive to me. Even if I politically agree with the point in question, I just felt a line had been crossed when it followed me into Church. I don't think political side debates are appropriate in Sunday School meetings; I sure don't think their right in SACRAMENT MEETING. It is an interesting question. Take a speculative fiction stance with it. Create a story in the near future, say. Pretend that certain political persecutions has started against the Church again. Politics would certainly come up over the pulpit, I suspect. As an author, I'd have to tackle that, tackle people's reactions, etc. Would I, in that situation, think it "appropriate"? I guess that's what good speculative fiction does. It asks very hard "what if's", dumps realistic characters into them, and then watches them squirm. Anyway, in the real life scenario, I balked. I refused to take up the banner in any way, and simply declined to participate in the fray. Active though I am, and considered a leader in our small, struggling ward, I just said no thank you, and refuses to participate in any way with the temporary spirit of activism that had invaded my place of worship. Ultimately (ironically, and not that it matters), I voted against the resolution (just like the Area Authorities wanted me to, not BECAUSE they wanted me to, but because I feel like Robert Slaven says he does about the subject in his post which inspired this response); but I did not want my voice sequestered in a loud, public and often disproportionately balanced way. Furthermore, I could not be a hypocrite in the eyes of my gay friends. (But then, WAS I a hypocrite because of my secret vote?) Just months before the initiative, I had actually been part of a court case in Utah where two gay friends were trying to legally adopt the biological son of one of the couple. Its a long story; suffice it to say that in this particular case, I felt it was the only sane thing to do, the best and only thing for the child, and I argued on behalf of the gay couple (in an affidavit) in court. The Utah judge sneered and threw it out... well, denied it. (So they moved to California and did whatever they wanted anyway. But that's not my point.) A few months after that, on behalf of this very same child, Santia and I stood in a Unitarian chapel and, participating in a religious service of that denomination, voluntarily became the formal Godparents of the child, witnessing legally, and before God and witnesses in a religious setting, that if anything happened to the two dads, Santia and I would raise the boy. At one point in our moving towards the final decision to take on such a commitment, one of the fathers asked me, "So now, if we both die, you're going to raise [the kid] as a Mormon, aren't you." I looked him square in the eye and said, "Of course." He paused for a long moment, and then said, "Okay." Where is the literary tie-in? I don't know. Other than that's a story. It's a story that happened, but it is also a story to tell. My own personal journey in this particular subject matter is convoluted: I'm a straight man, a practicing Mormon, a believer in the Proclamation on the Family; but also a man with gay men in my "family"; Godparent to a boy being raised by two dads; friend to many SSA Mormon men (some who've stayed in the Church, some who've left); a youth advisor who just had one of his young men come out, decide not to serve a mission, and finally leave the Church (but when he's in town, he comes to Church, comes to my priesthood lessons, and participates); a man who's wife suffered abuse from hetero men but was saved and protected by SSA men, etc., etc., I live in a world of complex contrasts and conflicting emotions on this subject. Now THERE are some "narrative choices" for you! That's a soup of conflict to have a character swim in. As an actor, I feel (depending on the material) that I could play an SSA man. As an author, I'm less certain about my abilities to pull it off, depending on how pivotal the character was, I guess. But as an author attempting to write something I know, I guess I'm left with that. A non-SSA character plunged into a world of contact with issues that LDS-SSA brings up, and that's not an easy place. I've just never felt up to the task. At least not so far. Maybe a short story is in order just to wet my feet. At any rate, right now, I've nothing to add or contribute to this thread. But I want to thank all of you who've contributed and very much helped me, informed and enlightened me on the various angles of this topic. I agree that this is a largely ignored subject matter in LDS lit. I think that is partly because of fear, partly because of pain, partly because of ignorance. Just like "Mormon horror" question, I don't think this is a topic that, as a sub-genre, will ever be widely read. Maybe that's pessimistic. But I think the average rank-and-file DB buyer is just too put off by SSA themes to ever widely read it in Mormon lit. Of course, if issues were as well presented as they have been by Rex and Ben and Robert, and several others here, but in a fictional setting, I would think we would all benefit. And Robert's quote from Tyrone B. Hayes about hermaphroditic frogs was just about the best short quote I've read on any topic in a year! Thanks again. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] RE: Sickbed Reading & Viewing Date: 05 Jun 2003 15:39:37 -0600 > >From eew@eewoodbury.com Sat May 31 12:12:22 2003 > >I second My Neighbor Totoro, and recommend three more Hayao Miyazaki >titles (excellent dubs produced by Miramax/Disney) currently >available: > >Spirited Away - If you want to know where the spirit of Walt Disney >currently resides, it's at Studio Ghibli in Japan. This year's Academy >award winner for best animated feature film. (Watch for the dust >bunnies from Totoro.) > >Princess Mononoke - the most sophisticated "eco-drama" ever made, >IMHO. Set during Japan's medieval period. Miyazaki acknowledges that >preservation and progress can never be truly reconciled, and never >preaches. > >Kiki's Delivery Service - begins by positing that witches can fly, but >that's not what it's about. Takes place in that ideal European >Mediterranean city that we all know must exist somewhere. I will also second these and add another Miyazaki film: _Castle in the Sky_. All of his films are wonderful. Better than Disney by a long shot. Marny Parkin www.MormonSF.org -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] DreamMakers Writers Conference (Colorado) Date: 05 Jun 2003 14:33:50 -0600 DreamMakers 2003 Writers Conference -- August 9, 2003 -- Elizabeth, Colorado Presenters include: Tom Colgan (editor, PenguinPutnam Books), Alane Ferguson (author), Suzanne Patrick Fonda (editor, National Geographic Children's Books), Stephen Fraser (executive editor, HarperCollins Children's Books), Donna Freedman (freelance writer), Sue Henry (author), Renon Klossner Hulet (senior consulting editor - GO EARLYSPORT Magazine), Edite Kroll (agent), Marcia Marshall (editor, Lerner Books), Gloria Skurzynski (author), Rick Walton (author), Carol Lynch Williams (author), and Mary Wood (actress/books on tape). For more information/schedule/registration, go to http://www.cardinalpride.com/dreammakers.htm Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 05 Jun 2003 10:06:01 -0600 [MOD: Even though I'm the one who raised this issue to begin with (wearing my list-member hat), I'd really rather (wearing my moderator hat) that we didn't get into a discussion of whether this policy is justified or not. I realize that with this post, this is largely what we have. However, I'd rather that we focus more on the literary and cultural dimensions of this aspect of our culture. For example, how would it affect our literature for everyone to handle this as Thom suggests here?] >-----Original Message----- >spiritual prompting. I consider it a guideline and one that >is necessary due to the fallen world we live in. Only to the extent that one chooses to live in the fallen world wearing the armor of fear and mistrust. This is a policy that basically says, to both men and women, "We don't trust you to act like righteous adults on your own so we are going to impose yet another restriction on your already burdened life." > It'd be >better if we didn't need it, if everyone would behave with >honor and honesty at all times, but we don't live in such a >world and we should acknowledge that by being careful in our >conduct. We don't need it. Most people will behave with honor and honesty most of the time under any conditions. To impose this restriction is to restrict the freedom of choice of the righteous majority because of the actions of a minority. I can see expecting such "rules" with single teenagers perhaps but not at all with adults. The only principle involved at that point ought to be free agency. The adults have been taught the correct principles. Let them make the correct choices. If they don't, let them pay for their bad choices. >In this case, the extra steps to adhere to the >policy are worth the effort because the stakes can be so very >high (even if relatively rare). Yes, the stakes can be high. But at what point do we let adults stand up and take responsibility for their own actions instead of treating them like children? > It can take very little to >break a family apart, particularly when accompanied by the >additional stresses provided by church and work. A vicious >rumor that cannot be repudiated can have tragic consequences. The fact that someone else might misconstrue a man giving a sister in the ward a ride home as something other than Christian kindness is hardly a reason to curb one's actions. The gossip will always be among us. I can't imagine living my life according to what someone else might think than I can (here's the literary tie-in) editing one of my plays because I might offend someone who may see it. With relationships and writing, one should let one's own understanding of integrity and responsibility hold sway, not what someone else may chose to think. >And even if the effects aren't permanent, they can be very >damaging all the same. It is a slippery slope to direct one's actions based on what other's may misperceive. It is better in all cases, spiritual or literary, to follows one's own light and let the consequences follow if the myopic other cannot see correctly. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _The Shape of Things_ (Review) Date: 05 Jun 2003 17:41:10 -0700 (PDT) THE SHAPE OF THINGS, a film written and directed by Neil LaBute; starring Paul Rudd, Rachel Weisz, Gretchen Mol, and Fred Weller; rated R for adult language and themes. Reviewed by R.W. Rasband. George Orwell famously said: it is not too much to expect ordinary human decency even from artists. The great American crime-fiction writer James Ellroy said: the very worst thing Bill Clinton ever did as president was imposing on Monica Lewinsky a life sentence--from now on, wherever she goes, what ever she does, she will simply be the punchline of a thousand dirty jokes. Neil LaBute's new movie is his strongest yet. "The Shape of Things" is a bracing examination of the consequences of treating other people as objects; and a stunning anatomization of some vicious contemporary mindsets. At first it seems to be a fairly straightforward love story. Nerdy Adam (Paul Rudd) meets charismatic, renegade art student Evelyn (Rachel Weisz). She proceeds to remake him, urging him to lose weight, lose the eyeglasses, get a haircut, dress better, stop biting his fingernails, and get a nose job. All this is much to the consternation of Adam's more conventional friends, the sweet, demure Jenny (fetchingly played by Gretchen Mol) and Philip, the sexist pig (Fred Weller, in the Aaron Eckhart role. Eckhart makes a cameo appearance in this film the same way Alfred Hitchcock did in "Lifeboat", a similarly claustral film.) A massive shock takes place at the end that puts everything we've seen in a whole new light. (Even if you see it coming a mile away, it still packs a wallop when it arrives.) I'm not sure how much new insight I can add to the discussion of this film; it has already provoked an outpouring of intensely passionate, intelligent responses from critics, both positive and negative. Much of it can be found at http://www.rottentomatoes.com or http://www.mrqe.com Here are a few more random observations. There are traces of Brigham Young University to be found in this film. "Mercy College" is located in a conservative community: Philip remarks that Evelyn's preferred performance art will not find much of a response in "this kind of town. We're not Berkeley." Much is made by students of PDA (public displays of affection.) Jenny and Philip are very preoccupied with marriage, for young undergraduate students. Evelyn strenuously avoids caffeine in her drinks. The serene physical layout of Mercy College suggests BYU. Jenny is the very model of a BYU co-ed; she doesn't like swearing in her house. The plot is of course a parody of the story of Adam and Eve[lyn]. But I detect an LDS spin. Contrary to orthodox Christian thinking, this Adam is *not* a perfect man living in Paradise. He's a nice guy, but very much a doofus; ignorant as well as innocent. His fall is in some respects a fall upwards. As Evelyn eventually notes, Adam's capacity for action, both good and evil, increases as he progresses. The price is agonizing but Adam's eyes are indeed opened. He comes to know good and evil. I suppose what LaBute wants to know is: can the price be too high? Having already performed the play in London and America, the cast is expert. Paul Rudd is brilliant and moving as he moves from goofball to something else entirely. But this movie really belongs to Rachel Weisz. She gets a credit as producer, and no wonder. This is a part many actresses would kill for (or at least, "stick a knife in his f-----g neck", heh heh.) She certainly makes the most of it. She's irresistible and terrifying in her Mao button and her Che Guevara t-shirt. She's an actress I really never noticed before but will now not soon forget. This movie has gotten a decidedly more mixed reception from critics than LaBute's previous work. I'm afraid they're on to him:-) Evelyn may proudly proclaim that moralists have no place in the gallery of art, but her creator proves himself to be the toughest-minded moralist in American movies today. It looks like some people can't take it. J. Hoberman in the "Village Voice" calls LaBute a Puritan and yawns he's seen this all before. (I'm sure he has.) Andrew O'Heir in "Salon" sneers that this is the most cutting-edge movie of 1982. In other words, it's ideologically retrograde, stuck in the Reagan era. Haven't we all moved beyond the concern for personal morality? And isn't appearance *everything* in America? Hasn't it become clear to us, as it has to Evelyn, that all things are subjective--that if you feel it's true, then it is true, for you? I don't think these things are clear to LaBute, or for a lot of the rest of us. What is clear is that "The Shape of Things" is a bookend to "In the Company of Men" only this time the demonic figure is not a male corporate drone but an avant-garde woman artist. No one is "privileged"--absolved from the potential for evil. Some may find this discomfiting. I find it exhilarating. LaBute is on my list of artists that speak directly to my concerns, to me. Like Philip Roth, or Tom Wolfe, or in an LDS context, Eugene England or Ann Cannon. He's essential. ===== 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: Major Productions Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 06 Jun 2003 07:06:25 -0500 > If it's insulting, I think it's insulting to both men and women. I'm not so > sure it's insulting, though. I *do* think that you misread the underlying > purpose of the policy. I don't think it is to protect women from rapists. > I think it is to protect both from misunderstandings. I think it is to > protect from developing a gradual partiality that could lead to emotional > attachment, falling in love and broken homes. And I think it is, in extreme > cases, to protect both from accusations (potentially false) of abuse and/or > infidelity. Reminds me of the verse in the 89th section of the Doctrine & Covenants. The Word of Wisdom was adapted for "the weakest of the weak", too. I think the Lord just doesn't want *ANYTHING* to be a stumbling block if there's a way to circumvent it. There are enough things in this world that are ready to trip us up. A few extra cautionary guidelines are not a bad thing, in my opinion. Thank you, Jacob, for your perspective. Robbin Major Missouri City, Texas -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] re: Mormon Horror Date: 06 Jun 2003 07:51:02 -0600 Clark Quoted me as saying: ___ Paris ___ | Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to base | an entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. ___ Then added his own: Where do they go? I don't think this is quite accurate. They may stop what they are=20 doing. But they don't simply "vanish." And I respond: I didn't say that. Jacob Profitt did. I actually agree = with you. They don't just disappear. Once gone from the person they go = hide behind the sofa. When chased from behind the sofa they hide in the = bushes outside. Christ said in the New Testament somewhere that = Spirits, when they go out, are going to come back with friends, and you = have to fill their space with something new or they're going to slip = back in. If the person's lifestyle or the physical area isn't conducive = to the "something new", you're going to have to go back in a week or two = and do the whole thing over. Things usually don't become permanent the first time around. If they = did people would become lazy. The way it's set up people have to be = sincere and keep working. Constant opposition is the best tool we have = for continuous progress (but it sure wear you out). Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Walt Curtis" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 06 Jun 2003 08:09:19 -0700 > I'm going to have to challenge you on this one, Margaret (and anyone else). > ... we really don't have a lot of literature about SSA in > Mormondom. I'd love for anyone to prove me wrong on this, if you have more > examples that haven't been mentioned. > With some necessary wading through polemic terminology, check out the Learning Center page on www.affirmation.org, the website for those who consider themselves GLBT and Mormon (active, former and/or cultural). There are several publications, pro and con, referenced, and some articles included. The Additional Selected Reading section is most germane to Ben's inquiry. Walt Curtis -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy and God? Date: 06 Jun 2003 09:56:59 -0600 At 03:10 PM 6/4/03 -0600, you wrote: >You could analogize Luke losing his hand >to Oedipus losing his eyes, and etc., but at any rate, the way this >myth plays out, dad's got to die and the son's got to do it. I think Lucas used some visual shorthand here to show the connections--Darth has lost his hand, and Luke has lost his, when a Jedi gone bad wants to use him for his own evil purposes. Note that Darth already had a fake hand. Darth yielded when the dark side brought pressure to bear on him, but Luke did not. To me, this was a way of saying that Luke was a better, stronger man than his father. Somehow, patricide would probably not sit well with the audience as a cool thing for a hero to commit. I see all kinds of symbolism in this movie, some of which I may be making up. Notice how the villainous creatures, like the rancor monster, are all slobbery? Notice that when Luke is contemplating killing his father, he is drooling as well? barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 06 Jun 2003 10:01:09 -0600 At 08:40 PM 6/4/03 -0600, you wrote: >It would have been an echo of Hosea where the Lord commands that prophet >to marry a prostitute. > >That's always a fun book to discuss in Gospel Doctrine class. Really does >upset people which in turn raises lots of interesting issues about how >people view the atonement. After all if we take the atonement seriously >what would be wrong with Jesus marrying a former prostitute? Despite all the Gospel teaches about forgiveness and non-judgmental attitudes, many people still think the Christian thing to do is to turn one's back on a sinner. I had people express surprise that I did not toss out my teenage daughter when she became pregnant. Of all things! barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 06 Jun 2003 10:06:13 -0600 Rex Goode wrote: > First, the theory doesn't say that SSA men are not part of the masculine world. > It says they don't feel part of the masculine world. It's one word, but it > changes the meaning a great deal. This kind of SSA man, according to the theory, > is the one who was always picked last for sports, couldn't ever get good at > basketball, liked doing the things that society tells him is not masculine. He > doesn't feel connected. Other males seem like a mystery to him. I can't see the attraction to sports fanaticism, which seems like a monumental waste of time to me. I never watch any sports, except soccer games my son is playing in, and then grudgingly. I don't know anything about cars or how to fix them, and I have no desire to learn. Vehicles bore me, except for their ability to get me somewhere. At least I don't think it's a waste of time to be passionate about fixing cars, since that's a useful thing to do, but I am not touched in the slightest by that passion. Ditto power tools. I am an outsider looking in when I watch Tim Allen grunt through his stand-up routine. Boxing is an abusive, idiotic sport and I would never watch it. Except in Rocky movies, but there I'm watching for the inspiring success story, not the boxing. You will never find me hunting or fishing, which are both boring and cruel pasttimes as far as I'm concerned. Even "catch and release" makes no sense to me. Jab a vicious, barbed hook through a poor innocent creature's mouth and call yourself humane because you don't also kill it? That logic is lost on me. Body building, cow tipping, aggression of any kind (except behind the wheel)--I don't see the attraction. In fact, I find precious little I have in common with the average male human being. Pair me up with one of those good ol' boys, and just watch my eyes glaze over as he talks about manly things. Yet I am decidedly not gay. So there must be something else going on besides the inability to relate to the masculine world. I've never related, and find myself increasingly apathetic about relating with each passing year. > So, yes, despite being attracted > to masculinity, gay men are going to be attracted to each other. They may be > attracted to straight men too, but the potential for it going anywhere isn't > there, so why waste time with it? Kind of like the frustration and sense of waste I feel when I come across an attractive lesbian. -- 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] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 06 Jun 2003 10:51:47 -0600 [MOD: This is an unusual situation in that Larry has explicitly asked for people's opinions, positive or negative, on a specific action of his. Under these circumstances, a certain relaxation of the rule against judgmentalism of other list members seems in order--but only a slight relaxation. Let us all keep in mind that this is an exercise in how this behavior, as described by Larry, strikes other people--an audience poll, as it were. The basic injunction against condemning the motives and righteousness of other AML-List members remains in effect.] Larry Jackson wrote: > It was on purpose, and I was sending a message. > > Which brings up some questions to be answered > in the next great literary LDS novel on friendship, > relationship, love, and marriage: Here are my PERSONAL feelings right now, so you don;t have to wait for the book... > Was it appropriate or was it improper? Improper. > Was this meddling into business that was > none of mine? Yes. > Was I being a "moral conscience" enforcer or > a friend? Enforcer. > Does it make a difference whether it was done > loudly and in public or quietly so no one else > could hear? It makes a difference, but only in degree. It was the lesser of two evils. > Does who they were or who I was make any > difference? If you have personal, reliable knowledge that these two may have some dangerouos predilections to succumb to certain temptations, then throw out everything I say. You _would_ be a good friend doing what you did. But _only_ under those circumstances. Otherwise it was meddling. > Are there other circumstances in the lives > of those involved that would make such a > comment either proper or improper? I suppose. Maybe rumors are already flying about the couple, whether true or not. There are always exceptions, but under normal circumstances, it's their business. > Besides telling more of the story, how should > I handle this scene when I write my book? That's your problem. If I gave you ideas, they would be how I'd handle it in my book, which may have nothing to do with how you'd handle it in your book. -- 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: [AML] Structuralism (was: Buffy and God?) Date: 06 Jun 2003 12:23:28 -0600 ___ Eric ___ | I would love it, as part of my own continuing education, if | Clark would expand on these tantalizing notions of structuralism. | As they appear in the last two Star Wars films, or elsewhere. ___ Uh-oh. I've been corralled into giving the five minute structuralism explanation... Realize that this will, of necessity be somewhat distorting because of its length. I've already rewritten it from scratch several times. While structuralism has earlier echoes before the 20th century, it pretty much originates with the linguistics of Saussure. Saussure's theory of language argues that a word (or any significant element) gains its meaning only in terms of its connection to a system of language (la langue for Saussure). Language is defined very broadly - more broadly than we typically use the term. Further this system of language doesn't define terms based upon an experience, unique idea, or object. (As was commonly the case before) Rather they defined structures in terms of oppositions. We don't have an idea of "black" and an idea of "white." Rather we recognize a difference between black and white. So black is defined as not white and white is defined as not black. We could then create further differences to define shades of grey, other colors, or things other than color. Thus to analyze a sentence you study the structure of the sentence and how that structure relates to the language. A word gain's its meaning by its role in the structure of the sentence and its role in other surrounding structures. The role of the author gets downplayed. The structures that the authors utterances find themselves in get focused on. Well this basic approach then gets brought into anthropology and psycho-analysis. The application for psycho-analysis should be obvious. When "reading" the words of a patient their meaning reflects the underlying *structures* of the mind. So a mind is very similar to a language. Likewise the famouse anthropologist Levi-Strauss applies this to understanding cultures in general - especially myths. Levi-Strauss looked for the "deep structures" in a culture. So he found a common structure behind Oedipus, the Grail myth, various Indian myths all tied to a basic structure of codes of kinship including codes of chastity, incest and so forth. When you start looking at common structures you are doing structuralism. So when you say analyze Oedipus and Hamlet in terms of analysis of incest, marriage, throne, reason or so forth you are doing structuralism. When you do psycho-analysis you can definitely see how you are doing this. In the border between pscyho-analysis and anthropology the discipline of studies of myth arose. We then got the structuralism of Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade, for instance. There we look for the deep structures common to humanity. These myths form what is called a meta-language (language about language and more fundamental that the language spoken about) The elements of this language, their equivalent of words, are these basic foundational myths and differences that underlay humanity. This is seen for the mystic as the structure of the Nous or world-mind and for more naturalistic scholars as the common structures of the human brain that evolution developed. The application to literature should be obvious. First off there were those who simply used these structures as "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" references to like minded literary elites. Literary critics began doing psychological other structural analysis of various works. I'm sure we've all had the Freudian discussion of Kafka's _The Metamorphisis_ in college, for instance. What comes out of this is that the work in a sense transcends the author. After all the "deep structures" are more fundamental than even the author's intent. Thus a new form of literary criticism arose in which structure was more important than author, plot, tone or the like. Authors starting using this and it became the basic approach of literary criticism of the 20th century. One clear examples of structuralism is Joyce's _Finnegan's Wake_. But it really was the dominant way of thinking in various guises for most of the 20th century. The opposition actually started rather soon. But it didn't become significant until the 60's and 70's. Some pointed out that any "meta-language" about language, such as these mythic-structures, was itself a language. Thus this meta-language was formed in terms of its own myths. This led to an endless regression from which no one could escape. In a sense by devaluing the author of a work this form of criticism prioritized the authorship of the reading or more importantly the literary critic. This lead to a kind of counter-reformation where the ideals of pre-structuralism were pushed. The other more devestating criticism came through what became known as deconstructionism. This took the basic approach of Heidegger's phenomenology and pointed out a kind stable fixed "truth" that structuralism depended upon but which structuralism also simultaneously denied. The two dominant figures in the US (but not Europe) for this were Derrida and DeMan. Explaining their positions are difficult since they adopt portions of structuralism and have similarities to what is called post-structuralism (that endless regress of meaning). However they much more say that there are not determinate structures - they are always unstable. Further that any writing depends upon determinate structures. Much of their writing is to show a kind of paradox where a text both requires and denies some element of its structure. Out of this arises a kind of "human freedom" which is the very process of writing itself. So in a sense it is a return to the earlier emphasis on author, but one in which the author contains their entire context within them. Many have noted the strong parallels of this form of deconstructionism with the neoPlatonism and even hermeticism of late antiquity or of the medieval mystic writers. It thus leads to a kind of literature as religion (or vice versa). Here are a few good links that may help if the above confused. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jfarrell/courses/myth/topics/ structuralism.html http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1derrida.html http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/structuralism.htm http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/springer.html I'll answer the question about structuralism and Star Wars (as well as the Book of Mormon) in a subsequent post. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] re: Structuralism Date: 06 Jun 2003 12:47:29 -0600 This post will of necessity be briefer than the last. However Eugene's post provided an excellent way of addressing the issue. ___ Eugene ___ | The only satisfactory way that Star Wars III could have | ended (for me) was either for Luke to kill his father | (Darth Vader) or (poor second choice) for Darth Vader | to take the Emperor down with him. Either fall | on his sword or willingly sacrifice himself. First, | on a moral level, were Darth Vader to grasp any sense | of the monster he had become--which we are supposed to | believe he did (literal deathbed repentance)--he and | Luke, if he were any kind of "Jedi," would have | recognized the necessity of such an "atonement." | | Second, the Greeks already established the necessary | archetypes, with Oedipus and Antigone. ___ Eugene's post illustrates one of the problems with structuralism. Typically the structures a text finds itself in and finds within itself are contradictory. Further moving a text from one context to an other leads to problems. Those of you who recall the old film _The Gods Must Be Crazy_ recognize this. There a woman asks an African tribesman if her guide was lying. He shakes his head. She says, "there that proves it." He yells, "that's how they say yes!" The whole genre of "fish out of water" stories play up this problem of context and how meaning takes place within a particular framework. For Eugene, his particular culture (Mormonism) rejects or at least downplays deathbed repentence. Thus the mythic-type of deathbed repentence is rejected. A structural analysis of Star Wars thus takes into consideration this lack of structure. Secondly Eugene critiques Star Wars for not staying close enough to the foundational myths of Oedipus or others. Finally he critiques it in terms of a particular mythic structure of Atonement - not the vicarious suffering kind - but the more traditional death of the cause. Oedipus clearly takes hold of that myth, which is why Oedipus must suffer as he does at the end. I suppose we can see this in many hero stories where the story is basically a plot of revenge based upon this Atonement myth we find in Oedipus and elsewhere. Peace can be *restored* only by the death of the one who brought the disharmony into the society (usually through an event at the beginning of the story) So the plot focuses in on the death of the villian which is, by extension, the death of evil or the cyclic rebirth of harmony. (Sometimes framed as the eternal battle where the waters of evil are held at bay) The problem is that there are other myths, especially in Christianity, of transformation. We have the myths of enlightenment, for instance in Buddhism. The villian or at least misguided is brought face to face with what they value and this leads to a transformation. The harmony is restored not by the death of the evil but by the transfiguration of the evil. It emphasizes a kind of Oneness even of evil and good as opposed to the Oedipus myth which emphasizes a kind of essential dualism. One could well say that the Jedi, with their clear connections to Toaism, Buddhism, Heraclitus, and mystic-Christianity (especially mystic Templars) would favor this transformative view. What we see though is that we are left with what might be termed an aporia. (A paradox) Which is *right*? We can't really say. Eugene says what would have been right for him. But if we are dealing with these myths as myths, should such a choice be possible? This kind of structuralism appears in the Book of Mormon as well. We have the common anti-Christ figures such as Korihor. Typically they are, following Eugene's pattern, killed or at least disfigured and turned into beggars. However with Alma the Younger at the point of potential death, he is transfigured. He is born again and goes around working to undo the evil he did as an anti-Christ. It is interesting that both structures exist in the Book of Mormon. What this suggests is a dualism that can only be resolve through the free will of the agent. The agent is the writer. In sense while the Book of Mormon adopts some clear structures, the structures are themselves more complex than they appear. Further the structures are typically able to be broken. And it is in this moving away from structuralism to the roots of the structure that the Book of Mormon is most interesting. Probably this can be best seen in 2 Nephi 2. There we have some very clear structural analysis of good and evil. It is as if Lehi was Saussuer. Then we have the comment of how there is a "compound in one." (2 Ne 2:11) What moves things from this essential unity to an essential dualism is a choice. Whose choice? Adam's as the foundational myth. But in saying this Lehi is fundamentally also saying that this sense of free choice is more fundamental than structure. Indeed it produces structure (in the context of the structures of this probation, but also in a more fundamental sense). Thus Lehi ends up playing what I'd term a deconstructive game against structuralism. And the Adam and Eve story is important since it is the way one deconstructively analyzes the structures around us to return to their common unity. This is the enlightenment where one sees things as they are and then can act as the free agent. Not necessarily in harmony with the structures but in harmony with ones place as an agent, which is to create structure and to prioritize one opposition above the other. Good over evil for instance. But to prioritize the good over the evil both the good and the evil must be created. To return to Star Wars, I'd simply ask which is a better structure to create and choose. The myth of Alma the Younger or the myth of Korihor? Both are the myth of the anti-Christ which "parallels" in some ways the myth of Darth Vader. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 06 Jun 2003 13:25:15 -0700 For the record, I just picked up a copy of this book at the library. I'll give it a read. ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: BYU Teacher's Attack on Belly Dancing Reveals Lack of Knowledge Date: 06 Jun 2003 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Salt Lake Tribune Article: Attack on Belly Dance Reveals Lack of Knowledge, Scholars Say by Mark Eddington Brigham Young University teacher Lloyd Miller's claim that belly dancing is a historical perversion of authentic Middle Eastern culture is going, well, belly up. Full story: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jun/06062003/utah/63519.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: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 06 Jun 2003 21:39:00 -0400 Well, yeah. In my opinion (strictly) you were being nosey, interfering, and judgmental. Unless you had an ecclesiastical responsibility you should have just kept your mouth shut. Some of my best friends are men. They have been a great strength to me in many ways. And guess what. Sometimes I have to speak to myself rather sternly about emotions that go a little awry. And that's ok with me. I'd rather have to make minor adjustments to a relationship, just as I have to with every relationship that means anything to me, than give up having that relationship in the first place. Yes, I think it makes a difference who you are in relationship to them (I might counsel my daughter, but then again, maybe not.), and your relationship to them (I might bring it up gently with one of my best friends, or not), and whether it was in public or private. I'm sure you can guess my leanings. In my book, the guy who made the comments would be shown to be a bit of a well meaning jackass who realizes in the end that he was interfering in something that was none of his concern, and that he had enough of his own faults to address without worrying about the faults he perceives in others. How you write your story is entirely up to you. Tracie Laulusa -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Kimura" Subject: [AML] _Troy Through a Window_ (Review) Date: 07 Jun 2003 00:42:40 -0500 [List editor: I am the distributor of this video. I would be happy to send review copies to AML or a designated reviewer if somebody other than me -- the person selling this film -- would like to review it.] "Troy Through a Window" A documentary directed by Brad Barber 57 minutes / color / stereo Debuted theatrically in 2002. Video distributed by LDS Video Store Review by Kim Kimura (I'm the distributor.) Text from video cover: For his last film at Brigham Young University, Brad Barber decided to go home to Tennessee for Christmas break to try to answer some questions. He wanted to come to terms with the event that forever changed his life and his devout Mormon family seven years earlier--when his idolized oldest brother announced he was gay. Since Troy came out, it seems as if a window now stands between him and the rest of the family--making two distinct places which each side may see but can't always share. For Brad, interviewing his own family raised new issues to be addressed--How far can each side go to reach through the window and show acceptance to each other? The result is a challenging, emotional, and redeeming look at the effects of this complex, seldom talked about issue in his family. My comments: I hope that people don't think of "Troy Through a Window" as simply a "gay Mormon" video made to push a specific agenda. This really is a film about asking questions, and trying to examine a situation within a single family. There are no statistics or factoids or attempts to comprehensively present the official perspective of any organization or group. Anybody who watches this film, however, will learn a lot. The film has great potential to dispel stereotypes about Latter-day Saints and their attitudes toward gays, just as it can dispel stereotypes about gay people. What makes this film so personal is that it is simply the story of Brad Barber's intensely powerful and honest exploration of what has happened in his own family. With his openness to asking questions and letting people present their own perspectives, it would be impossible to classify the film as "pro-LDS" or "pro-gay," or "anti-gay" or "anti-LDS." People from outside both cultures are most likely to feel the film presents, on balance, a positive picture of both Brad's brother Troy as well as his devout Latter-day Saint family. Through Brad's firsthand experiences when he visits Troy in San Francisco the film touches briefly upon some negative aspects of gay culture, such as hypocrisy and violence. But Troy himself is a pediatrician and, as Brad describes him, is simply "an all-around great guy." There is absolutely no attempt to describe GLBT culture as a whole or cast it in a negative light. It is true that filmmaker Brad Barber's older brother embraced a Gay (GLBT) lifestyle, a development which forever changed the dynamics of their devout Latter-day Saint family. Brad's father was a stake president. Troy had served a faithful mission for the Church. Brad recalls that when it happened, he felt that Troy's "coming out" was about the worst thing he could imagine. But this film is much more about families, and Brad's family specifically, than it is about homosexuality. If you step back and think about it, at least 75% of this film would be the same if it was about a member of any family embracing an outside culture, whether it is a member of a Catholic family becoming a Muslim, or a member of a ranching family embracing the philosophies of PETA. In different ways, the members of Brad Barber's family -- including Troy -- exhibit remarkable Christian charity, tolerance and reconciliation, despite great difficulties. There is also sufficient diversity among the attitudes that they express that everyone who watches the film will find something to criticize or disagree with, if they are inclined to do so. Some people have called this an "important" film. Some people have said it is "courageous" or "controversial." I don't think of it that way. I'm pleased to distribute "Troy Through a Window" primarily because it is a fascinating and well-made documentary. Whether you are a Latter-day Saint, GLBT, conservative, liberal, or all or none of these things, you will find in this film some challenging but very worthwhile ideas and topics. You will also find an inspiring and true story of loyalty to one's family and one's ideals, even when these loyalties seem to be in conflict. "Troy Through a Window" can be ordered online at: http://www.ldsvideostore.com/TroyThruWindow.htm -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 06 Jun 2003 15:26:25 -0600 ___ Barbara ___ | And why would Jesus leave two women to be widows, knowing | he was going to be murdered and had no wordly goods to | leave them? ___ Remember that the early Christians lived a form of the united order. So all things were held in common. Thus this really wasn't that big of an issue. ___ Barbara ___ | Does the Bible ever say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Or | is it one of those notions that spring up, such as that the | sin in the Garden of Eden was a sexual sin? ___ It's likely impossible to discern that. Some see it on the basis of John 10. But that is problematic for many reasons. The tradition certainly was dominant in Gnosticism and potentially from an early period. But they had a Madonna/whore dualism due to their views on matter. (The whole issue of chastity is fundamentally tied to matter) But of course appealing to the Gnostics is problematic. Also one might expect that anti-Christians would make such comments. Just think of all the anti-Christian comments Jewish rabbis said about Jesus. ___ Barbara ___ | Polygamy was not customary at that time among the Jews, | was it? ___ It was uncommon among the rich and virtually non-existent among the poor. I ought to look it up before speaking, but I seem to recall one of the complaints about Herod being his polygamy. If there was polygamy we'd expect some comment on it somewhere. But we don't find it. On the other hand the early Mormons might simply point out parallels with polygamy in the pre-Utah period where it too was done in secret. But I personally think that when Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt or Eliza R. Snow bring up Christ as being a polygamist they are simply proof-texting to justify their own practices. It is hard to read that back into the early texts just because Mary and Martha are mentioned. ___ Barbara ___ | It does seem to me that a marriage, even in that misogynistic | culture, would be important enough to mention in Jesus' life | story. ___ Well the early Mormons did argue that it was mentioned in the story. The marriage feast where the water was turned into wine was Jesus marriage. They also saw the final act of Mary anointing Jesus' feet as significant and the first appearance of Jesus after the resurrection as significant. (Without speaking of the significance) But you are right, the main argument against Jesus being married was the fact that it isn't unambiguously mentioned. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 07 Jun 2003 07:52:19 -0400 Hello, Following this thread vaguely, it's struck me that these restrictions we impose (probably justly on our clergymen, probably inappropriately on ourselves) on friendships between marrieds of opposite sexes is indicative of a much larger problem in our society, the sexualization of encounters/relationships. As I may say some controversial things, I should note that a) I'm a happily married hetero, and b) I'm politically and socially very liberal (and don't require others to be either a) or b)). Oh, yeah, and I think adultery is horrible, vile, and the most heinous sexual relationship between consenting adults, though I don't think society should regulate our sexuality. A few scenarios. 1. I'm at church with my brother. We scratch each other's backs. A member of the audience angrily growls that he's going to "pound the homos." 2. I'm at church with a close male friend, and we give each other back rubs. A female member reprimands us for the "appearance of evil." 3. Male characters in a fiction piece I'm writing touch a lot (never any pudendal contact). Readers of the piece call the contact "confusing," and "homo-erotic," which were not my intent. 4. A friend's father was a bishop in a Western ward. He takes on a recent divorcee as a project for service. He ultimately leaves his wife for this younger woman. 5. A man is distracted by the beauty of his brother's wife and finds it difficult to carry on normal conversations with her. (multiple permutations here) 6. A wife shares a hotel room with an old male friend. Her husband doesn't mind, but her family is scandalized. They demand that she give up old friendships with males. 7. A woman complains that she is deprived of male friendships other than her husband. She finds little sympathy from her peers. 8. A cabbie explains to me in detail (the same day another cabbie shares similar insights) that it's not infidelity unless you love the person you're with, and that men are evolutionarily required to have sex broadly because their capacity to orgasm is indifferent to the identity of the partner. I haven't worked this out yet, though I'd like to approach it somehow in fiction. Our sexualization of relationships ironically neuters our attempts to build friendship. I miss touching my male friends, something that is so charged in current society that I risked being physically attacked by enforcers of a homophobic status quo. I think heteros would benefit vastly from increased capacity to touch non-sexually, as I feel more rooted and connected when I'm able to be affectionate with my friends than when I'm not. I think we lose out on enormous potential sources of good learning and feeling when we sexualize relationships between men and women who are maritally attached to someone else. Our incapacity to understand and deal with the vagaries of physical attraction hinder our ability to have close relationships across the sexes. I encourage my wife's friendships with other men because I know what we share goes beyond sexual attraction and shared interests. I'm not threatened. The problem is in marriages at risk, self-centered individuals poorly invested in the marital relationship. There the intrusion of the simplest similitudes of the marriage covenant from outside (sexual attraction, time spent in proximity, similar interests) has great capacity to disrupt and destroy. So the question, as it so often does, goes something like this: how do we establish a system that can help to protect the weak (those who would sexualize non-sexual encounters or could not distinguish heterosexual friendships from marital relationships) while not forcing mature individuals to sacrifice normal and appropriate intimacy? The current approach carries a spiteful subtext of woman as temptress/succubus that shares a surprising amount with chador and other repressive approaches to female modesty. I don't think there's a great way to resolve it on a social level. I think there are ways to do it on an individual level, with scrupulous attention paid to the health of one's own marital relationship. Attempting, with spouse present, to listen to another's spouse and learn about them as humans, picturing women as men and vice versa, then thinking through how that would affect interactions. Having single people over of both sexes, sharing friends as a couple. The individual who referred to someone as "Sister Smith" perpetuates a way of thinking that is, in my view, petty, smug, self-righteous, and alienating. I hope there will be a future moment when the individual could apologize to the people so casually branded with a prophylactic Scarlet A. -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 06 Jun 2003 14:12:45 -0700 Thom, The theory doesn't account for you. That's why I'm not sold on it myself. I would, however, venture to say that no theory can explain everyone and no theory can be completely applicable to a given person. I doubt any of the theories I've enumerated would be the sole factor in deciding anyone's sexual orientation. I suspect it's a combination of a lot of things in any person. I'll even add that each theory is more based on political biases than on science, including the born-that-way notions. I suppose one of the main reasons I don't subscribe wholly to any of those ideas is because I would hate to be so easily explained. Rex -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Sickbed Reading & Viewing Date: 07 Jun 2003 11:13:57 -0400 Eric, I figure you've seen most of the mainstream stuff that's worth seeing and only some off-beat straight-to-video or limited-release may have slipped past you. That said, I have to second, third, or fourth the _Donnie Darko_ recommend. I only heard of it when it showed up on cable and the description was so far from the substance of the film that I nearly passed it over. An amazing film. For reads, I'd highly urge you to grit your teeth and try to overcome a wise aversion to sci-fi/fantasy. I love it, but it's mostly a waste of time. But a big exception is LDS writer David Farland's (Wolverton) _Runelords_ series. Pay no attention to the embarrassing artwork on the covers. These are fine and moral books that carry a real indictment against capitalism. Heal, Heal! Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 07 Jun 2003 08:16:43 -0700 >>Although I can >>remember his grandmother telling me Christ couldn't have been married to Mary >>Magdalene because she had been a prostitute. It had to have been Mary and >>Martha. Barbara Hume asks: >Does the Bible ever say Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? Or is it one of >those notions that spring up, such as that the sin in the Garden of Eden >was a sexual sin? Er, pardon the pun? The Mary Magdalene tradition conflates Mary Magdalene (Matthew 27:55) with the "woman in the city" (Luke 7:37-50) who annointed the Savior's feet and with Mary of Mary-and-Martha fame. The word "prostitute" is never used in scripture, though the unnamed woman in Luke IS described as a "sinner." You may decide for yourself whether or not they are all the same woman. I think the best argument in favor of the conflation, and the belief that Jesus would have been married to said conflated woman, is that observant and devout Jews do not ever touch a person of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. No, not even a handshake. So THERE, those of you who argue over the propriety of men being alone in the room (or car) with their non-wife. Orthodox Jews would say you don't go nearly far enough. Quit shaking hands! --lmg --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 07 Jun 2003 08:34:30 -0700 >And why would Jesus leave two women to be widows, knowing he was going to >be murdered and had no wordly goods to leave them? Say, could that be a >reason to bring back to life the brother they lived with, and who most >likely provided for them? Actually, why leave one widow? Why marry more >that one woman anyway? Polygamy was not customary at that time among the >Jews, was it? Virtually ALL men marry knowing they'll be leaving a widow. From an eternal perspective, that's not really a factor, is it? Besides, Jewish law explicitly provides for widows. Jesus DID have brothers. WRT your question about the practice of polygamy under the Roman occupation, you'll find this web site educational: . --lmg --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: --------- . -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] Re: SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 07 Jun 2003 12:56:35 -0600 Rex writes: In many ways, it confounds me that the gay community doesn't latch onto an >environmental cause as its preferred explanation. There is still room in such an >explanation to hang upon it calls for tolerance, respect, and equal rights. >There is still room to say they don't know what causes it but that people should >respect their right to choose how they will deal with it. Most gay people I've known have experienced some kind of early sexualization in their lives. IOW, they've had early sex experiences. (It may be that people aren't going to call these experiences abuse; that's another topic). I feel that we learn sexuality the same way we learn everything else; by watching and by experience. I think that in some religious points of view, as in some Catholic thought, masturbation and same-sex experiences aren't equal sins as hetero-sex. It could be a very interesting exploration in story or novel, how an adult excuses him/herself and proceeds to sexualize a kid. Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] GREENAWAY, _The Tulse Luper Suitcases 1: The Moab Story_ (Movie) Date: 07 Jun 2003 08:54:18 -0500 Latter-day Saint characters, including "bad guys" and a love interest for the film's hero are featured in a new film that was screened at this year's Cannes Film Festival last week. Peter Greenaway is a British filmmaker who now lives and works in The Netherlands, where he has been able to obtain funding for his films. The new film that he screened at Cannes is "The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story." It is the first part of an 8-hour trilogy. The trilogy is part of a larger project which includes an extensive website, a video game, books and 92 DVDs. According to IMDb.com, the budget for this film was $10 million. That may b= e the budget for the entire 8-hour trilogy, which I think was filmed all at once, and simply split into 3 films because 8 hours is too long for a singl= e film. This film is Greenaway's 4th nomination for the Golden Palm (Palme d'Or), the top award at the internationally prestigious Cannes Film Festival top prize. Greenaway was previously nominated for "The Draughtsman's Contract," "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" and "Prospero's Books." - Preston Hunter Here are some excerpts from various articles about the film: http://www.screendaily.com/story.asp?storyid=3D12773 The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story Jonathan Romney in Cannes 05 June 2003 Dir: Peter Greenaway. UK-Neth-Sp-Lux-Hung-It-Ger-Russ. 2003. 126mins. The project revolves around the career of adventurer, collector and polymat= h Luper, a figure who flitted in and out of Greenaway's early films. The stor= y traces Luper from childhood in Wales in the 1920s, through his adventures i= n the Moab Desert, Utah, to imprisonment in Antwerp railway station in 1938. Hunting for vanished cities in Utah, Luper (Feild) falls foul of the crypto-fascist Mormon family Hockmeister, after glimpsing the vampish Passion (Dharnernas) in her bathtub. Luper is captured and submitted to various indignities, but hits it off erotically with Passion. *** http://www.nowtoronto.com/minisites/cannes/2003/report0524.php CANNES DAY 11 Saturday, May 24 CANNES, France =AD Staggering into the light after 126 minutes inside the min= d of Peter Greenaway is an experience as surreal as any three Fellini movies.= The Tulse Luper Suitcases - Part I: The Moab Story is the beginning =AD the end will come Greenaway knows when and in what medium =AD it could conclude i= n a website, or a DVD-ROM, and may well. It=B9s a thin, repetitive drama =AD youn= g Tulse lives in a red brick rowhouse, wants to find lost things, goes to Uta= h to find lost cities, wanders into an extremely dysfunctional Mormon family = =AD Greenaway has something like Lars Von Trier=B9s vision of America as a place of baroque yahoos =AD and winds up in Belgium writing on natural history for The Times on the eve of WWII. I think. by John Harkness * * * * http://www.red-mag.com/may29/moab.html theReel =A0 Moab Desert and LDS Church Receive New Interpretation in New Cinematic Art Project By Jeremy Mathews For the first part of his ambitious project about a man who spends his life in prisons, concrete and abstract, UK director Peter Greenaway chose Utah a= s the key location. The typical Utahn, however, won=B9t likely be proud of the association since the state isn=B9t exactly shown in a loving light=8Bunless Mormons stripping a man, painting honey on his... and tying him to a pole i= n the desert is a nice light. =B3The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part I. The Moab Story=B2 played Saturday in competition at the Cannes Film Festival and marks the beginning of a trilog= y that is only part of a giant multimedia project that includes 92 DVDs, an expansive Web site and a video game. The project is a giant biography of a fictional writer, loosely based on Greenaway himself, who spends his life traveling from prison to prison, never able to escape trouble... In the 1930s, the young Luper finds himself in Utah, where he encounters hi= s first imprisonment after the punishment his parents gave him as a child. After he=B9s caught looking at a Mormon woman bathing naked in the middle of the desert, Tulse is arrested, charged with trespassing, tortured (includin= g the aforementioned honey-on... stuff) and beat up. Numbers appear on the screen to count the number of times Tulse is hit, which is at about 40 when the first film ends. The Moab desert is based on the account of a man who hasn=B9t been there, so it looks like a combination of Spanish and Egyptian deserts, with trees and other things. Only a few still photographs show Moab as we know it. Despite the intentionally incorrect landscape, Greenaway has in fact been t= o Moab. =B3The project obviously deals with all sorts of ideas of fate and superstition and religion,=B2 he said. "And many, many of the items and products originate from autobiographical events. [Cinematographer Renier Va= n Brummelen] and I were in Moab about eight years ago... and we trespassed on some property of the national parks just outside Moab and were almost arrested." Greenaway was also interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormons Tulse meets appear again in Belgium, where they are helping the fascist party. =B3The whole phenomenon of new religions related to landscape and the persona of people like Brigham Young and the way that the Mormon communities have organized the deserts and their use of metaphors from the desert=8Afascinated me deeply,=B2 Greenaway said. =B3I=B9m interested in the way religions are constructed. How you take what you need, how you organize your beliefs according to how you want to structure your life. And I think that Mormonism, for me=8Band I speak as an absolute atheist=8Bis an extraordinary, very almost contemporary example of how to construct a religion. And that t= o me was a fascinating investigation.=B2 Greenaway=B9s insights might offend some Utahns, but the project is on the fringe of cinematic art, so they probably won=B9t have to face it head on. * * * http://www.kasanderfilm.nl/tulseluperproduction/synopsis.htm film 1 the moab story a short synopsis the TULSE LUPER SUITCASES covers some sixty years of recent history from 1928 when the existence of a substance called Uranium was to be considered, to the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War in 1989. Tulse Luper, a writer and a project-maker, is caught up in a life of prisons. There are a total of sixteen prisons in the story starting in Sout= h Wales, when Luper is ten years old, locked up for three hours by his father in a coalhouse for running the gauntlet of a series of backyard gardens to sign his name on a crumbling brick wall that collapses. Twelve years later in 1938 in Moab, Utah, Luper is arrested through his contact with an American-German family about to travel to Europe to engage exploitatively in the Second World War. Four members of this family, deeply fascinated with Luper, will act as his jailers, with others interested in uranium, around Europe for the next ten years. In the Cold War years he is imprisoned in Moscow and Siberia, before appearing in Hongkong and Kyoto. I= n the 1980s Luper was apparently sighted in Beijing and in Shanghai. He was last seen in a Manchurian desert. Luper learns to use his prison time, writing on the prisons walls, inventin= g projects in literature, theatre, film and painting, and engaging with his jailers in all manner of plots, schemes and adventures. Because of their responsibilities, jailers are as much prisoners of their prisoners as they are freemen, and this connection of jailer and prisoner permeates this project and provides a great deal of its drama. As Luper's reputation as a writer and project-maker grows in Europe and America, so his person becomes more fictional. A large 'Luper' Symposium an= d Exhibition is held in the Brooklyn Museum in New York. Many Luper lecturers offer their theories and propositions on the various stages of Luper's life= . The central exhibit of the conference and exhibition is a collection of 92 suitcases - 92 appropriately being the atomic number of Uranium - suitcases that Luper had supposedly been associated with in his travels and prisons. Over the years, the suitcases come to light all over the world. On the last evening of the 'Luper' New York Conference, a long awaited Lupe= r suitcase - suitcase 92 - is opened...... * * * http://movies.yahoo.com/news/va/20030524/105379559300.html Cinema Stale, Passive, Needs Reinventing-Greenaway Saturday May 24 9:59 AM ET Outlandish British film director Peter Greenaway wrote off today's cinema a= s formulaic and predictable, as he presented his latest bizarre visual feast on Saturday. Greenaway, whose "The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story" is the first in a trilogy, also suggested film festivals like Cannes are obsolete... The new piece tracks Greenaway's alter-ego hero Tulse Luper through a historical voyage around the world, from wartime Wales to warped adventures with Mormons in Utah and on to Europe. Essentially an eight-hour film cut into three, the movie plays around with narrative, script and avant-garde visuals to produce something most will either adore or utterly loathe. The story begins on a stage set and moves to the Utah desert where Luper soon finds himself tied to a post, his genitals smeared with honey, fightin= g off flies. Greenaway said people should see the film more than once to appreciate it. "I make no apology for saying these are films that should be seen many times. I want to make films that can offer up their meaning only after repeated viewing." He did not say if the DVDs were also compulsory viewing. "Shakespeare wrote a play called Hamlet in which you have to take in all yo= u want to know about him in 2-1/2 hours. I can stretch my hero's life to 3,00= 0 light years," Greenaway said... ----- http://www.salon.com/june97/greenaway2970606.html THE SALON INTERVIEW PETER GREENAWAY CONTINUED What's next for you? I'm working on this huge project that's going to be 18 hours long. It's called the "Tulse Luper Suitcase." Tulse Luper is a sort of alter ego I created many many years ago -- Tulse to rhyme with pulse, and Luper is the Latin for wolf. So he's the wolf on your pulse. And the metaphor for the film is that there's no such thing as history, there are only historians; it's about the subjectivities of history. It starts by discussing American fascism in 1933 in Utah, and finishes at the end of the Cultural Revolution in Manchuria, in China -- from one desert to another. A huge, enormous spread. But also it's the history of uranium, which is the ultimate America= n treasure, which has put you where you are. Now with the end of the Cold War= , your treasure is being buried again, which relates to the origins of the Mormons, who are always looking for treasure. And I play all sorts of games with the mnemonics of USA and U for uranium. Christopher Hawthorne is a writer and editor living in Berkeley. * * * http://www.tribnet.com/24hour/entertainment/movies/news/v-southsound/story/= 8 97406p-6251859c.html Director Peter Greenaway's goal: 'reinvent' cinema By CLAIRE ROSEMBERG, Agence France-Presse Tulse Luper himself is a writer and project-maker who is jailed 16 times in the trilogy, which begins in Wales, shifts to Utah's Moab desert and the Mormons, then goes on to Antwerp where Luper is arrested by Belgian fascists... Along with the three films, the project notably includes the making of a TV series of 16 40-minutes shows, a three-year website, books, 1001 loveletter= s and 92 DVDs about the 92 suitcases that feature in the film. The Tulse Luper film is Greenaway's fourth nomination for Cannes' top prize= , the Palme d'Or. Earlier successes include critically-acclaimed "The Draughtsman's Contract," "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" and "Prospero's Books." * * * http://movies.yahoo.com/cannes/news/fsc/20030527/105408133000.html Greenaway Unpacks TULSE LUPER SUITCASES Tuesday May 27 5:22 PM ET Tulse Luper =AD where =B3tulse rhymes with pulse,=B2 explained Mr. Greenaway at a press conference holding his wrist with doctor-like briskness, and =B3luper i= s Latin for wolf=B2 as in =B3the wolf on your pulse=B2 =AD is a man who makes best us= e of his time while in captivity, which is most of the time. There are a tota= l of 16 prisons in his life =AD one for each episode of The Moab Story, the trilogy=B9s first part, from the coalhouse his father locked him in at 10 whe= n Luper ran the gauntlet of a series of backyard gardens to sign his name on = a crumbling brick wall to a desert prison in Moab, Utah, and bathroom arrests in Antwerp during WWII... Covering sixty years in the world=B9s recent history from the discovery of Uranium in 1928 to the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the end of the cold war, the film follows Tulse Luper=B9s (J.J. Feild) adventures from his childhood in South Wales to his excursions in Moab Utah, where he runs into a family of German-American Mormons who become his jailers for the nex= t ten years in Europe. Jailers and prisons, both physical and mental, become = a theme for the aspiring professional prisoner who hopes to make an art of th= e craft of captivity. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Deseretnews.com: "Farley Family Reunion" Still Has Touch Date: 07 Jun 2003 15:42:57 -0700 (PDT) 'FARLEY FAMILY REUNION' STILL HAS TOUCH This Utah classic still works. You'd think that a series of bits about the kind of family reunion that everyone in Utah has attended -- at least once -- would wear thin after a while. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C505037757%2C00.html ===== 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: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 10 Jun 2003 01:37:43 -0500 Okay, I've persuaded myself to give my own brain dump on this issue... I lack Rex's knowledge base, particularly regarding formal SSA theories and how they play out in the Mormon community. However, here are some of the ideas that I've heard tossed around with regard to origins of SSA. As regards my own personal opinion: based on both observations and logic, I'm inclined to believe both that (a) no single theory accounts for everything, and (b) there are many different homosexualities (so to speak), and the origins of sexual attraction for one person may be quite different from those for someone else. Why should this surprise us? We see constant evidence that in the realm of heterosexuality, sexuality means entirely different things to different people; why should we expect to find it any different in the realm of SSA? I'd also draw attention to the difficulty of figuring out exactly what same-sex attraction means. Does it refer to surface-level default sexual attraction--who you have crushes on, what gender enters your thoughts at sexual moments? Does it refer to individuals you have, or could have, sexual relations with (a rather different matter)? Does it refer to who you crave emotional intimacy with? Does it refer to who you want to establish a lifelong partnership or relationship with? I don't think that these are always the same groups for us as individuals. Anyway, back to my original mission of trying to describe some various origin-notions of SSA: * First, there's the genetic determinism theory, already mentioned by Rex--the "gay gene" theory. He's already said plenty about the political and scientific problems of this one. I'll just add that I've heard of research suggesting that identical twins separated from birth have a higher-than-chance likelihood of both being homosexual if either one is homosexual, which would suggest a genetic component, at least; but I don't know how reliable that research is. Anyway, that gets us into the next category, which is... * The contributing genetic component theory. This accounts for many of the flaws of the earlier theory by suggesting that there's a kind of genetic predisposition which can then be triggered by environmental or other factors, but that this is only one factor, not a "cause." I'll add that this seems much more plausible to me: I find it easier to believe that there could be genetically influenced personality traits which, poured into the cauldron of a specific family and social upbringing, could lead to same-sex attraction, than that something as nuanced as sexual feeling could be directly determined by genetics. * There's the pregnant blood-chemistry/fetal trauma theory. I think someone mentioned this one already, with regard to the theory that hormonal fluctuation during pregnancy might contribute to homosexuality? Anyway, I don't know what the evidence for this one is. * There's the arrested-development theory: an old idea that arises (in part) out of the Freudian theory of stages in sexual development. It's based in part on the recognition that same-sex experimentation seems fairly common in late childhood and early adolescence, when girls are still being avoided, and assumes that for those who carry SSA into childhood, there's something that simply got stuck and failed to move ahead. This is certainly not a popular theory in the gay community, but I can see how those who hold onto an LDS perspective might feel that there could be some truth in it. Some version of this theory may be popular with some SSA Mormon men because it suggests that SSA can at some point (eternally, if not in this life) be "outgrown." * There's the sexual imprinting theory. Cathy Wilson mentioned one version of this: that sexual activity can sexualize children at a fairly early age. Of course, there are many homosexual men who haven't been exposed to sex until they seek out sexual experiences for themselves, which would seem to eliminate that explanation in their case at least. However, I recall running across the suggestion once that fantasizing about male genitals (particularly in a context of early puberty) might increase the chances of homosexuality. I don't know what evidence there may be behind this idea, but it does seem to extend the possibilities for sexual imprinting as having an impact in cases where there is no overt "sexual initiation" to point to. * There's the missing-father/male-figure theory, one of the most popular among those who reject the genetic explanations: the notion that those who grow up homosexual have in many cases experienced a void in the area of male intimacy, which they attempt to make up through acting out on a sexual level. Relating on the most basic level of masculine identity, as it were. >From what I have observed, there are elements of this theory that resonate with many SSA LDS men. There are at least two versions of this theory, one focusing on male intimacy in childhood, the other focusing on male connections during adolescence. The second version includes feeling alienated from one's peers because of "different" interests: art and books, for example, as opposed to sports and cars. Both versions seem to have some resonance for many SSA men--though as other posters have pointed out, there are of course many men with "nontraditional" interests who are fully heterosexual, as well as SSA men who share traditional male interests. * There's the mostly discarded fear-of-females theory, combined with a perhaps more subtle fear of family responsibilities in general. Although I don't believe that you hear this much anymore from those with professional credentials in this field, I think it still has some cultural currency; and it does seem to resonate with some SSA men (from what I've seen). Of course, it's hard to tell cause from effect in this case: are you attracted to other men because you fear women, or do you fear intimacy with women because your real attraction is to men? This theory I think also has connections with the "feminizing" theories: that if your socialization is predominantly feminine, you may want up both alienated from men (but wanting a deeper connection to them) and scared of women (and avoiding intimacy with them). I find this one interesting in a Mormon context in part because, if there's any truth in it, it suggests that for some youth, our emphasis on the responsibilities of marriage may backfire by making marriage even scarier than it would otherwise be. * Homosexuality as response to population pressure. As a science fiction writer I love this one, but I admit that I don't know that I've ever come across anyone who took it seriously. Sigh. * Homosexuality-as-easier. This postulates that it's basically easier for men to connect to men, and women to women, and that if the male-female socialization fails for some reason, the "easier" nature of same-sex relationships may kick into gear. (Note that this seems to contradict the notion Rex mentioned that sexual attraction arises out of a sense of mystery. I wonder if there's some way of combining/reconciling both ideas?) * The fluid sexuality theory. This suggests that for many men, sexuality can go in many different directions, and experience (and choice) play a role in determining where it does go. One variation of this is the falling-in-love theory, which postulates that some men may wind up "gay" because they fall in love with someone who happens to be male. * The sexuality-as-misdirected-intimacy theory. According to this notion, the villain of the piece may be our modern society for (a) reducing and (b) sexualizing male-male contact. This idea often goes hand-in-hand with the deficient-in-male-intimacy theory mentioned above, but uses a kind of crossed-wires metaphor instead of emphasizing the idea of unfilled needs. Practically speaking, this can be an important distinction, since behavior that is seen as trying to fill unmet needs (according to one metaphor) could instead be seen as reinforcing incorrect patterns (according to the other metaphor). **** Many of the preceding ideas are often encountered in some kind of combination with each other. I've separated them out to reflect, not actual theories that have been advanced by specific specialists (which I don't know very much about), but rather some of the different component ideas that I've heard tossed around, of which theories might be made. Obviously, there's a lot that could be done with these various theories in creating literature that features SSA Mormon men. I don't think it's necessary to arrive at any definite conclusion about which theory or theories you favor in order to write convincingly about SSA; but in a Mormon context where SSA is seen as something to be overcome, there's clearly going to be a lot of concern about causation, if only to try to determine what kinds of therapy/treatment/endurance may be best for living toward that goal. Notice, too, that these different theories have very different implications in terms of whether you consider public tolerance of homosexuality to be a problem or not. Using the labels I've coined above, if you believe in the sexual imprinting theory, or the homosexuality-as-easier theory, or the fluid sexuality theory, then it follows logically that greater public tolerance of homosexuality could lead to a greater incidence of homosexuality. Other theories, on the other hand, would suggest no positive link between public tolerance and sexuality. In fact, some of the theories would suggest that intolerance of homosexuality could lead to an *increased* incidence of homosexuality by bringing increased suspicion on expressions of male-male intimacy. One of the interesting points about some of the theories Rex mentioned as being currently in favor among many SSA Mormon men and their LDS therapists is that they seem to suggest not repression but channeling as a way of dealing with homosexual feelings. That kind of approach works better if you believe that homosexuality isn't really about homosexuality at all, as it were: if you believe instead that it is a misdirecting of something else. Behavior (such as physical, nongenital touching--e.g., hugs) that could be seen as fueling the fire in some contexts can become a positive thing if seen in this light. It's a very complex mixture of ideas, particularly when you add specifically Mormon beliefs such as the eternally decreed nature of heterosexual marriage, the embracing of sexuality as a part of eternal human nature, and the notion that as children of God anything that is truly a basic part of us must in essence be a good thing, even if misdirected. **** One final point. Margaret Young listed several pieces of Mormon writing that deal with SSA in a Mormon context. I would add Carol Lynn Pearson's memoir _Goodbye, I Love You_, about her husband Gerald, despite its (in my view) vaguely smug and self-satisfied tone in talking about issues of SSA and the Church. But I find it interesting that none of these (except possibly for the John Bennion piece, which I haven't read) fall within the category I originally asked about: that is, literary depictions of faithful mainstream LDS facing the struggle of managing themselves in a way that fits the Church's guidelines. Most of the works Margaret mentioned were nonfiction. Some were clearly non-mainstream in focus. What I didn't see any mention of was characters--either main characters or minor characters--for whom SSA was simply a fact of life with which they struggled. Mormon literature, even faithful Mormon literature, even DB-appropriate literature, seems able to deal (in some constricted ways) with issues of heterosexual misconduct, drugs, intellectual doubt, handicap, and other similar challenges (internal or external) to faithful LDS living. But I do not see that *in Mormon literature*, there is so far any space that has been taken up with characters, youth or adult, main characters or supporting cast, for whom SSA is dealt with in corresponding fashion. And yet I believe that for SSA individual within the church this *is* the mainstream experience--that there are more youths and men struggling to live by Church teaching in this area than leaving the Church over it, though of course I can't know if this is the case. In any event, it seems to me that these stories are not making it into our literature, where they could provide a much more realistic way of thinking about the issue--and more interesting, well-rounded characters. In my view. Anyway, enough (and more than enough) said on this issue, by me at any rate. I suppose that unless I'm going to write a story myself, I really don't have much call to complain any more about it... Jonathan Langford Speaking as list member, not list moderator jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Structuralism Date: 10 Jun 2003 10:54:18 -0600 Clark Goble writes: > For Eugene, his particular culture (Mormonism) rejects > or at least downplays deathbed repentance. Thus the > mythic-type of deathbed repentance is rejected . . . . I actually was not thinking at all in terms of my own beliefs. I long ago concluded that the New Testament, if it argues for anything, argues for repentance, up to and including total Godly and existential exoneration, any place, any how, any time. Growing up, I must have deeply imbibed how nothing ticked my dad off like the glib conclusion bandied about in Sunday school lessons that King David was a lost soul, period, no chance of getting into heaven, he. It's difficult to read from the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20) anything but the totally opposite conclusion. And note that Vader is not the one going about blowing up planets. That is left to the "good Nazi" bureaucrats running the Empire, in contrast to whom Darth Vader actually *believes* in something, even if it is the "dark side." I think Lucas's best directorial moment occurs in Star Wars I (speaking in terms of release date) when Vader finds himself in the company of bunch of cool, calculating, and thoroughly agnostic apparatchiks and storms out growling in frustration at their "lack of faith." Lucas has here perfectly captured C.S.Lewis's insight that true evil is "conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaved cheeks who do not need to raise their voice." My objections to the decline and fall of Star Wars *as story* arise not out of a failure of cultural expectations, but out of the failed structure of the story itself. Watching Star Wars I and Star Wars II, I detected what seemed to me very obvious patterns, definite foreshadowings, uses of "shadows and types," vectors and directions in plot. I don't think I was alone: it's what Campbell and Moyers latched onto with a vengeance. (Lucas got way carried away with this in Star Wars IV when he implies a virgin birth, at which point you exclaim, "Oh, give me a break!") The important point, though, is that Vader is part of, not separate from, the same belief system as Obi Wan, *who sacrificed (at least his mortal) life for Luke* and the greater cause of redeeming the Galaxy. (Compare and contrast: Obi Wan/Jesus and Darth Vader/Judas.) Granted, artists can break fourth walls and abuse the trust and expectations of the audience and get away with it, even enhance the work in question, but exceptions prove rules by being exceptional--that is, rare, and not to be attempted by amateurs. If Lucas wanted to write a script about deathbed repentance, then he chose the wrong movie for this particular ending. Hayao Miyazaki, for example, points out that in his science fiction classic, "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind" (no U.S. release yet, but an English translation of his original manga is available on Amazon), the protagonist must be a girl because, unlike Hamlet, she contemplates revenge for her father's violent, unjust death for about five minutes and then abandons the idea forever, something melodramatically unacceptable to the male protagonist of practically any culture you can think of. And if in the end were Miyazaki to throw in a dramatic "Die Hard" scene with Nausicaa blowing away the bad guys (and there are plenty of opportunities for her to do so), no matter what system of "moral justice" it might fit into, it would feel all wrong, even repugnant (and I quite liked "Die Hard"). My intent in throwing out the examples of Oedipus, etc., then, was not to defend some definitive, accepted structure of all stories told about sin and redemption, but to suggest that maybe, given the themes and plots he was playing around with, George Lucas should have paid closer attention to people who have proven track records when it comes to telling such stories with substance and staying power. In this sense I will confess to being a fellow-traveler with the deconstructionists: I (theoretically, at least) won't care who the author is or why the author did what he did or what he had for breakfast or what god he worships as long he tells a *good story.* When he doesn't, though, the gloves come off. [Eugene Woodbury] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 09 Jun 2003 14:25:34 -0600 I'm sorry, but I just find this one of the funniest movies ever made. = Unintentionally so. I mean, come on, Clint Eastwood (!) wandering = through a forest singing 'I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to = me.' Geez, Clint, if they won't listen to you, blow 'em away. And Lee = Marvin singing everything three octaves lower than written because, hey, = that's his tessatura. And then this guy we've never heard of shows up = to sing They Call the Wind Maria, a really pretty tune which has nada to = do with the story, and which has astoundingly idiotic lyrics, causing = the imp in your mind ask why they DO call the rain 'Tess' and the fire = 'Joel.' ("Dirt we call Fred, and that scum you get in a pond sometimes, = we call that Pete, and Elm trees we call Zeke trees just, 'cause, you = know, they kinda remind us of ol' Zeke.") The Mormon stuff I don't find = offensive, because it's just a silly solution to a silly plot point, but = the rest of the movie gives me the giggles just thinking about it. =20 Jean Seberg is lovely in the film, of course, but her story is one of = the great Hollywood tragedies, by which we mean young, lovely, talented, = and taken from us early. So there's an undercurrent of sadness in the = film anyway, seeing a wonderful talent wasting her sadly too limited = time in a bad movie. =20 But it is a bad movie, isn't it? I mean, seriously, can anyone watch = Clint Eastwood warble away about singing to trees and not get the = giggles? Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 09 Jun 2003 14:55:27 -0700 Larry Jackson asks (re his sarcastic "hello sister so-and-so" comment on seeing someone driving someone else of the opposite gender, alone together in car): "It was on purpose, and I was sending a message. Which brings up some questions to be answered in the next great literary LDS novel on friendship, relationship, love, and marriage. Was it appropriate or was it improper? Was this meddling into business that was none of mine? Was I being a "moral conscience" enforcer or a friend? Does it make a difference whether it was done loudly and in public or quietly so no one else could hear? Does who they were or who I was make any difference? Are there other circumstances in the lives of those involved that would make such a comment either proper or improper? Besides telling more of the story, how should I handle this scene when I write my book?" Since you ask for opinions, I can only give my opinion, but I have to tell you (if you REALLY want to know) that my initial reaction to your story was to find myself feeling quite offended. If I had the been the guy, I'd have been ticked-off at you, and been lible to lable you with a host of rather colorful and descriptive pejoratives words. As a joke, I think your "sister so-and-so" story is hilarious. As a serious "sending a message" tactic, I find it repulsive. (Just my opinion.) Several reasons for this: I believe in open, frank communication. I also love irony, satire, etc., in context, but with respect to people's problems or issue with each other, straight-talking is the only effective way, IMO. "Headgames" (in which I include innuendo, slights, satire, veiled jabs, etc.) all strike me as both immature and counterproductive. Counterproductive because they either are missed entirely by the intended audience, or they strike ire in the one towards which they are directed. Contrarily, straightforward talking, while it may still offend (depending on the receiver) can never be misinterpreted, and it implies a respect between the individuals. It implies you value those whom you are trying to "correct." Whereas the other is insulting, and designed to shock or create some emotional response, "get a rise," as it were. Where is the good in that? You see, the jabbing satire scenario (IMO) is designed to empower YOU (and make YOU look tough, smart, savvy, holier-then-thou, etc.) , whereas straight-out, private, conversation expressing a concern is designed to empower the one you are talking to. Again, just an opinion. (You asked.) In a story, characters obviously would behave this way, and you could have some delicious fun dealing with both sides. The guy (your character) feeling justified and thinking about making the remark, doing it, how it made him feel to see the expressions change, etc. Then, on the flip side, you could go into the heads of the receiving-end characters and have all kinds of fun observing the various reactions (including even my infamous "he may be right, but he's still an a*****e!"). So I think that in a lit situation, this is a very realistic and dramatic scenario and very appropriate for a story or book. I mean it HAPPENED, and things like this do happen all the time. But, I think (if you are doing a survey), if you did not address the possibility of offense on behalf of the receiving party, you would not, as an author, be true or complete to your exploration of the situation. And, having said that, my wonder, on the personal note, is that this possibility of offence did not cross your mind at the time in real life, and if it did, what was your reaction to the thought, and why did you dismiss it? To the other questions, the presence or absence of others only increases or decreases any sense of embarrassment or discomfort, compounding any reactions which might have been there. With respect to your relationship to the individuals, or your position in the church (for example, if you where their bishop), it would have a great impact on the situation. If you were in a position of authority over them, you might be in a position to make such a comment, but it would make your sarcastic, caustic manner all the more improper. If you were not in a position of authority, by clearly making yourself a "judge" in such a case you beg the question, "Who are YOU to be telling me that?" In my opinion, the only time such a comment could truly be effective is if everyone involved took it as a joke and laughed, but then were made to think about their choices, and come to whatever decision they might. Recognize -- and this is important -- I am not commenting in any way on the correctness or incorrectness of the POLICY. I am only offering an opinion on your (and by extension your literary character's) "enforcement" TACTIC with respect to the policy now in existence. That is what is in question. And I find the tactic dubious. The only REALLY effective scenario (IMO), is if it was a truly innocent comment, where the "hello sister-so-and-so" guy truly thought that's who she was, and the shock of the sister was genuine and made her realize that she, by riding in the car alone with her non-husband driver, had given that impression. Any other situation smacks of holier-than-thou to me, and seems counterproductive (depending on your true goal). The goal of the "you" character is really the most important consideration, IMO, from a literary standpoint. What are the driving factors, the motivations, behind the statement and its delivery? What does the character hope to achieve? What are his "action verbs," to use the acting terminology? What is his "objective"? Handling this scene in a book or story, you would have a myriad of ways and directions to handle it, depending on the various personalities and genuine goals of the characters involved. If the "you" character was genuinely concerned, had sincere desires to teach and instruct (let's say you were in a position of 'authority' over the two others), and you thought that a semi-humorous disarming of the situation was a good approach, then you would have to discuss those goals, desires, and the outcome based on the reaction of the other two and how the conversation would evolve. If your desire was to shock, jab, poke, stun, humble, belittle, berate, or any other thing, you must deal with that character's motivations as to WHY those would be his goals, and then again, what is the reaction of the other two to them. Complex stuff, and a very good story scenario. As a what-if, I say bravo: Go to it. Write well. But if you ever did something like this to me in real life, I'd punch in your face... even if you were my bishop. (Okay, maybe not in real life...but that WOULD be a pretty fun thing to do in the book!) Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] _Troy Through a Window_ (Review) Date: 09 Jun 2003 14:59:41 -0700 I would certainly be interested in reviewing the film if it becomes available. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 09 Jun 2003 15:00:23 -0700 And now I'm done with it. Folks, this was the *perfect* summer read. A feast for the eyes and the intellect. If you like a good read, this is it. Wonderful! ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: Knight Rocks LDS Celebration Date: 09 Jun 2003 18:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Salt Lake Tribune Article: Knight Rocks LDS Celebration by Peggy Fletcher Stack Gladys Knight had the historic Mormon Tabernacle on Temple Square rockin' on its footings Sunday night as she directed her own gospel choir performing what can only be called "soulful" arrangements of familiar Mormon hymns. Full story: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jun/06092003/utah/64466.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: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 09 Jun 2003 21:05:03 -0400 replies to two of Larry's posts: first he replied to this comment of Barbara Hume's by saying: [Barbara]: 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. _______________ [Larry]: I figure there's no sense finding out if you're right or not. [grin] amelia now: now, i understand this was probably said with a wry twist of humor. but there's an attitude here that i believe pervades mormon society's approach to life. this idea that we're better off never getting ourselves into a situation that might hurt us. why, for instance, should we find out if that constantly-swearing, drinking, having-sex-with-his-girlfriend non-member is someone we'd like to know, for instance. it's obvious he's leading a bad life and could be nothing but a bad influence. just one example. i think there's infinite sense in finding out if you're right or if you're wrong. if i go through life assuming that others will hurt me when given even the slightest opportunity, or that exposure to people who believe differently from me and therefore act differently from me will somehow inherently damage my spiritual sensitivity, then i'll end up denying myself some of the most beautiful experiences i could otherwise have had. and i'll deny myself the opportunity to know other people in a way that will allow me to truly empathize with them and love them. in other words, to become more christlike. that, in my opinion, would be a tragedy. as far as the argument that we should avoid the appearance of evil. i guess i dismissed it years ago. i can't live constantly guessing what other people may or may not think. and frankly they have no business watching me and then deciding if i'm good or bad. no business at all. i believe that the possibility of a perception of inappropriate behavior regardless of what really happened is the lousiest excuse imaginable for not doing something that is utterly innocent. it immediately renders almost anything suspicious. how can we live our lives that way? we imprison ourselves in a little world that barely extends beyond the boundaries of our selves. in reply to Larry's second post in which he asks for a response: i don't know what message you thought you were sending but the ones i see are extremely frustrating: that you have some kind of right to judge other's behavior; that individuals should be concerned about what others may think of an innocent act they have done; that men belong in one world and women belong in another; that somehow a woman's consent to ride in a car with a man or vice versa (really, let's think about the utterly ridiculous nature of the belief that this is somehow compromising) is a consent to engage in an inapproriate intimacy with a man to whom she is not married. the list could continue. i don't see a single good message in the entire story. of course, i don't know all the details so i'll acknowledge the slim possibility that a good message exists. it is behaviors like this that make me believe that mormon culture is the most shallow culture i have ever experienced. because we teach trust and love and acceptance but we demand this thin surface of perfection so people deliver it at any cost, hiding who they truly are under an act of what they think they should be. and when someone slips, no matter how miniscule the slip, they are immediately reprimanded culturally. i know i've stated things starkly here and they're not as bad as i've made them sound. i know there is a lot of good and beauty in our culture, but there's plenty of bad that we could focus on improving. our time would be much better spent rooting out the proclivity to be overly concerned with what it looks like our neighbor may possibly be doing than trying to instruct that neighbor that they shouldn't be doing the thing that they are most likely not doing at all. amelia _________________________________________________________________ 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: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Deseret News: Knight & Co. Put Zip In LDS Hymns Date: 09 Jun 2003 18:19:04 -0700 (PDT) KNIGHT & CO. PUT ZIP IN LDS HYMNS In a performance unlike any ever hosted in the Tabernacle on Temple Square, Grammy award-winner Gladys Knight and company gave a whole new meaning to the kind of gospel music the building has traditionally played host to. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C505038994%2C00.html ===== 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: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: BYU Teacher's Attack on Belly Dancing Date: 09 Jun 2003 20:10:22 -0600 > Salt Lake Tribune Article: > Attack on Belly Dance Reveals Lack of Knowledge, Scholars Say > by Mark Eddington > Brigham Young University teacher Lloyd Miller's claim that belly dancing > is a historical perversion of authentic Middle Eastern culture is going, > well, belly up. > > Full story: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jun/06062003/utah/63519.asp > R.W. Rasband Might be nice if the SL Tribune did some fact checking. Llyod (who I've taken a class from) only teaches at BYU part time (and only onec class a semester). He has taught at the University of Utah full time in the past. U of U has a lot more claim on him than BYU does. But then again, playing up his U of U connections might not fit in with the Tribune's editorial policy of always trying to make BYU look bad. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 09 Jun 2003 22:30:18 -0400 I don't often completely agree with anyone on a post, but Michael has come as close as another can do to express my feelings. When the question first was asked, I was so bothered by Larry's reaction that my first feeling was that I'd better not answer to avoid the moderator (I think I made a mistake the other day, stating that almost all my posts had made it to the list over the years. I'm afraid it was a challenge . Since I made the comment I am just a little over fifty percent). I am afraid that many of us spend a lot of time correcting others, and when not correcting, thinking about correcting. It makes a good start to a challenging interaction between characters in a story, but otherwise gets close to the mote and the beam metaphor. [Richard Johnson] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 09 Jun 2003 22:35:59 -0400 I have heard good things about it and it's predecessor which is similar in structure. Interestingly enough, according to the latest NEWSWEEK there is a budding court case accusing the author of plagiarism. Richard Johnson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: BYU Teacher's Attack on Belly Dancing Reveals Lack of Knowledge Date: 09 Jun 2003 22:49:29 -0400 I received a copy of that article by e-mail Sunday and have been fascinated to see or read Cathy Wilson's take on it. (remembering that in the "old days" she wrote very interestingly about her adventures with a belly dancing troupe.) An interesting take on this subject would deal with "when" something becomes part of the culture. According to Lloyd Miller, he discovered, while doing research in Turkey that belly dancing was not a "real" part of the culture because it had been introduced by a prostitute only about a hundred years ago, and that middle easterners were offended by it. In my jaunt through Turkey a couple of years ago, I watched a belly dancing competition on television, heard it discussed much like any other normal cultural phenomenon (and, as part of a tour group, was guided into belly dancing performances by the same guide who took us to watch the dervishes in religious dancing.) I certainly didn't get the impression that anyone in the area was offended by it. It is a side note that in the Moroccan restaurant in Savannah, GA, most of the belly dancers are local college girls who have taken up the sport, though the featured belly dancer about two weeks ago was a native Moroccan who was in the latter months of pregnancy. Richard Johnson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: BYU Teacher's Attack on Belly Dancing Reveals Lack of Knowledge Date: 09 Jun 2003 23:21:32 -0600 Belly dancing is fun, very good exercise and is what you make it (graceful or obscene). I have seen belly dancing in this country, in Egypt and in Turkey. I don't consider it any different than Polynesian dancing, just a different technique. I traveled for a month in Polynesia and saw most every type of dancing. There is no difference. All forms of dance can be graceful, sensual and lovely, just as they can be lewd, vulgar and indecent. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 09 Jun 2003 23:31:10 -0600 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > >-----Original Message----- > >spiritual prompting. I consider it a guideline and one that > >is necessary due to the fallen world we live in.=20 >=20 > Only to the extent that one chooses to live in the fallen=20 > world wearing the armor of fear and mistrust. This is a=20 > policy that basically says, to both men and women, "We don't=20 > trust you to act like righteous adults on your own so we are=20 > going to impose yet another restriction on your already=20 > burdened life." > To impose=20 > this restriction is to restrict the freedom of choice of the=20 > righteous majority because of the actions of a minority. I=20 > can see expecting such "rules" with single teenagers perhaps=20 > but not at all with adults. > Yes, the stakes can be high. But at what point do we let=20 > adults stand up and take responsibility for their own actions=20 > instead of treating them like children? =20 Thom, I said "guideline" for a reason. I'm all for moral agency and = adults acting like adults and taking responsibility for their own actions. But while the subject of this thread has "Restrictions" in it, I have yet to hear anybody talking about anything sinister enough to warrant such a = strong reaction here. I think that the panic button got hit a little = prematurely. No penalties have been discussed outside of potential consequences. = Nobody is being charged with "being alone with a non-spouse." No church court = has been called. I've only ever heard of this "restriction" as a guideline. I've never = heard of direct censure as a result of being alone with a member of the = opposite sex. Given the possible consequences and the ease of misunderstanding, = it's a good idea to bear certain dangers in mind so that appropriate judgment = can be made. This is one instance where you don't want even one person to = have to learn the hard way that they had made an oversight out of ignorance. =20 > > It can take very little to > >break a family apart, particularly when accompanied by the=20 > >additional stresses provided by church and work. A vicious=20 > >rumor that cannot be repudiated can have tragic consequences. >=20 > The fact that someone else might misconstrue a man giving a=20 > sister in the ward a ride home as something other than=20 > Christian kindness is hardly a reason to curb one's actions. =20 I'm not talking about gossip. Gossip will always be with us, will = always be damaging, and is a stronger sin than we give it credit for. But gossip isn't my concern, and I don't think it is the concern behind the policy/guideline/restriction. Mere gossip is easily overcome by simply following-up with the individuals involved and ascertaining if there are further concerns--should such follow-up be necessary. Much more serious are situations that ecclesiastical leaders of all = faiths find themselves in when a person who is fragile to begin with decides to = do active harm. It's one thing when the ward busy-body starts talking = about so and so being alone with what's her name. It's something else entirely = when a person who has been known to be emotionally fragile makes a direct accusation against someone they had been alone with for a considerable period of time. It is good to bear in mind that our society presumes = guilt in such situations (and right or wrong, that *is* the presumption). > >And even if the effects aren't permanent, they can be very > >damaging all the same. >=20 > It is a slippery slope to direct one's actions based on what=20 > other's may misperceive. It is better in all cases,=20 > spiritual or literary, to follows one's own light and let the=20 > consequences follow if the myopic other cannot see correctly. I'm not worried about misperception. I'm worried about false and = malicious accusation. If you want to leave yourself open to that, it is your = choice. And truth be told, I don't take the restriction terribly seriously when = I'm with friends and people I trust. But I *do* pay attention when I'm with people I'm only vaguely familiar with. It'd be nice if I could trust everyone in the church just because they're active, and I think that on = the whole we *are* a good and decent people. But we also take care of those = in need and it isn't always terribly obvious who might not be as stable as = they appear. We, like Jesus, often find ourselves in the company of tax collectors and lawyers and other unsavory types. We do everything we = can to be open and inviting (at least, those church members I know do so). As such, it is useful to remind ourselves from time to time that we should = be aware of the potential for certain little things we might otherwise = overlook to blow up in our face. It's like driving a car. We regularly hurtle close to a ton of metal, plastic, and flammable liquid at terrific speed for no other reason than that we wish to get somewhere faster than we could otherwise. For the = most part, it works out well enough. But we also tell each other to avoid = going fast over wet spots. It's a "restriction" if you will. A little water doesn't hurt anything, it isn't going to damage your car or passengers. = But sometimes, a little water can lead to consequences that we don't want = (like hydroplaning or unexpected slippage). And sometimes, that water covers = a dip 6 feet deep and 20 feet long that looks just like every other part = of the wet road (there seriously is just such a situation in Mesa, AZ and = every year some fool buries their car in it--despite clear road signs posted = by the locals). Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 09 Jun 2003 23:38:35 -0600 I understand the "need to touch" and the backrub thing in a non-sexual setting, but where does good taste come in. When I am listening to a talk in Sacrament meeting and someone in front of me is giving a backrub to or friendly touching another person I find it a little distracting. Is friendly touching rude in some settings or is something wrong with me. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 10 Jun 2003 09:52:55 -0600 Robbin Major wrote: > Reminds me of the verse in the 89th section of the Doctrine & Covenants. The > Word of Wisdom was adapted for "the weakest of the weak", too. I think the > Lord just doesn't want *ANYTHING* to be a stumbling block if there's a way > to circumvent it. There are enough things in this world that are ready to > trip us up. A few extra cautionary guidelines are not a bad thing, in my > opinion. Has this line ever appeared in any other part of scripture, or as part of any other commandment? Just because one commandment (non-commandment really: it was not originally intended as a commandment) was adapted to the weakest of the Saints, does that mean they all are or should be? The ability of Mormons to generalize from one specific to all principles is astounding, and usually unwarranted. If it means creating more rules and restrictions and abandoning the concept of teaching principles and allowing individuals to run their own lives, then its all the more likely to happen. Not intentionally, but I'm getting the impression that the bulk of my LDS writing is going to deal with this sort of thing one way or another throughout my career. I've certainly started out that way, and one of the next books I'm planning will dive into it headfirst. You see, I gave a girl a ride once. I was mid-twenties, she was younger. I was married, she was gorgeous. She was not a member, at least not a good one. (She asked if she could smoke in my car.) It was fairly late at night. I was married to my first wife at the time, and she was not expecting me home at any set time. Our marriage was not going well. This girl started hinting rather obviously during the ride that she wanted to go out with me. (Yes, back then I was actually attractive to women.) Late at night alone together in my car, not expected home at any particular time, beautiful girl not a good Mormon so she probably would have been game for all sorts of things and hinting that she was ready, frustrating marriage that would soon end--could the circumstances be more ripe? Yet I somehow managed to resist. I never even considered doing anything about it, not seriously. Why? The rule didn't save me--I violated it. It was the principles I'd been taught. I didn't need the silly rule. I helped a girl get home who needed a ride, and I gave her a small lesson that not all men are sex-crazed fools who can't control themselves. I ignored a Pharisaical rule, followed true principles, and added a little good to the world in the process. The stories I write will be stories like that. I wonder if Deseret Book would publish any of them. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 10 Jun 2003 10:05:49 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: > Remember that the early Christians lived a form of the united order. So > all things were held in common. Thus this really wasn't that big of an > issue. Later you mention retroactive proof-texting done by early Mormons about Jesus' polygamous marriages to justify their own. I believe you're doing the same thing here with the United Order. We read "have things in common" and automatically assume something along the lines of the United Order is being discussed. > It was uncommon among the rich and virtually non-existent among the > poor. I ought to look it up before speaking, but I seem to recall one > of the complaints about Herod being his polygamy. If there was polygamy > we'd expect some comment on it somewhere. But we don't find it. Paul tells us that one of the requirements of a bishop (I think, or was it deacon?), is that he be husband to ONE wife. So there must have been some polygamy going on. > But you are right, the main argument against Jesus being married was the > fact that it isn't unambiguously mentioned. Let us remember that the ones who canonized the Bible did not believe in priests being married, so the lack of mention should not surprise us. I'm surprised they let the mention of Peter's mother-in-law slip past. -- 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] _Troy Through a Window_ (Review) Date: 10 Jun 2003 10:09:00 -0600 > [List editor: I am the distributor of this video. I would be happy to send > review copies to AML or a designated reviewer if somebody other than me -- > the person selling this film -- would like to review it.] I'm game. I'm also Irreantum's film editor. -- 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] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 05 Jun 2003 09:04:41 -0600 lajackson@juno.com wrote: > Actually, aside from some temptation to which more are > susceptible than they think I also think a lot of people think everyone is much more susceptible to this temptation than we realize. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are told that sexual desire is nigh on impossible to resist, so we must avoid every situation that holds even the slightest chance of it happening. But what really happens is those who have an inkling use that as an excuse to succumb: "I just couldn't help myself." I'm telling you, with nearly fifty years of experience to back me up, that that just ain't true. You _can_ help yourself. > I believe it has to do with perceptions. In other words, we see two married (but not to each other) people together, so let's all just assume they're having an affair. -- 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: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 02 Jun 2003 09:48:56 -0700 Of course it's Victorian. That's what feminism is all about, and as it infect even the church more can be expected. The Victorian ideal was that women are inherently more moral than men, and are always victims, never perps. Feminism took that and ran with it past the goal-line, over the stadium wall and into the gutters. Most current feminists go whole hog for the "all men are rapists" lie--the only per se feminist group I know of that rejects that line is iFeminism. The difference is that in the Victorian era they put skirts on tables so as not to tempt poor uncontrollable men with table-legs, now they do their best to make men second-class citizens. Problem is turnabout ain't fair play. It was wrong to treat women as second-class citizens, and so it is wrong to reverse the evil. So long as post-30s feminism is around there will never be legal equality between the sexes. In the meantime guidelines like these are heaven-sent. It may be insulting but if there is a standard mode of behavior that can keep one out of trouble (more-or-less) then all I can say is hallelujah. It may stink for the individual, but there it is. Fact is one bad apple does spoil the whole barrel, so I guess we'll all have to be individually vacuum-sealed until common sense wakes back up. I would like to say, however, a hearty "thank YOU!" for taking it as an insult. Very sensible of you. Jim wilson aka The Laird Jim On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 13:32 America/Phoenix, Barbara Hume wrote: > > 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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] GREENAWAY, _The Tulse Luper Suitcases 1: The Moab Story_ Date: 10 Jun 2003 10:24:03 -0600 Preston Hunter wrote: > Peter Greenaway is a British filmmaker who now lives and works in The > Netherlands, where he has been able to obtain funding for his films. > > The new film that he screened at Cannes is "The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part > 1: The Moab Story." It is the first part of an 8-hour trilogy. The trilogy > is part of a larger project which includes an extensive website, a video > game, books and 92 DVDs. This is why Greenaway's had trouble obtaining funding for his films. His films are 100% artistic. I don't discern any attempt on his part to create something that would be accessible to a regular audience. This may sound like a criticism, but it isn't. I've seen two of his films--"Prospero's Books" and "Pillow Book"--and was fascinated. Greenaway seems obsessed with the written word. Yet at the same time, Greenaway films, at least the two I've seen, are extraordinarily rich in imagery. It's as if Greenaway is attempting to combine the complexity inherent in the written word with the normally simple and clean interface that an image provides. We are fond of saying that an image is worth a thousand words. A Greenaway image is worth ten million words, and it takes as much effort to internalize a Greenaway film as a Victor Hugo novel. In my limited experience (art films: bah humbug!) Greenaway more than anyone produces films that can only be described as literary. -- 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: "Roy Schmidt" Subject: [AML] Sunday Evening Genesis Branch Date: 10 Jun 2003 10:12:51 -0600 My wife and I attended the meeting of the Genesis Branch in the Tabernacle on Sunday evening. It was a marvelous experience. Before I relate my thoughts regarding this event, I want to get a couple of negatives out of the way, and also mention a bit of my background. First, the negatives. Two wonderful choirs performed prior to the beginning of the meeting. The audience was rude in the extreme. Although a sign was flashing "Quiet, please" and even though President Gray asked us to quietly take our seats and listen, most people continued to talk, and not in whispers. I was embarrassed. Also, I heard somewhat racist comments. An older man, standing in line ahead of us, told us that he gave some tickets to two "colored" families in his neighborhood. He wanted to do something nice for "those people." There were a few other comments made by others that I felt were out of line, but were not said with particular malice. Instead, I guess that old habits and expressions die hard. Now about me. I grew up in Baltimore in the 1940's and 50's. I well remember "colored" signs over drinking fountains and on lavatory doors. Black people were expected to give up seats on streetcars, and none were allowed to eat in restaurants or at food counters that were patronized by whites. I was never taught to hate blacks, but was taught they were not on a par with whites. I remember feeling bitter when our neighborhood began to change from white to black. The day after the first black family moved in, there were 15 houses on my block with "For Sale" signs on them. My mother and I were the next to the last to leave. By that time property values had dropped so far that we got just $500 for our two story, three bedroom, Baltimore row home.=20 Then I had an epiphany. We had a birthday celebration in our family, and I had taken a roll of pictures of the event. When I picked up the developed photos at the neighborhood pharmacy, I was surprised to find the picture inside the envelope were not the ones I had taken. Instead, they were pictures of a black family enjoying, would you believe it?, a birthday party. THEY wore the same stupid little pointy hats, and were blowing the same silly streamers that WE wore and blew at our party. And all of the sudden I knew that we were very much alike. I wish that I could say that all of my feelings of prejudice evaporated at that moment, but I can report that my entire way of looking at people of other races and cultures was radically altered. Years later, I was working at a small radio station on California's central coast. There was just one other Saint working there, and he was our morning dj, and news guy. Steve came rushing out to my desk to tell me that an announcement was made that blacks could hold the priesthood. I made some sarcastic reply to the effect that the follow up announcement was that pigs were flying all over the United States. Steve handed me the tear sheet from the UPI wire. I looked at it, at first with disbelief, and then with great joy. We both had tears in our eyes. I still have that tear sheet. And so, on Sunday evening, Rosemary and I went to the Tabernacle to share in the joy of commemorating that spectacular revelation. We were happy to see so many people in line at 5:30, waiting for the doors to open at 6. We enjoyed listening to the prelude choirs, as much as we could hear them, and seeing Darius Gray and others on the stand made me feel very sentimental. There was a very great spirit in that meeting. When people bore testimonies, you knew that what they said was true. The music was wonderful. It was treat just watching Gladys Knight conduct. I don't thing that I will ever hear "I need thee every hour" again without thinking of that performance. Of course, I'm still not used to clapping along with the music, but it was fun to do so. I was also happy to that a certain member of this list was, more or less, on beat. The personal highlight for me was when President Gray spoke of his granddaughter being blessed by her father earlier that evening. That, to me, sums up the importance of the revelation. We were blessed by being there. So to Darius, Margaret, and the rest of the Genesis Branch: keep up the good work; continue to spread the gospel of truth and brotherhood. Long may you wave! Now for vol. 3 of _Standing on the Promises_. Roy Schmidt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 10 Jun 2003 13:44:01 EDT In a message dated 6/10/03 1:04:35 PM, owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: >Well the early Mormons did argue that it was mentioned in the story. >The marriage feast where the water was turned into wine was Jesus >marriage. They also saw the final act of Mary anointing Jesus' feet as >significant and the first appearance of Jesus after the resurrection as >significant. (Without speaking of the significance) Well, among the many confusions about Mary Magdalene is the conflation of Mary M. with the woman who anointed Jesus. This was not Mary Magdalene. In the three Synoptic Gospels, the woman in not named at all, and in John, it is Mary of Bethany. As for Mary M. being Jesus' wife, Clark is correct that this was the dominant reading of the Gospels among early Mormons. Interestingly, there are even some Protestants who hold this view, including retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong (hardly a champion of Protestant orthodoxy, but he's an important thinker). Spong believes that Mary M. had to have been married to Jesus since she was allowed such close access to him and supported him financially. Others, of course, point out that MM is not the only woman in the NT who is said to have supported Jesus financially. One of the most significant arguments for Jesus and MM having a special relationship is found in a Gnostic gospel, and I can't remember if it is the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Thomas. (Sorry!) It refers to Mary being Jesus' favorite disciple, and that he used to kiss her often on the mouth. There is no biblical evidence that Mary M. was a prostitute. Many scholars feel that this is unlikely, since this idea doesn't begin to show up in the historical record until Gregory the Great (sixth century), who lumped together the "sinful woman" mentioned in Luke 7 with Mary M. The real Mary M. was probably quite a bit older than Jesus, even older than Jesus' mother. In lists of women, MM is always listed first, even before Mary the mother of Jesus. In NT times, the primary listing was a sign of respect for status and age. She had to be in her mid-forties, then, and possibly older; it is also highly unlikely that the Gospel writers (at least two of whom were products of Jewish culture) would have accorded a prostitute a higher status than the mother of Jesus. And here's a literary connection -- for a popular look at what various scholars have said about Mary M., there's Liz Curtis Higgs's MAD MARY (WaterBrook, 2001). The book is hilarious as well as informative (Liz is a comedienne, and no slouch as a scholarly popularizer). Jana Riess -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 10 Jun 2003 11:27:41 -0800 All of this (very interesting) talk about the origins of homosexuality has brought up a question in my mind that will reveal me in all my ignorance. It seems strange to me that we would spend so much time trying to delve into theories of homosexuality and not think of talking about theories of heterosexuality at the same time. Why are we so willing to put such a barrier between the two? Could heterosexuals channel their longings into a homosexual relationship and still be healthy human beings? What kind of hormonal fluctuations occurred in mother's bodies to make budding heterosexuals desire relations with the opposite gender? I had a good teacher in college who was always saying, "That which is ubiquitous disappears." I suppose heterosexuality is ubiquitous in Mormon culture (expect for among those who don't share it) and therefore they don't feel a need to study it. If it ain't broke don't fix it. But, who knows, maybe our practice of heterosexuality is broke. I wonder how much each end of the spectrum could contribute to helping us understand ourselves? Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] re: Mormon Horror Date: 07 Jun 2003 21:34:19 -0600 I've been thinking a lot about this thread. My wife and I have = discussed it. She said the best Mormon Horror she's read is Shot in The = Heart by Mikal Gilmore. She said Gilmore wrote that nowhere in the = United States have a deeper folklore of the occult/horror than Utah and = Provo is the capital. He points out how we, as Mormons, have a really = hard, bloody edge to our religion. The Book of Mormon is full of = slaughter. Nephi was ordered by spiritual forces to chop the head off = an unconscious drunk, then rob him. The book is full of accounts of = war. The Nephites, except one, were slaughtered. Joseph Smith was shot = in the heart. His brother's blood still stains the floor of Carthege = Jail. We believe a man's blood must be spilled if he commits = murder--not lethal injection, not an electric chair. Mormon scriptures = even tell us how to handle spirit encounters. Mikal Gilmore gives = several account of encounters with spirits that his mother had growing = up in Provo. That's all stuff of horror stories. I've had many = encounters myself. In every house I've lived in in Provo. When I = worked down at the Provo airport some spooky things happened. Weird = **** [MOD censorship]. I always thought it was just me. But apparently, everyone has an = aunt or grandfather that had some kind of run in. I consider myself a hyper-religious person. This is a spiritual = community that values Christian behavior, generosity, charity, faith, = forgiveness . . .. So what gives? Why is horror and Halloween popular = here? Is it possible that we need darker stuff? =20 Lao Tzu said, "Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because = there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is = evil." So is it possible that to continue on the path of truth and = righteousness we occasionally have to turn our heads and notice = something else exists? If that is true, could it mean we are helping = people achieve progress in their spiritual path if we write something = that scares the hell out of them? I don't think we should give away = dangerous secrets, like--There's nowhere to go and nothing to do; You = are sufficient as you are, all you need to do is remember: You can work = hard to purify yourself, or you can take the easy way and let Christ = purify you little by little. Secret stuff like what they teach in = primary. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 10 Jun 2003 15:42:43 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: >But I find it interesting that none of these (except > possibly for the John Bennion piece, which I haven't read) fall within the > category I originally asked about: that is, literary depictions of faithful > mainstream LDS facing the struggle of managing themselves in a way that > fits the Church's guidelines. John Bennion's story, at least in my opinion, does fall into this category, but it's the only one I know of. I haven't read everything that's listed on the Affirmation site, but most of it seems to be either non-fiction or otherwise not fit this description (except possibly a few short stories which I'm curious to look up). I don't know whether the "struggling to overcome SSA" experience represents the _majority_ of homosexually-oriented Mormons--apparently there is quite a large population of Mormons who accept their homosexuality--but it definitely is an experience that deserves more literary exposure than it gets. In the last couple decades a lot of progress has been made in validating the experience of those who accept their homosexuality, both in and out of Mormon culture, but there is very little out there that validates the experience of those who are attracted to the same sex but choose not to pursue that attraction. Gays and lesbians now have several sources to look for validation--whether it be characters in hundreds of novels and short stories or on shows such as Will & Grace or Queer as Folk (or the forthcoming reality series Boy Meets Boy), or openly gay celebrities such as Rosie O'Donnell or Ian McKellan (sp?)--but where do Mormons struggling to change look? It's not even as simple as providing role models, fictional or otherwise. It's that if something is worth writing a story about than it must be a valid experience; if the majority of people in Mormon culture aren't even comfortable talking about homosexuality, the same-sex oriented Mormon is forced either to feel like an outsider in his own culture or to find a culture where he does fit in. Evergreen International does a lot to change this, but it's still somewhat of a fringe culture. Jonathan has hit it on the nose, really--if SSA is a mainstream experience, not something to hide and be ashamed of, then it needs to be portrayed in our mainstream literature (whether Jonathan had any such idea in mind, I don't know, but that's how I choose to interpret what he said). --Ben Christensen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 10 Jun 2003 14:01:20 -0500 Robbin wrote: >Reminds me of the verse in the 89th section of the Doctrine & Covenants. The >Word of Wisdom was adapted for "the weakest of the weak", too. I think the >Lord just doesn't want *ANYTHING* to be a stumbling block if there's a way >to circumvent it. There are enough things in this world that are ready to >trip us up. A few extra cautionary guidelines are not a bad thing, in my >opinion. The problem I have with this is, who is the "weakest of the weak" in this case, and what are they being protected against? Most guidelines can cut two ways. My original point in raising this issue (as a sideline to the SSA thread) was that I think there's a hidden cost to guidelines like this, in that over time--and as these guidelines become culturally embedded--they have the potential for sexualizing what ought to be nonsexual situations and sending wrong messages about sexual attraction and trust. Not, I think, in the minds of most healthy adults--but then that gets us back to the question of who is the "weakest of the weak" anyway? Let me clarify that I think application of this guideline is, or ought to be, situational. If I were in a position of ecclesiastical leadership--bishop, or even elder's quorum president--I think I would be pretty scrupulous about simply, quietly making it a rule for myself, at least as applied to members of my ward or stake. On the other hand, I remember an incident a number of years ago when a family member suggested that this rule ought to apply to my brother-in-law (actually my nephew-in-law, but he and his wife are essentially my generational littermates) giving his wife's younger teenage sister a ride somewhere. (There were no specific reasons why this would have been a good idea--just that this was "a rule" that it was good to follow in all cases.) Without sharing too much of the situation of that family, circumstances being what they were, my own feeling was that helping my niece develop ordinary trust for a worthy priesthood-holding male without sexual overtones was a Good Thing. The comment by another family member, raising the spectre of impropriety and implied sexual misbehavior, was, in my view, unfortunate at least, and potentially damaging to someone who fell into the "weak and weakest" category. My point is that there's always (or at least often) a cost. Counting the cost on only one side, and making it seem like a "simple precaution" with no potential negative consequences, is a bad idea. There's a broader point to all this, as I see it. We have a double standard in the church. Not different standards for two different groups, but rather a literal duality between two standards that seem to me to contradict each other. First, there's the frequently spoken principle of "staying away from the line" where evil behavior starts--as far away as possible. Second, however, there's the reality that many of the actions we are positively encouraged to do are, by their very nature, close to that same line. If evil is an imitation or misapplication of good, then avoiding the potential for evil means avoiding the associated good as well. And that's not what Mormon theology teaches. I'll illustrate with specifics. Sex is, in Mormon theology, not merely a tolerable but actually a Good Thing. You can't get married and raise a family by avoiding all potentially sexual interaction. (I once stopped a conversation by suggesting that one of the purposes of church dances was to give young people the chance to become sexually aroused and learn that they could keep it under control. Probably an overstatement, but I still think there's a nugget of truth in it as well.) Another example: Abuse of priesthood authority is one of the more serious sins one can commit. Yet the answer (as we see it) is not to hedge up the priesthood, restrict it to a certain small class, or require priesthood holders to receive permission for every priesthood ordinance they perform. Instead, men are encouraged to use the priesthood on a regular basis--to exercise it, indeed (I dare say) make mistakes with it, so that they learn better over time. Not an avoidance of potential evil, but rather a training process. This is NOT to say that there isn't a place for precautionary guidelines, for staying away from the line and all the rest. There are a lot of lines that I try to stay away from, because getting too close to them is dangerous for me. What I'd like to see more of in Mormon culture--and what I think could inform a lot of good Mormon literature--is acknowledging the conflict between different goods, and the fact that different circumstances and individuals often seem to call for different actions and reactions. I'd like to see literature that shows when the rules don't--can't--apply. I'd like to see literature that shows when the rules DO apply, and why they're a good idea in those cases. I'd like to see literature that shows how different understandings of what the rules ought to be can lead to miscommunication and hurt between sincere, well-meaning, and even perceptive church members. Anyway. Enough on all that... Jonathan (my, I'm getting long-winded) Langford Chattering away for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: Knight Rocks LDS Celebration Date: 10 Jun 2003 15:06:52 -0700 Wow. How I'd have loved to see that. Thanks for sharing the article. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Re: SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 10 Jun 2003 11:29:55 -0600 "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" wrote: > WRT your question about the practice of polygamy under the Roman > occupation, you'll find this web site educational: > . This website has a paragraph which is also educational in regards to the same sex thread going on: ==== Homosexuality was a major force in ancient Greece. The warrior class considered themselves to be super masculine, and therefore the highest object of their affections and attention was other males. The preferred relationship was a seasoned soldier with a young boy. They viewed women as "breeders", an unfortunate necessity for continued population, but not ideal partners. In Sparta, each new recruit in the army (age twelve) was given to an older soldier to be his sex slave for two years. Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great Greek philosophers also were homosexuals, and lauded the practice. ==== This can only mean that homosexuality is, or at least often is, a learned emotion. If homosexual attitudes like these can be culturally nourished, even to the point where the majority of soldiers looked upon women as less desirable than boys, then we must conclude that there's a lot more nurture than nature in the development of a homosexual tendency. -- 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: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism (was: Restrictions on Being Alone) Date: 10 Jun 2003 19:28:43 -0400 i'll try to contain myself and be civil. :) jim, i must beg to differ with your sweeping and stereotypically mormon definition of feminism. feminism most certainly is not about continuing the idea that women are all victims and men are all rascals of the absolute worst variety. sure, there are women, individuals within the feminist movement who point at men and scream foul (and there are plenty of men who do this, too). but the vast majority of the women who would call themselves feminists are not on a rampage to illustrate exactly how evil men are and exactly how trod upon women are (that is only the first step :) ). rather, they are on a quest to gain equality and opportunity. they are seeking the possibility of pursuing excellence--in all spheres. they demand that we look beyond the culture that most of us (both male and female) tend to uphold in the name of not disturbing the status quo. feminism is about understanding the impact on women of pervasive cultural beliefs and practices and then going the next step: trying to change peacefully our culture to allow more freedom for both men and women. it's about women being able to work their way up the corporate ladder without having sex with every exec higher than them. it's about women having the opportunity to develop the gifts god gave them. and it's about women being able to control their own property, be that property physical, spiritual, or intellectual. and it's about men being able to explore all of their interests regardless of whether those interests are "masculine" or "manly". ultimately, feminism is about freedom. it's about being able to be true to one's self, about possessing integrity. it's about not allowing cultural expectation deny any individual the opportunity to allow their spirit and their soul to flourish. feminism, as with any other -ism (including our gospel) can very easily be perverted by individuals. and it has been--both by men and by women, by feminists and by non-feminists. i consider your representation of what feminism is a gross perversion. but the fact that a belief and a movement to change the world can be perverted does not condemn it. if anything, it should indicate its power--a power that could be used for either good or evil, as with any power. and if, as you suggest, feminism is merely an exaggerated form of the victorian ideal that women are inherently more moral than men, well then the church has been infected and tainted for as long as i've been alive and probably a lot longer. it is one of the only institutions that i have encountered that actually continues to hold tightly to this antiquated and, IMO, incorrect belief. i am continuously amazed at mormons' reaction to feminism. i remember sitting in my cold war history class at byu. we did very in depth projects on the civil rights movements of the 60s and the right to life movement of the 80s in that class. i chose to be a part of the group that focused on the feminist movement (i covered the abortion rights issue). the research was fascinating. and putting together our presentation was very interesting (especially when a woman on byu's campus called the police on us for having a pro-choice protest sign in the cougareat). at the end of our 45-minute presentation we had a question and answer session. during that session our professor asked our class if any of us would call ourselves a feminist. i immediately said yes. one other woman in class responded yes, but more hesitantly than i did. most of the people around me shifted a little uncomfortably in their seats. our professor told us that in the five or so years he had been teaching at byu, only a handful of people had ever responded to that question affirmatively. somehow we have this stigma attached to feminism and i frankly do not understand it. perhaps it has something to do with the ERA and the church's official opposition to that amendment. but mostly i think it has to do with ignorance. with an unwillingness to engage with this field of thought called "feminism". and with fear. as if being feminist and mormon are mutually exclusive. well i can say, speaking for myself, that it is difficult. sometimes it's so difficult that i have to contain my frustration and my desire to walk away from what i see as backwards-thinking approaches to sexuality, gender, and life in general. but i don't walk away. i forge my way through the difficulties because at the heart of feminism i see the principle values and beliefs of the gospel jesus taught. and at the heart of the gospel jesus taught i see the objectives that the feminists i know are trying to achieve. i know inside myself that the teachings of christ are true and the church is the best realization of those teachings that i have seen. so while being feminist and mormon is difficult, it is by no means mutually exclusive. what i'd really like to see is some good mormon literature by and about women who struggle with the inequalities created by the church. i'm sure there is some; i just don't know where to look for it. if you have suggestions, please share. amelia _________________________________________________________________ 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: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 10 Jun 2003 18:06:15 -0600 >From Nan: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 10 Jun 2003 18:13:24 -0600 Wow, great story Michael. [snip] But don't you have to take into account that she was a smoker? It can't be that attractive to kiss someone who smells and tastes like that? Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Sunday Evening Genesis Branch Date: 10 Jun 2003 20:04:23 -0500 >From: "Roy Schmidt" >Then I had an epiphany. We had a birthday celebration in our family, and >I had taken a roll of pictures of the event. When I picked up the >developed photos at the neighborhood pharmacy, I was surprised to find >the picture inside the envelope were not the ones I had taken. Instead, >they were pictures of a black family enjoying, would you believe it?, a >birthday party. THEY wore the same stupid little pointy hats, and were >blowing the same silly streamers that WE wore and blew at our party. And >all of the sudden I knew that we were very much alike. I wish that I >could say that all of my feelings of prejudice evaporated at that >moment, but I can report that my entire way of looking at people of >other races and cultures was radically altered. What a wonderful, ironic experience! You need to write about this! Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ 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: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 10 Jun 2003 20:00:40 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > > But it is a bad movie, isn't it? I mean, seriously, can anyone watch Clint Eastwood warble away about singing to trees and not get the giggles? I love the movie. A masterpiece it ain't, but it's great fun. What's wrong with Eastwood singing, just because he blows people away in other movies? And it's one of Lee Marvin's finest comic performances. The spoof on Mormons alone is worth watching the film. I do think the Maria wind song is its low point, though. -- 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] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 10 Jun 2003 20:25:37 -0600 Stephen Carter wrote: > > It seems strange to me that we would spend so much time trying to delve into > theories of homosexuality and not think of talking about theories of > heterosexuality at the same time. Why are we so willing to put such a barrier > between the two? Could heterosexuals channel their longings into a homosexual > relationship and still be healthy human beings? What kind of hormonal > fluctuations occurred in mother's bodies to make budding heterosexuals desire > relations with the opposite gender? > > I had a good teacher in college who was always saying, "That which is > ubiquitous disappears." I suppose heterosexuality is ubiquitous in Mormon > culture (expect for among those who don't share it) and therefore they don't > feel a need to study it. Or maybe it's for the same reason we don't study why people are born with two eyes--only those born with one or none. -- 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: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 10 Jun 2003 21:21:25 -0600 I started this response yesterday, but I have kids so the letter disappeared. I have to start over. I've been debating whether I should even bother to write it all out again. I've read some posts on this topic that make me think it's important that I give my perspective and experience on this, so here goes: I remember I started out saying Sam Brown, MD sounds like a really cool person. Then I said things are changing. Of course there will always be homophobic people. There will always be Puritans that think a ten-foot pole is the only safe way to deal with people. There are also people who recognize stress is destroying their lives. Stress is killing people physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally. People get depressed. People don't heal from injuries. People have trouble swallowing. People have anxiety. So we send them to the doctor and the doctor gives them a pill. And they go home and punch their wives and yell at their kids, take a pill and go out and get drunk. Then we say we have a health care crisis, because there aren't enough pills to go around. Then we say there is a breakdown in the moral fabric of this great nation because the kids are in juvenile detention and the wife just filed for divorce. Wonderful system we've set up. So we've got to get rid of stress. The easiest way is with massage. And the trapizius is the place to start. Dr. Brown rubs his brother's back. Wow . . . maybe there's a connection there. Maybe the brother will feel accepted. Maybe he'll feel happy. Maybe his immune system will work a little better and he won't get sick. Maybe his headache will go away. And maybe he'll say something nice about dinner. Maybe he'll make a comment about the deep throated rumble of his son's Bulltaco (Kawasakis are for wieners). Do you see where this is going? Maybe Dr. Brown will feel like maybe he is part of humanity, and Monday he may be a little more patient and compassionate with that little old lady who really isn't sick but needs some assurance. I said things are changing. I don't know why, but I am allowed to work on people at Church. That includes--horror of horrors--touching people. Sometimes even in sacrament meeting. Once I was in the foyer and a guy came up to me during Sunday School. He had messed up his back lifting weights. I worked on him for about twenty minutes. He was sprawled out on the couch and drooling when the Bishop came by. All the Bishop did was smile and shake my hand. Things are changing. Sunday in sacrament meeting the guy on the row in front of me came in with crutches. I asked him what was wrong and he said he had just had an ACL job. He could still work, but he was in a lot of pain. I asked if I could work on his knee, and he said OK. I did kundalini reiki for about 5 minutes. I was kneeling in the aisle. No one said anything. There was a lady who had a bad tooth. I worked on her before Sunday School, then I went and sat in the foyer, as usual. A guy came by who doesn't come to Church that often. We're already friends, and I worked on his trapezius. He's holding a lot of stress, and I think it's about to demolish every area of his life. An old man walked by and he said, "So, you're a masseur, huh?" But that's the closest thing to flack I've gotten. After Church I went to a rest home and worked a neighbor from my old neighborhood. She had a huge car wreck when she was 19. She's anorexic and has no will to live. Massage makes a huge difference in her life. She's attractive. About my age. I feel a deep bond with her. Sounds dangerous. When I got home I worked on my wife because I wasn't tired yet. When I was done I felt really good. Still do. I know people would say that's against the rules. To touch people, and get into situations where I going to end up feeling a bond with people. What you have to do is recognize it for what it is--a spiritual or energetic bond that exists between two people. It's going to go away. If you fight it, it will get stronger. If you obsess about it, it will get stronger. If you detach your emotions from it, it will go away. (Oh, yeah, if you don't ride in cars with it, it will get left behind.) Maybe it is against the rules. Maybe it's bearing each other's burdens. Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: BYU Teacher's Attack on Belly Dancing Reveals Lack of Knowledge Date: 10 Jun 2003 18:39:09 -0600 Belly dancing is fun, very good exercise and is what you make it (graceful or obscene). I have seen belly dancing in this country, in Egypt and in Turkey. I don't consider it any different than Polynesian dancing, just a different technique. I traveled for a month in Polynesia and saw most every type of dancing. There is no difference. All forms of dance can be graceful, sensual and lovely, just as they can be lewd, vulgar and indecent. Nan McCulloch At first blush, I agree with Nan. But then I started thinking about it. Why makes some forms of dance "lewd, vulgar and indecent"? I wonder if it is because it might be sexually arousing? Is that a bad thing? I wonder if in our culture we just plain hate anything sexual (on the surface). It is almost as if we pretend it doesn't exist. I know I grew up not believing what I read in my 7th grade health book (the description of sex) because it just didn't fit with anything I observed or saw in my little protected Mormon world. I couldn't believe my parents would do anything that shocking (even though they had 8 kids), because they never showed physical affection in front of us, discussed sex, or anything like it. The only thing I remember was my mother telling me before my wedding that "there were things women have to endure" and discussing the earlier prophetic counsel to wear one's temple garments during the act--that that was why the open-down-the front-button-garments existed. The fact is we come from a Victorian type culture on the surface that practiced rampant sexual activity between older men and teenage girls behind closed doors (polygamy). Now we live in the aftermath of that culture. I would like to learn to belly dance if I thought my belly looked good enough to show (which after my six kids it doesn't). Maybe this makes me "lewd, vulgar and indecent"--probably. Am I this way because of my earlier repression? Or if I hadn't been repressed most of my life would I be even worse (better?) now? Gae Lyn Henderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormonism and Feminism Date: 10 Jun 2003 22:18:29 -0600 When writing about feminism you can get some balance by reading _The Women's Quarterly_ and _eXfemina_(newsletter) both published by The Independent Women's Forum. Patricia Ireland calls the IWF "dangerous." The Boston Globe says, "IWF is well on its way to becoming the foremost media nemesis of the feminist movement." I call it witty, intelligent and straight-forward. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: [AML] World's Top 2 LDS Actresses Starring in FOX TV Series Date: 11 Jun 2003 08:05:40 -0500 COOK JOINS DUSHKU ON TRU CALLING - In what seems like the set-up for a particularly good Jack Weyland novel, the top two Latter-day Saint actresses in the world -- one an active Church member, the other not -- are going to be working together as stars of the upcoming FOX TV series "Tru Calling." Eliza Dushku, best known for her role as the "bad girl" slayer "Faith" on the popular TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," is heading up the cast of the new FOX supernatural series "Tru Calling." Dushku stars as "Tru Davies," a college graduate who can relive a whole day, and uses this ability to try to prevent tragic things from happening. IMDb.com and newspapers are now reporting that the regular cast of the series includes none other than A.J. Cook, who will play "Lindsay," Tru's best friend. What makes this particularly interesting is that these two actresses literally are the top Latter-day Saint actresses working today. Dushku, who most recently had the top-billed role in "Wrong Turn," has appeared "above the line" (billed on the poster) in 9 theatrically released movies, which have grossed over $323 million in the U.S. A.J. Cook has starred in a poster-billed role in 2 theatrically released movies (both in the 2nd billed role), which grossed over $60 million in the U.S.: "Final Destination 2" and "Out Cold." Cook was also had the titular role in the critically acclaimed film "The Virgin Suicides," and she was a star of the TV series "Higher Ground" (2000). No Latter-day Saint actresses who are currently working even come close to the box office performance of Dushku and Cook. (The closest after them is Jacque Gray, the lead actress in the $2.6 million-grossing "God's Army" and Gary Rogers' upcoming movie based on 1st Nephi.) If their box office totals are adjusted by dividing box office total by billing number, they are closer together: $88 million for Dushku and $30 million for Cook. What makes this story intereresting is that Dushku and Cook are clearly different types of Latter-day Saints. Cook, a native of Ontario, Canada, is married to her Utah-born college sweetheart and is a life-long devout Church member. She has been famously careful about only accepting film and TV roles which will not conflict with her faith. She is a veteran of horror films, but she does not do nudity or sex on screen. Dushku, on the other hand, was raised as a Latter-day Saint, but might now be compared to her rebellious character on "Buffy." While she is respectful of her mother and relatives who are active in the Church, she is not a churchgoer, describes herself as "spiritual, but not religious," and has created something of a bad-girl image by chain-smoking and peppering her interviews with four-letter words. Dushku has also been choosy about what she'll do on screen, something she attributes to the influence of her feminist Latter-day Saint mom. But Dushku has acted in very sensual roles, particularly on the "Buffy" series and also in some films, somewhat shocking her conservative, ethically-oriented grandparents and cousins with her heterosexual and lesbian love scenes. Dushku has never publicly expressed animosity toward the Church, and will probably get along fine with Cook. But the whole behind-the-scenes situation on this show does sound like a premise ripe with dramatic possibilities. Thomas Baggaley LDSFilm.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] re: Sunday Evening Genesis Branch Date: 10 Jun 2003 21:48:49 -0600 It had been a long time since I sat in the Tabernacle for a church meeting. I'd been there once for the yearly Christmas carol sing-along, and several times as part of the Temple Square tour. But not since my teenage years when I drove all the way from Minnesota with a couple friends to attend a session of General Conference had I sat in there for a religious service. It was marvelous to do so again. Marvelous to hear the historic Tabernacle organ pipes blasting away with the strains of, of all hymns, the historic "Come, Come Ye Saints." Marvelous to admire again the amazing architecture and skill of a small group of pioneers who built a miraculous structure in the midst of a life-and-death struggle for survival. Marvelous to thrill at the sounds of the organ pipes shouting for joy as the congretation sang "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet" as the closing hymn. But that was just the beginning of the marvels. My wife and I sat on the first row on one side of the balcony. Before us was a vast sea of faces, perhaps the most diverse gathering of faces that had ever sat in that building. To our right was a black family with a young boy and girl. To our left was a pair of middle-aged black women. Behind us was a family of Hawaiians with lots of kids. (I knew they were Hawaiian and not some other South Sea ethnicity because they sang along with a Hawaiian song that was performed during the presentation). In front, where the General Authorites used to sit for General Conference, the seats were filled with black priesthood leaders, including the presidencey of the Genesis Branch. Behind them were two choirs loaded with multiracial faces that performed beautifully as we awaited the beginning of the service, including a very African song complete with bongo drums. I watched for familiar faces. Across the chamber on the other balcony was Richard Dutcher with his son, sitting among the camera operators, himself with a camera in hand. Below was Darius Gray, president of Genesis and co-author of the "Standing on the Promises" series. Margaret Young, the other co-author, sang in one of the preliminary choirs, then sat in front with other VIPs. But there was one famous face that I was waiting to see, the same one everyone else was waiting to see. The two preliminary choirs vacated the choir seats in front and sat on the sides of either balcony, overlooking the podium, while a beautiful, very professional-looking choir of blue-and-black-almost-formal-wear-bedecked singers replaced them. This was the Saints United Voice Choir. This was Gladys Knight's choir. Known as Sister McDowell among fellow Latter-day Saints, thanks to her marriage, Miss Knight entered, hugging numerous people along the way. She must be older than me because she was crooning her Motown hits with the Pips while I was a silly teenager, and she had lost the sleek body of her youth. Yet she still radiated with beauty that could be seen from across the expanse of the Tabernacle. Following the usual opening procedures, Gladys Knight stood before her choir and began a performance that can only be described as toe-tapping and inspirational--two characteristics Mormons are not accustomed to merging together. The Saints United Voice Choir sang with unmistakeable professionalism, even though it consists only of members of several wards in the Las Vegas area, and Sister Knight-McDowell conducted it with hands darting and hips undulating in crisp, decisive moves. Her control of the choir's tempo and dynamics was perfection. Her arrangements of familiar hymns were exciting and exotic. If every ward choir produced such astounding music, no one would sleep in church again. Gladys Knight-McDowell's daughter stood and bore her testimony. Gladys' husband stood and introduced his wife. She then sang an enchanting song whose music she composed and whose lyrics Brother McDowell wrote, a simple and powerful poem about Jesus. Her voice glided out with satiny effortlessness. If you placed her smack in the middle of the angelic choir that sung at the birth of Jesus, her voice would blend in as if it had always been there. As my wife put it, "You can tell who the professional here is." The music would have been enough. But then Sister Knight-McDowell spoke. She bore her testimony of the gospel, expressed her gratitude for the blessing of the priesthood in her home, and delivered her opinions of LDS music in no uncertain terms. President Hinckly once apoligized to her because he feared she might not find the church hymns to her liking. She assured him that she loved the hymns of the church--they could just use "a little zip." Then she went on to describe to us how the myriad styles of music in the world from many different cultures had been used to sing inspiring praises to God and to give voice to the divine yearnings of humankind. Why should we think our style of hymns is the only inspiring music? I couldn't help but compare this speech to one delivered at my own ward's sacrament meeting two weeks previously on the subject of appropriate music for worship services. It was a hardline speech, quoting extensively from President Boyd K. Packer and the church handbook. Only certain types of music are appropriate for worship services. Only church hymns and the occasional carefully-chosen non-hymn were proper. This is the type of music that invites the Spirit: even the great oratorios and masses of classical composers, wonderful as they are, may drive the Spirit away. How do we know that? In the words of President Packer: "Because we've felt the Spirit leave." The quotes from Preseident Packer went on to decry the efforts of some Latter-day Saints to tell sacred, momentous stories of the restoration in "inappropraite" music, like rock or even soft rock. Why would our artists want to trivialize such events in that way? (My own opera in contemporary music depicting the First Vision came to mind.) I must confess, that speech drove _me_ away. Thanks to a last-straw effect compounded upon many other experiences, I stood up in the middle of the speech and left the chapel. For the rest of the meeting I paced the halls of the foyer. My reaction: was I to truly believe that some of the insipid hymns in the official hymnal would invite the Spirit, while the great, timeless music written by the likes of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven for the very purpose of praising God would drive it away? Was I really supposed to believe that my own effort to respectfully tell the story of the First Vision to the best of my ability in a style of music that spoke to me was a desecration of sacred history? It had been a long time since a speech in church had offended me. But that one truly did. I felt as BYU professor of theater Eric Samuelsen described feeling when he watched the movie _Singles Ward_ and everyone around him was laughing. Who are these people? What if anything do I have in common with them? If the bishop had not been busy after the meeting, I think I would have marched into his office and declared, "I've had it! I don't know how I fit in this church anymore." But at the Genesis celebration of the quarter-century anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, the congregation clapped along with the livelier songs. They applauded each performance. They stood with enthusiasm when they could no longer contain themselves. The speeches spoke wisdom and common sense. I felt no spirit being driven away. I was _inspired_. It was all I could do to keep from jumping up and shouting, "Now THIS is the church I belong to!" The service was capped by a speech from Elder Merrill Bateman, General Authority liaison for Genesis. He told stories of the miraculous preparation that went on in Africa previous to the introduction of the gospel that the revelation on priesthood facilitated. About thousands of black Africans who had somehow heard the gospel or procured and read a copy of the Book of Mormon, many of whom organized themselves into congregations of worship and called themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." How Elder Bateman discovered these congregations while in Africa, then shortly after heard the news of the revelation and wept with joy for them. If there is anyone seeking after things that are virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy, and seems to find such things lacking in his own LDS culture, that person should have been at the commemorative gathering Sunday, June 8, in the Tabernacle on Temple Square. He would have found pearls of great price--wonderful, enchanting, exhilarating, as well as uplifting and inspiring, samples of music and attitude emanating from the very culture that seems almost on the verge of death by mediocrity. I found such pearls in the Tabernacle that night, as I also found renewed hope that the culture is not dead, that there is still vitality and potential within it, that I may not be a hopeless exile after all. What I find most fascinating is that vast majority of those pearls came from faces that were not Anglo-Saxon pink. Thank you, Gladys Knight, for helping me to reconnect with my own religious community. -- 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: RE: [AML] Sunday Evening Genesis Branch Date: 11 Jun 2003 11:22:26 -0600 Thank you, Roy! Volume 3 (_The Last Mile of the Way_) is on the shelves. Since I was in the choir seats, I didn't notice the talking in the audience all that much. I thought the evening was thrilling. The one consistent complaint I've heard is that Elder Bateman spoke for too long. I'd have to agree. He had a lot to say, and it is so hard to resist the opportunity to address such an important issue in the Church as the priesthood revelation, but the emotional peak came with the last song the SUV choir sang--the hallelujah. Elder Bateman's 30 minute talk was a very long denoument, and I was aware that there were parents in the audience who needed to get home to their children. Nonetheless, it was a magnificent meeting. For me to see the tabernacle rostrum--those famous red seats--filled with faces of color was a real high point. It was a wonderful, wonderful evening. Of course, none of you know the various bells of hell we had to endure to get us all (choirs etc.) to that point, and frankly, you don't need to. What matters is that we GOT THERE. Once again, I learned that important events come with all sorts of opposition. I am gathering my strength for whatever is waiting around the corner--and thankfully, I realize that much of "my" strength is on loan from the Lord. ________________ 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: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 12:02:20 -0600 http://byubroadcasting.org/secrets/transcript/moody_transcript_2003.htm I caught this talk on KBYU a few weeks ago, and it struck me as the most sensible thing I have ever heard on the subject from anybody representing any institution of the church at any level. The link to the transcript is above, but I'll highlight a few excerpts that I think pertain (if somewhat peripherally) to this thread. Eugene Woodbury Dr. Rick Moody Cyber Secrets 2003 [BTW, an awful name for any symposium not being held in Las Vegas] "For Ecclesiastical Leaders, Family and Friends: Supporting those who Struggle with Sexual Compulsions" . . . . [S]exual impulses are part of being human and cannot be categorized as sin . . . . I want to make it clear that sexual impulses are one thing; taking those impulses into fantasy or sexual compulsion is a much different thing. Temptation can come in the form of sexual impulses, therefore temptation cannot be avoided. Temptation is not sin. [M]ost individuals we work with have . . . been told their entire lives to avoid "unclean" thoughts. Many people automatically assume that if they find a person sexually attractive they have already "crossed the line." They then engage in avoidant behaviors as a way to purge anything sexual from their being. This is a battle that cannot be won because we are, by our very nature, sexual beings. Avoidant behaviors are not the answer . . . . well-meaning church leaders have provided advice which works very well for people who have had encounters with sexual stimuli at a superficial level . . . . The guidance we receive may include replacing the "unclean" thought with a favorite hymn or scripture, pray more often, attend the temple more often, serve others . . . . [But i]t is well established in the psychological literature that thought-suppression strategies demonstrate paradoxical effects . . . . This phenomena is called "bidirectional stimulus relation." For example, when an "unclean thought" shows up we may tell ourselves we must sing a favorite hymn to rid ourselves of the unclean thought . . . . In fact, what commonly happens is that the hymn becomes paired with the sexual thought or image . . . . We have become very outcome-oriented in our society. Being in control, staying on track, achieving the goal are messages we frequently tell ourselves over and over. We long for the day to be able to proclaim, "I have arrived." When we expect to experience change we want it now. It becomes demoralizing when we are told, "you've had this problem a long time, it will take a long time to overcome it." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Structuralism Date: 11 Jun 2003 13:59:04 -0600 Clark, thanks so much for this. As usual, you've taken ideas I had an = acquaintance with and introduced them as friends. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 13:35:01 -0600 Me, I try to be careful on this front, not because I'm concerned about = me doing anything wrong or anything, but because the wrong gossip, in = the wrong ears, could get me in deep doodoo. =20 Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "webmaster" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report 30 May 03 Date: 11 Jun 2003 07:53:40 -0500 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of May 30, 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 --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 6 Wrong Turn 5,161,498 1,615 3 Eliza Dushku (top billed actor) 5,161,498 36 The Shape of Things 52,707 51 24 Neil LaBute 662,763 (writer/director/producer) 40 The Cremaster Cycle 45,178 7 38 Mathew Barney 201,251 (writer/producer/director/actor) 56 Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure 18,051 9 843 Scott Swofford (producer) 14,678,633 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) Sam Cardon (composer) Stephen L. Johnson (editor) 66 The Core 9,390 27 66 Aaron Eckhart (lead actor) 30,664,058 72 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 7,304 2 1123 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,257,279 84 China: The Panda Adventure 5,373 3 675 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,119,306 96 Galapagos 2,669 2 1312 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,037,396 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS - A guaranteed blockbuster, "2 Fast 2 Furious", the sequel to the surprise hit "The Fast and the Furious" which (once again) stars Latter-day Saint actor Paul Walker, is set to be released this coming weekend. But can it knock of this weekend's record-setting king, Disney's "Finding Nemo?" SPEAKING OF FINDING NEMO - Pixar has done it once again. "Finding Nemo" set a record as the fastest-starting animated feature of all time, bringing in a whopping $70 million over the weekend. Critics have also loved the film. Its rottentomatoes.com "freshness" rating is an amazing 99%, with 126 out of 127 counted reviews coming in on the positive side - and the one "negative" review basically said it was a good film, just not (in his opinion) a great film. Pixar's co-founder and president i University of Utah graduate Edwin Catmull, a Latter-day Saint from Utah. Catmull did not receive a credit for "Finding Nemo", but in the past he has received executive producer credits for "Toy Story" and "Geri's Game", and even if he wasn't specifically involved in the production of "Finding Nemo", you've got to give him a little bit of credit for starting the company with Apple Computer pioneer Steve Jobs in the first place. Catmull has received 3 Academy Awards for developments in CGI (computer graphics). He and Jobs developed the "RenderMan" software used in movies such as "Toy Story", "A Bug's Life" and "Monsters, Inc." He also received a credit as a computer graphics specialist for "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982). For "Star Trek II" Catmull created the groundbreaking and memorable visual image of the Genesis Planet being formed. PAUL WALKER ON WHY HE TURNED DOWN THE ROLE AS "SUPERMAN" - See the article at http://superherohype.com/cgi-bin/news/fullnews.cgi?newsid1053007671,52261 MORE ON 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS, FILM TO OPEN ON 10,000 SCREENS WORLDWIDE - [QUOTE] The Galgary Sun talked with 2 Fast 2 Furious star Paul Walker who said he won't be doing the Superman movie but would be up for a second sequel of his current franchise. "I already have my franchise movie with The Fast and the Furious. It's wonderful the way fans react. Everywhere I go around the world, people want to shake my hand or pat me on the back. They quote my lines from the movie. That feels so good. "That's why I did 2 Fast 2 Furious and why I'd do a third if the fans want it, but I wasn't ready to commit to Superman in the same way. I know if somebody had offered me Superman before I did The Fast and the Furious, I wouldn't have thought twice." Walker, 29, still finds it difficult to believe 2 Fast 2 Furious will be opening on 10,000 screens around the world on June 6. "They're dubbing me into about 30 languages. It's so exhilarating." [QUOTE] ADD DUSHKU - The "other" major film opening this weekend was the slasher flick "Wrong Turn," starring Mormon actress Eliza Dushku in the top billed role. It opened in the #6 spot, grossing over $5 million in its first weekend.
* * *
DUSHKU AND WALKER NECK-AND-NECK FOR THE TOP SPOT - Before "Wrong Turn," Dushku's total (U.S. box office total gross for feature films in which she received marquee/poster billing) was $318 million. Nearly half of that total comes from 1994's "True Lies" ($146 mil.) in which she received 7th billing. Her second biggest movie was much more of a Dushku film: the cheerleading movie "Bring It On," in which she received 2nd billing after Kirsten Dunst, grossed over $68 million domestically. "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back", "The New Guy", "City by the Sea", "Bye Bye, Love", "Soul Survivors" and "Race the Sun" account for the rest of her career total. "Wrong Turn" is the FIRST feature film in which Dushku has received top billing. "Wrong Turn" is just getting started. Despite being a poorly made film without any redeeming qualities, it could easily rake in another $5 to $10 million at the box office before running out of steam. Now with a career total of $318 million, Dushku is just $4 million shy of passing up Paul Walker on the Box Office Total for Latter-day Saint Actors chart. Walker's movies (The Fast and the Furious; She's All That; Varsity Blues; The Skulls; Joy Ride; Meet the Deedles) have grossed more than $322 million at the U.S. box office. Walker received top billing in only one of his movies - "The Fast and the Furious" - but this is also his top-grossing movie. Walker has also generally had bigger roles and higher billing than Dushku in his movies. So when his box office gross figures are divided by billing position, his ADJUSTED total is $208.7 million, while Dushku's adjusted total is just $83.1 million. There is no way that Dushku will surpass Walker on the adjusted chart in the forseeable future. Will more box office dollars from "Wrong Turn" put Duskhu into the top spot on the unadjusted chart? It might have done so temporarily, if it has opened a week earlier. But this weekend, as mentioned before, "2 Fast 2 Furious" -- starring Paul Walker in the lead role -- opens. The sequel to the 2001 surprise racing hit, which grossed over $144 million in the U.S. -- will easily run down Dushku's "Wrong Turn," leaving the actress in the proverbial dust of an Appalachian dirt road. Walker also stars in Michael Crichton's big budget "Timeline," due out in November, and his reign at the top seems safe... at least for a few months. Pulling up fast behind him is BYU graduate Aaron Eckhart, whose career total $295 million will soon be enhanced by starring roles in the John Woo/Ben Affleck/Philip K. Dick s.f. thriller "Paycheck" and the non-s.f. thriller "Suspect Zero," co-starring Oscar winner Ben Kingsley and Carrie-Anne Moss from "The Matrix" trilogy. Dushku, on the other hand, won't even be competing on the same playing field with these guys. She'll be starring not in movies, but in the TV series "Tru Calling," which sounds like it may be cool, but it doesn't register on the box office chart.
* * *
SUMMER'S HERE: THEATERS HELD HOSTAGE - And that means LDS-themed films find venues slim pickings as major Hollywood blockbusters hog the screens. Obviously, all the theaters want to get in on the summer's big hits and are thus held hostage by the studios, but still, doesn't it seem a little ironic to anyone that in our free enterprise system during the summer when more people have time to go to the theaters there are actually fewer choices of movies to watch on a given weekend? SO WHAT ABOUT "THE R.M.?" - "The R.M." - the only LDS-themed theatrical release of the spring - has apparently run out of time. For three weeks straight it has not appeared in any of the box office reports, and although it may be a little premature to say that its theatrical run is done, the HaleStorm production is going to find it difficult going during the summer months. And with the DVD/video release scheduled for September, we probably have a good idea where it will finish up. So let's take a quick look at the numbers. At last report, "The R.M." had grossed $943,277, good enough to put it fourth among LDS-themed theatrical-release features. However, "The Singles Ward", the previous HaleStorm production which also happens to sit in the #3 spot, grossed $1,250,798 in the theaters, and at this time it seems unlikely that "The R.M." will be able to surpass that total. HANDCART VIDEO/DVD RELEASE MOVED BACK TO JUNE 10 - Handcart coming to VHS and DVD on June 10! "Handart" Special Edition will be available on June 10 at Deseret Book, Media Play and other stores. The Special Edition is a 2 disk set including 100 new changes to the original film, a director's commentary, a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, previews, outtakes, deleted scenes and poster art. Look for an autograph signing by director Kels Goodman at the Media Play in Orem on June 10, 6-8pm. LDS TV WRITER/WRITER OF MR. KREUGER'S CHRISTMAS DIES - Ernie Wallengren (Ernest Ferrin Wallengren) -- the writer of "Mr. Kreuger's Christmas" and the writer/producer of popular TV series such as "The Waltons", "Eight is Enough", "Knight Rider," etc. -- passed away from Lou Gehrig's disease last Tuesday. See the Salt Lake Tribune article at http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05302003/utah/61549.asp NEW WADSWORTH NOVEL RELEASED - The time has come! Amy Maida Wadsworth's book, "Shadow of Doubt," is now on the shelves. It will be available at Seagull Books and Deseret Books, and I believe anywhere LDS books are sold. We have read pre-publication versions of the book and fully recommend it as a page-turner - not to mention a potential hit LDS Cinema film. Several book signings are scheduled at Seagull bookstores throughout the month of June ** Saturday, June 7 ** 11-1 pm Seagull Book 1720 So. Redwood Road SLC 972-2429 1:30-3:30 pm Seagull Book 40 West 500 South Bountiful 296-6632 ** Saturday, June 14 ** 11:30-1:30 pm Seagull Book 331 E. University Parkway Orem 225-7219 2-4 pm Seagull Book 111 South State Orem 226-3833 ** Saturday, June 21 ** 11-1 pm Seagull Book 242 East 6400 South Murray 261-5434 1:30-3:30 pm Seagull Book 5720 South Redwood Road Taylorsville 969-7747 ** Saturday, June 28 ** 11:30-1:30 pm Seagull Book 2250 North University Provo 377-1526 2-4 pm Seagull Book 177 East 30 North American Fork 492-0818 ** Saturday, July 12 ** 2-4 pm Seagull Book 448 West Antelope Drive Layton 525-1324 LDS SINGER/ACTRESS LISA HOPKINS TO RECEIVE A TONY - 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. All ten principal singers in the cast are receiving special Tony's (already announced). Hopkins is an active Latter-day Saint and a returned missionary. FIVE UTAH AND/OR LDS ACTORS IN NATIONAL TOUR OF LES MIZ - See the article at http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505036841,00.html SAINTS OF WAR FOOTAGE ONLINE - You can see a bunch of scenes from "Saints of War", on-set footage, un-finished scenes, and interveiws at http://www.thesaintsofwar.com/ksl_story.html BEST TWO YEARS DETAILS - Carol Mikita presented a story for KSL News (Channel 5) about the making of "The Best Two Years of My Life," the upcoming feature film adaptation of Scott Anderson's popular stage play about 4 missionaries in Denmark. Scott Anderson (Writer/Director/Producer), Kirby Heyborne (star) and Michael Flynn (Producer) were interviewed for the piece. Flynn said the movie will premiere in Utah this September. A transcript from the story, "New Film Targets LDS Audience," can be found here: http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=30615 PAID CREW NEEDED FOR FEATURE FILM SHOOTING IN THE PROVO/OREM AREA - From Michelle Wright and Action! Acting: 1 June 2003: Pink Pirana Productions is looking for experienced crew to work on a feature film, which will begin shooting this September. The title of the film is "The Perfect Dad." The approximate length of shooting will be 4 weeks. The location of the project will be in the Provo/Orem area with locations in the Provo Canyon. Paid positions. Please send all Resumes to Keith at: kek73c@aol.com AUDITIONS FOR NEW DANNO NELL FILM SHOOTING IN UTAH - Nell, who has previously filmed an unfinished movie based on the stripling warriors/sons of Heleman from the Book of Mormon, is making a new film, and has announced open auditions. [QUOTE] Audition Announcement: Open Casting Call. DBD Productions is holding an open casting call for a series pilot. Sat. June 7th from 2-6:00PM at the Salt Lake City Library Main (Block of 209 E 500 South). In the new building, bottom floor conference room. Positions are not paid. Great opportunity for new talent to show what they can do with a chance that these rolls might turn into a weekly television show. Good resume builder. Please bring a headshot and resume if available. If not, one will be taken at the audition. Pilot will be filming from June 21st to June 28th. All characters will not be required for every day, but those auditioning must be available within that time span. [END QUOTE] See the Auditions page on this website or the official website for DBD Productions for details about the types of parts available. A PORTION OF A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BETWEEN A REALLY GOOD FILM COMPOSER AND A REALLY ON-THE-BALL FILM RESEARCHER WHO DECIDED IT WAS INTERESTING ENOUGH TO POST HERE - (Edited to protect the innocent): [Typical music budget on an LDS Cinema theatrical release - Amount withheld] is not a huge amount for music or even for music for a "low-budget" film. >From this total, the composer has to pay any musicians he hires, pay for any studio time he uses, pay a recording engineer if he has one, pay any other expenses incurred like buying samples for any synth sounds he doesn't yet own that are to be used on the film, and yet somehow keep enough of it himself to support his family for the month or month and a half he is working on the film full-time plus however long it is until he gets his next paying job. It doesn't stretch very far. The recording sessions alone (including paying musicians) for an orchestral score recorded in Salt Lake City - one of the least expensive places in the U.S. to record film music - typically cost around [large amount - withheld]. You've got to figure that both [two LDS Cinema features which have already been released in theaters and had quality orchestral scores] had a music budget at least half of that [still large amount - withheld], even though they recorded in [place withheld]. But it's worth it! Good quality music will improve the perceived quality of the overall film, while poor quality music hurts the film as much as any element of the film. It's not that audiences consciously think about the music. It's more of a subconscious reaction. Too bad so many filmmakers don't realize that. The established filmmakers usually do realize this however. It's the beginning guys - the ones trying to get their film made at all - that hurt themselves because music is one of the first places they usually cut when they have to make cuts, and yet it's one of the areas that can have the greatest impact on an audience's perception of the quality of the film. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Mormons in Mystery Genre Date: 10 Jun 2003 20:49:35 -0700 While doing some research for an upcoming review, I found the following interesting site re: Mormons in the mystery genre: http://www.adherents.com/lit/mys_lds.html ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: [AML] 2003 Pearl Awards Date: 11 Jun 2003 11:36:17 -0600 FYI. Some on the list may be interested in this Salt Lake area event.... There are still a few GA tickets left for the 2003 Pearl Awards, which = will be presented in a gala black-tie ceremony on Friday, June 20 in Salt = Lake City at Cottonwood HS. This is the sixth annual awards gala from the = Faith Centered Music Association, and it will be taped on June 20 for = broadcast on KTVX ABC4 on July 13, 6 p.m. =20 For those unfamiliar with the Pearl Awards, it's a Grammys-like awards = show for faith-centered music. Scheduled to appear this year are Tal = Bachman, Maren Ord, Jericho Road, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Kenneth Cope, Kirby = Heyborne, Heather Beers, and many more. To reserve (free) General Admission tickets send an email to FCMA@pearlawar= ds.org with your name, email, phone, address, and how many tickets you = would like. You'll be contacted if tickets are still available. This is = a black-tie event, and the audience is part of the "cast," since it is = being taped for TV broadcast. Audience members will need to be in their = seats by 6:45 p.m. Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee -FCMA Media Relations -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 11 Jun 2003 04:17:50 GMT Review Title: Whitewashed Tombs Author: A. Robert Thurman Publisher: St. Martin's Press Year Published: 1987 Number of Pages: 246 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-312-01112-1 Price: $16.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle The author is described as an "administrative law judge with the Utah Public Service Commission." A check on the internet does not indicate whether he still serves, and lives, in Salt Lake City. The most recent information I could find was for 1999, and has him still in that job. The protagonist of this book is attorney Adam Leer. A lapsed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he has settled into an uncomfortable truce of sorts with his parents and his brother. Divorced from his wife, he's now seeing a Gentile woman, Jo, a school psychologist. Adam's family is not entirely enthusiastic about Adam's divorce and his subsequent sexual relationship with Jo. When Ben Asher walks into his office one day with a possible anti-trust case against a large medical conglomerate (Asher operates an independent testing lab), Adam isn't sure he wants to take the case. But he decides to look into it. Asher is found dead soon thereafter, and his widow, the lovely Jackie, appears at Adam's office, urging him to continue his investigation. He's certain the conglomerate is somehow responsible for her husband's death. What follows is a somewhat muddled, sparingly-written story of investigation and conflict, sexual tension and religious confusion. Several attempts are made on Adam's life; even the lovely Jackie, who in her grief sets out to seduce Adam, gets shot. Adam, a former FBI agent, knows how to handle himself, but he finally decides to call in some outside help, including a disgraced private investigator (who can't get hired by anyone else, thanks to pressure from the Church) and a beer-bellied biker who Adam represented once. The Salt Lake police are finally called in, bringing together Adam Leer and a detective who dislikes Adam very much. Not to worry, they can work things out. One doesn't usually expect anything but banalities on dust-covers, but the following, found on the rear flap, really goes over the line in misleading prose: This is a fascinating look at corrupt business practices, at a city where business and religion sometimes come into conflict, and where a determined man can fight his way through odds of many kinds. First, the book is not at all fascinating. It is, at best, pedestrian in its written style and, at worst, unbalanced and badly motivated. Mystery novels should focus on the mystery, not on the bedroom talk between Adam and Jo. Their discussions, pre- and post-coitus, are lengthy, garbled, and difficult to attribute. While their personal relationship, and perhaps even their bedroom habits, may be of passing interest, they are coincident to the story, and should have been kept to a minimum. On the other hand, the action scenes, central to the reason why Adam is a "determined man," are spare, lacking detail, and strain credibility. He lays down clues with a heavy hand, and ultimately leaves little to the imagination. Where Thurman does very well, however, is in his barely-disguised contempt for Mormonism and Mormon culture. I can't remember reading a single positive thing about the Church in this book. And while he doesn't resort to involving high ranking Church officials, as did Robert Irvine in his Moroni Traveler series, he does indict the Mormon system, bringing into the narrative a near-shunning of apostate family members and a hint of the idea of blood atonement. Normally, this wouldn't bother me much. But when I reflect that this is written by a judge in Salt Lake City, I began to wonder how even-handed he can be when it comes to matters concerning the Church. I don't live in Utah; I don't know the judge. Perhaps some have even appeared before him. Maybe my concern is misplaced. But, putting aside the anti-Mormon bias of this book, it simply isn't a very good read. It doesn't appear that further adventures of Adam Leer have followed. Frankly, it's just as well. It isn't likely you'll come across this book, except at thrift stores or library sales. If you are a collector of Mormon mystery fiction, as I am, then pick it up and shelve it. Otherwise, I recommend you move on to something else. Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] RE: Belly Dancing Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:46:54 -0600 ___ Gae Lyn ___ | But then I started thinking about it. Why makes some forms | of dance "lewd, vulgar and indecent"? I wonder if it is | because it might be sexually arousing? ___ It does seem odd to single out belly dancing when BYU has classes on most forms of Latin dance which are explicitly sexual. Indeed many of the dances are a kind of imitation of sex itself. Further if you see the Cougarettes, their costumes aren't exactly more covering than the belly dancers. I'd also say that frequently dancing is sexually arousing - especially when dancing as couples - let alone those watching. And, personally, I think that the difference between strippers dancing and belly dancing tends to differ only by the degree of clothing. But then I think that of a lot of dance. . . Dance has always has a strong orgasmic quality to it. It is a substitute for sex in a way and often a substitute for violence. Consider a mosh pit for instance. Consider a rave. Consider a tribal dance around a fire pit to drums in a more primitive culture? (Although those can be fun even today) Dancers however then find themselves in the uncomfortable position of trying to deny the sexual nature of their work even as they embrace it. If one takes seriously the idea of bounds on sexuality in literature, then one can't help but ask about it in performance art such as dance. Indeed one can't help but think that dance can do a much better substitute for sex than literature can. What is odd is the contradictory positions that result. For instance the dance at the Polynesian center sure doesn't seem *that* different from belly dancing to me. ___ Gae Lyn ___ | I wonder if in our culture we just plain hate anything sexual | (on the surface). It is almost as if we pretend it doesn't | exist. ___ I personally don't think it is that dominant. However there is a significant minority that feel as you do. It is, I suppose, easy to mistake not talking about something because of its sacredness with not talking about it because it is sinful. On the other hand you don't have to walk very far around BYU before hearing fairly frank sexual talk - especially in the locker rooms. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Structuralism Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:03:02 -0600 ___ Eugene ___ | Growing up, I must have deeply imbibed how nothing ticked my | dad off like the glib conclusion bandied about in Sunday school | lessons that King David was a lost soul, period, no chance of | getting into heaven, he. It's difficult to read from the | parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20) anything | but the totally opposite conclusion. ___ The tradition about David goes back to theology about having ones calling and election made sure. There after to deny the Holy Ghost or to take innocent life renders one incapable of Celestial glory. Whether David was at that point seems debatable. Clearly many thought this. Thus the tie to forgiveness is a little difficult to make. However this is clearly a region of theology not well understood or revealed. (And to be honest most members don't know much about Calling and Elections even within what has been revealed) ___ Eugene ___ | And note that Vader is not the one going about blowing up planets. | That is left to the "good Nazi" bureaucrats running the Empire, in | contrast to whom Darth Vader actually *believes* in something, | even if it is the "dark side." ___ This is one of the more interesting parts of the Star Wars and is one reason why I think the first two so superior to all the others. Lots of subtly. Compare Vader's role, for instance, with Korihor in the Book of Mormon. Korihor is told to teach against Christ and against the supernatural by an *angel*. The Empire is a de-mythologizing empire run by people with supernatural powers. There is this intrinsic lie and contradiction that is very interesting. In some ways this was the problem with episode 1 where mitachlorians underminded this "supernatural." On the other hand it offered a panpsychic view which isn't necessarily against the supernatural. Indeed the explanation in episode 1 is pretty much Pratt's "spirit particles." More of this in one gives one more of the power of the divine. ___ Eugene ___ | My objections to the decline and fall of Star Wars *as story* | arise not out of a failure of cultural expectations, but out | of the failed structure of the story itself. ___ As I said what I see is Lucas trying to impose a structure on the story when the logic of the story demands something different, which undermines the preconceived structures. Every author notices this. You might have an outline of the story or paper. Then while writing it the writing "flows" a different way. If you keep to the outline the writing will appear disconnected, jarring and uneven. (I see this in Card's Homecoming series as well where he wishes to retain the structure of the Book of Mormon but the internal logic of the story demands different events. Card keeps to the Book of Mormon structure even when this makes him untrue to his characters) ___ Eugene ___ | Lucas got way carried away with this in Star Wars IV when he | implies a virgin birth, at which point you exclaim, "Oh, give | me a break!" ___ The bigger problem here is that he introduces this and then goes nowhere with it. I don't mind the idea of a virgin birth - the idea that the mitachlorines form a world-mind that needs Anakin to restore harmony. It's just that it is just dropped there with no harmony with the surrounding narrative. Clark Goble -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 12 Jun 2003 07:11:26 +0900 D. Michael Martindale wrote: This website has a paragraph which is also educational in regards to the same sex thread going on: ==== Homosexuality was a major force in ancient Greece. The warrior class considered themselves to be super masculine, and therefore the highest object of their affections and attention was other males. The preferred relationship was a seasoned soldier with a young boy. They viewed women as "breeders", an unfortunate necessity for continued population, but not ideal partners. In Sparta, each new recruit in the army (age twelve) was given to an older soldier to be his sex slave for two years. Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great Greek philosophers also were homosexuals, and lauded the practice. ==== This can only mean that homosexuality is, or at least often is, a learned emotion. If homosexual attitudes like these can be culturally nourished, even to the point where the majority of soldiers looked upon women as less desirable than boys, then we must conclude that there's a lot more nurture than nature in the development of a homosexual tendency. [end of Martindale quote] As with your post on feminism, I can't tell if you are serious or just playing devil's advocate, but I'll bite anyway. I don't know a single homosexual (but I only know a few) who would consider the actions described above as homosexuality. The paragraph you talk about really doesn't deal with same-sex attraction, but rather the actions and views of the warrior class of ancient Greece. Just because the author labels this activity as homosexuality doesn't mean that it truly was. I see a couple of different alternative readings of the fairly sparse paragraph. 1. The warrior class really was made of a majority of homosexual men. Other cultures have had specific roles for homosexuals, from Shaman/Healer to Priest. The Greek culture of the time had the warrior role for their homosexuals. 2. Sexual activity with other men was a sign of "manhood" in Ancient Greece. This behavior was clearly "nurtured" and encouraged. Doesn't mean that the men involved harbored a sexual attraction for other men, or just that they learned behavior that would set them apart from the populace at large. I am willing to believe that they even learned to enjoy this activity, but it doesn't mean that they began with these desires. And in my opinion this is a crucial part of what it means to be homosexual, the desire starts before the activity. One of the stated purposes of training in the military is to breakdown the natural aversion that most people have for killing another human. We train our warriors to be ready the pull the trigger at a moments notice, to protect God, country, freedom, and whatever else our political leaders decide is worth defending. Unless you are a sociopath, you are not born with the desire or willingness to kill another person, even under very arduous conditions. The military breaks down this barrier; they have to, otherwise we would have a very ineffective military. It's why the majority of recruits are 17-19, and not 25-30, it's easier to mold a younger person. Unfortunately, it is my feeling as part of this culture, that this training results in many young men developing bloodthirst; a desire to go to war to prove they are men and to actually kill an enemy. And most come back proud to have done their part in battle. Does this mean we turn our young Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen into sociopaths? No, but we have given them a willingness for killing, and a context in which to fulfill that willingness. Is this any different than the warrior class of ancient Greece doing the same thing in breaking down an natural aversion to sex with other men? Could this be why their recruits were 12 and not 20? Did they turn people into homosexuals? Or did they just have a different set of expected actions for "real men?" 3. The ancient Greeks were pedophiles. They, particularly the warriors, liked to have sex with boys. This does not mean they were homosexual, it means they were, by our standards today, perverts. However, I don't know what the age of adulthood in Greece was, so this may be a completely bogus argument. But the real point I wanted to make is this: Homosexuality DOES NOT EQUAL pedophilia, no matter how many times you hear this silly statement from the pulpit or the campaign trail. 4. The ancient Greeks are similar to men today. Women are not their equals, but a necessary part of life. This attitude of inequality was taken to extremes, in that sexual activity with someone not your equal was necessary, but for some, not to be encouraged or accepted. Many men today (and sometimes I think a large proportion of Mormon men) still feel that the proper place for a woman is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen; that her existence is to serve him. We just haven't taken this to the extreme actions of certain Greek culture. Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Re: Mormonism and Feminism Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:27:02 -0700 =46rom: thelairdjim > Of course it's Victorian. That's what feminism is all about, and a= s it > infect even the church more can be expected. The Victorian ideal w= as > that women are inherently more moral than men, and are always victi= ms, > never perps. Feminism took that and ran with it past the goal-line= , > over the stadium wall and into the gutters. Most current feminists= go > whole hog for the "all men are rapists" lie--the only per se femini= st > group I know of that rejects that line is iFeminism. The differenc= e is > that in the Victorian era they put skirts on tables so as not to te= mpt > poor uncontrollable men with table-legs, now they do their best to = make > men second-class citizens. Actually, I see the swing from Victorianism to feminism in this light= : * The role of 'mother' has always been underva= lued by human society. In the Victorian era, this manifested itself in putti= ng women on such a high pedestal that they were untouchable, except for = the whores, who were lower than low. (IOW, taking the Madonna/whore thin= g to the greatest extremes possible.) Women were *so* precious that we pi= g-like men dare not even catch a glimpse of their ankles, nor be tempted to = racy thoughts by such things as table limbs. * While the pedestal came down quite a bit in the early 20th C., a ba= cklash of sorts arose after WWII. During the war, women did such 'unwomanly= ' things as build armaments and munitions, fly aeroplanes across the At= lantic, and heaven knows what-all. When the boys got home, there was a 'natu= ral' reaction to 'put women back on their pedestals'. 'The boys' now took= their war service and their new careers to be The Most Important Thing, and motherhood went back to something to be undervalued again. * Some women reacted against this. Dammit, they'd *contributed*, and= they weren't going to be shunted back into the 3 K's any more. (In German= y, esp. under Hitler, it was popular to say women would be 'allowed' to focus= on 'Kinder, K=FCche, und Kirche' [children, cooking/kitchen, and church]= .) * The young women of the baby boom, seeing their moms stuck in stereo= types, seeing the hypocrisy of their fathers, and seeing the torch carried b= y the above, rebelled totally against the stereotypes. * And here is where they made their fatal mistake. Instead of workin= g to *raise* the profile and the valued-ness of motherhood, they instead w= anted to 'be just like the men' and 'contribute' the same way men did. The= y fell into *exactly* the same trap they were rebelling against, by denigrat= ing and undervaluing motherhood once again. This was feminism's critical err= or. If feminists had instead pushed harder over the last 40 years for a s= tronger valuation of motherhood, they might have made a great positive differ= ence to Western society. Instead, the family is now more fragile than ever. = The push to blur the line between the sexes has led to greater (or at lea= st more open) promiscuity, the weakening of the family, and I dare say even t= he growing acceptance of homosexuality. (Unless the Canadian federal government appeals an appeal court ruling from Ontario, a bunch of ma= rriages between same-sex partners that just took place over the last couple o= f days, and will continue to take place, will be valid legally-binding marria= ges, a first in North America. And the rest of Canada would then follow alm= ost immediately. I suggest this wouldn't have happened had feminism been= more about valuing motherhood and less about wanting to be like the boys.) > Problem is turnabout ain't fair play. It was wrong to treat women = as > second-class citizens, and so it is wrong to reverse the evil. So = long > as post-30s feminism is around there will never be legal equality > between the sexes. In the meantime guidelines like these are > heaven-sent. It may be insulting but if there is a standard mode o= f > behavior that can keep one out of trouble (more-or-less) then all I= can > say is hallelujah. It may stink for the individual, but there it i= s. > Fact is one bad apple does spoil the whole barrel, so I guess we'll= all > have to be individually vacuum-sealed until common sense wakes back= up. > I would like to say, however, a hearty "thank YOU!" for taking it a= s an > insult. Very sensible of you. Hear hear. Fact is, feminism has one thing right; men *are* pigs. (= As one net-friend of mine once put it, "All men are pigs. It's just that sometimes, they're something more.") The 'natural man' part of most = men is tempted to treat women in stereotypical caveman style; bop 'em on the= head and drag 'em back to the cave. While the guidelines of never being a= lone with someone of the opposite sex to whom you're not married seems exc= essive and silly to many, the fact is it will pretty much keep anyone out of trouble if followed. Robert -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.c= a ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too February is an excellent time for war because the TV networks don't h= ave much sports to cover. - Martin O'Malley, cbc.ca, 2003-0= 2-21 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 2003/04/24 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Re: SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:39:02 -0700 -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too To be or not to be, that is the gezornenplatz. - Bob Newhart, 'An Infinite Number of Monkeys' > This website has a paragraph which is also educational in regards to the > same sex thread going on: > > ==== > Homosexuality was a major force in ancient Greece. The warrior class > ==== > > This can only mean that homosexuality is, or at least often is, a > learned emotion. If homosexual attitudes like these can be culturally > nourished, even to the point where the majority of soldiers looked upon > women as less desirable than boys, then we must conclude that there's a > lot more nurture than nature in the development of a homosexual > tendency. > Well, I suspect there's lots of argument as to the nature of homosexual relations in Greece vs. homosexual relations today. The Greek model strikes me as more analogous to the model of same-sex behaviour in modern prisons, for example, than to the 'usual' same-sex behaviour in our culture generally. How much of it is true erotic attraction, and how much of it is a power game? In modern prisons, it is completely a power game. The average prisoner who engages in same-sex behaviour in prison is almost always completely heterosexual 'on the outside'. In fact, the 'true' homosexual who ends up in prison often ends up at the bottom of the pecking order...if he survives. OTOH, the normally-straight prisoner who 'plays the game' can rise up the hierarchy and become a 'dominant' player rather than a 'submissive' player. In this case, he would likely continue in order to maintain the power he's attained. Combine that with the fact that many prisoners have little/no self-control, often have high testosterone levels, and have no access to women, and you have the situation as it exists today. But are these men 'attracted' to other men the same way they're attracted to women? I doubt it. I suspect that much of the same thing in ancient Greece had to do with similar issues. Consider what a Greek military unit would have been like. In terms of power hierarchy and (lack of) access to women, it would almost be identical to prison. The 'service' by the young recruits would be seen almost as an initiation; if you get through it without whining, you're 'in', and once you're 'in', you do the same to the next lot of recruits because, well, that's how it's done. Similarly, in scholarly settings (Plato, Socrates, et al.), you were probably in a similar boat, what with women also being pretty much completely excluded from those educational circles. Many of the ancient Greek academies were fairly closed, almost quasi-religious groups, with little interaction with the outside world (and, therefore, with women). So I don't think we can use the ancient Greek examples (or the current prison example) to say 'Well, homosexual attraction can be learned.' At least, not in such a way as to draw analogies with modern non-prison gay culture. I think it's merely that the desires of the natural man (including lust and power) will manifest themselves sexually in conditions where there is a power hierarchy and where there is no access to women. The same thing is seen in, say, overcrowded rat cages. But your 'average' North American homosexual male is probably not in the situation he's in because of power or lack of access to women. I'm sure it's something quite different for him. ObFootnote: I wouldn't extend this analogy to women who are homosexual, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I know a lot more 'political' lesbians than 'political' gay men (i.e. people who have chosen the same sex for reasons that have little to do with attraction, such as women who've 'gone lesbian' because they've had enough men abuse them that they've chosen to have nothing further to do with men, including [or especially!] sexually). However, I understand that the whole power hierarchy/lack of access to men thing makes the experience of women in prisons analogous to the experience of men in prisons.... Robert --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 2003/04/24 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:40:06 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >as far as the argument that we should avoid the appearance of >evil. i guess >i dismissed it years ago. i can't live constantly guessing what other >people may or may not think. and frankly they have no >business watching me >and then deciding if i'm good or bad. I have also dismissed this but for the additional reason that the scripture has been notoriously misunderstood by many Mormons. I'm no expert in Greek but what I have learned is that the better translation of that all too-familiar passage should be something like, " Avoid evil as soon as it makes it appearance." IOW, it isn't talking at all about "looking" evil but getting the h*** out of Dodge when evil reers its ugly head. Eschew evil, that's what the scripture says. Literarily, as you suggest, it would be an effort in futility to try and use the traditional LDS understanding of this passage in writing. I can't tell you how many novice LDS writers I've talked to who agonize in Technicolor over how their Bishop, or the their Mother will react if they use a certain word, or write a certain scene. How can you ever know what other people will see as evil? The best an LDS artist can hope for is to write, sing, or paint to his/her own inner lights and let the consequences follow, good or bad. Thomn -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: Knight Rocks LDS Celebration Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:43:54 -0600 I was there, and saw D. Michael there as well. My hands are still tingling from clapping along to the songs with several thousand other folks. Yes, you read me right, clapping. Right there in the Mormon Tabernacle. As a sometime writer of speculative fiction, I kept having to pinch myself all night to make sure I hadn't accidentally fallen through some dimensional hole into an alternate world version of Mormonism. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 16:51:52 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >Thom, I said "guideline" for a reason. I'm all for moral >agency and adults acting like adults and taking responsibility >for their own actions. But while the subject of this thread >has "Restrictions" in it, I have yet to hear anybody talking >about anything sinister enough to warrant such a strong >reaction here. Then let me give you an example. In a previous ward, my Bishop admonished all MP holders to avoid giving women rides in cars even if it was an emergency. The example he gave, "You are driving home on a rainy day and notice that Sister Smith, your neighbor, is totally drench. Now your first inclination would be to stop and offer her a ride. Don't do it. FIRST GO HOME AND GET YOUR WIFE THEN RETURN AND OFFER A RIDE TO SISTER SMITH." Can you think of anything more insane than that? Or anything that undermines the beautiful teaching of the Good Samaritan than such, and I don't shy away from using the word, "Pharasaic" teachings as that? Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: [AML] re: Massage (was: Restrictions on Being Alone) Date: 11 Jun 2003 18:34:26 -0400 Sigh! I want Paris to move to Statesboro, GA/ Richard B. Johnson, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important- and most valuable. Http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 11 Jun 2003 17:28:19 -0600 I want to respectfully disagree with Amelia Parkin's definition of feminism--or possibly just to reflect upon it a bit. Amelia wrote a very moving post in which she included the following characteristics of = feminism, as most feminists see it: **feminists are on a quest to gain equality and opportunity =20 **feminists are seeking the possibility of pursuing excellence--in all spheres. =20 **feminists demand that we evaluate the cultural status quo of gender, particularly as it negatively impacts women, and then seek peaceful = change for increasing freedom **feminism is about allowing women to use the opportunities God gave them= in all fields, including fields traditionally not open to them **feminism is about women having the right to control their physical, spiritual, and intellectual property **feminism is about not allowing cultural expectation deny any = individual, male or female, the opportunity to allow their spirit and their soul to flourish (I clipped this from her post, so I hope I didn't accidentally = misrepresent her points here.) The reason I feel compelled to disagree is not that I oppose her central point, but that most of her characteristics are rooted in the = understanding that women are at a disadvantage, that change is needed in society (and = in the Church) and that feminism is how people deal with that. But to me, = this is not what feminism *is*--it's an approach to being a feminist. I grew up in places and neighborhoods where nobody would ever have considered telling me I couldn't do something because I was a girl. The priesthood was never held up as something that made men superior to = women. The one man who ever pulled some misogynistic crap on me was widely considered to be a nutcase and had no power to make me feel less than I = am. I speak up in Sunday School and Relief Society, have no problem directly contradicting someone who is wrong, and am routinely asked doctrinal questions by others in my ward. I bring all this up not because I want everyone to bow down and worship my glory, but because all of this = happened without any conscious effort on my part to fight the system. I didn't = have people telling me to be ladylike or pretend I know less than I know. I never was asked (or told) to defer to someone just because he was a priesthood authority. I didn't even know this happened to other women = until I was eighteen or so. Then, of course, I became a feminist with an axe to grind. (Didn't we = all?) But my reaction was never to change the system. In my mind, I could not = see how the system was at fault if it had never reached out its tentacles to restrict me. And having lived in a number of wards all over the country, and having seen how the peculiar beliefs of the local priesthood = authority could influence the culture of the ward, it seemed to me that every = member of the Church believed to some extent that "the Church" was synonymous = with "my ward." My solution was to change the individuals--to set an example,= to teach good principles, and to occasionally lay the smack down on people = who needed a serious attitude adjustment. (They're mostly women, believe it = or not.) And yet I am also a feminist. The reason I don't tend to call myself one= is that "feminist" is one of those words that means a lot of different = things, and everyone "knows" what a feminist is. I got tired of having to = explain in detail what kind of feminist I am. (It's a little like ordering one = of those fancy coffees at Starbucks; you can't just say "latte," it's "triple-mocha-latte with a drop of vanilla and chocolate shavings and put the brown sugar on the side, please.") I think this is as much a reason = for people refusing to identify themselves as feminists as some unnamed = stigma. Some of those feminists are the strident Patricia Ireland types, and if = you don't agree with her, why on earth would you want to be identified with = her? My point is that, ultimately, feminism does mean freedom. Period. But where we get into trouble is with all the different ways feminism can and= is expressed. Particularly in Mormon culture, I worry about one group's enthusiasm being translated into some kind of imperative for all Mormon feminists everywhere. The thing is--and this does bother me--that while I've always been = careful to remember that not everyone had the same experiences I did, I very = rarely get the same courtesy in return. Women who would be offended beyond = reason if I suggested that they were weak or delusional over the slights they'd received think nothing of talking about their own problems as though = every woman in the Church is suffering in the same way. The thing is, even = when it's institutional sexism (i.e. a bishop teaching false doctrine about women's place) it's not INSTITUTIONAL sexism. Not all bishops do that. There's no chapter in the handbook about keeping women subservient so = they won't start speaking out or, heaven forbid, start *thinking.* To me it seems counterproductive to assume that some idiocy is the result of the Church, or even of Church culture, rather than the fault of individuals. But I suppose it bothers me because it feels like an unintentional slight--like *my* experience is irrelevant because *theirs* is so much = more important. Speaking for myself, I am more of a feminist because I am a Mormon. I = was very fortunate to have Cecilia Farr as a teacher at BYU; I learned a lot about feminism and Mormonism from her example, even if I ultimately chose= a different path than hers. I have found a great deal of freedom within = this Church, even as my ward provides me with amusement (and, as I get more crotchety with age, not a little annoyance). I'm not as blissfully = innocent as I used to be, and I see more ways in which certain influential members are setting up their personal interpretations of doctrine or instruction = as Gospel truth. But overall I see this as a perversion of how the truth is taught on an individual level than as a flaw in the Church. It gives me comfort on the days when the Relief Society lesson has been...less than comforting. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 11 Jun 2003 18:54:24 -0600 ___ Paris ___ | She said Gilmore wrote that nowhere in the United States | have a deeper folklore of the occult/horror than Utah and | Provo is the capital. ___ I'm not sure about that. I think the south and most rural places have far greater folklore. The problem of modernization is that mass media tends to drown out the folklore. We quickly begin to lose it. On the other hand, while not technically a "Mormon" horror all the stories about Academy Square and the devil worshippers who hung out there was a great past time on my mission and when I was at BYU. With the renovation we lost the great haunted house of Provo. I guess there were some caves around Provo where similar stories existed. The government filled them all up with concrete. Some friends and I found one (I won't say where) and dug underneath the concrete every night at 2:00. I broke through and crawling through the hole the first thing I see is a candle. Scared the heck out of me. But I guess that just prior to being filled in it had been used as some haunted alley for halloween. (The clue was the graffiti that said, "pay here" or words to that effect.) Beyond the graffiti of the era ("Depeche Mode rules") it was kind of cool. There was an upper chamber you had to climb up to. Crawling around in there I found a bunch of cut up half-burnt cat bodies. I went back again last year and someone had put up a rope to make getting there easy and the cat bodies were gone. (Whether from a person or because the opening allowed scavengers in I can't say) Still there were *so* many ghost stories around Provo that people took seriously. I suspect half of them were people scaring other people for fun. But a lot of urband legends started up. Then there were news reports that fueled a lot of it, such as that dead baby skeleton found in the trail above Lindon. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 17:48:39 -0600 Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > Larry Jackson asks (re his sarcastic "hello sister so-and-so" comment on > seeing someone driving someone else of the opposite gender, alone together > in car): [SNIP] > You see, the jabbing satire scenario (IMO) is designed to empower YOU (and > make YOU look tough, smart, savvy, holier-then-thou, etc.) , whereas > straight-out, private, conversation expressing a concern is designed to > empower the one you are talking to. Again, just an opinion. (You asked.) This was my response. Leaving aside all other considerations (more on some of those considerations in a minute), the way Larry told the story was designed to put him in the position of hero of the tale. We are expected to see him as quick, smart, clever, and morally superior--or at least looking to help create a higher level of morality. Except that most of us have felt the sting of unfair accusation or assumption of weakness, and as such find ourselves inclined to assume innocence unless guilt is otherwise proven in the story. If we don't believe the speaker to be morally superior--and concerned only with the couple's well-being, rather than scoring points at the expense of others--then the statement comes off as either mean or overbearing, and that undermines the story. In fiction, the event will come in a context that tells us more about what's going on with both the speaker and with the couple. There are facts that the reader will be aware of, and there's an established relationship among the characters (or lack of same). We'll know whether he's overly sensitive to the whole situation because of other events in his own experience. In other words, we'll have a clearer sense of whether the speaker is honestly concerned for the welfare of others, is concerned about making himself look good (either to himself or others), or is simply being malicious because the culture allows it (and sometimes even celebrates it). The vignette as offered here didn't provide any of that supplementary information or context. And like others, I found myself cringing at the power the quip has to injure the psyches and reputations of that brother and sister--especially if its intent was only to make the speaker feel superior. I think it's a fascinating exercise, precisely because of the (probably indignant) energy it can raise in the reader (as it's done here on the List). For me the challenge would be to make that comment perfectly valid in the context of the story at the same time that I make the indignant reaction equally valid. For example, Jonathan Langford talked about how we can easily sexualize otherwise innocent situations, creating sexual tension and the potential for sexual sin where none had existed before by focusing peoples' minds on the previously unimagined possibility. You could lead such a story with the vignette you offer, then follow Brother Hawn (Here-and-Now => HAN =>Hawn) and Sister Zaes (So-and-So => SAS => Saes => Zaes) as they move outward from that moment. In his post, Jongiorgi went on to make an excellent analysis of some means and methods of handling the vignette in a story. I believe that if you study Jongiorgi's post and think of a situation at that level of abstraction, you can generate some really interesting story ideas that can get at a whole series of issues. Here's my own attempt to mine the idea; I'll arbitrarily label the quip-deliverer as "Bob." =Decision tree: Tone and Direction= * Bob as Villain, I. What right does Bob as an individual have to assume impropriety on anyone else's part, and especially to make a (semi) public accusation? * Bob as Villain, II. What's wrong with a culture that allows Bob to feel good about making that kind of assumption? * Bob as Villain, III. What's wrong with a culture that can establish policies that assume the worst of people, encourages its members to spy on each other, and encourages public accusations? * Bob as Hero, I. What's right about a person who's honestly concerned about the spiritual welfare of others? * Bob as Hero, II. What's right about a culture that encourages people to warn their neighbors of potentially dangerous activities? Correlary #1: What's right about people who can accept such a warning with grace and appreciation? * Bob as Hero, III. Whether well-intentioned or not, what good can come out of an offhand remark once everyone has has their say and the War of the Ward has ended? People confront and come to peace with a spiritual sore that has festered in the ward for a long time, with Bob as catalyst. * Purely representational. Draw no conclusions about who was right or wrong, or why. Simply depict events and a series of possible outcomes (recognizing that unless the series of outcomes covers both hero/villain possibilities, it's just a ground ax by another name). =Decision tree: Establishment= * Bob made an honest mistake. He's new to the ward or new to the Church or is just getting active again after a long period of inactivity and doesn't know who belongs with who. Or maybe he's just really bad at connecting names and faces (like I am). * Bob gave a well-intended rebuke. He was honestly concerned for the spiritual welfare of his fellow beings and acted on his good impulse. That he's unpracticed at it and comes off as harshly critical is evidence that he doesn't run around correcting others a lot. * Bob is a busybody. He's a gossip and a prude and sticks his nose into other peoples' business all the time. Beam/mote problem. * Bob doesn't trust anyone. He's a bit of a curmudgeon, sees the worst potential of every situation, and finds the dark cloud around every silver lining. He was muttering under his breath but his words carried further than he intended. * Bob is a lech. His comment reveal his own lusts for/jealously of either Brother or Sister Hawn, or Brother or Sister Zaes. * Bob is mean. He's ugly at heart and just wants to sew discontent and/or prove his own superiority by proclaiming the inadequacies of others. * Bob is angry. He's struggling with his own issues and lashes out at anything that reminds him of his own pain. Perhaps Bob's own wife divorced him or ran away with the 2nd counsellor. Perhaps Bob is involved in an affair of his own and hates the idea that other good Mormons have failed their best hopes as badly as he has. =Decision tree: Initial response= * Laughter I. Brother Hawn and Sister Zaes know they're innocent, they're friends with Bob, and they take the comment as an obvious joke about an obviously silly possibility. It reveals a truism about the particular cultural context in which these characters exist, but the event itself reveals nothing about the characters' actual lives. The story progresses to focus on a different issue after using this vignette to establish the characters' easy familiarity with each other. * Laughter II. They laugh at first, but then the mistrust settles in and they begin to wonder just what Bob was trying to say. Resentments grow. * Laughter III. They laugh, but now the idea has been planted and both Brother Hawn and Sister Zaes find themselves going down a path they hadn't considered until the possibility was mentioned to them. * Confusion I. They know Bob knows better and are trying to figure out what he's at. Is he trying to be mean? Is he trying to create a scandle? They assume good intent, and spend the remainder of the story trying to unravel the source of that very odd comment. The story ends up focusing on Bob and the social/philosophical foundations of his words. * Confusion II. They're guilty of the implied accusation and are forced to expand the scope of their decision now that they perceive the secret is out. * Confusion III. They can't figure out why a normally nice, quiet man would say such a horrible thing. Maybe they misunderstood what he said or at least what he meant; now the question is whether to push it and clarify the situation or just let it lie. * Anger I. Brother Hawn punches Bob out, Sister Zaes runs away and ends up walking six miles home in her Sunday shoes with a growing anger and resentment. * Anger II. Brother Hawn tells Bob to shut up and Bob starts shouting details of insufficiently private tryst. The situation escalates until ward members are deeply divided about what the right thing to do is. ===== etc., usw... There are a lot of stories to be told off of that one vignette, depending on what your authorial bent is--and the number of permutations increases with each decision point. The event itself is not nearly as clear as it may at first seem (imo), and to deeply explore the situation requires that one consider mitigations on both sides--and guilt on both sides. I think it would be fun to put together an anthology of stories that play off different versions of that core vignette. Call the antho "Versions" or "Visions" or "Spectrum" or something of the sort. Let some stories depict Bob as hero, some show Bob as villain, and some show Bob as just a guy muddling through as best he can. Let some condemn Bob, others condemn Brother Hawn and Sister Zaes, and other condemn the culture itself--or condemn no one at all. Let the vignette appear at the beginning, middle, or end of the story--or not appear at all, but it's seeded the events that led to the story. Refer to the vignette directly or obliquely. Have people find peace or condemnation or ambivalence. I'd sponsor a Compass Press limited edition with Paris as pressman and Travis as publicist. Would anyone buy it? Would anyone submit stories to it? Can any of us stop condemning each others' failures long enough to try to see the world through eyes that are not our own, or stop nursing our own injuries long enough to recognize that everyone suffers their own unique and terrifying pains--then tell honest stories whose intent is to reveal real experience rather than grind an institutional ax? There could be the "Sister Smith" volume and the SSA volume and the Mormon Horror volume and... It's an interesting experiment. I'm game if you are. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 11 Jun 2003 19:01:04 -0600 ___ Michael ___ | Later you mention retroactive proof-texting done by early | Mormons about Jesus' polygamous marriages to justify their | own. I believe you're doing the same thing here with the | United Order. We read "have things in common" and | automatically assume something along the lines of the | United Order is being discussed. ___ It's important to remember there was never *a* United Order. There were lots of various experiments in communial societies and co-operatives. So by United Order I basically just mean a generic community where property was viewed as largely shared. This is a fairly uncontroversial reading of the early Christians. Further they were hardly the only group doing it. Lots of other religious movements had very similar beliefs. The point is that someone in the community would most likely not be left to their own devices. ___ Michael ___ | Paul tells us that one of the requirements of a bishop (I | think, or was it deacon?), is that he be husband to ONE | wife. So there must have been some polygamy going on. ___ Undoubtedly there was. Herod if no one else. And the Latin and Hellenistic world really looked down on this from what I understand. I was more speaking of Judaism in general. It was rare except among the rich. Further the anti-polygamy views were already taking hold (to be formalized several centuries later). I agree this says nothing about what the early Christians did. However if it was practiced, it appears to not have been done too openly since none of the anti-Christian rhetoric mentions it. ___ Michael ___ | Let us remember that the ones who canonized the Bible did | not believe in priests being married, so the lack of mention | should not surprise us. ___ Well, except the process of canonization is different from the history of the texts canonized. And it took some time for the anti-marriage trend to dominate - although clearly you can see it even at the time of Paul. I believe some tied this to various acetic movements prior to Jesus (perhaps even the essenes). But I admit I've not read much on that. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Re: Massage Date: 11 Jun 2003 22:18:14 -0600 It is no wonder you feel good at the end of the day, having helped that many people. That is very unselfish of you to give of yourself that way. I am convinced that what you say about stress is true. It is deadly. You have a very good heart and magic hands to go with it. What a blessing to you and others. Nan McCulloch ----- Original Message ----- [snip] > So we've got to get rid of stress. The easiest way is with massage. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 12 Jun 2003 14:41:13 -0600 Jeffrey Needle wrote: >>>Normally, this wouldn't bother me much. But when I reflect that this is written by a judge in Salt Lake City, I began to wonder how even-handed he can be when it comes to matters concerning the Church. I don't live in Utah; I don't know the judge. Perhaps some have even appeared before him. Maybe my concern is misplaced.<<< My wife recently had an interesting experience that relates to this idea. She received a call to serve for jury duty. When she went in for the interview and selection from the jury pool it turned out that it was a murder case involving a man who was severely inebriated at the time the crime took place. In the initial questionaire they asked if she drank alcohol, and whether she was Mormon. When she answered no to the first and yes to the second, she was immediately dismissed from the jury pool and sent home (they had called in over 70 people for the jury pool). Apparently no active Mormon can give fair consideration to an inebriated defendant--at least according to the lawyers (and judge) serving the circuit court in Provo. I found the whole situation quite distressing, and it's bothered me ever since that being Mormon can lead to immediate exclusion from the judicial process in the state of Utah. If an employer made the same kind of decision following the same kind of process they'd be sued senseless. FYI--the accused was found guilty by a jury of his alcohol-drinking, non-Mormon peers only five days after the trial began. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 11 Jun 2003 23:09:21 -0600 Amelia, you really need to read _The Women's Quarterly_ and the newsletter put out by the Independent Women's Forum. It embodies all the good and positive elements of the Feminist movement and ditches all the (pardon the expression) crap. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormonism and Feminism Date: 12 Jun 2003 08:37:12 -0500 Amelia Parkin wrote >i am continuously amazed at mormons' reaction to feminism. i remember >sitting in my cold war history class at byu... i chose to be a part of the group that focused on >the feminist movement... at the end of our 45-minute >presentation we had a question and answer session. during that session our >professor asked our class if any of us would call ourselves a feminist. I >immediately said yes. one other woman in class responded yes, but more >hesitantly than i did... our professor told us that in the five or so >years he had been teaching at byu, only a handful of people had ever >responded to that question affirmatively. somehow we have this stigma >attached to feminism and i frankly do not understand it... >i think it has to do with ignorance. with an >unwillingness to engage with this field of thought called "feminism"... > as if being feminist and mormon are mutually exclusive. I agree that it is wrong for there to be a stigma within the Church attached to feminism. Joseph Smith was one of the most radical, influential feminists in this nation's history. The Church today is one of the world's most successful organizations in the world in promoting feminist ideals. But these statements are only true if one thinks of "feminism" in the terms Amelia Parkin described, not in the preposterous way it has come to be thought of when corrupted by many (but not all) contemporary feminist organizations in the U.S. -- such as promoting the idea that "women are all victims and men are all rascals of the absolute worst variety," or attempting to ban acknowledgments of differences between men and women or legalizing prostitution or stigmatizing motherhood or banning the works of Thomas Paine or promoting lesbianism to grade school children or equating feminism with the promotion of abortion. As [Amelia] described, true feminism is about the "quest to gain equality and opportunity... seeking the possibility of pursuing excellence... women being able to work without having sex with every exec higher than them... women having the opportunity to develop the gifts god gave them... allow[ing] their spirit and their soul to flourish." Put most simply, true feminism is about improving the lives of women. The reason there is a stigma about feminism in the Church is for the most part not because of any problems with the Church of its members, but because the word "feminism" has been hijacked by people with illogical, dishonest and immoral agendas. Feminism is thus very much like Islam. It has been "hijacked" and now stands, in the mind of most people, for something different than what many of its adherents believe in, or what its founders meant for it to be. Members of the Church (and any thinking, fair-minded, moral people) are correct in rejecting the extremist, counter-productive manifestations of "feminism" which have so frequently come to represent this word. It would be nice to not reject the word and the true ideals of feminism out of hand, but to try to take back the word and recognize our feminist heritage. And Church members who embrace the word should recognize that when their people express a disdain for "feminism," they are merely rejecting the extremist faction which have perverted truly feminist ideals. Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 11 Jun 2003 23:14:10 -0600 ---Original Message From: Amelia Parkin > at the end of=20 > our 45-minute=20 > presentation we had a question and answer session. during=20 > that session our=20 > professor asked our class if any of us would call ourselves a=20 > feminist. i=20 > immediately said yes. one other woman in class responded=20 > yes, but more=20 > hesitantly than i did. most of the people around me shifted a little=20 > uncomfortably in their seats. our professor told us that in=20 > the five or so=20 > years he had been teaching at byu, only a handful of people had ever=20 > responded to that question affirmatively. somehow we have=20 > this stigma=20 > attached to feminism and i frankly do not understand it. =20 > perhaps it has=20 > something to do with the ERA and the church's official=20 > opposition to that=20 > amendment. I don't think it's at all hard to understand and I don't think it has anything to do with the ERA (which was, let's face it, 20 years ago). I think it has to do with the vociferous women who hijacked the feminist movement in the '80s and have led it unopposed ever since. When I began college, I described myself as a feminist because my mother had raised = me to respect women, to consider them my intellectual equals (or at least to consider intellectual capacity as gender-neutral) and to beware of = cultural stigmas that are unfair and in need of review and change. But then I encountered the feminist movement and I was appalled. Feminism has = become radicalized to the point that most reasonable people want nothing to do = with it. Feminist organizations universally support left-liberal politics in their most radical manifestations. They attack women who choose not to venerate their career-driven standards of worth and evaluation (try = telling NOW that you plan to be a Mom when you grow up and brace yourself). = And, worst of all, they aren't even ideologically consistent (as witnessed by their wolverine-like public attacks on Clarence Thomas and their = unwavering, even blind, support for Bill Clinton). Now, bear in mind that I specifically and deliberately referred to = Feminist organizations. Individual feminists vary widely in their ideologies and beliefs, I'm sure. *Visible* feminists are unashamed political = ideologues, however. Feminist organizations universally support *unlimited* abortion--including so-called partial birth abortion (a more evil = practice I can hardly imagine--it's a legal procedure, not a medical one). Which leaves little room for church members when the church has an official position opposing most abortions. > but mostly i think it has to do with ignorance. with an=20 > unwillingness to engage with this field of thought called=20 > "feminism". and=20 > with fear. as if being feminist and mormon are mutually exclusive. If they're thought to be mutually exclusive, it's because the Feminist movement left *us*. Utah had to take the vote *away* from women in = order to become a state. The Relief Society is one of the oldest women's organizations in the world (formal organizations, that is). And I've = been reading The Relief Society Magazine lately (piecemeal, not in any = earnest way), and I'm struck by the progressive ideas presented in every issue = I've perused and the underlying assumption that comes through loud and clear = that women are as capable, intellectual, knowledgeable and deserving as men. We've been decades ahead of our prevailing society since the restoration = and Joseph Smith. My generation of Mormon men are, on the whole, = light-years ahead of our contemporaries from other cultural traditions in taking = women seriously and changing discriminatory traditions. But we reject whole-heartedly the whole French-school Feminist movement, phallologocentrism, male-bashing, "all sex is rape," and other extreme = or radical ideologies that have come to represent the public face of = feminism. No wonder we're reluctant to identify with the movement. I don't think we're ignorant in rejecting "feminism." If anything, I'd throw the = burden of ignorance the other direction. Why on Earth would I want to publicly associate myself with people so wholly unfamiliar with me and my = ideological perspective? I'll call myself a feminist again when it no longer means being associated with NOW, Patricia Ireland, or the vocal academic = feminist majority. Any movement that disowns Camille Paglia and denigrates Condoleezza Rice deserves what it gets. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cwilson@emerytelcom.net Subject: [AML] Re: Belly Dancing Date: 12 Jun 2003 14:21:49 GMT Gae Lynn writes: I would like to learn to belly dance if I thought my belly looked good enough to show (which after my six kids it doesn't). Maybe this makes me "lewd, vulgar and indecent"--probably. Am I this way because of my earlier repression? Or if I hadn't been repressed most of my life would I be even worse (better?) now? As a belly dance teacher and a former member of a troupe (before I moved away), I have to chime in on this one. Belly dance is about dancing with isolations; that is, when you move the hips, the chest stays still. When you move the head, the rest of the body remains as still as possible--and so on. Sometimes it's about sparkle and glitz. It's for fun. Sometimes it is a little flirty, but if you find watching it uncomfortably erotic, it could be that this is what YOU bring to the performance. I recall one performance when we bellydanced in a small town venue. We were a middle-aged, both-genders troupe, and, because of our mature shapes, we wore costumes that mostly covered the stretch marks and bulges. Although (of course) American performances can't be culturally genuine, we styled ourselves as a tribal troupe (as opposed to a glitzy Las Vegas dance-in-the-bar troupe). I thought the performance was interesting and modest. Definitely our intent was NOT to arouse erotic feelings. Aftewards, though, one of our ward members came up to us. "I don't know how you could take the sacrament after that," he said. I was astonished, because I didn't feel we particularly emphasized sexuality in our dance. Bellydance, however, does emphasize the hips, so perhaps that was the problem. It is unfortunate that so many of us react negatively to anything that seems sexual or erotic. As long as we maintain our covenant commitments in body and spirit, why not consider our physicality and sexuality to be wonderful? As for body shape and belly dancing, traditionally, the more mature, rounded bodies have been considered to be most attractive in the dance. "You don't have anything to dance about till you're at least thirty-five," one Turkish dancer pointed out. Just get yourself to a bellydance festival sometime and notice the different shapes. You will see dancers five times larger than you are :). It's actually a wonderful way to move out of our cultural construct about what is a beautiful body and see all ages and shapes as graceful and gorgeous. 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: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: [AML] re: Mormonism and Feminism Date: 12 Jun 2003 11:22:25 EDT In a message dated 6/11/03 5:04:17 PM, owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: >what i'd really like to see is some good mormon literature by and about >women who struggle with the inequalities created by the church. i'm sure >there is some; i just don't know where to look for it. if you have >suggestions, please share. >amelia As one who has used the F word from the microphone in church (the word was *feminist*, and may be as potentially shocking in a fast and testimony meeting as that other F word), I say Amen and Amen. :-) Thanks for offering a definition of feminism that is accurate and fair. As for lit, I highly recommend Exponent, especially Exponent II, which is a feminist Mormon periodical that has been going for about 30 years. It's terrific. Jana Riess -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Roy Schmidt" Subject: RE: [AML] Sunday Evening Genesis Branch Date: 12 Jun 2003 11:17:43 -0600 Margaret, Are signings in the works? I agree, Elder Bateman was a little long, although his insights were worthwhile. Roy Schmidt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Mary Sturlogson Eyre's Contact Info Date: 12 Jun 2003 22:34:15 -0500 Folks, Someone over AML-List asked for Mary Sturlogson Eyre's contact information. If whoever that was could contact Margaret Young directly at margaret_young@byu.edu, she has the information. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Re: Belly Dancing Date: 12 Jun 2003 13:02:23 -0700 > I would like to learn to belly dance if I thought my belly looked good > enough to show (which after my six kids it doesn't). I recently saw the only improve belly dance troupe in the Seattle area perform at the annual Folklife Festival. There were about 10 or 12 dancers total, and only 3 or 4 of them were what I'd call thin/skinny. The others weren't *that* overweight, but they weren't skinny. Can you guess which bellies were the most interesting to watch? The fatter ones. Maybe because the skinny girls didn't have as much to undulate. But I also didn't see much sexuality in the dancing they did. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 12 Jun 2003 15:05:18 -0600 ___ Scott ___ | Apparently no active Mormon can give fair consideration to | an inebriated defendant--at least according to the lawyers | (and judge) serving the circuit court in Provo. ___ There is some good reasoning to this though. After all if you've never been drunk it is hard to get a feel for what one's capabilities are while drunk. Many Mormons in Utah county (those who weren't wild for at least a few months) have very odd notions about what alcohol is like. There are even those stories (based upon a questionable NDE story) that you are possessed by the devil while drinking. If I were a defense lawyer I'd certainly not want someone like that judging my client. Heavens, even if I were a prosecutor I'd be a tad worried. (Oh no - he wasn't responsible. He was possessed) Now of course I'm exaggerating more than a little with that reference to the NDE. However there can be a strong naivete among some that would sort of make the "judged by your peers" part of justice difficult to maintain. ___ Scott ___ | If an employer made the same kind of decision following the | same kind of process they'd be sued senseless. ___ Well yes. But it really is a different situation. I'd add that there is controversy in many places because of all white juries judging black defendents. While I think the problems exaggerated, I think there is a clear issue here. If I recall this was a big issue during some of the recent polygamy trials as well. It was thought that a fair trial would be difficult. (i.e. can you convict someone of polygamy if your grandfather was a polygamist? Can a Mormon separate out feelings towards apostates from the legal matters?) An other thing that you'll find about many jury selections. Smart people are often excluded. (Not always, mind you. But frequently.) They'll ask odd questions along those lines. That varies local to local. But in large cities it's pretty common I'm told. Clark Goble (There. I remembered this time. Every time I see my name between square brackets I feel guilty for all the stress I cause our esteemed moderator) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 12 Jun 2003 14:15:45 -0700 Clark Goble notes: "On the other hand, while not technically a "Mormon" horror all the stories about Academy Square and the devil worshippers who hung out there was a great past time on my mission and when I was at BYU. With the renovation we lost the great haunted house of Provo." Very true. While at the "Y" I was cast in a student short film, a "comic horror" peice about a practical joke that backfires on the joker. We filmed the entire thing INSIDE the old Academy over the course of three nights, running around with axes and freaking each other out. Even with the film crew around, there was NO ACTING REQUIRED when it came to the scary parts. That place was genuinely CREEPY. And a lot of fun. I love the new renovations, of course (who wouldn't), when I visit Provo, but I remember going to movies in the old theater in the back of the Academy for a time in the early 80's, and there is nothing like the musty-odored memories I have of walking home late at night from the Academy after seeing a Bogart pic or something there with three other people in the old mildewy seats with those fly-spotted ceiling fans overhead. The place, in its "haunted days" had a character that is now gone forever. Progress always has its price. Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 12 Jun 2003 15:05:04 -0700 What a story! Very scary indeed. I wonder if anyone on list has had experience with Judge Thurman. Or if he's even still serving in Salt Lake City? Does anyone know? ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Yahoo! News Story - Sen. Hatch Earns $20,000 From Songwriting Date: 12 Jun 2003 16:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Sen. Hatch Earns $20,000 From Songwriting By Robert Gehrke, Associated Press writer When Senator Orrin Hatch had a recent meeting with Bono of the rock band U2, the Utah Republican took the opportunity to show off a bit of his own songs. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030611/ap_on_go_co/hatch_songwriting_7 ===== 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: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 12 Jun 2003 20:28:56 -0500 I found Melissa Proffitt's analysis of how feminism has worked for her = within the church to be right on with some of the experiences I have = had. I, too, have never really experienced institutional gender bias = within the church. More often, I have experienced individual gender = bias. And, even then, it's often unintentional gender bias (which = doesn't really excuse it, just explains it differently.) Melissa wrote: ____ But my reaction was never to change the system. In my mind, I could not = see how the system was at fault if it had never reached out its tentacles to restrict me. And having lived in a number of wards all over the = country, and having seen how the peculiar beliefs of the local priesthood = authority could influence the culture of the ward, it seemed to me that every = member of the Church believed to some extent that "the Church" was synonymous = with "my ward." My solution was to change the individuals--to set an = example, to teach good principles, and to occasionally lay the smack down on people = who needed a serious attitude adjustment. ____=20 Here's just a quick story that happened to me in my ward about six = months ago. We recently changed bishopbrics. Soon after, the Bishop = called and asked my husband to speak in sacrament meeting (on pretty = short, two day notice). He didn't ask me to speak, which was totally = fine with me -- it's not like husbands and wives have to come in a = matched set or anything. But the fact that I wasn't asked made me a = little more aware of the sacrament meeting line-ups over the weeks = following my husband's talk. Instead of having a youth speaker and two = adult speakers, like I was used to, we were having a youth speaker and = one adult speaker. And the one adult speaker was ALWAYS a man. After a = few months without a single, solitary adult female speaker, I was = beginning to get a little irked, so on one particular Sunday when I = opened up my bulletin and saw yet another twelve year old girl would be = speaking for 2 1/2 minutes, and a man would be speaking for the = remaining 40, I decided I needed to get to the bottom of it. =20 I'm not usually a very confrontational person. Although I do have some = pretty deeply held opinions, and I'm quite adept at getting quietly = suspicious about things, I can also be something of a chicken. But I = figured there were two possible reasons the Bishop wasn't asking women = to speak. The first reason, that it was on purpose and he really didn't = think that women should be speaking in sacrament meeting, was so = horrifying to me that if it was true, I decided it was my duty in the = name of womanhood to at least bring it up with the bishop and discuss = how in the world he had come to such a conclusion. The second (and I = figured more likely) reason, that he was simply completely unaware that = he hadn't been asking women to speak, had horrifying connotations of its = own. (I remember, during one of my driving-home-from-church rants to my = husband, saying, "I wonder how many people in the ward would notice if = we'd only had women and no men speak from the pulpit in the last three = months!") I finally mustered up the courage when the bishop stopped me in the hall = to chat about some Primary concerns. I took a deep breath and said = (something like), "Bishop, I've been a little bothered by something = recently and wonder if you could maybe clear it up for me," then went on = to point out how, since he'd become bishop, exactly zero women had = spoken in Sacrament meeting. He looked absolutely stunned. He then = went back to leaf through his day planner and said, "My goodness, I = think you're right!" His explanation, in a kind of round about way, was = that his bishopbric was new and kind of unorganized, and they hadn't = been asking people very far in advance, and he knew it made women = nervous if they didn't have a lot of time to prepare. I assured him = that I, in fact, could whip up a talk just about as quick as my husband = could. Then he chuckled and slapped me on the back and said, "Looks = like somebody's itching to talk in sacrament meeting," (which, = obviously, wasn't why I'd brought it up . . . but . . . ) and that he'd = "get right on it." The next Sunday my husband, the Elder's Quorum president, was in = correlation meeting. He told me that the Bishop made some kind of = remark like, "And you better watch out for this guy's wife, she'll keep = you on your toes," at which everyone had a good laugh, and made me = wonder if I'd gotten myself on some kind of secret list of scary ladies. = That afternoon, I got a call from the first counselor asking me to talk = the next week in sacrament meeting. And there have been women speaking = in almost every sacrament meeting (except, of course, the High Council = sacrament meeting) ever since. I guess the point of this whole story is that I could have seen it as = another depressing example of the sexism that is prevalent in the Mormon = church. I could have been offended and angry at this bishop, and = extended it even further, trying to imagine how a true calling could be = extended to someone who was obviously sexist, then called into question = whether or not revelation is at work in the church, etc., etc., etc. -- = but I didn't, really. Although it was an unfortunate experience, the = reason that it was so stunning to me that women *weren't* being asked to = speak was because, in all the other wards I'd been a part of, women were = an integral part of sacrament meeting and Sunday school and doctrinal = discussions. This experience was noteworthy because of the way it = deviated from what I had come to expect in a Mormon sacrament meeting. = And it also showed how things can be changed if you're willing to speak = up a little. I didn't need to cry and rant and rave, but I did need to = speak up. Still, though, I wonder. Why was I the ONLY one who seemed to notice? = That, still, has me worried. Angela Hallstrom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 12 Jun 2003 21:24:12 -0600 > My wife recently had an interesting experience that relates to this idea. She > received a call to serve for jury duty. When she went in for the interview and > selection from the jury pool it turned out that it was a murder case involving a > man who was severely inebriated at the time the crime took place. > In the initial questionaire they asked if she drank alcohol, and whether she was > Mormon. When she answered no to the first and yes to the second, she was > immediately dismissed from the jury pool and sent home (they had called in over > 70 people for the jury pool). > Apparently no active Mormon can give fair consideration to an inebriated > defendant--at least according to the lawyers (and judge) serving the circuit > court in Provo. > Scott Parkin Actually, that's fairly common anywhere. Here in Alaska (yes, I am in Alaska for the summer), my Father was denied Jury Duty because the defendants had been drunk while knocking over a liquor store, and so Mormons, since they don't drink, apparently can't be fair judges. (For a literary tie, this spurred my writing of a few sf stories in a future where religous belief automatically disqualifies you for any public jobs in the USA). --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 12 Jun 2003 22:05:26 -0400 Hello, >-----Original Message----- I have also dismissed this but for the additional reason that the scripture has been notoriously misunderstood by many Mormons. I'm no expert in Greek but what I have learned is that the better translation of that all too-familiar passage should be something like, " Avoid evil as soon as it makes it appearance." IOW, it isn't talking at all about "looking" evil but getting the h*** out of Dodge when evil reers its ugly head. Eschew evil, that's what the scripture says. RESPONSE: Thanks for the engaging post, Thom. I hate quibbling with someone I agree with, but the scripture is 1 Thess 5:22, and in a mish-mash of Pauline proof-texts, the apostle says, literally, "get away from every form of evil." The Grk, eidon, refers to form/shape/appearance, and most Christian exegetes interpret it as staying away from things that are evil (along the lines of "avoid every kind/sort of evil") with a hefty representation of "avoid things that look evil" in the most puritanical traditions. The "appearance" reading is certainly not excluded by the text itself. Importantly, at least in this passage, Paul doesn't talk about "others' perceptions" of evil, which the common LDS interpretation Thom alludes to seems to require (though admittedly he does wander there in other letters). That scripture doesn't deter me because I think the point is that heterosexual friendships aren't evil, so "Being Unalone" (to neologize awkwardly), isn't the shape/form/appearance of evil. I'm more concerned that casting women as succubi and men as puerile slaves to libido _is_ the exact shape of evil, as it hobbles our personhood and limits our capacity to grow into humans of substance. To prove I haven't lost the literary vision of the AML list charter, this discussion has made me think carefully about a short story about a man who is consumed by avoiding the appearance of evil and in so doing estranges his wife. It would be hard to avoid being trite or moralizing, but you might be able to show how his focus on appearances of evil results in his objectification of his wife, alienating him from her. Perhaps a variation on Hawthorne's Birthmark, where the scientist is obsessed with the single imperfection, with a backwards application of Dorian Gray as her face is gradually drained of humanity. sam -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Dushku (Was:World's Top 2 LDS Actresses Starring in FOX TV Series) Date: 12 Jun 2003 16:47:23 -0700 (PDT) There was a recent episode of the MTV reality show "Punk'd" (in which practical jokes are played on celebrities by "That 70's Show" star Ashton Kutcher and filmed with hidden cameras) where Dushku was set up and falsely accused of shoplifting at a clothing store. She responded by letting fly with a colorful set of cuss words, most of which were bleeped for broadcast. But what is she, 22 years old? I probably would have responded the same way when I was her age. In the "Buffy" finale, the rogue slayer Faith not only survived the Sunnydale apocalypse, but took further steps towards redemption with the help and friendship of principal Wood. The moral, I suppose: there's hope for us all. I wish Dushku would have taken the Fatih-based Buffy spinoff instead of going to Fox. That network has a recent habit of canceling its best new shows ("Firefly", "Andy Richter Controls the Universe".) So I'm not getting my hopes up for Dushku's new show. ===== 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: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 12 Jun 2003 19:28:11 -0600 Robert Slaven: >While the guidelines of never being >alone with someone of the opposite sex to whom you're not >married seems excessive and silly to many, the fact is it will >pretty much keep anyone out of trouble if followed. So will celibacy but no one is suggesting that as a practical long-term solution. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "jana" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 12 Jun 2003 20:53:30 -0700 > As one who has used the F word from the microphone in church (the word was > *feminist*, and may be as potentially shocking in a fast and testimony meeting > as that other F word), I say Amen and Amen. :-) Thanks for offering a > definition of feminism that is accurate and fair. As for lit, I highly recommend > Exponent, especially Exponent II, which is a feminist Mormon periodical that has > been going for about 30 years. It's terrific. > Jana Riess > > A few months ago I heard that Ex2 was going under. Is it still alive and kicking? --Jana Remy PS: One of my favorite gifts ever is a collection (about 10 years worth) of Ex2's given to me by my mother when I started college. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Massage Date: 12 Jun 2003 19:30:31 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Richard Johnson >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:34 PM >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: [AML] re: Massage (was: Restrictions on Being Alone) > > >Sigh! I want Paris to move to Statesboro, GA/ > Why not? Paris is already in Texas. Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 12 Jun 2003 22:37:04 -0600 ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > >-----Original Message----- > >Thom, I said "guideline" for a reason. I'm all for moral > >agency and adults acting like adults and taking responsibility > >for their own actions. But while the subject of this thread > >has "Restrictions" in it, I have yet to hear anybody talking > >about anything sinister enough to warrant such a strong > >reaction here. > > Then let me give you an example. In a previous ward, my > Bishop admonished all MP holders to avoid giving women rides > in cars even if it was an emergency. The example he gave, > "You are driving home on a rainy day and notice that Sister > Smith, your neighbor, is totally drench. Now your first > inclination would be to stop and offer her a ride. Don't do > it. FIRST GO HOME AND GET YOUR WIFE THEN RETURN AND OFFER A > RIDE TO SISTER SMITH." > > Can you think of anything more insane than that? Or anything > that undermines the beautiful teaching of the Good Samaritan > than such, and I don't shy away from using the word, > "Pharasaic" teachings as that? I think that's an accurate characterization, Thom. I'm sorry you had such an inappropriate leader. That's an example (as related mind, I hesitate to pronounce judgment on the actual situation) of an insane personal doctrine being taught as truth and if I had been there, I wouldn't have hesitated to say so. I wish the rest of the men in the room had had the guts to speak out against such a bizarre statement. I'd hardly characterize it as common teaching in the church, though. In all my travel and the different wards I've lived in, I've never heard anything that ridiculous. Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 13 Jun 2003 01:20:16 -0400 Nan, after your last post I did read _the women's quarterly_ (the current issue as far as it is accessible on line), their newsletter (which i believe is called _exFemina_), and their sister site SheThinks.org (the campus version). I was stunned and horrified to find that on SheThinks, under feminism, the articles all had to do with silly dating advice a la 17 or YM, etc., etc. or with utterly ridiculous jabs made at liberal policies. really, i could read higher quality journalism in almost any publication i could purchase at the local grocery store. i had expected at least an intelligent counter argument to current hot issues in the feminist/un-feminist worlds. as for _the women's quarterly_, i purused IWF's site quite extensively and read the latest issue of the journal. well written, witty, intelligent. but it felt like all i was reading was a bunch of conservative ideologues writing about how horrible the feminist movement is. i didn't find much of anything that actually addresses real issues that real women face in the world. just a backlash against the UN, against Kate Millett, and other various and sundry people and ideas associated with the feminist movement. is it possible that i could find interesting information there? probably. but i'm not interested in reading political rhetoric on either side of the political spectrum. what i'm looking for is lasting solutions to what i see as problems. i have a lot of thinking to do about the posts that came in response to this thread. it is an issue i deal with often in my life. an issue i have thought about extensively. i'd like to read the posts that came a little closer so i can respond with the thoughtfulness that the others have responded with. so you'll be hearing more from me on this issue. amelia -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ Date: 13 Jun 2003 00:46:00 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: >Well, except the process of canonization is different from the >history of the texts canonized. And it took some time for the >anti-marriage trend to dominate - although clearly you can see it >even at the time of Paul. I believe some tied this to various >acetic movements prior to Jesus (perhaps even the essenes). But I >admit I've not read much on that. A good resource for this is Catherine Thomas's dissertation "The Influence of Asceticism on the Rise of Christian Text, Doctrine, and Practice in the First Two Centuries" (available from BYU Studies). I was a little difficult for me to read in places, but I think mostly from not being knowledgable about the time period and philosophies discussed. But it was still very interesting to see how the philosophies affected readings and re-editings of the texts. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ Date: 12 Jun 2003 23:09:45 -0600 I haven't read William F. Buckley's new novel, but I have read three = reviews on the book. We have discussed earlier that the protagonist = John Bircher love interest of the Ayn Rand character is a Mormon. In = the most recent _National Review_ under notes & asides there is a letter = to WFB from Gordon Cummings a Mormon from Concord, Calif. I am = interested to know what you listers think of the letter from Bro. = Cummings and the response from William F. Buckley. =20 Dear Mr. Buckley: Reading the interview with you about your new novel, = I was disappointed at the way you described the Mormon character. = Apparently, this character loses his virginity while serving as a = missionary for the Mormon church in Hungary. Speaking as a Latter-day = Saint(a.k.a. "Mormon") myself, this is offensive and disappointing. = There aren't very many Mormon characters in contemporary novels that = aren't actually about the Mormons, so when there is one, who is such a = bad example of what we stand for, and the character isn't balanced with = one who sets a better example, the result is to place us all in a bad = light. This is not showing much respect for other people's religions. Here is WFB's response: Dear Mr. Cummings: The author of _Getting it Right_ cast its Mormon = protagonist in the highest light, with corporal weaknesses most = religions were founded to cope with. Does the author have a responsibility to balance a wayward character = with a believing practicing character in a novel? Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: robertslaven@shaw.ca Subject: re: [AML] Mormon Horror Date: 13 Jun 2003 00:27:58 -0700 Being between two computers (long story), I've lost track of who mentioned the book by Gary Gilmore's brother in terms of showing Mormon horror (in the form of capital punishment methods causing loss of blood/blood atonement/etc.). That gave me a great idea for a story/novel. A relatively new bishop (6 months?) is shaking his head as he locks his office and goes through the chapel turning off lights. The appointments of the evening run through his mind: the 19-year-old whose mission papers are now in the bishop's desk instead of on their way to SLC because of a nasty pornography/masturbation problem; the recently-separated wife who's admitting to a temptation to lesbianism after having put up with an abusive husband (and father before that) for so long; the well-respected businessman who just confessed now, in the last appointment, that he's been seeing prostitutes on business trips. He had no idea the ward had this many problems with chastity. Then, walking towards his car in the almost-empty parking lot, he notices that Brother X's car (his last appointment) is still there. Brother X left 15 minutes before...is he sitting in his car thinking or crying or something? Bishop walks over to look...and finds Brother X, dead, lying beside the driver's side door, his throat slashed and blood all over the parking lot. Bishop pulls out his cellphone and dials 911, and then kneels down to look at Brother X. There's a crumpled paper stuffed into Brother X's clenched hand...it's a page torn from Brigham Young's _Journal of Discourses_, quoting President Young on the topic of blood atonement.... The trick, now, of course, is for the Bishop to help try to figure out who's doing this. The why would be relatively obvious to the least-sheep-like of Mormons (not to mention most ex- or anti-Mormons). Setting it somewhere where Mormons aren't so thick on the ground (i.e. where the cops are almost certainly non-Mormons) would allow some good exposition work as the bishop tries to explain to the cops what's up. Room for the Bishop to question his own faith...maybe he's a convert and never thought about this much before...or maybe he's got an ancestor who was 'atoned' (or at least rumoured to have been) and has buried the thoughts until now.... Lots of fertile ground there, methinks. (If anyone steals this idea, I won't mind *too* much, as long as I get a free copy and a mention in the acknowledgments....) ObSortaRelated: I've been a capital punishment buff since I was a pup, always interested in the history, methods, etc. But if I was ever appointed Lord High Executioner, I'd go with hanging, British-style. In the 1950's, they had it down to an art -- from opening of cell door to dropping of trap, a typical time was 8 seconds. Very quick, very clean. Very unmessy, esp. w.r.t. blood, which would upset those who favour the whole blood atonement thing. But even when Utah ditched hanging and brought in lethal injection, the firing squad is still an option. (It is in Idaho, too....) ObLitNoteReTheAbove: _The Hangman's Tale_, by Syd Dernley. Syd was an assistant hangman in England in the 1950's, and participated in about 20 executions. Lots of detail on exactly how it was all done. The movie _10 Rillington Place_, about the Christie/Evans case, depicts a very realistic scene where Evans is hanged (Dernley was in on that one), which shows almost perfectly how it was done then in England...except that Evans (John Hurt) stands on the trap breathing heavily through the hood for way too long. In real life, as soon as the hood was on, the noose was on, and the legs were strapped, the head executioner pulled the lever almost immediately. Evans took 15 seconds, largely because he moved slowly from the cell to the gallows. An interesting movie and an interesting case, as Evans was later posthumously pardoned, which led the way to hanging's abolition in England in the 1960's. OK, that's probably more than y'all wanted to know. I'll shut up now. Robert the weird -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 13 Jun 2003 09:11:38 -0500 Jana Riess wrote: > As one who has used the F word from the microphone in church (the word was > *feminist*, and may be as potentially shocking in a fast and testimony meeting > as that other F word), I say Amen and Amen. :-) Thanks for offering a > definition of feminism that is accurate and fair. As for lit, I highly recommend > Exponent, especially Exponent II, which is a feminist Mormon periodical that has > been going for about 30 years. It's terrific. For any of you wanting a free back issue or to subscribe to Exponent II ($20 for one year, $35 for 2), contact Exponent II P.O. Box 128 Arlington, MA 02476-0002 A great issue just came out and another issue is going to press around the end of June. As a convert to the Church back in the early 70's, I remember distinctly hearing a woman (Judy Dushku) speak in an institute class in Cambridge, MA. She talked about how she told her colleagues at the college where she taught "Of course I'm a feminist! I'm a Mormon, aren't I?" That sounded so "just right" to me. Yes, words have gotten very loaded since then, and I have learned much, much more about Mormon culture over the years, but I still believe Judy's phrase sums it up. Linda Hoffman Kimball -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Margaret Dyal" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 13 Jun 2003 10:19:07 -0500 Preston Hunter wrote: The reason there is a stigma about feminism in the Church is for the most part not because of any problems with the Church of its members, but because the word "feminism" has been hijacked by people with illogical, dishonest and immoral agendas. Feminism is thus very much like Islam. It has been "hijacked" and now stands, in the mind of most people, for something different than what many of its adherents believe in, or what its founders meant for it to be. I find this to be very true and as a young woman, feminism seems to be a one-issue system of beliefs: pro-abortion/choice. As a person who has a strong religious and humanist conviction that abortion is immoral, exploitive, and denigrating I feel that I can no longer call myself a feminist because the assumption is, as a feminist, I am pro-abortion/choice, which I am most definitely not. I would consider myself a feminist of the Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollstonecraft type. Not the Patricia Ireland and Andrea Dworkin type which dominate feminist politics today. Margaret Dyal -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: [AML] re: Belly Dancing Date: 13 Jun 2003 08:48:10 -0700 Here's an interesting article that appeared this morning on CNN concerning Belly Dancing as a aerobic exercise: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/06/13/bellydancing/index.html -BJ Rowley -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Salt Lake Most Wicked City? Date: 13 Jun 2003 09:50:15 -0600 <<>> I remember often hearing this as a youth--in fact, SLC would be the world's MOST wicked city--but what is the source? Also, I remember hearing that this planet was the only one among God's billions of worlds that was wicked enough to kill the Savior, whose atonement applies to all the planets. However, elsewhere I've read that each planet has its own redeemer, which is what I buy into. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Belly Dancing Date: 13 Jun 2003 11:08:33 -0400 I just knew we'd finally hear from Cathy, and that what she said would make sense. Back in the fifties the members of the company at the San Diego Shakespeare festival had the opportunity (actually we were pushed pretty hard) to take belly dancing from a lovely Turkish couple whose names (along with many others) I have forgotten but I have taught belly dancing techniques (without identifying them) to hundreds of actors for use as warm ups, movement preparation etc. It has always been hilarious to watch the expression on student faces as their fat old professor demonstrated pelvic slides and rotations or chest isolations, and to see those expressions change as they themselves really began to focus on the movement. Down with Lloyd Miller and his "cultural definitions". Richard B. Johnson, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important- and most valuable. Http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Petersen Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 13 Jun 2003 10:38:37 -0600 on 6/11/03 4:27 PM, Robert Slaven at robert@robertslaven.ca wrote: > While the guidelines of never being alone > with someone of the opposite sex to whom you're not married seems excessive > and silly to many, the fact is it will pretty much keep anyone out of > trouble if followed. Sure it will keep you out of trouble, so will walling yourself up in a very small room, but it also limits your world of experience. I think most Mormons suffer from heterophobia--we place so much emphasis on sex being the very definition of morality that we are constantly worrying about not having sex. No one talks about sex, no one watches dirty movies, but it seems to be on everyone's mind. It's as if sexual relations will just automatically break out any minute two people of the oposite sex are alone together. (On a side note, I recently spoke with the director of BYU's international cinema program, and he told me about one particular crusader who used to rent all of the IC movies--back when they edited--and would take clips of all the naughty bits [the bad language, nudity, etc. that BYU would cut before showing the films] and then splice them together and duplicate the tape and send the copies to all the BYU board of directors and GAs. Now there is a guy who is so worried about sex that he's going to see every bit of it that might contaminate our local studentbody!) I teach English part-time at BYU and most of my colleagues are women. Yes, sometimes there are two of us alone in the shared office together. And what usually happens is that we have great conversations. I think we all respect the fact that we're committed, not seeking a relationship beyond the status of friends, and don't see anything sexual about our relationships. I have had many, many close friendships with women throughout my life, and my wife has had many close friendships with men. The only time I've ever had any problem was when I worked for the U.S. Congress and had a good friend that I used to walk with at lunch time. Rumors started to spread about the two of us and they all started with "You know, Boyd's a Mormon, and those Mormons can have more than one wife." Once I educated folks about that misconception, I never had any other problems. (Literary tie in:) I would really like to see more literature explore the broader implications of morality--that morality is not just about not having sex. I also teach Ethics at UVSC, and I do a little ethical case study at the beginning of the semester to help students evaluate how they prioritize their individual ethical code. Sexual sins always rank highest (even over murder!) for these kids. Amazes me. And I find that many of these nice Utah valley Mormons see other kinds of ethical lapses (Enron, for example) as no big deal. No wonder this is the fraud capital of the world. Someone on the list recently mentioned Nathaniel Hawthorne as a model for some moralistic literature that might be aimed at the Mormon reader. I really like this idea. --Boyd Petersen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Hammett Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 13 Jun 2003 11:47:11 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 06 Jun 2003, Rex Goode wrote: > I suppose one of the main reasons I don't subscribe wholly > to any of those ideas is because I would hate to be so > easily explained. A natural fear, but, I think you'd agree, a foolish one. Heterosexuality can be easily explained in terms of one thing--reproduction. You can get a fairly decent explanation by including one other factor--allocation of individual and social resources. All of this nicely evolved to its current state over billions of years. And yet, I don't feel cheapened by that. I _do_ think the specific theories that you've been discussing are poor scientifically, and serve mostly to justify certain attitudes and programs. But at some level, any biological explanation will seem too glib. But it shouldn't cheapen your life and experiences. This is a (rare, for me) place where I think pure science is nearly orthogonal to art and "life". rich ps. apologies for the late follow-up...I was at a conference on the Left Coast and had a very slow internet connection. Much too slow to keep up with the traffic on this list recently! -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net \ They that can give up essential / liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve \ neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 11 Jun 2003 01:28:46 -0600 Amelia Parkin wrote: > somehow we have this stigma > attached to feminism and i frankly do not understand it. perhaps it has > something to do with the ERA and the church's official opposition to that > amendment. but mostly i think it has to do with ignorance. with an > unwillingness to engage with this field of thought called "feminism". and > with fear. as if being feminist and mormon are mutually exclusive. Why many perceive them as mutually exclusice seems pretty clear to me. Feminism took the mother out of the home and put her in the workplace. As a result, it also took the children out of the home and put them into daycare. Feminism also wants the woman to have the right to kill her unborn child. Feminism is destroying the family. As you say, most feminists may not be of the male-bashing variety, but they are the silent majority. The vocal minority are very much into male-bashing, and it's the vocal members of a movement who define the movement in the public's eyes. Therefore feminism attakcs males, who are fathers and grandfathers and brothers and sons and grandsons of Mormons. Family members. Priesthood holders. Feminism (as perceived by many) does all sorts of damage. That's why it's considered mutually exclusive with Mormonism. Perception is reality. You can bemoan all day how the perception is inaccurate, but that won't change things. The perception must be changed. That can only happen through education. In my opinion, the best way to educate a populace that holds to a fallacious perception and does so with great enthusiasm is through the guerilla tactics of literature. We need LDS stories about feminists. We need publishers who will publish stories about feminists. We need authors who will write stories about feminists, cast in a mold that _will_ get published and _will_ get read. In other words, stories about feminists that are not labeled feminist stories. We need female protagonists that act like feminists without having that label appear anywhere. So go write some. -- 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] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 01:30:45 -0600 Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > How about it Sugar Beaters? Can I write for The Sugar Beet? That was scathing. It need to be in the Sugar Beet. -- 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] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 01:32:43 -0600 Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > But don't you have to take into account that she was a smoker? It can't be > that attractive to kiss someone who smells and tastes like that? I can honestly say I've never kissed a smoker, so I don't really know how bad it tastes, although I always imagined it would taste awful (which is probably why I've never tried it.) But female physical attractiveness can overcome all sorts of negative things, and she was very attractive. I don't think the smoking would have been an issue--at least not until I did give her a taste. -- 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] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 11 Jun 2003 01:39:59 -0600 Paris Anderson wrote: > I know people would say that's against the rules. To touch people, and get > into situations where I going to end up feeling a bond with people. Our society has abolished touch. If males touch, they might be homosexuals. If a man touches a woman, she may scream sexual harrassment. If an adult touches a child (especially if it's a man doing the touching), he's probably a sexual predator. If two kids touch, schools are now starting to call _that_ sexual harrassment, even if the kid is too young to know what sex is. The only ones who are still allowed to touch each other are women. Any other form of touch is interpreted as sexual. So no one touches anyone anymore. The scriptures prophesied that in the latter days the love of many would wax cold. Gee, I wonder what's causing 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: Rich Hammett Subject: [AML] Re: Mormonism and Feminism Date: 13 Jun 2003 16:58:48 -0500 (CDT) I've been alternately amused and horrified by the way "feminism" has been attacked here in the last few days. I am absolutely certain that some of the list's feminists hold very strongly to some of the opinions that have been denigrated as the "evils of feminist institutions." I know this, because I am one of them. I hope the others don't feel silenced by the attacks. A common theme in several attacks was the crazy idea that women should be able to do anything a man can do. Just the fact that someone here would attack that idea makes me feel like we're 50 years further in the past than I thought we were. I guess the idea is that women are different from men. Not exactly a new statement, but what does it mean? Does it mean that men are physically stronger than women? Phrased so superficially, that statement seems obvious, but does anybody think that Woody Allen could take on Chyna in wrestling? I don't think even professional wrestling could get away with that mismatch. A couple of women said they had never experienced institutional gender bias in the Church. I must not understand what those words mean...or have these women ever served as bishop? The current setup enables leaders to think of "women's issues" as a subset of "church issues." And women are ALWAYS "them" to the church leaders. It is by definition an institutional gender bias. But one that is on its last legs, I think. I hope. Will Catholics or Mormons make the jump first? Sounds like good speculative fiction. Is there any of that in Mormon feminist circles, or is that too subversive? As far as the Independent Women's Forum, it is exactly as Fair and Balanced as Fox News Channel. Actually, the more I read, I think it's actually more of a right-wing screed than FNC. Quite a few painfully bad facts and numbers, too, so don't rely on them for anything other than making you fell better about yourself. I think there's room for real feminism in mormonism and mormon literature, not just the watered-down version that some are espousing. There are actually _good_ arguments for decriminalizing prostitution, and some of the other radical notions. And I'm sure some of that has worked its way into even Mormon pioneer novels...pioneer Utah (and later) was lousy with brothels. I will agree with the "anti-feminists" who said that it was a mistake of some feminists to denigrate motherhood. That is a critical function, and should be open even as a career choice. But we can also make laws to encourage allowing women to be a mother, and still contribute in other ways to society, and develop their other gifts. The ideal of universal motherhood as a calling is a mind-destroyer and soul-killer. "Women" can do everything "men" can do, and it's up to us to find ways as a society to make it possible for good motherhood to be a part of that, and not an obstacle from it. rich -- \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / rhammett@HiWAAY.net \ They that can give up essential / liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve \ neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 13 Jun 2003 17:07:49 -0600 I once heard a story about a priesthood leader following in his car alongside a sister as she walked home during a heavy rain storm. He kept shouting encouragement to her through the barely-opened window. Her body may have been wet and cold, but her soul was warm and secure that day, I'm sure. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 11 Jun 2003 01:56:20 -0600 Robert Slaven wrote: > Hear hear. Fact is, feminism has one thing right; men *are* pigs. (As one > net-friend of mine once put it, "All men are pigs. It's just that > sometimes, they're something more.") The 'natural man' part of most men is > tempted to treat women in stereotypical caveman style; bop 'em on the head > and drag 'em back to the cave. While the guidelines of never being alone > with someone of the opposite sex to whom you're not married seems excessive > and silly to many, the fact is it will pretty much keep anyone out of > trouble if followed. Men are pigs only because people keep saying things like "men are pigs" and everyone starts believing it. If you're convinced you're a pig, you'll make no attempt to act otherwise. If you're convinced you're not a pig, you won't act like one. I am a man. I am not a pig. I embrace my sexuality, but I don't abuse it. I respect women, but no more or less than other men. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 13 Jun 2003 18:42:28 -0600 Clark Goble wrote: > ___ Scott ___ > | Apparently no active Mormon can give fair consideration to > | an inebriated defendant--at least according to the lawyers > | (and judge) serving the circuit court in Provo. > ___ > > There is some good reasoning to this though. I understand that the defense wants to have the greatest chance of empathy on the part of the jury, and that a great many Mormons see alcohol itself as a sin nearly as bad as murder. It was kind of comical in many ways. I guess they normally call in about 25 people from which to select a jury, but because of the local demographic they started with more than 70, knowing that they were going to reject most right up front. In the end I think they ended up with exactly 12 who didn't get cut by the first questionaire, so they kind of had to go with what they had. In my case it was an emotional response because the reason for the systematized mistrust was my religion. While it may be understandable, it certainly doesn't change the fact that without any interview at all, they rejected people simply for the framework of their beliefs. I understand that it's done all the time with women or people of a particular ethnicity, and that there was no special animus against Mormons. It's been easy for me to be philosophical about the reason for other peoples' exclusion. Now that it's my wife that was excluded because of an issue of institutional mistrust, the practice became personal. Scott Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Next Week on AML-List... Date: 13 Jun 2003 22:24:09 -0500 Folks, I'm going to be out of town for the last three days of next week. This provides a good opportunity for us to try out something that's been in the works for a while now: that is, a two-tiered moderating system, with other individuals acting as "screening" moderators (actually sending out the posts over the list), but with any questionable or borderline posts being referred to me. This next week, Jacob Proffitt will be the official "screening" moderator. I will be around for Monday and Tuesday to help with any questions that may arise. After that, any borderline items may simply have to wait in my in-box until I get back. I ask your for everyone's patience with myself and Jacob (and others as they are recruited to fill the same role) as we get this going. This will be a good move for AML-List, I think. I enjoy being the moderator, but outside pressures in my life make it impossible to continue with the level of consistency and commitment that the job really needs. This way, hopefully we can spread out the burden somewhat. Thanks to Jacob for being the first one to take a crack at this. And by the way, if any of you has an interest in serving as one of the "screening" moderators, please feel free to let me know. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] re: SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 13 Jun 2003 23:22:30 -0500 Recent discussion on a possible genetic cause for homosexuality, even a "gay gene," prompted some Listers to suggest that this would be an interesting basis for a novel or story. Many such stories have been written I'm not sure if anybody mentioned GLBT author Keith Hartman's "Sex, Guns, and Baptists" (in Bending the Landscape: Science Fiction. Edited by Nicola Griffith and Stephen Pagel. Overlook Poress, 1998). Here is excerpt from a description of the novel (from a review by Wendy Pearson, Science Fiction Studies #77, Volume 26, Part 2, July, 1999): [QUOTE] Both genetics and religion come together in Keith Hartman's "Sex, Guns, and Baptists." This exploration of the all too probable consequences that might ensue if a "gay gene" is ever identified certainly serves to clarify Sedgwick's assertion of the centrality of the homo/heterosexual difference to our cultural consciousness. Here Catholicism becomes a sign of gayness, because the Catholics have remained unbending on the practice of abortion, which in this landscape has become an even more polarizing social issue due to the ability to identify potentially "gay" fetuses. As the gay private investigator points out to his female client, "the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't like abortions. But it really doesn't like homosexuals." When the narrator does what he's been paid to do and exposes his client's Baptist husband-to-be as a closeted homosexual, she's also able to overcome her scruples about the sixth commandment: she tries to murder her fiance. The story... exposes the naive assumption made by some gay scientists that a genetic basis for gayness will end prejudice and, on the other, that sexuality is the one essential basis for identity. [END QUOTE] Hartman, by the way, includes Latter-day Saints in his novel _The Gumshoe, the Witch and the Virtual Corpse_ (Meisha Merlin: 1999), but they are not a part of "Sex, Guns, and Baptists" as far as I know. Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 14 Jun 2003 12:42:53 -0600 Jun 2003 09:50:05 PDT In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I've been unable to find M. Catherine Thomas' dissertation though I checked on-line at BYU Studies and in my distributor lists from them. I'm guessing it is now out-of-print. Sharon Bunch sbunch@fairlds.org Marny Parkin wrote: A good resource for this is Catherine Thomas's dissertation "The Influence of Asceticism on the Rise of Christian Text, Doctrine, and Practice in the First Two Centuries" (available from BYU Studies). [Marny Parkin] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 14 Jun 2003 13:02:33 -0600 -0700 X-Sent: 14 Jun 2003 15:16:06 GMT Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:58:48 -0500 (CDT), Rich Hammett wrote: >I've been alternately amused and horrified by the way=3D20 "feminism" = has=20 >been attacked here in the last few days. I=3D20 am absolutely certain=20 >that some of the list's feminists hold=3D20 very strongly to some of = the=20 >opinions that have been=3D20 denigrated as the "evils of feminist=20 >institutions." I know=3D20 this, because I am one of them. I hope the = >others don't=3D20 feel silenced by the attacks. Is it an attack to voice one's opinion? To criticize the ideas espoused = =3D by an organization or by those philosophically attached to = it--particularly when they apply to you personally? It's good to hear that you have a counter opinion, but I don't see any difference between what you = consider an attack and what you are doing in your post. >A couple of women said they had never experienced=3D20 institutional=20 >gender bias in the Church. I must not=3D20 understand what those words = >mean...or have these women ever=3D20 served as bishop? Very amusing. If you consider all gender-related restrictions to =3D represent bias, then yes, it is institutional. But I happen to believe = that it's =3D not the restriction but the status that goes with it that = matters. I don't =3D care about being bishop and I don't think it makes a = difference to my role in =3D the church. It certainly won't get me to heaven faster = and it's not going to earn me more respect within the Church. So no, I = don't consider this =3D bias. >I think there's room for real feminism in mormonism and=3D20 mormon=20 >literature, not just the watered-down version that=3D20 some are=20 >espousing. There is no such thing as "real" feminism, and if there were, there's no reason it should apply only to =3D the kind of feminism you're = espousing. What you call watered-down feminism is just another evolution of the idea--one of many evolutions that has taken place in modern times. =20 In responding to many posts with a single one, you have made a lot of assumptions and left a lot of things out. This is the central point I made--something you appear to have missed by lumping posts together: Feminism has room for many approaches. It covers French feminists, = "women and men are the same" feminists, "women and men are different" = feminists, and so on. What I object to is when one of those groups tries to lay = claim to being the one and only true feminism. Such an approach marginalizes = the other groups and excludes many voices that give this movement vitality. This applies to the Church as well as to the world as a whole. Many = Mormon feminists would like to see the restrictions on priesthood ordination lifted. Others don't see it as a problem. Both those opinions are valuable--but when one group dismisses the other as not truly feminist because they don't share the same perspective (and it does go both = ways), it's wrong and it's destructive. It breaks down relationships that = ought rather to be strengthened by the desire to improve the status of women. I am glad you were willing to share your ideas, even though I strongly disagree with many of them. You sound as though you felt personally attacked, which I assure you is not the case. Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Margaret Dyal" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 13 Jun 2003 22:26:25 -0500 I have to say these restrictions are silly. My husband and I only have = one car and many times it is necessary for one of us to get a ride from = another person. He is a dental student and one of his lab partners, who is = female and not LDS (GASP!), gives him a ride home. Frankly, I'm glad--after fighting rush hour traffic at a long day of work, I get a stressed at = having to leave the house almost as soon as I start to relax because my husband = is calling for a ride. Other times, he has started walking home from school and women from our church have stopped and given him a ride. Granted, some of them had a = baby in the car--not sure if that makes any difference or not. One time a woman he did not know stopped and offered him a ride--and he = got in! He promised not to do it again; I was afraid it might not be safe. = But on the other hand, it's hard walking two miles in the scorching heat of Texas summers so I can't be too hard on him. I have, once or twice, been alone with a man I was not related to since I've=A0been married and I don't really see it as an issue.=20 Margaret Dyal -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 14 Jun 2003 13:47:27 -0600 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list ---Original Message From: Rich Hammett > > I will agree with the "anti-feminists" who said that it was a=20 >mistake of some feminists to denigrate motherhood. That is a=20 >critical function, and should be open even as a career choice. But=20 >we can also make laws to encourage allowing women to be a mother,=20 >and still contribute in other ways to society, and develop their=20 >other gifts. I disagree with this, but mainly because I don't think that laws should be a tool for social engineering on this scale. Legal institution of questionable ideologies (questionable in the sense that a substantial portion of the population questions them) is dangerous in the extreme and something I hope we'll avoid. For one, laws don't "encourage", they restrict and they force. Using laws to force ideological change is questionable at best. Certain gross injustices need legal correction, of course. Abolishing Jim Crow laws was a good thing and segregation was misguided when not actively evil. But that wasn't a case of "encouraging". Restriction and force was needed to maintain a civil, free society so legal recourse was perfectly appropriate. > "Women" can do everything "men" can do This is a strong general statement and as such, is easily refuted. Women *can't* do everything that men can do. When stated so absolutely, a single counter example is all that is needed for refutation. Biology being what it is, counter examples are easily discovered. Lists have been made. And even if you find *a* woman who can beat *a* man at, say, arm wrestling, the fact of the matter is that the top arm wrestler in the world will *always* be a man. And the average man will beat the average woman at arm wrestling. Legally changing that fact would be a disaster. Clinging to a statement that is so easily proven false is a disservice to your claims. Women and men are different. Much more useful, and interesting, would be if feminists would accept that and begin exploring what it *means*. In what ways *are* we different? How much of the difference is genetic and how much is cultural? Does society benefit by segregating certain activities by gender? Does society benefit by interfering with some of those differences? Would we benefit more if we *didn't* interfere with some of those differences? And that's before we even start discussing what it means to be equal. Do we want equality of opportunity or will we insist on equality of outcome? What if more women want to be, say, orthopedic surgeons than men? Will we force some men to become orthopedic surgeons just to balance the numbers? Jacob Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 13 Jun 2003 23:48:49 -0600 A solution for this would have been for the priesthood leader to give the sister the keys to his car and let her drive herself home slowly while he jogged behind the car in the rain. Better even than a cold shower. This option may not have occurred to him, but you can bet it crossed her mind. Nan McCulloch ----- Original Message -----=20 > I once heard a story about a priesthood leader following in his car=20 > alongside a sister as she walked home during a heavy rain storm. He=20 > kept shouting encouragement to her through the barely-opened window. > Her body may > have been wet and cold, but her soul was warm and secure that day, I'm sure. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Llyod Miller and Belly Dancing Date: 13 Jun 2003 22:02:03 -0600 You know, Llyod Miller is one of the nicest men I have ever met, and he has actually lived for years in the Middle East learning various dances and instruments (he literally plays over a thousand instruments, most of them Arabic in origin). He may be wrong, but I'd take his opinion over some Middle East scholar who has never actually visited the Middle East or at least only briefly. So let's stop with the "down with this sexually repressed weirdo" comments, please? He wouldn't make the claim unless he actually had good info to back it up. I've never discussed it with him, or read anything by him on it (and the two belly dance performances I have seen in person I found offensive, but mostly because the dancers started simulating sex, shich I doubt is truly part of most belly dancing). But - anyway, Llyod Miller is not just some fly by night sexually repressed Mormon. This is a man who has throughly absorbed the cultures he studies. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 14 Jun 2003 07:39:58 +0000 D. Michael Martindale >Feminism took the mother out of the home and put her in the workplace. That's one interpretation, whether it's a bad thing or not - I'm no social historian, but I imagine another interpretation is that economic necesity "took mothers out of the home" (taking into account that the mothers who were ever in the home belong to a pretty limited socioeconomic group - plenty of mothers have worked in factories, behind lunch counters, or in other people's kitchens for decades without much handwringing about the decline of the family) - and feminism helped them to gain equal (or at least more equal) footing in the workplace. >In my opinion, the best >way to educate a populace that holds to a fallacious perception and does >so with great enthusiasm is through the guerilla tactics of literature. >We need LDS stories about feminists. We need publishers who will publish >stories about feminists. >We need authors who will write stories about feminists, cast in a mold >that _will_ get published and _will_ get read. In other words, stories >about feminists that are not labeled feminist stories. I've lost the thread of the argument here. Is it that LDS writers should sneakily write storiest that degrade "bad" feminism (mothers leaving the home, abortion, male bashing) without letting on to what they are doing? Or that the stories should show positive examples of some "good" feminism? What kind of mold could they be cast in that WOULD have them read? And what kind of guerilla tactics would hide the author's agenda? In my experience as a reader, it's pretty hard for a story that starts out with an agenda to "hide" that - I should say I see nothing wrong with a story having an agenda, as long as it's presented honestly. The suggestion of sneaking messages in leaves me a little uneasy - perhaps an example? Carrie [Pruett] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] MOD Message re: Mormonism and Feminism Date: 14 Jun 2003 21:41:27 -0500 Folks, We've had a good, rather vigorous exchange on what it means to be a Mormon and a feminist, and what feminism means to Mormons of various stripes. At this point, though, I sense that the conversation is becoming a little more heated, and we're in some danger of losing sight of the connection of this subject to AML-List's focus. And so, some general guidelines: * We need to be very careful, in talking about each other's experiences--either in the Church or with respect to feminism--to respect the experience of others even if it has been different from our own. This applies to all sides of the conversation: those who feel that they've been the objects of discrimination in the Church; those who feel they haven't been; those who feel that feminism expresses what they most truly feel about themselves and is consistent with their Mormon identity; those who feel that feminism degrades what is most precious to them about their Mormon beliefs. Given the wide variety of different experiences and responses to them that are at work here, this part of the conversation can only work if done in an attitude of sharing--this is how I feel; this is what I've experienced. That's also the only real way that this part of the discussion relates to Mormon literature--because it describes the kinds of experiences that could be expressed in literature. Remember that sharing what has happened to you is always more appropriate, in this connection, than critiquing someone else's experience. * We need to be extremely careful in our statements about someone else's position--things that could be implied as placing a label or defining someone else's position for him or her. It's okay to say "I don't think this is the way most members of the Church understand feminism, and this is why" or "That's not been my experience with feminism." It's not okay to say "That's not what feminism is." * Discussion of the church's doctrines and policies is off-topic by definition for AML-List, except when given a very explicit literary connection and context. This includes, but is not limited to, discussion of whether the priesthood should be/ever will be held by women. I can see some cautious discussion of this *in a literary context*, or *as background for sharing someone's feelings.* E.g., it would be on-topic to say, "I've never really felt fully empowered in the church because I can't hold the priesthood"--and equally on-topic to say, "I've never really been bothered by the fact that I can't hold the priesthood, and it doesn't bother me as a self-defined feminist." But going beyond this to debate the pros and cons of the Church's policy in this connection takes us to a place where AML-List isn't really intended to go. I'm sorry if some of my moderating has made it seem like this is an okay topic for discussion here, because it's really not. This limitation has as much or more to do, by the way, with fear of losing sight of our mission as a list as with worrying about whether people will be offended. There are other places where Mormon policy and doctrine can be discussed, but we're the only place where literature is the main topic of discussion. That being the case, although I often will entertain broader discussions, they're intended to be subordinate to the discussion of literature, and tolerated only so long as they seem to me to be contributing to the context for our literary discussion. * Finally, I see no real merit to a discussion of whether the Church as an institution is or isn't gender-biased. I think there can be a very valuable discussion of how individual women (and men) can feel either empowered or not within the Church, particularly as it relates to the experiences of those on this list and individuals whom we know. I'd particularly like to see discussions of how those feelings can, are, and should be represented in our literature. But a discussion of whether the Church is institutionally sexist is, in my view, a different kettle of fish entirely--and one that (again) is not really part of AML-List's brief (or smorgasbord, to keep the metaphor at least vaguely self-consistent). Again, I don't want to cut off discussion on this topic. But I would like us to keep in mind why this is worth discussing on AML-List--with all the passions and feelings it arouses (and should arouse, and which I hope will continue to be shared within appropriate AML-List limits)--and stick to the parts of the conversation that relate to what we're here as a list to do. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 13 Jun 2003 22:33:50 -0600 Amelia, What a shock. I have been reading these publications for several years and NEVER read anything like what you are describing. I have never, however, been on line or read from any website. Something seems amiss here. Such issues as _eXfemina_June 2002--IWF Report Card on the Status of Women was good. The Spring 2002 and Winter 2002 issues of _The Woman's Quarterly_ are also interesting. Sorry it doesn't work for you. I find it witty and educational. Nan McCulloch -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Redeemers Date: 13 Jun 2003 17:52:24 -0600 Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Also, I remember hearing that this planet was the only one among God's=20 > billions of worlds that was wicked enough to kill the Savior, whose=20 > atonement applies to all the planets. However, elsewhere I've read=20 > that each planet has its own redeemer, which is what I buy into. Cool, LDS speculation time. I believe Jesus was the redeemer of the entire universe. I believe he was the creator of the entire universe. But I also believe that this universe is one of countless universes, and that God resides outside this universe in a space that has more dimensions than our three (or four, if you want to get Einsteinian about it). I don't necessarily "believe," but I speculate that the beings that inhabit this universe and are saved by our savior are the progeny of the same mother in heaven. We are brothers and sisters, not half-brothers and -sisters. The progeny of other wives of God (yes, this assumes polygamy in the celestial kingdom) may live win other universes created by other saviors who save those souls. It's essentially the same belief that Chris Bigelow has, except I believe the division between saviors is at the universe level, not the planet level. --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 14 Jun 2003 15:57:25 -0600 At 10:19 AM 6/13/03 -0500, you wrote: >Preston Hunter wrote: The reason there is a stigma about feminism in=20 >the >Church is for the most part not because of any problems with the Church of=20 >its members, but because the word "feminism" has been hijacked by people=20 >with illogical, dishonest and immoral agendas. Feminism is thus very much=20 >like Islam. We need a new term--but then, since there are so many variants, feminism=20 might wind up like the many flavors of Unix. All it means to me is that=20 women are as valuable as men. And I've seen that idea promoted by Church=20 leaders in recent years. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] SSA Date: 14 Jun 2003 15:11:36 -0700 The Salt Lake Tribune article below ends with the notion that accepting gays into the clergy is about "inclusion and liberation." Contributing to the discussion on SSA, would we be wise, as artists, to take a similar open view with homosexual characters in novels, essays, film, etc? In our literature, hypothetically, should we be so accepting of gays that we ought to include these Other personae in Relief Society presidencies, bishoprics, stake presidencies--like platform the Episcopal Church is advocating? Generally, how would writing about fictional SSA Mormons substantially contribute to the body of Mormon lit? Yes, there are gay Mormons, but how would creating art with them be both "inclusive" and "liberating"? Yes, the discussion thus far has been somewhat interesting on the various theories advocated by gays, about their gay-ness, but was is the real relevancy? Travis Manning ************************************************************** Otis Charles, a former Utah Episcopal bishop, revealed in 1993 he is gay. (Courtesy of Episcopal Church of Utah) By Peggy Fletcher Stack The Salt Lake Tribune Episcopal Bishop Otis Charles kept his secret for decades. It wasn't until 1993, when he was 67 and ready to retire, that he acknowledged being gay. After all, he thought he had much to lose -- his wife and family, respect in the Utah diocese he had once served, possibly even his position in the church. With his announcement, Charles became the Episcopal Church's first, and only, openly gay bishop. Until now. This week Episcopalians in New Hampshire elected as bishop the Rev. Gene Robinson, who has been in a homosexual relationship for more than 20 years. Charles hails Robinson's election as a historic day and breakthrough for gays in the church. "It shatters the closet, banishes shame, and dissipates duplicity," he said. "It demolishes the fiction that an openly gay priest cannot be elected to serve in the highest office." Adds Utah's current Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish: "I see no obstacle whatever in [Robinson's] sexual orientation. . .just as I would not with reference to women, people of color, or varying backgrounds." But Episcopal conservatives are already angling for a showdown at next month's General Convention in Minneapolis. "The union in which Canon Robinson participates is not Holy Matrimony but an intimate relationship outside the bounds of marriage. This would be true whether he were cohabiting with a man or with a woman," said Bishops Edward Salmon J. and William Skilton of South Carolina in a statement posted on the diocese's Website. "If Gene Robinson's election is confirmed by General Convention, it would bring through the back door a practice that the Episcopal Church has never agreed to bring through the front door." Homosexuality has long divided the worldwide Anglican Communion, which includes the U.S. Episcopal Church. At the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in 1998, Anglican bishops concluded that sex between homosexuals is "incompatible with Scripture." Recently a Nigerian archbishop "broke communion" (akin to excommunication) with a Canadian bishop after the latter performed a same-sex "marriage." But the Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and titular leader of the world's 78 million Anglicans, has shown some support for such unions. This fractious issue will be center stage once again at the General Convention, where the battle over gay clergy has been raging since 1976. Charles, 77, still a voting member of the Episcopal House of Bishops, sees irony in the scene. The church's official position is that gays can be ordained, but only if they are celibate. "The convention will be debating whether or not Gene Robinson is fit to serve in the church because he is in a committed relationship," Charles said this week from his home in San Francisco. "I will be there with my partner, showing the very thing they are saying 'no' to exists." When Charles wed Elvira Charles in 1951, marriage was the only reasonable path for those seeking a life dedicated towards a life of service in the Episcopal Church. "If I had been open when I was ordained in 1971, I would not have been ordained," Charles said. In 1979, when the convention voted to allow people to be ordained if they were gay but celibate, the Utah delegation signed a dissenting statement. "We said we could not abide by that resolution," Charles said. "If qualified candidates for ordination came forward, the question should be how they lived their lives -- not what their sexual orientation was." Over the years, he made quiet contact with other Episcopal bishops who shared the same secret. At one convention, he found himself in a room with five other gay bishops. By 1992, the internal church debate had grown acrimonious, Charles said. But still, he kept quiet. "Bishops were saying things that were just uninformed, totally unconscious of what they were saying," he said. "I was so chagrined at my behavior. My integrity was as stake." Within a year, Charles made his fateful announcement. None of the other four followed his example. People in Utah's Episcopal diocese responded with surprise, disappointment, anger and respect that he was finally "being honest with himself and others," said the Rev. Lee Shaw of St. James Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City. Some felt sad for Charles' wife, Elvira, "who was a big part of his ministry when he was here," Shaw said. But Charles' acknowledgement of his homosexuality helped moved the Utah diocese forward in its support of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered Episcopalians. Shaw himself came out to his congregation after the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Now the diocese has a strong GLBT ministry that includes Integrity, a support group that holds monthly meetings and socials. The group participated in last week's Pride Interfaith Service at the Jewish synagogue. For his part, Charles is delighted with Robinson's election. It is as important, he said, as the 1988 election of a woman to serve as an Episcopal bishop. "We've lived through racial integration. We've lived through the inclusion of women in all orders of ministry," he said. "We are now living through another inclusion. And that's what the gospel is all about -- inclusion and liberation." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 14 Jun 2003 17:17:59 -0600 At 09:21 PM 6/10/03 -0600, you wrote: >I know people would say that's against the rules. To touch people, and >get into situations where I going to end up feeling a bond with people. >What you have to do is recognize it for what it is--a spiritual or >energetic bond that exists between two people. It's going to go away. >If you fight it, it will get stronger. If you obsess about it, it will >get stronger. If you detach your emotions from it, it will go away. >(Oh, yeah, if you don't ride in cars with it, it will get left behind.) > >Maybe it is against the rules. Maybe it's bearing each other's >burdens. I strongly agree with Paris. We are so darned uptight and so focused on rules and so busy trying to be perfect that we forget to show love. Not just in limited ways--in 100% visiting teaching in which we say "Let us know if you need anything" and disappear for another month. People need human contact. They need to feel that they matter, that they are not too insignificant to be loved, in some real way and not just in words. Love is what it's all about. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 14 Jun 2003 17:46:31 -0600 Thom said the following: > Then let me give you an example. In a previous ward, my Bishop=20 > admonished all MP holders to avoid giving women rides in cars even if=20 > it was an emergency. The example he gave, "You are driving home on a=20 > rainy day and notice that Sister Smith, your neighbor, is totally=20 > drench. Now your first inclination would be to stop and offer her a > ride. Don't do it. FIRST GO HOME AND GET YOUR WIFE THEN RETURN AND > OFFER A RIDE TO SISTER SMITH." > > Can you think of anything more insane than that? Or anything that=20 > undermines the beautiful teaching of the Good Samaritan than such, and=20 > I don't shy away from using the word, "Pharasaic" teachings as that? To which Jacob, replied: >I think that's an accurate characterization, Thom. I'm sorry you had >such an inappropriate >leader. That's an example (as related mind, I hesitate to pronounce judgment on the actual >situation) of an insane personal doctrine being taught as truth and if=20 >I had been there, I >wouldn't have hesitated to say so. I wish the rest of the men in the >room had had the guts to >speak out against such a bizarre statement. I'd hardly characterize it=20 >as common teaching in >the church, though. In all my travel and the different wards I've=20 >lived in, I've never heard >anything that ridiculous. I pretty much agree with all of you on this point regarding the Bishop's advice, but (and forgive me if someone has already mentioned this) has anyone considered that this is a bishop talking? I would not be surprised if the bishop who made this statement had been required to listen to at least one confession of adultery or fornication that began with "Well, the first time we were ever alone was one afternoon when he/she was walking home. It was pouring, and I just couldn't leave him/her there..." If you are a bishop and have to listen to confession upon confession year after year about adultery, fornication, masturbation, beastiality, etc., I think it would be very difficult to not passionately cry from the pulpit, "Don't even flirt with temptation! Just play it very safe." That said, I can appreciate why it would be a frustrating thing to hear your ecclesiastical leader say that. This thread kind of reminds me of something. I studied a bit of dance at the Y, and in a few of my classes, the teacher started the semester/term with a something like the following speech: "Now, from time to time, I'm going to go directly to one of you in the class and make a correction in your technique. Just because I single out one of you doesn't mean that noone else in the class needs the note. One or two other people may have the same problem. So, please, when I give someone a note, please just automatically apply it to yourself and benefit from it, okay?" Advice like that really helped me to be a better dancer. I think applying that principle can help in a lot of areas and ways. True, we cannot go through life being paranoid that we've done something wrong every second of the day. We still have to live. Sometimes when the teacher would give another student a note, I'd check the mirror and see that I was doing just fine. Often, though, when the teacher would give a note, I realized that I needed it too. The point to my little anecdote is that if what we're about is improving ourselves, then we don't need to defend ourselves everytime some imperfect person out there spouts out some kind of advice. I would venture to say that at least one person (man or woman) in Thom's ward could have benefitted from the advice to just play it really safe with regards to being alone with someone of the opposite sex. Love, Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Linda Kimball" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism/invite to submit Date: 14 Jun 2003 20:38:11 -0500 On the topic of Mormonism and women's issues, anyone (male or female) interested in writing an essay for Exponent II is invited to submit manuscripts to ExponentII@aol.com. Topics cover a broad range. Exponent II has printed nostalgia pieces about old appliances to edgy pieces about gender identity; articles on blended families to pieces on grieving; personality profiles to essays on the pitfalls and success of dating services. Folks on this AML list have already proven themselves to be more articulate, engaging, and thoughtful than the average bear so your chances of seeing your work in print are not bad. But even if you're not a writer, give it a shot. Poetry submissions are welcome as well. "Payment" is in copies. You can also send copies via snail mail to Exponent II, P.O. Box 128, Arlington, MA 02476. Linda [Kimball] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Rex Goode" Subject: [AML] Broken Wrist Date: 15 Jun 2003 18:47:04 -0700 Friends, I have broken my wrist. Got a new metal plate. Mangled it pretty badly. Will respond when I can. Feel free to share this info. Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Mormon Actress Date: 15 Jun 2003 22:49:56 -0500 [Mod note: So far, each mention of Eliza Dushku has carefully specified that she is not an active member, as Preston here reiterates.] Linda Hoffman Kimball wrote: >>As a convert to the Church back in the early 70's, I remember=20 >>distinctly hearing a woman (Judy Dushku) speak in an institute class >>in Cambridge, MA. She talked about how she told her colleagues at the=20 >>college where she taught "Of course I'm a feminist! I'm a Mormon,=20 >>aren't I?" Judy Dushku, the feminist Latter-day Saint professor from Massachusetts, is the mother of the most successful (in terms of box office gross) Mormon actress working today: Eliza Dushku ("Faith" from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). (See other story posted to AML a few days back about the FOX TV show "Tru Calling," starring Eliza Dushku and A.J. Cook). But Eliza isn't an active Church member. Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [AML] Authorial balance (was: William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Date: 16 Jun 2003 21:26:36 -0600 Right_) Message-ID: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Great question, with a simple answer: >Does the author have a responsibility to balance a wayward character >with a believing practicing character in a novel? >Nan McCulloch And the one word answer is, no. Authors have no responsibility at all, except to tell an engaging story in an amusing manner. Of course, it's best if the author were to tell a story truthfully, or even plausibly. But this is not an absolute requirement, far as I can tell. To pull this out of the incendiary subject of religion, take the new Michael Crichton novel Prey, which I just finished. The subject of this novel is nanotechnology. The plot is identical to Jurassic Park, except that instead of an eccentric millionaire, it's a Nasty Corporation, and instead of great big monsters it's about a few trillion itty bitty ones. Still, an experiment goes bad, monsters are unleashed, and Our Hero has to see if he can escape with his skin intact. Is it fair? Balanced? No. I presume that those corporations involved in research in the area of nanotechnology would find it unbalanced and unfair, and would probably protest that their area of research is being maligned. As a reader, I didn't much care. I also didn't care that the characters were cardboard, the dialogue stilted and the story a rehash.=20 Dang thing still scared the wee out of me. And I enjoy a good scary book. So no, authors have no responsibility at all to anyone, except to their readers, to amuse them. There's a fine debating corner I've painted myself into. So let's have at it. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 16 Jun 2003 19:35:11 -0400 About the laughable film musical PAINT YOUR PAINT, Eric Samuelsen wrote: >And then this guy we've never heard of shows up to sing They Call the >Wind >Maria, This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of Broadway's great=20 leading men n the 1960's...and someone who still has a film career as a=20 character actor. He starred in both the orginal Broadway version of THE=20 UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN (for which I believe he won the Tony Award) and in=20 the film version with Debbie Reynolds. In recent years he starred in the=20 disastrous Broadway flop "ANNIE II" as Daddy Warbucks. An extremely gifted=20 actor with a great voice and fantastic good looks, he arrived in Hollywood=20 fresh from numerous Broadway successes just as the film musical died. PAINT=20 YOUR WAGON, in fact, was one of the last nails in the coffin. ROB. LAUER -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 16 Jun 2003 20:14:58 -0400 "Is one born homosexual or is it a choice?" In my opinion, neither. You might as well ask, "Were you born understanding English or do you chose=20 to understand it." Again, the answer is neither. Though born with a capacity for language (as=20 well as a capacity for sexual arousal and expression), the individual child=20 is not born understanding English, nor does he/she make a conscious decision=20 to learn it. A child developes language skills as he/she developes concepts.=20 Use of a particular language goes hand-in-hand with concept formation. Concept formation is the result of the individual's free agency; it starts=20 in infancy. All the "nurturing" in the world will not FORCE a child's mind=20 to accept as true and valid a particular ide and concept, and endow that=20 idea or concept with the same emotional importance as the parent(s) doing=20 the nurturing. Human beings are aroused by IDEAS, by CONCEPTS. A particular gender, a particular body type, body part, physical attitude, social attitude is linked in the individual's mind to a particulatr CONCEPT which the=20 indivdiual has endowed with a particular value. That VALUE triggers an emotional response which may then trigger a physical response..i.e. sexual=20 arousal. Many scientists are now of the opinion that ALL sexual orientation is set by=20 the age of 3 or 4, coincidentally, around the same age at which language=20 skills become solidified. People may chose to perform any kind of sexual act they want, but sexual=20 ATTRACTION is not a matter of conscious choice; it is deeply embedded in a=20 long chain of ideas and abstractions stretching back to an infant's first=20 conceptual formulations. Neither a heterosexual nor a homosexual can "undo"=20 that chain without "undoing" his/her own mind. SEXUAL orientation in humans is primarily an EMOTIONAL orientation. It occured to me recently that with all the public discussion of=20 homosexuality, emphasis has not been placed on the fact that homosexual's=20 become aware that they are different from heterosexuals when they are very=20 young children; that for the rest of their childhood, teenage years, young=20 adulthood, they live in a horrible state of self-denial, self-repression and=20 a fear of being rejected by their families. In short, the homosexual child raises himself...a job for which he/she (being only a child) is completely unequipped. Is it then any wonder that one finds sexual pathologies in segments of the=20 adult homosexual community. These are human beings whose journeys childhood=20 to adulthood were derailed...NOT because homosexuality is in itself a=20 pathology, but because their own fears of rejection by those they loved the=20 most (their parents and family and God.) lead to pathological behaviors and=20 moods of thinking. In short, many adult homosexual men are Lost Boys....they've never really=20 grown up. Is THAT inborn? Of course not. Is that a choice? Yes, but it was a=20 choice made by young children who were too immature to make such a=20 choice.(Most homosexuals fekt they were different from heterosexuals when=20 they were a young as six, seven and eight) PArents need to be eduacted on how to deal with a child who at a young age=20 seems "different," on how to make that child feel loved regardless of the=20 difference, on how to teach that child to channel that "difference" so that=20 his/her developing character isn't warped by years of fear, self-hate and=20 emotional repression. In short, the hearts of the fathers need to be turned=20 to their children and the hearts of the children need to be turned to their=20 fathers. Does God create homosexuals. No. For the simple reason that (according to=20 the Restored Gospel) God CANNOT create anyone. (It's scriptural. Look it up=20 in the D&C; also Joseph SMith's King FOllett Discourse.) The individual is=20 eternal and uncreated...as the Prophet Jopseh taught "Co-equal with God=20 himself." Given Mormonism' unique theology on the nature of man and God, it seems to=20 me that we are way behind in how we could be addressing the entire issue of=20 homsexuality. And yet our unqiue theology gives us an edge over every other=20 existing theological school of thought. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/junkmail -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Broken Wrist Date: 16 Jun 2003 20:12:36 -0700 This is terrible news. Please get well soon. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com=20 (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net > -----Original Message----- >=20 > Friends, I have broken my wrist. Got a new metal plate. Mangled it=20 > pretty badly. Will respond when I can. Feel free to share this info. >=20 > Rex Goode -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cathy Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 16 Jun 2003 21:28:44 -0600 We are overlooking a basic truth: Nobody jumps into bed with someone without thinking about it beforehand. A good deal of thinking/feeling/imagining precedes adultery. Of course, that's the interesting stuff of story--how we arrive at our choices, then seeing how it all plays out. So the never-drive-with-opposite-sex rule--perhaps--could be based on the presumption that we're mostly untrustworthy, in our minds anyhow :). Cathy Wilson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 16 Jun 2003 22:23:30 -0600 On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 05:35 PM, robert lauer wrote: > About the laughable film musical PAINT YOUR PAINT, Eric Samuelsen > wrote: >> And then this guy we've never heard of shows up to sing "They Call >> the Wind Maria," > This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of Broadway's=20 > great leading men n the 1960's...and someone who still has a film=20 > career as a character actor. He starred in both the orginal Broadway > version of THE UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN (for which I believe he won the=20 > Tony Award) and in the film version with Debbie Reynolds. In recent=20 > years he starred in the disastrous Broadway flop "ANNIE II" as Daddy > Warbucks. An extremely gifted actor with a great voice and fantastic > good looks, he arrived in Hollywood fresh from numerous Broadway=20 > successes just as the film musical died. PAINT YOUR WAGON, in fact, > was one of the last nails in the coffin. And of course those of us in Provo in the late 70's - 80's got to see=20 him lip sync to his own voice in the humongous gigantic monster titanic=20 pageant/musical "Brigham!" from the back rows of the Marriott Center. He was playing Brigham Young, of course. There were several reasons that show never had a second run. Perhaps Mr. Presnells blonde, tanned and Hollywood-beautiful Brigham was one of=20 them? :-) Steve [Perry] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] BUCKLEY, _Getting It Right_ (Review) Date: 17 Jun 2003 01:07:01 -0400 R.W. Rasband wrote: >Meanwhile a young Jewish woman, Leonora Goldstein, becomes involved=20 >with the intimate circle in New York City around Ayn Rand, the novelist=20 >and libertarian philosopher. There she witnesses at first hand the=20 >sexual intricacies of Rand and her very married lieutenant Nathaniel=20 >Branden (later one of the fathers of the "self-esteem" movement.) =20 >Buckley is witheringly satirical about the Randoids. He targets their >cruelty, self-deception, and intellectual arrogance. (The very title >of the novel could be a double-entendre about the romantic=20 >entanglements of the various right-wing characters.) The word "creepy"=20 >comes up more than once in referring to the Objectivists. It's pretty=20 >outrageous material, but Buckley appends a "Notes" section where he=20 >lists the sources for every chapter (when he's not relying on his own >recollections.) I didn't get around to reading this review until Nan's response to it piqued my interest. Although this response is also belated, I think this passage deserves an observational comment. But first of all, I should point out even Rand's closest associates were in the dark about her affair with Nathaniel Branden. It didn't become common knowledge until Barbara Branden published her biography of Rand in the 1980s. So Leonora wouldn't have seen any sexual intricacies. They were going on, but pretty well hidden. Now for the observational comment. I've met both Buckley and Branden on multiple occasions. Of the two, the only one who struck me as "creepy" was Buckley. FWIW. And, incidentally, the usual epithet is "Randroids" -- with the extra r. A friend of mine (Michael Malice, at michaelmalice.com) insists that people call him a Randroid, rather than an Objectivist, when referring to his philosophical orientation. He does everything ironically... Eric D. Dixon shrubbloggers.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 16 Jun 2003 23:04:13 -0700 On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:35:11 -0400 "robert lauer" writes: > This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of > Broadway's great leading men n the 1960's...and someone > who still has a film career as a character actor. He was in the TV series, The Pretender. I thought he was the evil guy who walks around with the oxygen tanks, but then my son bought me Patch Adams a couple of years ago so he could watch it endlessly, and Presnell is in that film as the scientist who commits himself to the asylum, gets Patch to try and see things fuzzily, then sells him the land for the Gesundheit Institute. Which means he wasn't the evil oxygen carrier in The Pretender. He was the female lead's evil father. I saw Presnell onstage as Brigham Young in the Mariachi Center in 1975. It was a big glitzy BYU Centennial project called _Brigham_. I read somewhere that he subsequently joined the Church, as did that other Brigham, Dean (not Mick--he just sat on the plane next to a G.A.) Jagger. Harlow Clark -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 16 Jun 2003 23:39:29 -0600 Barbara Hume wrote: > We need a new term--but then, since there are so many variants, > feminism might wind up like the many flavors of Unix. All it means to > me is that women are as valuable as men. And I've seen that idea > promoted by Church leaders in recent years. All feminism means to me is I don't give a rat's behind whether a person is a woman or a man, unless there is a very compelling, objective reason to make the distinction. Otherwise, they should be treated the same. -- D. Michael Martindale -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Date: 17 Jun 2003 01:42:14 -0500 I had this lovely, long response written, and was in my final read-through. And then my computer froze. So I'll try for the short version now, and you can all heave a sigh of relief. (Later: And this was the short version? Oh, well, what can I say...) Travis asks: >The Salt Lake Tribune article below ends with the notion that accepting=20 >gays into the clergy is about "inclusion and liberation." Contributing=20 >to the discussion on SSA, would we be wise, as artists, to take a=20 >similar open view with homosexual characters in novels, essays, film, >etc? [...] Generally, how would writing about fictional SSA Mormons >substantially contribute to the body of Mormon lit? Speaking only for myself, I can say that I'm not really interested in a Mormon literature that has as its agenda greater acceptance of homosexuality or a homosexual lifestyle within the Church. I'm not denying that there are those who may wish for this, and see literature as a way of achieving it; but it's not what I'm advocating, and wouldn't meet what I think is the great unmet need (or challenge) in this area in Mormon literature. First, there's an important distinction between SSA and being gay. Being gay, as generally used nowadays, refers to a particular lifestyle choice that includes homosexual behavior. Being same-sex attracted refers to feelings one may have, through no apparent choice of one's own, about which one can choose to act in a number of different ways. The church condemns homosexual behavior; SSA, on the other hand, is treated something like any other problem or challenge with which people must contend: depression, or chemical addiction, or anger. (This is an oversimplification, but I think it gets us into the ballpark.) The fact that one experiences these feelings is not a cause for condemnation or a sign of unworthiness necessarily; what one does with them is what's important. What I was calling for was more literature dealing with the reality of SSA among faithful LDS, or those who strive to be faithful. Yes, that can include bishops and RS presidents. Also youth, missionaries, and people in basically every category. The value of literature is that it depicts real-life experiences and challenges. I'd like to see SSA included in the set of challenges that can be depicted in Mormon literature. There's a particular need for it. Those who may feel this way certainly aren't represented in gay literature--which places value on accepting one's homosexual feelings and acting on them: not a positive outcome for believing, committed LDS. I'd like to see a literature that helps us accept more fully the fact that our community of faith includes those who have these feelings, and helps us learn to view them as simply another challenge people face--a condition of life for some. These may be our friends, our fellow quorum and class and Relief Society members, even ourselves. I think that's an entirely appropriate and relevant goal for Mormon literature. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] Different Translations Date: 17 Jun 2003 01:59:51 -0600 Hey, anyone have that quote from Brigham Young which went something=20 like "were I to have translated the Book of Mormon I would likely have rendered it differently." I forget how it goes exactly. Sort of the=20 idea that the translation was partially from Joseph's mind and that=20 were Brigham to have translated it the translation would read=20 differently. I thought it was in Discourses of Brigham Young but I can't find it=20 there. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] VUISSA, _Unfolding_ (Review) Date: 14 Jun 2003 12:24:09 -0500 LDSFilm.com Review of "Unfolding" By Preston Hunter "Unfolding" 2003 Written, produced and directed by Christian Vuissa Cinematography by Brandon Christensen Music by Thomas C. Baggaley Starring Kristen Hill, Levi Larsen, Reb Fleming, Kenneth Norris, Phil Riesen and Dan McDonald Publisher/distributor: LDS Video Store Written and directed by the award-winning Austrian filmmaker Christian Vuissa, "Unfolding" is about a teenager named Lila (Kristen Hill) who finds a connection with her father (Kenneth Norris), despite the fact that as long as she can remember he has suffered from a mental disease (probably early onset Alzheimer's) which leaves him seemingly healthy on the outside but essentially unresponsive to his surroundings and incapable of talking to anybody. Lila has long since given up on visiting her father in the institution where he lives. But when looking for an old record player in her attic, Lila discovers a cache of artwork, poetry, home movies and photographs that belonged to her father. In a powerful and evocative scene Lila these physical objects from times past draw Lila into the life of her father as he was in times past: an artist, a writer, an immigrant from Europe, a young man in love with Lila's mother. The experience is a shocking revelation to Lila, and prompts her to visit her father for the first time in years. Accompanied by her best friend Max (Levi Larsen), Lila makes the trip to visit her father, and despite his condition, she feels she might really be able to communicate with him. Max's own father (played by news broadcaster Phil Riesen) is healthy, but distant and absorbed in his political career. The contrast between Max and Lila's families is poignant but not forced. Max and Lila hatch a plan to draw out something of the younger man from within Lila's father. Their plan is surprising, entertaining, and yields a powerfully moving climax to the film. I write about a lot of films. I enjoy describing a new and unfamiliar film to readers interested in hearing about it. I usually don't hesitate to do this. But let me be up front about what happened with Christian Vuissa's new short film "Unfolding." It has been many weeks since I first saw it. Although I was honored to be given the chance to see it before its release on video and DVD, I have procrastinated writing about it. I simply feel that my words are inadequate, and that this film deserves a far more qualified film reviewer to do it justice. I'm simply a fan of good, entertaining films. As such, I can wholeheartedly recommend "Unfolding." If you love a good story, uplifting ideas, superb and entirely natural acting, compelling images, and magnificent music perfectly supporting the film, you will find all of it here. These are the types of readily evident film characteristics which I am most comfortable describing. In all of these areas director Christian Vuissa has been unsparing in his commitment to excellence and a professional quality production. What is wonderful about "Unfolding" is that in addition to excelling in an artistic and cinematic sense, it is also morally excellent and truly inspiring. Many films by young (and even more experienced) Latter-day Saint filmmakers are content to do one or the other, either strive for high production values and artistic standards, or skimp on those aspects and simply transfer to the medium of film an inspiring story or message. Inspirational videos absolutely have their place and purpose. I love watching many of them. I have little complaint with a film that has a wonderful heart and message, even though its lacks in other areas. Such a film achieves its goals and speaks to its target audience even if it has little potential to reach an audience interested primarily in form and craft rather than content or message. Yet it is a breath of fresh to encounter a film such as "Unfolding," which is so much more, which doesn't rest merely on "being clean" or inspiring on the one hand, or being "daring" or well made on the other. Yet even as I describe "Unfolding" in these terms, I recognize that there is so much more there that I am unable to convey. It is clear that this is a film which works on many levels, and which rewards multiple viewings. Each time I watched it I picked up on nuances and significant gestures and images that I had not seen before. The way scenes are framed and lit and even the objects which populate the corners of a scene feel both natural and significant, enhancing the film's impact without calling attention to themselves. The music is particularly instrumental in enhancing the film's emotional impact. The score features an original musical score by professional film composer Thomas C. Baggaley and two songs by a Lindsay Smith, talented contemporary singer whose lyrical delivery blends folk and light rock sensibilities. These combine with each other and with the film's visuals elements smoothly and organically. One impressive aspect of the score involves the Lila's quest for an old record player, which is what leads to her pivotal trip to the attic. She wants the record player so she can listen to a classic Rachmaninov album that she found in a used record store. Baggaley's score heavily incorporates a newly orchestrated and performed version of Rachmaninov's actual Opus 23, but then blends it seamlessly into original orchestral music. Without copying anybody, Vuissa seems conversant in the filmic language of Godard, Truffaut, Polanski, Besson, Hitchcock and other masters of the craft of filmmaking. I only point this out for those few readers who may be interested in the very best in filmmaking artistry: "Unfolding" has it. But there is nothing elitist about "Unfolding." It is also accessible and enjoyable for audiences (such as myself) whose favorites include "Legacy" or "Johnny Lingo" or "Saturday's Warrior." In these qualities, "Unfolding" is -- not surprisingly -- quite similar to Vuissa's previous film, the award-winning "Roots & Wings." Both films bridge the gap between purely artistic and purely inspirational filmmaking. Among recent feature films they can be best be compared, even in their look and tone, to Richard Dutcher's "God's Army" and "Brigham City." While Dutcher's feature films were undeniably mounted on a bigger scale, Vuissa's short films exhibit greater attention to detail and refinement, with stories that are more subtle and open to different interpretations. Is "Unfolding" a better film than "Roots & Wings"? I think that it is. "Unfolding" is more multi-layered, more expert in technical details, and moved me much more deeply on an emotional level. But I like "Roots & Wings" more, because it is more unique and purposeful in its premise. The "setup" for for "Roots & Wings" -- a Catholic man's perspective of his family members joining the Church -- is simple to describe and fills a valuable niche. The characters are Latter-day Saints or Catholics in identifiable and important ways. "Unfolding" has no denominational or ethnic demarcations. It may appeal to a broad general audience, but it has less appeal to a specifically Latter-day Saint audience. Perhaps the film's biggest drawback is that its basic themes are not unique or even unusual: learning about one's parents and dealing with mental illness. Although "Unfolding" is a joy to watch and handles these subjects in interesting, original ways, it is debatable whether the film actually makes a distinctive and important contribution. Perhaps "Unfolding" has distinct significance if it is taken not simply as a film about families or mental illness, but as a specific exploration of the scriptural verse on its cover: "He shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers." In this regard, the film resonates powerfully, although its meanings are not always on the surface. These themes lie below an enjoyable, moving, and beautifully told story. ------ Christian Vuissa is the founder of the LDS Film Festival, which celebrated its 2nd successful year last November in Provo, Utah, and has toured internationally. He is also only the 2nd director (after Richard Dutcher for "God's Army") to receive the Award for Film from the Association for Mormon Letters, which has been annually recognizing excellence in Latter-day Saint literature for over 20 years. "Unfolding" is currently being sold only by LDS Video Store (http://www.ldsvideostore.com). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Director Announced for _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ Date: 14 Jun 2003 13:16:35 -0500 When popular LDS novelist Robert Farrell Smith contacted us about his plans for producing a feature film adaptation of his comedic LDS novel _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ (Bookcraft, 2002), I was excited. This is a truly hilarious novel with an unusual, interesting premise. Spartan Jones is a 30-year-old single Latter-day Saint tired of everybody around him trying to set him up and with dates. That's not the original or interesting part. What's so interesting and funny about the novel is the place that Spartan ends up when he decides to move out of his mom's home in Provo and get away from it all. He's a ranger, and he takes the first Forest Service job that opens up. He ends up in Longfellow, New Mexico (called "Longwinded" by everyone) -- a town of 558 people, evenly divided between Baptists and Mormons, each of which has exactly the same number of members. With Spartan's arrival, the scales are tipped by one person in favor of the Mormons. Spartan finds himself in the middle of a decades-long feud between the two denominations. He also finds that nearly every citizen of the town is flat out bizarre, each in a different quirky way. Spartan wonders about the wisdom of coming to such a place, until the breathtakingly beautiful Charity shows up. She's the twentysomething granddaughter of one of the branch members, and Tartan decides that maybe things aren't so bad in Longwinded after all. This is a very fun read, and I thought it would make a great movie. The book tackles a number of worthwhile themes and subjects which have never been in a film. We were flattered that the Robert Smith and the producers of the movie would ask for help in finding a director for this half-million dollar project. This movie is a first in contemporary LDS Cinema history in that it is the first time a movie project has been instigated and driven by something other than the director. The 8 LDS Cinema film projects which have been released to theaters thus far were all started by the person who ended up directing the movie. But Smith, although a talented author, knew he did not want to direct. He wanted to get the best director possible for the project, one that would do justice to the material and create an entertaining, worthwhile movie. Smith also wanted the possibilities to be wide open. He had no predetermined "short list," and was willing to consider directors with any educational background or level of experience. He would even have considered a Baptist director, but there aren't any. We sent information about the project to the LDSFilm.com mailing list, as well as many directors who might be interested. Directors were asked to send Smith and the producers their resumes, samples of their work, and a brief description of how they might approach a low-budget comedy feature of this type. Subsequent rounds of interviews and meetings eventually led to a choice who might seem surprising, but whom the authors and producers are confident will be the best person to adapt this novel: Christian Vuissa. Christian Vuissa's upbringing as a Catholic in Austria may seem far removed from the rural Southwestern culture of feuding Baptists and Latter-day Saints. But the same can be said for his award-winning film "Roots & Wings," which won the Film Award from the Association for Mormon Letters last year. "Roots & Wings" is entirely about a family of Mexican-Americans living in a suburban United States town. Most of language spoken in the film is Spanish, a language Christian does not even speak. Yet the film has been acclaimed for the power of its almost documentary-like realism. Ang Lee isn't green, and he's not from New Mexico either, but he was tapped to helm "The Hulk." (In fact, "The Hulk" and "Baptists At Our Barbecue" have a lot more in common than simply their locale and being helmed by a foreign director.) Vuissa's most recent short film is "Unfolding," which is a serious drama (with some humor), as was "Roots & Wings." The film adaptation of "Baptists At Our Barbecue" will be Vuissa's first comedy, and his first feature film. If anybody has any reservations about Vuissa's abilities to help a feature film of this type, or if anybody is tempted to conclude "not another lame LDS movie idea"... I would invite them to watch either "Roots & Wings" or "Unfolding." Anybody who does so will be left speechless. Vuissa's films have exhibited unique commitment to excellence. His first feature film, based on Smith's wonderfully fun novel, will easily rival and quite possibly surpass anything that has gone before it. Preston Hunter -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Date: 17 Jun 2003 23:03:03 -0600 <5eafevkf7gb7oghh7msvc3vdahkq7f9rrn@4ax.com> Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list > but I didn't, really. Although it was an unfortunate experience, the=20 > =3D reason that it was so stunning to me that women *weren't* being=20 > asked to =3D speak was because, in all the other wards I'd been a part > of, women were =3D an integral part of sacrament meeting and Sunday=20 > school and doctrinal =3D discussions. This experience was noteworthy=20 > because of the way it =3D It's been rare for me to attend a SM that didn't have women speaking. I remember one recently, though, that really stood out to me. The subject for the talks that day was the Priesthood. They had men speak who represented the Aaronic and Melchezidek Priesthoods, which was a good enough concept when I thought about it at first. But it didn't take me long to turn to my husband and say, "I can't believe they're having talks on the Priesthood and no woman is speaking!" We both felt a real lack because of it. Women are integral to the Priesthood. Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randall Udell Larsen Subject: Re: [AML] Redeemers Date: 16 Jun 2003 22:35:19 -0700 Listmembers,=20 Putting a literary twist on this discussion,a book-- the Wilford Woodruff Journal-- mentions that this question was discussed in the Salt Lake School of the Prophets. The question of Saviors on "other worlds" also comes up in apocrypha such as The Books of Jeu and the 2nd Coptic Gnostic Work. In the books of Jeu a "Gnostic" explains that "as Jeu's become Fathers [of worlds] in time they appoint Jeu's for other worlds who will in time become Fathers." =20 In various journal accounts of his discourses Joseph Smith is reported to explain that a world "is a company of spirits." So there is even the possibility [though the methodist in us doesn't like the idea] that this earth has seen worlds and Saviors before this one. =20 =20 Well what does this do to the message of a Universal God. The question came up in the question and answer session after one of Nibley's=20 1966 talks on New Testament Apocrypha. Nibley's reply as I recall, "there's only one ruling mind." Though there be God's many and Lord's many there is only one God (and one Savior) with whom we have to do. Of course Brigham Young taught a lot about saviors on other worlds to the anointed school and to tabernacle audiences, but as=20 George Q. Cannon said in the 1899 Sunday School convention, the brethren have thought it wise not to advocate these matters (especially in Sunday School). The advice of Elder Cannon has been followed to such an extent that many Adult latter-day Saints have never heard the ideas mentioned discussed anywhere. The School of the Prophets minute--somewhat accessible in the 1970s to Quinn and other researchers-- are now pretty much off limits as I understand it. Every effort has been made to put the cats Brigham let out of the bag back in the bag. =20 Perhaps its wise "not to reveal all truth." Missionary work apparently requires we minimize the differences in our view of the Godhead from the traditional Christian views in order to maintain some common ground to discuss 1st principles with the Christian world. =20 Nevertheless, I sure would like to read more of what Brother Brigham had to say on the subject (if only for its value as literature). In one not so widely published discourse Brigham compares Exalted gods to Bees who swarm from the redeemed earth to Colonize other earths. =20 =20 kind regards,=20 Randall Larsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: 17 Jun 2003 23:04:41 -0600 <567B6188DF98CA488F39B9769E2AB231045F9A99@utah01.utah.unicity.corp.num ico.com> Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list The Tim Robinson mentioned in the following story worked as a Deseret Book editor for a time. Romney plans autobiography about Games=20 By Lisa Riley Roche Deseret Morning News Add Mitt Romney to the list of politicians turned autobiographers. Romney, now governor of Massachusetts, may be joining former first lady Hillary Clinton on the best-seller list with his story of transforming the 2002 Winter Games into one of the most successful Olympics ever. Tentatively titled, "Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership and the Olympic Games," the book is being ghost-written by Romney's nephew, Tim Robinson of Alpine. Romney contributed 300 pages of notes transcribed from thoughts he recorded about his time in Salt Lake City. Romney doesn't have a book deal yet, but Robinson said a top agent at William Morris is representing the governor and anticipates striking a deal with a major publishing house within a few weeks. The intent is to get the book in print by next spring, in time to tie into the 2004 Summer Games in Athens, Greece, as well as the congressional hearings into the disarray at the U.S. Olympic Committee. Plus, Robinson said, the bribery trial of former Salt Lake bid leaders Tom Welch and Dave Johnson should be over by then. The pair are set to go to trial in October in connection with the more than $1 million spent to woo the votes of the International Olympic Committee. Robinson said the book will focus on the business skills Romney brought to the Salt Lake Games. Romney came to Utah in February 1999 to take over the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, then struggling to survive the bid scandal. The story, Robinson said, "is how he was able to take an organization that was basically a laughingstock internationally and pull off Games that were successful" using the same management principles that made him a wealthy businessman in Boston. Such key principles as the need to "cherish your detractors" and "lower expectations" will be detailed for readers in an attempt to broaden the audience for the book. "I convinced him to spin it as a kind of lay management book," Robinson said. Romney, he said, is an instinctive leader. "He flies by the seat of his pants," Robinson said. "He doesn't think about the principles or their application. He just does what he thinks is right." He won't be the first Olympic leader to have written about the experience of running a Games. Peter Ueberroth, head of the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles, wrote a best seller a year later and was discussed then as a potential presidential candidate. Politicians, of course, often write books in advance of a campaign. The publicity generated by a book can't help but boost Romney's political profile. A Republican, he has long dreamed of a run for the White House. That could come as soon as 2008 - the very same year some speculate Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic senator from New York, might seek her party's nomination for president. Not so fast, said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "He is not writing the book to raise his national profile," Fehrnstrom said. "There's an important story to tell and there are many lessons learned that Governor Romney wants to share." So the book isn't gearing Romney up for a presidential run? "No," Fehrnstrom laughed. "We're worried about re-election in 2006." Forwarded by Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 17 Jun 2003 10:59:32 -0600 At 07:35 PM 6/16/03 -0400, you wrote: >This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of Broadway's >great=3D20 leading men n the 1960's... Didn't he play Brigham Young in a production put on at BYU? He certainly=20 had (has?) a powerful voice. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: RE: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 17 Jun 2003 11:06:46 -0600 D. Michael Martindale wrote: >All feminism means to me is I don't give a rat's behind whether a=20 >person is a woman or a man, unless there is a very compelling,=20 >objective reason to make the distinction. Otherwise, they should be=20 >treated the same. I believe that men often make this mistake in communicating to women as if women are men--there *is* a very, compelling, objective reason to make the distinction. I'm sure you are familiar with Deborah Tannen's books, which, unfortunately, are sometimes lumped in with the poor-in-science/rich-in-zeitgiest genre of self-help books. But basically she states that women's communication styles often reflect a relationship-maintaining objective and men's communication styles often reflect a get-the-job-done objective. Personally, I believe that both styles are needed, and an imbalance of one style can be ineffective. Literature tie-in--as a woman, I would much rather read about relationships (any Oprah Book) than objectives (Tom Clancy). --Jennifer Breinholt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 17 Jun 2003 14:13:44 -0700 (PDT) --- robert lauer wrote: > This "guy we've never heard of" was Harve Presnell--one of Broadway's=20 > great=3D20 leading men n the 1960's...and someone who still has a film > career as a=3D20 > character actor. He starred in both the orginal Broadway version of > THE=3D20 > UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN (for which I believe he won the Tony Award) and > in=3D20 > the film version with Debbie Reynolds. In recent years he starred in > the=3D20 > disastrous Broadway flop "ANNIE II" as Daddy Warbucks. An extremely > gifted=3D20 > actor with a great voice and fantastic good looks, he arrived in > Hollywood=3D20 > fresh from numerous Broadway successes just as the film musical died. > PAINT=3D20 > YOUR WAGON, in fact, was one of the last nails in the coffin. >=20 He was also the formidable father-in-law in the Coen Brothers' classic "Fargo"; AND he played the title role in the unforgettable "Brigham!" the pageant BYU put on in 1975 to celebrate BYU's centennial (I was there in the Marriott center for all three interminable hours of it:-) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ Date: 17 Jun 2003 15:05:49 -0700 (PDT) I'm not sure Buckley has a very deep or realistic understanding of LDS mission life. If a 19-year-old elder were to be discovered having sex on his mission it would probably lead to excommunication and being sent home. Even if it were not discovered, for most people the spiritual, psychological, and emotional consequences would be so great that a fundamental reordering would take place of the individual's relationship with the church. Buckley's Mormon protagonist is the good guy. He considers himself a faithful Mormon (whatever that is) even though he drinks and fornicates through the novel (although he refuses to use cuss words.) There is a tradition in fiction about Catholics something called a "whiskey priest" (especially in the novels of Graham Greene, i.e. "The Power and the Glory".) If I understand correctly, such a priest can be dissolute, even alcoholic. He is torn by doubts. But because he is still a priest conferred with the authority of God, God can work through him and he is still good for a miracle every once in a while. Such an understanding of sin and authority might have influenced Buckley's thinking about the personal morality of his Mormon characters. It could be argued that if you go down this road far enough, you end up with the clergy sex scandals that have plagued the Catholic church in recent decades. Of course the orthodox Mormon view is that personal righteousness is inseparably connected to the powers of heaven. The moment you try to exercise unrighteous dominion over another, the Spirit withdraws. I would never try to judge what that point is for another person. But I'm pretty sure I know where my tipping point is. [R.W. Rasband] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA Date: 17 Jun 2003 18:27:36 -0400 TRAVIS MANNING asked: > Generally, how would writing about fictional SSA Mormons=20 >substantially >contribute to the >body of Mormon lit? Yes, there are gay Mormons, but how would >creating art with them be both "inclusive" and "liberating"? Such literature would be "inclusive" and "liberating" (both rather stale=20 political terms in my opinion) because it would be an acknowledgement of the=20 fact that some Latter-day Saints are indeed homosexuals. If one believes=20 that acting upon homosexual feelings is a sin and if one of the missions of=20 the Church is to perfect the Saints, then this continued pretending that=20 there are are no homosexual Latter-day Saints or (even more destructive yet)=20 the continued pretense that an individual can easily (if he only has faith=20 and is committed) overcome, ignore or repress these feelings--such fanciful=20 pretending not only undermines one of the Church's stated missions, but it=20 further isolates homosexual Latter-day Saints from their brothers and=20 sisters in the Gospel. The homosexual Saint feels unwelcomes to share with=20 others his/her most profound spiritual struggle. To be able to give voice to our greatest struggles (whatever they may be) is=20 a very liberating in a spiritual sense. It also builds those feelings of=20 brotherhood and friendship that should be the hallmark of Latter-day Saint=20 society. But when an individuals must suffer alone and in silence (and individuals dealing with homosexual emotions struggle--and struggle much=20 more profoundly than others because, unlike heterosexuals, there is=20 absolutely no morally acceptable way for them to express their deepest emotions and desires) is to gradually excommunicate such Saints (not=20 officially excommunicate, but excommunicate de facto) from the body of the=20 Church. In this discussion, we might think upon what the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote=20 in a letter to Nancy Rigdon in Nauvoo...for it had to do with the subject of=20 human sexuality, though the portion of the letter most often quoted is seldom put in that context. The Prophet (a married man at the time) had=20 proposed marriage to Nancy. She was morally repulsed by the idea of plural=20 marriage. In a letter to further his defense of plural marriage, the Prophet=20 wrote: Happiness is the object of our creation and will be the end thereof, if we=20 pursue the path that leads to it;and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness and keeping all the commandments of God...what is=20 wrong in one instance may not be wrong in another....God is much more=20 liberal in his sympathies than we suppose. ROB. LAUER -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darvell Hunt Subject: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 18 Jun 2003 00:05:14 GMT --- "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: >[..] If an adult touches a child (especially if it's a man doing the=20 >touching), he's probably a sexual predator. [..] >So no one touches anyone anymore. Not sure if this is getting off-topic, but I feel unnaturally constrained by our current society's fears. I am often away from home for work and I see families all of the time. As a writer, I like to watch people. I miss my four young kids considerably and pay close attention to the little kids I see. Sometimes I even talk to them, but I don't dare get friendly with them. I'm a mid-thirties white male and society has told kids to fear me if they do not know me. It makes me sad, but I just smile at them, maybe say hi, but keep my distance. That's not what I want to do, as I pose no threat whatsoever to them. But their parents don't know that and frankly, I don't want to open kids up to future danger by dispersing their fear of strangers. I also stop to help people along the highway because too many times that person on the side of the road has been me. I like to pay the favor forward. I've also passed by someone because it didn't feel right. There are good reasons to not stop and help people. I have NEVER thought NOT to help because of the gender of someone in need. But if I were female, I probably would rarely stop to help anyone. Darvell Hunt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Darvell Hunt Subject: [AML] Re: Director Announced for _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ Date: 18 Jun 2003 00:19:53 GMT --- "Preston Hunter" wrote: >When popular LDS novelist Robert Farrell Smith contacted us about his >plans for producing a feature film adaptation of his comedic LDS novel=20 >_Baptists at Our Barbecue_ (Bookcraft, 2002), I was excited. This is a=20 >truly hilarious novel with an unusual, interesting premise. >Preston Hunter That's GREAT news! I personally have considerable difficulty finding an LDS book that I enjoy reading. _Baptists at our Barbeque_ was one of the rare ones. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a good read and I very much look forward to a film adapted from it. I think it's a story well-suited for the big screen. (But I'm sure it was published before 2002, possibly by another company, Aspen maybe.) If you like comedy and like LDS books, this one is a MUST. Darvell [Hunt] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Mormon SF Bibliography Date: 17 Jun 2003 20:50:09 -0600 My bibliography of Mormon speculative fiction has a new URL: www.MormonSF.org. Come have a look and see all the new titles I've added recently. And let me know if you've published something I've missed. Marny Parkin -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 17 Jun 2003 21:08:00 -0600 Dianna's comment how a bishop hearing confessions may lead to this kind of preaching struck a chord. I remember one college bishop telling the ward that without exception every morality-type confession he had ever heard began with, "well, we were alone in his/her room doing homework" or something along those lines. He was one of those bishops who draw the line fast and hard, but I understood his reasoning. I don't always agree with the restrictions of never being alone w/ a person of the opposite gender. That said, I know of a few cases where it has led to serious problems--and in each one, the people involved had seemed the very least likely to ever do anything improper, even to themselves. "I'd NEVER do anything like that. I take my marriage seriously. That could never happen to me." Well, it did. Not everyone who gets sunburned is going to get skin cancer. Call me paranoid, but if putting on sun screen will keep me from even having the risk of it, I'll slather it on, thank you very much. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Out of Town Date: 18 Jun 2003 09:59:06 -0500 Folks, I will be out of town for the next three days. In my absence, Jacob Proffitt will be proceeding as assistant moderator. However, if he (or you) has anything that raises questions for my review, I won't be able to get back to them until the weekend/Monday. Just so you know. Much thanks for Jacob for taking on this responsibility, and to all of you for your patience with us. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon SF Bibliography Date: 18 Jun 2003 08:14:53 -0700 What a splendid effort! I learned that Parley P. Pratt wrote fiction! Never knew it! May I make a suggestion? When I went to the link for the review of Linda Adams' "Prodigal Journey," found it went to a single review of the book, when in fact there are three reviews, and there is a link to the list of the three reviews. Would it be more helpful to go to *that* page instead of the single review? Thanks again -- much appreciated! ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Elizabeth Walters" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 18 Jun 2003 09:32:17 -0600 The last thing you want from a church leader is someone who lays down guidelines based on reactions instead of proactions or saying these things out of emotion and not spiritual reasoning. It's like the short-fused teacher who punishes the entire class because of the misbehavior of one kid. I can understand the logic behind such guidelines where you're just trying to get to the root of the problem and eliminate it, but it's somewhat of a flawed method if you're shooting at the root without really knowing where the root is. There's no one way to prevent these incidents from happening. Every situation is different, every environment is different, and every person is different. Not even Dr.Ruth can predict how the stars and planets will align to make an adulterous affair take place. With the analogy of sunscreen, lathering that on won't automatically prevent you from getting cancer. There are way too many factors involved such as the type lotion you have and what SPF level it is, where you're living (a lot of the U.S stuff won't do much good in Austrailia where UV levels are higher), how long you're in the sun, etc. This is the same with the whole being alone issue. It doesn't become a problem unless you allow it to. It's my observation that in most cases, people fall into temptation more so because what they weren't doing as opposed to what they were doing. If a person isn't living a good life, going to the temple and church, being a good Mormon in general, striving to improve their marriage then it doesn't matter what restrictions are placed. That serpent will keep biting your ankle until you stomp his head. In literature there are several books out there that address these issues in an indirect way. I always find it interesting that many LDS people scoff at the mere mention of The Bridges of Madison County, but at the same time enjoy movies like, "It Could Happen to you" to the point of finding it on their top 10 "date flick" list. Both stories deal with likeable protagonists who start off very faithful to their spouses, but eventually choose to have extramarital affairs. The difference is one story ends "tragically" and the other "happily." Which movie is which depends on the viewer. The one thing both stories have in common is that the protoganist' first meeting with their "lover" starts off quite innocently, but both main characters are confronted with strained marriages and lots of free time on their hands. Although both protagonists fall to adultery, they both have several opportunities during the course of the story to squash the serpent, but choose not to for different reasons. My point in these examples is that the solution to preventing infidelity is never as simple as saying no to giving a ride to another sister or brother in the gospel. It's more art than science if you pardon the clich'e. Elizabeth Walters -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 18 Jun 2003 12:39:24 -0600 At 11:06 AM 6/17/03 -0600, you wrote: >I believe that men often make this mistake in communicating to women as=20 >if women are men--there *is* a very, compelling, objective reason to=20 >make the distinction. Women make the same mistake in treating men the way we like to be treated,=20 and in wondering what's wrong with them when they don't behave as we do. We=20 need to learn all we can about the hard-wired and societally induced=20 differences. The lit connection is that when we write characters of the=20 opposite gender, we want to get them right. barbara hume -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Re: Restrictions on Being Alone Date: 18 Jun 2003 13:37:33 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David=20 >and Dianna Graham > If you are a bishop and have to listen to=20 >confession upon confession year after year about adultery,=20 >fornication, masturbation, bestiality, etc., I think it would=20 >be very difficult to not passionately cry from the pulpit,=20 >"Don't even flirt with temptation! Just play it very safe." =20 This is a temptation that a Bishop should avoid -- generalizing from the specific to the general. Not only that, but a Bishop may not have enough training to tell if act (a) is a cause of sin (b). Two spiritually healthy people in a car alone would have no problems. But an emotionally immature couple might. By focusing on the act of being alone, the Bishop is generalizing and might fail to focus on the real problem, the two people's emotional lives. =20 Thom Duncan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon SF Bibliography Date: 19 Jun 2003 08:56:38 -0600 >May I make a suggestion? When I went to the link for the review of=20 >Linda Adams' "Prodigal Journey," found it went to a single review of=20 >the book, when in fact there are three reviews, and there is a link to=20 >the list of the three reviews. Would it be more helpful to go to >*that* page instead of the single review? That's a good suggestion. I believe when I put the link in=20 originally, there was only one review. It has been a while since I've=20 updated the reviews, so I'll take your suggestion into account for=20 all the AML-List reviews. Thanks, Marny [Parkin] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ Date: 19 Jun 2003 12:49:43 EDT In a message dated 6/19/03 1:01:52 AM,=20 owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: >Buckley's Mormon protagonist is the good guy. He considers himself a >faithful Mormon (whatever that is) even though he drinks and fornicates=20 >through the novel (although he refuses to use cuss words.) There is a >tradition in fiction about Catholics something called a "whiskey=20 >priest" (especially in the novels of Graham Greene, i.e. "The Power and=20 >the >Glory".) If I understand correctly, such a priest can be dissolute, >even alcoholic. He is torn by doubts. But because he is still a priest >conferred with the authority of God, God can work through him and he >is still good for a miracle every once in a while. Such an understanding >of sin and authority might have influenced Buckley's thinking about the >personal morality of his Mormon characters. =20 This is a very interesting perspective. I have read Buckley's spiritual=20 autobiography (NEARER, MY GOD), most of which is actually a doctrinal debate and=20 not a memoir, and I am intrigued by this idea that his view of what is permissible for his Mormon protagonist is influenced by the fact that he is so steeped=20 in Catholicism. One of the great medieval debates was whether the Eucharist could be defiled=20 if the priest were unworthy to administer it. Greene's THE POWER AND THE=20 GLORY, which is the best Catholic novel I have ever read, handles this issue so=20 beautifully. But you're quite right about Buckley's understanding not being an=20 accurate portrayal of Mormon belief and practice. Jana Riess -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ben@parkinsonfamily.org Subject: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 19 Jun 2003 16:08:53 -0600 (MDT) Folks, Here are some notes on my bookbinding adventures. (I wish I had time to d=3D o a series on this--I=3D92m finding it a fascinating process.) I=3D92m sure th=3D is will seem confusing to most, but maybe it will = help any of you who are interested in trying the same thing, and those who have already done it can see what I=3D92m doing wrong and give me pointers. I typeset my books in Microsoft Publisher. This is not a great program bu=3D t I find it has one huge advantage over word processors such as Word or WordPerfect--when you situate a picture or text box, it stays there even if you insert or delete text above it. This has saved me endless grief. I have discovered also Windows=3D92s dirty little secret, and why all graphic artists and typesetters everywhere use Macs. Every time you try to print to a new printer, you get reflow--things you put on one page may end up o=3D n a different page or disappear entirely. Since Mac has the Postscript page description language built in, in theory you should be able to print to any printer a Mac will print to without reflow. Microsoft Publisher doesn't quite solve this, so I typeset to my home printer and then create PDFs to print on other printers. On the advice of a graphics artist who works in our shop, I scan all the images for the books I do at 300 dpi. This is the resolution used by both the photo and book printing industries, though they sometimes downsample to around 240 dpi at print time. If you want to enlarge a photo, you have to scan it at higher res (1 inch square at 600 dpi has the exact same number of pixels as 2 inches square at 300 dpi). I use TIFF format, also pretty well an industry standard, because JPEG creates distortion. I find when I=3D92m scanning for output to a laser printer I need to scan just a little light, as things print darker than they look onscreen--anyway it=3D92=3D s easier to add contrast than to take it out. For my first book I used line art and old Dover engravings from one of the electronic clipart collections. I found they print beautifully on laser printers even at lower resolutions. It=3D92s almost hard to do a bad job with this kind of art--just watch for moire patterns if there=3D92s any cross-hatching. The format for my test book I got from Chris Bigelow--you just take a piece of legal paper and fold it in half. If you crop the end opposite th=3D e fold, you wind up with a book that=3D92s not too far from = standard paperbac=3D k sizes, or you can leave it wide and squeeze more words on it. The biggest advantage to this size may be that you can print them on a low-end home laser printer. If you want to go to a more standard book size, you have t=3D o print on ledger (11x17) and trim it down. The copy shop where I work give=3D s employees excellent prices--it comes out to about 6 cents a sheet for legal or ledger printed on both sides. Since you=3D92re folding it and creating four pages from each sheet of paper, that=3D92s only 1 1/2 cents p=3D er printed page. They print on a DocuTech-style machine that uses toner like a laser printer or a photocopier but is high enough quality that it=3D92s u=3D sed in = most all kinds of commercial printing now. The machine will collate, fold, etc., even put on a binding, but not one good enough for what I=3D92m after. Most any corner copy shop has this kind of machine--maybe not quit=3D e at these prices, but still pretty cheap. I imagine most anyone could have a 500-page book printed for $10 (paper and printing) in quantities as low as 1. After I typeset I convert to PDF (no more reflow, and the format is robus=3D t enough for the highest-end printers that book publishers use). The DocuTech-style machines will collate into signatures automatically (so when you fold a stack of sheets, the printed pages come out in the right order), but I prefer to do the collating myself so I can print extra copies on my home laser printer if I need to. This is a little complicate=3D d until you get the hang of it. You set up your signature so it=3D92s printin=3D g two pages per side on 8 = sheets of legal paper in landscape mode (32 pages per signature). In your desktop publishing software you see 16 sides, one after the other. Page 1 of a given signature goes on the right-hand side of the first sheet, page 2 on the left side of the second sheet, page 3 o=3D n the right side of the third sheet and so on. When you get to the end you start over backwards: pages 15 and 16 are together on the sixteenth sheet=3D , page 17 goes to the empty space on the fifteenth sheet, page 18 on the empty space on the fourteenth sheet, and so on to page 32, on the left-hand side of the first sheet. If you lay this out on your screen wit=3D h all pages visible and show the flow arrows, they criss-cross, like your shoe laces. (Quark will do this. You can=3D92t do it in Microsoft Publisher=3D , but if you could, that=3D92s what = you=3D92d see.) I=3D92ve had books perfect bound, which is cheaper than cloth binding but still pretty expensive in small editions (say, 20 copies of a family history). Also, no matter how good a job they do, you get the feeling tha=3D t this book can only be read a couple of times, which means that 100 years from now, the only people who will have it are descendants of people who didn=3D92t like it well enough to read it in the first place. This type of binding does not look like it will hold up to photocopying at all. I=3D92d =3D say the newer spiral binding = would be more permanent and allow for photocopying, but then you wind up with a book that doesn=3D92t look like i=3D t will hold up in a backpack or on a bookshelf, at least a bookshelf that gets any use. Also I=3D92ve long had the suspicion that people are more lik=3D ely to preserve a book that looks professional when they go to closet-cleaning. In the case of family histories, it=3D92s often the childr=3D en of those who bought the book who do the closet-cleaning, and they may hav=3D e no sentimental attachment to the book at all. These are the consideration=3D s that led me to want to learn to sew and bind my own small editions. I bought a book by Arthur William Lewis called _Basic Bookbinding_, Dover Publications (May 1985), ISBN: 0486201694, $6.95 at Amazon. It was writte=3D n originally in the =3D9150s, and describes a style of binding with a rounded back that is not very common nowadays. I didn=3D92t find Lewis=3D92s explanat=3D ions clear and couldn=3D92t see = the reason for a lot of what he did beyond it wa=3D s done that way in the trade in days gone by. Paris and Cathryn on this lis=3D t recommended Aldren A. Watson=3D92s _Hand Bookbinding: A Manual of Instruction_, paperback, 160 pages, Dover Publications (August 1996), 048629157X, $8.76 at Amazon. I picked it up and found it a lot more helpful. His procedures and illustrations are very clear and more in line with current methods and materials (though still slightly dated--have the rest of you noticed how thoroughly the material world has changed since the 1980s?). But he also strikes me as clearer on theory, so if you want to depart from his procedure, you=3D92re on safer ground. From my point of view, this book is so immensely more helpful than the first that it=3D92s a wonder they both come from the same publisher. My wife Robin and I made our first book from misprints from my laser printer, most of them from trying to get the signatures to print correctly. We knew this would make for a funny book, with all the repeate=3D d and off-center and out-of-order pages, but we figured we=3D92d make enough mistakes in binding that it would be a useless book anyway. We divided th=3D e book into five 8-sheet signatures, folded them using a bone folding tool we got at an art supply store, sewed them with carpet thread without usin=3D g a frame, just to see how much one was needed. We glued on twill tapes and a muslin mull from the local fabric store using Sobo glue. It came out looking alright, as far as it went. I trimmed it on a book cutter we have at work to get the edges straight. One edge I chopped way too close to th=3D e type, and I had trouble getting the whole thing square. We used a piece o=3D f linen (I think it was) from the fabric store for book cloth. The design w=3D e applied using an iron-on T-shirt transfer that we ran through our old 300 dpi inkjet printer. The resulting pattern looked decent but not nearly as good as that printer does on paper. I think you could make it look a lot better with a newer, higher-resolution inkjet printer. But the transfer went on as a soft, almost waxy film that I doubt will prove very durable. We talked a lot about how to get sizing in the fabric--I think we wound u=3D p using a spray acrylic after the fact. We live right by Weber State University campus and so raided the print shop=3D92s recycling bin for some nice glossy sheets to use as endpapers, and got some matte board for book boards from the bookstore. When we went to glue it all together, we saw we=3D92d gotten the front and back cover transfers too far apart on the clo=3D th, and worse, we=3D92d put the front cover on the left rather than the right, which might work for the Japanese but is pretty confusing for books written in a Roman alphabet. We had significant trouble with wrinkling also when we glued down the end papers. At first glance you=3D92d think, that book doesn=3D92t look half bad. = But onc=3D e you came a little closer than 50 paces and wiped the Vaseline off your glasse=3D s and actually looked at the thing, you=3D92d see its = a pretty comical-lookin=3D g book, with the front cover on the back, all of it off center, the pages scallywompus. But we got what we needed from it, a sense of how the parts fit together, how big to cut the boards, how to trim the corners of the cloth to get a nice fold, etc. So we started on a new one. This time I used cotton threads to sew, and I kept wondering whether this was a mistake--would they snap or otherwise make the book weaker? It occurred to me carpet thread might weaken the book in a different way if over time it sliced through the paper. I made an ersatz frame this time b=3D y using masking tape to suspend the twill tapes between two rungs of some built-in shelving on one of our walls. I used white muslin for the mull this time thinking it might not show as much. I got it fairly square, but when I tied it off at the end I pulled it too tight, which warped it a little. This time we used wheat paste, which we made by stirring common white flour into water and boiling it till it thickens. Our paste had the consistency of gravy, and if you got it on lumpy it wrinkled the paper, s=3D o I started to stir it and then pick a spot that was a little thinner and dip my brush in there. It was not tacky at all, so you had to weight everything until it started to dry. In spite of this, I really liked this glue while we were using it. It seemed to bind well, if you overpasted it didn=3D92t show, and cleanup was incredibly easy. We kept thinking of different schemes to print the cover cloth and finall=3D y got the idea of using cloth on the spine only and art paper (such as Canson paper) for the front and back boards. (I think this is called library binding or half-binding.) We investigated inkjet printers and decided to buy the new Epson C82, which has long-lasting inks, very good resolution (1400 I think), a sheet-feeder that will handle stiffer papers=3D , and a low enough sticker price (under $100) that if we busted the sheet feeder putting through heavy papers, we might actually consider buying another one. Now we can use photos on our cover designs (I=3D92m a lot hand=3D ier retouching a photo than designing from scratch), and we can print the papers at home. No need for a special printer that will handle wide paper formats, because even if I=3D92m making an 8 1/2 x 11 book, the cloth from =3D the spine comes out about 1 1/2 inches on each side, so all we have to do is cut the art paper down to legal size, run the front and back pieces through the Epson, and we=3D92re able to cover everything. We were much more careful trimming the edges this time but still had trouble keeping it square. As a workaround, we attached the boards separately before gluing on the paper and cloth to the boards, tracing th=3D e outline of the book onto the matte board scraps so they would be a unifor=3D m width from the edge of the pages, even if not totally square. We had trouble with the linen spine piece fraying, but Robin suggested that next time we try some stuff that keeps the ends of cloth from unraveling and thinks that will solve the problem. We were a lot more careful applying the end papers, but they still wrinkled a little (a lot less than before)=3D , and the muslin mull and tapes show through. The finished book looked beautiful, but we discovered water from the whea=3D t paste had leaked into the spine and wrinkled the pages near the stitching=3D , so they don=3D92t turn smoothly. Then I noticed that the art paper was separating a little from the cloth in one place, and before long that bubble expanded to about 4 inches by 8 inches. The covers bowed too--I=3D92=3D m not sure why they didn=3D92t the first = time, but I have to suspect the wate=3D r in that wheat paste once again. We gave the book to my 8-year-old daughte=3D r to read, and she=3D92s had = it a week. The cover papers have separated furth=3D er, but when she spilled jam on the cover it cleaned up easily. I=3D92m ready to go at it again. We=3D92ll probably try Elmers glue next or g=3D o back to Sobo. I may use Davies board instead of matte, or I may give matt=3D e one more try using the commercial glue. We=3D92ll likely also try using a commercial mull or maybe even some cheesecloth, something that=3D92s a litt=3D le thinner and less likely = to show through the end papers. We may also try some of the commercial book tape, which I think is thinner, but Robin thinks is thicker than the common cotton twill we=3D92ve been using. We sti=3D ll have the problem of printing the spine. I=3D92ve considered using paper the=3D re too but can=3D92t come up with a color scheme that works. I thought if you =3D had light papers for the boards and then did the spine in navy blue or maroon=3D , that would look pretty good, but inkjet printers don=3D92t exactly print white. The graphic artist at work suggested if we use cloth that we silkscreen the spine using an enamel ink (rather than the textile inks they use on t-shirts, which are washable but soft like that t-shirt transfer, and who wants to wash a book anyway). Setup for that would likely be around $30 or $40 per book, but he says the screens last a long time, so maybe you could do one and keep it around in case other family members decide they want copies of the book later. Ben Parkinson Ogden, Utah, USA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Director Announced for _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ Date: 19 Jun 2003 11:02:04 -0600 Preston announced this new movie. A brief response. Any time a new film based on a favorite LDS novel is announced, it's good news, and any Christian Vuissa film is also good news. This is a very fun novel, and would make a fun movie. And you're certainly right about Christian's abilities as a filmmaker. I do have one tiny reservation about the project. I know Christian well, and was one of his faculty advisors for Roots and Wings, which I strongly recommended for last year's AML award. Christian is a very talented filmmaker, and a good friend. What I don't know is, can he do comedy? I have some reservations. Christian is a very serious guy. He can do thoughtful, intelligent, serious work. But comedy is about timing, and I don't know if he can pull it off. I mean, not everyone can do everything, right? I just saw the atrocious re-make of The In-laws. The original In-laws, with Peter Falk and Alan Arkin, is slapdash and ugly, and also one of the funniest movies ever made. The new one has much better production values. And it's also got Michael Douglas trying to be funny. Wonderful actor, great producer, he just isn't up to comedy. So this is an interesting issue for the list, actually. Fact is, comedy is HARD. It's harder than almost anything else. And we all have our own gifts. I would completely love to be proven wrong here. Nothing would please me more than to see a terrific film made from Baptists, and nothing would be please me more than to see Christian have a commercial success. I'm rooting for the project. With fingers crossed. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 19 Jun 2003 11:08:02 -0600 Let me quickly add that I do indeed know who Harve Presnell is. When I wrote 'then this guy we've never heard of' sings They Call The Wind Maria, I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was, Harve Presnell plays a character who, at that moment, was a nonentity, and who went back to being one after the song. So this guy just shows up, basically to sing one song. And it's a lovely tune, and he sings it well; he always did have a wonderful voice. It's also an idiotic moment in the film, but that's hardly Presnell's fault. Besides, here are the lyrics, best I can remember them: Away out here, they've got a name, for rain and wind and fire The rain is Tess, the fire Joel, and they call the wind Maria. (Muh RYE uh) I mean, talk about someone left the cake out in the rain. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Actress Date: 19 Jun 2003 11:31:02 -0600 If Eliza Dushku is among our more important actresses--and she's not a tenth the actress Mireille Enos is--then surely Aaron Eckhart is our most important current actor. Also less-active, unfortunately, but a fine actor and borderline movie star. About which, let me say that it surprises me that we haven't talked about the Core. This seems to me quite an important movie, in this sense; it's the movie that could make Aaron a movie star. I mean, a big star, a major bankable star, a Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson. Interesting phenomenon; to become a star, you don't do great work in little pictures. You do a Big Dumb Action film. Bruce Willis isn't a star because of Twelve Monkeys, he's a star because of Die Hard. If you can carry a BDAF, you're a star. So that's what the Core is, a BDAF, and as such, it's pretty good. It got some vitriolic critical response, which you should ignore. See the darn thing; it's entertaining. Frankly, I liked the heck out of the Core, considering how silly it is. Let me put it this way; they go out of their way to make the whole thing plausible. Everything about it is sensible and carefully thought-through, except for all of it. I said that badly. The Core of the Earth isn't going to stop spinning. If it did, there'd be nothing we could do about it. Aside from that, though, setting that aside, if the Core DID stop spinning, and if there WERE something we could do about it, what this movie proposes doesn't seem grossly implausible. You REALLY have to SUSPEND ye ol' disbelief, but once you've done that, the thing has its pleasures. And Aaron Eckhart is very good in it. He comes across as intelligent, courageous and compassionate. He has some chemistry with Hilary Swank. He's good looking, and charismatic. You believe that he could in fact be a scientist, and you buy the idea that they'd trust him to solve this little problem. And there are some terrific scary scenes, like one where all the pigeons at Trafalgar Square go nuts (no one who's ever been there hasn't thought about that). Every once in awhile, they do this, put a minor-but-talented actor in a big action flick, like they did with Bill Pullman in Independence Day. Sometimes it makes 'em a star, like Harrison Ford in Raiders. Sometimes they go back to being who they were, like Mathew Broderick in Godzilla. The Core has a chance to be THAT MOVIE for Aaron. Except it may not happen; again, it got bad reviews (which again it absolutely did not deserve), and didn't do great business. Still, it would be nice to have a Mormon star, and the fact that the film didn't do well may not hurt Aaron. And a rising tide lifts all boats. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Belly Dancing Date: 19 Jun 2003 14:15:46 -0700 Gae Lynn writes: >I would like to learn to belly dance if I thought my belly looked good enough to show (which after my six kids it doesn't). Maybe this makes = me "lewd, vulgar and indecent"--probably. Am I this way because of my = earlier repression? Or if I hadn't been repressed most of my life would I be = even worse (better?) now? Cathy Wilson wrote: >As for body shape and belly dancing, traditionally, the more mature, rounded bodies have been considered to be most attractive in the dance. = "You don't have anything to dance about till you're at least thirty-five," = one Turkish dancer pointed out. Just get yourself to a belly dance festival sometime and notice the different shapes. You will see dancers five = times larger than you are :). It's actually a wonderful way to move out of our cultural construct about what is a beautiful body and see all ages and shapes as graceful and gorgeous. >Afterwards, though, one of our ward members came up to us. "I don't = know how you could take the sacrament after that," he said. I was astonished, because I didn't feel we particularly emphasized sexuality in our dance. Belly dance, however, does emphasize the hips, so perhaps that was the problem. My wife might have already posted on this but, here goes anyway. We had = a friend (now deceased, unfortunately) who had a Christmas party at her = house. She was (like Cathy Wilson) a member of a belly dancing troop (she was = the only LDS member) and she was a member of our Ward. Many of the Sisters = in the Ward looked sideways at her because she just exuded sexuality = without even trying. She was not a skinny waif of a woman by any stretch of the imagination but she was very loving. When she danced it was not sexual = in any way but I'm sure some up tight members would have been offended. My = wife tells me of a story about her doing a belly dance (no belly showing, of course) at the Ward Christmas party as part of the Pageant. I caused = quite a stir. But I digress. There was a girl (about late 20s to early 30s) who = was at the party and everyone bugged her until she danced. She did not have = her outfit on but her dance had every man in the place captivated for the 5 = or 10 minutes she danced. Is it wrong for LDS women to do belly dancing...absolutely not! It is = good exercise and it helps them feel good about themselves. Stretch marks or = no there is a costume for every person (mid-drift showing or not). We saw several different types at the Renaissance Faire a few weeks ago. = Besides if a wife dances for her husband it is all good and many a man would envy = that husband. ;-) Literary tie in - How many places in the Scriptures did women (and men) dance? It might be apocryphal but I sure liked the scene in "The Ten Commandments" when Moses had to choose a wife. Now that would be fun. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] Nelson, LEE _Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Indians_ = Date: 19 Jun 2003 18:45:35 -0600 (Review)=20 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Title: Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Indians Authors: Mark Twain and Lee Nelson 2003, Council Press/Cedar Fort, Inc. 277 p. $18.95 Hardback. ISBN 1-55517-680-1 Not long ago Chris Bigelow questioned how a piece of Mark Twain's = unfinished writing could have ended up in Utah to be finished by Lee Nelson at = Council Press/Cedar Fort. Good question. Lee read Mark Twain's unfinished piece in a 1968 Life Magazine in a BYU barbershop. Finally, this year (2003), in a handsome hardback novel, he = has almost singlehandedly published "Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Indians." Lee Nelson certainly knows how to weave a tale, something many stylists = have difficulty doing. This book is the perfect undertaking for our Storm Testament "buffalo-ball-eating master" of western narrative. Actually, = Lee is likely better prepared for this task than Mark Twain himself. = Comfortable in the arena of western trails, horses, mules, back-packing, western and Indian life and lore, to say nothing of Mormon pioneer history, Lee = spins a remarkable yarn. Reading Mark Twain's first sixty-two pages was like rediscovering the writing of an old friend. Wonderful stuff. But the voice of Mark Twain = is one of a kind. And though Lee Nelson continues the saga attempting to = keep that voice, he lapses into too many present tense verbs, etc., and gets = off of Twain's tone and touch quickly. He handles the historical material well: Huck's meeting with Bill = Hickman and Porter Rockwell, the introduction to Fort Bridger and Fort Supply at = the time the Mormons were burning U.S. wagons to prevent the army from = coming down to Salt Lake City. He says just enough about polygamy to turn Huck = (and the reader) off, and just enough about liquor and slavery to let us know what really happened and why. Lee even invents a hilarious scenario in = which Tom reads the Book of Mormon. The story of Peggy and her little sister stolen by the Indians, the discussion revolving upon her becoming = "spoiled" all resonate with the kind of tongue-in-cheek jollity both Nelson and = Twain delight in performing. The speculation of anti-Mormon critics that he has added too much = "Mormon" is just paltry opinion. The boys were in Mormon country, for goodness' = sake! I was so grateful that Lee wrote the story instead of someone else! Even Twain would have invented some anti-Mormon scenario. It's Accurate for Mormons, and interesting to outsiders. Must be doing something right--it sold 5,000 in the first month! Except for the strained and overdone syle (and I admit it's a biggie), = the book answers my needs to read something for the national market that is = not anti-Mormon. Cheers to Lee Nelson who doesn't get many critical strokes, = but deserves kudos for a great read! Marilyn Brown [Marilyn Brown] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 19 Jun 2003 14:33:32 -0700 Eric Samuelsen said: >I'm sorry, but I just find this one of the funniest movies ever made. Unintentionally so. >But it is a bad movie, isn't it? I mean, seriously, can anyone watch = Clint Eastwood warble away about singing to trees and not get the giggles? I'm like D. Michael, I liked this movie and I think it was funny on = purpose. It wasn't an Academy Award winner but it was fun. I don't care what = anyone says I found the songs and the music interesting. When you analyze = things too deeply it takes away from the message. Think about where it was taking place. In 1840's/50's California things = were crazy in the gold camps that sprang up all over the place. Things about = that time are legendary and much of it is not recorded. I can picture those = crazy guys building those tunnels under the saloons getting the dust that fell through the floor boards and then expanding them to the entire town. The best part was when the bull fell through and wrecked the everything. And what about the preacher who was always crying repentance. Think about it from a Prophet's point of view! The polygamy part just threw a twist to = the plot line - especially the reverse polygamy. The fact they were able to = get Clint Eastwood AND Lee Marvin to sing even one song a piece was a = miracle. Many would call it not really singing but "I Was Born Under a Wandering Star" and "I Talk To The Trees"....what was the context. A man who was moving on because he felt he could not compete for the love of a = beautiful woman against a younger, handsome, and more virile man and a love sick = young man who was pining for the young and beautiful maiden whom he thought he would never have. And besides, how many miners do you know who can sing besides the owners of gambling establishments. Think about it. I really like the movie and always will. I even tracked down the DVD. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Dialogue editors Date: 19 Jun 2003 16:35:05 -0600 I don't think the following came thru on AML-List yet. Congrats to Levi Peterson and any other AML-Listers on the new staff. The Board of Directors of The Dialogue Foundation announces the Appointment of a New Editorial Team to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for a five-year term to begin in 2004 Editor.................... Karen Marguerite Moloney Associate Editor.......... Levi S. Peterson Production Manager........ Brent Corcoran Book Review Editor........ Tim Archer History Editor............ Todd Compton Fiction Editor............ Karen Rosenbaum Poetry Editor............. Lisa Bickmore Personal Essay Editor..... Linda Sillitoe Art Director.............. Warren Luch Submissions should be sent to the editors at DialogueMSS@aol.com; for queries, phone (801) 274-8210. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Date: 19 Jun 2003 16:41:45 -0700 Scott Parkin wrote: >Apparently no active Mormon can give fair consideration to an = inebriated >defendant--at least according to the lawyers (and judge) serving the = circuit >court in Provo. I agree with a few other people, this is common. I was picked for a jury = pool and was in the first twelve people called. there was no questionnaire but they = asked all of us general questions and the telling ones were: Anyone here who has never used drug or alcohol? Anyone = here who has never received a ticket or been arrested? There were several people who were dismissed ahead of me (one lady was a = CHP dispatcher). Finally it came down to the point where they could dismiss people = without cause (can't recall how many they had for this) and I was thanked for my service and = dismissed. Funny thing was another lady who was called up to the pool after I left asked = to be asked to be released from the jury since she knew the defendant. The guy got a funny = look on his face because he didn't recognize her. One night near Cal State Fullerton this = individual had been tossed out of a bar her friend owned. They found him outside passed = out near the dumpster and had to take his wallet to find out where to send him in a = cab. The charge was resisting arrest and being drunk while on campus at CSUF. Didn't = hear if he was convicted but I can't see how he got off. Bottom line, every defense attorney hates people like us in any case = involving drugs or alcohol. It makes no difference that we of all people would do our best = to be fair. To them we do not constitute a "Jury or their peers". Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 19 Jun 2003 20:52:16 -0400 Jerry Tyner: >I really like the movie and always will. I even tracked down the DVD. Actually, I picked up the DVD from the enormous box of 5.95 DVD's in our Wal-Mart's aisle display. Richard B. Johnson, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important- and most valuable. Http://www.PuppenRich.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 20 Jun 2003 02:37:51 GMT Title: Troy Through a Window (videotape) Author: A film by Brad Barber Publisher: Entropy Productions (bradbarber@byu.edu) Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: Video, 57 minutes Price: Not known Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Having viewed this tape late in the evening, I decided to wait until the following evening to write this review. I wanted to make sure my own feelings about the video were sufficiently settled before expressing an opinion. "Troy" is Troy Barber. Brad is his brother. The Barber family is a hyper-typical LDS family -- white, middle-class, mom and dad together, six children. They attend church regularly, have a strong testimony of the truth of the Church, try to live the gospel as well as they can. Dad has been Stake President. One by one, the children get married, have children, and live rather normal Mormon lives. This, according to the mother, has been her dream -- to raise healthy, moral children in the Church, and to keep the family very close, very intimate. But Troy has never married. In fact, Troy is gay. When he comes out to his parents, and subsequently to his siblings, it could not have been more of a shock. This video is a film project by Brad, one of the Barber children. Several years Troy's junior, Brad had looked to Troy as a role model and best friend. In fact, as it is described in the film, Brad idolized Troy. In fact, it was Troy who baptized Brad. Seven years after Troy's "coming out," Brad now wants to resolve the conflicts he feels within himself, and among his family, concerning their relationship to Troy and, by extension, their feelings, and the attitude of their Church, toward homosexuals and homosexuality. There is an edge to the film. And it kept me guessing. Has the family really accepted Troy's homosexuality? The words say "Yes," but the conflicted feelings are unmistakable. The one who most clearly sees this is Troy himself. While the parents, and some of the siblings, admit that they still have problems with Troy's sexual orientation, they understand that homosexuality wasn't his choice, they love him as a valued member of the family -- but, after all, wish he were like the rest of the family. Brad carries his camera from one family member to another, interviews each several times, and interleaves childhood memories, via movie clips, of happier times. One by one the family members express their love and acceptance of Troy, but the viewer just *knows* there's something else going on there. And, indeed there is, and it finally comes to the surface, as we learn of Troy's conviction that things simply aren't well in Zion. While he joins the family for holidays and is welcome in their homes, the closeness that was there is greatly diminished. For example, family members understand that, while they can bring their spouses and children to these celebrations, Troy can't bring his mate. Much is made of the incompatibility between Mormon doctrine and homosexuality. One of the sons explores the idea that you can be a loyal Mormon and still disagree on some points -- an idea that might have previously been considered subversive. Now it seems likely. I have strongly mixed feelings about this film. I understand Brad's desire to come to terms with this major shift in his family's self-identification. And he freely expresses his anger and disappointment with Troy, his bewilderment that his childhood hero could turn out to be gay. But his desire to come to terms with this is evident. There are aspects of the question I wish the filmmaker had explored more fully. While the Church's attitude toward homosexuality is alluded to, there isn't an extended discussion of this subject. But, then again, this is a personal memoir, not a doctrinal exposition. Brad and his family can deal further with the Church and its doctrine as time passes by. The title, "Troy Though a Window," turned out to have a double meaning. In the film's introduction, the "window" is the glass through which the family now views Troy. By the end of the film, I disagreed. The window became a pane, and indeed a pain, through which Troy now views his family and his Church. Near the end of the video, Troy's anger and frustration become clear, and overtly stated. He *doesn't* feel his family has completely accepted him and his sexual orientation. He *doesn't* feel his Church is supportive of him. Hard as the family might try to reconcile their faith and their upbringing to Troy's sexual orientation, it doesn't appear that they ever truly succeed. All confess that, while family was always first while growing up, it now seems to be fractured. And all due to an aspect of a favored son which they all admit was not chosen by him. And there's the rub, the real rub: the family loves Troy, they want the best for him, they refrain from being critical or judgmental, but there is still a sense of disappointment and anger below the surface. And while they try to hide it, Troy has little trouble seeing it. Troy is very capable of seeing the Church's hard line on morality as being necessarily exclusive of his sexual orientation. And although not expressed explicitly in the film, Troy must surely wonder how to reconcile his Church's teaching on the eternal nature of the family with the impact that Church's moral teachings have had on his own family. It's a real dilemma. Mormon families with gay/lesbian members will find much familiar here. Those not currently dealing with such a situation will find much of this puzzling. Brad Barber is to be commended for his fine effort to bring to the public eye the private pain of a conflicted family. I hope that they ultimately find the full healing they clearly desire. This video, all about building up and restoring family relationships, is produced by Entropy Productions. Can anyone say "ironic"? The video is distributed by: LDS Video Store 4618 Cedar Springs Road Dallas, TX 75219 ldsvideostore.com Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 19 Jun 2003 20:44:38 -0600 Benson Parkinson Wrote: The finished book looked beautiful, but we discovered water from the wheat paste had leaked into the spine and wrinkled the pages near the stitching, so they don't turn smoothly. Then I noticed that the art paper was separating a little from the cloth in one place, and before long that bubble expanded to about 4 inches by 8 inches. The covers bowed too--I'm not sure why they didn't the first time, but I have to suspect the water in that wheat paste once again. I wrote: I suspect you didn't cook the paste long enough. Wheat starch works best. Five parts water to one part wheat starch. (A little more water is OK.) If you're cooking on a stove, keep stiring until the paste is a soft-solid like baby food. If it's in the microwave--zap it until it's a hard boil. The results should be mucus-like when it's hot. When it cools it will be chunky. If I understand correctly the cloth side of your second cover came loose and the cover wrapped. When the cloth came loose there was uneven tension on the cover board, so it bowed toward the side where the pasted surface was still intact. I don't know how to repair that. It could have happened because the paste wasn't strong enough (undercooked), or you didn't use enough, or you didn't have enough weight on top of it while it was drying (don't use too much--just a little--or the paste will bleed through the cloth or discolor it or it may cause the boards to wrap.) This may be slightly perverted, but I use pieces of old levi's for mull. In case bindings the mull is the strength of the book. Cheese cloth in'st strong enogh to last a hundred years. If you use 16-page signatures you don't have to trim. The problem with crinkling at the fold in the page may have to do with the grain of the paper. The grain has to run parallel to the spine of the book. If you don't like that problem, fold the sheets of paper the long way or figure some other way to get the grain parallel to the spine. If it's not that big a deal, it's not that big a deal. Good Luck, Paris Anderson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Re: Bookbinding Date: 19 Jun 2003 19:58:13 -0700 >Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:08:53 -0600 (MDT) >From: ben@parkinsonfamily.org >Subject: [AML] >The finished book looked beautiful, but we discovered water from the >whea=3D3D t paste had leaked into the spine and wrinkled the pages near >the stitching=3D3D , so they don=3D3D92t turn smoothly. ... >I=3D3D92m ready to go at it again. We=3D3D92ll probably try Elmers glue next >or g=3D3D o back to Sobo.=20 Thanks, Ben, for this fascinating account of your bookbinding experience...(though by golly, I'd sure appreciate it if you and others would submit plain text to the list, rather than whatever caused the improbably difficult read quoted above ). [Assist Mod: That's probably my fault. I'm still working out the formatting kinks.] Y'enyway, I'm unfamiliar with "Sobo" glue (Looked it up on the Web and found this somewhat tawdry poem ), but I'm wondering whether you've attempted to use good ole' rubber cement for glueing? The proper way to use rubber cement, to prevent the warping you've experienced (or the goopiness you disdain), is to brush a light coat on both surfaces and wait for it to dry. When dry, the two surfaces -- even if the materials are dissimilar -- adhere very nicely, without warping, buckling or sliding. I became quite fond of rubber cement when I worked with page galleys in Asia. In the States I've always used hot wax to adhere galleys to pages, but that was impractical in Hong Kong or Taiwan, where hot wax would melt on the way to the printer. Sigh. But rubber cement did the trick! (And that should also answer your question about whether I've noticed changes in the material world since the 1980s. Uh, that's a big 10-4. ) --lauramaery -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] New Dialogue editors Date: 19 Jun 2003 22:25:35 -0700 Thanks to Christopher for letting people know about the new editorial = =3D team. Please note the submissions address, which I am in charge of. =3D Although theoretically our team wasn't to begin work till January 1, in =3D reality we find ourselves already calling for papers. The outgoing team, =3D the Chandlers, appear to have enough papers to finish their issues. So, =3D if you have a good personal essay or a cogent article on a Mormon issue, =3D send it along to DialogueMSS@aol.com. Printed copies are also welcome = =3D but we prefer electronic submissions in Word or WordPerfect. Levi Levi Peterson althlevip@msn.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Out of Town Date: 20 Jun 2003 01:10:23 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > I will be out of town for the next three days. In my absence, Jacob=20 > Proffitt will be proceeding as assistant moderator. However, if he (or > you) has anything that raises questions for my review, I won't be able > to get back to them until the weekend/Monday. Just so you know. Hey, Jacob. Just sneak the controversial ones through while Jonathan is away. He'll never know. Let's have some fun for three days! [Asst Mod: What, you're not having fun, now?] --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 20 Jun 2003 01:23:48 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Besides, here are the lyrics, best I can remember them: >=20 > Away out here, they've got a name, for rain and wind and fire The rain > is Tess, the fire Joel, and they call the wind Maria. (Muh RYE uh) >=20 > I mean, talk about someone left the cake out in the rain. That someone would be Alan Jay Lerner of Lerner & Loewe, the ones who also did "My Fair Lady," one of the most sophisticated, witty musicals ever written. Guess they can't all be gems. --=20 D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 20 Jun 2003 07:13:10 EDT >Away out here, they've got a name, for rain and wind and fire The rain=20 >is Tess, the fire Joel, and they call the wind Maria. (Muh RYE uh) Not to put a fine a point on it, but the fire in this esteemed song is=20 actually Jo, not Joel. The elements are all named after women. I'm embarrassed to=20 admit that I used to know it by heart . . . . Jana Riess -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] BYU "Education in Zion" Exhibit Date: 20 Jun 2003 08:26:00 -0600 Education in Zion Exhibit Invites Public to Share Stories of Learning Stories are needed to bring to life a permanent, multi-media exhibit,=20 Education in Zion, to be housed in a gallery in the new Joseph F.=20 Smith building now under construction on the Brigham Young University=20 campus, in Provo, Utah. Terry Warner, exhibit coordinator, says this is the first time that=20 stories about the educational heritage of members of The Church of=20 Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will have been archived and=20 exhibited on a large scale. Ideas for stories include, but are not limited to the following=20 categories that will be specific sections in the exhibit: traditions=20 of faith and learning, foundations of education in the restored=20 gospel, early schools in Zion, education in the family and extending=20 learning to all the world, (including distance learning, Church=20 Education System, and the Perpetual Education Fund.) "We know the stories are out there. This is our chance to collect=20 them and use them to inspire us and generations to come to seek=20 learning in the light," says Warner. Learn more online at Mormon Life=20 (http://deseretbook.com/mormon-life/people-places/one-article?articleid=3D= 3094). To submit stories write to the Education in Zion project at B-34 110A=20 Provo, Utah 84602, fax 801-422-0110 or e-mail stories@byu.edu. To=20 volunteer and learn more about the project visit=20 http://exhibit.byu.edu (http://exhibit.byu.edu) or call 801-422-1986. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Plain Text (was Bookbinding) Date: 20 Jun 2003 08:28:21 -0700 Sigh. I'm in complete agreement about plain text. I wish this would be everyone's default. ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com (or, if there's a bounce) jeffneedle@tns.net -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Payne Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 20 Jun 2003 09:33:06 -0600 There's a funny old Muppet Show episode where Kermit's nephew, Robin, has been assigned to sing some cutesy number for the show, but all he wants to sing is "They Call the Wind Maria." He wants to have a shot at singing a big song, a manly song instead of a cute kid song. He and Kermit argue about it backstage through the whole episode, and finally, at the end of the episode, Robin takes the stage, ostensibly to sing the cutesy song. But he's tipped the band or something, and they play "Maria" anyway, and he sings it in this little mousy (froggy) voice, and gets through about half a verse when the big wooden hook comes in from stage right and yanks him off his chair and away out of sight with a tiny yelp. Don't know why I share that, particularly, except that maybe as odd a Brigham Young as Harve Presnell may have made at BYU, perhaps it could have been worse. -Sam Payne -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: 20 Jun 2003 10:43:27 -0600 On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:06:F -0600, Jennifer Vaughn wrote: >I believe that men often make this mistake in communicating to women >as if women are men--there *is* a very, compelling, objective reason >to make the distinction. I'm sure you are familiar with Deborah >Tannen's books, which, unfortunately, are sometimes lumped in with the >poor-in-science/rich-in-zeitgiest genre of self-help books. But >basically she states that women's communication styles often reflect a >relationship-maintaining objective and men's communication styles >often reflect a get-the-job-done objective. I'm very fond of Deborah Tannen and Jacob and I use her terms when communication starts breaking down--"do you want a masculine or a feminine response to that question, dear?" Here's something I've found startling lately in female discourse. I'll be griping about something with a woman in my ward, expecting to get the "oh I know just how you feel" feminine response. Instead I get masculine-style solutions, though still presented in a relationship-building manner. The real shock was not the response I'd gotten, but that I'd expected something very different from a woman. Bad, bad, sexist me. :) Seriously, while I don't think this is enough of a sample pool to draw global conclusions from, it's made me pay more attention to see whether feminine discourse, if only on this small scale, really is changing. > Personally, I believe >that both styles are needed, and an imbalance of one style can be >ineffective. Literature tie-in--as a woman, I would much rather read >about relationships (any Oprah Book) than objectives (Tom Clancy). Feminine vs. masculine texts? :) Which ought not to be construed to mean that only women like "feminine" texts and only men like "masculine" texts, of course. It's just an interesting way to look at it. One aspect of feminist literary study talks about the separation of sex and gender--sex being the biological component and gender being sociological or cultural. What interests me about this idea is not just the mutability of gender (more commonly referred to as "gender roles") but that such characteristics aren't inscrutable or alien to the opposite sex. That, in fact, masculine and feminine traits could (probably should) both be present in men and women, but that they don't define what it is to be a man or a woman.=20 We talked about this just a little bit a while back in discussing books that teens (male and female) would read. There are "masculine" books--action-oriented, focused on conflict, physicality, establishing a hierarchy. There are "feminine" books--relationship-oriented, romantic, also hierarchical but with more subtlety. And yet boys will read the feminine books and girls will read masculine books. Boys can be tender; girls can be tough. And I think those qualities make them better human beings, in the end. For my part (and to give a literature example from the other side) I love Michael Crichton's techno-thrillers, but I hate the way in recent years he's started making characterization and relationships more important to his stories. That's not why I'm reading his books. I wish he'd dump the characterization nonsense and get back to important stuff like discussing viral spread or genetic mutation. :) Melissa Proffitt -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Sunday Evening Genesis Branch Date: 20 Jun 2003 14:01:09 -0600 I think Darius and I are so tired right now that signings are far from our minds. We're ready for a little break! However, we do have some things scheduled in Virginia in September and in Dallas in October. But right now, we're officially on vacation! ________________ 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: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Gender in Literature (was Mormonism and Feminism) Date: 20 Jun 2003 17:04:05 -0600 Jennifer Vaughn said: >I believe that men often make this mistake in communicating to women as >if women are men--there >*is* a very, compelling, objective reason to make the distinction. And Barbara Hume added: >Women make the same mistake in treating men the way we like to be=20 >treated, and in wondering >what's wrong with them when they don't behave as we do. We need to=20 >learn all we can about the >hard-wired and societally induced differences. The lit connection is=20 >that when we write >characters of the opposite gender, we want to get them right. I'm assuming that in that last line ("when we write characters of the opposite gender, we want to get them right.") you are meaning to specifically "get right" the description of the individual and their behavior based on his/her _specific_ "hard-wired and societally induced differences." It's either too difficult or too easy to get it right when writing about the opposite gender these days, because many could reasonably argue that men and women are acting more and more like each other everyday. I'm going to cite a piece of pop-lit, and I'm going to be scorned for this, I know. But you know that fun little book Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus? It is completely unimpressive (especially to my mother-in-law, who is a Sociologist and professor, and who tends to prefer textbooks when it comes to stuff on gender). Anyway, the mention of this book is a sensitive issue in our family, because she once loudly proclaimed that it was garbage at a family reunion while one of her nieces was reading it. I boldly (and probably really stupidly) called out, "I love that book." It may have made my mother-in-law bristle a little, but her niece seemed grateful for the validation I gave her. Anyway, I do really think it's a great book, not because it definitively describes male and female behavior. (Even John Grey acknowledges in the Intro that no man or woman is strictly either Martian or Venusian). Rather the greatness of the book lies in how useful and practical it can be. Grey describes the way different kinds of minds approach different situations. Then he describes an opposite approach. He explains the reasoning behind both, he unassigns blame, and then he describes some ways opposite minds can meet and reason with one another. It's fascinating. Anyway, my point to mentioning the book is that, in the years since I first read it (when I had been dating someone who had a lot of Martian characteristics), I've realized more and more that most of the people I deal with are such mixes when it comes to gender. This is not about sexual matters, rather it's about what Jennifer and Barbara mentioned, the way men and women communicate with one another (which is, of course, not unrelated to sexual matters). Even more interesting is how we tend to adapt to the individuals we're dealing with. Since I'm rather far from being articulate right now, I'll give an example. The first time I read Mars and Venus, I was (unbeknownst to me) on the verge of being dumped by a guy I'd been dating for about 6 or 7 months. We'd had some rocky times since we had started discussing the issue of marriage (a sign, perhaps). I was feeling completely unready and was emotional and wanting validation for my feelings, and he was in a cave fasting a praying over the issue (which, in my opinion, was a non-issue at the time seeing as we were in a long distance relationship and were unsure when we'd ever live in the same state again. Anyway, I digress...) Well, we had a stupid fight because we were thinking in two totally different languages, and then I went on Christmas vacation to my Dad's place in Connecticut, and I while I was there I read the Mars and Venus book. I felt so comforted and enlightened. I suddenly really saw connections between situations described in the book and my relationship with my soon-to-be-ex. The punch line is that while I was making resolutions to communicate better and be more patient, he was resolving to call me on New Year's Day and put an end to our relationship. Cruel as it may have seemed, I was relieved to know before I rushed back to Utah in order to spend a week with him before the new semester. Now, let's time-travel a few years ahead, and I'm now married to a totally different person. Unlike the music-major, son of a police officer and home-maker, whom I'd once dealt with, my husband is a film/advertising graduate, son of a music teacher/genealogist/financial planner (dad) and a Sociology professor (mom). Dianna is no longer a vulnerable, open nerve starving for validation. I've got all the validation I could ever wish for in my husband, who also needs it back from me as much as I do. Also, when I get angry, and I want to avoid saying mean things (if I am mature enough to avoid saying them, that is, which I'm not always) I bite my tongue and take a trip to my cave (or do the dishes, take a shower, read a little or clean the house). He's convinced I'm giving him the silent treatment, and I'm just trying to sort things out in my head and for once not behave like an idiot. Where I was once almost pure Venus, I'm now very Martian at times. Now the above description of my marriage isn't a perfect summary of our lives or anything like that, but my point in sharing it is that, in regards to how men and women are written, the sky's the limit. We can describe any sort of individual, and it would probably work as long as there's some good detail on background, etc. It's so fantastic. One of the greatest things about theatre (especially about acting, for me) is that it gives us an opportunity to empathize with individuals completely unlike ourselves. Well, writing different flavors of men and women can in other forms of literature (or, of course, putting them on stage and in film) can do just that. It can pull us out of ourselves and put us in the shoes of another and see the reason behind various approaches to communication, work, sex, etc. All of this is probably a "duh" statement, but it's fascinating. Now, all of that lot said, I would agree that there are some very distinctive differences between purely male and female behavior, especially the younger individuals are. Once a man or woman hits college and has been in the mix for a while, though, it seems that so many of us have evolved into these emotional deli-platters. (Sorry, I couldn't think of a non-food term. I must be hungry. The other options were "Jell-O-salads", "casseroles", and that foreign word that I can't spell, but that sounds like "Smorgasbord." Sorry). Dianna Graham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ben@parkinsonfamily.org Subject: RE: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 20 Jun 2003 14:00:01 -0600 (MDT) I'm not sure what caused all the garbage characters in my last post. Hopefully this will come through cleaner. Thanks to Paris and LauraMaery for their replies. Paris wrote: > I suspect you didn't cook the paste long enough. Wheat starch works=20 > best. Five parts water to one part wheat starch. (A little more water=20 > is > OK.) If you're cooking on a stove, keep stiring until the paste is a > soft-solid like baby food. If it's in the microwave--zap it until it's > a hard boil. The results should be mucus-like when it's hot. When it > cools it will be chunky. We'll give this a try. I sure liked wheat paste for other reasons and was pretty disappointed with the wrinkling and that it didn't quite hold up. When you get it to the "mucus" stage, is it tacky like Elmer's glue? > If I understand correctly the cloth side of your second cover came=20 > loose and the cover wrapped. When the cloth came loose there was=20 > uneven tension on the cover board, so it bowed toward the side where=20 > the pasted surface was still intact. I don't know how to repair that. > It could have happened because the paste wasn't strong enough=20 > (undercooked), or you didn't use enough, or you didn't have enough=20 > weight on top of it while it was drying (don't use too much--just a=20 > little--or the paste will bleed through the cloth or discolor it or it > may cause the boards to wrap.) Actually the cloth stayed down pretty good. The art paper came up though, and it seemed to start with the thin strip where the art paper overlapped the cloth. Your advice probably still applies. > This may be slightly perverted, but I use pieces of old levi's for=20 > mull. In case bindings the mull is the strength of the book. Cheese=20 > cloth in'st strong enogh to last a hundred years. Doesn't the blue cloth show through your end papers? Is the cloth uneven to where you have trouble getting it to lie flat against the spine or under the end papers? Anyway, this advice makes me think we ought to prefer muslin over cheesecloth, anyway. > If you use 16-page signatures you don't have to trim. Hmmmm. That's attractive. (Of course it would be twice as much work to sew.) Is it smooth on the edge or just slightly ragged? > The problem with crinkling at the fold in the page may have to do with > the grain of the paper. The grain has to run parallel to the spine of > the book. If you don't like that problem, fold the sheets of paper the > long way or figure some other way to get the grain parallel to the=20 > spine. If it's not that big a deal, it's not that big a deal. Good=20 > Luck, Do you think the grain would generally run the long ways on a piece of legal paper? What about ledger paper? My next book project will involve folding ledger paper, and it seems to me I'd get the same problem, since I print two pages per side in landscape mode. LauraMaery wrote: > Y'enyway, I'm unfamiliar with "Sobo" glue (Looked it up on the Web and > found this somewhat tawdry poem=20 > ), Robin, who knows chemistry and most everything physical and practical, says Sobo glue is a PVA glue similar to Elmer's glue (another PVA glue). We also tried something called Yes glue, which worked pretty good but was hard to spread. > but > I'm wondering whether you've attempted to use good ole' rubber cement=20 > for glueing? > The proper way to use rubber cement, to prevent the warping you've=20 > experienced (or the goopiness you disdain), is to brush a light coat=20 > on both surfaces and wait for it to dry. When dry, the two surfaces -- > even if the materials are dissimilar -- adhere very nicely, without=20 > warping, buckling or sliding. Interesting suggestion. Do you think it would be permanent over the decades? Paris (and others), any insights into the strength or longevity of rubber cement? LauraMaery also commented on pasting up. We haven't done pasteup where I work for years, and recently we've eliminated bluelines and are now eliminating film and going directly from electronic to plate. It occurred to me the other day that I, the editor, and the graphic artist I work with, now do the work of the editor, the typist, the proofreader (both necessary because you were editing hard copy), the designer, the typesetter, the color stripper, and maybe someone else in prepress or press prep. We've begun archiving in hi-res PDF, I think in response to the fact that our film only seems to last 16 years or so and a lot of our books are in print 20 or 25 years, so you wind up either scanning the film and making a PDF from that or retypesetting electronically--both expensive propositions. Now whether today's PDFs will be readable in 25 years is anyone's guess. Ben Parkinson -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ Date: 22 Jun 2003 11:36:52 -0600 On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:09:45 -0600 "Nan P. McCulloch" writes: > Does the author have a responsibility to balance a wayward character > with a believing practicing character in a novel? Not at all. But, if the author expects ME to believe the character is "real' then he will have to do some homework and devise some method for making me believe. For instance, if the author TELLS me that the character is a staunch Latter-day Saint, but demonstrates to me that he has no idea what that means, then he has lost me as a sympathetic reader. That's all. But, if he doesn't care about losing LDS people (or people who know what it means to be LDS) as readers, then he is free to be footloose and fancy with the details. BTW, this is part of my problem with Angels in America. On one level, I just don't think Kushner cared if he got all the details right. I think he was most concerned with making good use of some Mormon iconic imagery. And he did. He was under no obligation to please me however. I don't think I was part of his intended audience. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Director Announced for _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ Date: 22 Jun 2003 10:36:25 -0600 On Thu, 19 Jun 03 11:02:04 -0600 "Eric Samuelsen" writes: > Nothing would please me more than to see a terrific film made > from Baptists, and nothing would be please me more than to > see Christian have a commercial success. I'm rooting for the > project. With fingers crossed. I auditioned for the film last week. I was brilliant of course, but who knows if I have the look he's after? The small portion of the script that I saw seemed competent enough, and I must tell you this little anecdote. The casting director told me this. Apparently there is a scene where a character says these words: "I know about you stinking Mormons." Well, in response to that line, one person reading for the role said, "I can't be in this movie, I'm a Mormon." Now, there are so many things wrong with the attitude behind that statement that I just don't know where to begin. scott -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Spring 2003 Irreantum Date: 21 Jun 2003 13:18:00 -0700 A plug for the upcoming Spring issue of _Irreantum_ magazine, the creative publishing bicep of the Association for Mormon Letters, of which List you are currently also an appendage. I proofread the Spring issue of Irreantum last week and was thrilled by the cover interview with _Publisher's Weekly_ religion book review editor, Jana Riess, a recent email junky here on our very own AML list (as indicated below); "a sheep in sheep's clothing," one might say. I was riveted and highly informed by this interview, as Jana has an insider's view of The Publishing Industry at large, and who says "I do sense a new openness to Mormonism in publishing and in our larger culture." Read on for six snippets of this amazing interview: SNIPPET #1 "What it will take to releast the [publishing] floodgates, of course, is a hit. Once a publisher has commercial success with a Mormon book, all the other ones will scratch their heads, wonder why they didn't see the market before, and jump on the bandwagon. The market is there; they just don't realize it yet." SNIPPET #2 "I'm a great lover of fiction, but I haven't been terribly impressed with LDS commercial fiction. It is at the stage now that CBA (Christian Booksellers Association) fiction had reached about 10 years ago: characters are predictable, the novels are message-driven rather than character-driven, and most stories end with a predictable and obligatory conversion sequence. This is not to say that CBA fiction is all grown up; it is still very uneven, and much of the industry is stuck in the old models, because they continue to sell well. But some CBA fiction has matured significantly, and authors like Jamie Langston Turner and Vinita Hampton Wright make me hopeful for the future of the genre." SNIPPET #3 And, "'LDS commercial fiction' and 'Mormon literature' are not necessarily the same thing. So, the next step will be to develop more of the latter, to tell stories that are darker and deeper. If the LDS model continues to follow the CBA trajectory, these will not sell particularly well. That's a sad market reality. But courageous writers who are willing to tell authentic stories--Terry Tempest Williams and Brian Evenson come to mind--will still be read and discussed when copies of faith-promoting pabulum sell for 99 cents on eBay." SNIPPET #4 "One thing that tends to surprise non-Mormons who make assumptions about our sub-culture is what a well-educated crowd we are. As a religious group, Mormons rank third in affluence in this country, behind Jews and Episcopalians and in a dead heat with Presbyterians. Studies have shown that for Mormons, higher education is usually tied with higher, not lower, retention rates. Educated members tend to stay in the church. All of this translates into a large audience of potential readers and book buyers." SNIPPET #5 ". . . LDS publishers estimate that as many as 85 percent of book buyers in LDS stores are women, which is even higher than the CBA estimate of 65 percent. So, for any literary genre to be commercially successful in the LDS market, it has to appeal to women." SNIPPET #6 "As the membership matures, we will see the emergence of more independent Mormon voices. I am not talking of ones that are critical of the church; I am talking of voices that connect the Mormon experience--which has been all too insular--to the wider world. We will see more interfaith books, more books about ethhics on the job, more Mormon books about aging and travel and spiritual gardening. It's funny that for a church that speaks to stridently about not being just a "Sunday religion," LDS books tend to be overwhelmingly about theological topics and less about how Mormons can engage the wider world. I personally would like to write a book about Mormonism at the movies--not about how Mormons are portrayed on film, but what we as Latter-day Saints can learn from the popular culture." And, there is much, much more where that came from! Check out _Irreantum_ for essays, novel excerpts, poetry, fiction, book reviews, and highlights from our very own AML-List. Travis Manning _Irreantum_ Essay editor Subscriptions for _Irreantum_ may be purchased separately for $5 an issue (postpaid), $16 for a year, $20 for full-time student AML membership (_Irreantum_ included!) or, $25 for Regular AML annual membership (_Irreantum_ included!) See our homepage for subscription info at http://www.aml-online.org/irreantum/order-form.html as we make it very easy with our credit card Pay Pal connection, and just click "Buy Now." **************************************** In a message dated 6/19/03 1:01:52 AM,=20 owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: >Buckley's Mormon protagonist is the good guy. He considers himself a >faithful Mormon (whatever that is) even though he drinks and fornicates=20 >through the novel (although he refuses to use cuss words.) There is a >tradition in fiction about Catholics something called a "whiskey=20 >priest" (especially in the novels of Graham Greene, i.e. "The Power and=20 >the >Glory".) If I understand correctly, such a priest can be dissolute, >even alcoholic. He is torn by doubts. But because he is still a priest >conferred with the authority of God, God can work through him and he >is still good for a miracle every once in a while. Such an understanding >of sin and authority might have influenced Buckley's thinking about the >personal morality of his Mormon characters. =20 This is a very interesting perspective. I have read Buckley's spiritual=20 autobiography (NEARER, MY GOD), most of which is actually a doctrinal debate and=20 not a memoir, and I am intrigued by this idea that his view of what is permissible for his Mormon protagonist is influenced by the fact that he is so steeped=20 in Catholicism. One of the great medieval debates was whether the Eucharist could be defiled=20 if the priest were unworthy to administer it. Greene's THE POWER AND THE=20 GLORY, which is the best Catholic novel I have ever read, handles this issue so=20 beautifully. But you're quite right about Buckley's understanding not being an=20 accurate portrayal of Mormon belief and practice. Jana Riess -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 5: THE ULTIMATE TERMINATOR PARTY Date: 21 Jun 2003 23:43:23 -0600 INFORMATION ON D. MICHAEL'S FILM LABS, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR, CAN BE FOUND AT: http://www.wwno.com/filmlab ======= D. Michael's Film Lab No. 5 Saturday, July 12, 2003, in the Salt Lake area. "THE ULTIMATE TERMINATOR PARTY" In July, the third Terminator movie is scheduled to be released. Since the Terminator films are among the best science fiction films ever made, we want to celebrate this event with The Ultimate Terminator Party for Lab #5. We'll view the first two movies at D. Michael's home, then we'll attend a late showing of the third movie at the Jordon Commons Theater in Sandy, Utah. RSVPing will be especially important for this one, so we can reserve tickets for you! 3:00 pm - The Terminator James Cameron, 1984 runtime 108 min R, intense violence, brief sexual and nonsexual nudity, language The terminator is the role Arnold Schwarzeneggar was born to play. No other has fit him so well. The Terminator is also one of the best science fiction films ever made as well. The science fictional premise is intelligent and well conceived. The plot elements are clean and consistent. For its time, the special effects were special indeed, and still hold up well, even if the defleshed terminator skeleton is a little too reminiscent of Harry Harryhausen. The cast is now legendary, Linda Hamilton (Beauty and the Beast, Terminator 2), Michael Biehn (Aliens, The Abyss), Paul Winfield (Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, Mars Attacks!), Lance Henriksen (The Right Stuff, Aliens, Alien 3, Scream 3). And wasn't this the film where Schwarzeneggar originally developed his tagline, "I'll be back"? 6:00 pm - Terminator 2: Judgment Day James Cameron, 1991 runtime 137 min R, intense violence, brief nonsexual nudity, language Good sequels are rare. To have a sequel to a superior film equal the quality of the original is rare indeed. Alien and Aliens, The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2--these are two films and their sequels that belong in this rarified company. So too are The Terminator and Terminator 2. The sequel not only delivers on the promise of the first film, but in some ways exceeds it. Where the first was pure action and sci fi fun, the second delves deep into philosophical issues, issues that arise naturally out of the premise of the film and the characters involved. The film manages to avoid standard sequel formulas, taking its characters in directions one wouldn't have expected. It holds true to the vision of the first film while offering something completely fresh. Two is an extension of one, developing the themes and circumstances seamlessly beyond where one ends. None of this even scratches the surface of the cutting edge special effects, and the brilliant performance of Robert Patrick as the new-fangled terminator. (How a squirrelly-looking guy like him can convincingly portray such a menacing, bigger-than-life villain is a modern acting miracle.) This is also the debut performance of Edward Furlong, untrained newcomer who pulls off John Connor with veteran skill, and who has since gone on to make a name for himself in such films as Before and After and American History X. 9:00 pm (approx) - Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines Jonathan Mostow, 2003 runtime ? min R, intense violence, language, brief (nonsexual?) nudity If number two sequels are usually worse than the original film, number three sequels are universally poorer, even if one and two were great movies. Godfather and Godfather Part 2 were followed by the disappointing Godfather Part 3. Alien and Aliens were succeeded by the dismal Alien 3. Can the Terminator series fare any better? The indications are not promising. James Cameron did not direct. The plot involves a female terminator this time--great for political correctness, but suspiciously reminiscent of sequel formulaicism. Perhaps the most dreadful indicator of all: Claire Danes is in the cast, and Linda Hamilton is not. No one could be happier than us if lightning strikes a third time, but we're not holding our breath. Still, it will be fun to find out when we move to the Jordan Commons theater in Sandy, Utah, to view Terminator 3 just days after its debut. RULES OF ATTENDANCE: Because space is limited, please RSVP to dmichael@wwno.com. You will then receive directions for finding the location, which is in Sandy, Utah. You may attend any or all of the films. Discussion will follow the viewing of each film, analyzing and critiquing the merits and weaknesses and impact of the film from an artistic, cultural, and yes, even moral standpoint. No expertise is required to participate. Just a vocal opinion and a respect for the opinions of others. (Personal attacks will not be tolerated!) No admission is charged (this is just friends gathering to watch movies together), but we like to pool our resources and order out for something to eat, since it's a long time to go hungry! PLEASE be considerate of others and do not bring anyone who will not be interested in viewing the films or be disruptive in any way. Be honest with yourselves--if your kids are little hellions, leave them home! No babysitting facilities are available!! We don't want to enforce age requirements, but we will enforce considerate behavior. Also be aware that there will be no attempt to select films or maintain a discussion that is "family friendly" (unless the theme is specifically intended to be family friendly). Frankness (but not crudeness) is an acceptable part of the discussion. YOU are responsible for deciding if attendance is appropriate for any particular individual, not us. Everyone attends at their own risk. We ain't got no commercial liability insurance. This is just for fun. You are welcome to bring pillows or blankets or beanbags if you like casually relaxing on the floor. Dress is as casual as you want to get. Heck, you can come naked for all I care (but others may care). D. Michael is the final arbiter of all rules. Come join us! It's bound to be fun. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] (Des News) LDS version of _Pride & Prejudice_ Date: 23 Jun 2003 09:55:46 -0600 Let's hear it for Mollywood Filmmaker says LDS version of 'Pride and Prejudice' has a market By Jesse Hyde Deseret Morning News PROVO - Hollywood. Bollywood. Mollywood. The first needs no explanation, the second is the name of India's film industry, and the third . . . well, the third has just been born. Mollywood is the term Jason Faller, a film producer who recently studied at Brigham Young University, uses to describe a new genre in LDS filmmaking - the Mormon chick flick. "Charly" was probably the first of the kind, but Fuller thinks his updated version of the Jane Austen classic "Pride and Prejudice" will be an even bigger smash. "It's not an inside Mormon joke. It has a market," Fuller said. " 'Pride and Prejudice' has a huge following. It's kind of like 'Star Wars' for women." And that's why Fuller thinks his film will not only please "Molly Mormons" across the Wasatch Front but fans of the book everywhere. In Fuller's version of the beloved classic, the setting is Utah's frenzied dating scene instead of the English countryside, and the girls are five BYU roommates rather than sisters. The story follows Elizabeth, whose resolve to remain single until she graduates is tested by two courtiers: Wickham, a smooth-talking playboy, and Darcy, a sensible businessman. The film will feature cameo appearances by Carmen Rasmusen of "American Idol," the entire entourage of the Miss Utah pageant and the two LDS girls who appeared on ABC's "The Bachelor." One night this week, Fuller's cast and crew gathered at the old Utah County correctional facility in south Provo to film a scene in which Wickham tricks a naive BYU co-ed named Lydia into eloping with him. The actors were dressed in retro wedding clothing, and the room had been painted in bright red and pink hues to give the film a stylized look similar to "Down With Love" or "Legally Blonde." The lead actor, Orlando Seale, who has dark curly hair and speaks with an English accent, said he knew nothing of Mollywood before this film. In fact, he knew nothing of the LDS Church. Seale says the LDS culture - which encourages marrying young and discourages premarital sex - lends itself well to the story. But he says the film is not overtly religious and should appeal to a broad audience. Seale also found an ironic parallel between the book's account of Darcy's trip from London to a small isolated English village and his own experience coming to Provo from London. "I came from a place very different than here. It was very Bohemian, very permissive, very artistic," Seale said. "When you arrive here you feel like you are coming into a whole new world, and as an outsider it's a very surreal experience. It really hits you." Most of the actors in the film are not LDS, and Seale said making a film with LDS undertones has been an eye-opening experience. "It would be a great thing if this film helped people see this is just a normal community, that there's nothing mysterious about it," he said. "Because there is that (mysterious) perception." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 23 Jun 2003 11:14:39 -0600 D. Michael wrote: >"My Fair Lady," one of the most sophisticated, witty musicals ever written=20 Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the = worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral equivalent to the = guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. They took Pygmalion, one = of the great plays of all time, one of the classic examination of the = gender issues we've been talking about (as well as one of the great = comedies of language), and they turned into yet another blankety blank = blank romantic musical comedies. THEY HAVE ELIZA END UP WITH HIGGINS! = THEY LET THE AUDIENCE HAVE WHAT THEY WANTED! There isn't a torture = exquisite enough that they wouldn't deserve it. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Eric Samuelsen -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: AML Subject: [AML] AML Recommended Mormon Books & Films Date: 23 Jun 2003 14:38:04 -0700 For this month's Association for Mormon Letters (AML) newsletter, we have compiled a list of AML-award-winning books and films still in print. This list provides a fascinating overview of Mormonism's best creative work and serves as a good recommended reading list. Whenever you order any of these books through the AML-coded Amazon.com links contained in this e-mail, the non-profit AML receives a commission. Click on the following links to learn more about a particular title or buy now: (Alphabetized by title) Bertie Was a Watchdog By Rick Walton 2002 AML Award in the Picture Book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0763613851/associatiof0b-20 Carolina Autumn By Carol Lynch Williams 2001 AML Award for Middle Grade Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0613367871/associatiof0b-20 Caution: Men in Trees: Stories By Darrell Spencer 2000 AML Award for Short Fiction http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393321452/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0820321826/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Charlotte's Rose By A. E. Cannon 2002 AML Award in Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385729669/associatiof0b-20 The Chinchilla Farm: A Novel By Judith Freeman 1989 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393324265/associatiof0b-20 Christmas in Heaven By Carol Lynch Williams 2001 AML Award for Middle Grade Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0399234365/associatiof0b-20 A Dance for Three By Louise Plummer 2001 AML Award for Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440227143/associatiof0b-20 A Desert of Pure Feeling By Judith Freeman 1996 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679752714/associatiof0b-20 The Dollmage By Martine Leavitt 2002 AML Honorable Mention in Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0889952337/associatiof0b-20 The Dragon's Tapestry By Martine Bates 1993 AML Award for Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0889950806/associatiof0b-20 Eating Chocolates and Dancing in the Kitchen By Tom Plummer 1998 AML Award for Personal Essay http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573453056/associatiof0b-20 Expecting Adam: A True Story of Birth, Rebirth, and Everyday Magic By Martha Beck 1999 AML Award for Personal Essay http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0425174484/associatiof0b-20 Far from Home (Children of the Promise, vol. 3) By Dean Hughes 1998 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573454060/associatiof0b-20 God's Army By Richard Dutcher 2000 AML Award for Film http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000056K4J/associatiof0b-20 (DVD) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000056IVJ/associatiof0b-20 (VHS) How I Got Cultured: A Nevada Memoir By Phyllis Barber 1993 AML Award for Biography http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874172330/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0820314137/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Joke's on George By Michael O. Tunnell 1993 AML Award for Children's Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0613495721/associatiof0b-20 Leroy Robertson, Music Giant from the Rockies By Marian Robertson Wilson 1996 AML Award for Biography http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963473220/associatiof0b-20 Letting Loose the Hounds By Brady Udall 1997 AML Award for Short Fiction http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671017020/associatiof0b-20 Leviathan With a Hook By Kimberly Johnson 2002 AML Award in Poetry http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892552824/associatiof0b-20 Like a Fire Burning (Work and the Glory, vol. 2) By Gerald N. Lund 1991 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573458716/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0884948013/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Lost Boys: A Novel By Orson Scott Card 1992 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061091316/associatiof0b-20 A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812 By Laurel Thatcher Ulrich 1991 AML Award for Biography http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679733760/associatiof0b-20 The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint By Brady Udall 2001 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375719180/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393020363/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Mississippi Trial, 1955 By Chris Crowe 2002 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0803727453/associatiof0b-20 Mormonism and Music By Michael Hicks 1989 AML Award for Criticism http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0252071476/associatiof0b-20 Mormonville By Jeff Call 2001 AML Marilyn Brown Novel Award http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555176186/associatiof0b-20 My Angelica By Carol Lynch Williams 2001 AML Award for Middle Grade Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/044022778X/associatiof0b-20 No Lie Like Love By Paul Rawlins 1996 AML Award for Short Fiction http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/082031868X/associatiof0b-20 One More River to Cross (Standing on the Promises, vol. 1) By Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray 2000 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573456292/associatiof0b-20 Only When I Laugh By Elouise M. Bell 1990 AML Award for Personal Essay http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560850132/associatiof0b-20 Our Secret's Out: Stories By Darrell Spencer 1993 AML Award for Short Fiction http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0826209270/associatiof0b-20 Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation Edited by Ron Schow, Wayne Schow, Marybeth Raynes 1991 AML Award for Editing & Publishing http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560850469/associatiof0b-20 The Personal Writings of Eliza Roxcy Snow Edited by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher 1995 AML Award for Biography http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874212987/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874212979/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Prism Moon By Martine Bates 1993 AML Award for Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0889950954/associatiof0b-20 A Quiet Heart By Patricia T. Holland 2000 AML Award for Devotional Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573458015/associatiof0b-20 Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place By Terry Tempest Williams 1991 AML Award for Personal Essay http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679740244/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067940516X/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Saints By Orson Scott Card 1984 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312876068/associatiof0b-20 The Shakeress By Kimberley Heuston 2002 AML Honorable Mention in Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1886910561/associatiof0b-20 The Sins of the Wolf By Anne Perry 1994 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804113831/associatiof0b-20 Standing for Something: 10 Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes By Gordon B. Hinckley 2000 AML Award for Personal Essay http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609807250/associatiof0b-20 Stone Spirits By Susan Elizabeth Howe 1997 AML Award for Poetry http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851074/associatiof0b-20 Story of the Walnut Tree By Don H. Staheli 2001 AML Award for Children's Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573458856/associatiof0b-20 Survival Rates By Mary Clyde 1999 AML Award for Short Fiction http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393320847/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0820320498/associatiof0b-20 (hard) The Taker's Key By Martine Bates 1998 AML Award for Young Adult Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0889951845/associatiof0b-20 Tathea By Anne Perry 1999 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0441009700/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573455369/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Thy Gold to Refine (Work and the Glory, vol. 4) By Gerald N. Lund 1993 AML Award for the Novel http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573458732/associatiof0b-20 (paper) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0884948935/associatiof0b-20 (hard) Various Atmospheres: Poems By Alex Caldiero 1998 AML Award for Poetry http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851015/associatiof0b-20 You Don't Always Get What You Hope For By Rick Walton 1996 AML Award for Children's Literature http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158685108X/associatiof0b-20 === A few other essential literary Mormon books and films: The Backslider By Levi Peterson http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560850159/associatiof0b-20 Brigham City By Richard Dutcher http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000067J0L/associatiof0b-20 (DVD) The Evening and the Morning By Virginia Sorensen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851244/associatiof0b-20 Harvest: Contemporary Mormon Poems Edited by Eugene England and Dennis Clark http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094121480X/associatiof0b-20 The Other Side of Heaven Directed by Mitch Davis http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008CMSU/associatiof0b-20 (DVD) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008CMSV/associatiof0b-20 (VHS) In Our Lovely Deseret: Mormon Fictions Edited by Robert Raleigh http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851198/associatiof0b-20 A Little Lower Than the Angels By Virginia Sorensen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851031/associatiof0b-20 Tending the Garden: Essays on Mormon Literature Edited by Lavina F. Anderson and Eugene England http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560850191/associatiof0b-20 Where Nothing Is Long Ago: Memories of a Mormon Childhood By Virginia Sorensen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851023/associatiof0b-20 === And one shameless non-Mormon addition: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix By J. K. Rowling http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/043935806X/associatiof0b-20 (If you ever want to credit any Amazon.com purchase to the AML, simply copy one of the links above and substitute your item's ISBN or ASIN number in the space between the last two slashes.) ==================================================================== 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: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Classic Mormon Essays for Irreantum Date: 23 Jun 2003 16:48:54 -0700 Question for AML-Listers: (1) As _Irreantum_ Essay editor, I'm thinking seriously about doing an occasional "Blast from the Past" section (though I'm looking for a better title, something like "Literary Roots," or "Time Machine," or "In Times Past," or "Back in the Day," or "Seminal Texts," or "Revisitation," or "Moroni's Corner," or "Urim and Thumim," or "Ancient of Days," or--obviously I'm open to suggestions here)--that is, an essay, memoir, chapter from a book that is really old. You know, something that is either not under copyright (52 years or older?) or something from a book or essay that is now defunct and forgotten. This requires research, but I think it could be fascinating to resurrect some older, classical pieces. (2) I'm thinking of searching old Relief Society magazines, Literature and Belief, Sunstone, Dialogue, etc., etc. for possible reprints. How *do* I go about getting permission for a reprint, from a mag or book, or other pub? Anyone know? Any help would be appreciated. Travis Manning -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 24 Jun 2003 10:32:08 -0600 'Joseph' film hits snag - no cash flow By Doug Robinson Deseret Morning News Wanted: rich Mormons to fund big-screen movie about Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, starring Val Kilmer as Joseph and F. Murray Abraham as Illinois Gov. Thomas Ford. Written and directed by Richard Dutcher, creator of "God's Army," and father of the LDS movie genre. Movie has built-in audience of 12 million Mormons. Call Richard Dutcher. Need $10 million or, short of that, next week's groceries. The last time we checked in with Dutcher he was riding out the surprising success of "God's Army," waiting to see how "Brigham City" would fare and plotting his next move. Having survived poverty and 4 1/2 years of hunting for investors for "God's Army," he had finally found success. He bought an acre of land and planned to build his first house on it. Now he's virtually right back where he began. For a man whose first major movie grossed millions of dollars, he doesn't have much to show for it. He had to sell the land. He went into debt. He lives month to month, waiting for royalty checks from "God's Army" and wondering how he'll make his next house payment. "Every time someone buys 'God's Army,' I can get a loaf of bread," he jokes over a Caesar salad in a Provo restaurant. Dutcher is doing what he has always done, chasing art and dreams instead of money. Instead of sinking the profits from "God's Army" into the stock market or a bank account, he ignored his accountant's advice and funded his dream project - "The Prophet," the Joseph Smith story. That got him this far: He met Kilmer at his New Mexico ranch and by the time he left "(Kilmer) was absolutely on board with it," Dutcher says. "He's just waiting for me to get the money." Dutcher had the sets designed, the wardrobe ready, the locations chosen, and all but the role of Emma Smith cast. He was six weeks away from starting to shoot the movie. And then he ran out of money. "Isn't it crazy?" he says. "Seriously, if there's one story we would want to see told . . . " Dutcher, who has never considered a major studio as an option because he would forfeit control of the story, has had several big hurdles to clear in winning over investors in the two years since his last movie, "Brigham City," was released. First, "Brigham City" bombed. Sure, Mormons will see "Austin Powers" and the James Bond movies - films that are decidedly raunchy and certainly more violent than "Brigham City" - but apparently they were uncomfortable with the mix of toned-down violence and their religion. They might not be ready for the juxtaposition of sacrament meetings and bloody mayhem. Some see Dutcher as an "edgy" filmmaker, which makes investors nervous when it comes to making a movie about Joseph Smith. Second, the idea of putting the life of Joseph Smith on the big screen, which at first seems an obvious subject for LDS movie audiences, makes Mormons uncomfortable. Especially potential LDS investors. Every one of them has asked him how he would handle the subject of polygamy. How about the failed banking venture? "Once you go in-depth enough to understand these things, they're not a big deal," Dutcher says. "Unfortunately, people hear just a little about these things and it scares them." Running out of money, Dutcher recently decided to begin production of "God's Army II," which he actually wrote three years ago. He has a wife and five children to think of. The irony is that Dutcher started the LDS movie genre, but others are capitalizing on it. Consider the movies that have been released since "God's Army" - "Singles Ward," "Other Side of Heaven," "Out of Step," "Charley," "R.M." Three more are on the way. "It's fun," Dutcher says. "I went to an LDS bookstore recently and the video section looks a lot better than it did a few years ago. There weren't just kids movies. There was some personal satisfaction in that." As for the Joseph Smith story, he vows, "Eventually, it will get done. If it comes down to me having to get a loan, I would get a loan, even though it could destroy me. That's how passionate I am about it." -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Irreantum Multilingual Issue Date: 24 Jun 2003 10:32:38 -0700 [MOD: Although Travis asks for an email directly to him, this is also very much on-topic for AML-List. Reply to both places!] AML-Listers, _Irreantum_ magazine staff, the creative publication arm of the AML, are looking to do assemble a special Translation Issue. That is, a multi-lingual issue. In pursuit of such an issue, we are looking for texts, translations, and translators. We know this is a real niche and could use your assistance, especially those of you living outside the U.S., or those of you who are familiar with such literature, even if it's just one name, or one text. We want to explore literature outside the body of mainstream American English by and/or about Mormonism in all literary genres, be it literary nonfiction, poetry, screenplay, play, fiction, article, etc. If you know of such authors or texts who could contribute to such a project, please email me directly at Manning_Travis@hotmail.com Regards, Travis Manning Irreantum Essay editor -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: RE: [AML] Bookbinding Date: 24 Jun 2003 15:28:34 -0600 I'm no expert, but I did co-write a series of preservation articles w/ some archival experts. One of the things I learned is that rubber cement is NOT safe from an archival standpoint. If you want your books to last for years, don't use it. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 24 Jun 2003 14:06:59 -0700 > Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? > It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral > equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's > Pieta. They took Pygmalion, one of the great plays of all time, > one of the classic examination of the gender issues we've been > talking about (as well as one of the great comedies of language), > and they turned into yet another blankety blank blank romantic > musical comedies. THEY HAVE ELIZA END UP WITH HIGGINS! > THEY LET THE AUDIENCE HAVE WHAT THEY WANTED! > There isn't a torture exquisite enough that they wouldn't deserve it. > > Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. > > Eric Samuelsen Wow. I never had any desire to see this film until now. ;) Susan M -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 24 Jun 2003 15:29:04 -0600 "Troy is very capable of seeing the Church's hard line on morality as being necessarily exclusive of his sexual orientation." Or rather, it is necessarily exclusive of *practicing* his orientation. BIG difference. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Revising Original Works (was: _Paint Your Wagon_) Date: 24 Jun 2003 17:07:54 -0500 Eric Samuelsen write: >Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? [snip] It's >the moral equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. >They took Pygmalion, one of the great plays of all time, one of the >classic examination of the gender issues we've been talking about (as well >as one of the great comedies of language), and they turned into yet >another blankety blank blank romantic musical comedies. THEY HAVE ELIZA >END UP WITH HIGGINS! THEY LET THE AUDIENCE HAVE WHAT THEY WANTED! There >isn't a torture exquisite enough that they wouldn't deserve it. Back to me: And yet, Eric, you approve of _The Lord of the Rings_ movie... Okay, I was tempted to simply let it go at that, and send this in as a tongue-in-cheek (but nonetheless serious) comment. But I'll go ahead and spell out what I'm saying. That is, that no matter how much it's the artistically sophisticated thing to say that a movie and the book on which it is based (or play, or what have you) are two different artistic works, each to be judged solely on its own merits, in practice I think that few of us actually judges adaptations solely on that basis. Nor should we. In the case of _The Lord of the Rings_, I could say many of the same things that Eric says about _My Fair Lady_. They took the great classic fantasy work of the 20th century--truly a great work of literature--and reworked it in ways that, while preserving many of the plot elements, change what it means. While profiting off Tolkien's story, they made it non-Tolkien in its bones. They remade Tolkien in the image of his imitators, making the story *easier* (in Hollywood terms), giving the audience what they wanted and were used to, and in so doing destroying part of what makes the original story morally powerfully and thematically deep and emotionally moving. And they did it in a way that makes it harder to recuperate the original story--harder even for those who actually do read the book, even for those who read the book first, to read it as Tolkien wrote it. Okay. I'm aware that I'm largely a voice in the wilderness on this issue, and honestly, I don't want to start a debate on _The Lord of the Rings_ movie. What I'm trying to get at is the larger question: Assuming that what I've said is true--assuming that what Eric said about _My Fair Lady_ is true--is that a reason for--what? For crying down curses from the heavens upon the perpetrators, as both Eric and I clearly wish to do? For criticizing the film itself? After all, the criticism essentially amounts to two points: (a) that the movie isn't the same as an admittedly different artistic work, and (b) that its very existence harms that original work. If the two are actually separate works, shouldn't we simply say, tough luck? I'm sure there are those on this list who will say so. Yet I respectfully disagree. For one thing, in both cases, the maker of the movie is profiting commercially and artistically from someone else's work. Tolkien's story has an already existing name that plays into the success of the movie. In the case of _My Fair Lady_, the name is changed, but there's still a clear draw on a well-known playwright's work. Maybe not anymore, because we don't know Shaw's original work as well as we know MFL--which, I think, is part of Eric's point, part of why he (apparently) so passionately despises the very existence of this movie--but clearly the moviemakers originally drew on Shaw's fame, as well as his original work, as part of their formula for success. Ditto with Tolkien's work. So there's a *use* of a good, and famous, work of art. Well and good. Legally, the hoops have all presumably been jumped through. But I think there's a moral, ethical problem when, in drawing on someone else's work, one harms that original work: its audience, its reception, our ability to see it for what it is. I also think there is a relative value scale for artistic works. And just as Eric wouldn't want to trade a brilliant exposition of gender issues for just another musical, I wouldn't want to trade a thoughtful, difficult, brilliant work of fantasy world-creation for another action film with cool special effects--which is in essence much of what the new LOTR movies are. The very fact that the movie is well-made, in my view, makes it all the worse, because it makes the movie better able to replace the book in the minds of its audience. So is it a trade? After all, the book's still there. Shaw's original play is still there. I'm a teacher, at least in part. And one of the things I've become aware of is just how hard it is to replace images and ideas, once they have become embedded in the minds of people, with competing images and ideas. I don't think it's possible to talk about _The Lord of the Rings_ anymore the way it was before the movie. I wept after seeing the first movie, not just because of the damage I felt had been done to the story, but because I felt that never again would I be able to talk about a story that had been tremendously important to me and feel that those I was speaking to had read the same story. It was like having part of my own language stolen. Okay, I know this is an extreme reaction. Even those among my friends who are equal to me in their love and knowledge of the book (who generally agree with my analysis of the movies' differences from the book) don't see the book as being as fragile as I do, so they don't react in the same way to the existence of the movie. I hope they're right. Taking another tack, though... If I feel this way, I have to wonder: how will members of the Church feel about movies that show bits of the Book of Mormon story, bits of the Joseph Smith story, bits of our Mormon history? I know that I want the moviemakers to succeed. I'm rooting for them--especially the good ones like Richard Dutcher. I think it's a crime that he can't find the money to do his Joseph Smith movie. And yet, I remember my reaction to _The Lord of the Rings_, and I wonder: Am I right? Is Eric right? Let me clarify that I'm not advocating any kind of legal or spiritual prior restraint here. I think that if it's legal--if copyright issues and such are properly taken care of--it's important to allow, even to encourage, artists to do the work they wish to do. At the same time, I'm not willing to throw away my right to critique a particular artistic work in light of another work on which it's based, and judge it in part on that basis. I'm not willing to say, it's a separate work, and so my comments are irrelevant. Apparently Eric isn't willing to do that either. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 24 Jun 2003 16:03:10 -0600 ___ Doug Robinson: Deseret Morning News___ | Sure, Mormons will see "Austin Powers" and the James Bond | movies - films that are decidedly raunchy and certainly more | violent than "Brigham City" - but apparently they were | uncomfortable with the mix of toned-down violence and their | religion. ___ Isn't the issue more that people want to see fun movies? That movies are primarily for entertainment. Look at Hollywood movies in general. Those that are more contemplative and serious do at bet maybe 10% the business of what more fun movies do. Certainly the fun movies can have serious overtones and sometimes you break through the barrier for a wider audience. But typically the way the average Joe looks at movies is different from how the more literary inclined do. Perhaps I'm thinking of this because I just watched _Barton Fink_ which has this as its theme. (And interestingly also wasn't a mainstream hit) It is in some ways an updating of an old film from the 40's that was about a producer of comedies who wanted to make a film about the common man. He loses his memory and then realizes through various trips as a hobo that comedies was what the average people wanted. Barton Fink isn't quite like that. It is the story of a playwright who wins many accolades for his plays about the "common man." However he really doesn't understand the common man at all but never realizes this. He gets brought to Hollywood to write a wrestling picture and has writers block because he knows nothing about such B-movies. (Admitting that he never really watches movies) After a run-in with a character inspired I believe by F. Scott Fitzgerald he finally gets his script (I'm leaving out some important spoilers so as to not spoil the movie) The question is whether he really understands the common man he claims to be writing about. Not to knock _Brigham City_ in the least. And clearly I like these smaller kinds of films. But I wonder if those who complain about the failure of such films aren't like Barton Fink writing about the common man. To contrast the violence in James Bond with the violence in _Brigham City_ reflects, I think, a missing of what really bothers people. On the other hand. There was a great little small film last year that many missed. It was called _Frailty_. It was about a guy who has an angel visit him and tell him there are demons everywhere. He then is commanded to go kill the demons. It adopts a kind of Protestant view of angels and demons. (Angels have wings, for instance) Now the story is told such that this guy clearly is crazy. Further he is a widower and has two kids and the story is told from the POV of one of the kids who, in his 30's, goes to the FBI to say he know who a serial killer the FBI is chasing is. (I'll not give the plot away beyond that) Anyway, while the plot is dark and a little violent, what bothers a lot of people are the religious overtones. It is interesting because it raises all sorts of interesting questions in a Mormon context. (i.e. how would we react if Joseph Smith was our neighbor and claimed today what he claimed in the 1820's) It really, really bothers a lot of Mormons I've watched it with. Is it because of the mixing of religion and violence? The move out of the nice Sunday School presentation of religion where there really isn't much personal sacrifice on the line? Or is it simply bringing out the dark side of religion? I don't know. But people who wouldn't flinch at a violent war movie are bothered by it. Perhaps, if I can synthesize these two positions, people want something that makes them feel happy. They'll see dark movies like _Saving Private Ryan_ only because it makes them appreciate what they have. They want to come out of the theatre feeling better about their life. Not troubled by their life. Those who like dark films, who enjoy coming out feeling troubled are viewed as the kind of people who sit in the dark listening to Pink Floyd all night. (Not that there is anything wrong with Pink Floyd, but I think you know what I mean) Put more simply, people want hope - not doubt. [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] Musicals and morals (was _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review)) Date: 25 Jun 2003 08:17:01 +1000 D. Michael wrote: >>"My Fair Lady," one of the most sophisticated, witty musicals ever written And Eric Samuelsen responded: >Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral >equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. [...] Ah... Laszlo Toth, the Pieta-smasher. As I note with mixed feelings, a compatriot of mine. And to bring it full musical circle, someone wrote an oratorio about him. The things ya gotta do... Jason Covell PS Well, actually, I admit that I have a fondness for My Fair Lady as well. And in its defence, it was my first introduction to Pygmalion (as I'm sure it was for many others) and to GBS generally, at a tender age when the whole romantic-comedy-pasted-on-ending didn't mean much anyway. PPS I do love it when Eric lets rip. ******************************************************************************************************* 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: "Brown" Subject: [AML] HOWARD-JOHNSON, Carolyn _Harkening_ (Review) Date: 19 Jun 2003 15:34:29 -0600 Title: Harkening Author: Carolyn Howard-Johnson 2000, America House Book Publishers, Baltimore, MD, 217 pp. $19.95 Paperback ISBN 1-58851-352-1 Title: Harkening Author: Carolyn Howard-Johnson 2002 PublsihAmerica Book Publishers, Baltimore, MD, 140 pp. $19.95 Paperback ISBN 1-59129-550-5 Award-winning author Carolyn Howard-Johnson (Masters' Literary Award, Sime-Gen's Reviewer's Choice Award, Red Sky Press Award) writes authentic stories about her Utah childhood. Though she is not LDS, she searches her heritage in much the same way Mormons do--revealing that the culture spilled into her. Carolyn began her writing career for the Salt Lake Tribune on fashion, news and food. And she wrote a teen column under the pseudonym Debra Paige. In New York she was an editorial assistant for Good Housekeeping Magazine who hobnobbed with Paulene Trigere and Christian Dior. Finishing her work with Ingenue in Chicago, she is now a columnist for the Pasasdena Star News and writes movie reviews for The Glendale News-Press. She is also retail editor for Home Decor Buyer. Both This is the Place and Harkening are the author's search for identity in a "Mormon world." As Sky in the first novel, she meets Archer, a Mormon boy, and their courtship and marriage pulls him away from his mission. She turns for questions to ancestors who have committed other "non-Mormon" deeds. She dislikes the Mormon stance against "outsiders" but represents the conflict with a remarkable objectivity. In elegant poetry, she comes close to excusing Mormon insensitivity, saying their: "history still curdles the very life forces--the air, the rivers of the state, the arteries and the veins of its people." She calls for "Objectivity, please. That's how they can be so insensitive. In Utah bygones are not gone." If she criticizes insensitive Mormons, she also tells the truth in beautiful poetry about her loving Mormon neighbors who took her in after school, bishops who were good bishops, mothers, aunts and grandmothers who quilted, scrapbooked, and canned, "made costumes together. Painted china tea cups the delicate colors of a sunrise and then tipped their edges in gold." A series of short pieces, Harkening is not as coherent a work as This is the Place. Continuing her research into the stories of her Mormon background and ancestors, she begins with a piece containing too many characters and no visible direction. But I was drawn to the writing, the nuanced language, and to her stories about milking the cow and composing music. Though she was never a performing musician, she was an originator who became a composer with beautiful words! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] ROWLING, J.K. _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2003 10:25:53 +1000 [MOD: I'm allowing this, although there's no explicit Mormon literature connection. I'd like the discussion to focus, though, on points which we as readers/writers can gain from this book, and how it can be applied to Mormon literature.] Hardcover: 870 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 9.34 x 6.28 x 2.15 Publisher: Scholastic (US); (June 21, 2003) ISBN: 043935806X [NB: Australian and other country publishing details vary somewhat from the US edition] ---------------- Everyone read their HP 5 by now? Right then, I'll just dive in. (Feel free to hold off reading further if you want to keep _some_ surprises - I won't reveal the character who dies.) I finished mine around midnight last night (it would have been sooner, but you know, life). Having scrupulously avoided reading any reviews or anything that might give away the plot before finishing, I jumped immediately on the net to see what the Amazon.com reader-reviewers had said. Nothing. Looked up a few fan sites. Full of pre-release speculation, but nothing updated with actual knowledge of the book's contents. So these are purely my own thoughts, not having had the opportunity to discuss the book with anyone else who's actually read it. Well, first up, I liked it - not, perhaps, quite as much as I had secretly hoped, but it's a worthy successor to the first four books in the series. All the things I most admire about Rowling are still very much evident: her ability to keep drawing from an inexhaustible source of invention, her elaborate plotting and weaving of story elements, her faith and real investment in her characters and her willingness to treat them seriously. One of the great pleasures I take in her writing is how she can unfold whole new aspects of wizard life, fully imagined and realised, and a perfect fit with the ever-expanding alternate universe that has already been laid out in previous books. And to do so in a way which always makes me think "a-ha - why didn't I see it coming?" I have boundless admiration at her ability to keep her powder dry; holding things back that a less confident or imaginative writer would spill much earlier on. Book V is certainly one big, bursting-at-the-seams book. It gave the impression of containing about as much as the third and fourth books put together (thematically and in terms of sheer quantity), with some elements of the first and second books thrown in as well. Rowling has kept raising the bar on how many balls in the air she can keep going, how many plot devices and strands she can keep twisting. And it is the inevitable result that there appear to be more loose ends or unfinished bits of business than ever before. However, I am willing to believe that Rowling is still planning to develop and resolve many of these. (Most exasperating for me was the vision of Harry's dad - what on earth did this contribute to, except for Harry's further confusion and resentment? But, dear reader, all may yet be explained.) In fact, more than ever before (especially compared with the first 3 books) there is a real momentum at the end that cannot be stopped, not a neat and tidy winding up of events for the year. So, just as Book IV ends with a real "to be continued..." feel, Book V is even more dependent on the further developments to come in Book VI. The one major disappointment for me was the lack of a real twist at the end. Both the third and fourth books contained quite breathtaking surprise turns at the end (for me, at least): the "turn back time" solution in Book III, and even more so, the shock outcome of the final Tournament contest in Book IV. Nothing in Book V came as such a surprise. The chapters containing the much-anticipated "I will reveal all" speech of Dumbledore, didn't actually reveal much that was a surprise. I won't make this an extensive review, or even list of highlights. I'd much rather engage in a list discussion (if one ensues) about the good and bad points. One thing I will do is jot down a list of bizarre comparisons that popped into my head this morning on the train to work (lack of sleep will do that), sizing off Book V against the last Star Wars movie (Episode II, Send in the Clowns, sorry, Clones) * This is the 5th in the series in release order. * As well as being a coming-of-age drama featuring a protagonist emerging from childhood, there is a marked change in tone from any of the previous releases. * The protagonist lashes out frequently with bouts of adolescent anger and resentment. * There is a major awkward first-love plot line (admittedly, the awkwardness in Star Wars II is more a result of George Lucas not knowing what to do with his actors). * The big climax is a wild battle set in a weird rocky amphitheatre, with lots of wizards/Jedi giving it all they've got (the first time we've witnessed such a full scale battle from so many wizards/Jedi). * The main antagonist of the most of the drama is not the big baddie (Voldemort/Palpatine), but a lesser puppet or stooge (Cornelius Fudge/Count Dooku) who has to be dealt with before the final showdown of good and evil (not unlike Saruman being the stooge Sauron, come to think). * For much of the story the top wizard/Jedi (Dumbledore/Yoda) bides his time while grappling with a political system which is crumbling and rotting around him. Only at the end of the current instalment do we get to see Dumbledore/Yoda revealed in full power and might for the first time. I'd love to read what other Harry Potter fans on the list think (I know there's more than a few!) And I'll get some sleep, so as to come up with some more rational thoughts on the matter. Jason Covell ******************************************************************************************************* This e-mail, and any files transmitted, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and must not be resent by the recipient unless the permission of the originator is first obtained. It may contain confidential or privileged information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately destroy the original transmission and its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this e-mail do not represent the views of the Sydney Catchment Authority unless otherwise stated. ******************************************************************************************************* -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ Date: 24 Jun 2003 18:50:26 -0600 >-----Original Message----- >> Does the author have a responsibility to balance a wayward character >> with a believing practicing character in a novel? > >Not at all. But, if the author expects ME to believe the >character is "real' then he will have to do some homework and >devise some method for making me believe. For instance, if >the author TELLS me that the character is a staunch Latter-day >Saint, but demonstrates to me that he has no idea what that >means, then he has lost me as a sympathetic reader. What is a staunch Mormon? That would be the basic question one would have to ask before beginning to portray one in literature. Do staunch Mormons drink Coke? Do staunch Mormons pay ten percent tithing but swear on occasion? I've heard people say that a staunch Mormon can't be a Democrat. The list could go on and on. Perhaps an author is protraying his or her impression of what a stanch Mormon is but is ultimately blinded by the reality that NOT ALL MORMONS THINK ALIKE. I don't think that any two Mormons, even spouses, think exactly alike on all issues. That's >all. But, if he doesn't care about losing LDS people (or >people who know what it means to be LDS) as readers, then he >is free to be footloose and fancy with the details. Maybe his understanding of the details differs from other Mormons' understanding. Scott, you have experienced this dichotomy with your own wonderful play, Poliphony. Some audience members couldn't believe the saints in your play, based on your own family, were real Mormons. >BTW, this is part of my problem with Angels in America. On >one level, I just don't think Kushner cared if he got all the >details right. I think Kushner got all the details right that he needed to. Do we not know some member somewhere who outwardly maintains a righteous front but who smokes cigarettes? Are there not some Mormon women and men addicted to pain killers? And what ARE the facts, anyway? Can any two Mormons agree on what the basic set of beliefs that must be adhered to in order to be considered a good LDS person. I had a conversation a couple of days ago on this very subject. I told a friend that, as far as I was concerned, if a person could in good conscience answer the TR questions to get a recommend, then anything else they believed or practiced was entirely an individual concern. My friend said that adherence to the TR questions meant that one was a good Terrestrial person but if one wanted to be Celestial, then more was expected. Here was a perfect example of two people with differing ideas as to what it means to be a good Mormon. Thom -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jared Walters Subject: Re: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 5: THE ULTIMATE TERMINATOR PARTY Date: 24 Jun 2003 19:39:28 -0600 I wouldn't be too hasty to count T3 out as bad sequel just yet. While it's true that the odds on a 2nd sequel being praiseworthy aren't good, there are quite a few third movies that turned out quite good. A couple that come to mind are Rocky 3 (not as good as the first 2, but definitely a worthy followup and a fan favorite), Return of the Jedi (my opinion is that it was better than the first movie), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (not as good as Raiders, but better than Temple) and there are other examples. It's always tough on a franchise when its creator is not involved in a sequel. Cameron is a good director, but movies like Titanic reveal that he can be too cheesy and melodramatic for his own good. Jonathan Mostow may not be a big player in Hollywood, but based on what I've seen of his previous work (Breakdown, U-571), he's no slouch and definitely not your typical Hollywood hack. He's a good screenwriter which bodes well for the story arc of T3. There are times when a movie franchise gets a shot in the arm as a result of bringing in new blood and new ideas which is one reason why I think the Harry Potter films will improve with Chris Columbus off the directors chair. Early test screenings of T3 have proven fairly positive as evidenced by movie geeks at AICN: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=15455 Here's a great interview with Mostow about the challenges he faced in bringing T3 to the screen. Gives some hope that he's not out to ruin the franchise. http://www.moviehole.net/news.php?newsid=1817 There's no telling if people are gonna like the movie, but I'm in favor of giving the movie a chance and judging the movie for what it is and not for what it could have been had it been another man's vision. Jared Walters -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Deseret News: "Saturday's Voyeur" Full of Talent But Offensive Date: 24 Jun 2003 19:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Article from deseretnews.com 'VOYEUR' FULL OF TALENT, BUT OFFENSIVE For its 25th-anniversary edition of "Saturday's Voyeur," Salt Lake Acting Company has come up with what amounts to a muddled "best-and-worst" montage. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C510034912%2C00.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Ann Cannon on RAVITCH, _The Language Police_ Date: 24 Jun 2003 19:23:37 -0700 (PDT) EVE AND ADAM? -- GET REAL! by Ann Cannon WARNING: The list you are about to read is not a joke. In her new book, "The Language Police," educational historian Diane Ravitch lists words and stereotypes that creators of texts and tests for schoolchildren are presently encouraged to avoid. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C505039276%2C00.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 24 Jun 2003 23:45:55 -0400 We like to think there's a big difference between the Practice of sex and= the=20 Desire to engage in sexual activity. And for all sorts of policy and mora= lity- related reasons, in a large, bureaucratic institution, I suppose it's=20 important to make a distinction. But as someone who's been single for the= last=20 11 years and is now in her late thirties, I've thought a lot about how=20 sexuality works (I suspect most of us have thought about these issues, ma= rried=20 or not, but being single foregrounds a lot of things that married church=20 members don't experience in the same way). Sexuality functions as a compl= ex=20 set of interrelationships of behavior, attitudes, ways of relating to the= =20 world. (Eric Samuelsen's work explores these complexities in important wa= ys, I=20 think.) We often like to think of sexuality as a continuum, with intercou= rse=20 and abstinence on either extreme, with multiple behaviors in between. But= =20 perhaps it works more like a spiral, with all kinds of things interacting= with=20 each other. One's sense of oneself as a sexual being is an important part= of=20 being a healthy adult. Indeed, it is an important part of one's spiritual= =20 life, in my opinion. To say that the church is accepting and supportive o= f a=20 homosexual orientation is at best na=EFve. It denies the degree of=20 marginalization that homosexual Mormons feel in the church. We, as a chur= ch=20 and culture, have a long history of intolerance, even abusive behavior, t= oward=20 homosexuality that is not easily overcome. Church leaders are dealing wit= h=20 this issue in more sensitive ways. But how is a homosexual Mormon suppose= d to=20 handle such things as relationships, family, identity, spirituality where= =20 sexuality comprises such a vital element?=20 I have a copy of this video, too. Review forthcoming. Laraine Wilkins Quoting Annette Lyon : > "Troy is very capable of seeing the Church's hard line on morality as > being necessarily exclusive of his sexual orientation." >=20 > Or rather, it is necessarily exclusive of *practicing* his orientation.= BIG > difference. >=20 > Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lwilkins@fas.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum Multilingual Issue Date: 25 Jun 2003 00:19:24 -0400 I wonder if you would be interested in tapping into the Church's history archive. A friend of mine who works for them has taken trips all over the world in the last 10 years to collect oral histories from church members. He learned Russian just so he could go to Russia and interview people in Russian. He's done interviews in German, too. I know he's been to Africa, but I don't know what language(s) he interviewed in. He's talked about plans to go to various Asian countries. He says he's collected great, amazing material, which is available to anyone who wants to do historical research. Perhaps some of it's been translated. If you consider personal histories (oral) as literature, it could be interesting. Laraine Wilkis -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Quinn Warnick" Subject: [AML] Mormon Weblogs Request for Help Date: 24 Jun 2003 22:54:41 -0600 Hello all, I am working on a proposal for the next AML Conference focusing on LDS writers whose primary publishing venue is online. I'm not talking about established authors who happen to have promotional or vanity website, but rather writers who maintain personal journal sites, weblogs (or "blogs"), or online portfolios of their writing. These writers may or may not be published authors in the traditional sense, but they should be using the web as its own medium, not just as method of promoting their "off-line" writing. Because one of the aspects I'm interested in studying further is the general perception of Mormonism by non-LDS bloggers, the writers may or may not be "active" Latter-day Saints. In addition, I'm interested in finding out why some LDS writers proudly make religion a part of their sites while others write about everything BUT religion. Hence, I'm also interested in LDS bloggers whose sites may not have any Mormon content at all. I am preparing an email survey/questionnaire that will go out to as many online writers as I can reasonably contact given my time constraints. At this point, I am trying to compile a list of sites that may be eligible for participation in the survey. I currently have a list of ten or twelve such sites that I read from time to time, but I'd like that list to grow. If you or someone you know maintains such a site, please contact me off-list at quinn@whiteshoe.org. Another question for the group, stemming from Travis Manning's earlier call for help with an international issue of Irreantum: There has been some preliminary discussion of a possible issue of Irreantum dedicated to printing writing that originally appeared online. I am looking for content sites that publish original fiction, essays, or poetry dealing with LDS themes. I am aware of Meridian Magazine, and I know that AML-List publishes original essays from time to time, and I'm sure there are others out there that I'm forgetting. If you've got a favorite website for finding original Mormon writing, let me know at the above address. This topic may or may not be appropriate for the list. I'll defer to our esteemed moderator (or his capable assistant). [MOD: Absolutely relevant!] Thanks in advance for the input, Quinn Warnick -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] William F. BUCKLEY, _Getting it Right_ Date: 25 Jun 2003 21:43:41 +0900 R.W. Rasband states: But because he is still a priest conferred with the authority of God, God can work through him and he is still good for a miracle every once in a while. Such an understanding of sin and authority might have influenced Buckley's thinking about the personal morality of his Mormon characters. --- And Scott Bronson spoke of unbelievable Mormon characters in "Angels in America." ------ And now say I: I find this concept interesting and wonder why we, as Mormons have such a hard time accepting Mormon characters with flaws. I am not sure what it means to have "believable" Mormon characters. I have known a few Mormon women who have disappeared into a benzodiazepine induced haze when stressed out, as did Harper in "Angels." I have also seen the spirit work through "unworthy" missionaries, myself included. Not unworthy to the degree presented by Buckley maybe, but certainly with significant worthiness issues. How would we feel about a mormon character who gives his car a blessing? Most run of the mill Mormons might find this a bit unbelievable, but I think we are all aware of Eugene England's experience. How would we feel about a Mormon character who heals someone while drunken? Yet we have no problem believing it possible that Noah could curse his grandson while drunken (and possibly naked). Imagine a Mormon character in a novel doing such a thing. It would get similar responses to those on this thread. Yet Joseph Smith once taught that the Lord honored Noah's priesthood despite the fact Noah was drunk, and that the curse reamined upon Canaan to Joseph's time (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, don't have a page number since I looked it up electronically). Do we respond this way because we want Mormon characters to be ideal Mormons? Or at least more "run of the mill"? Doesn't this really reflect how we want our religion to be presented to the world? Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [AML] Next AML Conferences: When? Date: 24 Jun 2003 18:52:21 -1100 What are the dates for the AML Writers' Conference this fall, and for the Annual Meeting/scholarly conference next winter/spring? And what are the deadlines for submitting proposals for papers to the conference? Thanks, Frank Maxwell San Jose, California (hoping to save money by ordering airline tickets as far in advance as possible). -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Director Announced for _Baptists at Our Barbecue_ Date: 25 Jun 2003 09:21:32 -0600 "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > I must tell you this little > anecdote. The casting director told me this. Apparently there is a > scene where a character says these words: "I know about you stinking > Mormons." Well, in response to that line, one person reading for the > role said, "I can't be in this movie, I'm a Mormon." > > Now, there are so many things wrong with the attitude behind that > statement that I just don't know where to begin. I had a similar experience when I was casting for the sound recording of my opera, "General Prophet Joseph Smith." I had one singer who I would have liked to use. But when he came across two lines of lyrics, he couldn't "in good conscience" participate. The two lines were a part of "The Song of the Carthage Drunkards": We will take their women folk Poke the parts we should not poke. What did this guy expect Carthage drunkards in their favorite tavern to sing about who were anticipating some good mobbery against the Mormons? Incidentally, the singers I did use, all of whom were good Mormons as far as I knew, sang this part with relish. -- 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] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2003 09:23:58 -0600 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. They took Pygmalion, one of the great plays of all time, one of the classic examination of the gender issues we've been talking about (as well as one of the great comedies of language), and they turned into yet another blankety blank blank romantic musical comedies. THEY HAVE ELIZA END UP WITH HIGGINS! THEY LET THE AUDIENCE HAVE WHAT THEY WANTED! There isn't a torture exquisite enough that they wouldn't deserve it. I suppose next you're going to say that "Les Mis" sucks too. -- 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] Revising Original Works Date: 25 Jun 2003 09:58:12 -0600 Jonathan Langford wrote: > And yet, I remember my reaction to _The Lord of > the Rings_, and I wonder: Am I right? Is Eric right? How shall I approach this? I could come at it from the direction that you are setting yourself up for insanity if you let this sort of thing bother you. Movies are here to stay--they are an integral part of the world's culture. Things _will_ be adapted, and through that adaptation, will be changed. It will happen over and over again. Fretting about it will only cause the fretter hopeless anguish. Or shall I come from the direction of the cross-fertility of art? Art is nothing if not a gigantic, worldwide, millennia-spanning conspiracy to steal. Artists of all types feed mercilessly off the creativity of each other, past and contemporary, throwing it all together and mixing it up, changing the original elements beyond recognition. Nothing ever stays the same. I could never see Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" the same way again after seeing a production in my high school years that located it in Brazil. In college it was changed for me again when I saw a Napoleonic version produced at BYU. (The Brazilian one was better, more passionate. The BYU one seemed sterile.) Do I even need to discuss how thoroughly Leonard DiCaprio and Claire Danes changed "Romeo and Juliet" for me? This sort of stuff happens with Shakespeare all the time. Sometimes the connection is obvious, as with movie adaptations. Perhaps that's what makes us more sensitive to the changes that occur there. But the art of the past is constantly being rewritten in the raging minds of new artists. Who can ever hear the William Tell Overture in the same way as pre-Lone Ranger audiences did? Perhaps it will help if I describe my experience with "To Kill a Mockingbird." I saw the movie several times before I read the book. I loved the movie. It was powerful and moving. Then I read the book. I loved the book. It was powerful and moving--and different. I went back and watched the movie. It now seemed pale and shallow compared to the book. I was able to positively experience the book, even after repeated viewings of the movie. The movie may have affected my reading of the book. (Atticus will always be Gregory Peck to me.) But reading the book affected my viewing of the movie too. The book, being great, transcended the movie, which was also great. I think "Lord of the Rings" will survive the movie. Movies and musicals are incapable of preserving the complexity of more literary forms of art. So why disturb one's inner peace by getting all a-flutter when they don't? This is part of life. We can bemoan it, or we can enjoy the new creations that arise from the fodder of the past. The one thing we cannot do is stop it. -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 25 Jun 2003 12:45:56 -0400 Clark Goble wrote: > Perhaps I'm thinking of this because > I just watched _Barton Fink_ which has this as its theme. (And > interestingly also wasn't a mainstream hit) It is in some ways an > updating of an old film from the 40's that was about a producer of > comedies who wanted to make a film about the common man. He loses his > memory and then realizes through various trips as a hobo that comedies > was what the average people wanted. The movie you describe is Preston Sturges' masterpiece, _Sullivan's Travels_ which was, tangentially, provided the germ for _O Brother Where Art Thou_ which was made, tangentially, by the Cohen brothers who also made, to close the circle, _Barton Fink_. > After a run-in with a character > inspired I believe by F. Scott Fitzgerald he finally gets his script I always could have sworn that this was a thinly disguised spoof of William Faulkner during his Hollywood years. Let's call the Cohens and ask them. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2003 12:53:02 -0400 Eric Samuelsen wrote: > D. Michael wrote: > > >"My Fair Lady," one of the most sophisticated, witty musicals > ever written > > Oh, man, do we have to start the My Fair Lady thread again? It's the worst musical ever. It's unwatchable. It's the moral equivalent to the guy who took a hammer to Michelangelo's Pieta. And let's add to the crimes that the film producers replaced Julie Andrews who absolutely owned the role of Eliza with Audrey Hepburn whose singing voice was so bad it was dubbed over. So add a crime against Julie to the more general crime against art. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] HOWARD-JOHNSON, Carolyn _Harkening_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2003 12:31:48 -0600 Whoops, not two books called The Harkening! The first book is called This is the Place! Thanks! Cheers! Marilyn -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 25 Jun 2003 16:11:00 -0600 ___ Clark ___ | After a run-in with a character inspired I believe by F. | Scott Fitzgerald he finally gets his script | ___ Tony ___ | I always could have sworn that this was a thinly disguised | spoof of William Faulkner during his Hollywood years. Let's | call the Cohens and ask them. ___ Was Faulkner's wife in the asylum like Fitzgerald's? _Barton Fink_ makes a big deal of the author's wife being in an asylum in France. I know there was always controversy over Fitzgerald's writings and authorship. (Including his sabotaging his wife's writing when she went out on her own) Further Fitzgerald went to Hollywood when 41 after he couldn't publish anymore. His last years were as a screenwriter for MGM. He wrote _Madam Curie_, _Maries Antoinette_, _Three Comrades_ and other obscure films I'd never heard of. The woman who is killed in _Barton Fink_ is semi-based on Sheilah Graham http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/biography.html [Clark Goble] -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2003 17:56:36 -0600 To say that the church is accepting and supportive o= f a=20 homosexual orientation is at best na=EFve. I didn't say that. I said that the Church's hard line on morality doesn't exclude a person who is homosexual. Practicing it *would* cross the line--as any sexual behavior outside of a marriage would (do I have to define that word to be clear? Okay, marriage between a man and a woman, as ordained by God.) The law of chastity is one of the biggies in TR interviews, one of the biggie covenants made in the temple, and it applies to everyone, regardless of who they are attracted to. I know there are lots of people struggling with SSA members, and they have huge hurtles in the Church. I'm not disputing that. I am saying that anyone (or any literary work, for that matter) is shallow if they claim that a homosexual must either say "accept me sleeping with my partner or reject me." There's a very big middle ground in between that *Troy* doesn't seem to address. Help me out here, Rex! You've nagivated these waters and remained faithful to gospel principles. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Langford Subject: re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 25 Jun 2003 17:48:07 -0500 In response to the original phrase: >"Troy is very capable of seeing the Church's hard line on morality as >being necessarily exclusive of his sexual orientation." Annette commented: >Or rather, it is necessarily exclusive of *practicing* his orientation. BIG >difference. To which I in turn respond: Well, yes, sort of. But in this case, I think the original statement is still true. (By the way, I've now read Annette's reply to another message and don't think we're necessarily in disagreement about what we're saying, ultimately. A semantic difference, perhaps. But I think it's an important point anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and say it...) The Church doesn't condemn someone for homosexual feelings. But it does view these as essentially, radically temporary, and fundamentally mistaken. A disorder, or a distortion or misinterpretation of the way things ought to be. The Church's teachings do not accept a homosexual orientation as an essential part of someone's character, but rather as something to be endured, with an eye to permanent change and healing. There are no homosexual couples in heaven. Every individual, so far as I can tell, is meant to be either heterosexual or asexual in the eternities. There may be some tiny minority of believing church members that take a different view of this issue. Still, I think that what I just stated is a very fair statement of the Church's official position, as reflected in the Handbook of Instruction, and of the position of a vast majority of believing LDS. I mention this, not because I want to debate the Church's position on this issue, but because--if we're writing about SSA individuals in the Church, whether real or fictional--it is essential, I think, that we recognize the situation they are in. Which includes, at a fundamental doctrinal level (at least as the doctrine is currently interpreted), a rejection of homosexual orientation. You can't believe that homosexual orientation, as generally defined, is a basic part of you and at the same time accept the Church's teachings. The problem represented by Troy and his family seems irreducible. During a mutual dream scene in _Angels in America_, Harper (the neurotic Valium-addicted wife of...well, anyway) introduces herself as a Mormon. Prior (another character) then introduces himself as a homosexual, and Harper responds, "Oh! In my church we don't believe in homosexuals." It's meant to be humorous, but I've wondered whether Kushner really knew what he was saying. Because in a real way, we Mormons *don't* believe in homosexuals. We reject the very existence of the category. Which means that SSA individuals in the Church, while not condemned for their feelings, are not really free to accept those feelings either, at least in any obvious or direct way. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 26 Jun 2003 10:13:48 -0600 Combining thoughts from two threads [see: Revising Original Works], my advice to Richard would be this: Box it up, park it in a corner of the attic, and forget about it for a decade or two. This is one of those projects, like Scorsese's Gangs of New York, or Mel Gibson's The Passion, that is resistant to time. It doesn't need to be done *now*. Even Lucas let 16 years lapse between Star Wars III and IV. Okay, he didn't improve any as a director or writer (maybe got worse), but it meant he could do the movies on his own terms, which probably let him sleep better at night. I recently watched again a documentary about Clint Eastwood, and the clear theme throughout was that he started out doing the movies he *had* to do, so he could eventually get around to doing the movies he *wanted* to do. Sometimes the two happily ended up on the same side of the ledger sheet--more and more often as he piled up experience as a director and actor. But he had to make a lot of the former to get to the point when studios would hand over the big bucks for the latter. Eastwood's hardly alone when it comes to this type of artistic pragmatism. William Faulkner wrote a bunch of screenplays during the 1930s and 1940s as a staff studio scribe (most notably, To Have and Have Not). Spielberg did Jurassic Park so he could do Schindler's List. Gibson's multi-million dollar fee for Mad Max IV will no doubt help him pay for The Passion. I think Gibson is the case in point, a conservative (even reactionary) Catholic who hasn't abandoned common sense when it comes to the realities of Hollywood financing. If people want to pay him a whole truckload of money to make Lethal Weapon III or Mad Max IV, as long as he's not required to sell his soul in the process (MM 3 was a pale imitation compared to MM2, as were LW 2 and 3 compared to the original, but I didn't detect any soul-selling, just grown men having way too much fun blowing things up), then he'll come up with plenty of good things (as far as he is concerned) to do with cash, like make a movie about Christ that will never make back its costs. At any rate, nobody's made a "major motion picture" about Joseph Smith for a couple generations at least (Vincent Price, wasn't it, in the role?), and even the official church biopics have been pretty wretched, so no competition there, either. More importantly is why. I think Clark's discussion of Frailty suggests the reason, and it's not an artistically pleasant one. More specifically, it's a problem of cognitive dissonance. Yeah, sure, we'd all like to see a "good" movie made about Joseph Smith--in the hypothetical. But are we really going to want to watch the final product when it's not the version we play in our heads? And for the investor: when a frown from a well-placed stake president or GA or Deseret News reviewer could sink the whole ship? I don't just mean "we" as individuals, but "we" as a church. Gibson's travails making The Passion are instructive, as is the flak Scorsese caught for Last Temptation of Christ. The same will be magnified several fold (along the "Mormon Corridor") if and when someone attempts something other than a hagiographic account of Joseph Smith. In fact, I would go this far in declaring (same goes also for that great Book of Mormon movie somebody's always promising to make): it's not ever going to happen, not unless like The Passion it can be self-financed, and you can suffer the slings and arrows that will inevitably fly your way. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. Most people--meaning most Mormons--don't know much more about the life of Joseph Smith than what's they're told in Sunday School. A successful biopic--reaching a larger and more diverse and non-Mormon audience than any of the many respected biographies to date--would thus become by default the given interpretation of the Prophet to which the church would have to answer. This is untenable. I'm not talking in some conspiratorial sense, but in the sense that all organizations must constantly defend against third-party definitions of their central myths (speaking not in terms of fact or fiction, but in terms of social and cultural function) that they cannot directly control. A workaround is to take the tangential approach, as Card did in Saints, and make the protagonist someone other than Joseph Smith. In fact, there's the recommended source material: Based on the Novel by Orson Scott Card!!! But even the material in Saints (written by a believing Mormon) would offend the living daylights out of the same people who didn't show up in droves to see Brigham City. Perhaps something more tangential, more allegorical--but get too artsy and those same people won't know what you're talking about. Precisely! Thinking about Orson Scott Card, in fact, the better book is Seventh Son (ditto for the BOM: The Memory of Earth). I know that many Mormons who read it didn't figure out that it was about Joseph Smith until it was pointed out to them. Like I said, as far as conventional biopics go, I still think it's one of those great ideas whose time will never come. Though in a decade or two it might come a lot closer, perhaps when it becomes (if it ever does) acceptable to bring ecumenical--non-Utahn, non-Corporation of the Church--views of Mormonism to the mainstream Mormon table. In the meantime, how about a Mormon version of Mad Max (Card again: The Folk of the Fringe)? Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:46:57 -0400 Hello, I read with considerable interest the newspaper article on Richard's difficulties securing financing for his Joseph Smith film project. It's remarkable to me how much this has been a lightning rod for different approaches to Smith's life and work. As I understand the situation, Richard can't get funding because of fear that he would be too factual, would explore too ably the story of our Prophet. The framing of the question implies that there can be no place between the incomprehensible, angelic savant of F Smith/Fielding Smith/McConkie catechism, and the bloated satyr of Brodie's imagination and the Tanners' regurgitated calumny (had to use that word bc it sounds so strange, and Smith himself loved it so much). (As I write this, I notice that my choice of surname rather than given name places me in controversial places, though my affection and respect for Smith are at a remove of 150 years, and I never quite feel that he is someone I would refer to like an informal mutual acquaintance or a deity in no need of a surname, e.g. Jesus/Joshua.) I for one would vote for missing both extremes. The beauty and grandeur of Joseph Smith and his inspiration and legacy are all the more vital to me in the context of his endless enthusiasm for life, his lack of cynicism, his lack of mechanisms for protecting himself from commercial misadventures and personal betrayal, his capacity to see beyond the confines of Victorian visions of the moral life. While I respect Jonathan Edwards and Augustine (or at least the traditions of the latter that are received today), I thank God in my prayers that they are not the prophets of my religion. In my most spiritual moments, the ineffable experience of God is always rooted in a sensuous vitality that Smith understood in a way few other mystics have or could. I keep telling myself that in twenty years when I am the prose stylist I so hunger to be, I will write Smith's story. I am extremely sympathetic with Richard's desire to tell the story, to give room to such an immensity of emotion, humanity, and spiritual power. I wish him all success in his quest (to quote the grungy voice I heard on the radio a few years ago, "if I had a million dollars," I'd turn it over to him. God bless you, Richard. But I don't know how ready we are for the story to be told, an "agony and ecstasy" of religious creation that doesn't encumber the hero with too little or too much complex humanity. Does anyone know of examples of this? Treatments in fiction of practical and mystical religion, sacred sexuality, experiments in common living? It sounds like something Tolstoy should have written when he got religious instead of the rambling tracts he did write. Many thanks to Richard and his quest for making me think more carefully about this subject. sam -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Next AML Conferences: When? Date: 25 Jun 2003 17:59:01 -0600 I don't know that any dates have been finalized yet. I'll try to remember to post the dates as soon as they are decided. D. Michael, don't we usually try to hold the writers conf. on the first weekend in Nov? And I think the annual meeting may usually be the last weekend in February. But I wouldn't bank on any of those yet, because something as minor as a BYU football game can affect the scheduling process. Chris Bigelow -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Introductions: Sam Brown Date: 25 Jun 2003 19:15:51 -0400 Somewhere I read that after a few posts, you're supposed to identify yourself. I also recently received an e-mail off-line that suggested I should do so, and now that I have finished the hardest two years of my life, I think I have the time. My wife Kate Holbrook and I live in Boston with our daughter Amelia. I'm a medical resident (third and final year started this morning!). I'm a third great grandson of Brigham Young by Zina DHJS Young, which I guess explains some of my quirks. I had always been interested in fiction and the essay, but medical school left no time until (on the first day of my first vacation of medical internship, while I was trying to keep a Boy Scout from hurting himself) I managed to break my ankle high on a mountaintop in New Hampshire's White Mountains and I found myself on 4 weeks leave (complicated fracture, complicated operation, all that garbage). After watching 70 movies in 2 weeks (milked NETFLIX for everything it was worth), I picked up my laptop and started writing the fiction I'd been meaning to for a decade. My favorite author is Nabokov. I love Wise Blood, Anna Karenina, Fathers and Sons, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Simpsons (Christopher Ricks has said that it is the greatest contribution to world literature America has made in the last half-century). I love to struggle through the Modernists, largely unsuccessfully. Right now I'm trying to decide what I want to do: be an infectious disease researcher (my work to date is in understanding and controlling outbreaks of infection--a word to the wise: don't import Gambian rats, I mean really, Gambian rats?) or pretend I can be a physician 20 hrs a week and write fiction with the rest of my time. The next two years are the critical period. Reading and connecting with the AML community has been extremely helpful for me, as it's been hard to imagine how Mormonism can integrate into contemporary fiction. You (collectively) have a wonderful vision, and I'm glad to be a part of it, however peripherally. Finally, someone noted that my degree and affiliation were listed on several of my posts. I apologize. I had no interest in snubbing anyone or showing off (a friend from high school signs his name John Doe, G.E.D. to make the point). I don't have a separate personal e-mail account, and the signature is just part of my official correspondence. I will try to remember to delete it, but I may forget occasionally. [MOD: I see no reason to delete a signature that gives additional information about who you are. Change or remove only if change is desired.] sam -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:00:27 -0600 "Preston Sturges' masterpiece, _Sullivan's Travels_ which was, tangentially, provided the germ for _O Brother Where Art Thou_" Actually, the opening credits say that _O Brother Where Art Thou_ is based on the _Odyssey_. Annette Lyon -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] RAVITCH, _The Language Police_ Date: 25 Jun 2003 19:54:59 -0600 > EVE AND ADAM? -- GET REAL! > by Ann Cannon >> WARNING: The list you are about to read is not a joke. In her new > book, "The Language Police," educational historian Diane Ravitch lists > words and stereotypes that creators of texts and tests for schoolchildren > are presently encouraged to avoid. > FULL STORY: > http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C505039276%2C00.html > R.W. Rasband That link is hardly damning enough of the Language Police movement. Here's a link with a more in-depth review: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030630/opinion/30john.htm --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [AML] Robert REMINI, _Joseph Smith_ Date: 25 Jun 2003 17:53:40 -1100 This Saturday, June 28, the cable channel CSPAN-2 will be showing a speec= h by historian Robert Remini about his new biography of Joseph Smith. Th= is is part of CSPAN-2's weekend Book TV presentations. It is scheduled f= or 10 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Eastern time. Here's the info from booktv.org: ************* Public Lives = A look at biography books. = On Saturday, June 28 at 10:00 am = "Joseph Smith" Robert Remini = Description: In an event from Sam Weller's Zion Bookstore in Salt Lake C= ity, historian Robert Remini discusses his biography of religious reforme= r and founder of the Morman Church, Joseph Smith. The book explores the = history of the Mormon religion within the context of the first half of th= e 19th century. Mr. Remini examines how Smith and early Mormonism benefi= ted from but were also hurt by the spiritual and economic upheavals of th= e era. According to Mr. Remini, the first of Smith=92s religious visions= and angelic visitations occurred at the age of fourteen. A complex char= acter, his desire for recognition and control was fufilled by his mission= as the prophet for a new faith. Joseph Smith was assassinated, leaving = it to his lieutenant, Brigham Young, to carry on his work. A question an= d answer period follows Mr. Remini=92s remarks. Author Bio: Robert Remini is the author of biographies on Andrew Jackson= , Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. He is professor emeritus of history and= research professor emeritus of humanities at the University of Illinois = at Chicago. Publisher: = Viking = 375 Hudson Street New York, NY 10014 = ************ Regards, Frank Maxwell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: [AML] Stewart UDALL, _The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West_ Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:09:59 -1100 Here's another BookTV alert: This weekend, CSPAN-2 will also be re-airing a speech by former Arizona congressman Stewart Udall on his book "The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West". It's scheduled for Sunday morning, June 29, at 3:30 a.m. Eastern time, and will last one hour. Here's the info from booktv.org: *********** "The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West" Stewart Udall Description: From Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver, Colorado, author and former politician Stewart Udall talks about his latest book, "The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West." The book takes a look at the history of the American west from the perspective of the 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 settlers of the west. The author is introduced by his nephew, Congressman Mark Udall 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 Myths of August." Publisher: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20009 *********** Regards, Frank Maxwell -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: [AML] HOWARD-JOHNSON, Carolyn _Harkening_ (Review) Date: 26 Jun 2003 13:37:10 -0600 Quoting Marilyn Brown : > A series of short pieces, Harkening is not as coherent a work as This is > the Place. Continuing her research into the stories of her Mormon > background and ancestors, she begins with a piece containing too many > characters and no visible direction. But I was drawn to the writing, the > nuanced language, and to her stories about milking the cow and composing > music. Though she was never a performing musician, she was an originator > who became a composer with beautiful words! This was the impression I had of _This Is the Place_. Her prose is absolutely beautiful, but the story lacked much direction. > > >She calls for "Objectivity, please. That's how they can be > so insensitive. In Utah bygones are not gone." Certainly her viewpoint as a non-Latter-day Saint in an LDS world is valid and worth paying attention to. When she tries to show the LDS viewpoint, though, she falls short. She seems to think that devout Latter-day Saints will have the same bones to pick about the culture and even the religion as the non-LDS. Nowhere in _This Is the Place_ is there an LDS character who really loves the Church and really believes it and tries to live a truly Christlike life. They all simply carry a grim sense of duty. Is this being objective? --Katie Parker -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] Nauvoo Theatrical Society Now at Villa Theater Date: 26 Jun 2003 15:35:45 -0600 May I say that the news is now out. It appeared in Eric Snider's very accurate story about Scene Changes this Friday morning. Thom and his board of the Nauvoo Theatrical Society is scheduled to bring plays to the Villa beginning in September or October. This is great news. The VIP Arts welcomes them heartily. They will add a great deal to the Springville theatre arts scene. I realize they would rather have gone to a more populated area. But Springville will love them and welcome them with open arms. The two VIP Arts "magnates," Bill and Marilyn Brown, are forced to become snowbirds this next winter because of health issues. So the appearance of the Nauvoo group is a great blessing! We are also pleased to announce the addition of David Morgan, BYU drama professor and a 1998 winner of the University Excellence in Teaching Award, as our new Youtheatre Director. (Onward and upward!) Many Cheers! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 26 Jun 2003 20:20:04 -0600 > I didn't say that. I said that the Church's hard line on morality doesn't > exclude a person who is homosexual. Practicing it *would* cross the line-- > Annette Lyon My question is - how do you define homosexuality? My question is because too often in arguments like this both sides wind up committing the logical fallacy of equivocation by switching between differing definitions without signaling so. Whenever I get into a discussion with someone over homosexuality, I make one thing clear on my definitions (and tell others they have to spell out just as well what they mean by these terms): Homosexuality means engaged in sexual relations with people of the same sex. even if they are going through a "dry spell" (as heterosexuals often do) - if they approve of and seek after that lifestyle, they are homosexual. If they are merely attracted to members of the same sex, that means they are Same Sex Attracted (SSA) - not nessecarily homosexual. This is not splitting hairs. It may not be the way everyone uses the terms, but it works. --ivan wolfe -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Sam Brown Date: 26 Jun 2003 16:05:11 -0700 Welcome, Sam! I've enjoyed your posts already. Actually, I'm glad to have an MD and a possible researcher in the infectious disease world on the List (just as I'm glad we have at least one astronomer, and a truckload of other really smart, specialized people!). I may want to pick your brains some day on several projects I'm tinkering with! What a fun, diverse and wonderful group is here. Welcome! Jongiorgi Enos -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 27 Jun 2003 10:54:17 -0400 Annette Lyon wrote: > "Preston Sturges' masterpiece, _Sullivan's Travels_ > which was, tangentially, provided the germ for _O Brother Where Art Thou_" > > Actually, the opening credits say that _O Brother Where Art Thou_ is based > on the _Odyssey_. Well yes, but in Sullivan's Travels, the successful director, played so wonderfully by Joel McRae, abandons his formulaic fare of romantic comedies to write and direct the Great American Epic filled with pathos and suffering. In several pitch meetings, Sullivan's working title for this film was _O Brother Where Art Thou_. It was his quest to find the source material for this mythic film that became the basis for _Sullivan's Travels_, which is why I called it the "germ" for the Cohen Brothers' film. Turning this back to the original thread, I'd like to see Richard Dutcher write and direct a film about his trials to produce the Joseph Smith story. I vote he name it _O Profit Where Art Thou_. Pun intended. Finally, this coming semester, I have included _Brigham City_ in my film class syllabus. Thanks to Richard for the DVD. If he plans any trips to NY between Sept. and Dec. it would be an honor to have him visit, coinciding with the viewing. Tony Markham -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 5: THE ULTIMATE TERMINATOR PARTY Date: 27 Jun 2003 10:29:40 -0600 Jared Walters wrote: > I wouldn't be too hasty to count T3 out as bad sequel just yet. Relax, my lack of expectation will likely help the movie. I'm very much sensitive to expectations. The worst thing that could happen for a film is to have a bunch of hype saying how great it is. I go in expecting magic and can often come away disappointed. Not because the film bad, but because it didn't live up to my impossible expectations. On the other hand, if I go in expecting a poor movie because the hype has been disparaging, often I've come out thinking, "That wasn't as bad as they said. I enjoyed it pretty good." So if I'm worried that Terminator 3 will be bad and go in with low expectations, that's an advantage for the film. > While it's true that the odds on a 2nd sequel being praiseworthy aren't good, there are quite a few third movies that turned out quite good. A couple that come to mind are Rocky 3 Rocky 3 may be the one and only exception in existence. The first three Rockies were good (after that, ho hum). > not as good as the first 2 But of course, your opinion here follows the pattern I described. Godfather 3 wasn't a bad movie--it just appeared bad in comparison to the brilliance of the first two movies. (Alien 3, on the other hand, was just bad.) So to say Rocky 3 didn't compare favorably to 1 and 2 is exactly what I'm talking about. > Return of the Jedi (my opinion is that it was better than the first movie), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (not as good as Raiders, but better than Temple) My wife brought these up too when I regaled her with my wisdom on T3. But Star Wars doesn't count. It was envisioned as a single story from the beginning which was told in three installments, not true sequels. Sequels are stand-alone stories where the next continues where the previous left off. For true sequels, the historic patterns have been: GOOD BAD BAD or the more rare GOOD GOOD BAD. For three-part installments, the pattern is usually: GOOD BAD GOOD. Star Wars is a single three-installment story, not sequels. Lord of the Rings is also, and I fully expect it to follow the same pattern. Those middle installments are always tough. (BAD, by the way, is meant relative to GOOD, not necessarily bad in an absolute sense.) Indiana Jones is perhaps the one and only example of sequels that follow the installment pattern: GOOD BAD GOOD. (if it's not, I'm sure I'll hear about it.) But that still doesn't match the GOOD GOOD GOOD I'm hoping T3 can pull off. -- 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] _Paint Your Wagon_ (Review) Date: 27 Jun 2003 10:40:08 -0600 Tony Markham wrote: > And let's add to the crimes that the film producers replaced Julie Andrews who absolutely owned the role of Eliza Yes, that was a crime with the movie, but doesn't reflect on the musical at all. > with Audrey Hepburn whose singing voice was so bad it was dubbed over. I've heard Audrey's pre-dubbed voice singing "Wouldn't It Be Loverly." She actually didn't do bad. I believe her real voice could have been used without harming the movie at all. In fact, I think it might have made it more charming, instead of that obviously dubbed, sterile voice. -- 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: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] HOWARD-JOHNSON, Carolyn _Harkening_ (Review) Date: 27 Jun 2003 17:00:40 -0600 Quoting Katie: Nowhere in _This Is the Place_ is there an LDS character who really loves the Church and really believes it and tries to live a truly Christlike life. They all simply carry a grim sense of duty. Is this being objective? Good to hear from Katie Parker about This is the Place. I agree with you that no LDS person is fleshed out here. The best Carolyn can do, I feel is to portray her Mormon relatives in a loving way. I thought she treated them "fairly" if not "objectively." But you are right. I think what you are asking for is something Carolyn could not have done--deal with an LDS person from inside an LDS person. (This is why it's important for a believing MORMON person needs to write about believing Mormons. According to the nation, they don't even exist.) I also felt the direction in the book was not that compelling, true. However, it was gratifying to read about LDS people from someone who was not completely ANTI, as in most national literature about Mormons (Peter Bart? Etc.). I felt she got things fairly correct, except you are right, she never portrayed a Mormon person who truly believed and loved the church and was trying to live a Christlike life. That's why AML listers need to write their novels! I felt Carolyn is a poet more than she is a novelist. So write your novel! (And send it to the contest by July 1.) Cheerio! Marilyn Brown > -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 27 Jun 2003 17:09:26 -0600 Interesting post, Sam. I wish you much luck! One of my most compelling goals in life was to write the Joseph Smith story in the voices of the women who knew him. I wrote three chapters and the project was staunched by several untoward circumstances that don't bear repeating. Anyway, I made a decision that the project was much too delicate to treat, a decision that a woman who worked for the Relief Society magazine years ago, Vesta Crawford, made about her treatment of Emma Smith. She had done years of research, etc., and finally kicked it out. The Emma Smith volume we do have is very revealing, but the authors had some trouble, I hear. Anybody know about it? Anyway, I would rather write fiction about myself and my "search" for the truth (a very suspenseful subject!) than take up Joseph Smith and the controversies. However, I will say that I trust Dutcher greatly. Working with his BIGHAM CITY script is a joy. (I'm on page 245 and 43 pages of script to get through) He is clever, careful, and tight. And I will say that the Joseph Smith story will out. It is likely it will become a literary subject, and it will be varied and clarified through the eyes of many artists, but the risk for ME at this time to perform that task is daunting, and I can understand all of the problems he is having. Bravo for his perseverence! Marilyn Brown -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] BofM Movie Gossip Date: 27 Jun 2003 10:31:38 -0600 Here's an item making the Internet rounds: Nephi Gets Nekked Canadian hunk Noah Danby, who will play the heroic role of Nephi in the upcoming Book of Mormon Movie, has appeared completely naked, in bed with another man, in a 2001 episode of the gay-themed miniseries Queer As Folk. As Danby admits on his own website, he has played Tattoo--a gay man with whom Brian Kinney has a one night stand. Queer as Folk Episode 105 begins with a sequence that captures Tattoo and Brian naked in bed. "I'm the guy you f***ed last night," Tattoo explains to a groggy Brian. Danby is also the man behind the mask of Captain Astro in Episode 111 of the same series. So--how does Danby feel about playing the part of Nephi? "He and I are kindred spirits," says Danby on the Book of Mormon Movie website. Although that website lists Danby's many professional credits, his gay roles as Tattoo and Captain Astro are two that the Book of Mormon Movie site conspicuously neglects. Link to Noah Danby's website: http://www.noahdanby.com Link to The Book of Mormon Movie website: http://www.bookofmormonmovie.com Link to Picture 1 (enlarged) http://nephi.gq.nu/images/nephi.jpg Link to Picture 2 (enlarged) http://nephi.gq.nu/images/nephi_02.jpg (Forwarded by Chris Bigelow) -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Next AML Conferences: When? Date: 27 Jun 2003 10:35:20 -0600 famax@verizon.net wrote: > > What are the dates for the AML Writers' Conference this fall Saturday, Nov 1. -- 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] "Hancock County" Televised on KBYU-TV Date: 28 Jun 2003 20:03:19 -0600 According to the KBYU-TV website http://www.kbyutv.org a video version of Tim Slover's fine play about the trial of the killers of Joseph Smith, "Hancock County", is going to be televised. The dates are Sunday June 29 at 9:00 p.m. mountain time and Sunday July 6 at 1:00 a.m. mountain time. For a review of the original production see http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B200220.html R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ 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: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Dealing with Our Past (was: Dutcher _Joseph_ project) Date: 28 Jun 2003 10:46:12 -0600 The Joseph Smith Story from a woman's perspective: In response to Marilyn Brown, the title of the most thoroughly documented book about Emma is _Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma_, written by Valerie Tippetts and Linda K. Newell. I saw Linda at the MHA conference in Kirtland a few months ago. She is lovely and still, as I understand it, very supportive of the Church. (She sent me some great information on Jane Manning James. It was Linda who organized the temple work for the James family post 1978.) My information is all second or third hand. What I've heard is that Linda and Valerie were "treated very badly" after their book came out. (It was nationally published.) I don't know what all this implies, but I do know that the Church directed that they not be invited to do any firesides. At some point, the "ban" was lifted. I have heard that Valerie is no longer in the Church. The book itself was extremely well-received by historians. I remember reading a review by Leonard Arrington in which he was practically busting his buttons with pride that one of his students had done such thorough research. It makes me so sad to lose ANY Latter-day Saint because they've written something controversial. I have tried and tried to reach Lester Bush, who wrote the definitive article about Blacks and the priesthood way back in the seventies, before 1978. He, too, has left the Church. I don't think it was necessarily the difficult information he uncovered but the way he was treated after he published his article that made him feel unwelcome. What is wrong with us? I don't know who or what is behind this kind of uncharitable censorship, but it seems to me that some seek to cover our sins because they are afraid that we can't deal with our own past. I am aware of no scripture that deifies Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or anyone else from the past. I am aware of plenty of words in the various Church histories where the leaders themselves admit to being quite human. They are not the ones who insist on pedastols; it's the later generations who somehow feel that if God would remove a man from the earth rather than letting him lead the Church astray, then we cannot address any false teachings from the past. Let's make "selections" from their teachings and pretend that these selections are fully representative of what they said. How dangerous! We make the horrible assumption that people will simply forget any untoward things in our collective history and move obliviously on--as though any teenager couldn't uncover Brigham Young's speech to the territorial legislature with the click of a computer mouse. We are LOSING members because of this. Anti-Mormons have ready-made tracts which quote Brigham Young at length, and Black investigators are sure to get a visit from some well-meaning evangelical missionary eager to let them know what our past consists of. I personally have spoken to desperate missionaries whose investigators were closing the door because of these tracts. I have no problem at all with contextualizing our history, admitting that we, even we, were not immune from the prejudices and sins of the past. I don't know if Emma Smith tried to poison Joseph or not, but I know that plural marriage was a huge trial for her. What right do I have to silence her because of her pain? ________________ 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: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Gossip Date: 28 Jun 2003 10:41:17 -0600 Well, half a mea culpa, I had no idea a Book of Mormon movie was being made (hey, what's with their publicity department?). Come to think about it, there are precedents here, the series of Book of Mormon animated videos that were released several years ago. Is that an ongoing concern? There was even an outlet at University Mall. I seem to recall--and I do recall my mom's expressed annoyance on the subject (she was teaching Primary at the time)--some grumbling from 50 E. North Temple about the embellishments introduced into the plot lines to make the story more palatable to the target audience. The concern was that these fictional additions were supplanting scriptural facts, much in the same way that when people think Moses, they now think Charlton Heston and Cecil B. DeMille. Though is that necessarily a bad thing? My fallback stance is that Joseph Smith still constitutes a different ball of wax (or celluloid). Amadeus, to compare, was a fine movie, but it was no biography. Attenborough took great liberties with the facts in Gandhi. Biopics about Patton and MacArthur could be narrowed and focused and told basically as war movies. Has anybody made a noteworthy (and accurate) movie about an American president? Nothing springs immediately to mind. I haven't seen Jefferson in Paris, but, again, that was a very small (and controversial) slice from a much larger life. There is, after all, a difference between a "movie" and a Ken Burns documentary. Should some documentary material remain documentary material? Thanks to Mormon's authorial voice, the Book of Mormon has a clear, even strident, narrative pace and intent ("it writes itself"). Stories of Christ tend to fall back on Passion Play structures because that structure is so tried and true (and restricted and limited). As secular examinations of human nature they can be dramatically satisfying as long as you pretty much forget what they're supposed to be ultimately about, but I have found the lot of them to be theologically pallid and almost scripturally beside the point. (Best movie about Christ: Life of Brian, because it was about what Christ represented, not about Christ.) Likewise, Joseph Smith was a person who lived a life, not a script. What thread of that garment do you then decide to pull, and what unravels when you do? Eugene Woodbury -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jared Walters Subject: Re: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 5: THE ULTIMATE TERMINATOR PARTY Date: 28 Jun 2003 10:59:12 -0600 Good point. Although the problem with going in with low expectations is that sometimes they can be so low that you're utterly convinced to not like the film. I've known people who bashed a movie they haven't seen and went to see it and I know deep down they liked it, but they put on ths front that they've now confirmed the movie a stinker. Another instance is they'll go through the movie wanting to keep their initial expectations intact so they'll view the movie with a real nitpicking attitude to find something that will turn them off and use it as their basis for their dislike of the film. Kind of like some of these molly mormon girls I used to date where we'll see a movie they really didn't want to see and want to leave the movie after one instance of cursing or a sex scene that happened off-screen. But you sound like someone willing to go into a movie with an open-mind that will give every movie a chance. We should rack our brains and come up with a list of best 3rd movies on hollywood sagas. The only problem here is everyone has their views on how these movies fared. I actually liked all 4 Lethal Weapon movies and thought they were for the most part equally entertaining and you never got the exact same characters on each outing. The heroes had progressed and were always changed by the events of the last movie. I don't know if James Bond movies count, but the first 4 or 5 with Sean Connery were great until Roger Moore turned the character into the court jester and then Timothy Dalton playing Bond as Shakespeare in love then Pierce Brosnan turning Bond into Remington Steele with a gun. The first 3 Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies (if you can admit to wasting time on them) were equally "funny" and corny enough to please the typical Wes Craven cult member. I thought Star Trek 3 was a good followup to the cliffhanger ending of part 2 with Leonard Nimoy showing he's the best director the Star Trek movies ever had. Then of course you have the 3rd's where you wonder what the heck the producers were thinking: Poltergiest 3, Karate Kid 3 (4 never happened I'm telling myself), Beverly Hills Cop 3, Superman 3 (4 never happened in my opinion). I'm not sure T3 will fit your bill on GOOD GOOD GOOD, but I think there will be people pleasantly surprised by it. Jared Walters p.s- Apparently the nudity in the film is "non-sexual" with the respective Terminators doing their arriving from the future thing. Although your wife might disagree when they "show" the female Terminator. -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Walt Curtis" Subject: Re: [AML] BARBER, Brad _Troy Through A Window_ (Review) Date: 28 Jun 2003 10:59:12 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:20 PM > My question is - how do you define homosexuality? > > My question is because too often in arguments like this both sides wind up > committing the logical fallacy of equivocation by switching between differing > definitions without signaling so. > > Whenever I get into a discussion with someone over homosexuality, I make one > thing clear on my definitions (and tell others they have to spell out just as > well what they mean by these terms): > > Homosexuality means engaged in sexual relations with people of the same sex. > even if they are going through a "dry spell" (as heterosexuals often do) - if > they approve of and seek after that lifestyle, they are homosexual. > > If they are merely attracted to members of the same sex, that means they are > Same Sex Attracted (SSA) - not nessecarily homosexual. > > This is not splitting hairs. It may not be the way everyone uses the terms, but > it works. > > --ivan wolfe To complete the logical constructions, what term applies to people who are merely attracted to members of the opposite sex? Walt Curtis -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] (Des News) Dutcher _Joseph_ project Date: 28 Jun 2003 17:03:14 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:09 PM The Emma Smith volume we do have is very revealing, > but the authors had some trouble, I hear. Anybody know about it? > Marilyn Brown See Dialogue, Summer 2002 (35:2): "A History of Dialogue, Part Three: 'Coming of Age' in Utah, 1982-1987" by Devery S. Anderson. There's a fairly detailed discussion of the controversy and fallout that occurred when Valleen Tippets Avery and Linda King Newell (who was then co-editor of Dialogue, with her husband) published _Mormon Enigma_ in 1984. This entire series of articles about the history of Dialogue has been great. Lisa Tait -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] HBO's _Angels in America_ in December Date: 28 Jun 2003 20:46:27 -0600 According to "Playbill", the HBO version of Kushner's "Angels in America" will appear on the pay cable channel in December 2003. The cast includes Al Pacino and Meryl Steep, and is directed by Mike Nichols. More details are at http://www.playbill.com/news/article/79660.html R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kim Kimura" Subject: [AML] FW: BARBER, _Troy Through a Window_ Date: 29 Jun 2003 07:48:20 -0500 James Kent, one of the national leaders of Affirmation, has provided the fo= llowing comments about "Troy Through a Window", which we are forwarding with= his permission: Troy Through A Window I was recently asked to review the film Troy Through a Window. It was film= ed, edited and produced by Brad Barber, a Senior student at BYU. The subject matter is how his LDS family has dealt with the fact that one o= f their children/siblings, Troy, is gay. Troy came out to his family at the= age of 23 in 1993. Troy is also a member of Affirmation. This intimate, personal and just under one hour documentary takes place sev= en years later, during Christmas in 2000. Brad narrates as he interviews hi= s parents, and his five siblings, including Troy. It is also full of childh= ood films which shows the Barber family growing up. I found the video to be very neutral and balanced. There will be aspects o= f the film that will both please and annoy you, regardless of whether you or= not you believe the doctrines of the LDS Church on homosexuality. The two finest points I found were the issues of stereotyping any group of = people is wrong and loving members of your family unconditionally is the ide= al within every family. The challenge the video makes is how do you respect and even accept someone= with a completely different viewpoint and way of living than you have? The best message of the video is dialogue communication, with the hope that= somewhere between a call to repentance and total acceptance, a middle groun= d can be found. It is a tragedy when family members cast out their gay and = lesbian members. It is also a tragedy when gays and lesbians cut their biol= ogical families out of their lives. Troy has the advantage of being totally immersed in LDS Culture for at leas= t 23 years, versus his family=E2=80=99s very limited contact with openly gay peopl= e or very limited knowledge of gay issues. The myth of missionaries being pulled out of San Francisco=E2=80=99s Castro Distr= ict because they were attacked by gays, rears its ugly head again. The coro= llary myth is that there are no LDS missionaries in San Francisco, because o= f its wicked gay population. These myths have existed for at least 25 years= . I would highly recommend this video to everyone of LDS Background. This film is distributed by LDS Video Store: www.LDSVideoStore.com -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] GRAY/YOUNG, _The Last Mile of the Way_ (Deseret News) Date: 29 Jun 2003 13:28:55 +0000 'Last Mile' fiction =97 but true to history By Dennis Lythgoe Deseret Morning News STANDING ON THE PROMISES, BOOK THREE: THE LAST MILE OF THE WAY, by Margaret Blair Young and Darius Aidan Gray, Bookcraft, 448 pages, $21.95. This is the third volume of "Standing on the Promises," a memorable=20 trilogy of historical novels. They are written by Margaret Blair Young, who teaches creative=20 writing at Brigham Young University, and Darius Aidan Gray, a former journalist who presides=20 over the LDS Genesis Group, organized in 1971 to provide support to church members of African=20 descent. Gray's grandfather, James Louis Gray, was born into slavery near Independence, Mo. This novel is unusually true to the history it represents, including= =20 the real names of the black families who joined the LDS Church over the years and participated in= =20 the trek west. The authors have amassed an impressive bibliography of historical sources,= =20 including books about Utah history, interviews with descendants of black Mormon pioneers,=20 letters and journal articles. Much information was gained through interviews and documents from= =20 Elder Marion D. Hanks, LDS Quorum of the Seventy Emeritus. Even though the authors have written fiction, they have based it as=20 firmly as possible in actual history =97 probably more than any other historical novel I have ever= =20 seen. They even use the actual dialect characteristic of many blacks during the 1900s =97=20 nicknamed "flat talk." The book also contains footnotes at the end of each chapter, citing the works=20 used and the people interviewed. Volumes 1 and 2 told the pioneer story, beginning with the founding of= =20 the LDS Church and including such notable black Mormons as Hark Lay, Oscar Crosby and Green= =20 Flake, the first black Mormons to enter the Great Basin (their names remain on the Brigham=20 Young Monument, between the Salt Lake Temple and the Joseph Smith Building). Volume 3 includes descendants of the original pioneers, including Jane= =20 Manning James, Isaac Lewis ("Lew") Manning, the Chambers family, the Leggroan family, the Hope=20 family, the Howell family, the Gray family, the Bridgeforth family and the Orr family. The=20 title of each chapter is taken from a Negro spiritual. The most important contribution the authors make is to capture the=20 cultural and emotional difficulty that many black Mormons felt because the LDS Church priesthood=20 was denied to black males until 1978, when President Spencer W. Kimball announced he had=20 received a revelation opening the way for them to receive the priesthood. There are insightful descriptions about the overwhelming joy they=20 received following President Kimball's revelation. One of the finest moments was Elder Boyd K.= =20 Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles meeting Ruffin Bridgeforth to ordain him to=20 the priesthood. Bridgeforth told Elder Packer that his wife was ill and asked if he would=20 give her a priesthood blessing. Elder Packer said he would ordain Ruffin first, then he would=20 assist Ruffin in giving his wife a blessing. This is an exceptional historical novel - more historical than=20 fictional - but expressive in its sensitive account of black Mormons. _________________________________________________________________ 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: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] FW: DENTON, _American Massacre_ (SL Tribune) Date: 29 Jun 2003 13:34:37 +0000 [Hi, I'm not really back, but I noticed these two reviews in the Utah papers hadn't been posted on the list. In this one, Martin "I-hate-Brigham-Young" Naparsteck is in usual knee-jerk form, taking as a given anything bad said about BY or the Mormons is true.] Mountain Meadows massacre analysis ends with an accusation By Martin Naparsteck The Salt Lake Tribune American Massacre By Sally Denton Knopf, $26.95 Brigham Young, as portrayed in Sally Denton's American Massacre, is a murderer and liar and commits treason. Her case is more strongly stated than in the two best previous books on the same subject, Juanita Brooks' 1950 Mountain Meadows Massacre and Will Bagley's 2002 Blood of the Prophets. For those who view Young as a great man who did little or no wrong, her tone will be blasphemous; for those who view him as a self-centered dictator or worse, her argument will seem highly credible. When the 1857 massacre occurred at Mountain Meadows in southwestern Utah -- the cold- blooded murder of at least 120 men, women and children on a wagon train headed from Arkansas to California -- LDS Church officials claimed Paiute Indians were responsible. Now, almost a century and a half after the event, nearly all reputable historians believe the murderers were white Mormons. Up to 50 Mormons took part in the murders, but only John D. Lee was punished; he was executed at the meadows 20 years later. Although he was clearly guilty, history also judged Lee to be a sacrificial lamb whose death by firing squad ended two decades of investigation into just how high in the church culpability reached. There is disagreement among historians about exactly how many people were killed, how many Mormons took part in the murders, how much loot was taken, how many small children survived. But one overarching question dominates historical inquiries into the massacre: Did Brigham Young order the killings? Gordon B. Hinckley, current president of the church, speaking at 1999 ceremonies marking the placement of a monument that for the first time acknowledged Mormons were responsible, said: "That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day." Brooks, a devout member of the church, showed great courage in publishing her book at a time when she risked excommunication and social ostracism. But she never seriously addressed the question of Young's involvement. She merely asked the question and, in essence, answered that there wasn't enough evidence on either side to answer it. Bagley (who writes a history column for The Salt Lake Tribune) used numerous sources not available to Brooks and concluded, essentially, that nothing of significance could occur in Utah in 1857 without Young's knowledge and approval. He stopped about a quarter-inch short of saying Young ordered the killings. Denton comes even closer to saying Young knew in advance and probably ordered the killings. She gets as close to making that charge as a serious scholar can (and this book, regardless of whether you agree with the author's conclusions, is indeed serious scholarship) without a signed confession. She repeatedly calls Young a dictator, depicts him as mean-spirited and claims he lied when he denied that Mormons perpetrated the killings. The massacre occurred after President James Buchanan ordered the U.S. Army to remove Young from office. Young had been appointed governor of Utah Territory by President Millard Fillmore and ran Utah more as a theocracy than as a territory of the United States. Buchanan intended to establish U.S. authority over Utah. Young responded by putting Utah under martial law, ordering the destruction of army supplies and preparing to go to war with the United States. Under any reasonable definition of the term, he was guilty of treason. Buchanan avoided a shooting war between Utah and the United States partly by promising Young and other Mormon leaders a pardon from charges of treason. The war was averted, but the massacre had taken place. Brooks wrote near the end of her book, "While Brigham Young . . . did not specifically order the massacre, [he] did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible." Bagley wrote, "As long as modern [church leaders] deny that the LDS church had 'any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day,' they can never come to terms with the truth." Denton writes, "Within the context of the era and the history of Brigham Young's complete authoritarian control over his domain and his followers, it is inconceivable that a crime of this magnitude could have occurred without direct orders from him." There is a progression worthy of note, from Brooks' courage in defying her church to the thorough and convincing scholarship of Bagley to the daring accusation of Denton. It is like three trial lawyers working together: Brooks with the opening argument, Bagley presenting endless details to the jury and Denton with the summation. In Lee's first trial, the jury was hung because a majority of the jurors were Mormon and perhaps acting on orders from church leaders. In the second trial, church leaders, seeking to end the country's insistence that someone be punished, may have instructed the jurors to find him guilty. The jury of readers of history must now decide whom they take orders from: a church leadership embarrassed by its past or their own consciences. ----- Martin Naparsteck reviews books from and about the West for The Salt Lake Tribune. _________________________________________________________________ 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