From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #50 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Thursday, May 25 2000 Volume 01 : Number 050 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 22:57:48 EDT From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Editing Ethics Not that I enjoy always being the odd man out, but I'll have to take a different view from the majority opinion. It wasn't clear to me whether the rewritten news article was printed under a byline or was anonymous reportage. Either way, but certainly if the article was a standard newspaper story, the editing sounds perfectly acceptable to me. Works for hire are always subject to the editing whims of the owner, regardless of whether the works are fiction or nonfiction, whether well written or poorly done, and regardless of whether the edits are improvements or disasters. You must know that giong into a project, and you have to school your ego accordingly. Unless a newspaper reporter has earned the status of a premier journalist whose reports are read as much because they were written by Big Name Journalist as for their subject matter -- or in a few other specialized cases such as syndicated columns or opinion pieces -- journalism is work for hire. You go out and gather your facts for your editor, you write a draft for your editor, and your editor takes over from there and does as he pleases. You work for your editor and/or publisher; he isn't in the business of providing a vanity press for his employees. I know this is an unpopular view for this list as evidenced by the unanimous opinion the other way, and it isn't necessary to write and restate your argument. I am surprised, though, that *nobody* else has said this. Ardis (Contrarian) Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 09:15:03 -0600 From: Matthew Hamby Subject: Re: [AML] Comments? (Reading the Scriptures) (resend) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------3ABFCC6DF6DB68241A1A9403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [MOD: I am trying resending this message, which was the "empty message" that apparently went out to some of you yesterday. Those of you who *did not* get the text yesterday, please let me know if you receive it this time.] This reply is a little late in the discussion, as it has been sitting in by drafts folder for a week. I hope it is still relevant, however. Kathleen Meredith wrote: > I imagine the very nature of the text makes a pure > critical read difficult. In general, we in the Western > world, especially the Christian community (not to > mention those of us carrying baggage with "LDS" tags > firmly affixed) are far too close to the material. Hence we > read critically the Iliad etc. with much more ease > than that which is closest to our hearts. I absolutely agree. There are many texts that speak to me with all the poignancy of scripture, that I have no trouble evaluating as literature, often very critically. Some of my all time favorite things to read, all of which fall into this category, are "The Lord of the Rings," Dante's sublime "Divina Commedia," Primo Levi's "Se quest'e' un uomo" and Shakespeare's "Henry V" and "Othello". Whenever I read any of these, and I have many times, I am moved in many places to tears. They truly speak to ME as powerfully as many of the scriptures. I think that one would have a hard time arguing that these texts don't contain, also, places for criticism (although my old Italian professor Madison Sowell would argue for the perfection of Dante's text). When I think of critical literary review of these, I feel no sense of outrage, no feelings of reluctance. I am not worried about treading on hallowed ground that will one day wind up barring me from God's favor and the Celestial Kingdom. While I don't consciously feel that critical review of the scriptures has anything inherently wrong with it, I think that I (many of us?) have some of that baggage to which Kathleen refers. We hear often in Sunday School "Sure, prophets can make mistakes. They're just humans." We're even told that not everything that a prophet says is God's own mouth speaking. I can't imagine how many times I have heard of something that a prophet said, not necessarily correct, and then either said to myself or heard somebody else say "Well, he wasn't speaking AS a prophet when he said that." Intellectually it is accepted that even prophets make mistakes. When we talk about them using imperfect grammar in ancient writings, however, the feeling is different. It's more a feeling of "I must be misunderstanding something. Brother Oldguy over there says he understands it just fine, and that it just isn't written well. He's going to be struck down for pride." The feelings that I apparently have, and that I observe in many others, speak of a tacit feeling that we ought not to criticize scripture. I think that this makes it easy for us to say that it's scripture, so if it was supposed to be written differently, then God would have had it written that way. I agree that the feelings can come from being too close to the text, as Kathleen said. Perhaps it's just difficult to observe something critically that we have been taught is "the most correct" writing on Earth. I know that not everyone will agree with this point of view. I'm not even certain that I agree 100%, but it seems a murky enough issue, "Why do we hesitate to critically analyze scripture?", that as analyzers of Mormon literature we have, perhaps, a responsibility to think about it. I think that this is a brilliant discussion, and one of the most "on topic" things that has appeared on the list in a long time. How can defining one's own purpose be anything but on topic? - -- Matthew Hamby mdh25@byu.edu icq Pager # 4779109@pager.mirabilis.com "Do What You Love, the Money Will Follow" - Marsha Sinetar - --------------3ABFCC6DF6DB68241A1A9403 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="mdh25.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Matthew Hamby Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mdh25.vcf" begin:vcard n:Hamby;Matthew tel;pager:n/a tel;cell:n/a tel;fax:n/a tel;home:(801) 223-9935 tel;work:(801) 378-2600/378-7428 x-mozilla-html:TRUE adr:;;757 East 1350 South;Orem;UT;84602;Yemen version:2.1 email;internet:mdh25@byu.edu x-mozilla-cpt:;26656 fn:Matthew Hamby end:vcard - --------------3ABFCC6DF6DB68241A1A9403-- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 00:21:16 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Time and God [MOD: I'm allowing this one through in part because I think Marvin's example deals with the kind of difficult situation of conflicting beliefs/knowledge that can be and is dealt with in certain types of Mormon fiction.] I had a wife who learned the church is false. She returned to being a Protestant, which, at heart, she felt she had always been. I respect her choice. (I helped her buy a car she could use primarily to get to church while the rest of us were at Sacrament Meeting.) Respecting her choice is different than tolerating her choice. I had to say, and believe, and feel, "This is right," never tainting that respect with, "She will come back." (The marriage ended, in part, because the one thing I couldn't honestly do was not be disappointed, and my disappointment was a final emotional control I couldn't manage to repent of.) Now, another part of me was saying (silently), believing (on the testimony level!), and feeling (passionately), "This is not right." On a certain level, these two views cannot coexist in the same mind. But they do. In mine. I'm not nuts. A part of me that values intellectual integrity rebels a little, but the larger, pretty much intuitive and illogical (spiritual?) part of me is just fine with it. I don't feel my testimony is compromised, or my cognitive commitments. It just feels okay to me. I think we're talking about paradox. (Literary connection, at last.) Is it really paradox when one "truth" is, with just a little squinting of the eyes, obviously subordinate to the other "truth" and shortly becomes subservient to it? The presence of paradox, in both life and art, actually helps me imagine that there is, indeed, Someone whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways, as the heavens are higher than the earth. Scrambling for the answers puts us on the path that leads heavenward, so we ought to scramble our little hearts and brains out, but for as far as we are able to see up that path, heaven is still out of reach, and so are most of the answers. God knows everything, in every possible way of knowing everything--past, present, future, all variables, possibilities, outcomes. His children have absolute freedom. They may choose whatever they will. Their agency is sacred. Our lives can turn out in a million different ways. These things are both true. They don't go together. Or don't seem to. But only to us. Marvin Payne - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 22:25:38 -0600 From: deborah weagel Subject: [AML] Sexual Structure in Art (was: Sexuality in LDS Lit) Much has been written on the list about sex as the subject matter. I'd like to address the concept of the sexual act as being a structural = element in fiction. Robert Scholes, in his book, Fabulation and Metafiction (Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1979), writes: "The archetype of all fiction is the sexual act. In saying this I do not mean merely to remind the reader of the connection between all art and the erotic in human nature. Nor do I intend simply to suggest an analogy between fiction and sex. For what connects fiction=8Band music=8Bwith sex = is the fundamental orgastic rhythm of tumescence of detumescence, of tension and resolution, of intensification to the point of climax and = consummation. In the sophisticated forms of fiction, as in the sophisticated practice of sex, much of the art consists of delaying climax within the framework of desire in order to prolong the pleasurable act itself. When we look at fiction with respect to its form alone, we see a pattern of events = designed to move toward climax and resolution, balanced by a counter-pattern of events designed to delay this very climax and resolution"(26). What do you think of this? Also, since I tend to speak of literature and music in the same breath, = I'd like to include music in this discussion. Susan McClary, a feminist musicologist, also writes of the sexual metaphor found in much tonal = music. In her book, Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality (Minnesota: U of Minnesota P, 1991), she states that masculine sexual metaphor "marks = the heroic cimax of many a tonal composition." She explains: "A kind of pitch ceiling consolidates, against which melodic motives begin to push as through against a palpable obstacle. As frustration mounts, = the urgency of the motivic salvos increases; they move in shorter and shorter time spans, until they succeed finally in bursting through the barrier = with a spasm of ejaculatory release. This musical gesture appears prominently in many of our favorite repertories. It guarantees our identification = with the music, for its buildup hooks us, motivating us to invest personally in sequences of seemingly abstract musical events; and we are rewarded for having thus invested in its patterns of yearning when they reach cathartic fulfillment, which mysteriously becomes our own experience of libidinal gratification"(112-13). What do you think of this? I personnaly think there is some truth to both of these statements. As a composer, I have written music in which I have created such "masculine" climaxes. Before I read McClary's book, that was the only option I considered. However, in response to her text, I began to consider the concept of feminine sexual expression, and feminine or polyorgastic climaxes. In a major composition for solo piano (30 minutes or so in duration and my master's thesis in music theory and composition at the University of New Mexico), I incorporated both masculine (monoorgastic) = and feminine (polyorgastic) climaxes in my piece. I am currently working on a short story in which I plan to use a polyorgastic climax, and possibly also a monoorgastic climax. It's not finished. I have to see how it unfolds. I consider this short story Mormon fiction, because I, the author am Mormon, and aspects of Mormonism are discussed and included in the actual text. What do you think? Deborah Fillerup Weagel - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 00:13:08 -0600 From: "Jerry Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > > If LDS people con not discuss sexuality in our homes, > from the pulpit, among friends and family, and if we can not discuss it with > the goal of allowing sexuality to be better understood so that people can > come to great understanding of the ways in which we express our divinity > through our sexuality (or the ways people abuse that divinity), then the > pornographers own all the discourse on sexuality. In most cases, the > pornographers do own it all because there is a great sexual silence in the > church (excepting Elders Scott and Holland), and in the void, people seek > the material they can find, which is so often trash. Are you forgeting, or have you never read, Brenton and Margaret Yorgason's book _Sacred Intimacy_. My husband and I got a copy of it just after we were married. It may not discribe inimate situations but it does talk openly about the subject of sex. In the context of marriage of course. Konnie Enos - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 00:07:06 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Thom Duncan wrote: > MUST all sex acts portrayed in Mormon literature show remorse, or > adverse consequences? Is is part of the LDS writers unwritten mandate > to reflect LDS values in everything he/she writes? is it inconceivable, > for instance, that a Mormon could write a story about Mormons who have > affairs and learn that the person they have the affair with is THE ONE, > not the person they married? Upon reflection, I would have to say, yes, some kind of consequence should be shown. It would be dishonest to do otherwise. For example, as you pointed out, it is possible for two Mormons having an affair to discover that they are each other's THE ONE, then decide to act on it. But if the resulting devastation to each of their families is not shown, and the question of whether the two Mormons' happiness was worth causing pain to others is not addressed, then I would say that story was terribly dishonest. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:25:25 -0400 From: Shawn Ambrose Subject: RE: [AML] Re: Time and God Yes, God knows everything, the end from the beginning, our selves and our thoughts. But what we do matters-not so much to him but to us. Even though he knows what we're going to do, we still have to do it. We don't know everything. We are learning by experience, by our own experience, which will impress the lessons on our hearts better than any lecturing the Lord could do. Did any of you see the movie "Galaxy Quest"? I don't recommend it, particularly, but the premise fascinates me. It's about a group of science fiction actors on the convention/ribbon-cutting circuit for a show that ended 18 years before the movie takes place. At a convention they are approached by a group of aliens in human form who ask for their help. The aliens have been receiving our TV shows (heaven forbid!) and have taken them seriously (even Gilligan's Island). They have particularly redesigned their collapsing culture around the Galaxy Quest show, with the motto, "Never give up! Never surrender!" The aliens have built a ship and all the furnishings and technology to match the show, thinking it is historically accurate. They bring the human actors to the ship in order to fight a war for them. The humans fight the war, win, and return to earth (stepping on every science fiction cliche on the planet). They then reestablish the TV series, Galaxy Quest. What struck me about this was the fact that what we do does matter. Even when we cannot see the results of our actions, it is recorded somewhere and it does make a difference. I am a stay-at-home mom who homeschools, and even though I am with my children all day every day (or maybe Because I am with them all the time) I cannot see a lot of the consequences of my actions. I don't know which influences will become their strengths and which their neuroses; I must rely on inspiration, prayer, instinct, reflexes, the Lord. Without the reassurance of the Holy Ghost, I would be lost. I would be way out in left field somewhere. With the Holy Ghost, I sometimes manage to get close to the bases. This is work! Sincerely and in deep appreciation to all of you for reading the only serious writing I'm getting in right now, excepting my journal, Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:39:24 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Where's our LDS Amy Tan? Chris wrote: >In the kind of fiction I'm talking about, religion IS culture. I'm going to use this as a chance to sound off on one of my own pet peeves: the widespread belief, in some circles, that "Mormon literature" must be literature that is culturally *about* Mormons as a people. (Not that I think this is necessarily what Chris is saying, but it gives me a chance to sound off, so I'll take it.) Orson Scott Card (to take a convenient example) has written at least three types of stories that I would consider "Mormon" in one sense or another, all within the realm of speculative/science fiction and fantasy (in addition to his historical novel _Saints_). As I see it, Card's fiction shows that it is possible for a story to be "Mormon" in its characters/setting, in its plot, and in its themes. In the first category, Card's "Folk of the Fringe" stories depict characters who are Mormon in a futuristic setting and give some sense of what it feels like to be a member of a believing religious community. Something of the same sort appears also in _Lost Boys_. These, I think, are the type of "Mormon literature" that Chris is talking about--literature that depicts the experience of being Mormon. On the other hand, Card's Alvin Maker and Ships of Earth stories take plot lines that are specifically Mormon--the story of Joseph Smith and the story of the Book of Mormon, respectively--and re-dress them in speculative sf&f garb. I don't think anyone would argue that these books seriously represent Card's views of either Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon--the most one can say, I think, is that the plot lines are "inspired by" (very directly inspired by, in some cases) those narratives--but still there's a level of meaning that stems directly from definitively Mormon narrative. Finally, there are other works by Card that feature neither Mormon plots nor Mormon characters, but that deal with what I consider peculiarly Mormon themes. Perhaps the best example is the _Worthing Chronicle_ stories, which address the question of what it means to be a God and why God can't remove pain from the lives of individuals--from what I think of as a very LDS perspective. For me, these are the most distinctively and satisfying Mormon of Card's works, even though they display no Mormon cultural artifacts. I don't know if Card's sf&f publishers had any idea they were publishing Mormon fiction when they encountered these stories--I suspect not--but for me, they are very powerfully Mormon. >From my experience, discussions of Mormon literature tend to focus on the first of these categories--literature with distinctively Mormon characters and settings--and neglect the other two. It's true that writers like Terry Tempest Williams receive some attention within the Mormon literary community for ideas relating to spirituality and the environment--but I can't help but think that this is in part because she's writing (I believe--I haven't, I must confess, read her work) about the Intermountain West, the area that is--again--culturally and historically associated with Mormonism, so that the relationship to the environment can be seen as part of the culture of Mormonism, not as a set of religiously derived ideas. There's a bias, I think, in modern mainstream literature and literary criticism, that sees the realistic depiction of characters within a specific culture as among the highest of literary goals--higher than a literature exploring ideas, or exploring an imaginary landscape. It's true that many of the most powerful American writers have been workers within that tradition: from Willa Cather's depiction of American prairie immigrant culture to Steinback's California and Faulkner's South. It's certainly a worthwhile goal to hope for something similarly celebratory/realistic in Mormon letters. But it's not the only goal, and achievement of that goal does not constitute in itself success for Mormon letters. Nor does failure to achieve something of that sort mean that Mormon letters has somehow "failed" in any broad sense. Treating the two as synonymous, in fact, creates (or exacerbates) several potential problems: * It leads us to undervalue the achievements of workers in other areas of Mormon literature, such as Card and Wolverton, and to fail to see how their work contributes to the thought and progress of Mormon letters. * It engages us in arguments about what is the "real" Mormon experience in which no one is the winner. Scott Parkin, in years past, has raised concerns on this list to the effect that having been raised in Chicago, he feels no real affinity for Intermountain West/Wasatch Front culture, and assumptions that these represent how Mormonism ought to be depicted in literature leave him out. About a year ago, there was another discussion on the list as to whether there is--or should be--a Mormon culture. Many of us argued that to the degree that there is, it gets in the way of the gospel--because binding the gospel into the constraints of any single culture is to confuse the sacred and eternal with the man-made and temporal. (Of course, it all depends on how you define culture...) Not meaning to raise these debates again, but simply to point out that this can be an unpleasant flip side to seeing the depiction of Mormon culture as the one true purpose of Mormon literature. * It has the potential for focusing artistic attention on the less important elements of Mormonism--at least, for believing Mormons--at the expense of the more important. Do we really want readers--including ourselves--to think of Mormonism as nothing more than another culture? I'm aware that in writing this diatribe I've been somewhat unfair to what I'd call the "realism" camp within Mormon letters. I know that for some writers--like our esteemed moderator emeritus Ben Parkinson--what interests them is not the attempt to define a culture realistically, but something perhaps more challenging, certainly more daring: to depict the Spirit and its impact on people's lives realistically. More power to them. Really, more power to all of us, including those who are writing cultural depictions of Mormonism. (I love, for example, Ed Geary's _Goodbye to Poplarhaven_, which is nothing if not a cultural account of Great Basin Mormon farm-town culture.) I just want to make sure that we don't fall into the trap of thinking that this is or should be *the* definition of Mormon literature, the one true goal toward which all our best writers ought to be striving, without which we have somehow failed to make a mark or achieve our artistic potential as a community. Jonathan Langford (speaking for myself, not the List) jlangfor@pressenter.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 07:50:13 -0700 From: eedh Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Sexuality in LDS Literature Exactly, I agree. I had a hard time putting in words the vague idea I was trying to reach for, and you've added part of what I'd missed. Thank you. I think that people who do interpret those scriptures to mean they shouldn't read "suggestive" material do indeed feel that it's something they *shouldn't* do, or enjoy doing, whether, in reality, they really enjoy it or do it, or not. (Whew! I don't seem to be getting much better at expressing this vague idea!) Beth Hatch Thom Duncan wrote: > > I think there is a dichotomy between what Mormons say they are offended > by and what they actually are offended by. We must take into > consideration the peer pressure which comes into play when we are with > other members of the church -- this almost compulsion to say something > lest our brothers and sisters think we approve. Secretly, we may, if > not approve, at least not be offended, but we feel we must say so to > save face. I have a workmate with whom I have shared many a film with > and our wives -- never a word of disapproval. We also share cinema at > work on occasion with other people with whom he is not so well > acquainted as my wife and me, and invariably, if a scene even hinting at > sex (like, for instance, the credit scenes in James Bond movies), he > will fast forward past that part, making sure everyone knows it is > "naughty." - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:54:27 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Editing Ethics "The Power of Heaven," based on D&C 109 & 110. On the CD, available through church distribution, they renamed it "Strength Beyond My Own," which, in keeping with the editing thread, I should mention they did without consulting me. At least it's a line from the song! ;-) Steve > From: "Tracie Laulusa" > Subject: RE: [AML] Editing Ethics > > Can you tell us which song? > > Tracie > -----Original Message----- > > The best experience was writing for CES -- a song for the D&C series last > year. They didn't accept the first three attempts, but the fourth they > liked. They had very specific ideas they wanted conveyed and had made no > bones about the fact that they were far more interested in conveying the > spirit and meaning than in seeing me receive any sort of artistic > satisfaction. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:21:28 -0600 From: Sarah Smith Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Amy Tan? Chris, She's not a fiction writer but Terry Tempest William's work seems to be well known and enjoyed among non-LDS readers. Her name comes up in my non-LDS writing/literary e-mail lists for creative non-ficiton. I haven't read her new book, Leap, but the reviews seem to indicate that this book is explicitly LDS, and as all her writing is, human. Like the example you gave of Asian American fiction becoming more prominent in the literary world, Indian (India) ficiton is now enjoying a similar awakening. The most recent Pulitzer Prize was awarded to a fairly obscure Indian writer for her collection of short stories. Also, from 12,000 entries, the winner of the recent Amazon/Pen Award ($10,000 prize!) went to a young Indian writer whose story was set in India culture (she was later disqualitified for having a story in a publication that made her ineligible). Perhaps LDS fiction will take over the next literary storm. Sarah Smith - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:22:51 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Creative Writing Master's Programs Darvell, I forgot to mention this to you before, but there's a school in Vermont (the name escapes me) that offers a degree program through correspondence--I think you have to fly to Vermont once a year for a week-long workshop, or something like that--and it's a very well-respected program, too. You might look into it... Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:43:43 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Editing Ethics >I am editing an issue of the Cimarron Review at the moment, so I am >particularly aware that not everyone knows what they are doing with >language. Writers work so closely with their work sometimes that they fail >to see errors or awkward constructions. They are also ignorant of what >needs to happen and tend to make assumptions that their language is doing >something that it is not. Writers are sometimes sloppy and careless. >Editors can really help writers overcome these blind spots. In the big >leagues, writers have to bend to the advice of their editors, and most are >better off for having done so. Yes, there are many sloppy writers out there. And if they can get help in workshops, from peers, from editors, they should. And often they are better off for it. But that's all in collaboration--I think what most of us (or myself, at least) were upset about was the fact that some of this 'editing' takes place without the author's consent, or even knowledge. Don't you agree that's wrong? >I agree with everyone about the sanctity of the artist's vision (i.e. "Can >you imagine someone telling Mozart or Beethoven that they put the wrong >note, or an incorrect musical phrase, in their symphony? Can you imagine >someone telling Picasso that he put the eyes in the wrong place, but the >editor fixed it for him?"). But we are not, in large part, talking about >geniuses here, but even if we were, can you imagine telling T.S. Eliot that >he should have cut massive sections out of "The Waste Land?" > >Wait a minute, that did happen, and the guy who made the cuts was Ezra >Pound. Some people argue that T.S. Eliot's career would have never taken >off without Pound's help. Stein did similar things for Hemingway. Gordon >Lish for Ray Carver. The fact that something is art is no excuse for lax >standards. > >Todd Robert Petersen Again, these are all (excellent) examples of collaborative efforts in which the authors were well aware of the help they were getting, and approved of it. (Also, I happen to be one of those literary scholars who believes Pound should have had equal billing on "The Waste Land." What he did there was more than 'friendly feedback.') I still think the real issue is what sort of license editors should have, and I have to assume that you don't think any of these friends (Lish, Stein, Pound) would have been right in making their changes without the author's (Carver, Hemingway, Eliot) consent... Jason Steed ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:52:44 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Sexuality in LDS Lit Morgan Adair wrote: > > >MUST all sex acts portrayed in Mormon literature show remorse, or > >adverse consequences? Is is part of the LDS writers unwritten mandate > >to reflect LDS values in everything he/she writes? is it inconceivable, > >for instance, that a Mormon could write a story about Mormons who have > >affairs and learn that the person they have the affair with is THE ONE, > >not the person they married? > > I would have a hard time conceiving of such a story (at least a well-written one), > because I associate the idea of a "one and only" with cheap sentiment. That > aside, consider the Garden story. Satan tries to thwart God's plans by tempting > the man and woman. They transgress; sorrow and punishment ensue. But > at the end, the reader is left wondering if maybe things didn't work out just as > God planned all along. I ask the above questions in all sincerity because of a friend's situation. He, as I, married while we were both at BYU. Almost from day one, it seemed to all outsiders at least, that this marriage was a bad fit. He was a flamboyant characters, she a quiet housewife. He was an entrepreneur, she wanted security above all. He had an affair in their 25th year of marriage that resulted in their divorce. He and his new wife seem made for each other in ways that he and his first wife could only have pretended at. His ex-wife found the staid, steady man she'd always wanted. After the fact, this incident of adultery (especially since my friend and his new wife have repented and are back in the church), seems to have been a course correction in the happiness of two individuals who mistakenly got together thirty years ago. I have tried to see the downside to adultery in the case of these two people but have yet to find any. When they converge at the weddings of their children, they are kinder to each other than they ever were while married. They both are more content then they ever had been together. Granted, I know of many other cases of friends caught in adultery which didn't turn out this well, where the new wife or husband was much worse than the first one, etc. But in this case, the idea that adultery *always* has a downside seems not to be true. I may try to write the story someday, including the act of adultery (which I would have to imagine -- the man is a close friend, but he didn't provide details!). Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:03:09 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Editing Ethics "Barbara R. Hume" wrote: > > >That depends. If her paragraphs made your article better, then I would > >just sit back and let everybody think you wrote it. OTOH, if it made > >your article worse, then I would raise holy heck. > > > >Thom Duncan > > No, no, Thom! Either it's acceptable practice or it isn't. It doesn't > depend on whether it makes the writer look good or not! > > Of course, you may be putting us on--I just don't know any more!! > I am dead serious. If an editor makes changes that make me look like a better writer, I welcome it. I'm more than willing to accept credit for a particular passage that I may not have actually written. OTOH, if the change makes me look worse, I fight tooth and nail for my POV. You've seen my musical PROPHET. There's one scene in there of which I wrote not a word, neither lyric nor dialogue. Nevertheless, it is a good scene, audiences seemed to like it. My credits say "Book and Lyrics by Thom Duncan." I'm perfectly content to have people think I wrote the scene and the lyrics to the song (I did edit it to make it "fit" better, though.) Another scene, which I did write, was suggested by my director. I wrote it, the show was better. So what if it wasn't my idea? Also, a key line that Joseph speaks was suggested to my by Marvin Payne. It was a good line, it provided a missing piece in Joseph's characterization, so I kept it in the final version. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:53:45 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Time and God (was: Reading the Scriptures) On Wed, 24 May 2000 17:57:27 -0700, Eric D. Dixon wrote: >Jason Steed wrote: >>After all, in LDS theology, God is still progressing (we call it=20 >>'eternal progression'), and one of the areas in which He continues=20 >>to progress is in knowledge. > >This type of thing is frequently speculated on (by me, even), but it's = not >doctrine. Bruce R. McConkie called it one of the Seven Deadly Heresies = in >a talk that also wasn't doctrine, and denounced it in his (in)famous = letter >to Gene England. > >More on topic, does anyone know whether this particular subject has been >treated in Mormon letters -- any speculative fiction on the nature of >eternal progression, perhaps? I don't know about speculative fiction, but in his essay collection = _Making Peace_ Eugene England writes about this topic. The essay "Perfection and Progression: Two Ways to Talk About God" covers the religious history of = the doctrine of God's progression, from Brigham Young's "the God that I serve= is progressing eternally" to Elder McConkie's more recent assertion that God does not progress. England's citations of historical text are extensive;= I was actually surprised at how much speculation there has been on this = topic by Church leaders in the past. What makes this essay particularly interesting is that it comes = immediately after the essay in which England touches on that letter from Elder = McConkie. The two taken together--the first a personal essay, the second more scholarly--mark what I think is the best characteristic of Mormon = religious writing, the way in which abstract doctrine becomes a part of the = individual experience. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:23:24 MDT From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: [AML] Film Project Query A week or so ago I told you guys about my big NYC opening of my short play _Hold Me_ (Sept 20, 22-24) and now it looks like a film of it will be made as well. The project is starting to pick up speed and now we're looking seriously for some money to back the project. I'm just wondering if anyone on the list knows of someone who might be interested in backing a fabulous short film (or maybe someone on the list might like to back it themselves) or if you know of anyone who might be persuaded to back a fabulous short film. Any leads would be greatly appreciated and rewarded with baked goods of your choice. :-) Also, if anyone has experience hammering out an agreement as far as film rights are concerned please send along your great wisdom. I'm in completely new territory here. Thanks folks! Marianne Hales Harding ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #50 *****************************