From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #69 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 Tuesday, June 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 069 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:48:49 -0500 From: Todd Robert Petersen Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View I guess if we're disparage more that one point of view per chapter, then we ought not to read the book of Mosiah. Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:44:33 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? >>> klarsen@panix.com 06/11/00 09:00PM >>> > >Mormonism has had at least a couple Pulitzer Prize winners -- but not=20 >exactly for literature. > >In 1972, Jack Anderson won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, > >In 1991, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich won the Pulitzer Prize for History. > >There may be others, these are the two I am aware of. Bernard DeVoto MBA - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:35:49 PDT From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Prouxl and Turrow There are some comments by an LDS reader on Scott Turow's "Personal Injuries" that can be found in the review archive of AML List. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:05:27 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. Todd wrote: not that we're racist necessarily, but we haven't learned to make room in our culture or our literature for these people. Jason replied: Isn't that racist? How do we differentiate between "racism" and "not making room in our culture for others of another race"? Not making room is NOT racism. Why? Simple. If a person hasn't been exposed to other cultures and people, they can hardly be described as racist for not making room for them. By and large, white, suburban Mormons don't have a ton of exposure to other races and cultures. And that's where the challenge lies: broadening our experience and exposure, which in turn will help make room for people of all kinds. A small example to make my point: when my daughter was about a year old, I was pushing her in a stroller near BYU campus. A pleasant, very dark-skinned woman came the other direction. We stopped chatted for a moment. She leaned down to coo at my daughter, but when the baby saw her she burst into tears, crying nearly hysterically--she had never seen anyone that dark, and the sight scared her. Was my daughter a racist baby? Hardly. She simply hadn't been exposed to more then the homogenous white community of Utah Valley. Since then, although she still hasn't seen a large number of "live" black people, we've read lots of books and seen lots of television and videos that do have black people in them. Lo and behold, they don't phase her. In fact, she once commented on how beautiful a black woman was. All she needed was the exposure. However, even if someone has been exposed to other races and cultures and they don't go out of their way to promote them, I have a hard time calling them racist, as Jason's post would imply. I, for one, would love to "make room" in my own writing for other races, but as has been already brought up, a writer can't very well do that without the life experience. And I don't have enough of that to make make such writing believable. As a result, I'll leave that kind of literature for someone else who HAS the experience and can make it real. Annette Lyon - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:49:15 -0700 (MST) From: Benson Parkinson Subject: [AML] Re: Copying a Thesis A while ago someone asked about copying a thesis. I read something in the Chicago Manual of Style today that seems relevant. A library can make single copies of a work if it includes the copyright notice and: "If the copy is made for a patron's use and is limited to an article or small part of a larger work---or the whole of a larger work if a printed copy cannot be obtained at a fair price---and only if the copy is intended for use by the patron in "private study, scholarship, or research" (4.60). Benson Parkinson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:44:34 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. >> It has been my contention for a long time that if there were ever a black >> member of The Twelve, one-third of the members in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona >> would apostasize within a half hour of the announcement. > >Hmmm--wouldn't this make an interesting experiment. Or an interesting >book.... What happened when black men got the priesthood? Did a lot of people leave? I know a lot of them got upset. A man of my acquaintance at the time told me, "Waaal, I guess it's okay if the Lord gives them guys the priesthood. But what I don't like is them goin' out with white wimmin." "Excuse me?" I said. "They're good enough for the priesthood of God, but not good enough to be around white women?" He looked at me for a minute, then nodded. "Yup," he said. I can only assume he was afraid of the competition. Some people hold the theory that God waited to give blacks the priesthood until whites were mature enough to deal with it, and that maybe he's waiting to give women the priesthood until men are mature enough to accept it. Definitely an interesting story idea. I will refrain from making the obvious remark here. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:44:33 -0400 From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View Chris: Maybe I'm not remembering too well, but doesn't the author basically use just one point of view -- 1st person Omniscient? I read "This is the Place" (and I think reviewed it here) soon after it first came out. Its one of those books I found intellectually interesting, but not something that really grabbed me - probably because I had a hard time identifying with the characters again. Overall its a good book, but also not for the mainstream Mormon audience. Its probably in Ben's shockingly appropriate category, if it is appropriate at all. [I don't mean to imply that its immoral exactly, just that it would strike most Mormons as amoral. BTW, my wife and I were discussing the 1st person Omniscient point of view this morning. She says certain authors demonstrate this point of view all the time -- especially when they aren't writing! Kent At 9:56 AM -0700 6/12/00, Christopher Bigelow wrote: > >I'm reading a book right now--"This Is the Place," by Peter >Rock--that seems like a real botch as far as POV. It usually reads >like third-person, except once in a while the narrator comes back on >the scene in first person--yet his narration includes all manner of >information that only an omniscient narrator could know. I'm >reserving final judgment until the end of the novel, in case this >narrator turns out to have some kind of psychic connection with the >other characters that gives him omniscience, but I doubt it will >turn out that way. It's a disappointing book, actually. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:58:26 -0600 From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings 1) The movie rating system is not about protecting morals. It is about selling movies and protecting movie makers from outside control. 2) As a guideline it is somewhat helpful for parents to know what is suitable for children of various ages -- in the opinion of a body of adults who may not share our LDS values. Adult films are, after all, for adults. That is what the ratings tell us. Parents are the ones who should enforce them if enforcing them is what they want done. Adults should decide what is suitable for themselves based on quite different criteria than ratings directed at youth. 3) Finally, the rest of the world either does not have a ratings system or even our rating system. That renders the MPAA system useless as some sort of universal criterion. How were the conference talks that Thom referred to translated into foreign languages where the G, PG, PG-13, R and NC system is unknown or not equivalent? ************************************************* Richard C. Russell lderlore@xmission.com SLC UT www.leaderlore.com Ask about Leader Lore, a Leadership Newsletter. "There is never the last word, only the latest." ************************************************* - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:37:59 -0600 From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings Thom's CR research is comprehensive, accurate and his conclusion is absolutely correct. I did some of the research for him. FWIW, Thom, I now have an updated searchable Conference report 1965 through 1999 -- as of today. The previous version didn't have 1998 or 1999. ************************************************* Richard C. Russell lderlore@xmission.com SLC UT www.leaderlore.com Ask about Leader Lore, a Leadership Newsletter. "There is never the last word, only the latest." ************************************************* - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 19:14:31 -0600 From: "mcnandon" Subject: RE: [AML] Multiple Points of View Chris, it seems to me the chapter assignment should depend on the importance of the characters. If all characters are equally important then it would seem they deserve equal chapters. Nan McCulloch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:26:36 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:56:11 -0700, Christopher Bigelow wrote: >Question: I have a novel in progress with four main characters. I am a = believer in one-POV-per-chapter. I was going to give three of the = characters one chapter each at the beginning and then give the rest of = the novel to the fourth character, but now I'm thinking I may give each = of the three at least one more chapter each later in the novel. But part = of me wonders if I'm rotating POVs, should I do it consistently and = fairly, rather than still giving the fourth character several chapters in= a row and the other three only 2 chapters or so each throughout the = book? What do y'all think? I don't think you *have* to rotate POV in the interest of fairness, especially if the other characters aren't as important. (The worst book = I read last year did this--with the additional horrible gutwrenching ploy = of REPEATING the same scene from each POV.) On the other hand, I don't like getting heavily invested in the first POV character and then discovering that no, he or she isn't the main character after all--that would be my = main concern about the shifting POVs. I do wonder, though, if the fourth character is so important as to rate almost the entire book, what would be the purpose of giving the others = their own POV chapters. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:17:06 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View All great artists must be willing to learn the rules. And all great artists must be willing to break the rules. At least that's what I've heard. There's something very different about breaking a rule out of ignorance and breaking it deliberately for effect. But does the reader always see the difference? Beethoven is considered one of the greatest musical geniuses of all times. His fifth symphony ("Da-da-da-DAAAAAAAH!") is considered one of the greatest symphonies ever written. Yet a prominent colleague of his criticized the ending of the fifth symphony as something like a snake thrashing about endlessly for much too long a time. Was Beethoven in need of editing, or was he being a genius? Unbeknownst to my in-person writers group, as I critique their stories and let them critique mine, I am critiquing _them_. I have an as-of-yet-unsubstantiated theory that a writers group is hypersensitive about rules: if an author is doing something unusual in a story, they automatically get suspicious and comment on the item as if it were a mistake by an inexperienced writer. This is an appropriate response for a writers group, but it requires that the author being critiqued factor that phenomenon in and not just assume that because the writers groups says such and such is a problem, it really is. Maybe you're being a genius. Members of my group are real sticklers on POV, and it sounds like many on AML-List are too. Frankly, I am not as much. I think that may come from the fact that I am very cinematically oriented: I'm an author who's really a frustrated filmmaker. Films violate POV to a much greater degree than literature. A film could be following one character's POV for some time, then unceremoniously jump to another character's POV for one scene, and jump back, without ever returning to that one-scene POV. Film can get away with this better because its ability to represent POV is so limited: it tends to be omniscient with virtually no penetration into a character's mind. So POV jumps don't jolt the viewer as much. But I don't see why such a technique couldn't be used in literature as well, sparingly and intelligently. It reminds me of an early filmmaker who, back when sudden cuts in film was considered disorienting to the audience, wanted to show what one character had in his hand while playing poker. He decided to just cut to a close-up of the cards, and then cut back. In those days, that was considered a breach of cinematic protocol--a breaking of the rules. The audience would be completely disoriented. Well, the audience handled it just fine, thank you, and close-ups of cards have been done (along with all sorts of other POV jumps) ever since. Since Orson Scott Card was brought up as an example of a successful writer who "needs editing" because of his POV shifts, I will say that, since I have made him my involuntary mentor, I have studied up on what he believes are the rules of good writing. For the most part, I agree with those rules, at least for the kind of writing I want to do. And yet, I have seen him break EVERY SINGLE RULE he espouses at some point in his literature. I think I have an inkling of what Card goes through, even today as a successful writer, before publishing a manuscript, because he often describes the process. His work _is_ edited by several sources. I think he knows perfectly well what he's doing, and I would be very reticent about criticizing a successful writer's work because it doesn't fit my mold of good writing. I'd hate to find myself in the same company as those who criticized Beethoven for breaking rules. Learn the rules of POV changes, but when the time comes to write, if you feel like breaking the rules at one point is justified, do it without looking back. I can practically guarantee you that someone will object on the basis of "the rules." Too bad, so sad. That's what genius is all about. - -- 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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:49:09 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings I completely ignore ratings. Most the time I couldn't tell you what a film that I've seen was rated. And since we've been encouraged to express our personal feelings about ratings, I'll just come out and say it. I resent the folk wisdom that has developed within the church that says if I see R-rated films, I'm evil. I resent that the issue was ever invented. Before, I resented in secret, because I believed that avoiding R-rated movies was a teaching of church leaders, like most people do. I resented, and lived with great cognitive dissonance, and continued to watch R-rated movies. I continued to watch them because I couldn't bring myself not to. For some odd, incomprehensible reason, it seemed just as wrong to categorically refuse to watch them as it did to watch them. Psychosis, here we come. Fortunately, AML-List saved my sanity. Thom trotted out his much-vaunted list of actual pronouncements by "Prophets" of the church (with a capital P, meaning The Prophet: the President of the Church--all those other prophets, seers, and revelators don't quite count, you see), showing that a categorical restriction on R-rated films was never quite stated. And I have had my head put through the wringer with debates on morality in art, where even the infamous Neil LaBute has been given a pass. To this day, I haven't decided if I have been "enlightened" or deceived with some clever rationalization. And I can't blame it all on AML-List--I was already predisposed to this attitude. But I have come to recognize that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" art; that we are all at different levels of development in our intelligence, spirituality, strength of character, and aesthetic sensibility; that art doesn't even mean as much to some people as to others; that certain kinds of art mean nothing to people but other kinds mean volumes to them. A blanket, universal restriction simply doesn't make any sense, no matter how I look at it. Now I resent openly. Well, not quite openly. If someone believes in avoiding R-rated films at all costs, I smile and remain silent. I'm not messing with their heads on that issue. But I wish the rating system would just disappear. It's utterly useless anyway. I have much better sense than whatever committee is setting those ratings. Tell me what's in the film, let me decide if I think it's worthwhile to see, and leave it at that. I feel like the R-rating taboo turns otherwise good LDS members into "sinners" the same way the idiotic 55 mph speed limit turned otherwise law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. Bad laws have a tendency to do that. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 03:54:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Harlow Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Bernard Malamud? On June 1, 2000 4:00:59 PM GMT Jason Steed writes, > And it's impossible to deny that _Huck_ is highly critical of > the South, slavery, piety, and just about everything else it > comes in contact with. then asks, > Is this what's needed for great literature? I don't think so-- > not necessarily, anyway, though it is common in great books. Rephrase your first statement: "It's impossible to deny that the Bible is highly critical of the southern kingdom, slavery, piety, and just about everything else it comes in contact with, indeed, part of Isaiah is structured as a divorce decree, and Jeremiah's name has become synonymous with giving a long impassioned list of everything wrong with a society." We don't feel the Old Testament's sting as much as we feel Twain's because we're not as close to that society. I'm not sure we even see how stinging the New Testament's portrayal of society is. I know I found the Sermon on the Mount quite bracing and challenging when I read the NT in 9th grade seminary. In _Three Gospels_ Reynolds Price says that the Gospels' unsparing portraits of the apostles' doofishness indicates the gospels must have had the apostles' protection. He thinks Mark represents Peter's memories, as told to Mark, and that John really is the author of John. Price says that if the Gospels weren't really written by the apostles the persecuted church wouldn't have preserved documents that made the church hierarchy seem like a bunch of faithless dolts. Ed Kimball made the same point several years ago at the Wasatch Review Writers' Conference. He said that if his father hadn't intervened _Spencer W. Kimball_ might not have been published because there were people who felt it was not an entirely flattering portrait. He said that some of the things in there were fairly painful to his father, such as the oldest son's inactivity, but he convinced his father that it should be in the bio because it was part of his life, and affected how he lived. That is, while great writing may not require being critical of society, writing that tells the truth is likely to make people uncomfortable. Not because people are afraid of the truth, or because the truth is something dark, but because truth is very intimate. When we think about knowing the truth and the truth setting us free, we might remember that _know_ is the most intimate verb in the language. It's the verb Mary uses when she tells the angel, "How can this be, seeing that I know not a man?" > there are many of the greats that lack (or avoid, or > have no use for) satire. Good point. I suggested in my AML Conference paper "Light and Delight" a few years ago that satire and didacticism are the same thing, both aiming to show us a better way to live, and that a satirical literature would have to suffer from many of the problems and oversimplifications of a didactic literature. > One good example might be Bernard Malamud (pick a book--_The > Assistant_, _The Magic Barrel_, etc.). > the conflict in his stories and novels is essentially the same > as that of Twain--the disparity between reality and > ideals/expectations. And Malamud's writing is full of humor, > too--but without the biting satire of Twain. I think the key > is that Malamud's characters are Jewish, but that isn't > central to the conflict. But take a novel like _The Tenants_, which explores the tensions between Jews and blacks. There the Jewishness and the Blackness are quite central. Intense story, BTW, and likely to make people uncomfortable with its rather unflattering portrait of both parties. > They are explicitly Jewish, their Jewishness may be central to > plot, etc.; but the conflicts Malamud explores are those of > the human condition Indeed, and _The Tenants_ both begins and ends with a plea for mercy. The last page and a half is just the word mercy, written over and over. (In my copy the last half page of mercy is mising, the publisher didn't print it. I also borrowed the phrase "hab rachmones" for a scene of love play in my story "A Merry Mepsi." The wife asks her husband what he has just said, and her replies, "How do I know? Do I look like I speak Yiddish to you?") > (Malamud even said, at one point, "all men are Jews, they > just don't know it"--meaning, he saw Jewishness as a metaphor > for the human condition, which is one of exile, alienation, > sorrow and hardship, but also humor and joy). All men and women (and little children, too) are also Mormons, they just don't know it. Of course, if they don't want to accept their baptism they don't have to, but it's available to all, "Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine without money and without price" (Isaiah 55:1 love that passage). > I think if we, as Mormons, allow Mormon-ness to be explicit, > even crucial, but focus on conflicts that are universal (use > Mormon-ness metaphorically, as Malamud did with Jewishness), > then we can create a Mormon literature that examines and > explores the human condition, that will reach a wide audience > (as Malamud did, and does), and that will yet avoid unwanted > criticism of the religion or the institution to which it is > tied. I would hope so, but for some people writing about the pains of a culture is a terrible thing because it shows the culture's flaws to its enemies. I love Philip Roth's "Eli, the Fanatic." It gives a very sympathetic portrait of the Jews who emigrated from eastern Europe and the concentration camps after the war, but it hit too much of a nerve for Roth's audience, and there were some who called the stories in _Goodbye Columbus_ anti-Semitic. That's a danger you take when you explore your culture in the depths of its humanity. Giving out that kind of knowledge is very intimate, and the culture may feel itself naked, wanting to pull up the bedsheets, as Lynn Gardner described in the opening of her new novel. She also described the problems that scene caused her. Harlow Soderborg Clark - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:23:03 -0600 From: "Morgan Adair" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? >>> MADAIR@novell.com 06/12/00 02:44PM >>> >>>> klarsen@panix.com 06/11/00 09:00PM >>> >> >>Mormonism has had at least a couple Pulitzer Prize winners -- but not=20 >>exactly for literature. >> >>In 1972, Jack Anderson won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, >> >>In 1991, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich won the Pulitzer Prize for History. >> >>There may be others, these are the two I am aware of. > >Bernard DeVoto And if you accept DeVoto as a Mormon Pulitzer winner (Mormon more by=20 heritage than inclination), then you might also consider Wallace = Stegner,=20 who was not Mormon, but lived in Utah and wrote about Mormons (_Mormon=20 Country_,1942; and _The Gathering of Zion_, 1964). MBA - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:42:36 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. I thank Annete for coming to my defense. The issue is exposure. In fact I believe that racism as bigotry and prejudice with power as part of its fundamental make up. For example, if i just don't like the idea of my daughter dating black men and that's it, then I am bigoted. If I forbid her to or threaten to withhold money, privleges, opportunity, and so forth from her because of my distaste, then I feel I would be practicing racism. At the insitutional level, refusing service is racist. In fact there can not be mere bigotry at an institutional level. Here's where it gets dicey. So with regards to the church, is there some cultural thing (because it is not doctrinal) in operation that keeps black people from being present in Wasatch communities? Is it class? Is it The West? I don't know. But whatever that cultural thing is, I think it is a kind of racism. What individual members do in the privacy of their own minds is what I call bigotry, and is still execrable, even evil, but I like to distinguish it from what churches and states and corporations do. That is what I call racism. Annette said that she: > for one, would love to "make room" in my own writing for other races, but as > has been already brought up, a writer can't very well do that without the life > experience. And I don't have enough of that to make make such writing > believable. As a result, I'll leave that kind of literature for someone else > who HAS the experience and can make it real. Or you could go get some of that experience. One of the things that keep us from making important connections to the worlds beyond ourselves, is that we wait for experience to come to us, which is rarely does. I tell my creative writing students to go out and eavesdrop, got to strange churches, to get to meet peolpe who are outside their standard route. I think that the write you know dictum, which comes so often to those just starting out, ultimately becomes a problem. Sometimes our fear of accuarcy keeps us from reaching out in a spirit of empathy to others who have been forgotten or hidden by the louder voices of the "official culture." Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:55:29 -0600 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View - -----Original Message----- From: Todd Robert Petersen To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View >I guess if we're disparage more that one point of view per chapter, then we >ought not to read the book of Mosiah. > >Todd Robert Petersen The pov rules are a recent development in literature. They result from the realization that has gradually dawned on editors and authors that, the tighter we focus on the pov of a character, the more the reader's mind is drawn into the story. (Yep! That's the way Orson Scott Card does it, folks. He says so in his book on Characters and Viewpoint.) A change of pov is okay at a scene or chapter break, but the new pov should be established quickly and should be equally tight. The modern reader is fast, and pov changes interrupt the minds work, causing confusion. So they are to be avoided except at breaks where the reader's mind stops for a breather anyway. Anything the character couldn't possibly know will disturb the reader's mind as it rationally assimilates the text, and should be avoided as a pov violation. The number of pov's throughout the novel is irrelevant. Too many may be confusing, perhaps, but the story will set the povs. You have to look at each scene and ask which character's pov would be the best, the most interesting or revealing, sometimes the most unique. You may even want to put in a scene specifically for a particular character's pov. Them's the rules. I don't make 'em. I only enforce 'em. :-) Richard Hopkins - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:58:13 -0600 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings - -----Original Message----- From: Payne Family To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings >Michael Medved (snip) said that 60 >percent of mainstream cinema is rated R, but that the PG's and G's >(excluding PG-13's) collectively outperform R's two-to-one (*not* just >proportionately, if I remember right). The figures I've seen indicate that the average G rated film earns eight (8!) times as much as the average R rated film. Richard Hopkins - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:07:41 -0700 (MST) From: Benson Parkinson Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings Thom wrote: >>>>>>> Lest you trot out the old saw "the Prophet says," let me tell you that myself and others have done research on what the GAs including the Prophets have said about R-rated movies and, without fail, no living prophet has condemned R-rated films *except* President Benson, and he spoke specifically to young men on their first dates. Since I am married, age 51, I don't consider his advice to teenage boys as relevant to me, nor to any adult, for that matter. <<<<<<< Thom, you keep saying that, but it seems like a quibble. I'm guessing the prophets don't talk about R-rated movies much in conference because most members live outside the United States and R-ratings are U.S.-specific. Do you really think Elder Benson would say that his advice on R-rated films applies to young men and women only and that adults could go ahead and see all the R-rated shows they want? The implication in your comment is that the Church doesn't say anything about R-rated films for adults, but that's just not the case. There are quite a few General Authority comments on R-rated films, including some by Elder Scott, an Apostle. Here are some from the Ensign and CES firesides. Benson Parkinson - -----------> "Why not make some effort to find out something about the next movie that will engage your family's undivided attention for two and a half or three hours and will probably cost you far more than you contributed to the poor and the needy that month. It goes without saying that all X- and R-rated movies are automatically eliminated" ("Robert L. Simpson, Pollution of the Mind, Ensign, January 1973, 113). "It is so important that young people who are unmarried erect barriers against temptation to help them avoid the compromising situations. May I suggest a few barriers. 1. Never go into a house alone with one of the opposite sex. 2. Never, never enter a bedroom alone with one of the opposite sex. 3. Do not neck or pet. Now, admittedly there is no place in the scriptures where the Lord has said, 'Thou shalt not neck or pet.' I know that, but he has said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery, or fornication, or anything like unto it.' 4. Never park on a lonely road with just the two of you alone. 5. Do not read pornographic literature. 6. Do not attend R- or X-rated movies, and avoid drive-ins. 7. Do not spend time in drinking or gambling establishments." (Hartman Rector, Jr., Live Above the Law to Be Free, Ensign, January 1973, 131). "Now, brethren of the priesthood, there should not be any X- or R-rated movies that we participate in viewing or talking about. There must be no pornographic magazines, pictures, or stories, no re-telling of filthy jokes or crude experiences. Once in a while we should stop and ask ourselves, 'In whose army are we fighting? Whose battle lines are we defending?' Do you have the courage to walk out of an off-color PG-rated movie--or do you watch and listen, and suggest to yourself, 'This soon will pass,' or 'Everyone is doing it; it must be an acceptable type of entertainment'? Have you the courage to keep out of your home some television shows that are filled with suggestive sexual conversation--and even experiences? Have you thought lately how effective these shows are in piercing even the strongest spirits? Brethren, we must not feed ourselves a diet of trash!" (H. Burke Peterson, Purify Our Minds and Spirits, Ensign, Nov. 1980, 38-39). "We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don*t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don*t listen to music that is degrading" (Ezra Taft Benson, To the 'Youth of the Noble Birthright', Ensign, May 1986, 45) "We counsel you, young women, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterward. Don*t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. And don*t accept dates from young men who would take you to such entertainment" (Ezra Taft Benson, To the Young Women of the Church, Ensign, Nov. 1986, 84) "Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase it, or destroy it. I know it is hard counsel we give when we say movies that are R-rated, and many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic influences. Our standards should not be dictated by the rating system. I repeat, because of what they really represent, these types of movies, music, and tapes serve the purposes of the author of all darkness" (H. Burke Peterson, 'Touch Not the Evil Gift, nor the Unclean Thing', Ensign, Nov. 1993, 43). "I know that you will find the same response as you consistently choose to obey your principles. You are establishing a reputation. When you make it clear that you will not vary from your standards, you will be led to individuals like yourself and the criticism from others will become less intense. Often those who publicly deride you for your high standards privately do not want you to violate them. They need your good example. Whether it be turning your back on an off-color joke, refusing to see an R-rated movie or videocassette, or walking out of a party that is moving in the wrong direction, make your standards clear to others by quietly making the right choices when the temptation is first presented. A decisive, correct choice made once and consistently kept thereafter will avoid much heartache. You then can use your energy in keeping your resolve rather than repeatedly wrestling with the same challenge. Also, you will greatly reduce the possibility that you will be overcome by temptation" (Richard G. Scott, CES fireside, 3 Mar 1996). "It is a concern that some of our young Latter-day Saints, as well as their parents, regularly watch R-rated and other inappropriate movies and videos. One more reason why the 'devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice' (3 Ne. 9:2). (Joe J. Christensen, "The Savior Is Counting on You," Ensign, Nov. 1996, 40). "In addition to making a resolution that we will read only the best in print, it would be very beneficial if now we resolved not to watch even one "R-" or "X-rated (NC-17)" movie, video or television show--from now on. That may sound extreme to some of you but I assure you that much of our future happiness and success depends on it." (Joe J. Christensen, CES Fireside, 9 Jan 1994). - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:23:24 -0500 From: "Clark Goble" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] RE: Divorce in LDS Lit. ___ Jacob ___ | I'm not saying that her choice to divorce was wrong. But | the fact of the divorce still says something negative | about her. ___ While some cases of marriage are such that the person getting married ought to have known there would be problems with their future spouse, not all are like that. I think it is na=EFve to assume that every person has the= ability to read a person and know all that person's future acts. It also assumes that people do not have free will - that good people would never choose evil or vice versa. To say that because a person wasn't able to guess the future of their marriage that there is something wrong with them seems unfair. After all none of us have always been correct with our predictions. Of course a lot of Mormons do judge in this manner or similar ones. For example there are plenty of Mormons I know who would never date someone if they knew that person wasn't a virgin. (Whether a convert, divorced person, or simply a screw-up in their past) I think any judgment like these unfair. Of course people who judge like this aren't the sort I'd enjoy dating. So it really doesn't bother me if they wouldn't want to date me because they think *I* am the one with a problem. That's a personal judgment, mind you. However it leads back to Jacob's original point that there is a gap between some groups. If you are writing to the group who does tend to make these judgments you had best be able to explain your character's motivations to them. In that I agree with Jacob. I just don't think talking about 'problems' is the way to explain it. Tying this back to literature and AML, I am coming to think that a story about a single person dealing with these views would actually make a very interesting story. If there is anyone out there who is a gifted writer, I'd like to see you tackle the subject. There is a huge gap between married and unmarried in the church. I sincerely believe that many married people can not even conceive of the issues modern singles face. It is that issue - the inconceivability of single life - that needs addressed. Somehow the situation needs to be communicated or else this gap will grow and grow. It seems a topic that deserves to be tackled. I suspect that the best way to tackle it is to write a fictional story that reaches the mainstream body of the Saints ala _The Work and the Glory_. Of course EVERYONE wants to write a mainstream novel of that sort. Very, very few books manage to achieve it. - -- Clark Goble --- d.c.g@att.net ----------------------------------- - - 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 #69 *****************************