From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #70 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 Wednesday, June 14 2000 Volume 01 : Number 070 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:16:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Iron Rod vs. Liahona (was: Movie Ratings) Chris wrote: >This is one of those topics that fits the Liahona vs. Iron Rod paradigm of >Church membership. Some people like to have everything spelled out for >them, others like to have guidance but use their own brains to make their >way through life. You can keep your eyes closed and hold to the rod, but >to follow the directions of the Liahona you have to keep your eyes open. To which I reply (going off on a tangent from Chris's main point, which had to do with movie ratings): I've always been a little bit uncomfortable with this comparison, which was developed in Richard Poll's essay in _Dialogue_ back in--what, 1968 or something? I know that a sizeable section of Church members have found this a comforting categorization--one that makes a place for them within the bounds of gospel imagery as faithful Church members, while still accounting for what they see as differences between their way of viewing things and that of some other Church members. And yet I think that (like all analogies) it has some problems, as well--which are appropriate for discussion on this List, inasmuch as this is a scripturally based metaphor that affects how many of us view our own culture and selves. * First, on a literal level: From what we can tell in scriptures, the Liahona was not a device that worked according to the principle of "working it out on your own." Rather, it spelled out instructions in a very specific manner: travel thus many days in thus-and-such a direction, etc. If anything, just as restrictive as holding onto a guard rail. Call me picky, but I tend to distrust metaphors when they rest on misinterpretations at the literal level. * Second, and more seriously: This is a metaphor which, I've noticed, makes people who identify themselves as Liahona-saints feel pretty good about themselves, but which doesn't offer much in terms of validation to Iron Rod saints. To pick on Chris a bit: What are the characteristics of Liahona saints, as identified in the paragraph I quoted? Have guidance but use their own brains; keep their eyes open. What are the characteristics of Iron Rod saints? Have everything spelled out for them, keep their eyes closed. No wonder that those who feel themselves identified as Iron Rod saints tend to become a bit defensive. While apparently providing two equally good, scripturally based images for different ways of interacting with personal inspiration and guidance from leaders, this comparison as commonly used often tends simply to reverse the good guy/bad guy categories rather than eliminating them. * Finally, I find these metaphors too easy and comforting when I apply them to myself. Frankly, there are times when my own brain isn't good enough--when I need more direct guidance. On the other hand, I also believe that it's not simply undesirable but impossible to implement either spiritual guidance or the teachings of leaders without the application of a little personal brain power. I mistrust the "one or the other, either one is all right" implication that's embedded in the comparison. The metaphor I find personally more useful is the law of witnesses, as frequently given in the scriptures: that everything is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. It occurred to me a few years ago that scriptures, teachings of living Church leaders, and personal inspiration can be considered as "three witnesses" in determining paths in our own lives. It also occurred to me that rather than simply interpreting these as cross-checks for accuracy, it might be more fruitful to see them as coordinates (in a mathematical sense). You can't plot a point in a two-dimensional graph without two numbers: one for the x coordinate, one for the y coordinate. If you're plotting a point in three-dimensional space, you need three numbers. Similarly, it can be argued that we really need not only spiritual guidance, or the scriptures, or the teachings of modern prophets, but all of them together in order to find out where we ought to be. If we use only one source, our approach is--using this metaphor--one-dimensional. My point in this is not to argue about the "proper" balance between different sources of spiritual guidance, which isn't really on-topic for this List. Rather, it's to point out that there are important implications to which metaphors we choose to explain the gospel and other people and ourselves *to* ourselves. Choosing a different metaphor, I've found, can change the entire way I think and act about something. To my way of thinking, that's part of the great value of literary criticism: it provides tools for analyzing such metaphors, evaluating them, and considering what type of thinking and behavior they're likely to lead us to. 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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:39:56 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. Barbara writes: 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. Some years ago I was visiting a friend who had just switched on her TV, to the news, to hear, " . . . .of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has changed their policy so that the women will now hold the priesthood. . . " She was completely taken aback and had to do a quick tour in her head to see how she'd actually feel about that. She finally took the standard line: whatever the church did would be okay with her. Turned out it was the Reorganized Church, of course. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:33:24 -0400 From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings In the last week I have seen two movies at a real theater. I didn't have to wait for them to come out on video a year from their release date. My life has been so exciting! I too started to ignore movie ratings when I realized that the PG- 13 movies I was renting were a lot worse than most of the R rated movies I had seen. I can only remember two R rated movies I have ever walked off from in my own home and one was a western (about 8 or 9 years ago) with Clint Eastwood in it, and the other was _Falling Down_ that starred Michael Douglas. Two movies to awful to even want to discuss it. Newer movies: right after the Oscars, I rented _American Beauty_ based on the fact that it won a bunch of awards, it starred Annette Benning, and people were saying how good it was. I hated it. I watched it all the way through. I hated the way that I was manipulated to look at the color red as a way to know when something "important" was happening and so on. Last night, my son and I went to a pre-screening of the movie _Shaft_ and I wasn't thrilled about it (hubby bowed out at the last minute) and expected to hate it. Had nothing to look forward to but Samual L. Jackson, and grumbled all the way to the theater. I loved it! Yes it was violent, yes it had the language, but it also had humor in it, and was well written and produced. There was no sex in it or nudity, but they went heavy on the cleavage. Someone mentioned Bond movies. Until a few weeks ago, I had never seen one. I rented _The World is not Enough_ PG-13 or R (can't remember) and while I enjoyed it, as I pointed out to my husband, sure there is no cussing (which a movie without the F word IS refreshing), and there is no real nudity, but the man slept with four women by the end of the movie! Are all Bond movies like this? Maybe for me its like drinking coke or pepsi, until they ask me in a TR interview if I watch R rated movies, I can assume I'm allowed to make up my own mind about what I watch. Debbie Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:6:55 -0600 From: "Darvell" Subject: [AML] re: Movie Ratings Thom Duncan (tduncan@zfiction.com) >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. >Thom Duncan I am fairly confident that another president of the Church since Benson has warned during General Conference about watching rated-R movies. And I'm pretty sure it was President Hinckley. I wish I could remember the details, but I think it was less than five years ago, which is how long President Hinckley has been president. It was at the Saturday night priesthood session of conference and the prophet spoke last. I'm sorry I can't remember more details about it than that, but I remember that it made a big impact upon me. I do watch some rated-R movies and I don't think that the rating system is adequate. But I'm pretty sure that Hinckley said this in a recent (< 5 years) GC talk. (It seems to me that it was the talk immediately following the 60 minutes interview, but I just can't remember.) Darvell Darvell Hunt, Las Vegas, NV _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.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 16:03:16 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. At 11:42 AM 6/13/2000 -0500, you wrote: > >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. It always clarifies a discussion when one does as you do above, and define the characteristics of your personal definition. The problem, of course, is that not every one agrees with your definition. My local friends in the political science department equate racism with power and insist that no one who is "out of power" can be racist. (Not my definition at all.) As far as the lack of black people in the Wasatch, that was actually true of most of the mountain west until the nineteen sixties. In nineteen sixty, sixty or seventy percent of all the African Americans in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and the western segments of Oregon and Washington were to be found in those cities which were either railroad centers (Pocatello, Ogden, Cheyenne, etc.) or which had a strong need for service jobs in touristry (certain segments of Colorado) The railroad centers needed Porters etc. and imported black people for that purpose. The same was true of the tourist traps. The reasons for the lack of such are hard to define. In 1959 I lived next door to the only black family in Twin Falls, Idaho. Since I taught the daughter of that family in High School I aften had interaction with the members of the family. They did not feel particularly discriminated against, but they were desperately lonely to see other black faces and often considered leaving (I have forgotten what profession the father had which led them to Twin Falls). My mother came to visit me in Georgia not long after we moved here. (1970) She expressed real distress at the number of black people. She had never seen so many. (She was from Pocatello where there _was_ a black population, but it was a small percentage of the population.) I would suspect that, even today, a lot of black people moving to the mountain west would feel that same distress, not a the number, but at the lack of familiar black faces. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:04:57 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Divorce in LDS lit >The more I think about it, the more I think this would make an >interesting story. The story isn't about giving up. It's about having >the courage to follow one's inspiration even when human logic and >culture don't support your actions. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm >skilled enough to write it. But I don't see why it would be inherently >unrealistic. The scriptures are full of examples of God asking people >to do things that make little sense from a human perspective. > >-- Rob I've heard more than one true story where a couple was dating, falling in love, and considering marriage, where the Spirit has directed them to break up. They do so even though they can't really understand it at the time. I haven't heard of the same in temple marriages that have already happened, but I do know many who have "gone through with it" in spite of their misgivings and later regretted that choice/covenant very much, and gone on to divorce (or just plain marital misery). I for one am grateful for the first type of story, because that exact thing actually happened with my husband and the girlfriend he dated before me. :-) Nobody else understood their breakup either--there wasn't any fight or argument between them or anything. Just a feeling they weren't meant to be together. Good thing for me! I think there's plenty of room for these and similar issues to be explored in LDS literature. I explore this theme a little bit in my upcoming novel. (_Prodigal Journey_) One of my characters at one point feels very right about a marriage decision, but later on (yet before the wedding occurs) the spiritual feeling definitely changes. I'll be interested to hear any of your comments about this situation later on, when the book is out. Don't want to say more as yet. (*Should* be ready June 16th or so--we're almost there!) Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://members.xoom.com/adamszoo http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:27:47 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [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. I think I understand what you _mean_, but I don't agree with what you say. You _say_ that "not making room" is not racist, because it is just the result (maybe) of lack of exposure. But we've ALL been "exposed" to people who are different from ourselves. A quick side note: Babies may be the exception to this notion that we've all been "exposed" to Other people, and clearly we don't want to say babies are racist if they react a certain way. But I find it VERY interesting that we might assume that a baby bursting into tears at the sight of a black person might be bursting into tears BECAUSE of that person's blackness... Isn't this possibility an imposition on our parts? Couldn't there be a thousand other reasons a baby might burst into tears at that moment? (The person got too close, had bad breath, a scary smile, was too loud, or just wasn't Mommy...) When I say we've all been "exposed," I mean we all know what is meant when we talk about black people, white people, brown people, yellow people, red people, or whatever 'color' we want to use to describe someone's skin pigmentation. So, if we know what we mean when we talk about these people, we can consider ourselves "exposed." We might still be ignorant or unfamiliar in many ways, but we're "exposed." Let me put it this way: Let's say you're sitting at a table, eating. In walks a person who is different from you (could be skin color, could be something else). Refusing to "make room" for that person, based on that difference, IS the same as racism (if the difference is in race)--plain and simple. You are _saying_ that they're not the same, but the notion of "lack of exposure" implies that no one's walked into the room yet, for whom we can "make room." If this were true--if no one has walked into the room, so "not making room" is just the result of "lack of exposure"--then it would be true that "not making room" is not equal to racism. But it would also be true that "not making room" wouldn't make sense, because why would we talk about "making room" if there was no one to "make room" for? Furthermore--and this is where I get to what I think you _mean_--you are trying to say that with a little exposure, we might be willing to "make room." If this is true, then this is NOT racism (when someone walks into the room, and you're willing to scoot over). In this sense, you're right--I think many Mormons are not racist, and when they are faced with a situation that involves people who are different from them, they "make room." But, on the other hand, we all know what we're talking about when we talk about people who are different. We're aware of each other, and of our differences. We've been "exposed"--whether it's from a distance or intimately. In a very real sense, we're all standing in the room together...so, "not making room" for Others, is, in my opinion, equal to prejudice (racism, sexism, etc.). [I snipped the baby example] >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 didn't mean to imply that we have to "promote" those who are different from us in order to avoid being racist/prejudice. In fact, I agree very much with e.e. cummings on this point: cummings said that "to like a person because he's black is just as bad as to not like him because he isn't white." In other words, "promoting" or favoring someone, based on race (or sex, or whatever), is just as racist (or sexist, or whatever) as "demoting" or disfavoring them... >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 I don't think it's necessary that we do as PBS and other TV stations/programs have done, especially with their children's programs, and try to fill our writing with a cast of characters representing every "racial group" we can think of. This kind of diversity is good, on some levels and in some venues--but certainly I'm not prescribing this as a necessity in your next novel. "Making room" for someone, or for a particular group, doesn't necessitate that that person or group will actually SIT at your table. The important thing is to be WILLING to make that room for them (whether they're white, black, female, male, non-Mormon, Mormon, etc.). The negation of that space--the "NOT making room"--is what I believe amounts to prejudice. 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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:44:54 -0600 From: Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View Nan McCulloch said... > 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. An interesting variation on this idea is the recent film "Timecode". The film presents four points of view via four quadrants on the screen. All points of view are visible at all times -- the director simply turns up the volume in the appropriate quadrant so the viewer understands where to look. However, even while the story is moving along in one quadrant, other characters may be reacting to plot developments in other quadrants. In effect, I think, this film requires the viewer to become an editor because he/she must determine (with the director's help) what's important and what's not. While the quality of the story is another discussion entirely, the method of filmmaking was very interesting. I found that after about 5-10 minutes, I had no problem following along. It was almost as if the viewer, instead of one of the characters, is given the first-person omniscient p.o.v. - --Mike South - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:25:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Iron Rod vs. Liahona (was: Movie Ratings) > >Chris Bigelow said: > >> > >> This is one of those topics that fits the Liahona vs. Iron Rod paradigm of Church membership. Some people like to have everything spelled out for them, others like to have guidance but use their own brains to make their = > >> way through life. You can keep your eyes closed and hold to the rod, but to follow the directions of the Liahona you have to keep your eyes open. > >> I don't buy this argument. As Orson Scott Card has written elsewhere, the Liahona and the Iron Rod both follow the same path. To follow one is to follow the other. It's a false argument, IMHO. The BoM nowhere indicates that the Liahona is somehow superior to the Iron Rod. Let's put it in a more literary vein. Often literature "such as teh "This is the Place" book Chris has mentioned elsewhere) nds to portray all nearly all Mormons as "bound by the rules." "This is the Place" attempts to strike some balance between the hedonistic gambling of Nevada and the psycho-rules bound Mormons in Utah. (Yes - I admit that's a gross oversimplification of the book, but anyway--). In a sense, Mormons are often portrayed as being "Iron Rodders" as it is sommonly defined. Only those who break from teh mold and actually realize not all rules are to be obeyed seem to be the "real" people. In literature about Mormons, often the "Liahona" types are the ones who leave the church or reamin on it's fringes. But even a literary interpretation of the BoM (ignoring doctrine) shows that the Liahona only worked for those who had held fast to the Iron Rod in Lehi's dream. If we take the two as liteary symbols, they both stand for the same basic concept. (Even Alma referred to following the Liahona as "an undeviating course.") I won't go farther in that direction, since I've been warned to not get to far into the doctrinal issues involved (though the literary ones seem to touch on the scacred ones here). - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:35:52 -0500 From: Todd Robert Petersen Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View > The pov rules are a recent development in literature. No, they're not. There are point of view shifts in The Odyssey, in 18th Century epistolary novels, in Vanity Fair, in Tristam Shandy, etc. Fellow LDS critic, Wayne Booth enumerates the development of these things in the Rhetoric of Fiction. More recent developments in narratology which come from the Russian formalists and the French structuralists expand the use of points of view to allow for more fluid shifts, which are increasingly common in contemporary fiction. What Richard seems to be talking about ignores the contributions of writers like Nabakov, Faulkner, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Louise Erdrich, William Trevor, etc., etc. Some of these writers are "confusing," I guess, but what they're doing is complex and demands some level of focused attention. Virginia Woolf's MRS. DALLOWAY is a perfect example of a book that does NOT do what Richard suggests when he says, > 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. Needless to say, there are no rules, as such, in fiction, particularly in the novel, which is a form that denies categorization. Everyone may not like everything but that doesn't mean that there is some violation of rules. One really must violate some of the rules to get anywhere, finally. 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 16:33:50 -0600 From: Eileen Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings I am of the opinion that movie viewing according to ratings is and should be a personal choice. I have been so badly misled by the film industry and rating system as it now stands that I rarely view any movies regardless of ratings. The last movie I saw that gave me profound enjoyment was "Babette's Feast." I agree with the statement, my apologies, but I cannot remember who said it, that there really is nothing that is a "must see." I felt so inclined at one point in my life to discuss this issue of movie viewing with my Bishop during my recommend interview. We were also discussing the Word of Wisdom and difference between imbibding cold caffiene and hot caffiene (if one drinks a cold cappaccino will that prohibit temple attendance.etc. etc.) He told me that I should study these things out for myself and basically not to bother him with silliness, but he did give me this profound bit of advice. "A cup of cold coffee may not keep you out of the temple, nor may an "R" rated movie. However, disobediance to the principles and ordinances of the gospel will keep you from exhaltation. You must make the choice, you have been given correct principles a mind, a conscience and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If you your actions are worthy and have merit in bringing you closer to your true goal then let it be between you and the Lord." This I have always tried to apply as my guide in choosing movies, reading materials, and indeed in my writing. I have been give some guidelines in each of these aspects and it is up to me to make the choice. I cannot rely on some committee somewhere whose agenda may not be in my best interests. Am I being obedient, by what I understand, if I view this movie, if I read this book, if I write this story am I being obedient or disobedient, based on what I understand to be the principles of the gospel. Simplistic - perhaps, but it has worked for me. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com "When the freedom they wished for most, was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again" - -Edith Hamilton - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:13:35 PDT From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Can we claim Bernard DeVoto as LDS? *He* certainly wouldn't. Which brings me to a larger question: why do we consider some authors LDS and others not? We claim Fawn Brodie even though she was excommunicated. I understand Vardis Fisher came from an LDS family but I'm not sure we count him as "one of us." And how about Betty Eadie of "Embraced by the Light" fame? Just how do you tell who is an "LDS author" and who isn't? R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.com [MOD: I'm going to add a comment here, inasmuch as it touches on an area that I see as relating to the focus of this List. R.W. raises a good point here. Personally, I've found it useful to consider that "Mormon" and "LDS" are not necessarily synonymous when we're talking about literature. "LDS" seems to me a more narrow term, generally used with regard to membership--and possibly even some degree of activity--in the LDS Church. "Mormon" is a broader term, including "cultural Mormons," RLDS, ex-Mormons, and even (potentially) "dry Mormons." All can be on-topic for this List, although not all are necessarily LDS.] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:49:24 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Divorce in LDS Lit. Can I plug myself? [MOD: Always appropriate, if the plug is related to Mormon letters!] Clark wrote: > 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. > 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. One of my stories that will be appearing sometime in the next year or so in Sunstone (they promise) is about an African man who is newly-baptized. He is called by an American branch president to go out into the countryside in Rwanda and bless the grave of a member who was killed in the genocide because the white American, who is actually in Zimbabwe, is scared to. He agrees to go, and does so by himself. His crisis is that he starts seeing the widow, a young woman his age, as the only other marriageable church woman he has met. He finds himself falling in love with her at the same time he is rehearsing the prayer for the blessing of the grave. One of the issues that concerns faithful saints from all over the world is that they don't always have a great pool of people from which they can draw upon for Temple marriage. I live in Oklahoma, and I'll tell you the number of active LDS women in my stake within six years of my age (30) on either side who are not already married: one. There was another, but she moved to Colorado Springs. The other one will be gone in August, probably to Boise. This is a reality for a lot of people. I'm not whining, just saying. 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 22:46:54 -0600 From: "Jim and Laurel Brady" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. > >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. Does a writer have to have actual personal experience in order to write about any subject in a believeable manner? I hope not--no one alive has any personal experience with practically ALL of history. Does that mean no one should attempt to write about things that happened hundreds of years ago, in an environment and culture they have no experience with? Not at all. I'm a firm believer that a writer doesn't have to have personal experience to write convincingly. You do have to write what you know, but you can know a subject without experiencing it. If you want to write about this issue, go for it! As a reader and a writer, I believe if there's something you want to see a book written about, you'll never find one that satisfies your vision for the subject matter unless you write it yourself. Laurel Brady - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:50:08 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. "Barbara R. Hume" wrote: > What happened when black men got the priesthood? Did a lot of people leave? > I know a lot of them got upset. My experience was summed up by a letter to the editor that appeared in Time Magazine. Much too long ago to remember any direct quote, but the gist was that, if Mormons were so racist all this time, why was the main reaction to giving the priesthood to blacks a collective sigh of relief? That was certainly my reaction, and the reaction of everybody around me. And I even lived in Provo at the time. > 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. I won't blame Barbara for these statements, because she was just quoting things she's heard. But these statements sound just as racist (or sexist) to me as anything else. We have no idea why God waited or is waiting to give this or that group the priesthood. Saying things like the above only exacerbates the problem. I believe the coined phrase is reverse discrimination. There's a saying that you fight fire with fire, but if you really fought fire with fire, wouldn't you just end up with more fire? The applicable saying is, two wrongs don't make a right. - -- 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 22:54:51 -0600 From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard R. Hopkins" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings > 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 That would be more a function of the quality of the film that dares to be a G than whether the public really wants a G-rated film per se. Having that rating is not a guarantor of box office success any more than have an R-rating would be. ************************************************* 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:59:17 JST From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Introducing: Andrew's Poll Today I'm restarting the AML-List poll, previously run by Absalom, then briefly by Joab, Absalom's executioner. I glanced through the Bible Dictionary, trying to find a cool name for myself, but nothing popped up. Moses did a counting of the Israelites in Numbers, and Caesar polled/taxed his Empire in Luke, but I didn't feel like calling myself either of those. So I'm breaking with the AML-List tradition of poll anonymity and am just going to call it Andrew's Poll. About once a month I'll send out a question to the group (for example, "What Mormon author looks the most like Salvador Dali?") , and ask everyone to send back their answers to the regular AML-List address. You can send back a simple vote/response, which Jonathon will usually not forward on to the whole list, or add some commentary to your answer, which will get it posted. After about a week I'll tabulate the responses, and post the results. The first few polls will ask what you think the best Mormon literature of the 1990s has been, starting with novels, then moving on to short stories, drama, juvenile fiction, and non-fiction. I look forward to everyone's participation. You don't need to write a long treatise to respond, just check your ballot and send it off. See you at the polling station. Andrew Hall Nagareyama, Japan ________________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:03:14 JST From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Best LDS Novel of the 1990s So, here is the first Andrew's Poll. I thought it would be fun to start out by asking the list members to vote on their favorite Mormon literature of the 1990s. Maybe we'll give out awards. Any suggestions for the name of the award? The Amlly? Yikes. Anyway, I'll start out with the novels. What I'll do is start out with a list of nominees, selected by me. It is a pretty comprehensive list, but I may have left something good out, so I'd like for you all to send in any other worthy nominees that you might have over the next few days. Then next week I'll post the full list of nominees, and ask for everyone to send back their vote, with any comments you'd like to make. Don't worry if you haven't read many of the nominated books, few people have. I know I've read less than a third. Just go ahead and vote for what you like. Here is my criteria for nominees. The novel needs to have been published in the years 1990-1999. I think we should just be looking at novels written by Mormons, be they active in the Church or not. They don't have to address Mormon themes directly, although presumably in the better novels the religion and culture of the authors would be reflected somehow in the book. I also think former Mormons, at least those who address Mormon themes in a non-rabidly anti- way, should also be included. I am thinking in particular of Judith Freeman and Walter Kirn, both of whom have received AML fiction awards in the past. Authors who are not and have never been Mormon, however, seems to me to go a bit too far. Scott Turrow is a great writer, and I'm glad he includes a Mormon character in his latest novel, but I'd rather not put that book up for consideration for Best Mormon Novel. Neither, when we get to the drama award, would I like to see Tony Kushner's Angels in America up for consideration. Again, it is a great play, and Mormon themes and characters are key to it, but I would hardly call it a great "Mormon" play, since the Mormon characters feel so, well, wrong. I'm interested in what outsiders have written, but in this case I want to limit the nominees to what insiders (or anyone who has had a good long look at the inside) have to say. That is, unless I get an overwhelmingly violent reaction to my idea. If you are determined to vote for a non-Mormon author, okay. Actually, except for Kushner it probably won't be much of an issue, espeically since Stenger wrote before the 1990s. I am going to keep serial novels together as one piece of fiction, rather than having you vote for one book in the series. This applies to Card's "Homecoming" series, Hughes' "Children of the Promise" series, and Lund's "Work and the Glory" series. Also some authors, in particular Card, have published multiple novels in the 1990s. I'm picking those that seem to have the most merit, but if you think I'm leaving out a key one, please nominate it this week. If an author gets a lot of votes, but gets them split over a number of works, I'll figure out a way to give that author a special award. So, here is my list of nominees. I include all those that have won AML awards, big sellers, and others that have gotten good reviews or have been often mentioned favorably here on the list. Oh, if anyone knows what got the AML novel award in 1997, please tell me. Arnold, Marilyn. "Desert Song" Covenant, 1998. Barber, Phyllis. "And the Desert Shall Blossom" University of Utah, 1991. Barkdull, Larry. "The Mourning Dove" St. Martins. 1997. Brown, Marilyn. "Royal House" Covenant, 1994. - -----, "Statehood" Aspen, 1995. Card, Orson Scott. "Xenocide," TOR, 1991 (1991 AML award). - -----, "Lost Boys" HarperCollins, 1992. - -----, "Homecoming Series (The Memory of Earth, etc.)" TOR,1992-1995. - -----, "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus" TOR, 1995. Evans, Richard Paul, "The Christmas Box" Simon and Schuster, 1995. Evenson, Brian. "Father of Lies" Four Walls Eight Windows, 1998. Fillerup, Michael, "Beyond the River" Signature, 1995. Fisher, Franklin. "Bones" University of Utah, 1990. (1990 AML award). Freeman, Judith, "A Desert of Pure Feeling" Vintage, 1996. (1996 AML award). Gardner, Lynne. "Sapphires and Smugglers" Covenant, 1999. Hedley, Leslie B. "Twelve Sisters" Bookcraft, 1993. (1993 AML award). Hedges, Mack. "The Last Buckaroo" Gibbs Smith, 1995. (1995 AML award). Hughes, Dean. "Children of the Promise Series" Deseret, 1997-1999. (1998 AML award). Jolley, JoAnn "Secrets of the Heart" Covenant, 1998. Kidd, Kathryn. "Paradise Vue" Hatrack, 1990. Kirn, Walter. "Thumbsucker" Broadway, 1999. Lund, Gerald. "The Work and the Glory Series" Bookcraft, 1990-1998. (1991 and 1993 AML awards). Palmer, Susan "The Tabernacle Bar" Signature, 1995. Parkinson, Benson. "The MTC: Set Apart" Aspen, 1995. Peck, Lisa J. "Dangerous Memories" Ceder Fort, 1998. Perry, Anne. "Tathea" Shadow Mountain, 1999. (1999 AML award). - -----, "The Sins of the Wolf" Fawcett Columbine, 1994. (1994 AML award). Peterson, Levi. "Aspen Maroney" Signature, 1996. Sillitoe, Linda. "Secrets Keep" Signature, 1995. Smith, Robert Farrell. "The Miracle of Forgetness" Aspen, 1997. Smurthwaite, Donald S. "Fine Old High Priests" Deseret, 1999. Stansfield, Anita. "First Love and Forever" Covenant, 1994. Taylor, Curtis. "The Invisible Saint" Stanley Curtis Publishing, 1990. Van Wagoner, Robert Hodgson. "Dancing Naked" Signature, 1999. Wolverton, Dave. "Serpent Catch" Bantam, 1991. - -----, "The Runelords: The Sum of All Men" St. Martins, 1998. (as David Farland). Young, Margaret Blair. "House Without Walls" Deseret, 1991. - -----, "Salvador" Aspen, 1992. Andrew Hall ________________________________________________________________________ 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 #70 *****************************