From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #73 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 Monday, June 19 2000 Volume 01 : Number 073 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:20:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Best LDS Novel of the 1990s David Farland's "The Runelords: the sum of all men" and it's sequel "The Brotherhood of the Wolf." Far and above anything (even non-LDS) I have read in recent years. - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:27:38 From: Marilyn Brown Subject: [AML] BROWN, _I Cannot Tell a Life_ (was: Jerry JOHNSTON, "Waiting for a great Mormon novelist") I have been going through the posts rapidly because I'm on a deadline project, (my 600 p. WINE-DARK SEA OF GRASS about the Mountain Meadows Massacre) but I'm so glad I didn't miss Harlow's mention of I CANNOT TELL A LIFE. This was SO interesting, Harlow. I have been waiting to get your reactions, and I can see you're getting as big a kick out of it as I have. Really, as you continue, you are going to find some very amazing "scenes." Too bad I have only five copies left and can't print more because I'll be sued. Look at all the FUN readers are missing! Thanks for wading through it! Marilyn Brown At 02:49 PM 6/8/00 -0700, you wrote: >Just after reading this I was reading Florence Child Brown's _I Cannot >Tell a Life_ and came across this passage about a church meeting in >Mexico: >"When it came time for the speaker, she started to interpret. I told her >thanks but it was coming to me in English. So she interpreted it to Linda >instead. It was a marvelous experience. I had always heard about the gift >of tongues and the gift of interpretation. Now I had a testimony of it >for myself. The message of the talk really hit home. It was about keeping >faith even in times of adversity" (288). > >So not only is she hearing the gospel in her own language, she's hearing >a message she needs to hear, especially at a moment when she's watching >her husband fall in love with her daughter-in-law. BTW, that chapter ends >with one of the best scenes I've seen recently: > >>>>>> >When we pulled into the parking lot where Bill Jr.'s car was, he said, "I >can't wait to get home and file for a divorce, naming my dad as >correspondent." > >I spoke up, "Why would you do a fool thing like that?" > >"Because they are in love," he said. > >"Well, you ought to be glad that they love each other. Most in-laws don't >get along as well as they do," I responded. > >Bill Sr. and Linda didn't say anything. ><<<<< > >Anyone who can come up with that line about filing for divorce ought to >be a playwright. Maybe he could even get together with someone like >Marilyn McMeen and start a theatre. And the dramatic timing is >impeccable, said not simply to his mother, but his father and wife as >well. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:27:19 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:34:01 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Melissa Proffitt wrote: > >> (The worst book I >> read last year did this--with the additional horrible gutwrenching = ploy of >> REPEATING the same scene from each POV.) > >What's wrong with that ploy? It can be very effective if done well. Are >you sure it was the ploy that was gut-wrenching, or the writing talents >of the author? It was both, unfortunately. I said "repeating" because that's what it was--the exact same scene, without any variation based on the individuals involved. But, just to clarify, I'm not talking about a Kurosawa-like method of storytelling here. There were five characters; each underwent = the same "initiation" period individually. That is, they weren't all in the same place having different reactions to one event. It was like, "Person= A is waiting for his ride, and something bad happens which he has to stop" = and then "Person B is waiting for HIS ride in a completely different city, = and the exact same bad thing happens to him which he has to stop", lather, rinse, repeat.... In short, this author apparently thought she was being clever and = original in this method of introducing her five characters, but she was wrong. I could go on and on about the flaws in this series, but I'd have to = perform a prefrontal lobotomy on myself first or risk insanity. Don't ask why I bothered to persevere through the whole thing. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:30:22 -0600 From: Dave Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings Eileen wrote: > 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 hope the list won't mind the intrusion of a lurker on this issue (though my friends will tell you that I can't remain a lurker for long!). [MOD: No one has a "permanent lurker" label on his/her forehead. Feel free to break into the conversation anytime!] I believe that there are "must see" movies. If you apply this to literature, as I suppose we should (tic), are there any "must reads?" Outside the scriptures (or maybe including the scriptures!) are there books that you see as essential to your ideas of religion, God, or the world? In my life, I know that there is some literature, and some movies that have affected me so profoundly that it changed my behavior for the better. In that sense, I don't think "art" or "literature" is non-essential. So, I guess the implication that I'm quibbling with - is that if no movie is a "must see" then movies or literature or art is really not essential. My experience tells me differently. Dave Hansen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:23:07 -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: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Multiple Points of View > >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. I think Todd makes my case for me with this argument. I'm not suggesting that there is no value in using different writing techniques. What I'm saying is that when you switch povs as in the examples above, it is confusing, it breaks the deep mental contact with the character that modern readers enjoy, and it requires a very different level of attention. If you're interested in writing fiction that will appeal to the modern reader (in other words, fiction we can actually publish and sell), them's the rules. That's all I'm saying. >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 Here I would disagree to a certain extent. I believe there are always rules for achieving intentional goals. If we wish to play with those rules, we reap the consequences, which may be exactly what we want, but the rules have no changed, nor can it be said that there are no rules. Some times an artist will specifically choose to reap unusual consequences. Someone pointed out Beethoven and his music as an example in another post. He was intimately acquainted with the rules for the various forms of music he wrote and would specifically tweak his audience by not following those rules at key moments in the music. He would lead the audience to a specific form, then change it. For example, he'd do a restatement of the theme, but change the key, stuff like that to fake out his audience. He loved it and his music was very special for it. But he knew exactly what he was doing and followed very specific rules to achieve what he wanted. To do the same with pov in a modern novel would take a level of skill not unlike that of Beethoven. I haven't seen it done that well yet, but I imagine it could . . . though not without a very complete and thorough understanding of the rules and how any variation from them will affect the reader. There are rules because there are natural consequences that follow from what we do and say. All art is based on rules, rules that achieve the various results the artist seeks. If we simply justify our inability to follow the rules or if we ignorantly fail to follow the rules, the result is artless. (I'm not saying that's bad either. Some artists intentionally try to achieve a kind of artless beauty in their work.) I believe we have to know what we're doing and what we want to achieve in order to create excellence. That usually takes a really good grasp of the rules . . . and a willingness to be objective about our work, which isn't easy most of the time. Richard Hopkins - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:38:58 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings From: "Eric D. Snider" > I went to ScreenIt (www.screenit.com) and noted the ratings of the > first 100 movies of 1999, alphabetically. (Didn't feel like counting > through the entire list). Of those 100, here were the ratings: > > G: 6 > PG: 4 > PG-13: 28 > R: 62 I wrote a quick Perl script to get the totals for all movie reviews at ScreenIt. It produced these results, to which I added similar data from the IMDB: ScreenIt IMDB (1999) IMDB (1990-99) ============ ============= ============== G: 36 ( 4.3%) 34 ( 6.2%) 183 ( 3.4%) PG: 127 (15.1%) 44 ( 8.0%) 639 (11.8%) PG-13: 224 (26.7%) 90 (16.4%) 864 (16.0%) R: 443 (52.7%) 372 (67.6%) 3485 (64.6%) NC-17/X: 2 ( 0.2%) 2 ( 0.4%) 69 ( 1.3%) None: 8 ( 1.0%) 8 ( 1.5%) 154 ( 2.9%) Total: 840 550 5394 My IMDB total differs from Eric's because I included NC-17 and those movies that IMDB lists with USA:Unrated for the rating. The data indicate that the ratios of movie ratings in 1999 reflect similar ratios for the decade. - -- Terry Jeffress - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:07:52 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Race and Culture in LDS Lit. [MOD: I'm close to cutting off this topic of discussion, unless some more explicit connections to literature are made. Consideration of the attitudes prevalent within Mormon culture and how they ought to be shown/addressed in Mormon literature are on-topic. However, I think we've strayed too far into a debate over what is and what isn't racism, in a way that doesn't further the conversation about literature. I'm allowing Jason his response here--but any further discussion on this point will have to take a more literary tack.] >In his last post, Jason used the terms "racism" and "prejudice" >interchangably, as in the following: > > > I didn't mean to imply that we have to "promote" those who are different >from > > us in order to avoid being racist/prejudice. > >And by the end of the last post, he relys primarily on the term prejudice. >I'm making a crucial distinction between these terms for a very important >reason, one that Annette latched onto. > >But first, some definitions: > >Prejudice--a preconcieved judgment made without knowledge, thought, or >reason. > >Racism--a belief that human races have distinctive qualities that determine >their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race >is >superior and has the right to rule others. Also a policy of enforcing that >asserted right. > >So, racism points back to some kind of action of domination of one kind or >another. Prejudice is simply a judgment that may or may not result in some >kind of action. These are good definitions, and if they are known and understood in a given context, then I accept and agree with them. However, I do not think that _generally_ (meaning in the general public, in a general context) these distinctions are known and understood. I think, generally, people think of racism as a particular form of prejudice, prejudice being possible against the tall, the short, the fat, the thin, the female, the male, the English, the French, the black, the white, etc. Racism would just be referring to the prejudices that are racially motivated. Yes, many people might acknowledge "racism" as having a certain 'strength' to it that "prejudice" lacks (the latter sounds milder than the former)--but I strongly believe that my definitions are more _generally_ accepted and used than yours. My reasons for believing this are largely grounded in my years as a student and a teacher, talking about identity (including race, gender, etc.) in the classroom with young college students (once my peers, now my students). > >To be upset, nervous, or to feel strange that black people or Chinese >people >or Navajos or whoever have moved into your neighborhood isn't racism, >unless >you take some steps to have them removed or to diminish them in some >capacity. I disagree with this. Are you nervous or do you feel strange when the new white family moves in? In other words, if your reaction is motivated by prejudice, and that prejudice has to do with race, then it is racism. According to your definitions, maybe, it isn't... >I grant that these distinctions are only useful to a point, but I think >they >help describe what happens among good LDS people a little better than >simply >casting the racism finger. Some distinction needs to be drawn between >people who don't really know what to do when faced with ethnic situations >and so they behave without much grace, and the Grand Wizards who think that >black people are no better than apes. I agree with you. There are distinctions between discomfort and burning crosses. There are 'degrees' of racism/prejudice (when I use the terms interchangedly, it is because I see prejudice as not merely race-related, and I want to include the many other forms and modes of prejudice). I think your attempt to delineate between racism and prejudice is an attempt to make these distinctions (you say as much), but I think the problem with this is that it sugar coats things too much. I don't mean to "cast the racism finger"--honestly, I don't. I have too many of my own faults and problems to be worrying about who else might have prejudices. I'm only trying to raise questions, to make observations, and often these are directed at myself as much as at anyone else. The problem with your definitions, IMO, is: 1) they really aren't functional in the "real world" (whatever that is), because most people don't know and use them. If a white woman gets on an elevator with a black man, and that black man makes a sudden move, and the white woman screams because she thinks she's being mugged, when really the man was moving to push the elevator button, the fact is that most people will see this and define it as "racism"--not mere "prejudice," as you attempt to do. 2) By refusing to acknowledge that "prejudice against race" is the same as "racism," we refuse to lend as much weight or authority or import to the problem that the problem deserves. That's what I mean by sugar coating it. A lot of people probably think I'm being very opinionated and aggressive in my posts, because I'm tossing around this term and practically accusing everyone of being "racist." Part of this is my lack of tact; part of it is intentional. Racism is a STRONG word. It gets our attention. I contend that if we own up to our _racism_, we'll realize its gravity, its seriousness, and by being more conscientious of it in this way, we can better combat it. We're all prejudiced (in oh, so many ways), and I would venture to say that these prejudices include racism, in ALL of us, in some form or to some degree. I say, Let's call a beam a beam and try to remove it... >People of both stripes belong to the church. The n-word has been said in >General Conference, though not in a while. > >How this relates to our literature is this: I think there needs to be more >work of the type that Margaret Blair Young has been doing. She says that a >novel along these lines will be out this August. I'm first in line. > >Because LDS people along the Wasatch don't have much experience with >African >Americans, doesn't exempt us from looking to the ethnic groups who are >endemic to Utah (or should I say, from whom we stole their land?), namely >Native American and Hispanic populations. > >Michael Fillerup's story "The Last Code Talker" is a fine example of this. >It is an excellent story that looks at Mormon relations with the Navajo >people. I think it's in a recent issue of Dialogue. > >In any case, my main complaint about Signature's IN OUR LOVELY DESERET, >which I reviewed in Sunstone a couple of years ago, was that there was >almost no mention of anyone of color. > >Mormons should be a very cosmopolitan group of people because of our >missions and ability to speak most of the planet's languages. It is odd >that this is not widely reflected in our attitudes, tastes, and desires. You name some good examples, and there are many more. And to be honest (one last word about all this), I really think that, if we're going to talk about Mormons in general, and about 'degrees' of racism, it is possible to say that we (as Mormons, of any color or sex or background) are in many ways racist/prejudiced to a much lesser degree than many other groups, including Americans in general. I say this because, as Annette intimated, we are most often WILLING to "make room" for others--we WANT to make room. We know what's right, and we want and try to do it. We have a doctrine that explicitly equalizes us as brothers and sisters (and that's A LOT more than what so many other people have to work with)--and that's all a good thing. Nevertheless, we can't take too much comfort in this. To whom much is given, much is required, right? While we aren't out burning crosses, there is still a great deal of discomfort (this is clear from what's been said so far in this discussion)--and that's still racism. And of all people, we should be most concerned about naming it for what it is and wiping it out... 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:49:25 -0500 From: Todd Robert Petersen Subject: Re: [AML] Iron Rod vs. Liahona This line of discussion fascinates me for a number of reasons. First off, they are metaphors, which means we have to know how far to trust them (did Robert Frost say that?). The spirit of the idea, that Chris brought up is the most important. The Iron Rod principle has always struck me as only marginally useful in my life, though it has been a great service to others. It goes along with less doctrinal Mormon "culturology," like the staying away from the edge pseudo-doctrine. The Lord wants us to be free-thinkers, to ask questions, and to experiment with the world. To ponder doctrine is not to simply absorb truth like a plant absorbs light. We have to wrestle with great spiritual truths, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. The iron rod mentality might keep us from letting go of the rod long enough to walk a few steps and rescue a lost comrade. Chris mentioned that > the Iron Rod approach is to cleave so close to the line that you happily wear the GA uniform of dark suit and tie, > maintain a missionary haircut, listen to and read mainly Church-produced material, keep your social contacts > and interactions within safe Mormon circles, avoid people and cultural influences that challenge, and otherwise > hold on so tight that there is little room for error or outside influence. The problem is that this is not what Christ did. Was he righteous? Of course. Did he hang out with hookers, lawyers, and bums? Yes. If we only keep to our own, we eliminate one third of the church's mission from our lives. Again to bring up the spirit of things. A few years ago in a fireside, President Hinckley told the youth of the church that his did not want us to be "prudes." Well, a lot of us are. So why don't we listen to the Prophet in this?Because we take comfort in our culturology, maybe as much as in our theology, maybe more. Here's where this gets important. Sometimes people judge others by the trappings of faith, rather than their actual faith. It's all about values, I guess. And here is where this gets back to our literature. When we speak of a literature that supports our values, what do we really mean? Whose values? A friend of mine who taught Veterinary Medicine in Africa told me that Africans don't perceive General Conference, the Apostles, or the pioneers the same way that we do. Conference isn't "live" for them. They don't have occasion to see the 12 directly very much, and they don't know what snow is, or winter really, and they walk most places anyway, so what's the big deal about the pioneers. What I mean to say, I guess, is that the Iron Rod is probably not what we think it is. Perhaps there are even some things we have plugged into which it never was nor was it intended to be. Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:42:59 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] Iron Rod vs. Liahona Having not read Poll I am in no way commenting on his metaphor. It is interesting how metaphor in the scriptures and in other literature can mean such vastly different things to different people. I have never thought of the Iron Rod as being inflexible or easy to hold on to. In the vision most people did not manage to hold on and reach their final destination. They had to exercise great faith in order to be able to grasp and hold on through the perils that make the way difficult. To me the Iron Rod has always symbolized the strength found in the word of God to find our way through life. And, nowhere in the scriptures have I found everything spelled out for me. I have to find the way to implement the direction in my life just as those following the Liahona did. It is also not my experience in life that most people, even in the church, are diligently searching the word of God for direction in their life. I don't think the church at large is much different than here in OH where Gen. Conf. week-end is spelled v-a-c-a-t-i-o-n. The Liahona was provided by the Lord to provide His word to His people in a specific situation. When they were not righteous they didn't receive direction. How much direction do people receive from the word of God when they are not actively seeking? The Liahona was for the Nephites an actual object, but for us today it becomes a metaphor. So what does a truly great metaphor do-allow a reader to see from their own perspective what they will see, or, open the eyes of a reader to something in a way they otherwise would not have viewed it, or both, or neither? Tracie Laulusa - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:35:51 JST From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Re: (Andrew's Poll) Best LDS Novel of the 1990s Yeah, Skip has a point. I don't want to be exclusionary. So if anyone can think of a great Mormon novel written by a non-member, go ahead and nominate it. I just thought of another play by a non-member that I'll nominate when we get to that genre, Julie Jensen's "Two Headed". I really can't think of any other novels from the 1990s, though. I would think if the author was not LDS, then Mormonism would need to be pretty central to the story for us to nominate it. Just having a Mormon charachter wouldn't be enough. Has anyone read Scott Turrow's book? Is Mormonism an important part of it? >From before the 1990s, of course, there was Wallace Stenger and Halldor Laxness. I noticed I have another non-member on the list I posted, Susan Palmer, who wrote "The Tabernacle Bar". She certainly knows the culture very well. Or how about Ann Chamberlin? I don't know what her connection with Mormonism is, but she gets mentioned here every once and a while, so there must be something. Someone said "Leaving Eden" (Tor, 1999) was a feminist reimaging of the Garden of Eden. Has anyone read it, and think it should be nominated? Thanks for the reminder, Skip. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:32:34 -0600 From: "Payne Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings Richard Hopkins' comment was in response to my citing of some thumbnail numbers regarding how differently rated movies stack up at the box office. While how much money a film makes is certainly not necessarily an indicator of its artistic value, it was interesting to me merely because I've never been able to fully "amen" the notion that movie-makers are making so many "R"s because that's what the public wants. [Sam Payne] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:44:58 -0400 From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? At 1:02 AM -0600 6/14/00, Neal William Kramer wrote: >Merlo J. Pusey is another Latter-day Saint who won the Pulitzer Prize--but for >history, I believe. I'm pretty sure his biography of Charles Evan Hughes, >former Chief Justice of the United States won the prize in the forties. > My Almanac says that DeVoto won in History in 1948 for "Accross the Wide Missouri" Join my Mormon email lists! To join send a message to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com In the body of the message write: subscribe Mormon-news News and links to news about Mormons, Mormonism and the Church. Mormon-humor Jokes and amusing stories about Mormons and Mormonism. Mormon-index Make queries about and find out about Mormon resources. LDSClerks Discussion for LDS Church Ward/Stake Clerks/Exec. Secretaries LDSPrimary Discussion about the Primary Organization. The following list is available through egroups: http://www.egroups.com/ NYArea-LDS-News - News about the LDS Church and Members in the New York City area. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:58:10 -0400 From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Best LDS Novel of the 1990s Fred, you are correct. However, I think Andrew's restrictions to a subset of Mormon Literature are a reasonable accommodation to make it easier to define the list of titles and make the list short enough and accessible enough for everyone. OTOH, the biggest problem with the poll is, IMO, that most of us (I assume) will be lucky to have read more than a handful of the works on the list. I, for one, will be going mainly on reputation, if I know anything about the book at all. Its kind of like last year's Modern Library list of the 100 best works of the 20th Century - on one list that I am on (composed of VERY well-read people), virtually everyone on the list hadn't heard of half the books! The same is true of the list Andrew provided - I've never heard of nearly half the books and not familiar -- even by reputation -- with 75%. I literally don't know how I could vote. But give me a day or so, and I'll put in a vote, as unreliable as it may be! Kent At 10:41 AM -0600 6/14/00, Hamilton Fred wrote: >If we restrict novels to only those written by Mormons, active or >inactive, we have redefined the list's concept of Mormon Literature. I >have copied the following literally and directly from the WWW AML LIST >PAGE. > >"AML-List: An Internet mailing list for the discussion of Mormon >literature. Mormon literature includes, but is not limited to, fiction, >poetry, drama, essay, biography, family history, and children's >literature, by, for, or about Mormons, and also the literary dimensions of >scripture." > >I am probably more concerned about this than most. But, working in >academia, I continually see the difficulties which occur when discussions >become too exclusive in what they include or discard. They are, thus, >eliminating an essential element of knowledge which the world "will" >include. Groups which disregard such elements diminish the legitimacy of >their own discussion. I wish my voice to be on record as one who would >not like our group to do so. Would not our list's discussions of "Mormon >Novels of the 1990's" be richer if we used the list's definition of >"Mormon Literature"? And, what does this say about "Mormon Literature" if >a consensus develops in our discussion that the better work is being >accomplished by individuals who are not or have never been LDS? > > >Please remember, this is only my fallible perspective. > >Respectfully, > >Skip Hamilton > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:30:09 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? "R.W. Rasband" wrote: > 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? For me, when it comes to talking about an LDS Pulitzer prize winner, or discussing whether an LDS literature does or can exist, I would prefer a restricted definition. There is nothing interesting to me about literature from a non-member, ex-member, or cultural member--even when that literature deals with LDS people or topics--when it comes to these questions. Those types of writers are free to write anything they want in any way they want, because they have no conscientious allegiance to LDS beliefs. This says to me they are no different than any other author in literature, and therefore what they write has no relevance to discussing an LDS literature distinct from mainstream. What interests me is an author who personally accepts LDS beliefs. Can such an individual write great literature? Did that type of person win a Pulitzer? That's when something substantial in LDS literature has occurred. Therefore I would not consider Fawn Brodie to be relevant to LDS literature. Nor would I consider relevant any Pulitzer prize winner who wrote about LDS topics, but is not LDS. I would even question the inclusion of people who remain within the culture, even within the church, but who publicly do not believe in the theological claims of the religion. These are people writing from the world's standpoint, who happen to write about LDS things. What they write may be interesting, but what significance it has to a unique LDS literature is dubious. - -- 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, 15 Jun 2000 01:23:28 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Iron Rod vs. Liahona Christopher Bigelow wrote: > I'm not convinced that these aren't excellent metaphors for styles of Church membership. And I do personally have less respect for the Iron Rod mindset, just as I've encountered numerous people who have less respect for the Liahona approach. I think arguing one way or the other is a waste of time, because I think both mindsets are needed, and I can't help wonder if the endless friction between the two is of divine intent: like the Lamanites always being around to plague the Nephites when they get out of hand. As Chris said, both philosophies can be abused, and either side keeps the other honest. [MOD: Ha! But which of us are the Lamanites? (Yes, I'm smiling as I write 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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:31:36 -0600 From: "Payne Family" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings Thanks Eryc Snider, and sorry you had to work so hard. The question I had didn't warrant all the trouble (shoot, even *I* know where screenit.com is). It's just that I've never been able to quite completely "amen" the notion that filmmakers are only making mass R's because it's what the public most wants to see. Filmmakers have been throwing that back in *our* laps (the moviegoers) for a long time, it seems. I wondered what the numbers suggested, and unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like they suggest that we're at least as prone to see other stuff as R's. Maybe not an important piece in the whole "R" argument, but interesting nonetheless. - -Sam Paine - ---------- > I don't care how you spell YOUR name, Sam. Mine has no "Y" in it. :-) > > So I did a little research. Actually, I did a lot of research. Nobody > call me at work today, because I'll be grumpy from being up too late. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:06:17 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Race and Culture in LDS Lit. Jim and Laurel Brady wrote: > Does a writer have to have actual personal experience in order to write > about any subject in a believeable manner? The anecdote I heard was, when someone suggested to Steven Spielberg that he make a film of _Color Purple_, he reacted that he didn't think he could do something on the black experience, because he didn't know anything about it. The person responded, "When you made _Close Encounters_, did you know anything about the Martian experience?" It certainly is easier to write about an experience you've lived, but that doesn't mean you are barred from writing about it if you haven't. Science fiction writers would sure be in a pickle if that were true. It just means you've got a lot of work and consulting ahead of you to _vicariously_ experience what you want to write about. This politically correct notion that whites can't say anything meaningful about the black experience is certainly not to be indulged. No one seems to worry about that philosophy when non-Mormons write about the Mormon experience. - -- 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, 15 Jun 2000 06:00:57 -0600 From: "Richard C. Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benson Parkinson" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Ratings > "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). You are quite right that this counsel from Elder Simpson came from outside the General Conference environment. OTOH, Thom's point is that it is specifically addressed to "families" not generally to adults alone. IMO it is excellent advice for that purpose. I myself follow it with regard to family viewing fare. > "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). While this advice is nearly three decades old it still holds IMO for young single people. Thom's point OTOH was that it doesn't mention adults who are married. I would continue to use it to counsel young men and young women as a wise standard to consider. > "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). This is fairly unequivocal. He makes no distinction as to the age of the people he is advising. In that you have found a good example. ISTM that Thom's point, however (and with which I agree), is that Elder Peterson -- not being sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator and certainly not THE prophet, seer and revelator -- gives counsel that is less binding than if an apostle or the senior apostle gave it. I believe that all advice from the Brethren is valuable. > "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) This is the statement from THE prophet that is clearly directed to young men, not adults. It was given during the priesthood session. I believe it is important counsel to teenagers. > "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) This is basically the same message he gave the young men in priesthood meeting. I am glad that he gave the same admonition to young single females. Thom's interesting point is that it was specifically directed toward the young, not the adult membership. [snip a statement from Elder Peterson that merely reiterates his thoughts.] > "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). ISTM that this quote from Elder Scott doesn't actually refute Thom's argument. CES firesides are specifically directed toward young single adults, not the entire adult population of the Church. I include it with prudent direction for the young from a wise counselor. > "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). This is indeed an example where married adults are included in the audience. I think that the key words are "concern," "regularly" and "inappropriate." It is my view that these three belong together. IOW, the concern is not *that* parents watch R-rated fare but that they watch *inappropriate* fare *regularly.* *Concern* seems to imply that this is a caution rather than an outright ban. It appears that Elder Christensen allows for a little wiggle room in his guideline. FWIW, Thom was pointing out that this is an example of a source who is not an apostle. I think the distinction is important. If it were not, we would likely sustain all general authorities in the leading quorums as prophets, seers and revelators. [snip a repeat of Elder Christensen and to a CES fireside audience.] ************************************************* 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #73 *****************************