From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #84 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 27 2000 Volume 01 : Number 084 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:59:21 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Definition of Terms (was: Race and Culture in LDS Lit.) Jason Steed wrote: > I don't think we can stop the changing nature of language. Yes, words become > "diluted" over time and with use; a word doesn't carry as much weight or > power (or it carries more); things aren't the way they used to be. But not > only do I think this can't be prevented--I'm not sure it ought to be. That's > what makes language so rich, is the ability to use a word that wouldn't > normally be associated with a certain image or idea, bringing two seemingly > disparate things together. How would we ever use metaphors, for example, if > we were worried about the "corruption" of words? As someone who thinks everyone who opposes the normalization of "alright" are out of touch with reality, I have no problem with the fluidity of language--in fact, when there's a controversy about it, I virtually always come down on the side of supporting fluidity. But I think we're talking about two different phenomena here. Diluting a word like "racism" to mean whatever the user wants it to mean so he can call anyone he wants a racist has nothing to do with the normal fluidity of language. It's a political maneuver that falls squarely under the category of propaganda. (Not that I believe any of this is Jason's intention, but I fear the result can be the same even if the intention is not there.) It degrades the language because it's not a natural evolution, but an artificially imposed one. People are not aware of the change in meaning and are assuming its original definition still holds--therefore miscommunication occurs. Plus, no new word comes in to fill the role the corrupted word used to fill. We can no longer discuss the original meaning of racism without all the baggage of the new, artificial meaning getting mixed up in the process. This is nothing more than Orwellian Newspeak. When the word that labels a concept is diluted, the concept is diluted. People see that the word is being used for trivial things, and begin to think the concept behind it is trivial. Then real racism gets treated lightly. I think this phenomenon is well-illustrated with the term "sexual harrassment." That concept has been so diluted that a six-year-old who gave a classmate a kiss for Valentine's Day was suspended from school for sexual harrassment. Meanwhile, what's happened to real sexual harrassment? The concept has been trivialized. I believe I've observed this trend in real time as we've discussed racism on the List. I've read messages calling some things racism that I find hard to label as such. Human beings are designed to be suspicious of those who are not similar to them: the tribal mentality that was an important survival mechanism for most of history. To suddenly label this natural suspicion racism, which some of us have been doing, I maintain dilutes the concept in a destructive way. Humans will always be suspicious of those who are unfamiliar or dissimilar. Racism is when a person elevates this tendency to habitual harmful behavior or philosophical self-superiority. A person who feels the suspicion, but does his best to override the tendency, should not be called racist--even if he doesn't understand the other race, or has had little experience with the race, or doesn't include the race in his literature. It's not my responsibility to people my fiction with a bunch of characters of other races. It might be a good idea; it might make my fiction more believable if I did. But I'm not a racist if I don't. I'm just a white guy who is familiar with and interested in white issues and writes about them. It's the responsibility of those of another race to write about the issues of that race. My responsibility is to support their ability to do so as much as I can. Is it wise to use the same word for my mother, who years ago was hesitant about having her kids sleep over at a black family's house, but overcame her kneejerk reaction and let us; and the KKK'er who dresses up in a white sheet and castrates black men? This really looks like destructive corruption of the language to me. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:03:22 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About Religion Kristen Randle wrote: > I think it is never easy to write about religion. And I'm not sure people > should. > I suspect that the strongest writing we will ever get that can be said to > be "about" religion will be either expository or, if fiction, bitter. It is > easier to write about God with clarity when you are writing about > disappointment and estrangement, because you can feel those things so > strongly, so vividly, and put words to them with such passion. > How do you explain faith? How do you explain the spun glass moment of a > prayer answered, a heart comforted? And should you? Should you talk about > those things when they happen to you? Or isn't the discussion tantamount to > close examination of a snowflake - get close enough, and your breath melts > it away. Plaster words over spun sugar, and they disappear under the weight. That's the strength of literature well written--to be able to describe the snowflake up close when in reality it would melt. Words are more ethereal than spun sugar, and the latter can hold up the former with ease. What need have we of literature which describes the obvious? > The Lord himself says that the attention a proud prayer gets for his > piousness will be his reward - a temporal reward for a temporal act. But > that real prayer takes place in closets, in private joy, in personal sorrow. > So, how are you going to write about such things if they are true? And how > dare you write about them if they are not? Who said fiction is not true? It's a different kind of truth from concrete facts that exist in the world, but truth nonetheless. > What good, pray tell, does it do > to trump up a bunch of fictional miracles for the sake of a story, or a > story for the sake of a bunch of fictional miracles? Is that supposed to do > anybody any good? > I've seen [miracles] a couple of times. No angels. No trumpets. No crowds. No > drama. Just things falling into place, or things stopping, or a small, > sudden epiphany. I would not choose to write about these things. They were > too specific, too subtle, too personal. Here Kristen seems to disproves her own hypothesis by explaining how to do what she says can't be done. How to write about a miracle? As they usually happen: no angels, no trumpets, no crowds, no drama. A straightforward telling of the events. This has been done recently, in the film _God's Army_. A miracle without angels, trumpets, crowds, or drama beyond the inherent drama in the simple recounting of the event. The scene didn't work for everybody, but I got the impression that it didn't work for them because the screenplay neglected to foreshadow it well enough. That's a sin of technique, not content. > They could not be generalized, > because the answers to prayer cannot be anticipated. A story that demands > the number of coincidences and sudden breaks that allowed our studio to > become a reality for us, for example, would make a story that would seem too > facile. A miracle, like anything else in fiction, must be handled with the same established techniques of verisimilitude as any other plot event. _No_ kind of event, miraculous or otherwise, works well in fiction if those techniques are not applied. That's why the justification "but it really happened" won't save you if an event in fiction doesn't seem plausible: you can't just write reality to write good fiction. Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to be plausible, while truth only has to happen. Miracles are no different this way than any other fictional event. Or is the miraculous healing of Ben-Hur's leprous mother and sister in the film _not_ a powerful moment? > As I read her, I wondered if I could write my own God as passionately, as > concretely as she writes her own bitterness and disappointment. I don't > think I can. I'm not sure I should. People who hate the LDS church write > and speak about it, making their accusations plainly. The church does not > answer. Or answers quietly, without engaging in debate. It does not defend > itself by revealing the slightest detail about the accuser. I suppose that > the church actually believes that, as Christ said, "By their works, ye shall > know them." Perhaps Kristen is confusing passion with pietous excess. I believe I could write directly about my God with great passion, and expect one day to do so. I plan on using a great deal of matter-of-factness and understatement to accomplish it. Some of the best passionate writing is that done with words of directness and simplicity. If we follow Kristen's prescription, then literature becomes the monopolized domain of bitter people. Religion can never be positively portrayed in fiction. If that is the only lot of literature, get me far away from it--I want nothing to do with it. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:40:14 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] SLOVER, _Hancock County_ [MOD: I'm going to try sending this out again, hopefully not duplicating the error that I think led to this message being sent out without author or subject line.] BYU Theater Dept. announced its new season, including the following play by LDS playwright Tim Slover: HANCOCK COUNTY Feb 7 - 24 Margetts Theatre (smaller experimental theater) "In June 1844, in a small jail in Carthage, Illinois, a mob murdered Mormon prophet and presidential candidate Joseph Smith and his older brother Hyrum while they were detained to face a charge of treason; another Mormon leader, apostle, and future church president, John Taylor, was grievously wounded. Eleven months later, in May 1845, five prominent citizens went on trial for the murders. _Hancock County_ chronicles the trial's twelve eventful days, as well as dramatizing the story of the incidents leading up to the trial, and the terrible aftermath. A compelling new play commissioned by the Department of Theatre & Media Arts through the generosity of Don and Shirley Oscarson." [Steve Perry] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:36:30 -0700 From: eedh Subject: Re: [AML] _The Real World_ Jacob Proffitt wrote: > But more than anything else, I remember vividly wishing that all parents > would watch the show, if only to catch those brief moments of stark honesty > as the roommates discuss parents. It shook me up and reaffirmed my > dedication to my kids. We don't have cable tv, so I will probably never get to see this show. What sorts of things did the roommates say that parents should hear? - -Beth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:39:22 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Writing About Religion Several people have written in disagreement with parts of what Kristen said. I'd like to take a different tack--because I think that even if you disagree with some of her conclusions, what she's talking about is a real problem, in practical terms. I see part of the problem as residing in that phrase: that literature (a particular book, story, etc.) is "about" something. And I think that's part of what Kristen is writing about (in her message that was forwarded to the List). Some authors can write a work of art that's "about" something and have it turn out well; John Milton is an example that's already been raised, although it's been a common critical judgment for centuries that he does a better job with Satan than with God. It's harder in regular narrative fiction, though--and I'm not sure it's really a good usage of the form. I personally tend to the suspicion that when we talk about a work of literature being "about" a particular theme or concept, we're making the mistake of treating stories as if they were essays. This is one reason I prefer the notion of "worldview" to that of "theme": the first suggests something that comes through and undergirds the writing, whereas the second suggests something for which the story serves as little more than a vehicle. A fine distinction, perhaps--but one I think has important consequences for how we read literature. And for how we write it. There's a real problem in writing directly about that which is most precious to us. I've heard authors talk about how if you feel the emotion while you're writing, that emotion will come through to the reader--but I've also heard (read) other writers talk about how if they're deeply moved while writing a particular scene, it generally ends up in the wastebasket, because the emotion they felt while writing it got in the way of doing a good job of writing. "Emotion recollected in tranquillity" was Wordsworth's formula, if I recall correctly--but the "recollected in tranquillity" was an important part of conveying the emotion. Kristen's issue strikes me as a somewhat different, but related problem. I think it's impossible, ultimately, not to reveal what we believe about the world in our writing--but if we set out with that as our goal, that we're going to "tell the truth" about some particular element of life, most critics tend to believe that the results will be artistically poor. We've had at least one review on the List recently that criticized a book for this very failing (Marion Smith's _Riptide_). What seems to be the more common positive practice is for a writer to write a story that interests him or her, then discover later--or have readers discover for themselves--ways that the story reflects things about the world as the writer believes it to be. Retrospective discovery of the theme, if you will. But not a conscious process of setting out to write "about" God, or religion, or whatever. This raises a real problem for the LDS artist who wants to write "about" gospel truths. I admit that when I read a statement by an artist who says something like, "I wanted to write about the plan of salvation," or "I wanted to show the consequences of sin in my writing," I immediately brace myself for the worst. Unfair perhaps, but a realistic reflection of my experience of most authors who set out with a deliberate didactic intent in their writing. Then there's the problem of doing it right--Kristen's dual questions, "So, how are you going to write about such things if they are true? And how dare you write about them if they are not?" I think I agree with Kristen that it's easier to "get it right" if you do so obliquely--or if you simply set out to tell a story, and follow it where it goes, rather than setting out to communicate a message. One of the problems I have with didactic LDS fiction is that I almost always find somewhere or other that I disagree with the author's interpretation of the gospel. Because the fiction is didactic, I find it harder to ignore such doctrinal disagreements, because the doctrine is more central to the story. On the other hand, with more indirect fiction, I may be troubled if the author's worldview is significantly different from mine, but I'm not so bothered by minor differences. I remember a letter from Scott Card to _Dialogue_ (if I recall the source correctly) where he said that he would never write about overtly Mormon characters in his science fiction. Now, he's gone on to change that resolution--but I think we need to respect the difficulty that he, and Kristen, attest to in writing about one's own religion and doing it both faithfully and well. Were I to write fiction, I know I would have many of the concerns Kristen shares. The fact that she expresses these concerns actually gives me more confidence that in writing about God and religion, she's likely to get it right--because she knows and has a proper respect for the issues involved. 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, 27 Jun 2000 10:35:20 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Real World_ Here I am, back from 8 weeks and London, and suffering from major AML-list = withdrawal.=20 Very quickly responding, Real World has fairly good ratings for MTV, but = I'm blessed if I can figure out why. I've watched it a few times, never = for more than 5 minute stretches, which is all I can take, and I think = it's the most tedious thing imaginable, as well as fairly pornographic--not= pornographic in a sexual sense, but in a voyeuristic sense. Buncha whiny = twenty year olds sitting around griping to each other. What I darkly = suspect is that they're setting this Mormon girl up to be the group's = villain. (They do that every year, I gather; bring in one obnoxious = person to liven things up). Maybe she'll really impress everyone. I'm = not holding my breath. But really, I don't get these reality based shows. = I know they're popular, but I don't get it. They seem deadly dull to me. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:03:22 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re:[AML] Movie Ratings I'm sorry, y'all, but movie ratings are that proverbial red flag which = this particular bull cannot resist. Charge! The rating system is, IMHO, without value of any kind, and absolutely must = be dispensed with completely. Personally, I have dispensed with it. I = make a point of not knowing what the films I watch are rated. I go out of = my way to not know. I close my eyes in the theatre when that particular = piece of information is flashed on the screen. I have programmed myself = to forget it immediately, in the unlikely event that I accidentally learn = what a film is rated. The rating system cannot be improved, and it cannot = be made to work better. It simply must be abandoned. The rating system damages the filmmaking process. It's a marketing tool, = pure and simple, and one that's particularly pernicious. Filmmakers talk = about what extraneous material they're going to have to add or delete in = order to get the rating that they think will best market the film. = Imagine if novelists worked that way; how horrendously inimical to the = creative process such nonsense would be. Furthermore, the rating system itself creates and sustains a wholly false = and dangerous aesthetic, one that privileges the image over the context, = the word over the message, the form over the substance. A film is given a = certain rating if one sees certain images or hears certain language, quite = apart from what those words or language are meant to accomplish in the = story. I just got back from London, where I saw one of the most wonderful = plays ever, David Edgar's play Albert Speer. In the beginning of that = film, seven captured Nazi leaders arrive at Spandau prison. They are told = to strip, and are dressed in the clothing worn by the Jewish prisoners in = Dachau; this, in an effort to convey to these prisoners the moral outrage = of their captors. What an amazing theatrical moment, an incredible scene. = So we see seven naked old men. So that's an R-rated moment? We're meant = to equate that moment with some exploitative scene in a sexy thriller? = What nonsense.=20 The rating system is shallow, it's hypocritical, it's altogether despicable= . It was created with the very best of intentions, and it paved the road = to aesthetic hell. Ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. The rating = system is other people telling you how you should raise your kids. It's = damaging and corrupt. It provides you, as a parent, with no information = you can't get in an infinitely more useful form from reviews and ads and = word of mouth. If I see an ad for Gladiator, and I see hundreds of Roman = soldiers gathered for a battle, I know that's a film my six year old won't = be seeing, and I also know it's a film I want to read some reviews on, = because I might very well want to see it. And then I read some reviews, = and I know the director is Ridley Scott, and I decide to see it, and the = result is a terrific film experience, and a deeply moving, deeply = spiritual experience. What's it rated? I could care less. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:16:01 -0400 From: debbro@voyager.net Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Best LDS Novel of th I would read more mormon fiction if it were more readily available to me location wise and certainly price wise. Two weeks ago my husband and I went to the Science Center in Columbus, Ohio (we live almost 3 hours away in Cleveland) and on the way home we went to the LDS bookstore that is close to the temple. I walked out with three books, but certainly wanted more. My selections were Children of the Promise Vol 3 $19.95 or $21.95 Food Storage For The Clueless $16.95 Singled Out $8.95 (which I didn't realize until I got home) All three were great, but were they worth the cost? Last night I went to Sam's Club and bought a paperback of _The Color Purple_ for $3.98 and I like the binding and the cover better than _Singled Out_. I found SO awkward to hold as it seemed to "flop" in my hands and the words seem to run to the binding. We've had numerous dicussions about the cost of mormon fiction and other books, so this isn't a new subject, just my two cents. [Debbie Brown] <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I could go into Deseret Book today and find thirty Mormon novels on the shelf. I'd find more mainstream American fiction. But that doesn't mean that Mormons don't like to read Mormon fiction. They just don't read it exclusively. Maybe all the gentiles are buying the Mormon fiction :) Neal Kramer - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - ------- End of forwarded message ------- - ------- End of forwarded message ------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:45:18 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Baby Announcement Hi Jacob Your daughrter shares her birthdate with some good company. President Hinkeley of course and My oldest daughter was also born on the 23rd of June 37 years ago. Enjoy her presence in your home because *before you know it* you will have to give her away to another man. Regards, Bill Willson Keep your hand moving and your muse alive. bwillson@mtwest.net - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jacob Proffitt To: Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 1:08 AM Subject: [AML] Baby Announcement > Hi all. Just a note to announce the birth of Cordelia Elinor Proffitt. > Happened at 11:20 pm on June 23rd. Mom and baby are healthy and doing well. > She weighed in at 8 lbs. 5 oz (baby, not mom). > > Jacob > > > > > - > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:10:31 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] YORGASON & BLAIR, _Secrets_ Last year I checked out Secrets (Yorgason and Blair) from our tiny branch library. My take on the book is that it was important for the church to wake up to the problem of abuse and any kind of literature on the subject, no matter how badly written, embarrassingly transparent, obtuse, clumsy, infantile, dilletantish, didactic, pedantic, pamphleteering, and hack, is better than no literature on the subject at all. One scene that particularly gave me fits comes early in the book. The female victim of abuse takes some down time by floating on an air raft in her pool. We then have a page-and-a-half description of physical sensations she experiences in the pool, on this raft. It was embarassing. Had these references to waves and warm tinglings in the nether regions come with an appropriate context or from a writer who had shown some degree of sophistication, then the act of reading them would not have felt voyeuristic and invasive. The most entertainment I could squeeze out of the moment was the wry irony of Deseret Book publishing R-rated material. Tony Markham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:25:36 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] re: Nudity Although I haven't written about nudity in any detail, and have no immediate plans to, I think an awareness as to why we have such different attitudes towards male and female nudity is essential, part of a clear artistic sensibility. Just an opinion, but there seems to be a correlation between an organ's connection with the sacred function of procreation and how dearly we seek to keep it private, protected from the profane view of strangers. Posteriors are only distantly connected to procreation so they are less provocative, and men's less than women's. So we tend to see more male mooning than female. But the reverse side is opposite (I always wanted to say that!). With males, the actual organs of reproduction are more exposed, hence more apt to be kept from view. For females there is little to actually hide. You don't show the womb, the ovaries, the uterus, etc. with frontal nudity so it tends to be more common. Tony (blushing head-to-toe) Markham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:18:49 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] Mahonri YOUNG link This link: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/index.html has an article and pictures about the current exhibition of Mahonri Young sculptures and paintings, as well as quotes and insights from the artist himself. I thought it interesting reading. Steve - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:31:21 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Ardis wrote: > The Young Women president's talk completely overrode the lifelong example you > have been setting for your children? Really? You got the tone correct. My wife and I discussed this with my kids. Of course you want to balance the support you give to church leaders because you sustained them and just saying that the leaders are idiots. Whenever I think about these people, my heart rate goes up, and I must loose some of my clarity. My children tease me about reading fiction, but they do not in any way believe that reading fiction is sinful. (And again, I struggle with balance. Teasing in this way continually puts a member of my ward at the butt of a long-running joke that undermines any authority or positive influence that she might otherwise have had.) - -- Terry Jeffress - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:31:28 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Definition of Terms While we're on the subject of hijacking perfectly good words for political purposes, let's not forget the takeover of the word "gay." - -- Ronn! :) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:56:55 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) >Adams, Linda Paulson. _Prodigal Journey_; volume one of _Thy Kingdom >Come_ trilogy. Cornerstone, 2000, 517 pp. Softcover, $14.95. > >Reviewed by Katie Parker Katie, you've made my day!! I could kiss your feet. Thank you so much for this very pleasant review. (And to other list members, NO, I didn't have to pay her to say all that!) This is my first novel, and I've been waiting anxiously to see how reviews come out. Katie's is the first official one, I believe. It was a little nerve-wracking just to see it come through today, even though I saw the review notice go out and I knew it was coming. I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Whew. Relief! Thank you, also, for the comments that Joan and some of the other characters were a bit flat still. That does help me. I'll have time to work on them in the next volumes. :-) The physical book itself is still being held up at the printer's, although they first said it would be done by June 21st. Now they're saying July 6 or 7. (Richard, you're here too, you can correct me if I'm wrong, or fill in any blanks you like.) So as of this moment you can't run out and buy it at your nearest Deseret Book--yet--but you'll be able to very soon. There's a graphic of the cover on my website (it's not exactly the version being printed, but it's close enough that you'll recognize it once you see it in stores): http://members.xoom.com/adamszoo I can't wait for Volumes 2 and 3 either. Three volumes are projected and outlined. But as I write the rest I still discover things I hadn't expected would happen either--outline in hand or no. I'm still working on it as quickly as I can, with four kids home for the summer and expecting #5 September 20th. (No worries--I wrote a good, large portion of Volume 1 with my last baby nursing on my lap, typing one-handed.) My goal is to get them out about a year apart. I just wanted to say a hearty thank you to Katie! I will smile all day! 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, 27 Jun 2000 15:25:49 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] _The Real World_ On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:36:30 -0700, Beth Hatch wrote: >Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >> But more than anything else, I remember vividly wishing that all = parents >> would watch the show, if only to catch those brief moments of stark = honesty >> as the roommates discuss parents. It shook me up and reaffirmed my >> dedication to my kids. > >We don't have cable tv, so I will probably never get to see this show.=20 >What sorts of things did the roommates say that parents should hear? The reason I want parents to see it is because it can't be adequately described. At least, not by me. The effects of the parents were just = very obvious in some of the kids (young adults? Teens?). Especially as you = hear the kids (fledglings? Youths? How would you describe this age group?) discuss their parents. The things they say and how they say them spoke volumes about the relationships and dynamics present in their families. Personally, I found it heartbreaking. Particularly for the unstable Melissa. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:33:22 -0600 From: Kathleen Woodbury Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? At 04:57 PM 6/26/00 -0600, Terry L Jeffress wrote: >I still think the story will sell over the writing. I agree. Story sells to a much larger readership than writing does. This is the case even when you've got someone who =can= appreciate good writing. Example: I ran the short story contest for the Salt Lake City science fiction convention one year and had the convention guest of honor serve as the final judge. There were supposed to be three prizes, but there were really only two entries that were even close to being prize worthy, so I had to pick among the rest to find something for that third prize. The two prize worthy stories were an adequately written story, and a beautifully written slice of life. (You don't often get such apt representations of the two ends of the spectrum--wordsmithing and storytelling being the ends.) I was curious to see which the guest of honor--a writer who has sold very well, a good storyteller who is also a good wordsmith--would choose for first prize. The adequately written story won, and the judge almost apologized to me when I was given the results--even though the judge appreciated the beauty of the writing in the slice of life, the story because it told a story won out. I told the author of the slice of life to send her entry to ASIMOV'S--that I was sure Gardner Dozois would buy it. And he did. The story still hasn't sold, so far as I know--but I think that's because it is still only adequately written. Story wins out, but the writing still has to be better than adequate (unless the story part is phenomenal). So what do you concentrate on? Both. Why concentrate on only one when both are worth doing well? Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:44:33 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Definition of Terms >While we're on the subject of hijacking perfectly good words for political >purposes, let's not forget the takeover of the word "gay." > > >-- Ronn! :) This goes on all the time (though I'm uncomfortable with calling the phenomenon 'hijacking', because this implies it's illegal or immoral somehow). If I'm not mistaken, we did it ourselves. Our non/anti-Mormon friends, back in the days, used the word "Mormon" in ways not altogether unlike the N-word was used for blacks. After some time, we appropriated the word for our own purposes, and turned it into (so we said) a good thing (and some would say that African Americans have made moves in this direction with the N-word). Again, I don't think this is 'hijacking.' And I don't think it's "unnatural," as Michael has asserted (with the implication that there is a natural way that words change meanings, without someone deliberately changing it--a claim I find little evidence for). This is simply how language works: a word has acquired some meaning, users of the word stretch or bend that word to incorporate new meanings (but usually relying on a greater or lesser extent on the word's old meaning), and this goes on and on, ad infinitum. Speaking of "political purposes"--again, if I am not mistaken--you can go back far enough and find that "Republican" and "Democrat" have almost entirely traded their positions as signifiers...And a scriptural example is the phrase "by and by", which (again, if I am not mistaken) presently denotes something like "after a while," whereas it used to (a long, long time ago) denote something more like "immediately." 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, 27 Jun 2000 18:21:23 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Writing About Religion At 11:39 AM 6/27/2000 -0500, [Jonathan Langford] wrote: >I see part of the problem as residing in that phrase: that literature (a >particular book, story, etc.) is "about" something. And I think that's >part of what Kristen is writing about (in her message that was forwarded to >the List). I personally tend to the suspicion that when we talk about a work of >literature being "about" a particular theme or concept, we're making the >mistake of treating stories as if they were essays. One of my mentors, a marvelous curmudgeonly scene designer/playwright/theatre theoretician, Mordecai (Max) Gorelik, was fond of saying that if a play isn't "about" something, that is, if it doesn't take some kind of stand on some issue, that it is a waste of time, both for the playwright and the audience. He followed that quickly with the comment that if the message is easy to decipher or blatant that the play ceases to be a play and becomes a broadside or a tract. In other words (his) "the message of the play must evolve from the inherent nature(s) of the characters and the conflict. Indeed Kristen opens up a variety of issues about the nature of writing (but then she always did----We (I) miss you on the list Kristen) >Kristen's issue strikes me as a somewhat different, but related problem. I >think it's impossible, ultimately, not to reveal what we believe about the >world in our writing--but if we set out with that as our goal, that we're >going to "tell the truth" about some particular element of life, most >critics tend to believe that the results will be artistically poor. Perhaps (and even when not writing a play, I tend to think in terms of drama) our task is not to "tell the truth" but to illustrate or "show _a_ truth". I am always hesitant to use "the" before the word truth. I always remember that the Lord's words _Say what is truth?_ was a question and not always an easy one to answer. >positive practice is for a writer to write a story that interests him or her, >then discover later--or have readers discover for themselves--ways that the >story reflects things about the world as the writer believes it to be. >Retrospective discovery of the theme, if you will. But not a conscious >process of setting out to write "about" God, or religion, or whatever. Possibly! >This raises a real problem for the LDS artist who wants to write "about" >gospel truths. I admit that when I read a statement by an artist who says >something like, "I wanted to write about the plan of salvation," or "I >wanted to show the consequences of sin in my writing," I immediately brace >myself for the worst. Unfair perhaps, but a realistic reflection of my >experience of most authors who set out with a deliberate didactic intent in >their writing. Back to "telling" and the absolute article "the". >Then there's the problem of doing it right--Kristen's dual questions, "So, >how are you going to write about such things if they are true? And how >dare you write about them if they are not?" Were I to write fiction, I know I would have many of >the concerns Kristen shares. The fact that she expresses these concerns >actually gives me more confidence that in writing about God and religion, >she's likely to get it right--because she knows and has a proper respect >for the issues involved. > >Jonathan Langford >speaking for myself, not the List > >jlangfor@pressenter.com Yep! 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #84 *****************************