From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #85 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 28 2000 Volume 01 : Number 085 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:08:41 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Terry L Jeffress > As an interesting corollary, bad writers cannot tell the difference between > bad writing and good writing. Thus, bad writers believe that they produce > good writing because they don't have the skill to recognize the shameful > prose in their manuscript. This is the only explanation for some of the > slush I have read. I can't second this loudly enough. I read tons of fiction submissions for the literary magazine for which I am an editor. Less than one percent is any good, some is downright rotten. I mean one or two sentences tell you that this is not good. We have, in this and on other threads made the assumption that if writers are trying hard then they're good. This is not true. Some stuff is almost always bad, like evangelical prison writing. (Yes, we see enough of this that it is a sub-genre for us at Cimarron Review.) One of the primary problems is the fact that people write what they read, and they don't read widely enough. As a result, most stories feel the same, like I'm driving across the great West Texas of comtemporary writing as I read submissions. The language is flat, there is almost no attention to saying something of value to the community, in trying to address the tradition. Most contemporary writers of any stripe have forgotten that Chekhov, Flaubert, and Melville even existed. Nobody really investigates the connection of fiction to philosophy anymore, which D.H. Lawrence said was one cause of the demise of the novel. I think he's right. People want writing to be easy--easy to do, easy to write. Very few are striving for greatness, the result for them is that they only acheive shallowness. And I have to read a lot of this material, and I have to send out a lot of rejection slips. Again Terry wrote: > For the majority, if a book tells a story sufficiently well to create vivid > pictures and sufficient tension and none of the really big words get in the > way, they like the book. . . . But since, I believe, most people read as an > escape, they don't want to have to extend the mental energy needed to > appreciate "artistic" works. And I agree. For the most part, I hear that people want entertainment from their books. But you don't hear that from people who like painting. Imagine someone saying, "Hey, let's go to that Picasso/Matisse exhibit and kill some time." "Great idea, I need an escape." Mormon literature, excepting, Margaret's work, Fillerup's, Thayer's, and the like, is generally written to delight. There's not much more to it, unless it is to propagandize the pioneers, or keep our youth in line. The minute someone tries to look seriously at the culture, they're given the cold shoulder. (Very few LDS writers write negatively of the prophet and the brethren, at least I've never seen it.) Great books changes us, we seek after them (or at least I do) to be transformed in surprising ways. For me the best books allow me a kind of conversion and progression. Similarly, I am surprised also at the focus we've given on novels. There has has been great work done in the short story. Our passing up of this causes us to forget John Bennion's collection, BREEDING LEAH, Evenson's ALTMANN'S TONGUE, Margaret Young's LOVE CHAINS. Poetry has been overlooked too, which means we forget Dixie Partidge, Lance Larsen, and Sue Howe. Also, Terry Tempest William's two non-fiction books REFUGE and LEAP are the real contenders for National recognition. LEAP is the book we've been talking about when we bemoan someone who will take our faith to the masses. Terry is concerned that Mormons won't get what she's doing with language and structure and that non-Mormons won't fully grasp the doctrine (and she goes deep in this one). The reviews thus far show that this is indeed the case. It need not be this way forever, not if we're stretching as readers. If nobody reads another LDS book this year it should be LEAP. It would be a great catalyst for our discussions. Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:47:47 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] YORGASON & BLAIR, _Secrets_ > >I did. I found the bishop very believable, for whatever that's worth. > >One thing I thought was interesting about the book was that it showed a >really painful repentance process in one of the characters. Repentance >doesn't come so hard in most of the other LDS fiction I've read. > >Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury >workshop@burgoyne.com Quite right -- I too found the bishop to be very believable. I hope many read this book and became more aware of the problems around them. As you may remember, this bishop's wife had a tortured past, and he showed very little sensitivity to her situation until he awakened to his spouse's need. A very touching book. - --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.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 15:53:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Edgar Snow Subject: [AML] Re: Writing About Religion D. Michael Martindale wrote: "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to be plausible, while truth only has to happen." Amen. Twain said something similar: "Unlike reality, fiction is limited by possibilities" (my paraphrase). And here I throw in my two shiblons: Truth is stranger than fiction, but usually not as funny. Ed Snow ===== My collection of humorous essays entitled _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ has just been released and can be ordered from Signature Books at 1-800-356-5687, or from their website at http://www.signaturebooksinc.com/curious.htm or from Barnes & Noble at http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD&mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.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 17:56:16 -0600 From: Eileen Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > Mormon literature, excepting, Margaret's work, Fillerup's, Thayer's, and the > like, is generally written to delight. There's not much more to it, unless > it is to propagandize the pioneers, or keep our youth in line. The minute > someone tries to look seriously at the culture, they're given the cold > shoulder. (Very few LDS writers write negatively of the prophet and the > brethren, at least I've never seen it.) Please clarify, I do not want to read this too narrowly, but do you mean that in order for our literature to be great we *must* write negatively of the prophet and the brethren? I am asking for clarification because I do not wish to misunderstand. > If nobody reads another LDS book this year it should be LEAP. It would be > a great catalyst for our discussions. Upon such a recommendation I shall read it then. 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, 27 Jun 2000 18:15:59 -0700 (MST) From: Benson Parkinson Subject: [AML] AML-List Lunch Folks of the Wasatch Front (and any beyond who may be interested), How would you like to meet for an AML-List lunch Thursday, 29 Jun 2000? We used to do these on the first Thursday, I think, but people will be on vacation then. We'd meet at noon in the lobby of the Church Office Building or slightly later at the restaurant that gets the most votes. If you're interested, send your vote on where to eat to Ben Parkinson at . We've got one vote for Baba Afghan and one for Hunan Chinese so far. Ben - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:03:28 EDT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN LDS Church Confirms Mormon News Report - Magazines Online Next Month: LDS Church Press Release From: Kent Larsen To: Mormon News Subject: MN LDS Church Confirms Mormon News Report - Magazines Online Next Month: LDS Church Press Release 23Jun00 N1 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:30:00 -0400 [From Mormon-News] LDS Church Confirms Mormon News Report - Magazines Online Next Month (Church Internet Site Expands, Improves) LDS Church Press Release 23Jun00 N1 http://www.lds.org/med_inf/new_upd/20000623_Portal.html SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- The LDS Church confirmed Friday Mormon News' report that the Ensign, New Era and Friend are going on line. Mormon News reported Tuesday that the magazines will be put on line 90 days after publication, according to a letter to local leaders from Elder Boyd K. Packer, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The Church's press release, dated Friday, says that the magazines will be put on its www.lds.org . and will include the past 30 years of Church magazines, every issue since the magazines were reorgnized into four magazines in 1971. In addition, the website is being redesigned to make navigation easier and to add a tour of LDS Church historical sites. The site will also now include some multimedia resources, such as photos and recorded interviews. >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:58:59 EDT From: KGrant100@aol.com Subject: [AML] Ensign article on singles Hi all, Back in 1996, a lot of singles wards were shut down and singles over 30 were asked to return to "conventional" (aka "family") wards. As a single in one of the first wards to be disbanded, I saw the results first-hand, both positive and negative. So I wrote an article for the Ensign on the topic of helping singles become integrated into family wards. The Ensign bought the article but never published it, so I figured they decided not to use it. But I recently got an e-mail from one of the editors and they have decided to use it after all. At the time I wrote the article I was living in Utah, and most of the people I quoted also lived in Utah. The editor asked me to get more quotes from people *outside* Utah, particularly single men and married members of either gender. (But insights from Utah members are also welcome.) So, if you are intersted in being quoted in an Ensign article :) please send me your thoughts or short experiences on any or all of the following topics: * Challenges of being single in a conventional ward/how to feel more at home in a conventional ward when you're single * How married and single members can help singles feel more at home in conventional wards (you can comment on what should or shouldn't be done :) ) * The place of the single adult program in conventional wards * I especially need quotes/anecdotes from married members about how they got to know singles, or came to understand them better. Stories that illustrate prejudices or misconceptions being replaced by compassion and understanding would be particularly welcome. Also, the Ensign is apparently very careful about quoting members, because they asked me to get contact info for everyone I quote so they can verify that the member is okay with being quoted. So along with your response, please send at least an e-mail address, and also a phone number if you feel comfortable with that. I will not give this information to anyone except the editor. Also, please include the ward and stake you are in. It's probably better to e-mail me directly at kgrant100@aol.com than to send answer to this list just so we don't flood the list. [MOD: Yes, unless you want to make a comment that has a literary tie-in you want to share with the List.] It would be helpful if I could receive any responses by the end of the week (July 1). Thanks! Kathy kgrant100@aol.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 22:04:12 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Andrew's Poll: vote Nunes's Ariana Series. Great LDS work--and *her* best work, too. Instead of listing my other favorites, I've got a gripe to vent. I've read quite a lot of other LDS fiction recently, and much of it seems to be getting sloppy. For example, I really enjoy the middle volumes of WORK AND THE GLORY (3, 4 and 5), but by the end he got lazy (ie bad) in his writing. On recommendation, I read Lund's FIRE OF THE COVENANT, and had to mentally rewrite every sentence just to get through the thing. It could easily be cut (and I'm an not exaggerating here) by a few hundred pages without sacrificing plot or characters--it was that sloppy. And boring. There were times I thought I was reading chapter notes, but it turned out to be a bunch of history and research thrown in, stopping the story cold. My poor husband got to hear nightly rantings on my part as I plowed through the thing, but I'll spare you any other criticisms here. Why is this? It seems to me that the more popular an author becomes (and Lund is just one example, I've seen this happen time and again), the more a publisher knows the name will sell, the sloppier the end product. Don't popular writers care about the craft anymore? And don't their editors care about producing a decent product? Or does the editor believe the writer is beyond editing? Unfortunately, I'm afraid that it's just the sales they care about, and so they (all parties) don't bother polishing the manuscript because after all, the book will fly off shelves if certain names on on the cover. Just my current gripe. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:26:43 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Todd Robert Petersen said: > Great books changes us, we seek after them (or at least I do) to be > transformed in surprising ways. For me the best books allow me a kind of > conversion and progression. Todd, I agree. Books invite us to remake ourselves in their image (in the worldview the author advocates). In this way, fiction is indeed a usurper of God's creative power. The young women's president (mentioned on another thread) who disparaged fiction for this reason had it right in one sense. The creative power evidenced in fiction writing is, I believe, an evidence of the God-like potential of the human spirit. My feeling is that the purpose of great literature is ultimately change (social or personal). The warnings against fiction usually fall into an old tradition of seeing novels as an escapist waste of time. If those who see fiction in this limited way could envision the way a novel or story can disturb the reader, plague the reader, and eventually compel the reader to go out and DO something, they may re-evaluate its value. > > Similarly, I am surprised also at the focus we've given on novels. There > has has been great work done in the short story. Our passing up of this > causes us to forget John Bennion's collection, BREEDING LEAH, Evenson's > ALTMANN'S TONGUE, Margaret Young's LOVE CHAINS. Don't forget Levi Peterson. I just reread his "Canyons of Grace." This remarkable story brings up some very disturbing questions about women in an authoritative culture. The protagonist succumbs to a forced "marriage" (or should I say rape?) based on the "spiritual authority" of a self-proclaimed prophet. Her vulnerability stems from a lifetime conflict between her will and what she is told is God's will. (I'm working on a paper for the AML session of RMMLA this November in which I want to compare this story with _Salvador_. In both texts the protagonist experiences a problematic "laying on of hands".) Troubling? Yes. Challenging? Yes. And memorable and possibly world-view changing and life-changing. Writing of this caliber challenges the reader to a wrestling match. Escapist fiction lets us sit on the sidelines. Gae Lyn Henderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:37:37 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Writing About Religion Jonathan Langford wrote: > I see part of the problem as residing in that phrase: that literature (a > particular book, story, etc.) is "about" something. > 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. Technically, I think laying the blame on literature being "about" something misses the mark. But this association is understandable: since writing literature "about" something can be so difficult, as Jonathan pointed out, people tend to blame the problem on the genre itself. Again I refer to _Ben-Hur_ as an example (this time the book). As I understand it, author Lew Wallace was challenged to write a book about Jesus, showing him as "a man among men." Wallace took up the challenge and did his research on the life of Christ. At the end of the research, he had become convinced that Jesus really was the Son of God, so he wrote the book with a new focus, the one emphasized in the subtitle: "A Tale of the Christ." He wrote a book that was "about" something: that Christ was the Son of God. But the book he produced is considered great literature because Wallace did it right. He didn't write the book as an argument to convince readers that Jesus was divine. He took the divinity of Christ as a presupposition, and wrote a good yarn within a worldview that assumed the divinity of Christ. That in my opinion is the secret to writing a book "about" something without coming across as didactic, preachy, or any of those other bad things people call books "about" something. This method not only produces more enjoyable literature, but is also more effective for getting the "message" across than a more blatant approach. If the conscious mind detects even a whiff of argumentation, immediately the filters drop into place and the logic center begins to critically analyze everything. But if the conscious mind can be lured into inattentiveness by a good story, the presuppositions of the story's worldview can seep into and influence the subconscious without the reader even being aware. This leaves us with the interesting paradox that the most effectively didactic of literature is that which is least didactic. I think Kirsten's comments come from a belief that writing "about" something is so difficult to do well as to be practically impossible. I agree with her if the author uses the traditional, but off-putting approach to writing "message" literature. But if the author is wise and couches his message in presuppositions and a fascinating story peopled with real characters that are honestly handled, he can write "about" something to his heart's content. - -- 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, 28 Jun 2000 09:23:07 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re:[AML] Movie Ratings Current Church policy on movies is perhaps best reflected in the current = _For the Strength of Youth_ pamphlet. I snipped the relevant part below = from the Church's official web site, lds.org. There is a noticeable = absence of any reference to ratings, R or otherwise--and one very = significant statement about ratings, which I've CAPPED:=20 Our Heavenly Father has counseled us as Latter-day Saints to seek after = "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy" (Articles = of Faith 1:13). Whatever you read, listen to, or watch makes an impression = on you. Public entertainment and the media can provide you with much = positive experience. They can uplift and inspire you, teach you good and = moral principles, and bring you closer to the beauty this world offers. = But they can also make what is wrong and evil look normal, exciting, and = acceptable. =20 Pornography is especially dangerous and addictive. Curious exploration of = pornography can become a controlling habit leading to coarser material and = to sexual transgression. If you continue to view pornography, your spirit = will become desensitized, and your conscience will erode. Much harm comes = from reading or viewing pornography. It causes thoughts within you that = weaken your self-discipline.=20 Don't attend or participate in any form of entertainment, including = concerts, movies, and videocassettes, that is vulgar, immoral, inappropriat= e, suggestive, or pornographic in any way. MOVIE RATINGS DO NOT ALWAYS = ACCURATELY REFLECT OFFENSIVE CONTENT. Don't be afraid to walk out of a = movie, turn off a television set, or change a radio station if what's = being presented does not meet your Heavenly Father's standards. And do not = read books or magazines or look at pictures that are pornographic or that = present immorality as acceptable.=20 In short, if you have any question about whether a particular movie, book, = or other form of entertainment is appropriate, don't see it, don't read = it, don't participate.=20 * * * * * * Interested in novels, stories, poems, plays, and films by, for, or about = Mormons? Check out IRREANTUM magazine at www.xmission.com/~aml/irreantum.ht= m. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:39:48 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Lunch I can't make it for a lunch because I work in Utah County, but I would = love to have dinner sometime with AML-Listers in Utah County or even in = the north country (Sandy, Midvale, even downtown). Would anyone be = interested in that? If I get enough responses, I'll coordinate something = on the dinner end.=20 Have fun at lunch (it's been a long time since I had Baba Afghan)-- Chris Bigelow * * * * * * Interested in novels, stories, poems, plays, and films by, for, or about = Mormons? Check out IRREANTUM magazine at www.xmission.com/~aml/irreantum.ht= m. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:55:20 -0700 From: "Katrina Duvalois" Subject: RE: [AML] YORGASON & BLAIR, _Secrets_ I am currently reading this book as an assignment from a church leader to help overcome my own childhood abuse. My Bishop was also advised to read it and that has been EXTREMELY helpful as he has been acting as my "therapist" in a way. I have found it to be true to the feelings and frustrations one feels and wish there were more books in the LDS market that were like this, i.e., had "touchy" subjects. I am currently writing a novel from the victim's viewpoint (self-inflicted-therapy, if you will) and wish there were other resources for LDS people suffering from emotional difficulties (including homosexuality). Katrina - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:01:04 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Re: Writing About Religion As usual, Jonathan's thoughtful and carefully written post on this topic = provided all sorts of food for thought. But let me just add that I = strongly prefer novels that are 'about' something, as long as that = something is specific and tangible. I love The Backslider, in part, = because it's about cowboy life in southern Utah. Levi captures that life = so completely, it's utterly compelling. Now, his novel is also about the = atonement, but within the context of a specific and real world, superbly = rendered. I'm reading Jane Smiley's new novel, and am amazed at her = ability to convey with such clarity the world of horses and thoroughbred = racing. For me, her most compelling character is a horse named Justabob, = but he's not an anthopomorphized horse, like Richard Adams' rabbits, but a = real horse, described in terms of horse-life. Her novel is about horses, = and it's superb. It's also about loneliness and loss and adultery and = vanity and greed and lots of other dandy abstractions. But if it weren't = about horses, we wouldn't care about all those abstractions. =20 By all means, write about the gospel. But that's in the background, after = you've done the hard work and research to make the novel or short story or = play about something else, something tangible and real. =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:44:02 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? I always enjoy reading Todd's posts--I think the world of him. I was flattered by his line excepting me and Michael Fillerup and Doug Thayer from other Mormon writers whose function is to "delight," but then I read the next line--"[or] propogandize the pioneers." I thought about that a moment, since my current projects are, of course, about Black pioneers. I asked myself if Todd should exclude me from that group of propagandists. My very brief thought (and Todd, I owe you SEVERAL e-mails, and you owe me one very detailed one, if you recall) is that my objective is not what Stegnar calls "ancestor worship" but actually letting the reader FEEL what it was like to be not only a pioneer but a pioneer of color. (Whether or not I succeed can be discussed after the play and first novel are reviewed.) I would hope that I allow the reader to not just stand in amazement at what the pioneers suffered, but to actually experience some of it vicariously. And I would hope I convey not just the sorrows, but the joys--the completeness of the experience. We hear so much about the Martin Handcart company and its tragedies, but I don't think we get a full picture of what actually bound the pioneers and made them willing to form a suffering community--writing poetry about eachother's losses and deaths, singing "And should we die before our journey's through, HAPPY DAY, all is well!" Well, my success or failure in conveying that will come under review very shortly, since _I Am Jane_ premiers this Friday. (I will write a separate post about that and the challengees of community theater.) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:46:41 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Todd wrote: > Mormon literature, excepting, Margaret's work, Fillerup's, Thayer's, and the > like, is generally written to delight. There's not much more to it, unless > it is to propagandize the pioneers, or keep our youth in line. The minute > someone tries to look seriously at the culture, they're given the cold > shoulder. (Very few LDS writers write negatively of the prophet and the > brethren, at least I've never seen it.) It seems that only through humor can writers (and artists) take a serious look at Mormon issues. Look at all the issues Robert Kirby and Pat Bagley get to bandy about in the SL Tribune. Kirby produces some scathing criticisms of Mormon culture, but because he couches his criticism in humor, he doesn't take as much heat as an essayist or a novelist would who made the same criticism in those respective genres. - -- Terry Jeffress - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:21:30 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? Eileen and all > Mormon literature, excepting, Margaret's work, Fillerup's, Thayer's, and the > like, is generally written to delight. There's not much more to it, unless > it is to propagandize the pioneers, or keep our youth in line. The minute > someone tries to look seriously at the culture, they're given the cold > shoulder. (Very few LDS writers write negatively of the prophet and the > brethren, at least I've never seen it.) I should have said The minute someone tries to look seriously at the culture, they're given the cold shoulder; however, very few LDS writers write negatively of the prophet and the brethren, at least I've never seen it. So really they're only addressing the culture, which is not a problem in my mind. In fact, the great satirists like Swift, Rabelais, and Twain try to heal the culture by exposing and diagnosing its ills in public. Our culture needs that kind of uplift and strengthening, but people still confuse church culture and the church doctrine to the detriment of artists trying to reform their cultural institutions. Better? Worse? Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:43:23 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Community Theater This post will ultimately be a tribute to Bill and Marilyn Brown, though there will be an implicit invitation to all list members to support _I Am Jane_ which has its debut in the Brown's Villa Theatre at 254 South Main in Springville this Friday at 7:30. Today is the first day in two weeks that I feel I have a little space to breathe. (I've wanted to thank Jeff Needle and Andrew Hall and Todd Peterson for the kind things they've said about me, but I honestly have barely had time to make my kids peanut butter sandwiches for lunch.) I HAD NO IDEA WHAT GOES INTO PRODUCING A PLAY. I stand in utter awe of Bill and Marilyn, who have devoted MUCH of their own money and their time and dedication to community theater. When BYU did a play of mine a few years ago, I got to be simply the playwright, and didn't appreciate all the work going on around me to pull off the play. "Little" things like designing publicity posters and getting media attention, constructing a set, assembling competant actors, designing and cutting tickets, GETTING MONEY for all the incidentals, accessing costumes, preparing sound effects, setting up lights, providing ushers, etc., etc. I thought I had delegated this thing pretty well, but have found myself overwhelmed by all the work. To think that Bill and Marilyn do this all the time--I think Marilyn told me they've done forty shows--absolutely amazes me. I am so appreciative of what theater can do. As a mother, I have been so grateful to have my children involved in drama--especially Shakespeare--because their minds are being filled with such wonderful language, their own creativity is being opened, and they are learning about working with an ensemble of others. I love the fact that the Villa sponsors drama workshops for children--all non-profit. As a FORMER actor (though I do take a role in _Jane_), I am so grateful for the friends I have made on stage. (I had read Marilyn's book of poetry, _Rain Flowers(?)_ before I ever met her and was always intimidated by her when we performed _Man of La Mancha_ at the Castle as part of Scott Card's reperatory theatre company which eventually went bankrupt.) Tim Slover and I began our lifelong friendship as fellow actors at Provo High--and I still have really sweet friendships with many people I've met or re-met through a play, certainly including the wonderful Eric Samuelson. (Welcome home, Eric!). I must say that after I've seen everything a play requires and all the good it can engender, I resent any mean-spirited reviews. (So if any of you are planning on reviewing _Jane_, be very careful. The Young family owns LOTS of toilet paper.) Seriously, I can't think of any play which deserves to be "panned." Honesty is fine, and good criticism can inspire better work, but I really don't think mean reviews should ever comprise the thanks a show gets. Surely there is SOMETHING kind a reviewer can say, even if some criticism needs to be given. This may seem a self-serving piece, or an announcement of my fears of a bad review, but I assure you, it's not. I have a strong sense of what my own play's weaknesses and strengths are. I know which actors do their parts well and which aren't quite there. I also know how hard they've worked. I do not want any of my company publicly humiliated. I do believe many reviewers have gotten into the unfortunate habit of using their often formidible wit to bash a show without paying it due respect--and I now understand that respect is due to ANY show which attempts to bring a play to life, even if it falls short. I am not directing this post to any reviewers, only standing back in this little breathing space and recognizing the worth and WORK of theater, saying a very loud THANK YOU to Bill and Marilyn for letting us use their stage and for providing such wonderful opportunities to our community (particularly our children). We've seen a lot of statements by Brigham Young on worthless novels. Maybe this is a good time to remember how important theater has always been to the Saints--and not just "Pageant" type theater, but comedies like _Box and Cox_ (performed during Brigham Young's lifetime in Salt Lake City) and _Pizarro_, performed in Nauvoo (along with several other productions). I understand better than I ever have why the Church leaders have valued theater from the beginnings of this religion. I even understand why they had us do all those silly road shows. I fully suspect we'll be doing plays in Heaven as well. And I hope Bill and Marilyn Brown are in charge of at least one heavenly theater. [Margaret Young] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 14:49:34 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Writing About Religion "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > I think Kirsten's comments come from a belief that writing "about" > something is so difficult to do well as to be practically impossible. I > agree with her if the author uses the traditional, but off-putting > approach to writing "message" literature. But if the author is wise and > couches his message in presuppositions and a fascinating story peopled > with real characters that are honestly handled, he can write "about" > something to his heart's content. I saw _Fiddler on the Roof_ last night at Sendance. On the surface the musical is about Jews. If that were true, however, only Jews would appreciate it. What the musical is really about is the universal theme of New vs. Old., the transitory nature of tradition. At some level, anyone over a certain age has felt the nostalgia for the goold old days that will never come again, so the theme is universal. This is what Mormon literature will have to become to be great. We have to learn how to address universal themes against the backdrop of our own religion. - -- Thom Duncan - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read the further adventures of Moroni Smith, the LDS Indiana Jones! The long-awaited second episode in the Moroni Smith LDS adventure series, _Moroni Smith: In Search of the Gold Plates_ is now available as an e-book at the Zion's Fiction web page: http://www.zfiction.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:17:42 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: Re: [AML] Where's our LDS Pulitzer prize winner? From: "Todd Robert Petersen" > One of the primary problems is the fact that people write what they read, > and they don't read widely enough. As a result, most stories feel the same, > like I'm driving across the great West Texas of comtemporary writing as I > read submissions. The language is flat, there is almost no attention to > saying something of value to the community, in trying to address the > tradition. I, too, have suffered windburn on the West Texas desert. While reading slush, I always kept a balm nearby -- some author's work that refreshes my sense of what writing can achieve -- lest I get blinded by a sandstorm and mistake the storm's eye for a rainbow. But I must augment "people write what they read" with "people write what they THINK they read." And now for the next phase in Terry's theory of slush literature. When we read, we fill in detail from our experiences. If an author places a character on a New York City street corner, most people will fill in detail from memories -- other stories, films, personal experience. Good writers understand the reader fills in the background details and, thus, only mention those additional details important to plot or characterization. Ammauture writers THINK they have read the entire scene, including those parts their own brains produced. With this misconception, they write scenes that have loads of extraneous detail, most of which produces no forward motion or additional understanding for the reader. Understanding the reader's ability to fill in detail presents an interesting challenge to the religious writer who wants to depict characters having a spiritual experience. How much detail should you include about the spiritual experience? First, assume that your audience has already had a spiritual experience. To make the story plausible, you must effectively show the events that lead a character to seek the spirit and show the character's change afterward. The audience will fill in the detail of the experience from their own. Now, assume that your audience has not had any experience with the spirit. No matter how effectively you lead the character up to a spiritual experience, you must try to depict the charcter's overwhelming emotion and conviction of the truthfulness of the Lord's message. Thus, in writing about spiritual experiences, you will always miss a segment of the audience. If you try to describe the detail in full, your writing will seem tedious to those who have already had such an experience. And as Jonathan said in the "Writing about Religion" thread, your depiction may run contrary to the experience of the reader. If you imply a spiritual experience, the reader without any such experiences will claim that your character changes seem unfounded. I conclude that any Mormon literature to gain (inter)national recognition will not be the same literature that gains recognition within the Mormon culture. A text that can appeal to a national audience will only contain peripheral mention of the real spiritual struggles depcited in literature directed at the Mormon culture. > People want writing to be easy--easy to do, easy to write. Very few are > striving for greatness, the result for them is that they only acheive > shallowness. And I have to read a lot of this material, and I have to send > out a lot of rejection slips. People want to write as easily as they read. They do not understand that they read easily because the writer has worked hard to manipulate the archetypes, symbols, and stock footage already in the reader's head. Those works that we consider (or will become) classic deal not the specifics of the character's situation, but with deep human emotions and issues that cross the boundary of time, class, and culture. Why can we relate to _Hamlet_? Not because we have any real concern for Danish history, but because we must all deal with situations where people we love do things that hurt us deeply. - -- Terry Jeffress - - 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 #85 *****************************