From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #97 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, July 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 097 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:37:35 -0700 From: eedh Subject: [AML] Re: PERRY, _Tathea_ I've been reading a bit more of _Tathea_. I love the descriptions. "The sun rose above the horizon and poured a splendor of light across the desert floor." "She looked down a thousand feet to where the waves broke with a force that sent white spume fifty feet up into the air, dazzling in the sun, then fell back again into the cauldron of the blue-green water seething below." I was hooked from the first page of this book, when Tathea finds her family murdered and flees into the desert. I don't always like adventure books, but I cared for Tathea right from the beginning, and so I cared very much whether she made it to safety. I held my breath as she fled across the desert, and yet I would also find myself stopping to savor Perry's descriptive language. Somehow this didn't bother me to switch back and forth between the suspenseful story and the beauty of the language. But then I came to the part where Tathea stumbles upon an old woman mourning at a grave. Tathea comments that the woman must have loved the man (it was interesting to me that she assumed the dead person was a man) very much. The old woman says that she hadn't loved him much. Tathea asks why she's grieving. The old woman answers: "Because he had life....He had a chance to be brave and to seek the truth, to honor and defend it. He had time in which he could have faced fear and overcome it; to know himself without deceit, excuse, or self-pity; to bear pain without bitterness. He had days in which to laugh, to see beauty, to fill his heart with gratitude. He could have been kind and brave and generous....Above all, there were people he could have loved and learned to forgive. He is gone, and who is there in the world that is poorer?...Now all his chances are finished. Of course I weep for him!" Yikes! I hoped this speech wasn't foreshadowing. Unfortunately it was. Tathea finds safety in her mother's homeland and then seeking wisdom ("I want to know if there is any meaning in life. Why do I exist? Who am I?"), sails off to another land. I bogged down in the long, philosophizing speeches before the court scene. She escapes harm again, and upon waking to safety in the beginning of Chapter 3, she asks her companion, "Is truth all about power?" Oh no, I thought. The old lady's speech *was* foreshadowing. I have been led to care about Tathea, and it feels like she is gone. In her place are speeches and conversations about philosophy. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, of course, but that's not what I expected when I began the flight across the desert with her. Should I keep reading to find the bits and pieces of the story that tell what happened to her, or will the things that happen to her just be vehicles for more philosophizing? - -Beth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 23:53:31 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ [MOD: Again, I have to apologize for not getting this out in a timely manner. Because of the way the List operates, I'm not always able to guarantee that time-sensitive announcements will make it out at the appropriate time.] Just got back from seeing "I Am Jane." Had an enjoyable time. Really liked Margaret's script. Also enjoyed some of the performances. Really some remarkable things about this show. I recommend it to those of you in the Utah County area. You have two more chances (possibly three, if they extend to Tuesday night) to see it. I have spent a number of years participating in various critique groups and have always felt complimented when one of my peers will say something like, "If I were writing this I would have blah, blah, blah." Those kinds of comments mean that the person felt strongly enough about the material to want to make it their own somehow. Well, I sat in the Villa Theater tonight wishing that I could have been in "I Am Jane." Or wishing that I had directed it. Or that I had written it. J. Scott Bronson--The Scotted Line "World peace begins in my home" - -------------------------------------------------------- We are not the acolytes of an abstruse god. We are here to entertain--Keith Lockhart - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:37:13 -0600 From: "Payne Family" Subject: Re: [AML] What Can AML-List Do for Me? Jason Steed wrote: > > That's what we have to do: write what's in us. Forget about the critics? > Okay. Yes. But forget about the fans, too. Just write. > Yes. Amen to this. But on the other hand, could there be such a person as an artist who's main artistic kick comes from communion with an audience (the "fans")? And I'm not talking here about prostituting artistic integrity to the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about the artist who, in tune with the community he serves, creates art precisely so that people can come together over it. It seems to me that while using art as a tool to *commune* with people (not necessarily to transcend them) may not get the Great Mormon Novel written, it still could be a pretty pure place to be coming from. Is that thinking too small? - -Sam Payne - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 10:40:03 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] _I Am Jane_ Because we've had capacity crowds, we are extending _I Am Jane_ one night--into Tuesday, July 11. So that's the last opportunity to see it unless you live in Chicago. Thanks to the list members who've come. It really means a lot to see you there. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 07:39:48 -0600 From: "Terry L Jeffress" Subject: Re: [AML] Genre Jason Steed wrote: > . . . Thus, "genre fiction"--because it runs a greater risk of > incorporating things that are considered "bad" by the "literary" audience (a > risk that is inherent in the way the genre is constructed)--is more > susceptible to criticism--or at least more susceptible to being relegated to > the realms of the perjoratively labeled "genre fiction," as opposed to just > plain "fiction"--than "mainstream" or "literary" or "non-genre" (or "just > plain") fiction. The opposite also occurs. When a mainstream writer attempts to write genre fiction, the result often dissapoints regular genre readers. James Michener's _Space_ comes to mind; it works, but feels empty to sf readers. You see this same effect in movies too. For example, my wife, who rarely reads any sf, really liked _Stargate,_ which I found too simplistic, dealing with sf plots and themes that writers and movie makers have beaten to death. A whole field of literary theory deals with what the reader brings to the work. Readers who enjoy reading genre fiction bring a set of assumptions and understandings to that work. Theorists call these assumptions and understandings "protocols." All genres -- including mainstream -- have protocols, sometimes mutually exclusive protocols. Thus, mainstream writing probably will not fulfill the needs of an sf reader, and vice versa. Many people can read in multiple protocol modes. I can read and enjoy both Shakespeare and Asimov, but I use different protocols for each set of works. Mormon literature has a unique problem. Readers must have the Mormon protocols in addition to the usual genre protocols. Thus, for a reader to enjoy your Mormon space opera, that reader must have both the Mormon and space opera protocols. Any time you require two or more protocol sets, you severely limit your audience. Mormon romance novels turn me off. I understand all the Mormon stuff, but because I don't carry the romance protocols in my head, I cannot appreciate the novel -- regardless of how well crafted in the romance tradition. Tony Markham brought up part of Tolstoy's literary theory where the common man must find literature accessible for us to call that literature "good." But how do you define "common"? Every reader brings a unique worldview and union of protocol sets to a work of fiction. Critics can try to discover common threads in literature to which most readers respond positively, but you will always find exceptions. Just look in any university English department, and you will find at least one professor who cannot stand the works of Shakespeare. Everyone wants to have a wider audience, but actively trying to create literature for the common man -- the widest possible audience -- produces works deviod of depth or meaning. To me, the modern situation comedy demonstrates what happens when you try to produce a work targeted at too large an audience. Sure, everyone can watch and understand, but when did a sit-com last move you to great emotional depths or haunt you for days afterward the way your favorite literature has? Tolstoy based his theory on his desire to bring the greatest number of people closer to Christ. A worthy goal that fails to recognize that you cannot move all men with the same lever. In the same way each person has a unique reaction to a literary work, each person has a unique response to the Lord's work. Not every testimony on Fast Sunday moves me to tears, but some can. I think we must accept that Mormon literature has a narrow audience, and that each work will belong to a literary genre with an even narrower audience. That doesn't mean we cannot produce deeply moving literature. But when we do produce such literature, we must understand that only a few will have the intersection of protocols necessary to partake in that experience -- even among the members of the church. > But I've gone on long enough--did anybody read the whole post? Of course. - -- Terry Jeffress - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:35:34 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] What Can AML-List Do for Me? >Please forgive my lack of education or sophistication or whatever you >choose >to call it. Could someone please explain to me what this means? > >D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > > If people won't buy literary writing, then publishers won't publish it > > and authors can't sell it. > [snip] > >In my mind anything that has to do with what people read or write could be >considered literature, according to this definition. Maybe I'm too simple >to >understand the deeper meaning of the word. Just because something doesn't >suit my literary taste, doesn't mean it is not literature. One writer's >meat >is another writer's poison. > [snip] > >I am an eclectic reader, I enjoy everything from Peanuts and Dr. Seuss to >Aristotle and Mark Twain. To me it's all literary. You have a very 'postmodern' outlook, then (and I tend to agree). But the 'modern' usage of "literary" is still very much in effect--and the 'modern' definition of the word tends to be much more elitist than yours. For the modernist (and for many, still), "literary" refers to the "great works" of literature only--not to the "lower" forms of literature (like "genre fiction" or Peanuts, or most other popular forms/modes/genres). This is the way, I think, that the term is being tossed around on the list (by myself included, but only because I'm playing along with the term's general use). But, again, the 'postmodernist' tends to break down these hierarchies, and to avoid privileging one work over another--so that Peanuts can be seen as every bit as "literary" as Aristotle. As mentioned, I tend to agree with this mindset, but I've been using the 'modern' definition of "literary" because that is the definition that the masses (including those agents you mention, and the publishing world in general, I think) continue to use. When they say "literary," they don't mean Peanuts, or Danielle Steele. And yes, publishers still publish "literary" writing--of course they do. But it does not sell as well as more popular genres like romance or SF, or horror. It is my understanding that only about 1 in 10 books published by a large house like, say, Random House, will make money beyond simply covering the author's advance (that's 9/10 of the books that don't make any money!). But the sales from one book by Michael Crichton will be enough to finance the publication of all the others. The bestselling "literary" author is, relatively speaking, a rarity (John Updike, Jane Smiley, Toni Morrison--these are a few notables). I think Michael is exaggerating with his implication that no one buys literary fiction, but there is a thread of truth in that sentiment. Most of the money is in "genre" fiction, memoirs, and books on/by celebrities. 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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:59:11 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] What Can AML-List Do for Me? Ask not what your AML List can do for you, but what you can do for your AML List. There has been some talk lately about writing The Great Mormon Novel (tGMN) and it made me do a lot of thinking yesterday while I mowed the yard. This is always dangerous (thinking, not mowing--I use a non-motorized pushmower to minimize that other danger). I wish there was more talk about good writing. Greatness is overused. I can only think of a handful of great writers and while anyone would be hard-pressed to define exactly what constitutes great writing, time and perspective has elevated a few masters of the craft to its utmost peak. If you would aspire to greatness, you might see what traits the great writers have. Do they share traits? Can you emulate some of these traits? Again, some of us might want to focus on just writing a good novel instead of tGMN. But while pushing the mower, I came up with four names and wondered what these writers had in common to elevate them to greatness: Shakespeare Milton Yeats Faulkner About Shakespeare, so little is known that he sort of has to be put aside. Too bad. But the other three had some interesting commonalities. Two in particular stood out because they are seemingly opposite traits that each writer held simultaneously: 1) the ability to disassociate from the "real" world and enter into visionary trances and 2) the ability to shape the images or visions from these trance-like states into meticulously crafted language, re-writing and re-writing and re-writing until their initial inspiration had achieved a high linguistic gloss. While composing Paradise Lost, Milton would wake up and dictate the day's writing to his daughters, claiming that his muse, Urania, had given him the material. But then he would shape it into careful blank verse, doting on each syllable for nuances of sound and meaning. Of course this only came after fifty-nine years of living. Decades of preparatory writing, learning and mastering the forms of poetry (odes, sonnets, rhyme, scansion, you-name-it). Oh, and going blind. Yeats, again, spent decades mastering his craft. He was a fair-to-middling poet, your average Irish rhymer, up until his later years when he took up with an odd group of people--the Theosophists. They taught him a lot of arcane wizard mumbo-jumbo. He wore colorful robes and practiced incantations, real Harry Potter stuff. And his writing! He would go into these trance-states, dictate material to his wife, wake up and say, "What'd I say?" She'd read it back and then he would work on it, craft it, polish it, and out comes "The Second Coming" "Leda and the Swan" "Among School Children" and "Sailing to Byzantium." Truly great material, not at all like what he'd been writing the first forty-odd years. And Faulkner. Where did he dissassociate to? Out in a cornfield, after it had been turned to sour mash and distilled. Yeah, he locked himself away from his publishers and the critics (and his wife and children) with nothing but pen and paper--and gallons of whiskey. Then put himself into a drunken stupor for the initial blaze of creativity. Then came the meticulous editing. I did my doctorate under Frederic Barthelme at the Center for Writers at USM. Which doesn't mean anything here except that we were privy to Faulkner's manuscripts at the special collections a few miles up the road at Oxford, Mississippi. One of our assignments was to trace a single passage from first draft to first edition. The man edited! And again, success didn't come early. Only after decades of preparation. Another odd little commonality--these were all men. Are we more apt to lose our (rational) minds than women? Are we gents more prone to let go of will and surrender our volition to visions? Not to get Barbara H. after me with a sharpened pencil, but, as I pushed my little mower around and around in an ever-constricting gyre, I wondered: Could this ability to let go and allow the spirit (of whatever) to possess us, possibly, have anything to do with our being allowed to exercise our priesthood while the women are disallowed from exercising theirs? Luckily all I had to do was ask my wife and she told me no. TGMN will likely be visionary, and written by someone who knows a thing or two about metrical language. Not that you (whoever) shouldn't give it a shot. A person's reach should always exceed their grasp. It's called striving for perfection. Tony - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:13:29 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Genre >Jason, I agree with you in the main (and I read the >entire post). > >I use the term "boundaries" for genre writing rather >than "limitations" the same way we say short people >are "vertically challenged." Genre writers shouldn't >feel limited, although there are boundaries that guide >them. I think that's a worthwhile distinction. I suppose I can see the psychological point behind this. >And regarding Thurber, he's an enigma to me. Some of >his writing is not humorous and every bit as good as, >say, Truman Capote, and qualifies as plain old >literary writing. Yes, I do think Thurber might qualify, at times, as more than "merely" a humorist--certainly more than Perelman. His short stories like "The Catbird Seat" and "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty," while humorous, are certainly Twain-like in their "literary" value. I don't know much about Capote either... 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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:57:57 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Genre > >(It is important to point out that ALL writing is of a genre, even though >we > >most often use the term perjoratively, as in "genre fiction," the > >implication being that this is not wholly, solidly "fiction," but some > >inferior subset.) > >I don't use the term pejoratively at all. In fact, I tend to use the terms >"mainstream" or "literary" as insults. That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the _general_ use of the terms is a reversal of _your_ use of them. I'm not sure, though, why you would WANT to be insulted by being called "literary" or "mainstream." It seems that if you can write a romance that can also be called these things, you have broadened your audience and possibly increased your sales... > >Just today we were having a discussion on a romance writers' list about why >so many of us don't enjoy what Scott Card calls "li-fi." One answer that >came up is that it is often self-conscious: the writer uses style, not to >tell a story, but to call attention to himself. The style says, "Look at >this! Watch me! Watch me!" like an annoying child who has learned to >jump >off the sofa onto his dad's belly. The other reason is that literary >fiction so often stops telling the story to wander off and do something >else, perhaps to impress the reader with the author's deep philosophical >musings. Those of us who prefer genre fiction are those who care more >about >story than about literary flourishes. If the writer is truly using "flourishes" or gimmicks, then the "literary" reader is going to have just as big a problem with them as you do. But too often there are things in "literary" fiction that are dismissed by the reader as "tap-dancing on the page," when in fact there is something significant occurring. For the "literary" reader, this is the appeal of "literary" fiction (over "genre" fiction): that all is not on the surface; often, to really understand and appreciate what the author is doing, it takes a great deal of effort. And to suggest that "genre" fiction is more concerned about story, or that the readers of "genre" fiction care more for story, than the readers/writers of "literary" fiction is unwarranted and unsupportable. The story is everything, for all kinds of fiction (that, after all, is what "fiction" is--a _story_). But different stories appeal to different writers/readers... > > > My question is, for those who DO write what might be > >classifiable as "genre fiction": How DO you toe the line and make what >you > >write "new" and "original" while maintaining those elements necessary to >the > >genre? It seems to me that this is a greater challenge for "genre" >writers > >than for "mainstream" blokes like myself. > >When I first started reading romance novels a few years ago, I was amazed, >as I still am, at the wide variety of styles and stories that are possible >with a genre that definitely must meet certain expectations. Basically, >the >expections are simple: man-woman-love-happiness. How the happiness is >arrived at, what kinds of people the man and woman are, when and how they >live, what kinds of experiences they go through, all of these are subject >to >great variety. (Even the man-woman thing has been occasionally altered, >but >gay love stories don't sell very well.) > >There are many sub-genres within the genre, and many different lines whose >editors are looking for different kinds of stories. The only limitation >you >have as a romance writer is that you CANNOT end it with something like, >"She >screamed as the ship exploded out in the bay. She knew that he had >sacrificed himself to save her. Even though bloody bits of him were now >scattered across the waters, she would always be comforted by the knowledge >that he had loved her enough to give his own life to destroy the brutal >pirates." > >NOT! A romance hero worth his salt will not only blow up the pirate ship, >but recover the stolen treasure, clear himself of the trumped-up charges >against him, deliver the medication in time to save the heroine's dying >brother, and then kiss her until her toes curl. I agree with you that every genre consists of multiple sub-genres and variations of that genre. But then you go on to provide a sample ending to a story that supports what I was saying in my earlier post (that "genre" fiction is subject to cliche and formula). _Because_ a "romance hero worth his salt" will do all these things, and because the reader of romance knows this, the romance novel is susceptible to predictability (arguably moreso than "literary" fiction, though certainly the latter can also be predictable). >And please don't blather on >about "reality." If we're in the mood for reality, we can read li-fi. >When >we're in the mood for what this genre gives us, we read romance. Reality, >IMHO, is highly overrated as a necessary component of a satisfying story. I won't blather on about "reality." What IS "reality"? Certainly there are MANY "literary" fictions that are not what we conventionally think of as "realistic"--indeed, there are many "literary" fictions that are decidedly romantic. (Some literary theorists believe, in fact, that romance plays a subtle, underlying role in almost all American fiction, the American world view being itself somewhat romantic.) I, personally, don't think that the principle complaint about "genre" fiction is that it isn't "realistic"--I think, for what it's worth, that every fiction constructs its own "reality," and the only "reality" it must adhere to is the one it has constructed. As I've said, I think the major complaint about "genre" fiction is that it too often is repetitive, formulaic, predictable, cliche. Not ALL of it is like this, of course. But much of it is _susceptible_ to these things... 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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:03:37 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Genre Edgar Snow wrote: > I would like to see a discussion of Mormon humor and > other popular Mormon literature genres by critics who > understand the boundaries of these genres and who can > write about whether they work within those boundaries > (not "limitations"). Genre literature should be viewed > the way poetry is viewed with respect to its own > conventions of meter, rhyme, etc. An Elizabethan > sonnet should not be criticized for not being free > verse. Rachel, I think this is what you are asking > for. Only by appreciating successful works within > those boundaries will anyone know if they have been > transended. LDS literature, being somewhat fledgling, has a great opportunity here, and since we like to flatter ourselves that we are movers and shakers within LDS literature, we can make it happen. Unlike the mainstream literary community, we don't have to let our literature become ghettoized into genres. We can give all genres the respect they deserve, and avoid the class distinctions that developed among the _New Yorker_ crowd. Science fiction is an excellent example of this both happening and not happening. Even though a lot of remarkable stuff has been written in science fiction, it is looked down upon by literary types as if it still consisted solely of 1930s pulp magazines. English departments turn their nose up at it. No science fiction book will ever win a Pulitzer Prize, as I believe Thom said. But that's in America. In England, science fiction has had a venerable history, beginning with the well-respected H.G. Wells. It has always been a part of mainstream literature and never been ghettoized into a genre that only "male adolescents of arrested development" read--presumably. Let's follow the British model for LDS literature, shall we? - -- 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: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 01:12:10 -0600 From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: Re: [AML] THAYER, _Summer Fire_ So is it Summer Fire or Summerfire? There seems to be a discrepancy. [MOD: Sorry, I don't know the answer to this one.] Neal said: >Many list subscribers are probably too >young to remember what life was like for many young men along the Wasatch Front >in the 1960's. Yes, guilty as charged. And this would possibly make a big difference in my view of Thayer's novel. Very interesting in _Summerfire_ is how one of the two cousins sent to the ranch did come out of the experience a stronger, better person. This made a great contrast with the other who ended up wasting his wages in a brothel. I didn't object to this outcome or the journey at all, but the apparent ease with which they were flung into the situation in the first place. It wasn't that the children were sent away to work, or where they were sent (this for Alan who as I type is putting up wire fences and breaking horses), but that they were sent away with no apparent moral guidance. Maybe this was the way things were done back then, but in today's world that just doesn't work. Obviously, it didn't work for one of the boys in Thayer's story, either. More on this book in a minute, but first a little digression. There once was a boy who was a junior in high school. A pretty girl moved into his ward, and they started dating. She was inactive, but began coming to church. So far, so good. Then he started skipping class and his grades plummeted. His parents would find him at her house in her room with the door shut. Her mother laughed and said to leave them alone, that nothing was going on. She trusted them. But everything about him--his manners, his speech, his spirituality--seemed to be eroding. The boy's mother told me that she felt as though he were in the middle of a lake drowning and there was nothing they could do but watch him sink. After serious thought and prayer, the boy's parents arrived one morning (when their son was supposed to be in school) at the girlfriend's house with a packed suitcase. They put him in the car, and it wasn't until an hour into their drive that they informed him that he would be living with his aunt and uncle for the rest of the year. He cried, they cried. He begged to return home. They said no. It was the hardest thing they ever had to do, sending him away. But away from home, he learned a lot about life and growing up. He came home six months later, spent his final year in school, and then served a mission. He has grown in a fine young man (although it's just a coincidence that my youngest son bears the same name). I always admired his parents for acting, for doing something to save him before it was too late. Of course, even though his parents weren't around for those six months and he was facing many new situations, he still had guidance from his relatives. I wonder what might have happened if he hadn't received that guidance. So here I am thinking of the above event while reading Thayer's story. As an admittedly protective mother, I couldn't imagine leaving my son in such a position. The father in the story didn't evoke my admiration. Yes, the boy off to pick pineapples in Hawaii or to mine diamonds in Timbuktu, but make sure he has some sort of moral supervision as well, especially if the child is already wavering. For me, it shouldn't be a sink or swim issue--not at sixteen. If the father had done more to ensure their safety at the first (and still failed), the novel would have had a greater impact on me. I suppose Thayer could have been making a statement about the father's vigilance. If Thayer is on this list, I would be interested to know his reasoning on this point since it made it difficult for me to look objectively on the rest. Maybe that was simply the way things were done back then. Can any of you who were teens during the 1960's add your comments? I am pleased to see that others read and enjoyed the book. And reading Neal's comments certainly shed some light on the issue. (Now if someone could satisfactorily explain the woman's motives for leaving her children in Card's _Saints._ Or was it _Woman of Destiny?_ Am I crazy or was the novel published under two different titles?) [MOD: Yes, the book was published under two separate titles. As I recall the story, Card's original preferred title was _Saints_, but the original publisher--who lacked confidence in the book--tried to market it as a romance and called it _A Woman of Destiny_. Ultimately, Card got back the rights to the novel and republished it with another publisher under his preferred- title.] Rachel ________________________________ Rachel Ann Nunes Author of the best-selling novel To Love and to Promise E-mail: rachel@ranunes.com Web page: http://www.ranunes.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 00:39:14 -0600 From: "Jim and Laurel Brady" Subject: Re: [AML] Reading Group (was: Andrew's Poll) But I wonder--the list has gained a large > number of new members recently; is there once again an interest in reading > and discussing Mormon lit online? I know I would be interested. What say > ye all? > > Melissa Proffitt Actually, there are a couple existing but currently with low volume--maybe they just need an injections of new reading enthusiasts. At egroups there is LDSReaders and LDSpop (not just books, also supposedly covers music, etc.) LDSWriters and UtahWriters. There are probably more, but those are the only ones I know of. Laurel Brady - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Performances) I'm sorry I didn't see Monday, but I saw Saturday! And I was moved to tea= rs. And so was everyone around me, Margaret. It was absolutely inspiring!= By the size of the audiences I guess you know now that you have hold of = something big! I also hope you are making a video! I can't be there tonig= ht (Monday) because of other obligations (we are putting up two new shows= at the same time, NUNSENSE across the street, and DANCING SHOES (Erica = Glenn--Sharlee Glenn's daughter--wrote this when she was only twelve! It'= s amazing!) so we are BUSY. When Harlow Clark talked about the need for criticism I felt guilty that = I have never contributed simply because it is too much work. But I do wan= t to say some little thing about I AM JANE. There is something so deep = in the way Jane wants to "look good." Of course! She's a woman! Color cer= tainly has nothing to do with it. And at the end, when she seems to take = the time to "look good" to go into heaven, that is just one of the most = inspriting and serendipitous moments! I love the writing, Margaret. And = your short story was excellent, also. Thank you for giving us a touchston= e. And please MAKE THAT VIDEO! If you need my camera, let me know! Marily= n Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: [AML] THAYER, _Summer Fire_ May I just say the SUMMER FIRE is one of the best novels on the LDS marke= t? When I read it, I loved it. If it were published in the last ten years= I would be tempted to nominate that one. Sure, there is "opposition." = But there is a powerful message here, and Doug Thayer is like the grandfa= ther of LDS literature. If I had a couple of extra days of life I would = give it a good review. Sincerely, Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] SNOW, _Of Curious Workmanship_ Just want to say the I bought Ed's book as I said I would and I read it = all the way through (all 100 pages!) and you know what! I was GLAD I had = purchased the book. Because when my daughter wanted to read something sho= rt, THAT's the book I gave her. And she loved it. And I thoroughly enjoye= d it because it was so good. If the price hurt a little bit, I certainly = got over that in a hurry! Let me see--a pound of flour and an ounce of = gold. Ed's is gold. The gems can be looked at several times over in the = next fifty years and enjoyed just as much each time. I'm a fan now. Thank= s, Ed! Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 09:53:16 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] _I Am Jane_ Oops. I'm afraid we will not be able to extend. Several cast members could not get off work. Sorry. But we will be presenting it in October as part of a U of U symposium. Margaret Young wrote: > Because we've had capacity crowds, we are extending _I Am Jane_ one > night--into Tuesday, July 11. So that's the last opportunity to see it > unless you live in Chicago. Thanks to the list members who've come. It > really means a lot to see you there. > > - > 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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:23:12 -0700 From: "Kenny Kemp" Subject: [AML] THAYER, _Summer Fire_ Re: Neal Kramer's comments about Summer Fire. I couldn't agree more. Thayer is a superb storyteller and although I was not raised in Utah and never spent the summer on a farm or a ranch (I was busy surfing in southern California), I related intensely to the young man's test of character and faith. Although I don't believe this is Thayer's finest work (that honor, IMHO, goes to the marvelous story collection *Under the Cottonwoods* which absolutely captivated me nearly twenty years ago, and continues to do so today), it resonates with the full power of a youth's striving toward manhood, something that no other LDS author seems to have captured - IMHO. On another note, Chaim Potok once said to me that the Mormon culture was not yet a *mature* culture because it had not yet learned to laugh at itself. We take ourselves sooooo seriously, mostly because we (or many of us, at least) believe we have some special place in God's plan and are therefore more directly linked to Him, and, by extension, have an inside track to what's right and what's best and even what kind of divinity candy Heavenly Mother serves in her cosmic kitchen. That's why simple cultural traditions quickly get cemented into the Will of the Lord. I believe that when we learn to laugh at ourselves, it is just a chuckle away from crying for ourselves, and then we can finally begin to look clearly at ourselves in the mirror. And we won't have crossover potential for our art until we present an absolutely truthful (i.e., reality-based) account of ourselves. Potok does this brilliantly in his novels. He loves the Jewish people and their tradition, and yet he looks at them clearly and honestly and pulls no punches. *My Name is Asher Lev* is the epitome of this, and perhaps a template for any Mormon who wishes to know how to go about writing a novel that is both truthful and affirming. The number one ingredient: courage, because that writer is bound to be castigated for airing so-called dirty laundry in public. But tell me, where else can we air laundry? It will happen, though, because I believe that all truth is circumscribed by the Gospel. That includes the dirty, the unhallowed, and the embarrassing. These concepts are the valleys of darkness and despair a writer must take his reader through for the ending (hopefully life-affirming) to have any resonance and power. Storytelling is a roller-coaster ride, not a merry-go-round. But most LDS writers seem content to tell the same story over and over again, with the same predictable characters, plot points, and hackneyed tresolutions. That's why our literature stretches at being called such. IMHO, of course. Kenny Kemp President ALTA FILMS & PRESS "films and books that entertain, enlighten and inspire." Email: kenny@alta-films.com Web: www.alta-films.com ******************* - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #97 *****************************