From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1004 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, March 19 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:03:48 -0700 From: Kim Madsen Subject: [AML] What Is Meta-Discourse? (Resend) [MOD: Folks, sorry for the occasional glitches. We're trying out a new system using the assistant moderators. So this is a resend of a post already sent, but which came through without an author or subject line.] William Morris wrote: "...pre-occupied with meta-issues of discourse" At the risk of exposing myself as somewhat ignorant, can you explain this to me? I looked up the prefix meta- and learned it means "occurring later than or in succession to" or "situated behind or beyond " or even "more comprehensive : transcending", "used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one", but I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by "meta-issues of discourse". Paint me obtuse, but I just don't get it. Therefore, your words don't communicate anything to me. However, up until that point, I was with you, brother. I appreciated all your comments (the ones I could understand anyway...wink, wink, nudge right back atcha...) Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:00:38 -0700 From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male [MOD: Here's another resend of one that came through without subject line et al.] > In this model, our fictional females are far more powerful than our males. > The females, regardless of their age, are interesting, quirky, intelligent, > beautiful. They are confident, mature, and spiritually sensitive. They are > Women. > > These Women, however, are often joined to males who are socially awkward, > spiritually insecure, obedient, bland, and basically weak. They are boys, no > matter how old they are. > > The Women drive the stories. The boys follow after them. In fact, in order to > get the Woman, the boy often takes whatever course and makes whatever > decision is demanded of him by the Woman. >> Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in our > personal relationships? Richard, I don't think that this problem is simply in Mormon culture. It has unfortunately become a cultural phenomenon in our society. I don't watch much TV, but whenever I do I see at least one commercial with the poor, ignorant man being saved by the smart, strong Woman. The man who uses the wrong garbage bag, the man who doesn't know what to pack for lunch, etc. The thing that is so sad about these commercials is that if they were reversed, everyone would be in an uproar. Since we can't have wilting flowers anymore, we just have wimpy men. > Has the Mormon male been neutered? > > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? > > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons reveal about their > attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy? My husband and I were just talking about this yesterday, after some comments by our bishop made us both cringe. We wonder why so many men in the church seem to give back-handed compliments to women about how "spiritually stronger" they are and how "behind every good man is a better women". Is this just false humility? We both feel that it is condescending on the part of men, because basically what they are saying is that "I am in a position to judge, so now I am assigning you attributes." Anyway, I think that that is a different thread. I guess my main point is that the trend you noticed is a general cultural phenomenon, and it is becoming weirdly appropriated into Mormon culture. Mormon men want to placate the feminazis, but they are scared to go too far in doing so. Instead we just end up with more confusion and less equality than before. I'd rather have a man who meets me at my level, rather than wanting me to rescue him, or having him expect to rescue me. Jessie Christensen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:45:55 -0700 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Scott Parkin said: My friend says he had not intended to attack me, and I believe him. But whether he attacked me or not, I felt attacked. I felt injured. And that injury remains with me and now permanently colors how I interact with that friend. Which bothers me. A lot. I've let an argument over a topic that I believe has many valid responses alter how I treat a friend. Yet no matter how much I tell myself to stop feeling hurt, I can't seem to will myself to feel otherwise. And I do try. Scott, I believe that many of us have felt similarly, especially if we have taken a position that some or many people on the list strongly disagree with. I've felt upset, but tried to shake it off also. It seems to be one of the intrinsic problems that a list like this has. I suppose if I can't take the heat I have to get off the computer--and I suppose my lack of postings has from time to time reflected exactly that feeling. The time I really got upset was when I got a private message questionning my spiritual integrity and giving me apiritual advice. I thought that was extremely inappropriate and an example of the self-righteousness that LDS culture breeds (if you don't agree with me, then you must be deluded, apostate, evil). Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:02:58 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart > >I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming >it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying >about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't >answered the prayers of those parents? > >Thom You're not being crass, but you may be creating a false dichotomy. This is a question I've asked, too, especially when the WTC towers went down and that ridiculous rumor was making the rounds about how all the Mormons that worked there were late to work because they got food poisoning or forgot to set their alarms or something and thus survived. The only miracle you could take out of that actually happening, it would seem, is that so many Mormons were completely incompetent. (I'm not saying that it might not have happened to some people, or that certain people weren't miraculously saved. I'm just suggesting that the tendency to propagate these urban legends seems to speak more to our cultural sense of spiritual superiority, our inherent holier-than-thou group-Geist, rather than to our faith as a twentieth-century technologically-fascinated people.) And I asked this question a lot on my mission: why are the people I've been called to serve getting such a raw deal when, as far as I could tell, they were often far more worthy of divine rescue than I. The same sorts of questions are getting asked about the many innocent people who will probably die in the seemingly imminent violence in and around Iraq--many, apparently, just because they were born in Baghdad instead of Ogden or Minsk or Johannesburg or Hong Kong. What should we ask the Smarts (or anyone else) to do--say that God had nothing to do with their daughter being found because lots of other daughters aren't? Maybe when they claim it's a miracle from God, they're not inherently and automatically also saying that God hasn't answered the prayers of other bereaved parents. They're grateful without being superior, and I'd bet much more empathetic to other bereaved parents than any of us are. On the one hand, we (culturally, at least) often define miracles as things that are extraordinary--outcomes that aren't easily explained given our past experience with life. That we have a word for such events indicates that we consider them out of the ordinary. If they happened all the time, to everyone, we wouldn't tend to call them miracles (or would we?). On the other, the application of miracles--their apparent (by definition) rarity--seems to demonstrate a capriciousness on God's part. Why, indeed, do bad things happen to some good people, and not to other good people? Paul Celan--a remarkable poet who, though not Mormon, has certainly inspired at least one--spent his life essentially trying to answer this question: why he miraculously survived the Holocaust while his parents and family were killed. He didn't succeed universally and eternally; he drowned himself for his guilt, perhaps because he couldn't accept the miracle (wihout apparent reason) of his survival--couldn't answer for himself the question you're asking. But read his "Death Fugue." The terrible song of those verses is beauty in death and pain, speech out of silence, out of dust. A resurrection of language, if not of body--but still a miracle. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:41:43 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] R.M. #s & General Box Office #s Darn that Preston Hunter! Jon P.S. - Can't wait to read your article. Having been on the front lines of trying to raise financing for the past couple of years, its a topic I'm both sick of and twistedly-interested in, like a 10-year-old pouring salt on a slug (or, should I say "into a wound on his own finger"!). - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" > Jon, > > Thanks for clarifying for us. [snip] > I should also clarify that I did not actually write the specific report > on the R.M.'s numbers that you responded to. That was my co-webmaster, > as is the case with many of our mailings, lest anyone give me too much > credit for the amazing amount of information he is able to compile. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:44:12 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart - ------------------------------ Kim Madsen wrote: >I really enjoyed reading Eric's take on the media coverage surrounding >Elizabeth Smart's return. I felt all the things he expressed. I have to >add my two cents about the "live" coverage. The questions asked by >reporters were inane and embarrassing, not to mention repetitive. Do >media people not *listen* to the answers or do they consider themselves >clever lawyer-types who will trip up an interviewee with reguritated >and >restated questions? They came off like a pack of dyslexic hyenas. >Having >ever only lived in Utah, I have nothing to compare to. Is this a Utah >phenomenen or are "local" reporters like this nationwide? It's not a Utah phenomenon--it's a TV reporter phenomenon. In my experience, while print reporters may misquote you, at least they know a little bit (and sometimes a lot) about the subject they're covering. TV reporters are clueless. Actually, that's not entirely fair. Some are not clueless but still have to act clueless because their producer wants them to chase a story or an angle or ask a question that they know is dumb. But still, most of them are just clueless. And it's not just the fast pace that TV news demands either. A lot of the harriedness that TV news creates could be obviated by stopping to actually read the article that came across the wires or by doing a quick Web search. But TV reporters and producers don't really like to read, they prefer to ask dumb questions. At one time, I thought that maybe as you moved up into bigger markets, that the quality of TV news reporters and anchors improved, but the talent in the LA market is just a clueless as in Sacramento and the Bay Area. IMO, the Bay Area market has some of the best talent around, but even so, that's not saying much. And the lame thing is that newspapers are starting to produce clueless reporters as well now that they are relying less on and not developing experienced beat reporters (i.e. someone who covers a particular area or topic---city hall, K-12 education, health, etc.). ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:52:51 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Elizabeth Smart Jared Walters said: "I'd recommend reading a little child psychology on the effects of children's memory when witnessing traumatic events before passing judgment on Mary Catherine." I just wanted to throw in my two cents that it is very true: the brain (especially the neurologically-young brain) is particulary wired to remeber the specific details of tramatic events. This ability fades with age. In many categories, we are often inclined to assume that the adult is better suited than the child, but this is astonishing untrue in many categories of skills. The evolutionary theory for the trauma impressing itself in young memory, is that youth is when the brain is learning how to hard-wire the brain for later survival, and trauma is something that should probably be hard-coded so as to avoid it in future and therefore more likely be able to propigate the species. But the reality is certainly more complex than that. The negative side to this, however, is how much more severely damaging certain traumas are to younger people. At any rate, I don't really want to comment on the Smart case, but just wanted to say, yes, as an amature Child Brain Developmentalist, I am constantly amazed at some of the things the young brain can do, and Walters is right. Do all of you realize that there is a physiological, neurological imperative for the Age of Accountability? By age 8, the brain of all human beings has become neurologially adult (from a standpoint of basal pathways and not knowlege, of course). The 8-year-old brain is radically different than the brain in the first 6 years of life, and in some kids as late as 7 years. But by 8, everyone has pretty much locked it down and we are literally DIFFERENT creatures thereafter. Neurological adults. It's uncanny. That God, guy. He's pretty smart. Jongiorgi - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:29:12 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices - ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com [snip] > If there is no freedom of expression in the Association for=20 > Mormon Letters,=20 > then what's the point of having it? I couldn't disagree more. I'm a veteran of many an email list and I can tell you with confidence that the tone here is singular and the only = place I have ever found where liberal and conservative can share ideas with some measure of actual communication. In a free-for-all, it is too easy, too tempting to polarize. Before too long, all communication ceases. I = discuss here with the honest intent to convince but with an honest intent to be convinced as well. I don't mind changing my opinion based on a = discussion here and that has happened at least twice in issues I deem fundamental. = In more common online forums, that willingness is a weakness because if one side is willing to engage polemics and polarize a discussion, then the = other side will be hampered by any willingness to compromise. It's a form of dishonest discourse and I'm glad it doesn't happen here. = Or at least that there's a braking mechanism in place so that those heated debaters (do I *have* to mention that I can be and too often am one) can step back and fully articulate their actual *idea* instead of continuing = in a destructive discourse about an opponent. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 02:24:19 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male - ---Original Message From: RichardDutcher@aol.com >=20 > I wonder how entrenched this model has become in our=20 > storytelling. I have=20 > read very little popular LDS fiction. Is this a common=20 > character/relationship=20 > model?=20 Um. Good question. I'm afraid that it just might *be* common. And it might actually be why _Singles Ward_ was so dissatisfying. Off the top = of my head, I can match every story containing a strong man with two that = are pretty bland. > Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our=20 > beliefs and in our=20 > personal relationships?=20 Probably. One of the effects of the gospel is to mix the genders. The gospel teaches men to acquire feminine attributes (love, compassion, = mercy) and it also teaches women to acquire male attributes (leadership/hierarchical relationships, non-consensus communication, decisive action). As you can see, it's a lot more obvious that men are acquiring feminine attributes. Also, I see an important difference = between the sexes. It is still alright for women to have their feminine traits. = I don't think it is all that acceptable for men to maintain their = masculine traits. Seriously, think of the difference between "he's just being a man" and "she's just being a woman". They're both awful statements in their own = way of course, but the latter is subtly more forgiving (assuming some = neutrality in tone). > Has the Mormon male been neutered? Literarily, possibly. I'm not sure they have in reality, though. = There's a big difference between LDS males in stories and LDS males in "situ". = We're still a pretty rough bunch if you find us in our native habitat. The reasons for this could be intriguing. I have noticed, for example, a certain contempt for "traditional" men among our artists. Whether it is Orson Scott Card decrying Basketball or a group of men who find it fun = to spend a Saturday doing nothing but talk, you have to admit that we're = not terribly in touch with our peers who are busy building each-others = houses or pounding each-other on the court. Take our women artists as a contrast--they're still a part of the feminine community at least to all outward appearances and in their proclivities for activity. > Do Mormon men equate passivity with spirituality? Maybe. I think we've managed to disinculcate the dictatorship of the = "head of the house". That's a good thing. I'm not sure if we've gone so far = as to equate passivity with spirituality, though. Maybe. Certainly, we typically choose our leaders more from our thinkers than from our doers. Think of your Stake President (or bishop). Is he more likely to play = ward basketball or sing in the choir? My bishop seems comfortable doing = both, but then, I think he's a singularly well-qualified guy. > What do the writings of these domesticated male Mormons=20 > reveal about their=20 > attitudes toward women, sex, domesticity, patriarchy?=20 >=20 > These are interesting thoughts, but I am starting to ramble.=20 > Any input?=20 > Anyone? Interesting. For all my above comments, I'm not really convinced. I = think it's something I'll keep an eye on, though. It's a great question and = I'm glad you brought it up. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:13:53 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices This is my third post today. and I'm really truly very sorry. But I had to respond to Richard Dutcher's post saying he does not approve of censorship, and doesn't enjoy the sting of the moderator's slap. Richard, you must be the most graceful of all writers. Perhaps you don't need a moderator to help you put things in a less offensive or threatening way. Maybe you've never offended or made yourself out to be an ass. I am very good at both of those things, and the remorse I feel when I realize what I've done is awful. You must be graceful. Not everyone is. Pais Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:09:45 -0800 From: "Wes Rook" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male >Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in = our=20 >personal relationships?=20 >Has the Mormon male been neutered? These are some very interesting questions, and I have some strong = opinions. I only hope I can express them without sounding like a = chauvinistic male on a soapbox shouting about his private cause. Before = anyone accuses me of that, let me state that I come from a very, very = matriarchal family and to some extent my marriage is that way, also. I believe this anti-masculine trend in LDS fiction is just a reflection = of a greater trend in our culture. For generations, the church was = accused of suppressing women's freedom and growth. We were seen, and = STILL are seen by many, as a male-dominated culture with few = opportunities for women to progress. The Church has worked hard to overcome this reputation. I believe we are = in the middle of an over-compensation. If you look at the meetinghouses = that have been built in recent years, you will notice that we have = Relief Society Rooms, Young Women's rooms, Mother's Lounges, etc. = Nowhere will you find a Melchizedek Priesthood room or Aaronic = Priesthood Room. The older buildings (at least around here) had these = rooms. I have asked many times, "When did mediocrity become so acceptable to = the men of the church?" (I want to give a sacrament meeting talk on that = subject sometime hahaha). The Relief Society seems to always be on the = ball. They have a wonderful program. They have at least 4 different = teachers, one for each of their wonderful programs, who teach lessons on = Sundays. Visiting Teaching numbers are higher worldwide than Home = Teaching numbers. In contrast, I couldn't count the number of times I = have been in Elder's Quorum when they have said, "who was supposed to = give the lesson this week? What lesson number are we on? Well, let's = read out of the manual together." If some good sister ever did that in = Relief Society they would be lynched on the spot! When did mediocrity become so acceptable to the men of the church? I served in the YM presidency at the same time my wife was serving in = the YW presidency. I would get so frustrated when I saw the Young = Women's program. They had themes, mottos, spiritual goals, and projects. = There was nothing like that in the YM program. I tried to bring that = sort of thing to the young men, but there wasn't an organized program = for it. I think we have focused on building up the women of the church, and = ignored the spiritual needs of the men. Add to this the fact that our = current American culture likes to portray all husbands and fathers as = goofy, bungling, doofuses who could never even function without their = strong, intelligent, competent wives (notice how men are depicted in = almost every sitcom, commercial, and comedy), and you have combination = that truly has neutered the Mormon male. But here is the thing... I always end up with the same sort of weak male = characters in MY OWN writings. Why? Because it just FEELS true. Our = culture has shown us these images for enough years that it has become = the reality. (Or vice versa?) Sure, I have visions of me sitting down at my computer and pounding out = masculine tales while shouting out the manly prose just like Vincent = D'Onofrio as Bob Howard violently writing stories of Conan the Barbarian = in the movie "The Whole Wide World", but that's just not the world I see = around me. As I said, I come from a family of very strong women. So I = write what I see. Maybe someday I will get one or two of the stories = out of me. I have many more questions on this subject than I have answers. I just = wanted to share a few of my thoughts and experiences.=20 Just Thinking, Weston Rook Sacramento, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:40:00 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] re: The Fictional Mormon Male Richard's post was fascinating and thought-provoking. I hadn't noticed the woman/boy portrayals, but he's right--they are everywhere. However, I wonder if it's not so much a Mormon as an American culture phenomenon. Look at virtually any sitcom and you'll see the same thing, from *The Cosby Show* to *Home Improvement* to *Everybody Loves Raymond*, and the list goes on. Funny shows all, but each one has a husband who makes stupid mistakes and a strong wife there to point out each one. LDS literature appears to be following suit in some ways, although Anita Stansfield's first novel was unbalanced in the opposite way: a totally weak, spineless woman with a superman guy. I haven't heard anyone but me complain about that one. Richard's post also got me thinking about the male/female relationships in my own writing, and I gave a sigh of relief when I could say that Greg in my novel, *Lost Without You* is not weak or in any way immasculated, and Brooke is absolutely not the powerful controller. All things considered, I think they are a pretty balanced pair. If I say so myself! Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:21:22 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male This is most thought-provoking, Richard. I find myself not so much thinking of literary examples and applications but looking at my own psyche: I think men can be ultra-efficient to the point of laziness. By putting women on a spiritual pedestal, we can defer most of the spiritual effort to them, conserving our own energy for things we see as more practical and pressing, like our jobs and our pleasures. By aggrandizing women spiritually, we take pressure off ourselves and avoid having to deal as much with an area that overlaps with emotion more than most of us are comfortable with. Most men want to conserve their energy for hands-on fun and accomplishment, not for digging up big-picture spiritual and emotional stuff that is ethereal and abstract and trying to make sense of it all. It's easier to defer to women, who seem to think the spiritual/emotional stuff is more important and who seem better equiped to negotiate it. I know that in my own church life, my main basic mode of thinking is, "How much do I have to do religiously to keep my wife happy?" I'm actually a big believer in the Mormon view of eternity, but I wouldn't miss its earthly practice one bit and would in fact be extremely relieved to be rid of it, though I see its purpose as a placeholder against the devil and as a vehicle for perhaps some begrudging personal growth through service and sacrifice and all that kind of shizbit. I'm pleased and delighted when my wife lets me get away without wearing a tie or with wearing sandals to church; she's actually been the one to suggest those under certain circumstances, knowing how much I value my creature comforts of an open neck and cool, wiggling toes. I usually manage to skip church meetings about once a month without triggering any alarms, and we both laugh and shake our heads at how persistent my home-teaching companion is, because she accepts that I'm more of a biannual home teacher when left to my own devices. She doesn't love it when I sneak Coke and magazines to church--hey, at least I insert the Coke can into a tall, plain, respectful plastic cup and use a straw so I can bend my head down to sip it--so I don't do it every week, at least not the Coke (except on years when we have 9:00 church--then I almost always take a Coke). She lets me get away with dozing thru meetings and with only skimming the elders quorum lesson one time on the morning I teach, because that's all the time and effort I can stomach to spend on it. We used to go to the temple every month and read scriptures every night, but now both are in free fall because I find them both terribly boring and have gradually withdrawn from them. Right now she is distracted with her own new diet and exercise program--thank goodness she isn't making me do it too, since my weight is the same as when we married--but I'm sure she'll retrench us religiously a little soon enough, and I'll go along with it enough to keep her happy, perhaps bargaining quarterly temple attendance and once-a-week scriptures as a compromise to ease myself back into it. If I can keep her reasonably happy and content with my performance, the Lord must be too, because aren't our wives our stand-ins for the Lord, like our mothers were when we were little? Are other men like this at all, or am I just revealing my own flawed, immature personality? By minimizing everything at church and at my day job, I'm conserving as much energy as possible for what's most important to me: constantly feeding my head with whatever the hell I want to read/watch/listen to, and then turning around and spitting out my own writing/editing projects. Let the woman worry about the laundry and the spiritual work and the overall strategy of our lives, and she can assign me tasks as necessary. I'll do toilets, vacuuming, garbage, dishwasher loading, and the equivalent religious spiritual hygiene tasks, and I'll do them just often enough and well enough to keep the mold from becoming visible. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:25:38 -0800 From: "Gardner,Bill" Subject: [AML] re: The Fictional Mormon Male Richard Dutcher wrote: =20 [Do these fictional expressions reveal something in our beliefs and in = our personal relationships? Has the Mormon male been neutered? Do Mormon = men equate passivity with spirituality? What do the writings of these = domesticated male Mormons reveal about their attitudes toward women, = sex, domesticity, patriarchy?] Exactly. I'm that way-- just like the neutered male you described. I'm = sure it has something to do with the unquestioned respect I was taught = to have for women, Mom and everyone else. =20 As a result, fictional expressions of the "strong woman" creep into my = writing (okay, they stomp into my writing wearing big noisy boots). In = fact, my tendency to write strong women has been so noticeable that I'm = currently writing a story in which the female is a little messed up and = the male (still relaxed and somewhat passive) is very much on the ball. = What happens? The main character, the male in this case, has to make an = emotional journey of a different kind. I can no longer rely on the old = standby of bringing the main character from "goofball" to "real manhood" = with the aid of a strong female role model and I am forced to change the = quest, so to speak. What a wonderful thing to have to do-- especially = since I like to write mindless thrillers. Ultimately, this has led to a much stronger story. But in answer to = your question, I wonder if strong male Mormon characters are somewhat = dangerous because they reveal something about our "Mormon" reputation = that we don't want to confess- or more aptly put, that we don't want to = reinforce. I don't believe the Mormon male has been neutered, and you = probably don't either. I do believe that the Mormon male character = suffers from self-imposed exile. Could it be that we subconsciouly = fight agasint our patriarchic reputation (real or imagined) using weak = male literary characters? What an awful thought. (By the way, I'm new to the List and would generally be a non-poster but = I was so heartened by a clear literary topic- one helpful for me to = explore with a little input from the AML collective brain- that I = decided to try a post. This question interests me very much.) Willard Boyd Gardner - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:12:55 EST From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices In a message dated 3/17/03 5:21:36 PM, scottparkin@earthlink.net writes: << I've seen the nearly universal condemnation he's come under recently. I think that's a shame, because I know that Jonathan works very hard to expand the discussion as much as he can. >> I wanted to chime in before anyone might feel the phrase "nearly universal condemnation" to be apt. I admire Scott's candor in the post I've excerpted above, and have to express my boundless respect for what Jonathan is doing, and for Ben, who established the pattern for list moderation. I also want to express my deep respect for all those list contributors who have, by their kindness (I'll even say reverence) made this such a rich and safe place to share. I can't mention the list to anyone without detouring into a little speech about what an extraordinary haven it is from the storms of blindness and pride that really do buffet most intellectual arenas. (Few things are as dangerous as being smart.) I've learned some amazing life-lessons here. Who would know that Thom Duncan is the biggest cream-puff on the planet? Push him hard enough, and he'll admit that he loves you. I've never known anyone quicker to abandon an offensive tack or to apologize so sincerely, or to admit being wrong and be grateful for new light than Eric Samuelsen. The list goes on. (Get it?) I don't want to try to speak Scott's mind more clearly than he already has, but the most salient point for me was the danger of defining people in order to understand them. That kind of understanding is an illusion. If we were honest with ourselves, we might admit that defining one another is more a tool for managing their opinions and beliefs. It's just e-mail, after all, and though we're all supposed to be writers, or at least readers, it's pretty hard to take the measure of anyone we only know by a few pixels on the screen. I think that while we must admit and allow the foibles of mortality in one another, we must also assume the enormity of heart and faith and yearning that is only vaguely apparent in this little box of words. There is no literary tie-in here. Sorry. No, wait! I think I have one! "None of us can ever express the exact measure of his thoughts, or his needs, or his sorrows, and human speech is a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt stars." -Flaubert Tap away, friends. Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:43:51 -0700 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Elizabeth Smart [MOD: I'm going to do a peculiar thing here. First off, in a sense Thomas Baggeley's post--and this entire thread--is off-topic for AML-List. On the other hand, I think Thom's original question related to miracles, who they happen to and who they don't happen to, and why, is an important one with important implications for our communications with each other, both literary and otherwise. When we tell the story of a particular miracle--because a miracle is so unusual--and particularly in such a public fashion as this one, what is the unspoken message about the similar cases when a miracle did not, to human eyes at least, take place? What is a responsible balance to strive for in our literature? Or is there even any obligation to strive for it--since any given work of art is its own single story, not responsible for being all stories? I think all of these are worthwhile questions, and I can't see any way of discussing them without, to some degree, sharing our individual views of what miracles are and how they happen. It's important, however, that we not turn this into a debate, pro and con, of various views of what constitutes miracles, or how one ought or ought not to react to them. So please feel free to share your views, but stop short of debating them. And whenever possible, please reconnect to the literary dimension.] Thom Duncan wrote: >I don't want to sound crass here (though I probably do) but by claiming it's a miracle from God that Elizabeth was found, what are we saying about the hundreds of children who are never found. That God hasn't answered the prayers of those parents? Are you suggesting that we should not acknowledge God's hand in those miracles that do occur because we might hurt the feelings of those who have not (for whatever reason) been blessed with the miracle that they ask for? Certainly Heaven Father could have sent an angel to free Elizabeth Smart from her captors that very first day she was kidnapped. Yet Elizabeth Smart and her family had two endure nine months before she was freed and returned to them. Does this mean it was not a miracle or that it took nine months for their prayers to reach him? Of course not! The Lord, with his eternal perspective, does not always do things the way we would like them done. When Alma and Amulek had to watch the righteous people in Ammonihah burned to death and Amulek wanted to stretch forth his hand and use his faith and priesthood to save them, but the Spirit restrained them from doing so, does that mean that the Lord did not hear or answer the prayers of those people, that undoubtedly must have included some pleas for deliverance? No. God does not always give us the blessings we ask for, especially when or how we ask for them - and I'm certain that, although we do not necessarily see why in the moment, the day will come when we will be glad that he doesn't. When Christ asked that if it were possible, he would be spared the bitter cup he had to drink, acknowledging at the same time that he was willing to do the Father's will, when that answer came that no, He had to pass through the atonement, does that mean the Father did not answer his prayer? I, at times, must say "no" to my own children - even when they ask nicely and the thing they are asking for is not a bad thing. Sometimes I don't have to say no, but I do have to reply "not now, but later". Does that mean I don't love them and I'm not trying to do what's best for them? Does that mean I haven't heard their request? Does that mean I'm just ignoring them and not giving them an answer? My children don't like those answers. I don't particularly like not giving them what they want. When I say yes to one child and no to another, is that because I love one more than the other? No it is not. Nor is that the case with our Father in Heaven. Don't suggest that by recognizing and giving thanks for blessings the Lord does give us that we are somehow saying that he hasn't heard the requests of others for similar blessings and hasn't answered those requests. Sometimes the answer is not, "Here's the blessing you've asked for." Sometimes it is. Sometimes the answer is simply the comforting Spirit - like the angel that appeared to strengthen and minister to the Lord in his hour of need, although He had to drink the bitter cup. But we must recognize those miracles that do occur. We are commanded to recognize His hand in all things. We are commanded to be grateful. To fail to do so is only a step away from saying that miracles do not occur at all. Miracles DO occur. I have seen them. I have also wanted miracles and not received them when and/or how I wanted them. I trust that the Lord knows best when to provide the miracle and when to say no or not now. We should follow the example of the Savior and when making our requests, always be willing to accept His will, whatever that may be. Thomas - ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1004 *******************************