From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1005 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 1005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:18:21 EST From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male In a message dated 3/17/03 5:26:57 PM, RichardDutcher@aol.com writes: << 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. >> I don't know, sorta sounds like life. 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 12:35:04 -0800 (PST) From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Richard makes an interesting observation about the Woman/Boy model. I've= noticed it holds true for almost all the LDS romance fiction I've read --= although Anita Stansfield tends to imbue her male characters with more= strength and spiritual maturity than most (my favorite is Michael Hamilton= from the "First Love and Forever" series -- now there's a guy I wouldn't= mind meeting!). However, they are invariably eclipsed by women who've= weathered such trials as marital abuse, spousal infidelity, date rape, etc.= and who emerge as spiritual giants.=20 Perhaps this is because our cultural ideals of LDS women demand that they be= incredibly spiritual, strong, wise, competent, intelligent, funny,= well-organized, optimistic, nurturing, giving, clean, thrifty, reverent,= etc. etc. --and drop-dead gorgeous, too. I think we expect a lot less of= the men. Art may be unwittingly mirroring our culture here. =20 Is this because men just tend to seek out women who are stronger than they?= (As one friend of mine put it, "I thought I could ride to the celestial= kingdom on my ex-wife's coat tails."). Or is it because the culture decrees= women have to meet this ridiculously high standard to be worthy of the= man's love ( no matter how weak, shallow, immature, etc. he is)? (I think= some of the older Shirley Sealy novels imply this rather strongly). If this= is the case, it's no wonder LDS women feel pressured to "measure up."=20 In response to some of Richard's questions, I think this model is extremely= entrenched both in our culture and our literature. (If you don't believe= me, just drop in on a Church singles dance some Friday night). I think it= represents both an exaggeration of church teachings about the nature of= women and a reflection of the world at large, where women are expected to= be all and do all (and look darn good while doing it). We want both the= "Molly Mormon" who is a pillar of the Gospel and the intelligent, quirky,= gorgeous woman of the world who can run everything with one hand behind her= back ("Charly" is an excellent example).=20 The men, however, don't have the cultural mystique that surrounds "mothers= in Zion" nor the pressure of omnipresent media images insisting they be= body-building CEO's who still spend quality time with their kids, repaint= their dining rooms, do their home teaching, and keep the marital fires= burning at night. Nah, we're happy if they have teeth and a job and don't= snore too loudly in Sacrament meeting.=20 Go figure.=20 [Marie Knowlton] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:42:45 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] DAYBELL, _Chasing Paradise_ (FW DN Article) 'Paradise' lost book battle Deseret Book decides not to stock new LDS novel By Sharon Haddock Deseret News staff writer SPRINGVILLE - On page 99 of Chad Daybell's new book, "Chasing Paradise," a warrior angel swoops in, plucks up a naughty spirit by the nape of her neck and drop-kicks her through the wall. Author Chad Daybell says "Chasing Paradise" was shelved because of an "irreverent" passage. Stuart Johnson, Deseret News Daybell says that by then, readers are happy to see the troublesome "Ruby" banished. Unfortunately for Daybell, that same scene has booted his novel off the shelves at Deseret Book stores. Daybell said he was told last week that Deseret Book buyer Sarah Hoffman found the passage "irreverent" and therefore unsuitable for sale by the chain, which recently announced a sweeping clean-up policy for its merchandise. Daybell - who has several books including the popular "Tiny Talks" books in Deseret Book stores - was shocked. "As the managing editor of Cedar Fort publishing, it's part of my job to watch for offensive material," Daybell said. "I certainly didn't think my own novel would fall into that category." Daybell said Deseret Book's reaction has him confused. "I like the idea of making sure everything Deseret Book sells is uplifting and inspirational, but I find it bothersome that many of the New York Time's bestsellers are still sold there," Daybell said. "I don't think LDS authors should be the only ones targeted." Deseret Book officials suggested there may be other reasons behind the book's removal. Gail Brown, publicity manager for Deseret Book, said perhaps Daybell's book wasn't of high enough quality to warrant being included in the stock for Deseret Book. Keith Hunter, vice president of marketing and sales, said Deseret Book can only purchase a limited number of products to sell and the decision to buy an author's work is based on the book at hand, not necessarily on the success of previous books. "This is difficult for us," Hunter said. "His (Daybell's) children's products have sold well while his others have not. My understanding is there are a number of problems with the sales potential of this book." Hunter said while he has not read "Chasing Paradise," he feels confident that Daybell is not being singled out and the book is not "banned." "We will special order the book if people request it," he said. Daybell said prior to Hoffman's kibosh, the book was to be included as part of a Deseret Book advertising catalogue scheduled to go out this month. Deseret Book also has him scheduled for a book signing in Las Vegas next week. "I can still go," Daybell said, "but I can't sign these (the new book)." Daybell said he could edit out the offending sequence about the warrior, but that wouldn't make him happy. "The passage is based on an actual event," he said. "My Young Men's president was killed in an automobile accident and two years later, his nephew was attacked by evil spirits on his mission to Brazil. Chris (the dead president) showed up and fought off the evil spirits and led the missionaries to safety." Daybell said he feels unfairly and arbitrarily singled out because one employee disliked one passage in the story. "That's the main reason I'm publicly objecting," he said. "I didn't want to let this die because it feels so subjective. Is this the new standard, no swearing, no sex and, now, no conflict? If this is the new standard, LDS novelists might as well put away their word processors because potentially anything can come under fire." "The Last Promise," a book by best-selling author Richard Paul Evans, was the first book removed from Deseret Book shelves over a scene where an upset married woman seeks comfort from a male friend. "I watched that and felt bad for Evans. I never thought it would be happening to me," Daybell said. Daybell, a Brigham Young University graduate in journalism, has written four other books. One is based on stories he came across as he worked as the sexton for the Springville City Cemetery. "I knew enough not to submit that one to Deseret Book," he said. "Youth of Zion," based on the lives of LDS Church prophets, and a trilogy based on Emma Smith, along with "Tiny Talks," are all available through Deseret Book. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:36:55 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Personally, I think Jonathan does a good job as moderator. My comments were not meant as an "attack" on him or any other individual. But it's healthy to acknowledge that "the Jordan Rules" exist; that some list members get more leeway. It's just hierarchy, a fact of life, a situation that is inescapable in any social setting. I'm grateful that a moderator on AML-List has prevented the kind of destructive flame wars that have absolutely destroyed other on-line groups. As for the war, bottom line: If Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, and Osama bin Laden and the movements that produced them were decent and peace-loving, we wouldn't be in this mess, or having this discussion. The Michael Jordans of the list, the superstars, you know who you are. (Perhaps I should say the Karl Malones and John Stocktons of the list, since comparing someone to Michael Jordan is not necessarily a compliment, in Utah.) The best I can hope to be is a Jeff Hornacek: a reliable outside shooter, and a good guy. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:02:50 -0700 From: "th. jepson" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male . Reading this post from Richard Dutcher, I was startled to recognize this Woman/boy model in my own writing. In the only explicitly Mormon story I have written I can see it, and in the explicitly Mormon novel I am working on, it is lurking in the background. In fact, the story really can't get to where it is going until the boy gets his act together and realizes the Woman holds the cards. Looking through my catalogued memories of LDS novels I have read, I can see the pattern recurring--especially in matters of romantic import. Very often the boy can't get it through his head that he's found a decent Woman until she gets it through. Although I can only speak of my own relationships with certainty, I do know that at least the way the Mormon male SPEAKS of his marriage relationship also follows the Woman/boy model. Either she won him, or she granted him her hand after he performed the necessary herculean feats. Any man who would swap his and his wife's rolls in their tale would be a cad. I think RD has come across an important theme. If I was still an undergrad, I would happily make it a topic of study. Somebody else should. - ----------theric jepson post script: does anyone have any suggestions how I can post without all this gibberish appearing? It's driving me nuts. I look like an illiterate android. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:20:41 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] re: The Fictional Mormon Male I think Richard has started a fascinating new string, and perhaps, by = asking the rhetorical questions he does, actually poses a thesis which, = if proved true, could be quite startling. In commenting, however, I should also admit that my breadth of reading = in popular LDS fiction is limited, which will limit my bibliographic = insight. But with respect to film, the thesis pretty well holds up: = powerful, independent women linked with weak, or spiritually immature = men. A slight exception to this pattern (and it proves itself to not really = be an exception upon closer examination) is "Out Of Step." In that film, = we have a spiritually immature female trying to grow, and she has two = men in her life. One is a quirky, weak, weird, spiritually awkward = Mormon boy (who is actually a little bit of a sleaze-ball - funny how = Michael loooves playing those darker characters - yeah, right, like I = can talk). Then on the other hand, she has this immensely attractive, = talented, strong, independent non-Mormon male. He's very strong. One of = the strongest characters in LDS film so far (outside of your own humble = fare, Mr. R). And yet, of course, here is the irony: she ends up dumping the strong = non-Mormon because he is (sin of all sins!) NON-Mormon; and while it is = not said that she actually starts dating Michael's dark-horse Mormon, = his character is the last man we see her with in the film. I find that = kind of twisted, somehow, and it plays into Richard's possible thesis of = the cultural product, to date, being more comfortable with slightly = emasculated males. Now, I myself, come from a more European writerly tradition. Brought up = the way I was, on the films that I was weaned on, I am personally, as a = writer, very attracted to the female character. She is symbolic to me. = Tad Danielewski called her the "Anima" (which he did not coin, of = course); the "anima" as the symbol of the spirit of the world, the = feminine energy of the Gaia, life, etc. European writers are very = intrigued with her as a symbol and tend to write their female leads as = such. And I have tended (or at least noticed a tendency in my own work) = to lean that way. I write LOTS of women's roles. More often than not, in fact. But that is = not to say that I pair them with weak men. When they are paired with men = at all, I love those men, and I love them to be as strong and = overwhelming, in a sense of balance with, not servitude to, the woman.=20 But my work remains mostly unproduced or unpublished, so I have no = influence, as of yet, on the trend (if there is one). I know in the novel I'm currently working on, Sweetwater Ford, this is = the first work of mine in a long time that actually tells the story = primarily from the man's perspective, and, for the first time in a long = time, as the writer, I am infinitely more interested in my male = character. Reason Doane is intensely strong; his female counterpart is = no weakling, either. I actually worry that the novel might have thematic = elements which will get it rejected when I go for publication (and do I = sense a trend to censor myself as I am writing?). At any rate, my = character, Reason, comes from the late Mountain Man tradition of the = 1800s. He cusses, shoots guns, kills things, fights like a bear, has an = indomitable will and immense physical strength for his moderate stature. = These traits make his eventual softening and falling in love and final = conversion to the church that much more powerful and miraculous (I = think). I'm also in the early plotting stages for a trilogy that follows another = very strong male character, based on an actually guy, a historical = character in Church history who's name I don't want to spill just yet -- = and he's a rock, too.=20 In my Women-driven stories, I'm thinking of The Long Walk Of Patience = Loader, in particular, the men are very strong. The love-interest (even = moreso in the screenplay version than the stage play) is a paragon of = tall, dark, handsome, tough, spiritual, immovable, independent, and = also, attracted to his symbolic equal: the female lead of the story. While these works have yet to prove themselves in the marketplace, it is = hard to deny to myself, in the face of Richard's intriguing question, = that I love very strong women. But the pairing of them with weak men, if it is indeed endemic to LDS = popular fiction, is very troubling. And from one point of view, it = doesn't make any sense. Certainly the most potent male heroes in the Mormon mythic pantheon are = explosively testosteronal!: Nephi, Moroni (one and two), Mormon, Alma = (one and two), Ammon, Gideon, Amaliki, Helaman and on and on and on -- = and hey, let's not forget those 2060 young studs we all love so much! = They may have listened to their mamas, but they was no Mamas' Boys! Then, of course, you have to counter with the immense popularity in LDS = fiction (and non-fiction alike) of characters such as Porter Rockwell, = J. Golden Kimball, Browning, and so on. so I think there may be some = adequate rebuttal to the postulation of a neutered male in LDS = literature. (And thank goodness!) What about Dean Hughes, David Woolley and/or Darius and Margaret's = stuff, etc.? Can anyone fill me in on this topic line with respect to = them? (I'm ashamed to say I haven't read any of them yet, but I expect = the Standing on the Promises series to arrive in my home any day now.) = Who can comment? My suspicion is that their characters do not fall into = the pattern Richard suspects might be pandemic across the Diaspora of = LDS lit. I'm holding out hope. But our film characters (and I'm being very generous by using that = "our") seem to fall into the pattern Richard points out. And while I = don't think this is a "Mormon" thing, per se, that to be spiritual you = must be passive, there may be some insecurity among screenwriters (the = very small group that are currently before the public eye) in handling = strong male characters. Certainly the "patriarchal order" of church history has had a tendency = towards the opposite. I think our history is filled with overbearing men = and we have had to struggle very hard to bring women to the place they = need to be - and I have no doubt that the women will argue that we have = a very long way to go yet! I have known many women who have suffered at = the hands of a Mormon male who was out of synch with the truth of the = gospel and repressed the women "under" him by "virtue of his = priesthood." And, I think there has been some response in our literature = (albeit considered fringe works), that have begun to address the pain of = that domestic imbalance - an important, delicate, painful, and yet = essential topic. But in current literature trends, and in film (still in its infancy) I = don't know where we are. My suspicion is that there are simply too few examples available for us = to be able to formulate a strong theorem as of yet. As I learned in my = years in market research for the film industry: the smaller the sample = size, the harder it is to make accurate conclusions about the general = trend. There is a much larger sample size in printed fiction, of course, but I = myself have not sampled enough of them to get a sense of the question. We do have to face a certain fact, however: this is a very difficult = time to be male; not just in our Mormon society, but in our society at = large. Some of the axiomatic off-shoots of the recent war thread come to mind. = We have a deeply divided social concept of what male roles are. Warrior, = lover, father, provider, protector (but you have to feel guilty for = shooting the guy you're protecting your family from, right?), etc., etc. = Who is this Man supposed to be?! We have to be spiritual at home, = aggressive at work, compassionate in church, ruthless in business, and = on and on and on.=20 Recent social readjustments to the male dilemma, such as the Iron = John-thing a few years back, to the "Promise Keepers" movement in = evangelical Christianity going on now, all point to a broiling of = paradigms in our culture at large.=20 How could the LDS community, a much smaller and yet somehow more complex = subset of the larger whole, not face certain insecurities in this area = as well? Now suddenly, I am forced to reevaluate a script I just finished, The = Trek, wherein I have a strong, independent non-Mormon female = (supporting) opposite a strong, but spiritually searching and uncertain = male (the lead). Am I falling into a pattern there? I have to address = this question with my partners when we approach the re-writes later this = spring. But then again, as I look out into my ward: how many times do we see the = wives, the daughters, the women, strong and there, dragging along behind = them their inactive or non-member husbands? That is so ubiquitous a = model as to invite hilarity (at least out here in the "mission field").=20 So, while I am not sure that Richard has accurately defined a trend, if = he has, there may be an ACCURATE reflection by our commercial artists of = what is really happening around us! That is a shocking thought! If that is true (and I'm not convinced yet that it is) I am convinced = that this reflection by artists has been an unconscious one, born of an = instinctive connection rather than a planned effect. But is it even true? Are the women stronger than the men, spiritually? = Or is that just an attractive lie? And if so, why is it attractive? The jury is still out!=20 Richard, you got me thinking! Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:17:41 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory ___ Jongiorgi ___ | Yes, but now with the vaguerities of particle physics and some | of the implications of string theory, the acceptable probability | of multiple realities is scientifically accepted. ___ We ought to respect the wishes of the moderator and move this particular tangent elsewhere. For those interested Eyring-l is the Mormon - Science list. I used to run it but haven't for several years. Subscription info can be found at http://eyring.hplx.net Anyway, the above is one, rather controversial, interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don't think most philosophers of quantum mechanics accept the multiple worlds interpretation. I'll not bore folks here with a discussion of the philosophy of quantum mechanics which is even more esoteric than a discussion of quantum mechanics. ___ Jongiorgi ___ | And then you bring up a fascinating point: thinking about | reality changes it? ___ Yes, although this isn't that profound when you think about it. After all we are a part of the universe and thus if we act, the universe changes. So saying "thinking about reality changes it" is no different than saying "running down the street changes the state of the universe." What some call a breakdown between the "subjective" and the "objective" is really just realizing we are part of the universe. It typically isn't a real breakdown. There are movements that the attempt to move past the distinction of subject and object. Heidegger is a great example of this. However holism really doesn't entail such a breakdown. Science certainly doesn't point to such a breakdown. As I said, those interested in discussing religion and science may find Eyring-l interesting. Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:24:39 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture Eric Samuelson wrote: It's interesting to me to see the way the culture functions here in = Utah, especially politically (and I do think politics matters). I = think that there's just not a forum within Mormonism for dissent. And = that leads to some very interesting cracks and fissures. That's the = main think I was exploring. And since those cracks and fissures tend to = be in a kind of Mormon cultural monolith which I perceive as at least = 70% political, my response to them ventured into politics as well. I find this a little amusing (but true, really, in a sad sort of way). = It is not just a Utah idiosyncrasy but true everywhere in the Church. My = wife is very outspoken politically (I tend to listen and keep to myself = - - social anxiety I guess). There is a brother in one of the Wards in our = Stake which came to me one day and questioned me about my wife's = politics. I mostly questioned him about what he felt about what she had = said. At the end he asked me outright: "Can't you control your wife?" I = answered simply "No" which really startled him. I personally feel no one = should be browbeaten over things they believe. That is not quite how I = see Jesus carrying out His work (or the Prophets for that matter). My personal and humble opinion is politics is very much like religion (a = very deeply sensitive and personal subject) and when you mix the two = publicly they become a very strange culture (in Utah and out). People = can dissent within the Church but many times (unfortunately) it costs = them (in various ways to numerous to mention here...but probably felt by = many) due to the prejudice this creates in of some of the "local = leadership" (back biting and gossip/rumors are a TERRIBLE problem = everywhere within the Church).=20 Unfortunately we are a long way from the "Zion Society" envisioned by = the prophets, both ancient and modern. Until the day someone can "look" = into my heart and see me for who the Lord sees me I will keep my views = and opinions on sensitive subjects to myself except with those I feel = "safe" around and I know love me for who I am as Heavenly Father does. = But for right now I do not see my politics being added to the Temple = Recommend interview questions any time soon so I'm not going to worry. Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:42:26 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male ___ Ronda ___ | I've discovered that there is this tendency to almost dumb | down men as in - "well, men need the Priesthood because | they wouldn't be nurturers without it," "men have to have | the control in the church to be forced to be leaders, | women automatically know these things," "men, can't count | on them for anything, don't ask one to be in charge of a | ward party, we'll all be out baling hay rather than doing | anything civilized," etc. It's men and women who are saying | these things. | | What are we saying about ourselves, our spouses, our | brothers and sisters, our culture, and what are we saying | to others, when we make statements such as this? ___ It is also self-refuting. After all, if the priesthood was given to men to teach them this then the stories seem to suggest that it was in vain. i.e. that men *can't* learn it. Yet if they can learn it and the priesthood is an aid then clearly it is wrong to assume men aren't emotionally and socially developed. There are all sorts of stereotypes of this sort. Far too many are repeated and retaught in our literature. There was an infamous book from the late 70's called _Amazing Womanhood_ (or something like that). Basically it was a "how to" manual for women to manipulate men. It was before my time, so I don't know how widespread its acceptance was. However basically the women were taught to act weak, praise the man, and provide often faked opportunities for the men to serve them in a kind of knightly way. Laughable to modern ears. However I had some friends who described reading the book and trying it as a lark. Worked on every man they saw at BYU. Perhaps that just says something about Mormon culture fitting into stereotypes. Perhaps it says something about the lessons our literature teaches. Perhaps it suggests that there is something fundamental in our natures that lets such manipulation work. But it is distasteful. By the same measure we all are aware of men who have exactly the same skills. In the terminology I was familiar with we called them "players." They acted sensitive and nuturing but just were manipulating women to either make out with them or worse. But they had skills most men didn't. And most women seemed to fall for it. When you see how successful these manipulative people are, it does make one cynical. When you see how unable most people are at achieving what some want you also get cynical. Heaven knows I've been cynical myself more than once. But moving from such cynicism to overgeneralizations and worse overgeneralizations that emphasize expecting the worst from people is horrible. When we expect only the lowest common denominator that is what we get. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:44:24 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Jeff SAVAGE, _Into the Fire_ (Review) INTO THE FIRE by Jeffrey S. Savage 2002, Covenant Communications Trade paperback, 214 pages 1-59156-042-X $14.95 "Fractal Characters and Presto-chango Canoes" I come to you this day with a heavy heart, trembling with anxiety over the words I'm about to write. Okay, maybe that's not true, but I _am_ disappointed (yet again) with one more LDS novel that I thought had potential. The first LDS novel I read was Jack Weyland's _Charly_, and (like so many others) felt no desire to sample anything else in that budding genre. Years later, I rediscovered LDS fiction with some well-written books and reignited the flame of hope that quality LDS novels could be written and published after all. But lately my hope has been diminishing. More and more of the books I've been trying out have disappointed, even books recommended by some whose opinions I respect. If LDS literature does achieve the level of quality we're all looking for, it's obviously going to be a rocky ride getting there. Jeffrey Savage's book _Into the Fire_ came recommended (so to speak) by Savage himself: I read his first book and, although I complained that the marketing promised me a different story than I read, had no significant complaints about the writing itself. So I approached his second book with anticipation. Disappointment reared its ugly head again. _Into the Fire_ (a lackluster title in the first place) is the story of Joe Stewart, an LDS businessman who has enjoyed tremendous success in the computer networking business he started. (Obviously this is happening pre-Microsoft.) He's an upstanding member of his community and church and a wonderful father and husband. But within twenty-four hours he loses it all. Word gets out that his company's products were stolen from some Hungarian genius who patented them all, but only locally, so the patent searches didn't uncover that fact. Then some unnamed source "leaks" to the media that Joe is the very person who committed the theft himself. He loses his position as chairman of the board, has the loan on his home called in, watches as his reputation crumbles before his eyes, and even gets called to repentance in priesthood meeting. His accountant can't afford to maintain relations with such a suspect client, so severs them right when Joe needs his help the most. Two of his three children, upon hearing the news, become bitter. His daughter starts voicing cynical doubts about God and their religion, and his son gets arrested for a crime. His wife seems to drift off into a near-catatonic depression. Because of a tick bite, he develops life-threatening lyme disease. He has lost everything. No surprise, because the prolog makes it clear that this is a retelling of the story of Job. Joe--Job- -get it? Normally I'm anti-prolog, but this time I have to grudgingly admit that a prolog is appropriate this time, because this book parallels the Book of Job, and the Book of Job has a prolog. With Savage's first book _Cutting Edge_, I expected a large-scale, worldwide technical thriller, mainly because the marketing and the title gave me that impression. It was a thriller, alright, but not worldwide or anywhere near as large in scope as I had expected. Not Savage's fault--his story was consistent with what it promised inside the book covers, away from the marketing. This time, though, the promise was right their in the writing: intrigue of global proportions, a thrilling mystery unraveling what happened to cause Joe to lose his business, his reputation, his good standing in the church, and starts losing his family. How did the patent infringement occur? Who framed Joe into being the culprit? How is he going to unravel all this and restore his good standing? Will he recover from the lyme disease? Maybe Savage heard me in my review of _Cutting Edge_ and wanted to give me in this book the story I expected in the other. Or not. In fact, he does _absolutely nothing_ with the story he promises in the opening chapters of the book. Poor Joe decides to take his family out into the wilderness and try to knit them back into a close, happy one. And that is the rest of the story. All Joe's troubles back home are cleaned up in short, vague statements that everything is all better again. We never find out anything about how it all happened. Bah, humbug! That was a big disappointment, but maybe the book could still have worked if the story-not- promised-but-given had been written well. It was not. For Joe to have been the savvy, intelligent, wildly successful businessman he was portrayed to be, he would need to be much smarter than his behavior indicates. He is downright dumb--often-- and in just the right places to keep the plot going. Much dumber than he should be to have accomplished the things he did in life. Joe's character generally is uninspiring. He's not quite two-dimensional, but certainly not three- dimensional. A fractal character? The other characters don't fare much better. In fact, the whole story feels fractal with a plot that seems more forced by story requirements than naturally and smoothly motivated. Joe's third child is a Down Syndrome girl who is obviously supposed to provide the "cute" element of the book, and later the tear-jerking. (I swear, if I have to endure one more book or film or song that uses butterfly kisses to evoke endearment, I'll throw up.) When the source of the physical jeopardy in the novel is first introduced, it takes about two neurons worth of brain power to figure out whom it will threaten in the climax. The Down Syndrome child seemed too much of a literary cheat. I can't blame Savage entirely for the quality of the writing. Are there no competent editors at Covenant Communication? Somebody there, please, read a book on comma usage, and insist your authors start using them where they should go. "Oh yes you are," "Come on man," "Well I don't believe that," are all sentences with a missing comma that appear on a single page, and that was the first page I randomly turned to in search of examples. Such constructs permeate the book. But copy editing isn't the only problem. Two-thirds into the novel, a canoe appears. Joe uses it to go fishing with his son. It's an important scene, because the two start connecting there, and it results in one of the Defining Revelations of the book. Yet within a couple pages, the canoe turns magically into a rowboat and back into a canoe--more than once--and even within one sentence at one point. Witness the magic: "Joe stepped off from the shore, lifting and pushing the end of the canoe..." "It had taken a while to get the canoe down from the rafters, and even longer to find the life jackets and paddles..." " 'Okay now, take the paddle in both hands...' ...soon the dark green wooden canoe was slicing smoothly through the water's still surface." "As he paddled, first on the right of the canoe and then on the left..." "Joe back paddled and turned the canoe sideways so that it paralleled the rocks." So we've clearly established that this is a canoe, and Savage knows canoe terminology and how to operate one--well, sort of, assuming the character doesn't know about the J-stroke of paddling that keeps you from having to paddle on one side, then the other to steer the canoe. Then all of a sudden, after some time has elapsed (enough for the author to forget its a canoe?), we read: "Joe laid [his pole] in the bottom of the boat and began to raise the anchor. As Joe rowed, Richie bobbed the end of his rod in and out of the water..." "...keeping his eyes fixed on the tip of the fallen tree and he slowly rowed toward it." You can't "row" a canoe. There's no pins on the paddles to lock into the holes and keep the fulcrum of the paddles in place. And you row facing backward, so how could Joe keep his eye on the point he's rowing for? But sanity rears its head again--or does it? The boat turns back into a canoe: "A soft breeze blew across the water, gently rocking the canoe." "The breeze was now pushing the canoe away from the shore, but Joe made no move to begin paddling, instead letting the canoe drift." Then it's a canoe and rowboat at the same time: "...he picked up the paddle and began rowing back..." I figure Savage couldn't make up his mind to make it a rowboat or canoe, and in the rewrites left artifacts of both decisions. It happens. But where was the editor who is supposed to catch such things? That was the nadir of my reading experience, but there were other moments of poor copy editing or poor writing that I would have glossed over if I had been enjoying the book. I can often determine how good a book is by how much I notice the little discrepancies. If the book engrosses me, who wants to bother sweating the details? I noticed every one of them in _Into the Fire_. The writing never felt quite real. I was conscious the whole time that I was reading a book. The story and characters never grabbed me. Not as bad as two-dimensional; not quite as good as three-dimensional. A fractal novel. The book _could_ have worked. If I'd cared about the characters, if the story had felt more real, if I'd become emotionally invested in everything, if after the diversion into the wilderness to make Joe's family all better, Savage had let us return to the real world and actually wrap up the story he had promised rather than gloss over it. If these things had happened, the ending that was supposed to tear-jerk probably would have. Instead it merely disgusted me with the transparent attempt to manipulate my emotions. Savage is a good writer--he proved that with his first novel. But _Into the Fire_ is a half-ready book. Mario Puzo was upset when his publisher released _The Godfather_ before Puzo felt it was ready. But the publisher knew what he was doing--_Godfather_ was one of the greatest successes of all time. Covenant Communications apparently doesn't have that touch. They should have let _Into the Fire_ incubate longer before its release. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1005 *******************************