From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1015 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, March 25 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:48:02 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Packaging of Fiction >The question: How does the physical presentation of a text affect our >reading of it? And is the packaging of Mormon novels sufficiently different >from the packaging of mainstream novels to alter our reading experience? This is an interesting question. Most Mormon novels do not call out to me from the shelves. They have a bland look--and, as you point out, an expensive look. I don't want to pay big bucks for a mildly interesting reading experience that I will never return to. One novel whose cover I do remember is JoAnne Jolley's Secrets of the Heart. The cover had a very classy look, in my opinion, and caused me to open the book and eventually buy it. This book was published by Covenant. I am not attracted by covers that feature flowers or jewels or other neutral objects. (As for the horrible romance covers, I suppose that in my essay for Irranteum I'd better discuss the cover controversy within the romance industry to let you know who I think is at fault!) I frequently notice the typeface of a novel--whether or not it's pleasing to the eye, and whether or not it's easy to read. Although I think the content of a book is much more important than the physical presentation, a cramped or tiny font or too little white space on the page can turn away many readers. I like tendency of some publishers to tell what typeface they use in the book design. (Seems to me that Hatrack River books did that.) I must admit that I am not attracted to books that look pioneerish. This may seem blasphemous within the LDS culture, but I am not drawn to books about women who must wear long skirts and silly-looking bonnets while engaging in dawn-to-dusk drudgery and worrying about their menfolk being murdered and their children starving. So I'm shallow. I just don't care for the mores of the mid-nineteenth century. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:52:43 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] FW: Kim CLEMENT, "Hole in the Roof" This is an unusual post. I don't know if Jonathan will find it = appropriate, but I feel it speaks directly to several of the issues that = concern the list, so I pass it along for your (all of your) judgment and = comments. This message is interesting to me because it was sent to me personally = by a good Christian friend. This friend is very serious in his practice = of evangelical Christianity. He has served many missions and done much = work in the ministry of his church. He has also read the Book of Mormon = and discussed the Restoration in depth over many years. He has no = interest in baptism into the LDS faith, but has respect for the church, = and attempts to create an atmosphere of ecumenical cooperation among all = Christians. This post is directly related to Christian entertainers. It was not = written by an LDS artist, but by a Christian as an open letter to other = Christian artists. I believe we certainly qualify as being a part of = that greater community of Christian artists, and I felt that his = comments had direct interest and relevance to us. And so, by permission, I would like to offer the entirety of Kim = Clement's article below. Jongiorgi Enos =20 Hole in the Roof , by Kim Clement As a Christian and a servant of God, I am not in favor of bad = language, or filth in any way.=20 However, for too long, Christians have focused their attention on = these matters and become totally irrelevant in their influence in = society because of these "convictions" that make us somehow feel better. = The fact is that it is not our holiness that makes the world [sinners] = listen to the Christian message, but because of the relevance of the = message and how they can relate to it in their daily lives. They can't = relate to someone who is portraying so much holiness that they have no = earthly relevance! I'm not saying that "anything goes" and in fact, I = don't personally watch movies that portray excessive violence, and = certainly no sexual graphics whatsoever. However, let's explore the = facts and find out what really matters to the world and why the church = is completely and utterly failing in reaching the lost simply because we = have become captives to a "higher" culture. Who is Jesus? Who was Jesus? God is not mute:=20 God, the "Word", did not speak out of a whirlwind, but out of the = human larynx of a Palestinian Jew. An analogy from Karl Barth comes to = mind when I think of Jesus.=20 "A man stands by a window gazing into the street. Outside, people = are shading their eyes with their hands and looking up into the sky. = Because of the overhang of the building though, the man cannot see what = it is they are pointing toward. We who live two thousand years after = Jesus have a viewpoint not unlike the man standing by the window. We = hear the shouts of exclamation. We study the gestures and words in the = Gospels and the many books they have spawned. Yet no amount of = neck-craning will allow us a glimpse of Jesus in the flesh."=20 Sometimes those of us who look for Jesus cannot see past our own = noses. The Lakota tribe, for example refers to Jesus as "the buffalo = calf of God". The Cuban government distributes a painting of Jesus with = a carbine slung over his shoulder. During the wars of religion with = France, the English used to shout, "The pope is French but Jesus Christ = is English!" Modern scholarship further muddies the picture.=20 If you peruse the academic books available at a seminary bookstore = you may encounter Jesus as a political revolutionary, as a magician who = married Mary Magdalene, as a Galilean charismatic, a rabbi, a peasant = Jewish cynic, a Pharisee, an anti-Pharisee Essene, an eschatological = prophet, or a "hippie in a world of Augustan yuppies"=20 Athletes again, come up with creative portrayals of Jesus that = elude modern scholarship. Norm Evans, former Miami Dolphins lineman, = wrote in his book On God's Squad, "I guarantee you Christ would be the = toughest guy who ever played this game.If he were alive today I would = picture a six-foot-six-inch 260 pound defensive tackle who would always = make the big plays and would be hard to keep out of the backfield for = offensive linemen like myself." Each one relates to Jesus on his own terms, and in his own culture = and within his own circumstances. The Italian movie La Dolce Vita opens = with a shot of a helicopter ferrying a giant statue of Jesus to Rome. = Arms outstretched, Jesus hangs in a sling, and as the helicopter passes = over the landscape, people begin to recognize him. "Hey, it's Jesus!" = shouts one old farmer, hopping off his tractor to race across the field. = Nearer Rome, bikini-clad girls sunbathing around a swimming pool wave a = friendly greeting, and the helicopter pilot swoops in for a closer look. = Silent, with an almost doleful expression on his face, the concrete = Jesus hovers incongruously above the modern world. A great professor of Theology, frustrated with his own personal = ability to portray Jesus to the sinner through his sermons, began to = look into the media and it's portrayal of Christ. This is what he says: "My search for Jesus took off in a new direction when the = filmmaker Mel White loaned me a collection of fifteen movies on the life = of Jesus. They ranged from King of Kings, the 1927 silent classic by = Cecil B. DeMille, to musicals such as Godspell and Cotton Patch Gospel = to the strikingly modern French-Canadian treatment Jesus of Montreal. I reviewed these films carefully, outlining them scene-by-scene. = Then, for the next two years, I taught a class on the life of Jesus, = using the movies as a springboard for our discussion. The class worked like this. As we came to a major event in Jesus' = life, I would scout through the various films and from them select seven = or eight treatments that seemed notable. As class began, I would show = the two-to four-minute clips from each film, beginning with the comical = and stiff renditions and working toward profound or evocative = treatments. We found that the process of viewing the same event through = the eyes of seven or eight filmmakers helped to strip away the patina of = predictability that had built up over years of Sunday school and Bible = reading. Obviously, some of the film interpretations had to be = wrong-they blatantly contradicted each other-but which ones? What really = happened? After reacting to the film clips we turned to the gospel = accounts, and the discussion took off. This class met at LaSalle Street Church, a lively congregation in = downtown Chicago, which included Ph.D.'s from Northwestern and homeless = men who used the hour in a warm room as a chance to catch up on sleep. = Thanks largely to the class; I gradually underwent a transformation in = how I viewed Jesus and Christianity. Essentially, the films helped = restore Jesus' humanity for me. The creeds repeated in churches tell = about Christ's eternal preexistence and glorious afterlife, but LARGELY = IGNORE HIS EARTHLY CAREER." The biblical and church doctrine, that Jesus was a complete man = with a human intellect and human freedom, does not seem to prevail in = the average Christian head.=20 How would I have responded to this man? Would I have invited him = over for dinner, like Zacchaeus? Turned away in sadness, like the rich = young ruler? Betrayed him, like Judas and Peter? The more I study Jesus, the more difficult it becomes to = categorize him. He said little about the Roman occupation, [the main = topic of conversation among his countrymen], and yet took up a whip to = drive petty profiteers from the Jewish temple. He urged obedience to the = Mosaic Law while acquiring the reputation of a lawbreaker. He could be = moved by sympathy for a stranger, yet turn on his best friend with the = vicious rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" He had uncompromising view on = rich men and loose women, yet both types enjoyed his company. One day, = miracles seemed to flow out of Jesus; the next day his power was blocked = by people's lack of faith. One day he talked in detail of the Second = Coming; another, he knew neither the day nor hour. He fled from being = arrested at one point and marched boldly toward it at another. He spoke = eloquently about peacemaking, and then told his disciples to carry = swords. His extravagant claims about himself kept him at the center of = controversy, but when he did something truly miraculous he tended to = hush it up. How is it, then, that the church has tamed such a character? As I = have said before, we have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion = of Judah If I were a filmmaker with a few 100 million dollars, what kind of = film would I make? I hope, in Luther's words, to "draw Christ as deep as = possible into the flesh". I am overwhelmed by the great monument of Jesus life; I have spent = 29 years of my life, inspecting the monument's constituent parts - the = birth stories, the teachings, the miracles, the enemies and followers, = in order to reflect on and try to comprehend the man who changed = history. However, most of the time, I feel like an art restorer = stretched out on the scaffolding of the Sistine Chapel, scraping away = the grime of history, hoping that if I scrub hard enough I might find = the original beneath all the layers of creed, formula and fable. I was amazed when I read the story of a great Christian Professor = of Theology who was invited to address 2000 students at a famous Baptist = College. This man was well respected with a long history of missionary = accomplishments. He stood before this great crowd, as they awaited his = speech, or sermon. He greeted them, prayed and after a few exhortations, = started informing them of present day statistics in the world: " = Increase of aids in Africa; The starvation rate by the year 2004; = Disasters in India, etc and then he stopped and said " and most of you = don't give a s*** about what I just told you." Everyone stared in = unbelief as this great man looked at the reaction to his last statement. = He continued; " Most of you are more concerned about my use of a = profanity than the disasters the world is facing today!" Satan has focused our eyes on the one evil so that we would become = ineffective as a witness to the greater need in the world. The "sinner" = is not our enemy; Satan is our enemy. Sinners have no life therefore they act accordingly. This should = not offend us to the point that we lose our focus on the real issues at = hand. God told me that I was to go to Hollywood and build a work that = would be a lighthouse to the lost. I realized that once my feet were = committed to that soil, I would have to face that fact that the sins of = the media and the obvious presence of profanity, violence, fornication, = etc would offend me and try to stop me from "social infiltration". I = further realized that I would be ineffective if I was "poisoned" by = their sin because of this offence. My moral standards are not affected = by their lifestyle and in fact, the mess that I see them in drives me to = a greater desire to be a witness because I see the pathetic waste around = them and feel compassion. Standing from the outside, separated on some = island shouting at them will not save them. Jesus Christ never did that, = why should I? He walked with them, had dinner with the sinner, allowed a = women to touch his feet, did miracles in the presence of iniquity and = yet He never bowed to their standard of morality, but brought them to = His state of existence-freedom. He wept at Lazarus' tomb, not because of = the unbeliever but because of the unbelief in the believer!! When he was = angered, it was not because of the sin of the sinners, but because of = the sinful control of the Pharisees. Somehow, we have turned things = around. Paul never stood on an Island and shouted the odds about their = sin, but he engaged in the battle of ideas and then presented the Truth = to them while standing amongst them. The island that he landed on came = about because of a shipwreck, and then while on the island, a snake bit = him, and in the presence of these "heathen" Paul became a witness, = because the snake's venom did not affect him. What a witness!=20 The venom of the world should not affect us in any way and that = alone would be evidence to so many. As I've said before " While the Church was measuring the length of = skirts and the length of hair, scientists were discovering a greater = means of transport, Bill Gates was gazing into the mystical ball of = Microsoft and women were legislating abortion, removing the rights of = the unborn". The short skirts did lengthen but did not stop the adultery = and the long hair did shorten but did not stop the rebellion, yet = millions of babies have died and billions of dollars have supplied the = wrong people with power." My point is that we are missing the real issues at hand by = concentrating on a few profanities and some violent graphics that might = correctly portray what happens to these abused victims. Sinners are supposed to sin; they don't know how else to behave. = The secular media do have a message - violence, sex, perversion and = deception. Our message is Jesus, healing secret wounds, forgiving sins.=20 The end, the ultimate goal of any Christian project within the = entertainment industry is to portray Jesus intervening in a real world = of sin and pain. Of course, you can clean it up and say that kids don't = need to be influenced by these images, but these same kids will watch it = somewhere else and become violent because in most movies today, there is = no solution presented to them. Our movies and projects should show them = the way out of their violence, crime and pain. Jesus. HOLE IN THE ROOF THEORY: I read something interesting about Jesus when he was on the earth = and this sums it all up: A man, who had spent his whole life horizontal, would have one = moment of vertical fame, when he talked four friends into digging up a = roof and lowering him through the hole. A hole in the roof is hardly the = way to enter a house. Jesus was beneath him ministering and suddenly dust was flying, = bits of straw and clay were falling on the guests, noise and chaos = interrupted the meeting. The crowd whose very presence had created the = accessibility problem were rudely shocked by two things; First was the messy way the paralytics' friends solved the = problem. Then came Jesus' completely unexpected reaction. When Jesus saw = THEIR faith- [plural]-emphasizing the four friends' role in the = healing-he said," Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." Who said = anything about sins? The religious began to whisper and in typical = fashion, the experts started arguing. Jesus hushed the debate with words = that seemed to sum up his general attitude toward physical healing; = "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or = to say 'Get up, take your mat and walk'?" PHYSICAL HEALING WAS FAR EASIER, WITHOUT QUESTION! Jesus never met a disease he could not cure, a birth defect he = could not reverse, and a demon he could not exorcise. But he did meet = skeptics he could not convince and sinners he could not convert. It is = so much easier to go to revivals that center on physical ailments. I = remember living in revivals, and just when I began to feel smug, I = suddenly was reminded how easily I feel tormented by the slightest bout = with physical suffering, and how seldom I feel tormented by sin. The = world is not interested in our smug revivals, they want their pain, = internal wounds, removed, and they need forgiveness.=20 Apparently, Jesus enjoyed the interruption that day. Outstanding = faith never failed to impress him, and certainly the four-man demolition = crew had demonstrated that.=20 I see the paralytic as the people in the World, in pain and = afraid. They don't know how to come through the front door of a church = and so they find Jesus in another way. It's unorthodox, desperate, and = in the midst of flying clay and dust they make their way to the "Door" = and receive forgiveness. Maybe it's not the way that the church wants it to be, but Jesus = loves it, and he always responds to faith and desperate hearts, no = matter how much crap surrounds them. All they need is "friends" to deliver them to the Christ.=20 Our personal victories are never applauded on earth, only in = heaven.=20 I constantly remind myself that the Church is founded on Peter who = denied Christ three times and who couldn't walk on the water by himself. = Don't expect his successors to do much better. For the church to be what = it is supposed to be requires the continuous miraculous meddling of God = in human affairs. I see Hollywood as the instrument, as the "hole in the roof" and I = believe that we have the means to touch a generation who couldn't be = bothered with our personal holiness, but are only interested in seeing = Jesus, the Original.=20 Maybe our slogan should be: "Make a hole in the roof to get to the = Door" Christian Entertainers, producers, directors, and the many = talented writer; Let us use the "hole in the roof" to give abused men, = women, boys and girls a glimpse of Jesus, even if it's mixed with dirt, = clay, straw and broken ceiling. Hollywood could be the means to reach = the masses of dying, seeking people who merely need a "peek" of the = Savior, and His acceptance of them will bring them to the cross and into = the "house". Let's just get them in. =20 Comments by Kim Clement, a Christian, non-AML-List member,=20 Forwarded (by permission) by Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 22:18:14 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male I don't know, Richard, I think you may be onto something here (which does not mean, of course, that you are not still full of poo! =) But it requires us to accept the evolutionary model, man as animal, propagator of species, etc., which from a human behavioral standpoint, works pretty well most of the time, but gets us into the sticky evo vs. creation, etc. I've just met a lot of passive males in my life: my own father, my brother-in-law, my former business partner, and more often than not, it just pisses me off. You know, as a monogamous male, I have not in any way fully sublimated my desire to "spread seed". Of course my natural urges are there. The animal me, the evolved me, is absolutely interested in "spreading", no bones about it, and I don't have to come up with any "super-woman" models to talk myself out of it. I talk myself out of it by using my higher brain and just deciding this is what I want to do, despite my natural man! Didn't somebody big say something about the whole point being to over come the natural man? So, yes, I think you're right. And some men overcome their "natural man" by complicated mental juggling acts that emasculate themselves -- aided and abetted by society at large. Jon Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:32:46 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > I have to agree with Richard Dutcher when he says that censorship is > destructive and unnecessary. (This does not mean I don't appreciate the > hard word that Jonathan has been and is doing to keep the list within the > guidelines.) So here's where I have a problem. At least in the case of the AML-List, a big part of having a moderated forum and calling certain topics out of bounds is to create some sort of safe zone where natural (philosophical or social or political) enemies can speak at least part of their message without all the name-calling and partisan noise that accompanies the unmoderated public discourse. Yes, censorship can be destructive--if there is no other legitimate forum for communication. Yes, censorship should be unnecessary--if people were all good and fair and refrained from laziness in evaluation or harshness in judgment or cruelty in response. But as has been pointed out, few of us are perfect and we live in an imperfect world. So some forums try to establish rules of order to moderate natural response and encourage more considered, considerate discussion. Specifically to enable discussion of difficult or unpopular ideas in addition to the more generally accepted ones. I used to believe that some stories simply shouldn't be told, that some stories are too ugly or hopeless or bleak or silly or banal or pointless or inartistic to escape the clouded neural chaos of their originators. But I changed my mind--all stories should be told; all ideas should be communicated to some audience, even if that audience is extremely limited. However... There is such a thing as audience expectation, and a performer violates that expectation only at the risk of losing the audience. If an author annoys enough readers, one should expect those readers--and other readers like them--to walk away from their work, with nary a positive comment to make. Yet there's an increasingly large set of writers who believe that everyone should read what they have to say--and appreciate it as art. Somehow being an artist should be a shield from any kind of negative reader reaction or should grant them special immunity from social or critical rejection. Which seems inconsistent to me--the very same artistic freedom that enables one person to speak their mind as a performer should also apply to those who respond as an audience or critic. Yet even on this list we seem to have a hard time with that--and we are allegedly the enlightened ones. We bristle at each others' performances or chafe at each others' definitions, and claim that we're being ill used. I get mad a lot, and I wish I didn't because I would like to believe that all expression should be appreciated at some level even when it doesn't quite match what I consider to be right and good. I know I've rethought a fair number of basic assumptions because of the ways that others have expressed their views. That's why I told the story of my personally frustrating interaction with a friend of mine on this list. It's not to make myself into some sort of good guy--I consider my own...what do you call it...not so much *grudge* as a persistent, vaguely mistrustful sensitivity...to be a sin. I've decided that I shouldn't be bothered by that experience of the distant past. I've decided to repent of my frustration. So it bugs me that I haven't yet managed to fully embed the choices of my head into my heart. The desire is there, but sometimes the mind and body betray. Still, I think I'll get there eventually. But the fact is that I would have simply walked away from both my friend and this forum if I hadn't learned to trust both after long, worthwhile experience. I still don't agree with him on a lot of his social or political assumptions, but I've also learned to at least listen and to resist my knee-jerk rejections. If there are limits on the discource here, isn't that an opportunity for the artistically inclined to use a little craft and find ways to make our divergent opinions palatable to the management? Freedom is a good thing, but if we want to succeed in a market that is anything but free, we also need to learn the craft of packaging and delivery for an audience. And if we have to repackage or build a trojan horse to get our thoughts in, I don't see that as a limit so much as a challenge. I believe the stress is good for us, and helps us expand our ideas. If we're not mad about something that's said on this list (or mad at someone for saying it) we aren't working hard enough as would-be literateurs, and if we can't package our thoughts to meet the editorial guidelines of this forum then we don't qualify as players. But innoculations are usually done with attenuated pathogen, not full strength. I'd rather build up our communal immunity over time in this forum. If there needs to be another forum that's less regulated, then someone should go out and do it. I suspect they could announce the creation of a new list here without substantial resistance from our moderator. [MOD: Amen!] > I think that the AML should encourage artistic expression that is HONEST. A > particular artist might be full of testimony and faith or a particular > artist might be full of doubt and anguish or a particular artist might be > disallusioned and disbelieving. All these are expressions of what it means > to be part of the Mormon culture. And I believe it is absolutely necessary > for people and artists in the Mormon culture to have an avenue for honest > self-expression, simply for reasons of mental health and to allow personal > growth. Two thoughts--one an argumentative nitpick, and the other one an essential agreement with caveat. The fact that an expression is honest doesn't imply that it must be accepted or adopted or applauded. We all want to feel that our ideas are respected as real and honest, but we dare not require that they only be applauded and not criticized. We savaged "The Singles Ward" too completely on this list for me to believe that the artistic mindset believes that all performance should be accepted without criticism, and our recurring jihads on R-rated films and sentimental fiction suggest that both the most conservative and liberal among us are willing to dish it out, but aren't nearly as good at taking it. I have several friends who honestly feel that belief in God is a form of mental disease and that Mormons are a particularly virulent form of that dangerous pathogen. I don't accept their opinion on that issue, though I respect their right to have it. I also argue the point pretty much every time I see them--at their insistence. They can't quite figure out how I can believe in God and evolution at the same time, and feel a need to probe the question ad nauseum. I can't agree, and I won't agree with their honest and heartfelt expression. I would let the issue rest if they'd let me. But they don't. So we challenge each other again, and again, and again... Which is part of the game. I need to learn to be tougher, more firm in my conviction that my beliefs are worthy of defense and that disagreement is not always a personal attack. Most of us could learn to allow for honest disagreement. I believe it's critical that every last one of us tell true stories to the best of our ability. But I also believe that no one is required to applaud that which they find distasteful, or accept as true those ideas they see as untrue--however honestly or artistically rendered they are. The fact is that we're lousy at separating conceptual or artistic disagreement from personal condemnation. I'm lousy at it, and I dare say most human beings and Mormons could stand to improve as well. I put a lot of my personal thoughts (and more than a few private details) out on this list. For the most part, people completely ignore what I post. That bothers me to varying degrees at different times--but it hasn't bothered me enough to make me stop. I've found this list to be relatively accomodating to those kinds of expression--even when others have had different views. It's not just the fact of cultural criticism that makes most people mad--it's the unwillingness that so many of us have to allow different experiences to be equally true. I'm reading Margaret Young's _Salvador_ right now and find that she is quite unsparing in her criticism of many aspects of Mormon culture--as she is in most of her work. I've found some of her observations to be a tad overstated and maybe a bit unfair. But I've also seen no indication in her work that she believes her portrayals to be "the one and only true" depiction of experience or reality. For me, that makes all the difference. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 02:22:53 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Okay. I should be doing other things right now, but I just got off a long session of AML-List moderating (about an hour and a half) and it got me started thinking about this whole question of politics in literature. Particularly Michael Martindale's preference that we have a more level playing field one way or another--either let them all through, or cut them all off--and why, difficult and often frustrating though it is, I'm reluctant to take either course. >From where I sit, it seems clear that on a year-in, year-out basis, just about nothing else causes quite as much trouble for me as moderator as politics does. Nothing else is quite so capable, in my experience, of (a) cluttering up the in-box with posts that have no clear literary connection, and (b) raising the temperature of the discourse. (Well, there's doctrinal disputes, but there don't seem to have been so many problems with those, in recent years.) At the same time, I'm reluctant to cut off a post that includes political content but where the focus, in my view, is more directly literary, and related to the subject matter of the list. Politics *is* one of those things that's important to us, and I don't want to weaken our literary discussions by cutting off our connections to that part of life. And now, for a set of possibly unpalatable admissions, which may, however, clarify where I am coming from as AML-List Moderator: * First, fairness in political discussion is not one of my major goals for this forum. Fairness in literary discussion--yes. But politics isn't a major reason for this list's existence; I frankly don't care so much what happens with the discussion of politics, so long as it doesn't negatively affect the discussion of literature. I *like* to see a balance of views, simply so that people don't start feeling that they don't belong on the list just because their politics are too "different"; but even that isn't really a concern with fairness per se, but rather with balance and tone and community. * My central concern as a moderator is to keep the conversation going. And I can't think of anything (in my view) that stops the conversation faster than for the tone to start becoming personal and/or angry. Part of the value of AML-List, in my view, is that although we will debate literature vigorously, this *isn't* a place where you have to have a thick skin in order to participate in discussion. And politics is one of the major areas where people can most easily start getting frustrated and angry, in my experience. Let me expand on this point a bit. Making AML-List a place where thick skins are required all around would inherently exclude a large portion of the Mormon literary community, including many readers. As I see it, just about the highest value the AML as an organization holds is to be a place where people from the entire spectrum of Mormon letters can be comfortable talking to each other. An umbrella. It's worth a tremendous amount of effort to keep that status, as an organization. If that means that some people are required to tone down what they would otherwise say, then so be it. This isn't, in fact, a free forum; rather, it's part of the AML community. (This is also, by the way, one reason why I don't think AML will ever sponsor a moderator-free forum; there's too much danger of the institution being formally or informally held accountable for what gets said, in a case like that, and losing that cherished status as a place where those with a broad range of interests and perspectives can get together.) Back to how this affects my moderating. When the temperature does start to rise, I'm going to do what I have to in order to cool it down again (publicly at least). This may mean that the rules of engagement start to become stricter partway through the exchange, as pertains to comments that could give offense. To a great degree, it doesn't matter if this is the intent or not; what matters is the likely effect on the conversation (as I see it). Unfortunately, this means that people who feel they have been offended against will often not be allowed to reply in kind. I can only say that I do try not to allow such things through in the first place; however, I'm not infallible, and interpreting the tone of a comment is very hard in an electronic medium. I do the best that I know how, in the often rushed circumstances in which my moderating takes place. * Third, AML-List is fundamentally more about sharing views than about debating. What this means is that ultimately, I'm going to allow that other person over there more freedom to say something stupid than I'm going to allow you to show him the error of his ways. It's a fine line, the line between sharing a different viewpoint and disputing someone else's views. But it's a real one, and it makes a marked difference in the tone of the responses you get. ================= Going back to the issue of politics in AML-List posts, and why I allow it in some cases and not in others... I have allowed--just off the top of my brain--political tie-ins in all of the following contexts: * Describing how politics enters into a work of Mormon literature or literature about Mormons. * Discussing communication dynamics within Mormon culture. * Providing background for personal reactions to public events, with tie-ins to identity as a Mormon, Mormon artist, etc. * Characterizations of the press, particularly the local Utah press. * Connections to politically-related literary criticism. All of these, I think, are theoretically justified, if handled properly: i.e., not simply as a mask for a political discussion, and with respect for the fact that others of equal spiritual and intellectual worth may hold different positions. But if you're going to respond, you have to respond to the literary component, not just the political component. Jacob Proffitt, I've noticed, is one of several list members who has become quite adept at this: he addresses the literary while still sharing his own (often differing) viewpoints on the political as background for what *he's* saying. Tricky, but that's the way it has to be, at least under the current rules as I moderate them. How does politics connect with Mormon letters? I can think of many ways, including the following: * Political motivations and views of characters in our fiction--including politics as a source of conflict. * Political motivations for ourselves as readers and writers of literature. * Political themes in literature. * Politics as part of the Mormon culture we depict in our writing/reading. * Politics as intersecting with esthetics and styles of criticism. * Effects of politics on publishing. There's no inherent advantage to liberal or conservative in any of these areas. Most of the politically based literary criticism of the last 40 years or so has been left-wing in orientation (e.g., marxist), and it's actually rather difficult to conduct certain types of literary criticism without taking an explicitly left-wing political approach (from my observations). But that needn't affect us here on AML-List. Politics can be potentially divisive and a time-waster. At the same time, it can also enrich our discussions of literature. That's the balance I'd like for us to work toward here. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 07:00:55 -0700 From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male Like Angela, I spent a lot of time thinking about Chris Bigelow's post, and appreciating his honesty. (And I wondered if his wife ever went online and read AML list stuff...). As I read Angela's, I realized far too much of what each had to say was important, and if I quoted them, this post will be huge, so I'll just add my comments. Being "ultra-efficient to the point of laziness" as Chris put it is nothing more than existing in a self-absorbed realm. Our spiritual natures are to connect with other people, but this mortal realm teaches us fear and self-protection. Christ's whole ministry was focused on teaching us to move past that "natural mortal" state and find our spiritual depth. Terry Warner expresses this in amazing ways in the book THE BONDS THAT MAKE US FREE. Boy is it helping me to stop and think about my actions--the way I betray my gut instincts with a layer of self-absorbed justification. As for Angela's comments, I wanted to give her a hug, tell her to go put her feet up for a minute, assure her "this too shall pass". I don't think anybody on the face of the earth really gets their emotional, intellectual or spiritual bank accounts filled by the mundane tasks of life. I remember vividly all the conversations I had with an uncooperative teenage son about the nature of work. After nagging, shouting, revoking privileges, I finally referred him to Moses 4:25 (for those who don't want to look it up: "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread..." the Lord tells Adam). I always told him to take it up with Adam when he turned back into dust. It wasn't my idea. But being in this together meant that I shouldn't have to do *everything* by myself. My job was to teach it to him so he could survive in the world. In the meantime, I'd say, work is as much a law of the universe as gravity. It doesn't have to be painful. At least it leaves your brain free to think, create, muse. I've done my best writing as I scrubbed the floor. Finally I wised up to keeping a little notebook with me to jot things down. Work. Mundane commitments in life. It's how we define mundane that matters. From a perspective of 45 years of age, 27 years into a marriage, I want to tell Angela that the days of flushing after everybody, picking up those really annoying little plastic cherries from Hi-ho Cherry-o, wiping noses, butts, fingerprints, et al, morph into quiet hours of wondering what your missionary is doing, how your daughter is handling her new baby, and what the 15 year old might be dealing with at school. I have time now to read more, write more. And life is always waiting to fill it up with mundane if I let it. Maybe it's something that happens to us as we age, but I feel no guilt now in not cleaning the windows for years, giving up canning entirely, telling my spouse "no, I'm not getting a full time job, I'm enjoying a more leisurely pace and the time to notice my fellow man and reach out to them more". On the church side, I feel no guilt in telling my own visiting teachers "I'm doing great and I really don't need a visit this month, but thanks for calling." And ZERO guilt in saying "nope, I won't be a visiting teacher, but I'll be my husband's home teaching companion." And how well that works for both of us--he isn't motivated by guilt or fear and home teaching isn't way up on his agenda. He has NO desire to do any kind of a lesson thing having spent years of his life being bored by droning home teachers himself, but doesn't mind at all fixing things for the three families we are assigned, inviting the single sisters to dinner, or taking them to a play (with his "companion" of course). It's a much more palatable way to work the program for us, and nobody objected when we made our requests. Not one of our families have said they feel a need for a sit-down-and-listen-to-this-lesson visit. One of the sisters is the Education Counselor in our RS presidency. One of the men is the 2nd counselor in the YM presidency. One of our sisters is single, struggling with her testimony, and not all that interested in being lectured to. It seems to hold true for the active as well as less active around here. On the flip side of the coin, we roll our eyes at each other and semi-graciously accept our own home teachers into our home at the end of each month, always the last Sunday, because one thing we've made clear is that our week day schedule is too full to accommodate them. Sundays are the only day that works for our family. It took a couple of "oh, well sorry we ran out of time this month, but we really are only available on Sunday afternoons, but you made the effort to call, we're fine, report us as visited" before they got it. They are motivated by guilt and the need to check off the Yup We Sat In Their Living Room And Delivered The Message box. So once a month we listen to one or the other of them butcher the article from the Ensign, pray with them, and feel sorry for them when they leave that it's so obviously socially awkward and painful for them to make the effort. And they leave, not remembering my kids' names, or thinking of us again until the end of next month. But hey, they're good for a plate of cookies at Christmas time. Home teaching is obviously a mundane task for them, and their reward is in faithfully completing it each month. I won't stand in the way of a moment of relief for them. My perspective at this point in life is that when we stop being motivated by fear or guilt, and are truly motivated by loving Christ, bearing one another's burdens and all that, we do the things we want to do and feel good about it, letting other things go. I eventually WANT to clean my toilet because I can't stand looking at the scum. But it may take a few weeks to get there, instead of the daily, weekly cleaning I used to obsess about when I had many aim-impaired males using the facility. (My biggest victory in this arena and the "who left the lid up?" fight was to convince my husband it didn't emasculate him to sit. Oh how much cleaner the place stays!) I wanted to invited two of the sisters that I visit/home teach to start an LDS book club with me, because they love reading and discussing books. I still can't connect with the other sister. She puts a lot of effort into protecting herself. And this after we spent three years in a Primary Presidency together. But she is in pain now, and protective of herself. So I leave her messages on her answering machine that go unanswered and send her things in the mail now and again. If she's ever ready, she knows where I am. I have to respect her feelings of needing to be alone now. It's all about negotiation, with others, with ourselves about what works for us and what doesn't. And that includes the community of Saints we live in called Wards (or Branches as the case may be). If we truly have pure intentions, are able to look at others with love and caring, we end up WANTING to do a lot of things and they don't weigh us down. If we are stuck in a self-absorbed place, most things bug us and seem burdensome. It's a sign we still have some growing up to do. And now the original Mo lit tie in. I've reviewed the books on my shelf. The play HEUBNER by Thomas F. Rogers, DARK ANGEL by Robert Kirby, ASPEN MAROONEY by Levi Peterson, in fact, most of Peterson's short stories, as pointed out by Richard Dutcher, OSC's sci-fi and historical fiction, especially his Seventh Son series--they all have fully fleshed out Real Men characters. Most of them are struggling in some way, and very few of them are hiding behind the Patriarchal Powershield to control life around them. That is probably the closer reality to The Mormon Male in the real world. There will always be bumbling male characters in stories whether told on film or the page, but usually it's an easy out or a comedic trick or some other kind of devise to facilitate the story of the female. As a writer, this thread has caused me to think about the motivations I've ascribed to my characters and to look for the real in them instead of easy devices to manipulate the story. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1015 *******************************