From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #1018 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 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 1018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:55:36 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Anita Stansfield Interview Questions I'll be doing an interview with Anita Stansfield for the upcoming romance-themed issue of Irreantum. If you have any suggested questions for her, feel free to send them my way, either to the list or to me personally. Thanks! Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:48:54 -0800 From: Aaron R Orullian Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Call for Papers in Honor of Marden Clark I don't know who you are Harlow S. Clark, but you write beautifully. This invitation for papers in honor of your father read like an excerpt from a lovely memoir. Aaron Orullian - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:37:12 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] BofM in Mormon Lit All right, now that I'm Michael Jordan (which I regard as really a lot of = Bull (rimshot)), what to do next? Do I fend off Bryon Russell with my = left hand to free my right hand for the winning jumper? Do I waggle my = tongue while jamming? Do I drive and dish to Steve Kerr? I presume that = I travel on every possession without the refs calling it, or that I = hand-check with impunity without foul consequences. The Jordan comparison = is not unflattering, and we are about the same height, though I still have = my hair. But I am, after all, a Hoosier boy; in future, please reference = Oscar Robertson or Larry Bird. Like the Big O and Larry Legend, I aspire = to be an all-around player, who makes his teammates better. Not a mere = scorer. =20 But while I contemplate the strange fact that relatively little Mormon = literature has in fact been written about basketball (strange, considering = the ferocity of Church ball, a ferocity to which I enthusiastically = brought my elbows and blood and floor burns and jammed fingers in days = gone by), I do have something I'd like to explore with y'all. Oh, but = first, an obligatory inappropriate political aside; I'm writing this while = listening to the Dixie Chicks, all of whose CDs I have purchased in the = last week, and which I am very much enjoying. Two questions, actually. First, what is the place of the Book of Mormon = in Mormon literature, and second, what ought it to be? Mormon is an interesting word, for starters. Mosiah 18:4 suggests that it = may have originally been a Nephite word meaning 'infested by wild beasts.' = (Applied to a particular place, BTW, by the worst king in Nephite = history) By Mosiah 18:30, it has come to connote an earthly paradise, = founded on the profoundest kind of consecration and charity. There's an = evolution: 'wild-beast infested' to 'place of consecration.' It then = became a popular name, given to a military genius whose greatest sermon is = on the subject of charity. In our day, it further evolved, from an insult = to a proudly embraced term for a culture ('I am a Mormon boy!'), and on to = today, where's it seems to be becoming, at least institutionally, non-PC. = =20 Enough asides. I've had occasion recently to contemplate the Chris = Heimerdinger phenomenon, and in particular, the very notion of tennis = shoes among the Nephites. It seems to me inevitable that we would do = this, that we would contemplate our own connection to our unique scripture,= and imagine ourselves back in the day. Heimerdinger's own books seem to = me filled with a genial humor and genuine wit that I have no doubt his = young readers find appealing. And, of course, Jim, Jenny and Garth aren't = without their problems (especially Jim,), which their connections with the = Book of Mormon heros enable them to deal with. My own teenagers aren't = much interested in them; they're at an age where didacticism turns them = off, and the books are surely didactic. But they have cousins and friends = who like them a lot, and who are the sorts of Mormon kids who can say = stuff like "I like 'em because they've got a good message" and make you = believe it. In other words, this is a popular series of teen novels that accomplish = three things; they allow us to imaginatively recreate what Nephite society = might have been like, they show us how the Book of Mormon might provide = answers to dilemmas we might have, and they explore a duck-out-of water = kind of comedy, based on differences between an imagined Then and an = idealized Now. =20 So. It seems inevitable that our literature would echo the place the Book = of Mormon occupies in our culture broadly construed. The Book of Mormon = first of all, functions as proof text. If it's 'True' then everything = else follows. It becomes, then, a site (THE site) for Mormon apologetics. = Thus the peculiar rhetoric of Mormon culture, in which we repeated assert = that a book, or an institution, are 'true.' We don't talk of concepts or = ideas or paradigms being 'true.' No, the Church is 'true,' the Book of = Mormon is 'true.' Of what other books do we say this? "I just finished = One Hundred Years of Solitude; I just read the new Barbara Ehrenreich; I = can't get enough of Thomas Friedman. I just read a great book." We say = that, but do we go on to assert that this novel, this piece of non-fiction = is 'true?' No, we say it's 'interesting.' We say it's 'great.' We say = 'I couldn't put it down.' But to say 'I just read a wonderful book. I = testify that it's true?' We don't do that about any other book I know of, = not even the Bible. Same thing with organizations, institutions. "I assert that the IRS is = true." It's comical. "I testify to the truthfulness of Presbyterianism." = Doesn't happen. One exception: "Islam is true." You might hear that one = from time to time. =20 Our culture rests, in other words, on certain historicity claims: a = document, purporting to be of ancient origin and contemporary relevance, = is in fact what it says it is, and not a forgery. Its translation is 'by = the gift and power of God' and not through scholarship and hard work. And = an organization founded by the translator of said book is 'true' too, a = genuinely prophetic institution. =20 So it's not surprising that we have a literature based on a fairly = straightforward acceptance of the Book of Mormon's historicity claims, = much of it intended for children. The Living Scriptures project comes = immediately to mind, in addition to Heimerdinger's work. And it's hardly = surprising that Heimerdinger has taken the next step, to literally, point = for point, apply the Book of Mormon's content to contemporary problems. = Fact is Mormon culture doesn't generally actually deal much with historicit= y issues and problems. Generally, Mormons are delighted FARMS exists, and = we know a lot of our ward members who flock to hear Jack Welch or John = Sorenson speak at Education Week, but the truthfulness of the Book of = Mormon is basically a given. Meanwhile, we want to know what's in it for = us. And the assumption is that the Book of Mormon basically is for us, = it's about us. Dealing with a bully at school? So did Captain Moroni, = son. =20 The third way the Book of Mormon functions in our culture is the one our = literature doesn't deal with directly, but it provides the basis for a = cultural assumption that directly affects everything we do. Reading the = Book of Mormon daily (fifteen minutes a day is generally recommended) is = seen as a holy act in and of itself. Reading daily is basically a = mitzvah. The daily read is a holy act in and of itself, leading to an = increase in spirituality and an improved relationship with the Holy Ghost = and protection against worldly influences. It doesn't actually matter = much what we're reading, either, whether we're bored out of our minds by = Jacob 5 or utterly appalled by Mormon 4, or inspired by Alma 34. =20 Now, that has huge implications for our literature, because it becomes the = standard for all 'Mormon' oriented reading. If reading a holy text is the = key to spirituality, then it automatically follows that other reading must = either be equally spiritually invigorating, or it's opposite. I mall walk = every morning of my life (I find it inspirational, to walk with people = thirty years my senior who zip right past me--and they do), and that means = I walk right past the local DB, and it's real interesting, to see what = they're advertizing in their storefront displays. Collections of talks by = General Authorities, for the most part. Good Books, as the culture = defines the term. I suspect that for much of our culture, harder edged = literature with a Mormon setting just . . . doesn't feel right. We don't = want wild beasts infesting our literature. We want repose in the waters = of Mormon. =20 And so Heimerdinger goes pretty easy on wild beasts too. Jim's problems = involve an Inapproprite Immersion In Pop Culture, and the solutions? A = straightforward application of scripture. =20 But see, there's actually fourth place where the Book of Mormon applies to = our culture. We don't like to talk about it much, but fact is, Mormon saw = our day and wasn't impressed by it. And that includes us'ns. The = extraordinary parallels between his failed society and our sensationally = successful one are the basic subject of the entire book. All is not, in = fact, well in Zion, and our eating drinking and merry making are, to his = mind, dances on graves. The historicity of Book of Mormon wouldn't matter = worth a hill of beans, if the book didn't have content, profundity and = relevance. So that's what I'm wondering. Trotting about an imagined = Zarahemla in our Nikes can be jolly fun. But isn't there room for a = literature which blasts us out of our Nikes entirely? That seems, after = all, to be part of Mormon's project. Let our wild beasts roar us into = charity. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:07:05 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] The Fictional Mormon Male At 12:48 PM 3/20/03 -0700, you wrote: >Women tend to be perceived as more spiritual because of how we >superficially define spirituality using traditionally feminine virtues. This is an interesting idea to contemplate. While doing some research on Catholicism, I found that they seem to consider religion for women and children--that many Catholic congregations consist of women, children, and old men, who return to the church hopefully in time to square things with God before they die. But saying that religous practices, such as attending Mass, are for women more than for men is not the same thing as saying that women are more spiritual. I've always felt that the term "active Mormon" should refer to someone who has a genuine relationship with his or her Heavenly Father more than to someone who shows up in all those meetings we have. Because something is traditional does not make it true. I believe that men have the virtues women have, but their male culture teaches them to hide those things. Like female intuition--there's really just human intuition, but men squash theirs because they are supposed to be "logical" to be "real men." Female culture has long taught women to squash their intelligence so as not to upset "fragile" male egos. What would happen if both genders started being honest about what they think and what they feel? What if we cast off the shackles of all that cultural conditioning? Would it be wonderful, or would it be chaotic? Maybe that could form the basis of a story--one with more depth than something like "Liar, Liar." barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:39:53 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sunstone The new, March 2003 issue of Sunstone has a number of articles that will be of interest to AML-Listers, ranging from an analysis of racial issues 25 years after the priesthood revelation to whether good Mormons can watch R-rated movies to an article by our own Stephen Carter about the role of satire, with AML-List-originating The Sugar Beet as exhibit A. Following is the issue's table of contents. Sunstone has some article samplings online at http://www.sunstoneonline.com/, as well as subscription info. (And for anyone who doesn't subscribe to Sunstone, you're missing out on Mormonism most open, vibrant, interesting community, which gives me shivers of relief and joy, as if finally allowed to quit hopping on one foot in institutional Mormonism and put my other foot on the ground.) Sunstone March 2003 Issue 126 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- FEATURES 16 John Hatch . . . . . . . . CAN "GOOD MORMONS" WATCH R-RATED MOVIES? TWENTY-FIVE YEARS: A QUARTER CENTURY AFTER THE PRIESTHOOD REVELATION--WHERE ARE WE NOW? 23 Newell G. Bringhurst . AN UNINTENDED AND DIFFICULT ODYSSEY 28 Armand L. Mauss . . . REFLECTIONS ON A LIFETIME WITH THE RACE ISSUE 31 Darron Smith . . . . . THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIALIZED DISCOURSE IN MORMONISM 34 . . . . . . . . . . . OUT OF THE BEST BOOKS? Publications Continue to Promote Folklore 36 Dale C. LeCheminant . . TO "CURE THEM OF THEIR HATRED": AN ANTIDOTE FOR THE PREJUDICES OF OUR TIME 42 Gary James Bergera . . "ONLY OUR HEARTS KNOW"--PART I: SUNSTONE DURING THE DANIEL RECTOR, ELBERT PECK, AND LINDA JEAN STEPHENSON YEARS, 1986-92 54 Arnold V. Loveridge . . . THE LESSON: 1999 Brookie & D.K. Brown Fiction Contest Starstone Winner 56 Stephen Carter . . . . . . WHY SATIRE IS BETTER THAN SERMON: A Sermon POETRY 27 Richard Arnold . . . . . . AIMING FOR FLAGSTAFF 33 Priscilla Atkins . . . .. . . PRESENCE AND ABSENCE 35 Barry Ballard . . . . . . . TREE LINE 71 Kelley Jean White . . . . KNEADING COLUMNS 4 Dan Wotherspoon . . . . . FROM THE EDITOR: Hints of Pastoring 8 Donald L. Gibbon. . . . . . TURNING THE TIME OVER TO . . . : A Typical Sunday CORNUCOPIA 10 Robert Kirby. . . . . . . . . LIGHTER MINDS: My New Church 'Quiet Book' Is a Palm Pilot 11 John Sillito . . . . . . . . . TWENTY-YEARS AGO IN SUNSTONE: To Love More Nearly as We Pray 12 Merina Smith . . . . . . . . .MARGIN NOTES: Different Wells, Different Waters 13 Brian H. Stuy . . . . . . . . THE REST OF THE STORY: Matthew's Mosaic 14 Marta Adair. . . . . . . . . . RIGHTEOUS DOMINION: Looking at a Heart, Not a Habit 62 Scott Cooper . . . . . . . TRAIN UP A CHILD . . . : Teaching Children Values through "Domestic Church" 66 Jana Riess. . . . . . . . . ANXIOUSLY ENGAGED: Strengthening the Part-Member Marriage? We're Just Fine, Thank You 68 D. Jeff Burton . . . . . . BRAVING THE BORDERLANDS: Group Membership--A Self-Assessment 80 Elder Bruce R. McConkie . AN OLIVE LEAF: A Glorious June Day NEWS 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archive documents released on DVD; Is God's love unconditional?; Changes in missionary discussions; news on films, BYU, and much more! Cover photo: (Left to right) Bronson Harwell (16), Richard Harwell (14), and Morgan Harwell (12), members of the Genesis Group. Photography by Michael Schoenfeld. Cover design by Nathan Bang Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:03:26 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices Bill Willson wrote: <<< And never if you want to be accepted by the head pooh-baahs of this list, ever say anyything derogatory about a certain monthly satirical tirade which picks exclusively on the church and its culture. [snip] Just as the satarical writers have their right to publish whatever they want to in thier monthly tirade. We all have the right to read it or not, and I think it would be nice to be able to express an opinin about it without the stigma of ostracisim. >>> I do remember when you said "shame on you" to The Sugar Beet (in fact, Stephen Carter quoted you in his Sunstone article on satire), but I don't know what you're talking about as far as ostracism. It was actually a point of pride for us to get our first "shame on you" letter. Neither myself nor any other Sugar Beet staffers have anything to do with running AML-List, and if we did I can't imagine any of us blocking your posts or something. Chris Bigelow [MOD: While I do not recall all the particular, I do know that there were several posts to AML-List from at least one list member related to The Sugar Beet that were bounced, by me, for violating AML-List guidelines. Among other things, those guidelines (as I interpret and enforce them) prohibit satiric negative response to other list members' works and positions--even in a case where what is being responded to is, itself, a work of satire. (Among other things, I find satire far too easy to misinterpret in our forum, and it seems to me that it is far more harmful to conversation than forthright disagreement.) I also will block or require revision of any post that casts aspersions on the spiritual qualifications, intelligence, or motives of other AML-List members (and I try to keep us from commenting negatively too much on those of non-List members as well). At this remove in time, I don't remember which of these precisely might relate to the posts Bill is talking about here; however, I do know that this is one reason why individual posts are frequently not posted.] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:43:51 -0600 From: "Jeffrey Savage" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Jeff SAVAGE, _Into the Fire_ (Review) [MOD: I am forwarding this reply from Jeff Savage, who is not currently subscribed to AML-List.] Arial Times New RomanI was sent a copy of D. Michael's critique of Into the Fire by several people. Thanks all. Arial Times New RomanFirst let me say that I appreciate all the feedback I get, whether it's in the newspaper or someone who stops me in a bookstore. I think that Covenant feels the same way. The very fact that people are turning to LDS fiction with increasing expectations just shows that LDS authors must be improving. I think that the bumps and stumbles that we have hit in creating literature that is both challenging for the readers and acceptable to LDS booksellers, are another sign of a maturing space. Arial Times New RomanITF was reviewed very well and fairly I thought (of course I did, she liked it!) by Jennie Hansen in Meridian magazine. Arial<Times New Romanhttp://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/020814savage.html But Michael hated it. As the readership of LDS fiction increases, we are going to have people who gush over our work, people who find flaws, and people who think we must have been inhaling model glue. That is a very healthy environment and one that encourages growth. Arial Times New RomanWith that said, after getting bashed over the head with a knobbly-headed reviewing stick, I naturally would like to respond to a couple of the comments. (What fun, I never get to do that with the newspaper articles!) This is not to disagree with Michael's opinion at alleither you like it or you don'tbut to clarify why I wrote what I did. So "trembling with anxiety over the words I am about to write," I'll give it a shot. Arial Times New RomanI think that the first salvo was over the book's title. Originally I had some complaints with the title too. (We get to give our input, but the final decision is Covenant's. There may be some author's for whom that is not the case, but at least for me that's how it works.) Actually though, the title makes more sense when you consider that this is a modern day retelling of the story of Job. He definitely went through the refiner's fire and came out the stronger for it. I was surprised that there was no complaint about the cover. The story takes place for the most part in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the book shows a guy in the desert. Oh well, no control there either. Arial Times New RomanMicahels second point was the one that really stumped me. I think this may be a case of misplaced expectations. As he mentioned, my first book was a techno-thriller. It had lots of the expected intrigue, murders, suspense, that you would look for in that genre. (At least that was the goal!) For my second book I handed Covenant a curveball, and to their credit they fielded it like pros. I didnt give them another thriller. There were a lot of reasons I had for that, but suffice it to say that I didnt want to be a male (fill in the blank here) cranking out book after book that all taste exactly the same. Arial Times New RomanAs he points out, the prologue makes it perfectly clear that this is a retelling of the story of Job. As such, the promise I offer up is not a story of who-done-it, but rather a story of a man and his family dealing with extreme adversity. I needed a plausible explanation for how the tragedies befall the Job figure, but the focus is no more on who caused those events than the Biblical account is about who really killed Jobs flocks and pushed the walls down on his children. Thats kind of covered in the prologue in both cases. Arial Times New RomanI dont know how to fix this particular problem. I understand that if you buy the new Stephen King book, you expect a tale of spooks. But on the other hand, I love it when an author surprises me with a new genre. I thought that Grishams A Painted House was better than all of his lawyer stories. The two books I am working on now are a serial murder mystery that may be a little too intense for LDS publishers and a follow-up to Cutting Edge. (Yes Michael this one is global, with terrorists, smart bombs, new technology, etc.) So maybe its all okay. Arial Times New RomanIm going to skip over the rowing/paddling thing except to say that DM made a good catch that no one else did. Honestly I think those things happen in every book. I just finished Ghost Story by Peter Straub and he has a doorbell ringing while the electricity is out in the house. Oops! In Cutting Edge I talked about German and Brown trout and actually the fish is called a German Brown. But to defend the editors, they catch 99% of that stuff. In a typical novel I end up changing eye color, last names, and compass directions several times and they catch them all. Arial Times New RomanJust a quick note on the editor comments: I personally think that Covenants editors are very, very good. What you need to understand is that unlike national publishers, Covenant needs to make a profit on nearly every book that they put out. They dont have the million copy sellers to offset the duds. That means that they can only give a set amount of time to each book. For the amount of time that the editors have to spend they are incredible. Arial Times New RomanAs for the commas issue, I would not be surprised if I misplaced or displaced many of those little buggers. Grammar is NOT my strong point. But to set the record straight, the three sentences you quote all occur on page 75 of the book, The first reads, Oh yes you are, Joe countered. The second reads,  Come on man. You know that everyone will be . . . The third reads, Well I dont believe that. But if a few of them do, thats your problem. If Michaels copy of the book is missing the punctuation, it must be a different version than what I have. Arial Times New RomanThe final issue regards how the book ended. Michael said that he wasnt surprised that Angela, the little girl with Down Syndrome, was the object of the threat. This goes to the old issue of suspense through surprise vs. suspense through allowing the reader to know what the protagonist doesnt. In chapter 5, Joe has a dream where Angela is being chased by some unknown danger Arial Times New RomanHe listened intently, straining to hear a movement or a breath. But although Joe knew that it was still there, it was utterly silent. Thats how I know its there, he thought. By the silence. Its so deadly that silence accompanies it like a shroud. All living things burrow into the ground or huddle in their nests, or lie shivering in the brush, too scared to even run when it approaches. Arial Times New RomanAnd suddenly Joe knew why it was there. It wanted Angela. It had been stalking her, following her through the darkness waiting to pounce. It sensed her goodness and was attracted to it like a shark to the scent of blood. Arial Times New RomanObviously in this case, I am trying to create a very strong (maybe too strong for some people) good vs. evil setup. The element of surprise comes from the fact that the physical danger to his family it not the real danger at all. Yes, you know that the little girl will be harmed. Yes, you have a pretty good idea that she will die right from the prologue. But just as in the Biblical account, Joe discovers that losing a child to physical death is not the worst thing that can happen. Arial Times New RomanThis is a story about a family torn part by drugs, sex, lack of communication, depression, and to some extent greed. It is also a story of how sometimes the best thing in the world for us is our trials. They can make us stronger and pull us together if we let them. Thats why I went to the epilogue when the family discovers that. None of the rest matters. I interpret the ending of the biblical story to mean that Job had twice as many blessings because of what he learned not that he had twice as many camels. Arial Times New RomanIm sorry that you felt the story was only half-done, but I always feel that way. It doesnt matter how many rewrites you do, there is always something you would like to change. But if I never published until I was satisfied, Id never publish. Arial Times New RomanThanks, Arial Times New RomanJeff - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:43:11 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Stacey BESS, _Planting More Than Pansies_ (Review) On the contrary, nearly everything with an LDS imprint that doesn't sell gets pushed on to the remainder table. I'll keep an eye out. - ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:38:51 -0800 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives From: "Susan Malmrose" > Subject: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives (was: Banned Book from Cedar Fort) > From: "Debra L Brown" > << What I would like to know is if the DB stores are still carrying music by > Amy Grant since its well known that she left her husband for another man who > was also married at the time. They have since married, but is this morally > uplifting to our culture? Or is this something we want our youth to think is > ok? Or, like the NYT bestsellers they carry, is it ok since Amy Grant is not > LDS? >> > > This raises a whole different issue--and a very interesting one to me--of > how an artist's personal life can affect how people view their art. I'm going to mention this author in another post, but I think anyone who has any interest at all in this issue *must* read George Orwell's essay "Benefit of Clergy". The essay starts out ostensibly as a review of a 1940-ish autobiography of Salvador Dali, but it goes on to address this point. He does so, perhaps somewhat indirectly, but addressing the related point of separating an appreciation of the *craft* of a work of art from the *purpose* of the work. Let me give a few excerpts: [After having described the book, which includes autobiographical anecdotes and reproductions of Dali's work:] "Of course, in this long book of 400 quarto pages there is more than I have indicated, but I do not think that I have given an unfair account of its moral atmosphere and mental scenery. It is a book that stinks. If it were possible for a book to give a physical stink off its pages, this one would -- a thought that might please Dali, who before wooing his future wife for the first time rubbed himself all over with an ointment made of goat's dung boiled up in fish glue. But against this has to be set the fact that Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. ... He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings. And these two sets of facts, taken together, raise a question which for lack of any basis of agreement seldom gets a real discussion." "He [Dali] is as antisocial as a flea. Clearly, such people are undesirable, and a society in which they can flourish has something wrong with it." "It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of _benefit of clergy_. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word 'art', and everything is OK. Rotting corpses with snails crawling over them are OK; kicking little girls in the head [an anecdote from the book] is OK; even a film like _L'Age d'Or_ is OK." "If Shakespeare returned to the earth tomorrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another _King Lear_." "One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. In the same way it should be possible to say, 'This is a good book or a good picture, and it ought to be burned by the public hangman.' Unless one can say that, at least in imagination, one is shirking the implications of the fact that an artist is also a citizen and a human being." > > For the most part, I have no trouble diassociating the artist from the > art--especially when it comes to music. (Does Amy Grant sing about adultery? > Somehow I seriously doubt it, but I wouldn't know.) Look at the big honkin' fuss so many people made when the Beatles came out with 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' and there was all this fuss about the Beatles using pot or LDS or whatever. But both Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_ and Coleridge's _Kubla Khan_ were products of drug use (opium in both cases, IIRC). Tchaikovsky was rumoured to have been gay, not to mention Oscar Wilde and countless others. Mozart was apparently a vulgar and annoying twit once he reached adulthood. Beethoven used to keep full chamber pots under his piano. And we could go on and on. How nuts do we get about it? The way I do it is this: If I can indulge in the artist's work and appreciate it for what it is without the artist's personal life getting into my head, I will. OTOH, if I can't, I won't. I'm sure my mental processes are much more complicated than that, but hey, it's close. I mean, one of my favourite singers is Elton John, especially in his early years (up to 1976), and I love his love songs. OK, so he's gay, and so one of his shows had a bunch of buff guys dressed scantily as Wolf Cubs (s/Wolf Cubs/Cub Scouts/ for you Yanks). I'd avoid such a show if I had any idea it'd be like that. But if I could just see him and his piano, I'd be there in a shot. (If I could afford it; he was in Kelowna last summer, and my unemployment wouldn't permit the two tanks of gas plus the $75 tickets...sigh.) > > There are a handful of people that really annoy me, though, and that makes > it hard for me to appreciate their work objectively. Michael Moore, for > instance. I haven't seen Bowling For Columbine, and I won't unless it's > shown on tv. But if I do, I doubt I'll be able to like it. I actually like Michael Moore. Yes, he's over the top. But is he any more over the top than the rest of Hollywood? He pokes fun at people who both deserve to be poked fun at, and who hate being poked fun at. That's why he's unpopular. I can't *wait* for Bowling to come out on video. > No one seemed to mind at the Oscar's last night that Roman Polanski had sex > with a 13 year old girl and fled the country before being sentenced. (Do I > have that right? Didn't know about it until this morning.) Yup. www.thesmokinggun.com actually has the recently-released grand jury testimony of the girl in question (who's now 38 or 39), if you can hold your nose long enough. Ideally, his colleagues in the industry would shun him completely and he'd never make another movie again. However, Hollywood is rife with the amoral, so he's OK. So what if he can never set foot outside France again? (He's a French citizen, and France's constitution prohibits extraditing a citizen outside of France for any reason.) I'm not a big fan of his movies anyhow -- _Tess_ was not too bad, and I want to see _Rosemary's Baby_ before I die, but that's about it. And as long as there's no paedophilia in those films, I can probably stomach it. Finally, one of Orson Scott Card's essays in _A Storyteller in Zion_ (can't remember the title, but it has to do with the artist's responsibility to society) is also very much worth reading on this subject, if y'all haven't already. Robert - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Indeed all our food springs ultimately from dung and dead bodies, the two things which of all others seem to us the most horrible. - George Orwell, 'Politics vs. Literature' - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 2003/03/13 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:55:37 -0900 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] _Kadosh_ (Movie Review) >===== Original Message From "Jacob Proffitt" ===== >Ah, but this question is fundamentally unanswerable. At least by us. How >can I say if it was worth it when I don't believe at all that his soul is on >the line? I'm not sure why you say this. Is disrespecting one's religious community only a sin if it's the "true" religious community? To me, he's just fine because he didn't (as presented, bear in >mind I haven't seen the movie) violate anything sacred and presented beauty >and truth for our edification. It'd be something else entirely if he had >been LDS and abused doctrines I hold dear. I firmly believe that my >doctrine is correct and that it really *does* delineate the markings between >heaven and hell My question is a roundabout way to talk about our own interaction with our religious community. I was asking, was it worth his while to enter into such charged territory (points of doctrine and culture that seem inextricable) and be ostracized by his community for the sake of great art? Jesus did that. To me it's one of the great disservices we do to our understanding of Christ to say that he entered a totally false community and brought a packaged truth. Judaism was his community, and he played the part of the artist, entering into the most explosive of places (sabbath keeping, the identity of God, the Messiahship) and trying to cast some light on it. IF you think about it, the people who have done the most good for the world and religion have entered these explosive places. (in the abstract it does, I'm not yet so ego-imbued as to >believe I understand the whole thing or that I'm right just because I think >I am). > >And frankly, from my stand-point, you couldn't even really ask him because I >wouldn't trust his answer. His doctrine is wrong, you see. It's a function >of believing that you belong to a True church that is lead by prophets... It seems that you are taking a position that excludes you from being able to partake of great contemporay religious art. If nothing anyone from an "untrue" religious community does is worthy of note because their doctrine is incorrect, then it would seem that true art cannot exist outside the Mormon community. This is an attitude that I think _can_ hold religious people back from creating really great art. It's an attitude I've had for most of my life. The attitude that because something doesn't matter to us, it doesn't matter. It makes us incapable of negative capability (remember Keats said Shakspeare had it because he was able to enter into ambiguity without reaching out for reason), we can't really explore a question brought up by someone with "false doctrine" because we don't give it any validity. That ultra-orthodox community is just as convinced of its veracity as our's is, perhaps even more so because they're not nearly as amenable to letting people in. The question I asked is one worth us asking, I think, because the director's position can be analogous to ours. Not taking his position seriously is akin to not taking ours seriously. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #1018 *******************************