From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #107 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, July 19 2000 Volume 01 : Number 107 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:10:36 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Re: ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ >Linda, will you be in Utah promoting your book at all? Richard promised me a >copy, but I'd love it signed! >Rachel I will be, but unfortunately not until around Thanksgiving time. I am right now 31 weeks pregnant and my OB has banned me from flying from Kansas City to Utah. ;-) Sorry about the wait! (I'm due Sept 20th. This is #5.) I'm really going to enjoy meeting many of you, when I do get to travel. I'll have the little babe along with me, too. Linda - ------- Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://members.xoom.com/adamszoo http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:32:02 -0600 From: "Jerry Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: Genre Melinda, It's interesting what you said about spelling. When my first child was born I gave her the middle name of Anne. I had intended to spell it without the e but it just didn't look right without it. Also our second daughter ended up with her name spelled with a K instead of a C for the same reason. By the way, our third daughter is Melinda. I have found the same thing with my characters. Their names have to be spelled just so or it doesn't fit them. Usually if there is more then one way to spell it I go with the more unusual one. Maybe because my name is an unusual spelling. Konnie Enos P.S. Jason, I read your whole post too. - ----- Original Message ----- > Next subject: Have you ever noticed that spelling has a lot to do with > aesthetics, the way a word looks on the page? I give the name John as an > example. Jon is just as correct, phonetically, but looks childish to me. > > Yes, Jason, I read your whole post. It was interesting. > Melinda L. Ambrose - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:59:17 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] RE: Good Writing Commenting on the conversation between Tony Markham and Eric Samuelsen-- Eric Samuelsen says: > > Tony Markham, responding to my mean-spirited anti-Platonic > diatribe with far more class and charity and kindness than it > warranted, Eric, if you really feel that Tony responded with class, charity and kindness, why do you continue in the tenor you describe as "mean-spirited . . . diatribe"? I'm serious about this. I read both yours and Tony's comments with considerable interest. Both of you make some excellent points. There are considerable grounds for consensus between you two. So why do you use the antagonistic tone, what are we to make of that? I mean it: > none of us on the list would survive three days in Plato's > fascistic little paradise. Does the word "fascistic" bridge gaps of understanding or further polarize the interlocutors?> > >If people didn't take Plato's argument seriously, then the > General >Authorities would say to go ahead and fill your minds > with porn >because exposure to it doesn't affect behavior. > > Nonsense. Are you trying to understand what Tony is saying here, or just moving to another point about what Aristotle was trying to do? I agree with what you say about Aristotle's establishment of literary standards, but I also think Tony has a point about the General Authorities often speaking from a Platonic mode. Aristotle did not imply at all that we should abandon > all standards, or that certain kinds of literature weren't better > than other kinds of literature, or that literature couldn't > influence behavior for the worse. Quite the contrary; the entire > body of the Poetics is devoted to establishing some literary > standards. He just thinks we CAN (and ought to) learn from > literature in positive ways. (I also reject mainstream catharsis > theory, BTW; maybe that'll be the subject of a future column) > > >Mapplethorpe would be exhibited at the Wilkinson Center > > Mapplethorpe is a superb photographer; I saw an exhibition of his > work at the Tate in London recently, and it was magnificent, and, > to me, inoffensive. I look forward to the day when this could happen. Of course, Tony's point is that it is NOT happening because some people believe that what Plato is saying about evil depictions are true. Whether or not that eliminates art as we know it, we've got to at least acknowledge the thinking that is functioning in much of our culture. > > >Evenson would still be teaching Creative Writing at the Lord's > >University. > > He's a fine writer,and a superb teacher; it's a crying shame this > isn't happening now. Until the gaps in understanding can be bridged between polarized groups, it is not going to happen. Does the conversation on this list serve as one place where consensus might be the goal, rather than accusation and further polarization? > > >The people who claim that our entertainment influences our > >behavior may not invoke The Republic or Plato's name, but they > >are echoing his sentiment. Seriously. > > Not so. Why not say, "I see it differently"? or "Consider this," or "That's one way of perceiving it, but"? Doesn't the rhetorical framework make a difference in the outcome? Wouldn't Aristotle advocate the most effective means of persuasion, not just the quickest or most economical? > Tony, my most amiable opponent, continued: I like "amiable." I don't like "opponent." > > Yes . . . Good conciliatory move here, > Absolutely false. which is unfortunately undermined here. > > Well, I'm the biggest anti-rule guy I know. I break rules that > even make sense, just because they're there. I'm a > spirit-of-the-law, rules-are-made-to-be-broken, > it's-easier-to-ask-forgiveness-than-permission guy from the word > go. And I revere Aristotle. > I like your anti-rule rebel persona. But I'm trying to figure out how you've missed the subjugation-of-our-will and obedience framework that seems to constrain many LDS people from such a freewheeling mentality. > A lovely quote, and one with strong parallels with D&C 93. > You're quite right. There are other passages I could quote where > he's just as clearly out of his mind. He was a philosopher; > right about some things, wrong about others. When it comes to > the arts, I'm sorry, but he didn't know what he was talking > about, and is just not worth listening to. I would like to see one female AML-list member say something like "You're quite right." Instead we see lots of warm praise, exclamation points, question marks, "take this for what's its worth," etc. Where do the men get the authority to make pronouncements? Again, I'm serious about this and I expect some answers. Gae Lyn Henderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: [AML] Re: (Andrew's Poll) Mormon Short Stories Not, Chris. I'm scared stiff to vote on anything since I don't read short= stories, and I don't even read very many novels. So that is why you don'= t see my vote anywhere on anything. I've been WRITING and REWRITING for = twenty years. (And if I ever get it right maybe I can relax and read some= thing.) Actually, if I do get a novel or two read each month I think I'm = doing well--but I don't dare take the time to talk about it--I have that = Daily Herald Christmas story to write just now. I just think you'd better= read the collection and then I'd like to see what YOU think! See you Thu= rsday night at 6:00 p.m.! It will be fun! (Though I have to leave at 7:45= . I'm looking forward to it!) Marilyn B. - ---------- > So that must be your vote for best collection of the year. > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:46:10 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Great Authors I agree with Barbara's reaction to Stella in _How Stella Got Her Groove Back_. I read it as a single woman and saw it through that filter too. What a fantasy--to have a gorgeous man half your age fall irrevocably in love with you :). Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 15 East 600 North Price UT 84501 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:43:16 -0600 From: Eileen Subject: [AML] SILLITOE, _Windows on the Sea_ (Query) I am leading a discussion on Linda Sillitoe's _Windows on the Sea and Other Stories." Pardon my ignorance, but where would I go to find some biographical information the author. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:02:59 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Genre Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > Science Fiction and its proponents often rely on the inventiveness of the > writer's ability to imagine the content as a rational for the genre's > overall inventiveness. Plots and characters remain the same for much of the > genre. This is not to include Lem, Hebert, Moorcock, Dick, and others. But that is only an illustration of Theodore Sturgeon's law, as it's called: does _any_ type of literature have a better ratio of 10% greatness, 90% garbage? I'll bet most literary stuff is no more inventive than mundane genre writing. Maybe that's the difference between literary and genre writings: it's easier to sell mediocre genre works than mediocre literary works, therefore more mediocrity gets published in genre writing. But when you skim the cream off the top of all categories and compare only them, I'll bet they all fare well, regardless of genre. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:11:34 -0700 From: Barbara@techvoice.com (Barbara R. Hume) Subject: [AML] Re: Good Writing You make an excellent point here. I'm on several mailing lists made up almost exclusively of women, and that fact is clearly reflected in the tone of the messages. We're discussing writing on those lists, and even the most revered writers apologize for their statements. Just this morning I read a lengthy, well-reasoned-out response to a question about patriarchy, feminism, and romance fiction. At the end, the writer, whose opinion had been solicited, apologized for going on so long. We've been socialized to behave that way, and men have been socialized to value themselves and their opinions. This situation makes itself plain, as you have noted, in correspondence as we have here, and in conversations. A man wouldn't feel the need to aplogize for stating his opinion, and it irritates me that women do feel that need. When we write fiction, male and female characters have to reflect this socialization unless we show that they have been trained differently. Perhaps a father raised his daughter just as he would have raised a son, and she is surprised when she leaves home to find her opinions ignored or denigrated. There are so many little ways this shows up. A man storms out of the house, and his wife says, "Where are you going?" A woman storms out, and a man says, "Where do you think you're going?" Ever notice that? barbara hume, on her hobbyhorse, but this does relate to fiction writing Augh! You see? An apology! And I almost didn't notice it! >I would like to see one female AML-list member say something like "You're >quite right." Instead we see lots of warm praise, exclamation points, >question marks, "take this for what's its worth," etc. Where do the men get >the authority to make pronouncements? Again, I'm serious about this and I >expect some answers. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 10:32:25 -0700 From: eedh Subject: [AML] List Discourse (was: Good Writing) [MOD: Apologies for not thinking of this new thread title earlier, to reflect the turn this particular part of the discussion has taken.] Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > Eric, if you really feel that Tony responded with class, charity and > kindness, why do you continue in the tenor you describe as "mean-spirited . > . . diatribe"? I'm serious about this. . . So why do you use the antagonistic tone, what are we to make of >that? > Why not say, "I see it differently"? or "Consider this," or "That's one way > of perceiving it, but"? I see this issue differently. I have long admired this intellectual sparring on the list. Rarely have I felt it was mean-spirited. Instead, I have seen it as a sort of spirited play between intellectual equals. Whether we have letters after our names or not, it's fairly obvious who are the scholars and professionals. And I have really enjoyed watching them spar with each other. I've envied their ability to do it too. I suspect that that's what English majors learn to do- debate ideas. And what fun to watch it done in such spirited, lively ways. When Eric Samuelsen wrote: "You're quite right. There are other passages I could quote where he's just as clearly out of his mind", I giggled in delight. I assumed that Tony would have grinned when he read it. - -Beth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:36:08 -0600 From: "Bob Hogge" Subject: [AML] Re: Great Authors Todd, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your list. Quite a bit of fodder for a good = discussion! What about Holden Caulfield? Bob Hogge - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:05:48 -0500 From: Brent Hugh Subject: [AML] Horn-tooting: Upcoming Concerts in Utah I seem to remember that AML-List has invited us to "toot our own horn" about any events we're participating in. [MOD: Arts-related horn-tooting always welcome!] I'm playing a series of five piano concerts in Utah throughout July and August. The first concert is already over, but I thought I would let you know about the remaining four. 2. Concert Program Wednesday, July 19th, 7:30 PM Madsen Recital Hall Harris Fine Arts Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT Free admission 3. Concert Program Wednesday, August 2nd, 7:00 PM, Temple Square, SLC, UT Free admission 4. Un-Raveling Bartok: The Young Person's Guide to Ravel and Bartok Saturday, August 5th, 4:00 PM Eccles Community Art Center 2580 Jefferson Ave Ogden, UT Admission: $5-Adults, $2-Children, Students & Seniors $15-Families 5. Concert Program Monday, August 14th, 7:00 PM Chase Fine Arts Center Utah State University, Logan, UT Admission: $7-Adults, $4-Students & Seniors, $20 Families About the programs: The *Young Person's Guide* features fun, interactive activities and great performances of Ravel and Bartok. Young Person's Guides are for children of all ages. The *Concert Program* is for attentive audiences age 7 and over. The program is Chopin, Preludes, Op. 28 Ravel, Valses nobles et sentimentales Bartok, Piano Sonata (1926) Tickets available at the door (for programs with an admission fee). Call 801-544-5032 for directions/more info. You can find program notes, early performances of the concert in MP3 format, information about the performer, and so on, at my Interactive Internet Concert page: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/recit ++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bhugh@griffon.mwsc.edu ++++++++++++++ + Missouri Western St College Dept of Music, St. Joseph, MO + + Piano Home Page: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh + + Internet Piano Concert: http://www.mwsc.edu/~bhugh/recit + ++++ Classical Piano MP3s: http://www.mp3.com/brent_d_hugh ++++ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:12:50 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Genre Jason wrote: >no genre, SF included, is any "freer" or "better able" to experiment >or explore than any other. Each just does it in different ways. I rather like this, because it highlights for me one of the important points about genre-based criticism: that different genres are good at accomplishing different things. I'm going to go off on a limb here and make the broad, sweeping judgment that in my opinion, there is no such thing as a universal standard of good writing that transfers across genres. There are some universal-sounding values that can be stated, such as, "The writer's style should match the writer's purpose," or "A writer's language should match the intended audience"--but those are so general that in practical terms, they provide no real useful guidelines for the writer in any one given area or genre. They're relative. What this means is that "good" writing in one category will often be seen as not-good writing in another category--indeed, that readers trained to read one type of writing may be completely incapable of appreciating the values of another type of writing. Personally, I tend to agree with Michael that science fiction and fantasy offer values that are, on the whole, more satisfying both to me personally and to a broad range of readers than "mainstream literary" fiction, which as I see it is largely driven by a different type of market dynamics and written to a narrower market. But I also recognize that this is because I have a different set of interests than those for whom such fiction is obviously written. What drives me (and many other sf&f fans) bonkers is the casual use of "science fiction" (or worse yet, "sci-fi") as a put-down term, an assumption of poor quality and lack of literary seriousness. Well, from one point of view that's true enough, if literary seriousness is defined as writing to the values of the mainstream literary scene. Science fiction, as a whole, is written to a different set of values, although there are some authors such as Delany who can write with the best of the literary crowd, too. But if "literary seriousness" means dealing with serious themes and issues, wedding style and content, applying high levels of authorial skill--then sf&f can hold its own with anything else out there. (Another author who hasn't been mentioned yet--and ought to be, because I think he's simply astonishingly good, and if you haven't read him I think you've missed one of the major late-20th-century American authors, is Gene Wolfe--whose work is also pertinent to the subject of the List as deeply, and in my opinion successfully religious.) Brian Attebery (_Strategies of Fantasy_, 1992) makes an interesting argument that in the modern fantasy genre a la Tolkien, there's a reversal of surface and deep structure in the area of characterization from what we find in modern (though not necessarily postmodern) "realistic" fiction. In realistic fiction, the details of a specific characterization represent the surface level, while archetypal or symbolic resonances represent a deep structure. In fantasy, on the other hand, Attebery suggests that the archetype is what is on the surface, and the individual characterization represents something on the order of a deep structure. This, for example, is why a psychoanalytic approach to fantasy literature is so often unsatisfactory: it starts and stops with the part that's on the surface. Unfortunately, Attebery doesn't pursue this idea with sufficient concrete examples to make me certain how useful the idea might be in analyzing specific works. However, Attebery (and Tom Shippey, in _The Road to Middle-Earth) very effectively, in my view, demonstrate that the largely negative critical reaction to Tolkien himself is a function of the fact that many modernist critics (and more recent social-rhetorical critics as well) were looking for something so different from what Tolkien actually accomplished that they completely failed to judge his works on its own merits. Their definition of literature was so completely different from what Tolkien was doing that they failed to recognize his accomplishment, and thus couldn't engage in a truly measured discussion of his work. I'm not going to argue that Tolkien is "the" great 20th century author, although I think an interesting case could be made that his invented mythology is a more effective response to the same set of issues Eliot was tackling in _The Waste Land_. But his work fails what seems to us biased outsiders to be the basic doctrinal requirement of "serious" 20th century literature, which is to find meaninglessness at the core of the universe--or, at most, to find meaning only in the actions and responses of the individual in a meaningless universe. I realize that I'm being unfair to a genre in which I'm not widely read--but it seems to me that current literary fiction and, particularly, literary criticism are overwhelmingly unfriendly to the notion of discovering an outside source of meaning in the universe. Is it any wonder, then, that many of us who do believe in such an outside source of meaning find that contemporary literary fiction offers little that speaks to how we view the universe? Anyway. What I meant to say before I sidetracked myself is that it's very easy to blame a genre for not doing the things you want literature to do (as I've just demonstrated; see previous paragraph). I think it can often happen that the virtues of a particular type of writing (for its appreciators) are described as negatives by its detractors. In the case of science fiction, for example, the very preoccupation with the specifics of scientific and technological speculation that make the genre both an interesting and a serious one for some of us detracts, for others, from what "ought" to be the chief concern of literature--that is, the development of characters. To the degree that a writer of science fiction spends time talking/speculating about specific scientific ideas, it's seen as a preoccupation with the juvenilia of literature. To really enjoy science fiction for its own sake, you have to--in my view--have some acceptance of the idea that serious literature can be "about" scientific/technological ideas, as well as about people. Such an acceptance is simply outside some people's basic set of assumptions about literature. On the other hand, if the kind of society depicted in, say, a Henry James novel has little interest for you--people drifting about without visible means of support, expending unbelievable energy on making the subtlest of distinctions in the description of their own inner states of being--then you're likely to find it very hard to enjoy a Henry James novel, because that novel is *about* those characters in that society, just as an sf novel is to some degree at least "about" the scientific or technological ideas it includes. Good writing is not enough, in my experience, to maintain enjoyment when one's interest in the subject matter is lacking. (Actually, I can think of some exceptions to this...but on the whole, I think it's still true.) Which is one reason why I don't believe in a universal standard of "good writing." Intrinsic interest--something entirely outside the control of the author, except in the author's choice of what to write about--is, in my view, one of the largest factors in the question of how successful a work is in reaching its audience. Personally, I don't think that science fiction and fantasy are more susceptible to formula than mainstream literary fiction; just different types of formulas (to paraphrase Jason's statement). Of course, to those who enjoy a particular fictional genre, the limits will seem less limiting than those of other genres they dislike. Still, I do think there's a rather unusual situation in science fiction, in that there's a pretty broad community of authors and readers that embraces both the more "popular" end of the scale and more "literary." You get people like Gene Wolfe and Ursula Le Guin attending the same conventions as people like Andre Norton, Jack Chalker, and Alan Dean Foster. They all consider themselves part of the same community. Readers who start at the more popular or juvenile end of the scale are given more challenging books by other fans, and slowly work up to a broader appreciation of a variety of works. At least, that's the way it worked for me, and for others I know. And there's a certain degree of mutual respect and communication among authors of all stripes within the sf field--barring the sort of inhouse hairpulling and namecalling that, in its own way, simply attests to the existence of the community. (You don't get family fights without there's a family.) I don't see a similar thing happening between "popular" and "literary" mainstream writers. Completely different communities, completely different readers, completely different writers. So I guess I'd argue that from that perspective, sf may be a broader field than mainstream literary, not because of any innate virtue but simply because the label currently embraces a broader set of readers and practitioners. (Though I have to acknowledge that in my opinion, modern fantasy is still a much narrower field, despite some outstanding individual practitioners...) Well, I've maundered on far too long, and probably not advanced the discussion to any significant degree. But that's (at least part of) what I think... Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:12:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] RE: Good Writing Gae Lyn wrote: >I would like to see one female AML-list member say something like "You're >quite right." Instead we see lots of warm praise, exclamation points, >question marks, "take this for what's its worth," etc. Where do the men get >the authority to make pronouncements? Again, I'm serious about this and I >expect some answers. Hmn... I think you've hit upon one of those culturally based gender differences in language style (as Barbara suggested), though I could point to a number of exceptions either way: women on the List who aren't at all shy about making definitive statements, and men who tend to qualify their conclusions in a variety of different ways. Perhaps because I'm a man, I think I would ask the question differently: not "Where do the men get the authority to make pronouncements," but "Why do the women feel they need authorization to make pronouncements"? No authority needed to speak on this List. I guess I'm curious, too, about the shift in emphasis from the beginning to the end of the paragraph I quoted above. The first two sentences seem to encourage a change in how the women speak on the List; the last two sentences seem to be calling men to account for how they speak. So I'm not sure whether Gae Lyn's calling us men to repentance or issuing a rallying cry to the women--or, perhaps, simply drawing the attention of all of us to the variety of styles used on the List, and to the choices we all make in how to couch our opinions. I do want to disagree with one implied assumption in Gae Lyn's original post (at least, I think it's implied): that is, that consensus is or ought to be our goal in the List. It's certainly *a* feasible goal, but not the only worthwhile one. The most important thing, in my view, is the keep the conversation going, whether we move toward agreement on particular issues or not. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:10:33 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Great Authors On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:13:50 -0700, Barbara R. Hume wrote: >> Terry >>McMillan is a fairly popular contemporary writer, and in _How Stella = Got Her >>Groove Back_ she has some incredibly long run-on sentences. There are = very >>few rules that can't ever be broken, though you probably have to break = them >>the right way. (In _Stella_, for example, the run-on sentences are = part of >>a narrative style that's meant to represent the main character's = internal >>"voice".) > >I thought that the protagonist of STELLA was the best bit of >characterization I'd seen in ages. I'd read the book again to see how = she >did it if it weren't for the liberal sprinkling of the f-word = throughoutm >which I personally cannot stand. =20 This is the reason I haven't read more than the first chapter so far. I loved what I read, but I couldn't take the profanity at the time. (Some times I am more sensitive to such language than others. Right now is not the time.) But even that was sufficient to show how well the author = created her character--wonderful, funny stuff. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:28:21 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Good Writing It is my understanding that there are several waves (occurring at different times throughout history) of "neo-Platonic" thought/philosophy. And IMHO, there seem to be several easily drawn parallels between Platonic philosophy and Mormon theology. If these things are true, how can anyone claim that Plato is always mentioned only to be refuted or disposed of? I think Eric Samuelsen dismisses a major figure in intellectual history too readily. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:43:12 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] RE: Good Writing Gae Lyn: >Eric, if you really feel that Tony responded with class, charity and >kindness, why do you continue in the tenor you describe as >"mean-spirited= . . . diatribe"? I'm serious about this. I read both >yours and Tony's = comments with considerable interest. Both of >you make some excellent = points. There are considerable >grounds for consensus between you two. So = why do you use the >antagonistic tone, what are we to make of that? Honestly, I thought I'd changed the tone; I thought I was way nicer in the = second post in the first one. I felt bad, because I called Plato, who = Tony clearly admires, some strong things, without much evidence. So I was = trying to say things more kindly, more clearly, more directly, with a = change in tone that perhaps would be less confrontational. I clearly = failed in this attempt, and ask for yours and Tony's forgiveness. Can I = blame pain-killers? =20 As it happens, I think Plato is exceptionally dangerous. He opened the = door to an assumption which recurs periodically in certain kinds of = cultural criticism, which assumes that portrayal equates to advocacy. = That is to say, if I write about an act of violence, I'm pro-violence. = Or, at the very least, if I write about acts of violence, I automatically = create a situation in which violence is more likely to occur. =20 I not only reject this assumption, I think we pretty much all have to = reject it, or we don't have an art form. Literature depends on the = fictional portrayal of evil, of wrong. I know of no exceptions. This is = precisely why I so loathe the movie rating system; it tells us what sorts = of actions are shown on-screen, without giving us any idea of the context. = The movie rating system, is, in a word, Platonic. And must therefore, in = my opinion, be utterly rejected, ignored, rendered irrelevant. The fact is, there is a kind of cultural criticism, built on Platonic = foundations, that I personally reject, and that I am pretty always = prepared to do battle with. I think it's dangerous. I think it's false. = And so I overstate things and make pronouncements, and make enemies, when = I should be carrying on a conversation, and saying things gently and = listening to opposing points of view, even those I detest. Especially = those I detest. So, apologies to Tony and to Gae Lynn. I really do mean that. And if = someone can show me a quotation from Plato in which he talks about = literature sensibly, I'd be delighted to read it. (Okay, he's a little = more positive in the Ion than in the Republic. Even there, he comes = across like a guy who's a few chlamys shy of a chiton.) Gaelyn does suggest that the General Authorities occasionally sound pretty = Platonic when they talk about popular culture. I've noticed this myself, = and find it deeply deeply troubling. But when they talk about pornography,= they're discussing something for which the Greeks didn't even have a = word. Greek sexual mores were worlds removed from ours. They competed in = the nude, and admired the human form in much of their sculpture. They had = a warrior culture, in which sexual relations between a man and boy was = seen as representing the richest and deepest kind of love, and was also = tied into their notions of masculinity, machismo, sports prowess, war. = (Male/female love was decidedly secondary, and women were worse than = second class citizens.) They didn't even have a concept for obscenity. = Contemporary popular culture, with its dehumanizing and commodifying = images of young women, treated almost exclusively as sexual objects, just = wasn't something they had, or could even have comprehended. So when our = General Authorities talk about the negative affects of pornographic = imagery, their discussion is one that utterly unanticipated by Plato or = Aristotle, and one for which the principles espoused by Greek philosophers = are completely irrelevant. At least, that's the best answer I can come up = with. I think maybe certain kinds of imagery, at the margins and extremes = of pop culture, should be treated Platonically. =20 Here's where Gae Lyn really nailed me, though. >Where do the men get the authority to make pronouncements? >Again, I'm = serious about this and I expect some answers. D&C 121. I have a little authority, as I supposed it, and I immediately = began to exercise a kind of rhetorical unrighteous dominion. And made = something of a donkey out of myself in the process. I don't, of course, have any authority to make pronouncements on these = matters. I teach graduate dramatic theory at BYU, and that gives me a few = credentials, I guess. (He said wistfully, wishing that that meant = anything, or mattered, at all, which it doesn't.) These are issues we = deal with in my theory classes. But arrogance and pride are my Achilles' = heels, (Achilles was, after all, a guy) and I gave in to them far too = readily. Thanks for calling me on it. =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:53:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Genre JP Steed wrote: > All of them. There is nothing new under the sun. I presume you're arguing for SF's superiority here because SF can create a world we've never heard of before, inhabited by creatures we've never heard of. > But isn't every piece of writing the creation of a world? Doesn't Carver create a "new" world when he writes about blue-collar Joe who's trying to quit smoking, whose kid gets in a fight with the boy down the street? You want to say "no", I presume, because this world and > the creatures in it are recognizable. They're not "new." But you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that SF worlds aren't recognizable; they're still _worlds_, in some way relatable to my world (as Carver's is), and the creatures and their interactions with one another are > still relatable to me and my interactions with others. You've just made up "new" pronouns, named them differently, etc. Creating a "new" planet in SF is no more "new" and "original", IMO, then creating a > "new" county (Faulkner's Yoknapawtawpha) in "literary" fiction; and creating a "new" creature with three arms and one eye is no different from creating a "new" woman who is so desperate to keep her husband in > his place that she shoots him (Hemingway's "Short Happy Life of > F.M."). Despitem displaying a slight lack of understanding about Science Fiction (It's much more than giving a human three arms, four legs and green skin) that argument could almost be taken to prove Marion "Doc" Smith's half-serious contention that EVERY form of literature is a sub-set of Science Fiction/Fantasy (or Speculative Fiction as some academics and SF authors now call it). - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:14:13 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] List Discourse (was: Good Writing) At 11:11 AM 7/19/2000 -0700, you wrote: >You make an excellent point here. I'm on several mailing lists made up >almost exclusively of women, and that fact is clearly reflected in the tone >of the messages. We're discussing writing on those lists, and even the most >revered writers apologize for their statements. Just this morning I read a >lengthy, well-reasoned-out response to a question about patriarchy, >feminism, and romance fiction. At the end, the writer, whose opinion had >been solicited, apologized for going on so long. We've been socialized to >behave that way, and men have been socialized to value themselves and their >opinions. This situation makes itself plain, as you have noted, in >correspondence as we have here, and in conversations. A man wouldn't feel >the need to aplogize for stating his opinion, and it irritates me that women >do feel that need. Sigh, I wish I could talk my wife into participation on this list. She certainly does not feel the need to apologize for stating her opinion (Not meant critically, I love it). Of course, maybe in writing???????? Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #107 ******************************