From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #110 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 Saturday, July 22 2000 Volume 01 : Number 110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:03:22 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Genre D. Michael Martindale wrote: > My reaction to your description of mainstream literature was, "No wonder > I don't like mainstrem literature. Quick, hand me a science fiction > book." I now understand the issue at hand. D. Michael Martindale just likes Science Fiction. But his commentary always reaches toward asserting its inherent virtues, not in merely stating a preference. The same happens with myself and Jason Sneed and others who like literary fiction. Digression: People have been using the term main stream literature in too broad a stroke. Mainstream = Oprah books. Literary fiction is more what I and others have been meaning primarily. Return: I've been reading a lot about the social and cultural ways that taste is constructed, and am coming to see that the problem of taste is not that some like certain things and not others. The problem comes when people (like Kant) try to say that what they like is what ought to be liked because it is in its essential nature to stand above. There is a problem with liking Science Fiction in certain circles (or romances or westerns or thrillers) and with announcing their inherent value over something like Toni Morrison or Derek Walcott or Jose Saramago, namely that one sounds an awful lot like one is saying those of you who like Tiramisu or madelines are crazy. Quick, hand me a twinkie. Not that this is what anyone is finally saying, but that's what is heard sometimes . . . I think. On a different but similar note: The reason I stopped reading Science Fiction and fantasy is that it almost always relied on allegory of one kind or another in order to make its thematic points, which is to say that the alternative worlds and milieux only served the work as structures from which to comment on culture of the actual world we all live in. When I came to that conclusion, I thought to myself, "Why not cut out the middle man and comment on culture directly?" To me it takes a little more courage to, for example, castigate racism by talking about racism in the world we live in than to make up some Sneetches or whatever and use them as puppets for the culture. But that's just me. ANIMAL FARM and CHICKEN RUN are two exceptions for me in that respect. In those instances, the allegorical shift provides some parable-like qualities that allow for clearer seeing. I'm thinking about this because I went to see the X-Men movie, a film I have been waiting to see since I was eleven years old. I thought, "Hmmm, this helped me think of the altern when I was pre-pubescent, but now I'd rather learn about the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing in its actual rather than imagined forms." Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Ed Snow Subject: Re: [AML] (Curiouser & Curiouser) Confessions of a Former FARMS= Filing Clerk Marylin wrote: The idea for this came from adding (x) Catullus (sp?), a Greek or Roman erotic poet, plus (y) Ixtlilxoxitlil (sp?), an early Aztec or Mayan historian who gathered Mesoamerican legends, equals (z) Catliltlilus, a Mayan erotic poet. Maybe that was obvious, but I thought an etymology might be helpful. Ed =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Among best sellers, Barnes & Noble ranks _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on= Things Mormon_ in its top 100 (thousand, that is). Available now at 20% off= http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=3D5SLFMY1T= YD&mscssid=3DHJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=3D&isbn=3D1560851368 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail =96 Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:46:57 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Genre Todd states that science fiction versus mainstream literary fiction (I agree with his distinction between literary and popular, though I prefer to add "mainstream" since it avoids the implication that this is the only type of fiction that is literary) is really a matter of taste, and comments that the problem comes when advocates of one form of fiction argue that their personal taste equates to an inherent superiority of one genre over another. He goes on to state: >The reason I stopped reading Science >Fiction and fantasy is that it almost always relied on allegory of one kind >or another in order to make its thematic points, which is to say that the >alternative worlds and milieux only served the work as structures from which >to comment on culture of the actual world we all live in. > >When I came to that conclusion, I thought to myself, "Why not cut out the >middle man and comment on culture directly?" Even though Todd positions this as a matter of taste, I would argue that this way of describing science fiction and fantasy embeds a set of assumptions that would, indeed, place a higher inherent value on mainstream literary fiction than on science fiction, fantasy, and other non-mainstream forms. If the sole aim of literature is "to comment on culture of the actual world we all live in," then it follows that science and fantasy will inherently be one step further removed from the central stuff of literature, with the probable consequences Todd describes. (After rereading my completed post, I realize that it's also possible that Todd isn't saying this is the only valid purpose of literature, but only that it's the purpose most science fiction seems to be attempting to fill. Regardless, I think that such an interpretation misses what the best of science fiction and fantasy are about--and hence my argument that follows.) I won't get into a discussion of the pros and cons of allegory. Rather, I want to point out that in treating sf&f allegorically, Todd imposes on the genres an interpretation many, if not most, of their practitioners have rejected. Tolkien's irritable tirade against allegorical interpretations of his own work is well known. What is less widely recognized, I think, is that this dislike represents, at its most fundamental level, a different set of assumptions about what literature is and ought to be. In his essay "On Fairy-Stories," Tolkien bemoans the fact (as he sees it) that due to Shakespeare's powerful presence, literary criticism of all fictional forms in English has been unduly influenced in the direction of dramatic values. And drama, he argues, is an inherently anthropomorphic form: "Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play." He recounts then his disappointment at Shakespeare's copout (my word, not his) in how he fulfills the prophecy of Birnham Wood coming to Dunsinane by having soldiers carry boughs as camouflage. Clearly, in Tolkien's scene of the Huorns coming to Helm's Deep, he is replaying this incident in a way he finds more satisfying--just as his creation of the Ents is clearly (among other things) an expression of certain things he felt deeply about trees and the natural world that could not be expressed--or at least, not as well--through a "realistic" depiction of forests and landscapes. Tolkien's work is, to some degree at least, about "trees as trees," eccentric though that may seem to those who would limit literature to human subjects. I'm aware that what I've described here can be considered an allegorical approach (in a broad way; I'd prefer the term "symbolic" or "metaphoric," since allegory strictly speaking means something much narrower), since it uses an unreal/fantastic depiction of something that can be seen as a representation of something else in the real world. I think that such a view, however, leaves out several important considerations. For one thing, what it's representing is not a human other, but something from the natural world--not a part of "society" at all. Second, and perhaps more fundamentally, Ents are more than "merely" representations or symbols of trees, but entities within the story to which we respond for their own sake--at least, those of us for whom Tolkien's fiction works. Such a response, Todd seems to suggest, is outside the range of his sympathies: i.e., in order to find significance in fantasy, it's necessary first to translate back to its real-world referents. (Apologies again if I'm misstating your position, Todd.) But it's important to recognize that those of us who like science fiction and fantasy respond to it in a different way--one which, I again suggest, reflects a different idea of what "literature" is and ought to be. To apply this argument more explicitly to science fiction: Alexander Pope famously proclaims that "The proper study of mankind is Man." Science (and Mormonism) takes this dictate as too narrow, focusing human attention on understanding all the universe that comes within our view. Science fiction at its best partakes of some of the same spirit, looking at and exploring the imaginative possibilities of the universe around us not simply as a setting for human action, still less as an allegorical framework for "really" talking about humans, but as a fun playground worth exploring for its own sake. The seriousness with which fantasy and science fiction treat such things in themselves is, I think, one of the reasons why many advocates of mainstream literary fiction are unable to treat these genres seriously: serious literature, to them, *must* be about humans and human society. To the degree that fantasy and science fiction aren't, they aren't worthy of serious attention. Those of us who like science fiction for its own sake, on the other hand, would turn this around: a science fiction story that is *only* a framework for talking allegorically about contemporary human society isn't really a science fiction story at all, or at least it's a pretty poor one. (It's interesting, in this connection, that the two stories Todd singles out as positive "exceptions" for him--_Animal Farm_ and _Chicken Run_--are ones that I wouldn't qualify as fantasy or science fiction at all, but allegory, pure and simple, though well-done in both cases [pardon the pun]. To me, this suggests that what makes sf&f uninteresting for Todd isn't that these genres are allegorical, but that they aren't allegorical enough. Todd, any thoughts on this?) This, I think, is why so many of us who like science fiction and fantasy tend to go on the counterattack against literary mainstream fiction: because the arguments over literary quality are generally conducted on ground that is inherently slanted in favor of that type of fiction, that makes "our kind" of fiction inherently inferior except to the degree that it goes concealed in mainstream literary drag. What we really need is a different theory of literature that puts what we like on a more equal footing--or perhaps slants the advantage our way, eh? Because in the end, it's *not* simply a matter of taste. Certain genres are better suited to doing certain types of things--and so, depending on what you think the "purpose" of literature is, certain genres do have inherent advantages or disadvantages in creating good literature. To summarize: * For fantasy and science fiction readers, I would suggest that our primary mode of experiencing these genres are not allegorical. (Also not real--I'm not saying we can't tell the difference between the real world and a fictional one--but something perhaps best described in Tolkien's terms as secondary belief.) * Part of the power of science fiction and fantasy for us--and part of what makes them thoughtful, intellectually challenging genres--lies in the fact that they *aren't* just about contemporary humans and human society, but feature other topics and subjects as well, such as elements of the natural world and scientific speculations about the way it operates. * These positive values of science fiction and fantasy, for its admirers, are precisely among the qualities that lead others to consider it a less-significant literary form. * Arguing from the dominant mainstream literary views of what literature is and ought to be will always, inherently, place science fiction and fantasy at a disadvantage. One final note. To simplify the discussion, I've talked about this largely in either/or terms: either you accept the mainstream literary view of what literature is, or you reject it. In reality, of course, it's not nearly so straightforward. Personally, I prefer a framework that acknowledges many different purposes for literature, and allows you to use whatever perspective seems most appropriate--or provides the most entertainment--in interpreting any particular literary work. Imagine: using science fiction values to examine oh, say, Saul Bellow! What fun! I do think, though, that those of us who like and value science fiction and fantasy for their own sake, and not as simply a marvel-coated version of mainstream literature, need to beware of critical frameworks which--if extended to their logical conclusions--condemn the works we love to the status of perpetual second-class literary citizens. 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: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:38:36 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:41Tony Markham writes: > Terry's child's Sunday School teacher said that all fiction writing was > inherently bad. One of the smartest, most in-tune people who ever > lived agreed with her. Plato, in The Republic, said basically that > the dramatic poet (and the fiction writer) ought to be banished > from a well-ordered society. It would be more accurate to say that Socrates, a character in Plato's novel _The Republic_, argues that poets who lie have no place in a just society. I keep remembering what David H. Yarn said in our History of Philosophy, part 1 class, that one way of reading _The Republic_ is as a warning of what a society would be like where all things are subservient to one thing, even if that one thing is justice. > And before we start quoting the prophets at him, we ought > to hear his rather compelling reasons: That word _compelling_ reminds me of a passage in Robert Nozick's forward to his _Philosophical Explanations_ (page 4) where he notes that the language of philosophy is the language of compulsion. >>>>> The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are _powerful_ and best when they are _knockdown_, arguments _force _you to a conclusion, if you believe the premisses you _have to_ or _must_ believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much _punch_, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, _forces_ someone to a belief. <<<<< That passage (the whole thing is longer), read and resisted at the beginning of grad school, and working on me for several years, has influenced the way I construct and present my ideas in writing (where I can create a more humane, sensitive persona than the person writing the words). I started writing a short reply, but it's grown, so I'll limit this post to Socrates' first compulsive reason, and post later on the other two. > 1) The rational and well-ordered personality who deals with the hard > blows of life with peace and equanimity is a sorry subject for drama > (fiction) and is seldom portrayed. The same can be said for history. When was the last time you read a history of a common ordinary family, not soldiers, generals, politicians, movers, shakers, history makers (hmm, that has a ring to it--Steve Perry should set it to music), just common ordinary people? I'm just finishing one right now, _I Cannot Tell a Life_ by Florence Child Brown. I hope sometime to read Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's _Goodwives_ and _A Midwife's Tale_. Then there's this book by Richard Bushman about a man with the unassuming name of Smith. Bushman says because of the interest this man inspired we know more about the Smith family than any other non-aristocratic family in America. I welcome history about common, ordinary people, just as I welcome fiction about ordinary people struggling or working to meet their life's challenges. (At the same time, I recognize that my Seattle stories, about a man's attempt to survive emotionally, with peace and equanimity, after his wife tries to destroy him psychologically, are structured after the hero journey. Then there's the group of stories about a boy who uses autism as a defense, "I prayed and the Lord told me the abuse was not my fault.") But just as I would not call the whole value of history as a genre into question because historians have traditionally not focused on everyday life, I would not call fiction or poetry into question simply because it often deals with extraordinary events or deranged kings who make their home home on the heath with cantaloupe in their teeth and rage at the wind. The better response is to write a good story about everyday people meeting their challenges by forgiving those who cause them pain. Like a story about a woman who runs away from her husband when he won't help their son out of some trouble, goes to the zoo, meets an angel who helps her reconcile with her husband. (Actually, I think Margaret Young could do that rather nicely, an example of what Jerry Johnston would call Mormon magical realism.) More to follow. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:50:24 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] The Onion Skewers Mormons I actually don't think it sounds very 'insider.' It's very funny, but it = made us seem closer to Amish than to Mormons, really. (An insider = wouldn't have said the Book of Helaman was boring, for example. 2 Nephi, = sure.) Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:12:05 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] (Curiouser & Curiouser) Confessions of a Former FARMS=Filing Clerk Okay, let's spell Ixtlilxochitl correctly. (I don't happen to have my Aztec/English dictionary handy, so I may not have it perfect either.) Pronounced Ish-tleel-oh-sho-cheet-el. Really fun to say it ten times fast. In Aztec, there are lots of "l's", and the "X" is pronounced "sh." Ixtlilxochitl was Aztec (Mayan is not nearly so fond of "l's", but favors a lot of "ch's.") Ixtlilxochitl was Aztec royalty who reported Aztec history to one of the more compassionate Spanish conquerors, a priest whose name is so comparatively uninteresting that I've forgotten it. Ed Snow wrote: > Marylin wrote: > > Catliltlilus> > > The idea for this came from adding (x) Catullus (sp?), > a Greek or Roman erotic poet, plus (y) Ixtlilxoxitlil > (sp?), an early Aztec or Mayan historian who gathered > Mesoamerican legends, equals (z) Catliltlilus, a Mayan > erotic poet. Maybe that was obvious, but I thought an > etymology might be helpful. > > Ed - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:03:27 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Re: Good Writing Jason wrote: >I agree that Plato's discussions of art in The Republic are >problematic. = But what about his treatment of it in Ion? (SNIP) >And in the Ion, it seems to me that he basically says that, while=20 >much art is crummy and worthless, it indeed has the potential to >be = divine. Even in the Ion he's awfully grudging. Poets don't know anything, he = says, and shouldn't be trusted to have any expertise on any subject at = all, except as they are inspired by the Gods. Under those circumstances, = poets have their heads in the clouds, working directly under divine = inspiration. It's become such a Romantic cliche, this idea of the inspired artist, = closer to The Ideal (or the Super Sensuous, or whatever) than the rest of = us, and thus a favored being, a kind of psuedo-prophet. =20 I love Schiller's argument in his "On the Naive and the Sentimental." He = said that Goethe was, in fact, far more inspired than he was, far closer = to the Super Sensuous than he would ever be. Schiller had to sweat blood = to write anything, tormenting himself with questions of expression and = syntax that Goethe, in his naive brilliance, just sailed right over. But, = concluded Schiller, the 'sentimental' artist (sentimental in this context = meant an artist like Schiller, who has to work his fanny off to achieve = anything like the right kind of expression) would ultimately soar higher. = Neither artist would ever actually reach the Super Sensuous. But the = sentimental artist would eventually come closer. A great refutation of = Plato's argument in the Ion. I don't buy the whole romantic argument, personally. Writing is hard = work. Research is very hard work. Writers DO have to know something; = inspiration only comes after you've put in the grunt work. At least that's = my experience. Eric Samuelsen - - 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: Re: [AML] (Curiouser & Curiouser) Confessions of a Former FARMS= Filing Clerk I'm so glad I get a chance to say that when I "lost it" I meant I laughed= so hard I stopped making heads or tails. Very clever, Ed. I'm certainly = glad you clarified Catliltlilus, and if I ever meet you face to face I = want you to pronounce it for me. Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:40:48 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Great Authors Sharlee Glenn wrote: > Whoa! That's quite a jump! So the four names you came up with while mowing > the lawn happened to be men. That hardly means that only men have produced > great literature (which is what the posing of those questions suggests). > > While washing the dishes this morning, I came up with four names and > wondered what these writers had in common to elevate them to greatness: > > George Eliot > Virginia Woolf > Flannery O'Connor > Toni Morrison > > :-) Though Sharlee closed with a grin, I have given serious lawn-mowing thought to her list. I simply don't know much about George Eliot because the last time a teacher took her seriously enough to teach, it was after recess and we had to lay our heads on our desks while she read out loud. Sad but true. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger. But the other three are a different story. All of them were brilliant and gifted, yet alienated and marginalized women. Virginia Woolf was a brilliant, gifted woman in a society that basically scorned her for those very reasons. One day she simply walked into the sea. My most vivid image of Woolf is a photo with those large, sad, dark eyes, one arm and hand languidly supporting her chin, and a caption: "Ennui envelops me." Flannery O'Connor, a brilliant, gifted woman. One of only a handful of Irish-Catholics in her rural Georgia town (Milledgeville). College-educated, well-published and surrounded basically by crackers. She knew she would die young, suffered from Lupus (fatal then) and the medicine would make her face and hands swell up, which was a motif that appeared often in her work, that is, a brilliant, gifted, hulking girl totally at odds with her society. Toni Morrison, a youngest child, all older brothers. She was "The Pretty One." And straight-A's. Her father adored her and doted on her and rained favoritism and one day her brothers were goofing with a BB gun and shot her in the eye. Big, blue cataract--blind. Grades plummeted, self-image plummeted, alienated and marginalized. The Bluest Eye. So if alienation and marginalization serve the same role in elevating women writers to greatness that being a blind, drunk, sorcerer served for Milton, Faulkner, and Yeats, then I'd say a few things here about women (not just the writers) and the Mormon Church if this were the kind of list that allowed such things to be said, which it isn't. So I won't. My .02 is that both Woolf and O'Connor died too young to fully realize their greatness. Same with John Keats and Poe. O'Connor left an all-too-small legacy of short stories and only the one novel, "Wise Blood." I've loved her work since the first time I read it and time has only made the pain of her early death more acute. Ach! What we lost! Virginia Woolf, I just have this distaste for suicides. I don't like letting them into my brain for fear I may get exposed to something that sticks. This includes Hemingway, Robert E. Howard, and that Japanese guy who fell on his sword, Mushami (?). But not Socrates. Woolf may be a great writer, people say so, but I can't take the context. Call me Sui-ophobic. Toni Morrison, great initials! But it's too soon to tell about her writing. A person has to wait a bit for any lasting greatness to become apparent. It's great that she won the Nobel Prize. They don't just give those things away. Wait, yes they do. She could be, potentially, half as good as Milton. T.M. PS. This is a pretty great list. We've got Mormons who listen to Tom Waits and who start the day with an Oooom. Next thing, someone will confess to chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo to the tune of "O My Father." And that was a great post Todd Robert made re: this thread. A Gem! - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:31:35 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] The Onion Skewers Mormons In a message dated 7/21/00 2:03:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu writes: << (An insider wouldn't have said the Book of Helaman was boring, for example. 2 Nephi, sure.) Eric Samuelsen >> Oh, Eric: Speak for yourself. I think much like Mark Twain that the entire Book of Mormon is boring. Violet Kimball - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:26:09 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing This is the second part of my reply to Tony Markham's June 30 posting on Plato, whose second point Tony states this way: > 2) The poet (fiction writer) seeks to represent life as is and merely > creates a copy of what is real, and the copy is inferior to reality in > every respect. I have not read all of _The Republic_. I may do that this summer, because I need to see how Plato constructs the realm of ideas. The example I've always heard is this: The wooden device I sit on as write these words, which has a seat, a curving back and four legs, the arrangement of tubes, spoked wheels and naugahyde my mother-in-law rides in if we have to take her to the doctor, the upholstered device she spends most of her days in, which can recline or rais up so she's almost standing, and the device I sit in at work which is mounted on a swivel riding on four small wheels, are all called chairs. What is it that allows us to recognize them all as chairs? There must be some realm where the idea of chair-ness exists. We have some kind of pre-existent memory of that realm, and we recognize many divers things as chairs because they are all striving to reach the ideal of chair-ness. I don't know if Plato actually uses that example, but it's the one I've always heard. But you don't have to resort to an abstract realm of ideas that encompasses all possible chairs to explain why many, many different kinds of things are challed chairs. All you have to do is look at the way we talk about chairs, think about the words we use. I'll bet no one reading this looked at my description, "a seat, a curving back and four legs," and said, 'Hey, he's comparing a chair to the human body,' but that is what defines a chair as a chair--the way it imitates the function of a human body. If it doesn't have legs, a seat and back, and often arms, we call it something besides a chair. Two important points need to be made. First, the realm of ideas is not simply a theoretical construct, it's also a values construct, as indicated by our word, _ideal_. The realm of ideas is what we should strive for. Every thing and every body in this concrete realm of earth is striving for the perfection of the realm of ideas. But, and this is the second point, in order to encompass all variety, the realm of ideas has to be abstract. No concrete thing can encompass all variations. Imagine my mother-in-law's wheelchair, which folds into the middle for easy carrying in a car, having a built-in recliner, and a swivel for ease moving around a business office. But, because it can not encompass all variations, a concrete object, whether it is the words on paper or spoken words that vibrate in other people's ears, or any other concrete object, is by definition inferior to the realm of ideas. Which is why the realm of ideas is of no value if you're trying to design a chair. Or a story. Chairs are not trying to imitate an ideal, they are trying to aid the body in functioning a particular way in a particular environment. Stories are not trying to copy an abstract ideal, but to picture and explore a concrete society in a given time and space, whether that time is far far away on Judea's non-plains, or hanging onto a horse's main on the soggy plains of Spain, or trying by main force to take control of Middle-Earth. If you judge a story (or a chair) by how well it reflects an abstract ideal, it will always be a pale copy, and dangerous, because people might mistake it for the abstract reality. Indeed, that's one of the objections anti-Mormon writers raise, and I ran into it on my mission: that Mormons are too weak-minded to think about God in all his abstract glory, so we have to create a God who has a body just like ours. But note that pronoun _his_. Even people who insist that God is abstract will personify that abstraction, that is, will give it a pronoun that implies a certain bone structure and organs that define a male body. Defining the ideal in abstract terms sets up a situation where art and literature are dangerous. I suspect that defining art as dangerous is unavoidable if the realm of values is an abstract realm. Literature always deals in values--even pastoral, lyric poetry deals with values, as Bergman showed in _Shame_, where the pastoral opening shows us what values are going to be destroyed by the war. The problem is that the values I hold may not completely match the values an artist holds. But what if I change my assumptions about what artists are trying to do? If I assume artists are trying to show me the ideal society, then I have to worry about the danger that their portrait may not match my values, and that I, or someone under my stewardship may mistake their values for my own. But what if I assume the artist is trying to do something else? This question of what an artist wants to give through art, and what we receive--and in what spirit we receive--is the subject of Michael J. Rosen's memoir (illustrations by Aminah Brenda Lynn Robinson--see my December 8, 1999 review)_Elijah's Angel: A Story for Chanukah and Christmas_. Rosen tells about a barber, woodcarver, and lay minister named Elijah Pierce who had a shop just down the street from him growing up. He tells it as if he were 10 years old looking back a year to when Christmas Eve shared nights with the first night of Chanukah. He tells how he would like to "buy one of Elijah's animals," but that though his parents have a piece Elijah did in their kitchen they wouldn't want to buy pieces like "God and the Angels" or "The Infant Jesus," which to Jews would be graven images. Elijah complicates matters by giving 9-year-old Michael a guardian angel. "You know, I send prayers to all the wood I've ever carved; now you'll always be in my prayers." Michael is afraid his parents will see the angel as a graven image, and hides it from them for a bit. When he finally shows them the angel they tell him, "What this angel means to you doesn't have to be what it means to Elijah," that he can accept the angel as a sign of Elijah's love and care, his friendship, without adopting the religious connotations of the angel. Michael's parents gave him a profound way to interpret art. Its meaning to you doesn't have to be the same as its meaning to the artist. It's still a gift. I wonder how our esthetics would change if we looked at art as proferred gift rather than as potential gift (German for _poison_). Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:33:30 EDT From: ViKimball@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] (Curiouser & Curiouser) Confessions of a Former FARMS=Filing Clerk In a message dated 7/21/00 2:04:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, margaret_young@byu.edu writes: << > The idea for this came from adding (x) Catullus (sp?), > a Greek or Roman erotic poet, plus (y) Ixtlilxoxitlil > (sp?), an early Aztec or Mayan historian who gathered > Mesoamerican legends, equals (z) Catliltlilus, a Mayan > erotic poet. Maybe that was obvious, but I thought an > etymology might be helpful. > >> Everyday words in my household. :<) VKimball - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:00:50 -0600 From: Eileen Subject: [AML] Re: Good Writing >I don't buy the whole romantic argument, personally. Writing is hard work. >Research is very hard work. Writers DO have to know something; inspiration >only comes after you've put in the grunt work. At least that's my experience. >Eric Samuelsen Here! Here! I am in complete concord. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:32:10 -0600 From: Richard R Hopkins Subject: [AML] Re: Good Writing > I don't buy the whole romantic argument, personally. Writing is > hard work. Research is very hard work. Writers DO have to know > something; inspiration only comes after you've put in the grunt > work. At least that's my experience. > > Eric Samuelsen In music I am always amazed at how seemingly inspired writers of religious music were, historically. Much more so than their contemporaries in theology. And yet when it comes to how hard it was to do this, you have the huge contrasts of Mozart, who seemed to know how every note should sound from the moment of creation, and Beethoven, who worked very hard to achieve his art. Now personally I prefer Beethoven, which frankly tells me something about inspiration and the arts. :-) Richard Hopkins - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:13:56 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Genre Jonathan Langford said: > Tolkien's > work is, to some degree at least, about "trees as trees," eccentric though > that may seem to those who would limit literature to human subjects. Jonathan makes an intriguing distinction here between allegory about human beings and other topics for imagination and consideration. It seems to apply nicely to a story I read today, Scott Parkin's "Of Cats and Disease and Nature," published in the Winter issue of _Irreantum_. [Incidentally I was inspired to read the story after listening to Scott and Thom Duncan discuss science fiction last night at Thai Chili Gardens. Thanks Chris for putting that dinner together.] Scott's story made me think about "catness," something I'm sure I wouldn't have done otherwise: What does a cat perceive? What things does a cat know that I don't know? Why do human beings assume we are smarter and better? If every living thing has a spiritual creation and is invested in this life with the light of Christ, then what happens to our beloved pets--and all the unloved animals--after they die? The story provides some answers; it forces me to look at my world a new way; it brings up interesting questions about perception and human knowledge. It makes make think about philosophical theories like phenomenology. It makes me think about Mormon theological questions. It makes me want to pick up my cat Trinkles and love him. It is not "mainstream literary fiction," but it does some alterative things that I find very valuable. I read Heinlein as a little girl and teenager and the thing his science fiction did for me then was create all kinds of possibilities about the world/universe. When you are a Mormon girl learning your role as future mother and homemaker, it is quite liberating to read about a female space pilot or the like. So when Jonathan says, What we really need is a > different theory of literature that puts what we like on a more equal > footing--or perhaps slants the advantage our way, eh? Because in the end, > it's *not* simply a matter of taste. Certain genres are better suited to > doing certain types of things--and so, depending on what you think the > "purpose" of literature is, certain genres do have inherent advantages or > disadvantages in creating good literature. I agree! Some people find literary theory bogus and a waste of time. I don't. I think it has its own creative impetus and its own fascination. Not everyone likes it, just as not everyone likes science fiction. But there is room for many tastes. Let me ask a question since this is an area where I have no knowledge--who has done science fiction theory? I mean other than Orson Scott Card--I've read some of what he has said. An example about another genre that has been discussed on the list recently is the romance novel. When I read _Loving With a Vengeance: Mass-Produced Fantasies for Women_ by Tania Modleski, it helped me understand the romance genre and value it. But even more importantly, it helped me understand why women read romance--it made a comment on human society that was valuable. (In other words, theory can do the same thing that mainstream literature can do.) Gae Lyn Henderson > - - 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 #110 ******************************