From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #163 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, October 3 2000 Volume 01 : Number 163 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:24:11 GMT From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] MN Premiere of "Sy's Girl" opens Pardoe Theatre Season at BYU: BYU Press Release > >Larry Jackson wrote: > > > "'Sy's Girl' is about the fantasies we all have about the ideal boy > > or girl, man or woman," said AdreAnn Sundrud, the director of the > > play who recently completed a master's degree in theatre and media > > arts at BYU. > >The fantasies we "all" have? Maybe the slavering unmarried at BYU, but some >of us have gratefully passed that point and have already found the ideal >other. > >I haven't seen this play, so it may not be what it's advertised to be, but, >if it is, hopefully it is a blip in the annals of LDS theatre. With all >that can be explored about our culture, religion, and history of a serious, >compelling, and dramatic nature, what prompts an LDS writer to spend 90 >pages talking about something so mundane as imaginary lovers? Please! >Someone's already explored date rape on campus, so maybe that's out, but >what about a play about contemporary gays at BYU (they do exist, you know). >Or the drama inherent in VOICE's near constant clashes with the >conservative BYU leadership. Or, if the BYU student must strike a comedic >tone, why not a farce dealing with academic freedom among the faculty? Or >the censorship of the Rodin exhibit? I'm with Thom on this one, because I've seen "Sy's Girl." The idea of it -- someone having an imaginary friend and then having to face reality -- seems good enough. Maybe not earth-shattering, and certainly not the universal thing Sundrud's quote seems to suggest, but a potentially entertaining play, anyway. The execution, however, is dreadful. The script, despite having been extensively workshopped, is full of problems, and two of the six actors are embarrassingly bad. (Fortunately, they have relatively small roles -- but not small enough.) In my opinion, it's an embarrassing beginning to BYU's theater season. My official review will be in Sunday's Daily Herald, if anyone's interested. Of course Thom knows that most of the ideas he suggested would never get performed on a main stage at BYU. But that doesn't mean no one should write them, even if they have to stay underground, or get performed somewhere else. (As for academic freedom among professors, what else COULD that be, besides a farce? :-) ) Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:31:53 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] conservative hatred Rex Goode wrote: > Here is why I find myself undermotivated to finish my autobiography. Don't let that stop you. For a project I've been working on for years, I thought I had found out pretty much all there was about gays. I had come to what I thought was a firm conclusion that gays were "born that way" and that was the end of the discussion. Then I met you on the web, not on this list as I recall. As you explained about your life, a "non-practicing" gay man in a hetersexual marriage that was somehow working, I realized I didn't know everything about homosexuality. Here was Rex Goode, whose very existence was proof positive that neither Evergreen nor Affirmation had the final truth on what it means to be Mormon and gay. Please, Rex, finish your autobiography. The message of your life needs to be told. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:56:30 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] MN Premiere of "Sy's Girl" opens Pardoe Theatre Season at BYU: BYU Press Release At 10:51 AM 9/29/2000 -0600, you wrote: >Larry Jackson wrote: > >> "'Sy's Girl' is about the fantasies we all have about the ideal boy >> or girl, man or woman," said AdreAnn Sundrud, the director of the >> play who recently completed a master's degree in theatre and media >> arts at BYU. > >The fantasies we "all" have? Maybe the slavering unmarried at BYU, but some >of us have gratefully passed that point and have already found the ideal >other. > >I haven't seen this play, so it may not be what it's advertised to be, but, >if it is, hopefully it is a blip in the annals of LDS theatre. With all >that can be explored about our culture, religion, and history of a serious, >compelling, and dramatic nature, what prompts an LDS writer to spend 90 >pages talking about something so mundane as imaginary lovers? Perhaps because the imagination interfering with life is a _common_theme approached by a variety of playwrights and authors in different ways ( ranging from _Blithe Spirit_ -imaginary?- to _Harvey_(okay, not exactly a lover but. . .)or the old one act _Overtones_. Please! >Someone's already explored date rape on campus, so maybe that's out, but >what about a play about contemporary gays at BYU (they do exist, you know). >Or the drama inherent in VOICE's near constant clashes with the >conservative BYU leadership. Or, if the BYU student must strike a comedic >tone, why not a farce dealing with academic freedom among the faculty? Or >the censorship of the Rodin exhibit? Perhaps because ulitmately these come out as parochial gripes about which some folks (Thom) get pretty agitated but which don't trouble others as much as insecurity, inability to cope with life on its own terms or other more universal themes. Indeed I think most of us have spent time dealing with fantasies about our futures which affect the way we live. Certainly it was a common theme for Shakespeare (Most common in the comedies but I think a case could be made that _Macbeth_ and _Lear_ are illustrations of fantasy shifting to a terrible and unexpected reality. >Thom Duncan > Obviously I haven't seen the play either (at least Thom can choose to see it if he wishes, but the current air-fares between Georgia and Utah are intimidating enough to make travel for one play unlikely) so the above comments are based on generalities.\ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:54:46 -0400 From: Merlyn J Clarke Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art At 08:58 AM 9/27/00 PDT, you wrote: >Two of my pennies on the whole art and didacticism thread: > >We make value judgements. Inescapably. (Perhaps this might be redefined as >"taste" and called innate, a la Kant.) And our value judgements are ALWAYS >made from within an ideology (a world view). That ideology--even if partly >innate--is VASTLY affected by culture and societal influences. > >Presently, we live in a culture that has, for some time now, fostered an >ideology that facilitates, even necessitates, a resistance to "didacticism." >According to our general cultural value system, art should not be used to >teach. When it is, we look down on it, and call it "didactic." > >However, just as we cannot help but make value judgements, it seems to me >that art cannot help but teach...SOMETHING. It's always teaching something. >============================================= This may be a trip in pure semantics, but it seems to me you are blurring some important distinctions. A person may learn something from viewing art, just as he may learn something from looking at a vista. But does the vista teach? Certainly not with intent. An artistic creation is a form of commentary created by the artist. This is true. But the true artist creates, whether anyone observes the art or not, or whether or not anyone learns anything from it. This is a matter of indifference to the artist. Furthermore, different people may learn different things. This is also, OK. Or they may learn nothing. Or perhaps have their spirits lifted. Whatever. But the person who has didactic intent targets an audience, and has an agenda. They wish to invoke belief, affirm and confirm a point of view, often with an intent to exploit. True art is not exploitative. I think another significant distinction might have to do with sponsorship. Even artistic creations that have a message, and are intended to convince, if it comes from an individual, may still have value, and be non-exploitative, since we can know the source, and if necessary discount it. On the other hand, officially sponsored art, art that is under-written by governments or churches or other large, powerful organizations who seek to advance their agenda (and they all almost always do), must be held in suspicion. It usually reeks with didacticism. [Merlyn Clarke] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:51:53 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] conservative hatred > Rex Goode said:> > > While I believe with all my heart that those men, apostles and prophets, > speak with the authority of God when they set standards of behavior, I > prefer to expend my energy living by those standards myself rather than > pontificating on how others ought to do the same. Rex, I wanted to tell you that your messages have made a difference in my life. Your honesty speaks to me. Thank you for your intelligent thinking on difficult issues. > > Somewhere behind all of the polemics are real people, making choices and > following their hearts. I would prefer to see literature that asks more > questions than it answers, because when it seeks to answer certain > questions, it moves from being artistic to political, in my opinion of > course. I believe that if art or literature can inspire the right questions, it can enact change in the world. Somehow being preached at makes us (me, at least) protest and feel a bit rebellious. We yearn to dialogue with authority, question, understand, make the rules internal rather than external. In our Sunday School class this past week, the teacher pointed out not only Christ's use of stories to teach, but also his repeated use of questions. Of course, Christ also sermonized and so do LDS church leaders. But I notice how President Hinckley often prefaces preaching with "We love you. I love you." Following one's heart to obedience is easier if one's heart is moving towards love. I overheard two men during the week talking about activity in the church. One was telling the other than if you grew up in the church, if you had heard the gospel preached, then at some level you knew it was true. If you then rebelled and refused to obey the commandments, you would go to hell. In other words, you have had your chance to hear the truth and you haven't responded, so you will be accountable/punished. I don't want to argue with that point of view as much as I do change the emphasis. It seems better to me to choose to live the commandments because we want to, because we feel the outpouring of God's love in our life, rather than because of fear of hell. So I wonder if didactic literature is psychologically fear-based? If the author-speaker is unconciously telling the reader that s/he can't be trusted to make decisions, that the best course is to follow. And therefore, in contrast, if open-ended, question-asking literature, sends the underlying message to the reader that he or she is trusted to think about the problem presented and come up with a good answer. Gae Lyn Henderson > > > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:58:16 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? (was: MN Premiere of "Sy's Girl") Thom Duncan wrote: > With all > that can be explored about our culture, religion, and history of a serious, > compelling, and dramatic nature, what prompts an LDS writer to spend 90 > pages talking about something so mundane as imaginary lovers? > [A list of interesting suggestions follows.] Go for it, Thom. Write plays about those things, since you feel passionate about them. But if someone wants to write about imaginary lovers, why shouldn't they? The critic should be commenting on how successful an author was in accomplishing what the author wanted to accomplish. The critic should discuss whether the author took the subject and did something fresh and interesting with it. It's not the critic's business to dictate what subjects an author should feel passionate enough to write about. - -- 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: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:51:40 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) 90s plays On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:48:58 -0600 Lee Allred writes: > > Bronson, Scott. "Quietus & Other Stories". BYU, 1996. Orson Scott > >Card stories. My friend (and fellow Lister), Lee Allred, points out: > Scott-- > > This has been buggin' me for a while. I think the above data is > slightly wrong. > > Wasn't this performed in 1997 (not 1996)? > > 'Quietus' was performed in conjunction with the symposium that Orson > Scott Card was a Guest of Honor. That was 1997. You know? The one > you co-chaired? This is true. > You might want to post the correction on the AML-List for the sake > of poor future archivists. Done. scott - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:34:28 -0700 From: "jana bouck remy" Subject: [AML] Reviewer List If you are on the reviewer list please make sure that you understand your responsibilites (as per the Review Guidelines ). If you have any questions you can email me privately or via the list address. Also, please send me your "snail-mail" address. Thanks, Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor - ----------- _Worth Their Salt, Too_ Dave Allred _Falling Toward Heaven_ Quinn Warnick _The Dinner Club_ Andrew Hall _Missing Children_ Preston Hunter _Tomorrow and Always_ Debbie Wager - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:20:33 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art I must say (speaking only for myself, not the List) that I think didactic art has received a bit of a raw deal in this discussion. Historically, I think this argument that "true" art is never didactic but is instead an expression of the artist's inner vision would not even have been recognized by writers before the Romantic period of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. What, are we to conclude that none of the artists who lived before then--many of whom wrote unabashedly didactic literature--were really artists? Goodbye Milton, Dante, Vergil, Spenser, and a host of others. Not to mention some later writers such as Dostoevsky, who I believe wrote _Crime and Punishment_ largely as a vehicle for presenting a redemptive message. Melville, similarly. (And Thomas Hardy, whose didacticism in _Jude the Obscure_ left me largely cold when I read it for a college English class, because I didn't buy his indictment of society as sufficiently realistic--but many others whom I respect disagree with that assessment. I might disagree with it myself, if I took the time to read him again.) I think that on a practical basis, there's a great deal of truth to the notion that we reject stories that *strike* us as didactic, just as many of us feel a certain alienation from art that strikes us self-consciously artistic. The preferred style of the times, for most of the last 50 years, has been for morals (as in, "this is the moral of the story") to be muted. If you notice it, then it's viewed as a failure on the artist's part--either a failure of narrative (it doesn't arise naturally from the story as presented), or a failure of style (the author should have left it unstated but implicit), or a failure of message (I simply don't agree with what you're saying, or I think it's overly simplistic in its presentation). But that's only one style and one theory of literary creation, and there are many distinguished counterexamples that show it's by no means the only possible way of writing literature. Note also that each of these grounds for calling a work "didactic" involves a highly subjective element. For example, on what basis do you decide that a particular action in a story is not "natural" for a story? Clearly, that depends to a great degree on your own sense of what people are "really" like, which can get into all kinds of other areas such as sin and guilt and repentance and the divine potential of individuals that are a part of the spiritual and even religious worldview the reader takes to the story, not something that can be isolated as values-neutral "characteristics of good art." It also strikes me as true that all literature can be viewed as didactic, regardless of intent. I say "can be viewed as didactic" rather than "is didactic" because the latter statement seems to me to suggest that persuasion is the most fundamental level of literature, which in its own way seems just as reductionist as saying that didacticism is inherently bad. But it's always possible to look at a work of literature and analyze it on the basis of what values it seems to promote. Such analyses are disputable (as are all analyses in art), but the fact that they can be performed at all seems to me to attest that there is always some sort of moral dimension to art. But that's not the same thing as saying that all art has the same relationship to its intended (or unintended) moral message. My point is that there are many different types of literature, whose writers have held radically different opinions on the subject of what makes for good writing--all of which seemed to work for them. I share much of the modern taste that desires the "lessons" of literature to be subtle, complex, left for the reader to derive rather than overtly stated. But I think it's a bad idea to decide that didacticism makes for poor art, period--unless we're willing to define didacticism in a narrow, circular way as "intention to teach a message that makes for poor art" (so that anytime it doesn't make for poor art, it's not, de facto, didacticism). Which I think would obscure much of the potential value of the discussion. 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: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 13:10:18 JST From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] HUGHES, _Children of the Promise_ (Review) Author: Dean Hughes Series Title: Children of the Promise. Five volumes. Volume 1: Rumors of War. Volume 2: Since You Went Away Deseret Book. 1997, 1998 Review: I must say, I feel a bit left out of things. There are a couple of good reviews of the series in our AML review bank, but not much mention of it elsewhere on the list that I remember. I have taken my time about reading them. They are always prominently placed in Mormon book stores, and appear to be a big success. I like historical fiction, but I haven't been impressed with the works in that genre that Deseret and Bookcraft have published in the last few years. Also, the fact that the series has remained in hardback, and I haven't seen any in used book stores, has kept me from buying them. Well, I borrowed my parents' copies of the first two volumes last month and read them. And I say: This series is fantastic! Dean Hughes has done a huge, masterful job of creating a believable, engrossing, stirring, and even challenging epic of a work. I'm not going to have much reading time in the near future, but I will have to finish the series as soon as possible. The series appears to be a big success for Deseret Book. Have you other AML-listers read these books and not told us how great they are? Summary: A "Winds of War"-type epic about the Thomas family, a Salt Lake City family ripped apart by World War II. The first volume opens in 1938 with the all the family together, except the oldest son who is serving as a missionary in Germany. The volume focuses on the three oldest siblings as they struggle with their faith and gaining their own identity and independence from their beloved but over-bearing father. It ends with Pearl Harbor, and the family preparing to face the necessity of the children going to war. The second volume follows the three (then four) siblings through the war to 1944. The other major characters are a German family baptized by the oldest Thomas brother who are on the run from the Gestapo. Why do I like these books so much? Well, here are a few reasons: 1. They are emotionally compelling. That is, they make me laugh, and (especially as the series enters the war years), they make me cry. I have never been one to cry reading a book. But Hughes makes me care so much about these characters, and he gains my confidence that things were like this for the WWII generation, that I was emotionally bowled over at the end of both of the first two books. Now, I am very sensitive about artists trying to manipulate my emotions. If it feels forced, if I feel manipulated, I react pretty strongly about it. But very little (again, especially as it enters the war years) about these books seem manipulative to me. It feels real. 2. For a series published by Deseret Books, it doesn't skirt the hard issues. We see the war from many sides, including a good chunk of it through the eyes of the Schultzs, a German member family. American racism towards Japanese and Japanese-Americans is an important sub-theme throughout the books. There are two minor Japanese-American characters, and the main characters struggle with how to treat them, and how to react when others, including the US government, treat them inhumanely. The family patriarch's pained reaction to the transition of Utah culture from isolated and monolithically Mormon to something more cosmopolitan, including his wife going to work, was an eye-opener. Women fight for a greater say over their lives. The Thomas children struggle in differentiating faith from blind obedience to their parents. Hughes even brings up the anti-war sentiments of J. Rueben Clark. 3. Hughes did his homework. Eric Samuelsen recently mentioned how one young playwright's work failed because she didn't do her homework. Others have said that they avoid doing historical fiction because it takes so much work to get the background right. Hughes obviously put a lot of work into getting the period details correct. I'm a historian of the World War II years (although more about the Japan and China side), and the world that he portrays rings very true. He lists some of his references at the end of Book 2, and they include some very solid works, especially John Dower's "War Without Mercy," a tremendous look at racism in Japan and the US during the war, and the way it made the Pacific battles so much more brutal than many other theaters. 4. Hughes is obviously a pro. These are real page turners, but not in that "trash fiction" style that dominates the bestsellers-you know, all plot and no depth. Like Card, Hughes knows how to tell and engrossing story, without making the reader groan over the lame dialogue and improbable situations. His main characters may not be that complex, but they aren't cardboard either. As many of you know, he has written scores of children's books over the last thirty years or so, and he has obviously mastered the craft of telling a good story. 5. Nice artwork. Okay, this is not a big deal, but have you noticed that many of the Deseret Books books lately have had pretty impressive covers? Margaret Young and Darius Gray's One More River to Cross is another recent one with a very cool cover. In the most recent Dialogue (Fall 1999, the orange AML sponsored issue), Eugene England has an essay where he criticizes Signature and Bookcraft for their two recent short story collections, "In Our Lovely Deseret" and "Turning Hearts". He said both collections, one from the "left" and the other from the "right", are dominated by stories that are dishonest about its Mormon characters and situations, and thus unethical. At the end he mentions three recent "honorable exceptions" to this dishonest extremism-Doug Thayer's work, John Bennion's soon to be released novel with Signature, and Dean Hughes's Children of the Promise series. I agree, Brother England, I agree. Andrew Hall Pittsburgh, PA _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:52:06 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: [AML] Erica GLENN, _Dancing Shoes_ (brief review) Go see it. What? Too short a review, you say? Oh, you want to know where it is. The Valley Center Playhouse is at 780 N. 200 E. in Lindon "A Little Bit of Country" Utah (right next door to Pleasant "Strawberry Fields for Never" Grove). From State Street turn east at Allen's Supermarket (1900 N (Orem) / 200 South (Lindon). Go a short block up and turn left on 200 E, go down and up the hollow, across 400 N., past the semetary (no pets aloud), and almost to the city that wouldn't want a PG-13 rating if it were a movie. $6 for adults, $5 for children and students. What? Oh, the directions are longer than the review? We'll I hope to get a longer review out later in the week, but I think tonight and Fish-on-Fry-day are the last nights. Comments: The charleston at the beginning is a well-done number, the play is charming, Jessica Woahn plays Duslie so well you think she has to be a spoiled stuck-up prima-ballerina in real life--but of course she isn't, Lauren Francis as Hilary is wonderful as that precocious child we all know who can mimic anyone and doesn't realize how powerful such mimicry can be--she just wants to enjoy dancing in a company, Erica Glenn as Rachel shows us well the awkwardness of a girl just coming into teen-age knowing what she wants for her sister, and trying to figure out what she wants for herself. The adults are not drawn with as much depth as the children, but It will be interesting to see what Erica Glenn does with her adult characters as she approaches adulthood. Eric Samuelsen said recently that a playwright doesn't mature until 35. I hope by that time Glenn has created many engaging characters, and if Hilary's last words about getting married are any indication we may have another 12, 13, 14 year old playwright by then. 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: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 08:51:45 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? (was: MN Premiere of "Sy's Girl") D. Michael Martindale > It's not the critic's business to dictate what > subjects an author should feel passionate enough to write about. Ironic Response: That's true, unless, of course, what that writer chooses to write about is "didactic." Or Single Entendre Response: What if the critic feels so passionately about the fact that there are more important things for LDS theater to do than x, y, or z and that they want to write about these things? Who's to say what the critic's business is or isn't? To say that the writer has free rein to choose their material and methods and a critic doesn't seems like an unnecessary narrowing of the possibilities. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - - 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 #163 ******************************