From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #168 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 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 168 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:51:59 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] (On Stage) PRADO, _Sy's Girl_ (Review) Thanks, Eric. I saw the play on Wednesday night, and I thought it was = quite thought-provoking and much better executed than the early description= s led me to believe. It sounds like it will be light and hoky, but it = plays surprisingly complexly and realistically (except for a few exaggerate= d moments with Moira's parents). Even the imaginary Sy scenes worked = pretty well within the context of the play. Some of the lighting and music = and staging was choppy, but the performances were quite good and the = dialogue and body language extremely natural and believable. I found the = play quite convincing and entertaining, and I too look forward to more = from Prado. I wonder how you would compare this play to Joyce Baking. Not sure when it ends its run at BYU, but it's worth getting to if you = can. Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:05:16 GMT From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? Eric D. Snider: > > >The "Was it worth doing?" question is a highly subjective one -- I > >think it's even more subjective than the other standard review > >questions. What I think is very much worth doing, someone else >might > >consider absolutely stupid, and vice versa. But when critiquing -- > >especially in our own personal critiques, and not official, >published >ones -- it's an important question to ask. > Eric Samuelsen: >Why is this a judgment we get to make? What constitutes an invalid reason >to do something? And why do we presume, and what business do we have >presuming, that anything done by anyone claiming to be an artist has been >done for any other reason than to do some good in the world? > This is a judgment we get to make because we are the ones spending time and money viewing these works of art. And anything that we consider to have been a waste of our time and money -- something that did not benefit us in any way -- is something we can validly consider "not worth doing." That's why it's so subjective, and why I usually leave it out when I review movies and plays. It's too personal. Let's say a playwright wrote a play that was SUPPOSED to be boring. His whole point was to write something experimental and weird and off-putting and strange and dull, something that would not be "crowd-pleasing" in any sense of the term, something that would have audiences straining to find some meaning, but that simply had no meaning whatsoever. (I believe some playwrights HAVE done this, but I'm not going to tell you which plays, because it will just make people angry.) A production of such a play might live up to everything the playwright intended and thus be a "good" production. But I would insist that, no matter how well done it was, it simply WASN'T WORTH DOING. Would I say that in a review? Probably not. I would indicate what the play's apparent goals are, and indicate that the production succeeds at meeting them. I might add something like, "Not my personal cup of tea, but it's well done." And then I'd let the reader decide whether it was something they would enjoy. But for myself, when I'm watching plays in my spare time (if spare time existed), I would avoid seeing this one because I don't consider it to be worth my time and trouble. 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, 06 Oct 2000 22:49:34 EDT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Richard Dutcher shooting in Mapleton, Utah David Finnigan of Religion News Service reports that _God's Army_ will be available on video and DVD November 15th. Finnigan also reports that Richard Dutcher was to begin shooting a second movie this week (October 3rd), entitled Brigham City It will be shot in Mapleton, Utah, and is to be a murder mystery. Wilford Brimley will play the town's retired sheriff. Dutcher will be the current sheriff. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ 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, 06 Oct 2000 23:48:39 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art Jason Steed wrote: > I'm not sure it's accurate to > say God's "art" doesn't have a message. I think it does. But the message is > multifaceted, multileveled, etc. I agree that we are free to take from it > what we take from it--but that is not the same, IMO, as saying His art is > "open-ended." This is the essence of the whole debate over didacticism. One side will say, art shouldn't teach. The other side responds that all art teaches something. The truth is, all art does teach something, and all artists have a message they convey in their art, whether intentionally or otherwise. The difference is whether the art has one message and one message only--and that's the one you'd better get to get an A in your literature class--or whether there are many possible messages at many levels. Which message you as the audience get--or even if you create your own message Rorschach-like in the art that's there--depends entirely on what level you're at when you approach a work of art. What makes good art good (or non-didactic) is that the reader is left open to discover his own message in the art, whether the artist planted a specific message or not. God's art has a message, sure. But it's still open-ended because he doesn't beat us over the head with the message. We are free to detect whatever message we are able to detect from it. If you don't get that _Animal Farm_ is about the tyranny of the Soviet Union, you've missed "the" message. But there are myriad other valuable messages you can get out of it, even if you miss "the" message. - -- 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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:18:18 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? Jason Steed wrote: > Actually, if I remember correctly, you were talking about judging the work > based on what the writer was trying to accomplish, not on the choice of > material. To me, that translates, at least in part, into authorial intent. If it came across that way, I didn't mean it that way. I've no problem with the critic attempting to guess the intent of the author to judge if the author succeeded in his attempt, but I'm talking about declaring certain subjects taboo to the author. I first came across this concept when reading an article in TV Guide many years ago. The article was commenting on a review of some television show about a former slave that was freed because of the Civil War. The review had complained that the show didn't address the modern problems of racism. The article said that was an absurd thing to complain about--it's not the job of the critic to tell the author what subject to address. If the author wanted to write a teleplay about the problems of recently-freed blacks after the Civil War, the critic had no business telling him he shouldn't. I agreed completely with the article then, and I still do now. > The critic doesn't "dictate" anything. He/she > just critiques--it's only an evaluation, a judgement, an opinion. I used the word "dictate" broadly and in a loaded fashion, as I set up the comparison to totalitarian regimes. But the fact is that the critic _is_ attempting to dictate what he thinks good art should be. The only reason his dictation is classified as opinion is because we have a First Amendment and he has no armies at his disposal to enforce it. Can't the censorship of a totalitarian government be considered a form of criticism which judges the subject matter the artist chooses? It gets called censorship because the government has armies to enforce their critical opinion. To me, that seems the only meaningful difference, if we allow the subject matter chosen by the artist to be a valid part of artistic criticism. > You are, > in fact, doing now precisely that which you're abhorring: as a critic of the > critic, you are attempting to "dictate" the material a critic can critique. > If the artist is free to write > about anything, why isn't the critic free to do the same? Art and criticism > are not so mutually exclusive, you know... The critic isn't free to do what the artist does because an artist and a critic are two separate occupations. A brain surgeon is not allowed to to do root canals--it's a different occupation from a dentist, even though there are overlapping characteristics of the two. An artist is supposed to create and communicate. A critic is supposed to react and judge. A critic has no more business telling the artist what to write about than a judge has any business telling a lawyer what approach to take in defending a client. The lawyer should be completely free to choose his approach, and the judge's only duty is to criticize how well the lawyer does at it. (Or the jury, if it isn't a bench trial.) The artist should be free to choose whatever subject he wants to write about, and the critic should only judge how well he wrote about it. If you think otherwise, try this as a critic: no one should write romance novels, because I think they're silly and irrelevant to life. See what reaction you get from Barbara Hume and others. - -- 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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:34:53 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? Todd Robert Petersen wrote: > I meant that critics ought to have some liberty to > write as they see fit, and that it's NO ONE'S place to determine what is or > isn't okay to criticize. This is just the reverse of the complaint made against my arguments. If the critic should be free to critique the artist how he wants, I should be free to critique the critic how I want. The fact is, whether the complaint is reversed or not, it's all invalid, because the critic has a different job from the artist. I maintain that a critic telling an artist he shouldn't write about certain subjects is merely a form of censorship whose enforcement teeth comes from peer pressure. It's a mild form of McCarthyistic blacklisting, with the reputation of the critic as the empowering force behind it. These are weak enforcement powers, to be sure, but that's the only reason so many people are willing to indulge the critic in this practice which is unhealthy to art. How do I know that? Because the moment someone backs up their critique of an artist's subject matter with a truly effective enforcement power, everyone cries "Censorship!" and starts wearing little loops of ribbon on their lapel in protest. > Objective criticism? It's not possible. Not in art. That's why I said "strive for" it. Everyone already knows that no human is capable of objective anything--they can only strive for it. It's not even possible in something as objective as science--you don't have to restrict it to art. - -- 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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 11:12:34 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art Merlyn Clarke wrote: > 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. Do you mean things like the Sistine Chapel or Diego Rivera's murals how about the photographs of the Farm Services Adminitstration, or anything done under the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities? How about big, powerful organizations like corporations? I'm thinking of Time/Warner among others. In the Webster's New College, The word didactic has three definitions, of which only the last has any negative connotations. In that last definition, the negative aspect is primarily that the work is too much inclined to teach, that it is boringly pendantic or moralistic. This is interesting to me given this thread, because people have been objecting to didacticism as if there were something gravely wrong even pernicious to didacticism, when the word itself should be used to describe something that is boring. This also reinforces and approach Jason Steed and I have both been taking, which is that didacticism is not something that's in the work but in the reader; moreover, don't we tell bored teenagers that only boring people get bored. I've heard that line more often than I'd care to say. I think that people have been really defining didactic as preaching or sermonizing, not that the work is boring, though I think that's what people are getting to ultimately. People don't like preaching in their art, though some sermons are not bad at all. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:31:45 EDT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN LDS Filmmaker LaBute Shooting New Film: Dublin Ireland Irish Times From: Kent Larsen To: Mormon News Subject: MN LDS Filmmaker LaBute Shooting New Film: Dublin Ireland Irish Times 30Sep00 A2 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:10:00 -0400 [From Mormon-News] LDS Filmmaker LaBute Shooting New Film DUBLIN, IRELAND -- LDS Filmmaker Neil LaBute's latest work, the film version of the A.S. Byatt book "Possession," is currently shooting on location in Yorkshire, England, and news reports reveal that the film has attracted actress Gwyneth Paltrow to the cast. LaBute, along with Laura Jones, adapted the Booker prize-winning novel for the big screen. The plot for the film is not like the screenplays that LaBute has written himself, and is quite different from LaBute's current film, "Nurse Betty," which LaBute directed. "Nurse Betty" has received both critical acclaim and has done well at the box office. "Possession" focuses on the relationship of two Victorian poets, and the modern-day romance that develops between two contemporary academics when they study the poets. The film began shooting the first week of September and should be finished by year end. In addition to Paltrow, who has become almost a household name in the past year or two, the film will star Aaron Eckhart (who has appeared in every LaBute work so far), Jeremy Northam, Jennifer Ehle, Toby Stephens, Anna Massey, Graham Crowden, Trevor Eve and Tom Hollander. Reel News: Cracking Cork fest Dublin Ireland Irish Times 30Sep00 A2 http://www.ireland.com:80/newspaper/features/2000/0930/fea7.htm By Michael Dwyer >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:40:22 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] conservative hatred Lee Allred said: > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with much of the > latter portion of Gae Lyn's post. > > >>So I wonder if didactic literature is psychologically fear-based? > >>If the author-speaker is unconsciously telling the reader that s/he > >>can't be trusted to make decisions, that the best course is to > >>follow. > > In the national science fiction field, the most active area > in didactic fiction is the "Campbellian"/libertarian branch > of SF whose central premise is the exact antithesis of the > above quoted statement: that (or so they contend) the best > of all possible worlds is one where individual decision > making is supreme and as many cultural, governmental, > economic, etc. barriers to that have been removed, rubbed, > or ridiculed out of existence. I would like to learn more about this. What makes this branch of SF especially didactic? I suppose the first thing we need to do to discuss this is define terms. When I say didactic I'm thinking of literature overtly preachy in tone--the author making sure the reader doesn't miss the lesson by stating it explicitly. If libertarian SF is didactic according to my definition, then it seems like its message that individual decision making is supreme would be contradictory to its own form. > (In fact, perhaps the epitome of a science fictional example > of didactic literature where individual decision making is > looked at as either inconsequential or counter-productive > would be H. G. Wells at his worst. Wells' philosophy and > politics was called many things, but "conservative"--as per > this thread title--was not one of them.) I'm not following you here. Are you equating "conservative" and "didactic"? I imagine that conservative, liberal, or libertarian politics could be placed in a didactic format as per your example above. But the political purpose might begin to overshadow the artistic or literary experience. > > Lastly, the underlying context of her whole last paragraph > > >>So I wonder if didactic literature is psychologically fear-based? > >>...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. > > I've always found this position ("positing answers, > bad--posing questions, good") troubling -- moreso because > oftentimes that position is made is the same fashion as Gae > Lyn has done: positing the "answer" that positing answers is > bad in the form of a question because asking questions is > good. > > To wit: can not questions be just as baldfacedly didactic as > stated answers? Yes, I think that questions can be posed in a way that imply the answer that the speaker is leaning toward. But questions do invite a response. They say (or imply), here is what I think but I'm also interested in knowing what you think. Sometimes questions indicate the speaker is unsure of the answer. Sometimes questions can be overdone--stating opinion forthrightly allows for more direct and honest communication. Sometimes questions are a form of politeness and evidence an attempt at humility. > > The underlying assumption is that there must be an either/or > dichotomy: answers or questions. That is not my assumption. I think that questions and answers go together and create a dialogue of learning. One of Mormonism's great > strengths, one it shares with science btw, is that it > contends a) a bedrock of hard-won universal answers exist; > that b) those foundational truths enable/create more > questions ("There is no end to questions/There is no end to > Truth," as we didactic Kolob-Hiers are wont to assert); and > c) that newfound higher laws can supplant the old bedrock. I can't argue with a bedrock that inspires more questions and learning. Science is certainly always revising its version of truth in the face of new evidence, and the research question is vital in achieving that growth. > > Questions are vital to growth--Christ, as Gae Lyn points > out, often taught with questions, and the Restoration came > from a farm boy's simple question. But are not the answers > to those questions as important as the questions themselves > were? Both are vital. Is that not so? I agree. Just stopping with questions alone would be rather pointless. But answers, answers, answers with no questions allowed is just as deadening. Gae Lyn Henderson > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 01:25:21 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] What Should the Critic Critique? "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > I think a relevant question when critiquing something, along with > "What was it trying to accomplish?" and "Did it succeed?" is "Was it > worth doing?" I don't think that's the same thing as saying, "Artists shouldn't write about such and such a subject." Because a tenth production of "Joseph and..." in the last month in the same geographic area is not worth doing, doesn't mean the subject was never worth writing about. Just because releasing _Armageddon_ and _Deep Impact_ at the same time and both films were mediocre anyway (i.e., one or both weren't worth doing) doesn't mean the subject of extraterrestrial debris hitting the Earth isn't worth writing about--if you bother to to a good job with it. Subjects _can't_ be not worth doing, because you never know what an artist will do with it. A subject that most people may consider beaten to death can be picked up by a gifted artist and developed into a totally fresh experience. It's all in the implementation. I also don't think you can compare Satan's efforts to thwart the kingdom of God and a mechanic's efforts to rip you off to honest art that may choose a subject you don't think is worth doing. The first two are acts of immorality, the art is not. - -- 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: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] NEWSFLASH Good/Bad News about BYU SF&F Symposium I'll start with the good news first - other than the video room being in a different room each day, and some tight scheduling saturday morning, we have all teh rooms we need plus some for the symposium. The bad news - someone higher up on the University pecking order decided they needed all our rooms the weekend of March 22-24, 2001. So we lost all of our rooms. THE SYMPOSIUM IS NOW MARCH 1-3, 2001. THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS. The scheduling office was actually very nice and worked with us as best they could, but they couldn't do much about it because 1.) the people who wanted the rooms are MUCH more important than us and 2.) they've been forbidden to tell us who these MUCH more important people are. Repeat: The symposium is now March 1-3, 2001. I will have to contact our guests and see if they can rearrange their schedules, and if not, we will have to find new guests. All we can hope is that more important people than us don't decide they also need March 1-3. If you have any questions/suggestions/complaints/death threats please email them to me at ltue@byu.edu - -Ivan Wolfe Tyrant for another 6 months (with very big headache). - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:36:46 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art I think that I've found some good commentary on the whole idea of pleasure-seeking and so forth. It comes from the Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.646 "While the resources of our planet are both perishable and renewable, time cannot be recycled. We must be reminded that when time is spent in too much pleasure seeking, the serious and eternal things will be left undone. Self-centered, pleasure-seeking people will not only plunder our environment much more rapidly, but they will be less concerned about the needs of their fellow human beings." ("A Spiritual Approach to Man-made Problems," Brigham Young University -- Hawaii, 11 February 1983.) That's what I was getting at, but, of course, President Benson said it better than I and with a bit more authority. I also enjoy and value the fact that pleasure-seekers are more likely to do wrong by the environment. For LDS writers--since that IS the focus of this list--the idea that too much pleasure-seeking will keep us from being as concerned for the "needs of [our] fellow beings" is an important one, since it is my contention that one of the primary virtues of literature is its ability to help people empathize with each other. Being a writer isn't so much about writing down words and characters and plots as it is practicing a special kind of attention, to the world and to language. This is an idea a stole from William Stafford and Barry Lopez and gave my own spin. Being LDS makes me a better person than I would be on my own, so I feel it makes me a better writer. I pay closer attention to people and their trials, which makes me better able to relate to them and to invent characters that might be able to offer insights. I'd be interested to know if there are others who feel that their faith is not a liability, but rather an asset to their writing (even if the editors out there haven't yet recognized the strength). - -- Todd Robert Petersen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:44:20 MDT From: "Travis Manning" Subject: [AML] Writing Groups (was: HUGHES, _Children of the Promise_ Vol. 5) >Just finished volume 5 of the Children of the Promise series and I have to >say that the afterword made me very sad. . . . So, buyer beware when you >start reading these >books. He keeps you wanting more... > >Marianne Hales Harding > **************** That Dean Hughes is a sneaky one! I was in his workshopping group at BYU's first Writers for Young Readers Conference and learned a lot. Switching gears. I'm searching for contact info on the League of Utah Writers or another such regular writing / workshopping group that can help critique my writing. I'm putting together a children's book and writing a YA novel and I would really like to rub shoulders once or twice a month with published authors, artists, educators, librarians, profs, publishers, anyone who knows what they're really doing in the field of children's and YA lit. I'm busting at the seams here wanting to get published, but know I could really use some quality feedback, critiques, mentoring, encouragement. If anyone knows of a quality group in the downtown Salt Lake City area that is allowing new group members . . . please let me know, either on-list or off. That would be much appreciated. Travis K. Manning "Men and women die; philosophers falter in wisdom, and Christians in goodness: if any one you know has suffered and erred, let him look higher than his equals for strength to amend, and solace to heal." (Jane Eyre) _________________________________________________________________________ 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, 09 Oct 2000 23:03:01 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moral Issues in Art (moderator message) Folks, My sense is that rather than sharing new thoughts, we've reached the point in this thread (most especially the portion of it about didacticism) of repeating, sometimes with increasing heat, the points we've already made. I'm going to invite all those currently discussing didacticism in art to prepare final statements (as it were) during the next 24 hours, and then move on either to a different topic or to as-yet unexplored dimensions of this one. I'd also like to encourage posts from those who have not yet expressed their thoughts on this or related issues. Not meaning to squelch discourse, but to keep the conversation moving... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:14:23 -0600 From: Lee Allred Subject: [AML] Didactic SF&F (was: conservative hatred) Gae Lyn writes: >>What makes this branch of SF especially didactic? Hoo boy. Where to start? Let's just say the sub-genre's nominal founder, John Campbell, Jr., was an...um...especially didactic editor. >>If libertarian SF is didactic according to my definition, then it >>seems like its message that individual decision making is supreme >>would be contradictory to its own form. Don't say that too loud around certain sf writers. The literature might be viewed as a "preaching to the choir," not really an asking of its readers to make any decisions; rather, a validation of readers' already-made worldview decisions. - --Lee Allred www.leeallred.com leea@sff.net - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:31:11 -0600 From: Tom Matkin Subject: [AML] Faith as an Asset in Writing (was: Moral Issues in Art) "Todd Robert Petersen (by way of Jonathan Langford )" wrote: > > I'd be interested to know if there are others who feel that their faith is > not a liability, but rather an asset to their writing (even if the editors > out there haven't yet recognized the strength). To balance your life and your art There's got to be faith in your heart. If you think faith is not An asset to your jot You're bankrupt before you can start. Tom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:30:26 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Faith as an Asset in Writing (was: Moral Issues in Art) "Todd Robert Petersen" wrote: > I'd be interested to know if there are others who feel that their faith is > not a liability, but rather an asset to their writing (even if the editors > out there haven't yet recognized the strength). Of course it's an asset. First of all, since my faith encompasses eternal truths (an assertion which would be disputed by non-Mormons, but is nonetheless true), it helps me instill my writing with eternal truths. Second of all, since a great deal of the world's literature is from the secular, non-religious point of view, my faith gives me a point of view which is fresh and distinct from the world's literature, even if I don't write overtly religious material. - -- 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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:38:34 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing Groups Travis Manning wrote: "I'm busting at the seams here wanting to get published, but know I could really use some quality feedback, critiques, mentoring, encouragement. If anyone knows of a quality group in the downtown Salt Lake City area that is allowing new group members . . . please let me know. . ." Travis, I'm not sure how far you are willing to travel, but there is a very active picture book critique group that meets once a month at the Orem library. Rick Walton, Toni Brown, and a number of other published writers are regulars. Let me know if you are interested, and I can give you the particulars! Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:08:30 -0700 From: "jana bouck remy" Subject: [AML] Authors at School I've just been put in charge of the Fine Arts assemblies at my son's elementary school and would like to know how I can incorporate author visits into our program. Does anyone know if there is a website that lists authors in a particular area and their assembly fees? Jana Remy - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:19:00 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Writing Groups Travis K. Manning wrote: >Switching gears. I'm searching for contact info on the League of >Utah Writers or another such regular writing / workshopping group >that can help critique my writing. I'm putting together a >children's book and writing a YA novel and I would really like to >rub shoulders once or twice a month with published authors, artists, >educators, librarians, profs, publishers, anyone who knows what >they're really doing in the field of children's and YA lit. > >I'm busting at the seams here wanting to get published, but know I >could really use some quality feedback, critiques, mentoring, >encouragement. > >If anyone knows of a quality group in the downtown Salt Lake City >area that is allowing new group members . . . please let me know, >either on-list or off. That would be much appreciated. The League of Utah Writers' web site is http://luwrite.tripod.com/ It should have info on specific chapters' meeting times and places. Many writers groups meet at libraries, so ask your local librarian. There are also a number of online writer's groups, like Michael Martindale's Worldsmiths, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths There are also a number of science fiction groups around, but they don't usually do YA or children's fiction specifically as far as I know. Let me know if you want more info on these. Come to the annual AML writer's workshop at UVSC in Orem on November 4 and you'll probably find others who have similar interests. Or try the sf/f symposim at BYU March 1-3; they usually have some panels on children's and YA lit. And if all else fails, start your own group! Ask for members from this list or post flyers at libraries or during conferences or at a nearby university. Marny Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:41:08 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Authors at School Jana Remy wrote: >I've just been put in charge of the Fine Arts assemblies at my son's >elementary school and would like to know how I can incorporate >author visits into our program. Does anyone know if there is a >website that lists authors in a particular area and their assembly >fees? Rick Walton keeps a list of Utah children's writers and illustrators at http://www.rickwalton.com/utahauth.htm, many of whom are willing to visit schools, and the site lists fees and contact info. The League of Utah Writers' speaker's bureau contact is Kathy Jones (kathy.jones@deseretonline.com). The Science Fiction Writers of America speaker's bureau contact is Kathleen Woodbury in SLC (workshop@burgoyne.com). Many sf writers are willing to visit schools. Marny Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:51:06 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] (On Stage) PRADO, _Sy's Girl_ (Review) Chris asked: >I wonder how you would compare this play to Joyce Baking. Great question. I directed Joyce Baking, so again, I'm hardly objective, = but let me see if I can compare them. Josh Brady wrote Joyce Baking while an undergrad, a comedy about dating = relationships, specifically at BYU. Natalie Prado wrote Sy's Girl while = an undergrad, a comedy about dating relationships, not at BYU. There are, = however, some differences. Josh is far more didactic than Natalie. (Oh no, the dreaded didacticism = thread!) Josh was interested in exploring hypocricy, the ways in which = BYU students--his peers--seem to seriously misunderstand and misapply the = gospel. As a result, Josh wrote a comedy with a tragic ending; Joyce = bakes, but Joyce also falls. Intermingled with quite sharp eyed satire on = BYU dating customs were scenes in which we saw students teaching particular= ly dreadful, clueless priesthood lessons, for example. Those sections = were cringeworthily funny too, because Josh has such a superb ear for = dialogue. Josh particularly catches the voice of women well. And I = discovered in rehearsal that his dialogue wasn't very cutable. Is that a = word? You couldn't cut it. Josh is so intent on capturing the rhythm of = human speech that our main rehearsal task was finding the right rhythm for = each specific scene.=20 Natalie is subtler. She's somewhat less specifically didactic, and her = voice is more literary. Her characters are wittier than Josh's and = cleverer, because her diction is slightly heightened. She can get away = with, for example, a discussion of the differences between surrealism in = Dali and in Magritte. Her characters are more self-aware, more self-consci= ously literary. And, of course, simultaneously crazier than the characters= in Josh. Natalie writes characters who constantly reflect and consider; = odd, because they're also fairly crazy. Josh's characters are nowhere = near as reflective. They're not stupid, but they are fairly clueless, and = they have an infinite capacity for rationalization. Joyce never quite = understands what's going on between her and the man she's fallen for. = Natalie's characters are fully aware of what's going on, but think even = the loopiest behaviors are just fine. =20 The biggest difference between them, Chris suggested in his response to = the play. Josh understands theatre. His work is intensely theatrical, = and Joyce Baking just clipped along. Natalie is an English major dabbling = in theatre, and she doesn't quite get it yet. Her play lurches a bit, = with unfortunate pauses between scenes that really hurt the momentum. =20 I think they're both terrific young writers. I don't know which of them = has more potential. It's really a joy to have worked with them both. = They're both intelligent, clear sighted, hard working and agreeable = people. And I would cheerfully work with either of them again.=20 Eric Samuelsen - - 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 #168 ******************************