From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #202 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, November 21 2000 Volume 01 : Number 202 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:00:56 -0800 From: Ruth Starkman Subject: Re: [AML] LAAKE, _Secret Cermonies_ There's an interesting Salon magazine article on her. http://www.salonmag.com/people/feature/2000/10/27/laake/index.html - --Ruth Starkman Darlene Young wrote: > Kathleen Meredith said, "Laake, Deborah, Secret > Ceremonies: Interesting choice=20 > for =93LDS=94 lit. Sad story about someone trying to > live the gospel without an understanding of its=20 > principles. Terribly sad how her story ended this=20 > last year." > > I am so curious. How DID her story end? > > ===== > Darlene Young > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! > http://calendar.yahoo.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, 17 Nov 2000 13:37:19 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Addressing Race in Mormon Lit. I enjoyed reading about the black character's in Linda Adams' _Prodigal Journey_, but to me there was a problem that I am afraid many of us (white Mormons who have lived in nearly all-white areas most of their lives) would fall into: namely, since we 1) don't know that much about the black experience and 2) sincerely don't want to offend, the writer paints the characters in such a good light that they aren't believable. That was my feeling in this book, anyway. While Debra and her boyfriend were great people, they were almost too great--and too good looking, etc, bordering on sainthood at times. To me, that was unbelievable, and I felt it was done to avoid giving any impression of prejudice on the author's part, or to avoid offending anyone, or whatever. The result was cardboard, in some respects. When another black character was introduced much later, my gut reaction was, "I bet he's good looking and a saint, too," and I was right. (I loved this character, by the way, but having him also so good looking made me roll my eyes--I wanted him to be at least homely, or maybe overweight, or balding, anything.) It's a tough line to walk, and frankly, I admire Linda for even attempting it. I'm a bit too chicken right now to try the juggling act myself. But I also think that in order to have believable characters of any kind, they must have at least a "wart" or two, if you know what I mean. So here's the question, which I think piggy-backs on Linda's: Once we know enough to to write about the culture believably, how can we do it without offending those readers who belong to that culture? I worry, because there are a *handful* of hyper-sensitive people out there, ready to think any white person is prejudiced--that any negative would be construed as a blanket statement or an attack. Do we ignore those people and hope for the best? I'm thinking of an experience my brother had in basic training. (He is one of the least prejudiced people I know, and several of his close friends are black.) One morning he and a black man were shaving, and the black man was inspecting several ingrown hairs in his face. "Man, that's really gotta suck," my brother said. Instead of seeing sympathy, the other man saw prejudice. He turned on my brother and let out a several-minute spew about how he was proud of his heritage, etc. If an innocent comment can incite that kind of response, I can only imagine the reaction from someone looking for prejudice in a book--and "finding" it. That's one reason I haven't tried writing about a black character yet. I don't dare make them less than perfect, and that's not good writing. Don't give up, Linda. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:33:14 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] I'm Back - --0-894429689-974763194=:12256 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii For those who have been wondering where the cranky R.W. Rasband posts have gone (not that I expect anyone to miss them that much) I have been in the hospital the last four weeks due to a severe diabetic reaction. If you ever want to have a strange feeling, try waking up from a coma after five days to discover yourself in the hospital without memories of those lost days. I am feeling better now, so stand by for more darn opinionated stuff. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! - --0-894429689-974763194=:12256 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

For those who have been wondering where the cranky R.W. Rasband posts have gone (not that I expect anyone to miss them that much) I have been in the hospital the last four weeks due to a severe diabetic reaction.  If you ever want to have a strange feeling, try waking up from a coma after five days to discover yourself in the hospital without memories of those lost days.  I am feeling better now, so stand by for more darn opinionated stuff.

 



R.W. Rasband
Heber City, UT
rrasband@yahoo.com


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! - --0-894429689-974763194=:12256-- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:01:01 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: Re: [AML] ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ Responding to Linda Adams: <<>> Whew, Linda, I'm glad I didn't offend you. When I thought about my post = later, I cringed a little and thought it was probably a bit too opinionated= for the small amount of your novel I've read so far (I've been suffering = a lot of e-mail cringe this past week or two). I will do some kind of a = review on AML-List when I'm done (I noticed Irreantum already did a = favorable review). It's easy to be negative and say how things don't meet = our hopes and expectations and high standards. I'd even go so far as to = change the old saying, "Those who can't do, teach," to "Those who can't = do, review." (cringe) By the way, I don't know if I ever properly thanked you, Linda, for the = feedback on my first-draft novel ms. at Worldsmiths (www.wwno.com/worldsmit= hs, for anyone else looking for a writing group---it's regrouping right = now after some large novel mss. apparently scared some people off, and we = could use more active participants---right, D. Michael, moderator?). Your = posts, Linda, are all carefully printed and filed for when I turn to the = big rewrite (wow, my first novel rewrite) sometime early next year (after = I finish a nonfiction missionary memoir I'm currently putting together). = Your comments were among the most thoughtful and useful, and I really = appreciate them (I only regret I don't have them through the ms.'s = conclusion!). Cringe, shudder, SEND-- Chris - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:43:35 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism Todd Petersen's message struck a chord with me. I am one who has for a = long time actively avoided the label Intellectual. I am afraid that I have gained the title of ward Intellectual despite my best efforts (that's = what I get for being Gospel Doctrine teacher--easy to look smart when you know = what questions are headed your way...). It didn't help when Todd, in his plea for understanding, undermined his message by attacking other groups I actively champion (I'll leave it to you to decide whether I'm a = gun-toting redneck, PBS nay-sayer, or NASCAR fan). It seems that I can't avoid = coming under fire as an intellectual or coming under fire by the intellectuals. The thing is, Todd is right that there is a certain anti-Intellectualism = in the church. I am disturbed when people tell me that they could *never* understand Isaiah. I don't like the comfort people give each other when they all chime in about how dense they are as if that were a good thing. = I don't like it because they are essentially saying that they don't have anything new to learn, or at least that they can't possibly learn = anything more. Their progress has essentially stopped and that is frightening in = a gospel sense. But just as wrong is the position I see some intellectuals take that they don't have to learn any more because they've already learned all the important answers, and any answers they don't know already certainly = aren't going to come from some plebe in Sunday School with dirt under his finger nails. It is every bit as destructive as not learning any more because = it is too hard. I enjoy learning. I read a lot (which is why I joined this list) and I = like to talk about things I've read. But I don't really want to acquire the label intellectual. You see, there is certain baggage that goes with = that label. Intellectuals fight the hardest battles in the church. Intellectuals = have a tougher fight with pride than most people give them credit for. Intellectuals have to fight to not try to run people's lives for them. = They have to fight to demur to policies that don't make intellectual sense = based on currently accepted scientific/social knowledge. They have to fight to express themselves adequately to those around them without alienating = them. Because intellectuals have the toughest battles, they have the most spectacular defeats. It doesn't help that a small segment of people who consider themselves intellectual can make themselves look awful silly and= it certainly doesn't help that intellectuals often find themselves walking = out on the gospel as they gradually substitute their own learning for the = church hierarchy. But I don't think that the solution to the problem is to develop better understanding of intellectuals or of anti-intellectuals. I don't think = that it will help us very much if we bring both camps into a room to fight it = out or defend their position as well as they can. I think that the root of = the problem is the line being drawn in the first place. Naming someone an intellectual is a way of distancing ourselves from them. That way, we = don't have to feel guilty that we aren't learning as much as we should. On the other hand, naming someone anti-intellectual is just as damaging. It = allows us to ignore their opinions and not have to deal with uncomfortable discussions with those of, um, unfortunate intellect. Speaking of Gospel Doctrine, a recent lesson dealt with the break-up of = the ideal society when the Nephites finally re-divided back into "ites". Dividing ourselves up along arbitrary lines is a way of simplifying our lives at the expense of unjustly judging others. Demonizing each other = just isn't a good idea and is not conducive to understanding, regardless of = what the groups gurus have to say... Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:43:30 -0700 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] What We're Reading Right Now >> Potok, Chaim, The Chosen I admit that its been a couple of years, but I think any aspiring LDS artist ought to read Potok's "My Name is Asher Lev," as much to be prepared as to be inspired. :-) Maybe another year and it'll be time for me to pick it up again. Steve - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:58:17 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism >-----Original Message----- > >Here here. > >Todd is absolutely right. We're on the List because we share a >love of good literature. And we disagree on the List because we >think different sorts of literature are good. And some of us are >professors and some of us are fans and some of us are writers and >some of us have Ph. D.'s and some of us don't. What we have in >common is a love for good writing, specifically writing in a >particular cultural context. We can, do and should disagree. But >we have no business judging each other. > >Look, I'm an outspoken cuss, and I have very strong opinions, and >I make a fool of myself all the time. I may very well have >offended some of you, and if that's so, I regret it more than you >can know, and I beg your forgiveness. But I try, I really do try, >not to judge anyone. And that's what bothers me so much about so Eric says: >And I know I'm a broken record on this. But it seems to me to be >unworthy and unrighteous to suggest that people who like stuff we >don't like are, on the one hand, gross immoralists reveling in the >worst aspects of human existence or, on the other hand, vapid >sentimentalists afraid to embrace the ugliest, but truest, aspects >of human existence. I'm interested in how at odds with our teachings vis a vis the Gospel this concept is. We don't hesitate, but boldy declare to the world, that our religion is something they need. Publically, we no longer lambast the "secular" religions, but privately, I still we (as a Church) believe that other religions, though having good aspects to them, are somehow inferior to ours. I used to teach people in France that "there were two church only," and the clear implication is that the Catholic Church was "of the Devil." Yet some of us get gun-shy when it comes to proclaiming that a certain defintion of art is right and others are wrong. I understand that many people seem to like the WFW, but is that how we just entertainment, based on the number of its adherents. We certainly don't do that regliously -- we set up certain standards and if youre belief system doesn't fit those standards, then we try to change you. Why shouldn't Mormon artists be as missionary minded about what constitutes good art as they are about what constitutes true religion? > Scott Card is an old friend of mine, but I >don't appreciate being told that American Beauty is an evil movie >and that I'm depraved for enjoying it. Neither do I but it's because Card is plain wrong in his assessment of that film. > By the same token, I don't >get to sneer at folks who like Edgar Guest's poetry, or who enjoy >Rick Evans' novels. If someone were to get up in Church and say, "I'm going to share some true Gospel with you" and then they go on to talk about how you can only be a Republican and a good Mormon, that would be unacceptable wouldn't it. But somehow it's exceptable when someone stands up and reads something from "Especially for Mormons" and has the audacity to call it a poem? >And that's the problem with morally based criticism. If we >declare a work of art (which isn't sentient, after all, which >hasn't agency, which is just an artifact,a thing, that sits there >on the nightstand with circular hot chocolate mug stains on the >dust cover) immoral, if we say 'that >novel/movie/poem/song/symphony/sculpture is immoral', then we must >of necessity declare those who created and/or admire it similarly >immoral. And I just don't think that's something we get to do in >this life, except perhaps in the most carefully qualified >'just-expressing-my-opinion-and-concern' sort of way. I agree with you. Art isn't inherently moral. I would be utterly opposed to disqualifying any work of art on that basis. But art can be of good quality or of bad quality. In either case, it makes no differnece the number of people who like the art or not -- it is entirely an issue of what constitutes good art. In art, as in religion, I believe there are certain absolutes. As didactic as the above may sound, I also want to go on record as saying that I'm not prepared to dictate what good art is for everyone else. I know good art when I see it, but I see it only through my own eyes. I know I don't a lot of the Gospel's absolutes truths correct; I'm sure I also don't fully understand the nature of true art. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:36:31 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Addressing Race in Mormon Lit. Annette Lyon wrote: > Once we know > enough to to write about the culture believably, how can we do it without > offending those readers who belong to that culture? I worry, because there > are a *handful* of hyper-sensitive people out there, ready to think any > white person is prejudiced--that any negative would be construed as a > blanket statement or an attack. Do we ignore those people and hope for the > best? Yes--absolutely, positively, yes! We ignore those people. Someone will always be offended by what you write. If you write the most bland, inoffensive stuff you can think of to avoid offense, someone will be offended that it's bland and unoffensive. You cannot win if you worry about offending someone. Do your homework, get it right, be fair to the characters (all the characters, not just the ethnic ones), then write, and the hypersensitive be damned. I recently met a black person who impressed me greatly: Darius Gray. He has recommended that we expand our literature to include people of other races and nationalities. If I succumb to the fear of offending the hypersensitive, I risk offending Darius because I pretend blacks don't exist. Whose opinion of my work would mean more to me, his or those who are looking for any excuse to be offended? Anyone who would be offended by my honest effort to depict blacks or other races and nationalities realistically is someone whose opinion matters little to me. Pointing out mistakes I've made in my attempt is fine. But trying taking offense at every word--who cares about such a person? - -- 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, 21 Nov 2000 01:17:57 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Spec. Fiction & Mysteries Christopher Bigelow wrote: > > Responding to B.J. Rowley: > <<<>> > > I picked up the term from others, but my understanding is that it's basically science ficiton and fantasy with Mormon elements (I'm sure others could define it much better). The term "science fiction" got its origin from H.G. Wells calling his books "scientific romances." Eventually the term worked its way through the barbaric "scientifiction" into what we have today: science fiction. Science fiction is literature that asks "what if?" questions about science, then explores the consequences: What if we could go back in time, could we change history? If we could travel through interstellar space and run into alien beings, how would the first contact go? Generally, science fiction requires the author to make some passing attempt to scientifically justify the fantastic element in the story. Fantasy is the same thing, except it makes no attempt to justify the fantastic element. It's "magic." Mark Twain's _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" is fantasy because it made no attempt to justify the backward time traveling of the protagonist. H.G. Wells' _The Time Machine_ is science fiction because it made a very credible attempt (for the science of that time) to make time travel sound plausible. Those who don't understand relativity and quantum physics may still find the attempt credible. Over the years, the boundary between science fiction and fantasy has blurred greatly, and the boundaries of each genre have expanded into areas not traditionally considered part of them. To make sense of this confusion, the term "speculative fiction" was coined to include all of it: anything that speculates about something we don't know is true, or know for sure it isn't true. There is much crossover among readers and authors between science fiction and fantasy; most bookstores group the two together on the shelf. The new category makes practical sense. Those of us who have been bandying the term "LDS speculative fiction" about generally think of it in the same way: any literature that speculates about things of an LDS nature that we don't know are true or know are not true, but we want to imagine what would happen if they were. It would include LDS science fiction and fantasy, but go beyond that as well. It could also include theological speculation: something which isn't science, but we can't call fantasy either, because we believe in the supernatural nature of our religion. LDS speculative fiction is literature which asks the question "What if such and such were true?" about something which is related to the LDS religion, theology, or culture, then explores the consequences of that supposition. I would add, it also has the LDS audience in mind as its market. I wouldn't consider Orson Scott Card's speculative fiction to be LDS speculative fiction, even if it has Mormon elements to it, because it's geared to a general audience. I would classify it as mainstream speculative fiction that is written by an LDS author. - -- 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, 21 Nov 2000 07:54:53 -0200 From: "renatorigo" Subject: Re: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism > This subject doesn=B4t depends on being Mormon or not...I think we are dicussing a lot about the relaction between intellectualism and mormism...This isn=B4t the topic... I think the topic is: People, independent of their religion or education have to learn to respect the ability of othe people in appreciate all the arts...and never should forget that the ability depends on the opportunities these people have been having in their lives and a little ability in interpretate more sofisticated art doesn=B4t make these peolple stupid. Remember, when you were a little boy or a girl you read some books at school that you needed a dicitionary to help to understand strange words. Suddenly these words got easier and easier and your English become better day by day, and allows you have a more capacity of understand the world than other people that weren=B4t submitted to this process of learning. For Example: I=B4m 30 now...and I=B4m reading (in English) - The Portrait of the Art as a Young Man - James Joice...All the time I need the dictionary to understand some "strange" words that I need to Know to understand the context. When I read pocket books (trash) I don=B4t have this problem... I think my Eglish has a poor vocabulary...a high school vocabulary...and I=B4m in the processo of learning it... Am I supid? Renato Rigo renatorigo@ig.com.br - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:46:15 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] KINGSOLVER, _The Poisonwood Bible_ Last name Kingsolver What amazed me was that they hadn't even seen the book. They had heard that it had a negative view of the Bible, or was anti-Christian, or contained too much this-that-and-the-other, or wasn't uplifting....... None of which I agree with, BTW. But, they didn't even bother to find out for themselves. (I read it because it was on my dentist's recommended reading list.) We had a friend who visited UT this summer but didn't go see God's Army because a few of her friends totally badmouthed it. I'm not really sure if those friends had bothered to see it or what they were basing their opinion on. When it finally got to OH she went to see it and really enjoyed it. (As most people I talked to did.) It was so popular with the members it was held over several weeks. I guess the point is, you can only trust other's opinions so far. And everyone has to find their own balance between missing a few good things to avoid all that might be bad, or hitting a few things that we might personally find distasteful in order to find the things of worth. Tracie Laulusa - -----Original Message----- [MOD: Is the author of this book Kingsolver or Kingslover? Or something else? I've seen at least these two spellings.] Tracie Laulusa writes: > > And I loved the Poisonwood Bible. Would it surprise you to know > > that many of my LDS friends won't touch it with a ten-foot pole? Eileen Stringer responds: > It would surprise me indeed. We are reading it right now for our > Relief Society bookgroup and the feedback about it has been > positive. Not one disparaging remark for it yet. It came to us > highly recommended from a member of our Stake RS Presidency. > > I am certainly enjoying it. I find this most fascinating. This is the book that prompted Kristen Randle to declare: > As I read her, I wondered if I could write my own God as > passionately, as concretely as she writes her own bitterness > and disappointment. I don't think I can. I'm not sure I > should. Her full comments on this were posted to the list a few months ago. To see such a polarized reaction from other readers just proves to me once again that most of what we get from art is a reflection of what we bring to it. J. Scott Bronson--The Scotted Line "World peace begins in my home" - -------------------------------------------------------- "Anybody who sees live theatre should come out a little rearranged." Glenn Close - - 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: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:18:34 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] Shaken Faith and Truth (was: Real Life) The pornography in Utah county thread was closed down, but the discussion there actually prompted some thoughts that are relevant enough to the = list that I'd like to share them. The thing is, I think that it is absolutely possible to have every word = of a work be true and yet, the message can turn out, if not actually false, at least misleading or misrepresentative. Since we are a church that still holds to that old hokey claim that Truth exists at all, this notion of writing has some interesting connotations for us. On the one hand, it is impossible to relate the whole truth in any work less massive than, well, something *really* massive. On the other, we do try very hard to be = honest, even claiming in annual temple interviews that we strive for honesty in = all our dealings. So for the Mormon market, the question becomes what are we willing to do = in order to sell our work? Are you willing to restrict your art to the dark elements in our society if that is what sells? Personally, I'm tired of "modern realism". I skipped the rest of the = latest Irreantum fiction section because I read the first story and found that while it was well enough written, I really dislike the faith-denuded = Mormon experience narrative. I was afraid to try the next story for fear it = would be along the same, quandary-loving vein. I should tread lightly here as Paul Rawlins is probably going to read = this. I was engaged by his story (Faith of the Fathers), but I kept waiting for *any* character actions to be informed by LDS theology. There was = tradition there but no substance. The father in the story didn't do any of the = things that I would have as a father. I'm as tired as some of you probably are = of the blithe claim that "God has called xxx home" and the determinism that implies. But the other extreme of an absence of godly intervention isn't any more laudable. The story itself may be real/true enough. The father's actions are plausible enough for an individual. But the implication of the story (beginning with the title) is that this is a general experience with LDS faith and that message is wrong. The gospel has a lot to say about God, death, justice, purpose, and comfort in mourning. The father in this = story did nothing at all to find any of it, understand any of it, let alone communicate any of it to his obviously wounded daughter.=20 Certainly such a father may exist and may be my next door neighbor who is active in the church. But the message is that this is a representation = of faithful fathers in the church. I don't think it is. "Faith of the Fathers" is well written--well crafted--but I'm not going = to read any more of these stories. And since that was the first fiction = story in Irreantum, I assume that it is representative of what the editors = wanted to present, so I just didn't bother with the others. My apologies to = those authors, but I can't handle the continuing messages about my faith that = are devoid of an active, loving, comforting God anymore. The most powerful message of the gospel is that God *does* exist. He is real. And He wants, even requires, a personal relationship with each of = us. That doesn't mean that we are always happy, but it really does mean that = we don't have to be always sad. Write all you want about shaking faith and people learning that the tradition is not enough or that common traditions just don't hold up when reality deals harsh blows. But don't expect me to give you my attention while you do. Frankly, I'm tired of shaken faith stories as a whole. = But most particularly I am tired of the ones that leave you at the bottom of = the lost-faith cycle with no resolution in sight. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:09:50 -0800 (PST) From: Kathleen Meredith Subject: Re: [AML] LAAKE, _Secret Cermonies_ I read that she had committed suicide. - -Kathleen Meredith __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:11:26 EST From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Advice to Writers from Salon Journalist Tara Zahra Kent Larsen, in a post to Mormon News, discussed the first of a series of Salon articles on religion in the US, which included a look at LDS missionaries serving in Prague. In one article, journalist Tara Zahra wrote that an Elder Mattingly asks her advice on a potential career as a science fiction writer. She tells him to expect a lot of rejection. He immediately responds, "That's OK, I'm used to rejection." The complete articles are at: Faith in America, by Amy Standen Salon 20Nov00 http://www.salon.com:80/people/feature/2000/11/20/religion_intro/index.html and When the saints go marching in, by Tara Zahra Salon 20Nov00 http://www.salon.com:80/people/feature/2000/11/20/mormons/index.html Mormon-News is at http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! 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: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:47:58 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Addressing Race in Mormon Lit. At 02:37 PM 11/17/00, you wrote: >I enjoyed reading about the black character's in Linda Adams' _Prodigal >Journey_, but to me there was a problem that I am afraid many of us (white >Mormons who have lived in nearly all-white areas most of their lives) would >fall into: namely, since we 1) don't know that much about the black >experience and 2) sincerely don't want to offend, the writer paints the >characters in such a good light that they aren't believable. Thanks, Annette, for pointing this out. I'm not sure I did this on purpose, consciously, but you're exactly right. Here's something amusing that illustrates this. When Debra was "white," in the original version, her house was very messy. Not dirty--just the lived-in messy a busy Mormon family of seven can be. I *tidied up the house* because I was afraid that could be taken the wrong way, especially since she is the first black character I introduce. "Oh--she must think black people are messy." No, I don't! I think it's hard to keep a house clean with five kids and endless meetings. But. I changed that. So you could say, in some ways, I did make them more "perfect" than I originally wrote them. >When another black character was introduced much later, my gut reaction was, >"I bet he's good looking and a saint, too," and I was right. (I loved this >character, by the way, but having him also so good looking made me roll my >eyes--I wanted him to be at least homely, or maybe overweight, or balding, >anything.) The "good-looking" part I really hadn't thought about, which strikes me as funny. (I'm a person who thinks just about everybody is good-looking in their own way.) That's just how I "saw" Bert in my mind's eye--it was a completely unconscious decision. I'll pay more attention to this in the sequel as new characters are introduced. --On a side note, Debra's dad was overweight and balding :-) but had such a tiny part he's forgettable. There's a black pastor and his wife in there too, in the section Bert is in, who are minor characters and not painted as overly attractive or "saintly" (they're a little odd), but I was consciously aware of wondering how they would be perceived as well. Are they going to be taken as stereotypes? Or not? >It's a tough line to walk, and frankly, I admire Linda for even >attempting it. I'm a bit too chicken right now to try the juggling act >myself. But I also think that in order to have believable characters of any >kind, they must have at least a "wart" or two, if you know what I mean. Without saying too much, Jon and Debra's "warts" really will show up in the sequel, where they have much more to face than they have so far. You may find them more believable. But OTOH, I'm having to dig deeper into their minds and hearts to develop them than I did, and I'm coming up with things I don't know the answers to, which is how this thread got started. >So here's the question, which I think piggy-backs on Linda's: Once we know >enough to to write about the culture believably, how can we do it without >offending those readers who belong to that culture? I worry, because there >are a *handful* of hyper-sensitive people out there, ready to think any >white person is prejudiced--that any negative would be construed as a >blanket statement or an attack. Do we ignore those people and hope for the >best? I think we have to ignore that small handful, the same as I ignore readers who are offended because there's a couple of "d*mn's" in my book, or that sex "happens" in it, even if it's behind closed doors. BUT we have to be as true to the culture as possible. No, I will never actually know what it's like to be black from actual experience. I hope that I can learn enough so that my writing will resonate with truth with the black community (when that's part of my subject). I also hope that just the fact that I use multicultural characters and try to pull it off believably should tell anyone reading it that I am not in any way prejudiced. But yes, there is still a fear that someone will take it the wrong way. I mean, if I have Debra cook fried chicken, someone out there will say I'm stereotyping. Even if the chicken was, really, just chicken. There's always that fear, no matter what the issue is, and that somebody will be offended somewhere is almost a given. It's just that racial issues are more touchy areas than anything else I can think of. >I'm thinking of an experience my brother had in basic training. (He is >one of the least prejudiced people I know, and several of his close friends >are black.) One morning he and a black man were shaving, and the black man >was inspecting several ingrown hairs in his face. "Man, that's really gotta >suck," my brother said. Instead of seeing sympathy, the other man saw >prejudice. He turned on my brother and let out a several-minute spew about >how he was proud of his heritage, etc. If an innocent comment can incite >that kind of response, I can only imagine the reaction from someone looking >for prejudice in a book--and "finding" it. The really sad thing here is whatever happened in this man's life that caused him to be so sensitive to it that he felt he had to defend himself. Prejudice is unfortunately still alive and well in this country. It's more subtle than it used to be, but I run into it more frequently, in little ways, than I wish was true. I hope, until we have our "own" Toni Morrison, to do what I can to create believable characters of all races. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com Writing Page: http://members.xoom.com/adamszoo Little Ones Lost: http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo My new book, _Prodigal Journey,_ is now available online! Go to: http://deseretbook.com/products/4066899/index.html - - 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 #202 ******************************