From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #209 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, November 29 2000 Volume 01 : Number 209 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:14:01 -0700 From: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] Shaken Faith and Truth Rather than looking for a depiction of how faithful Mormons should/would/could act, isn't it much more telling and true to the Mormon experience to depict us as the majority of us really are? Sure, we *should* go directly to the Lord in prayer, search the scriptures, consult our Priesthood leaders, etc. etc., but half the membership of the Church isn't even active, half of those who attend regularly don't have regular FHE or do their HT/VT, and only a small portion of that 25% that's left would probably say they're adequate at taking their problems to the Lord in deep, meaningful personal prayer. So we're down to maybe 12.5% of the membership of the Church. That's a small sample for representing the majority of us as we are: stragglers and strugglers. - -- Scott Tarbet - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:56:09 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) I saw "Savior of the World" the other night and have been mulling over ever since how I was going to say what I am going to say about it. It has certainly caused me to think a lot ... however, my thinking isn't anything near what I'm sure the producers want me to think. They want me to be thinking about my savior and ... and I don't know what else. A good friend is in the show and she got me tickets for a preview performance. We've had a few discussions about the play, and how it came about, and how it has changed and lots of other things -- mostly, how it is to work for the church on an artistic endeavor. We've come to the conclusion that ... well, we're depressed. The play (which is a term that can only apply loosely to what this is actually, which is a pageant, but it's not grand enough for that either) was written by committee. And the committee was given specific parameters; a play about Christ in which Christ does not appear, that is very heavily reliant on the use of scripture -- quote it as often as possible, and some others that I have either forgotten or haven't been told. I wanted to like this play. I was excited to see what the church was going to do with this rather splendid new state-of-the-art 900-seat theatre -- which doesn't feel that big, by-the-way. For some time now I have been hoping that at last, the church would head in a new and provocative direction in the field of the arts. Not yet. The play was bland. Nothing dynamic about it at all. The scenes that had potential for that -- Mary telling Joseph that she is with child, the shepherds watching over their flocks by night, the visitations of the angels -- all were static and emotionless. My friend, who's in the show, assures me that there was a little more action, a little more emotion and conflict, before a small committee made up of three of the Council of the Twelve came to preview the show a few times. Thereafter there were pages and pages of changes every day for two weeks that stripped the play of any kind of exuberance. The injunction was to make the play more reverent. The angels were not allowed to talk TO the other charcters any more with any kind of lively feeling, rather they were to talk AT the other characters with flat, solemn attitudes. My friend has had, generally, a positive experience working on the show, but she is very disappointed in the way that things were handled in producing the thing. She says that she is unlikely to ever work for the church again in the capacity of an artist. As she would discuss with the director her disappointment in the watering down of the script she got a lot of justification along the lines of, "The church is not in the business of trying to produce great plays; the church's mission is to save souls." It's quite possible that "Savior of the World" may help to save a few souls, but I can't make myself believe that a play that challenged my thinking and my feelings about the savior would be damaging to the church's mission. In fact, I think it would probably save MORE souls than what this one will do. Here's the thing that depresses me about the church producing mediocre theatre; whether they mean it to happen or not, the plays produced in this theatre will be held up by a mojority of the membership of the church as the standard to which we should all look. I know what that will do to the audience I am trying to reach with plays like "Stones." I will hear this kind of comment, "If your play is worthy of a faithful audience it would be done by the church wouldn't it? If your play is not one that could be produced by the church, it's not a play that should be produced at all." I know this will happen, I've seen it happen. I have heard those words. Here is what I have been thinking ever since I saw the play Friday night: When did exuberance become synonymous with irreverence? I am glad that all the seats for all the performances sold out within days, but I think a play should be appreciated for its merits, not simply because it was produced by the church. When did solemn become synonymous with reverent? When did boring become the ideal? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:30:09 EST From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN "Savior of the World" Premieres In New Conference Center Theater: Salt Lake Tribune From: Rosemary Pollock To: Mormon News Subject: MN "Savior of the World" Premieres In New Conference Center Theater: Salt Lake Tribune 26Nov00 A1 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:20:00 -0500 [From Mormon-News] "Savior of the World" Premieres In New Conference Center Theater SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- "Savior of the World" will premiere Tuesday, November 28, at the new state-of-the-art Conference Center Theatre in downtown Salt Lake City. Utah fans will be part of the welcome party for the new 911 seat LDS Conference Center Theater that fills a void left almost four years ago by the closing of the Promised Valley Playhouse. The new theater will be home to at least three LDS Church sponsored musical productions a year: a Christmas show, an Easter show and a summer show. Musical concerts and other productions will also be held by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "We've had a lot of requests already," said Stephen Hall, theatre manager. The new facility will be the third largest in downtown Salt Lake City after Abravanel Hall, which seats 2,800 and the Capitol Theatre, which seats 1,850. All 28 performances for "Savior of the World" sold out within a week. Due to popular demand the church will repeat "Savior of the World" for three weeks at Easter. "There were people calling in from all over the country," Hall said. Nominal fees of $4 to $7 are being charged to offset production costs. "The church has a long history of encouraging cultural productions," said LDS Church spokesman Dale Kenneth Bills. "This [theatre] is a way of continuing that." Source: New Theater Helps Fulfill Musical Promise Salt Lake Tribune 26Nov00 A1 http://www.sltrib.com:80/11262000/arts/47494.htm By Brandon Griggs: Salt Lake Tribune >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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:13:59 -0700 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] References to Native Americans in Mormon Lit. Dalton, Lee. _The Feather of the Owl_. Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1987. Richardson, Boyd. _Knife Thrower: A Mormon Boy among the Pawnee_. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 1994. Yorgason, Blaine M. _The Windwalker_. Salt Lake City: Bookraft, 1979. What about Lee Nelson's _Storm Testament_ books and _The Wasatch Savage_? Marny Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:09:15 -0700 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: RE: [AML] Shaken Faith and Truth I can't claim to speak for Jacob, but I think I can understand part of his frustration, and I hope I can articulate some of my own thoughts that touch at the edges of what he's said. Before I say anything else, though, I want to add my appreciation for this list and for Irreantum magazine to that which has gone before. I love the fact that we have a (relatively) easily accessible magazine that presents fiction from a variety of voices, and a forum where we can talk about not just the "classics" of Mormon lit, but the new stories as well. We've tried before to have online reading groups where a specific story or play is posted where we can all get at it, so that we can then have opportunity to discuss our various takes on Mormon lit in the context of a specific example. In this case, Irreantum has served at the common resource, and AML-List as the forum. I love it when a plan comes together! (back to the story) Three main thoughts--POV and the universal father, POV's inaction as key point of contention, and an argument on the definition of faithlessness. POV and the universal father ============================ I have no idea what POV's name is other than "I." I don't recall a last name either, so he can't be "Mr. Somethingorother." For convenience, I'll tend to refer to Liz's dad as either "POV" or "Dad." I mention this because I think the use of first person puts the reader in an odd spot, and helps create the "Universal Father" that seems to frustrate Jacob. By giving us no other label (at least not that I recall) for POV, the reader is forced to decide whether "I" speaks the reader's own thoughts. If so, the device can lead to very strong identification; if not, the device can lead to a strong rejection of POV's viewpoint, and as such, of the narrative premise of the story--regardless of the admirable or agreeable parts of POV's thoughts. My mother-in-law *hates* first person POV, and actively avoids stories that use it for exactly this reason. She almost never universally agrees with POV and thus is knocked out of the story every time their opinions differ. It makes for a very frustrating reading experience for her because she's not able to put POV at a safe conceptual distance. I suspect this contributes to the either/or reaction we've seen so far--those who identified directly, and those who didn't. Had I written the story, I might have provided some reference to POV's name that allowed the reader to firmly separate "I" from POV. This identification issue leads directly to... POV's inaction/points of contention =================================== I found POV's concluding resolution to be wise, insightful, and true to my own experience in dealing with sudden senseless death. But... It comes after several weeks of functional inaction where POV never makes an overt effort to deal with his daughter's pain. This lack of on-stage effort to deal directly with the issue undermines some readers' ability to identify with "I." This is underscored for me by POV's own lament (page 29, top of column 2): === You can't live with a teenager for very long before you've felt foolish in the eyes of your own child. I know what I believe happened to Jeremy. I believe he fell and he died, and because I didn't know him, hadn't met him, that death didn't mean much to me. But he was young. And if I put Elizabeth in his place, the thought makes me wild, opening a chasm that leaves me standing on the dark edge of the world listening to an echo tumble into space, a question that goes on and on. What if God decided to take my daughter? === This passage asks us to identify with our own experience with teenagers and feeling foolish their eyes, but the narrative itself never provided us with an example, making this lament seem a bit hollow to me. If he had tried to help her and failed, this becomes a powerful lament; but because all the prior scenes have shown him being distant from the situation, the lament turns into more of a snivel and undermines the character. The distance is set up earlier in the story when POV doesn't seem to know any of his daughter's friends, though the dead boy's mother seems to have a special intimacy with his daughter (even to the point of calling her Beth--a name unheard-of in POVs own experience with his daughter). The same is true of all the teenagers who huddle around the decedent's mom, but that POV fails to recognize as people that his daughter spends time with. This disconnection from his daughter's life makes it harder for me to identify with him. It seems to be the pattern of his relationship, and makes the fact that he doesn't attempt to talk to her seem less like a thoughtful attempt to give her distance and more like simple laziness and continued disinterest in his child's life. The narrative also undermines POV's final thoughts about simple accident by fairly constantly using the language of determinism when presenting his thoughts. This idea is established very early on (page 25, top of column 1--first scene; emphasis added): === ...When I was in high school, a brother to my girlfriend's best friend was killed when a speeding truck hit a curb and caught air, landing on his brother's car and crushing him inside. Of course he'd taken a different route home that night, with all the stop lights timed to the second, **all the cords of fate humming in a rhythm, to bring him there, that corner, that light, that moment when he should have been someplace else--he always had been.** === I understand that this is intended to illustrate his own 16 year-old sensibility as an analog to what his 16 year-old daughter must be feeling now. But the thought is then picked up later in the story when he asks the rhetorical question, "What if God decided to take my daughter?" Apparently POV does believe--at least somewhat, or at least sometimes--in a deterministic god who *does* set the cords of fate humming while planning to take whom he will. Exactly the idea he appears to reject in other parts of the story, most specifically at the end. Perhaps we're supposed to see this as an evolution of POV's own thoughts on the matter, a moving from his own fear that the platitudes of the "faithful" might bear some weight, to a more general (and I believe correct) belief that sometimes stuff just happens. I accept this as a possibility, but still feel that we didn't see his own passionate struggle with the issue, thus any sense of change in the character is arguable. Which I believe is a key point for some readers--it's hard to become strongly engaged with a character who has no passionate responses, whose primary response is to wait with the thought "If that's a bridge we come to, we'll cross it" (page 29, middle of first column). In other words, I won't deal with the issue until it comes to me, even if I can see it coming. Purely reactive. This is a hallmark of a particular style of mainstream fiction--a detached main character who puts off direct action with a witticism in either dialog or internal monologue. It's a style of fiction I'm not generally satisfied by, though I often admire the artistry of the author in crafting witty sentences, scenes, and images. I suspect part of this is an attempt at authenticity--passionate rage or sorrow is perceived as clearly artificial or sentimental, or else so specific to an individual response as to lose its universality. It does beg the question of what a story should do--attempt to solve problems, or attempt to clearly define problems while leaving solutions to the reader. I think the author's choice to this question determines the literary genre of the resulting story. An effect of the distant POV is that the character assumes universality, becoming that alleged "universal father" that seems to bug Jacob so much. An argument on the definition of "faithlessness" ================================================ Keeping in mind that Mormons believe in works as the evidence of faith, POV's inaction suggests at least a paucity of faith, if not a complete lack of it. This may have been the author's intention; I don't know. I do know that I would like to have seen some direct effort to intervene earlier in the story--and have that attempt fail. This would have given me (as an individual reader) more of a sense of jeopardy for POV and would have made me feel for him, whether I agreed with his expressions of faith or not. For me, it would have been enough for him to simply tell his daughter that he didn't know, that it was something you have to learn for yourself (like other aspects of personal faith). Instead, his only comment on faith is an admirably witty bit of internal monologue: "Faith equals this: God does not even owe you an explanation." If he'd said this to his daughter, I could believe that she would look at him like he was a fool. It appears to be a cynical thought destitute of the hope that the "faithful" determinists are clinging to. It appears to be the opposite of what Mormons believe. In fact, it's a brutally distilled truism that sums up most of what we know about faith (evidence of things not seen, etc.). And while it may be a fact we can know, it's a cold comfort at the time of crisis. My main point being that it would have been nice to see some direct expression of "positive" faith by POV. I think this is the crux of Jacob's frustration and my ambivalence. The only times POV really uses the language of Mormonism is when the grieving friends and family (wrongly, IMO) describe a deterministic God who calls people home (page 26, top of second column), or to illustrate his own teenage experience of testimony meetings devoid of spiritual power (page 28, middle of first column). The implication being that no honest comfort can come from that source since our narrator found none. I believe that POV came to an honest and powerful faith--a more considered and earned faith that transcended the mere hope of others in the story. To forgive God for not fixing all the injustices in the world is to powerfully state your trust in him (or to completely disbelieve in his existence). I choose to believe that POV came to a real faith, and that his final response is very close to that which God himself might feel--to admit that ugly things happen, and that he is very, very sorry that he can't stop them. This may be an intentional metaphor of the story. POV is distant, just as God appears to be distant. We have to come to faith on our own terms--it isn't bestowed on us by our friends or fathers. It's a personal, solitary thing. But I still think someone, *anyone,* in the story could have had evident intelligent faith and use the language of Mormonism to describe it. Just a sentence. Just an acknowledgement that some of those teenage testimonies might have been real, if poorly developed and necessarily shallow. An acceptance that others might have found faith where POV found only social activity. I found power in the story (more so since I sat down to write this essay-lette and managed to convince myself of its presence even as I began to argue its lack). I also think Jacob has a number of good points--many Mormon writers are unwilling to grant the institutions of the church *any* power to be agents of grace. And while I don't think Paul intended to say that those institutions must fail, by showing only examples of their failure with no acknowledgement of success, I think he portrays them as empty shells. I think this has happened in much of the better-written Mormon literature of our day; a sin of omission, so to speak. I would just like to see some of that formidable Mormon talent allow for the possibility of real, honest faith among the faceless, nameless "faithful" of the church without always portraying that faith as empty or misguided. Just a sentence that accepts the possibility. Random parting thoughts ======================= Were I the editors of Irreantum, I might have made this story the last one in the fiction section; I would have led with a less difficult story and closed with my powerhouse. I think Paul Rawlins wrote a supremely faithful story, but I also think it's possible that I'm wrong and he really meant it to be cynical. For me, the text supports both interpretations. I would love to see a story where the institutions of the church are at least not wrong. A story where real people struggle, and sometimes find wisdom amid the platitudes, and honesty among the general Mormon clergy and membership. There must needs be an opposite in all things--both the sweet and the bitter. I would like to see some good, well-earned sweet that happens on-stage. Which is my primary remaining comment about this story--all the bits with grace and understanding and epiphany happened off-stage. Isn't there some way to bring at least part of that on-stage? Please? Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:32:05 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Shaken Faith and Truth [Moderator's compilation of two related posts by Jacob Proffitt.] On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:14:01 -0700, Scott Tarbet wrote: >Rather than looking for a depiction of how faithful Mormons >should/would/could act, isn't it much more telling and true to the = Mormon >experience to depict us as the majority of us really are? Sure, we = *should* >go directly to the Lord in prayer, search the scriptures, consult our >Priesthood leaders, etc. etc., but half the membership of the Church = isn't >even active, half of those who attend regularly don't have regular FHE = or do >their HT/VT, and only a small portion of that 25% that's left would = probably >say they're adequate at taking their problems to the Lord in deep, >meaningful personal prayer. So we're down to maybe 12.5% of the = membership >of the Church. That's a small sample for representing the majority of = us as >we are: stragglers and strugglers. I won't bother disputing the 12.5% figure, though I do doubt it. Still, = if you are going to write from an LDS perspective, I don't think it is = asking too much to weight it towards those who go to church and actually believe and try to live the doctrine. Particularly if you are going to write a story that purports to represent the faithful LDS experience. Jacob Proffitt On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:33:22 -0800 (PST), Darlene Young wrote: >Here's my question, which I don't mean to apply >particularly to Rawlins' story: because a story does >not narrate the praying or the RS attendance, must we >assume the character didn't pray or go to church? How >much of the practice of being Mormon must we make >explicit? Using Rawlins' story just for an example, I >honestly didn't assume that since the praying scenes >were not included then the character must not have >been praying and reading scriptures. Apparently, some >people did. > >Is there some sort of loyalty we owe to our beliefs >that requires us to make these things explicit in our >stories, or are there times when we can assume that >the audience will recognize that God is a part of a >character's life, even when we don't show the praying >scenes? Or should we conclude that an absence of a >prayer scene means an absence of prayer in a >character's life? Whether it is important to show or not probably depends on the story. = The problem with Rawlins' story (again, IMO) is that the situation calls so strongly for hitting the basics of the gospel that their lack is kind of telling. If your story hits near the roots of the gospel, then it is important to show those roots and not ignore them as if your characters = were just anybody and not LDS at all. So, yes there are certainly times when we can assume the audience will recognize that God is a part of a character's life, but there are also = times when we need to see it of wonder at its lack. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:52:35 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Shaken Faith and Truth On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:09:15 -0700, Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: >I would love to see a story where the institutions of the church are=20 >at least not wrong. A story where real people struggle, and sometimes=20 >find wisdom amid the platitudes, and honesty among the general Mormon=20 >clergy and membership. > >There must needs be an opposite in all things--both the sweet and the=20 >bitter. I would like to see some good, well-earned sweet that happens=20 >on-stage. > >Which is my primary remaining comment about this story--all the bits=20 >with grace and understanding and epiphany happened off-stage. Isn't=20 >there some way to bring at least part of that on-stage? > >Please? This is interesting because it reminds me of Kristen Randle's statements about God only being depicted by the angry disenchanted. I remember that when her thoughts were posted, many on the list were very quick to claim that of *course* we could depict interactions with God that were true and faithful. Well, can we really? Who has done so successfully? I'll go ahead and undermine my own implications by pointing out Scott Bronson's "Stones" as an argument that it *can* be done well and = faithfully. But I'd still like to explore why it doesn't happen more often. Is it so hard to do? Or is it because it isn't very rewarding (I personally = wonder if Scott will be able to find a venue for "Stones")? Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:34:24 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] O.S. Card and Cults: Have You Seen This Article? Actually, Jan Shipps has written on this issue. In the field of religious = studies, 'cult' and 'sect' have very specific meanings. A 'sect' is an = offshoot from another religion. A 'cult' is a brand new religious = tradition. When they grow up, a 'sect' becomes a denomination. And a = 'cult' becomes a religion. (Obviously, her argument is far more specific = and technical--I'm giving the barest of paraphrases.) Professor Shipps goes on to argue that Mormonism was, according to these = definitions, once a cult, but it isn't anymore. Today, Mormonism is a = religion; neither Catholic or Protestant, and therefore, arguably at = least, not Christian. We were never a sect. She says that Mormonism = dispenses with the creeds of Christianity sufficiently that we actually = hardly qualify as Christian, though we are demonstrably Christ-centered. = =20 Semantic differences do have their value. Anyway, Scott is wrong in his = definition of 'cult.' And we certainly were a cult at one time. Not = anymore. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:56:37 -0600 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] MN Fishers of Men: Deseret Book Press Release D. Michael Martindale wrote: > There was darkness in "Work & Glory," and dark characters. That alone is > an improvement over the past. I'm rather curious about what you mean by "darkness" and why you think it's sufficient to improve Lund's work. While some of my favorite books and characters are dark to the point of inky blackness, I don't see that as necessary or sufficient to good literature. It merely suits my tastes. The world isn't all light, but why should literature always be an accurate and complete reflection of the world? Can't one skillfully tell stories that stick to the light? I wouldn't care for a steady diet of such stories, but that doesn't mean they aren't included in the set of fine literature. Darkness doesn't always improve artistry; sometimes it simply obscures the lack of it. Jim Picht - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:25:36 -0700 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Scott, So sad to hear my worst suspicions confirmed by your viewing of "The Savior of the World." :-( Gonna finish my Christmas show someday, after finishing my current choral projects, and shop it to....whom? Baptists? B'way? :-) Steve P. S. Who wrote this show and why is it so anonymous and secretive? Is it the committee itself? I don't want to broadcast the info. I just want to know. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:54:16 -0700 From: Neal Kramer Subject: Re: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Scott Bronson's comments on _Savior of the World_ raise some very difficult questions. One is the hope we all seem to have that our work, and our sophisticated standards of aesthetic excellence, will be accepted by either the official church or by the culture, and that that will somehow imply acceptance by God. I think we can have fruitful discussions about acceptance by the culture and even by the official church (likie being quoted or praised in conference, etc.), but I think the deeper fear that we might be offending God is nearly and maybe completely impossible to talk about. I will give one example. Quite a few years ago now Franco Zeffirelli, a believing Catholic and passionate artist, made what I thought was a beautiful film about the life of the Savior. Many of my friends didn't like it because it seemed too Catholic, i.e., it wasn't true. I expect that many Catholics disliked it because it wasn't Catholic enough. Others didn't like it because they don't like Zeffirelli's whole approach to film. Etc. Etc. Etc. I still believe that Zeffirelli achieved something, though, that Mormon artists also hope to accomplish--he used his considerable skills as an artist to praise God, to bear testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ. I admire the attempt and hope that our efforts to do the same may be pleasing to God, in all the ways we define "please." I believe much of what we do is, in this special sense, an acceptable offering. I also suspect that that can happen in official church productions, where non-artists have the final say in what actually appears on stage. Neal Kramer - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:30:59 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Thanks to Scott for this thoughtful review. I know the list has discussed _Testaments of One Fold_ (or whatever it's called), but I've been such a sporadic contributor that I wanted to add my 2 cents worth, and am inspired by Scott's words. I was disappointed--and like Scott, I really wanted to like _Testaments_. (My father provided the Mayan, by the way, and it is authentic.) What I saw over and over were the miraculous healings by the Savior--lovely but rather sentimental. My overwhelming sense was that depicting the healings was a bit of a cheat--predictable awe and teary gratitude. The truth is, the greatest miracle is not giving sight to the blind or mobility to the lame; the greatest miracle is the healing of the heart. Those who have received the greatest miracle accept the lesser miracles (such as those portrayed in _Testaments_) as simply a function of their faith. I'm actually teaching a scripture tonight in Institute which condemns those who seek for signs--the obvious miracles. "Signs" follow those who believe. So why would the Church produce a costly movie which depicts sign after sign? - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:35:04 -0800 (PST) From: Valerie Holladay Subject: Re: [AML] LAAKE, _Secret Cermonies_ Alan Mitchell: > I would not describe Laake's voice as refreshing. > Try bedazzling. > Exhibitionist. > Alan Mitchell How about whiney? My impression was that she was blaming all her problems with men/relationships on the Church instead of accepting responsibility for them herself. A shame that her book was (is still?) used by ASU in a course exploring different contemporary religions from the female perspective. Valerie Holladay __________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:08:05 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] O.S. Card and Cults: Have You Seen This Article? Scott Card implies, but doesn't actually say, that even Christianity started off as a cult by the classic definition. Can't partisan politics sometimes be called a cult? Super-patriotism? We are surrounded by cult-like activities and philosophies. With regard to literature, if we elevate one genre above another, isn't that cult-like ("SF is the only true literature, not that romance crap")? We seem to place so much emphasis on our government leaders being charismatic that we mention those who aren't as if it's a deficiency. Does that make the U.S. a cult? There are aspects of cults all around us. I think it's human nature to grab onto some kind of cult, be it religious, politcal, or familial because the alternative -- having to decide anew everytime a decision comes up can be tiring. Cults, like anything else, have their good aspects and their bad aspects. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:45:35 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] RE: Irreantum Fiction At 02:33 PM 11/27/00, you wrote: > Frankly, we are by no means swimming in fiction submissions and are > publishing at least half if not the majority of what we receive, and we > were particularly honored to have a nationally prominent author like Paul > Rawlins let us consider one of his stories. Gee, thanks. This makes my fiction rejection feel SO much worse! :-) (S'allright, I'll try again sooner or later when I get to it . . . just had to say it though!! To be fair I wasn't sure the story I sent quite "fit," which it didn't.) and in another post: <> Some other literary magazines I've seen do this, or have an author's "blurb" at the end where they have, say 25 words or so to tell about their included work. I like that. It's kind of a promotional plug, in a way, and helps me figure out which stories I want to read first, by which sound the most interesting. I also wanted to say, I received the latest issue of Irreantum this week, and it looks much, much improved from the last one I saw (the one I was printed in, about a year ago--first one, I think?). I like the larger size and two-column format. Much easier to read. Now, I haven't *read* it yet--but as far as looks, very good job. It looks nicely professional now. [Linda Adams] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:59:04 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum Fiction On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:11:25 -0600, Jonathan Langford wrote: >Perhaps this is an overly pessimistic view. It may be that simply = because >there are no other magazines publishing much Mormon fiction, there will = be >many fans of different genres (e.g., Mormon-associated sf&f, or >Mormon-cultural realism) who don't have a great interest in other types = of >fiction, but who subscribe to _Irreantum_ anyway because it's one of = only a >few sources of what they like. Presumably, such readers would read the >fiction that interests them, but skip over the rest. But given the = small >number of stories published in each issue, I think it's unlikely that = any >reader of this sort will find more than 1-2 stories per issue that = appeal >to his/her individual interests. That seems like a pretty slim basis = for >picking up a magazine. So we're back to a readership that either has a >strong interest in the nonfiction pieces, or wants to read a broad = spectrum >of fiction writing--in short, back to those with an interest in = _Irreantum_ >as the voice/forum for an entire community of Mormon letters, as opposed= to >seeing it as an outlet for the type of creative works they particularly >like. But there *are* other magazines that publish Mormon Fiction. Dialogue, Sunstone, BYU Studies to name those I remember off the top of my head. I suppose that a part of my complaint is that stories like Paul Rawlins' = make up a large portion of the Dialogue and Sunstone offerings which is why I don't subscribe to those publications. There are plenty of outlets for = that kind of fiction and virtually none for any other. My hope for Irreantum = is that it can expand the market by providing an alternative to these other avenues who have lost my trust entirely. Perhaps I should make it clearer that I don't want all the stories to be ones I like or agree with. However, I *am* tired of the predominance of this type of story that takes many of its parameters from mainstream = fiction and that end up not terribly Mormon in any but the most superficial = sense. =46rankly, my biggest gripe with Irreantum is the decision to privilege = that story. It indicates to me that Irreantum would, if it could, mirror = those other magazines. If Irreantum is willing to put Rawlins over Peterson = then it indicates that they would rather have Rawlins type submissions over Peterson type submissions. It hints that if the slush pile were larger, that stories like Rawlins' would be included and stories like Peterson's wont. Jacob Proffitt - - 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 #209 ******************************