From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #215 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, December 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 215 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:01:43 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _God's Army_ Debbie Brown wrote: =20 >There were a few things that bugged me, like how inept Allen >was at >tying ties after being at the MTC for 6 weeks. . .=20 Well, I served a mission, and I've been wearing a tie now for thirty plus = years, and I'm still inept at tying them. I wonder if this is a gender = thing. I know a number of men (like myself) that really have no idea how = to dress ourselves, and who never will be able to tie a tie. =20 >how he seemed to know **nothing** about being a missionary,=20 Perfectly believable. The culture shock of leaving the MTC is huge. >how we could see through the dress of >the girl being baptized,=20 I missed this. >I could also see the point of the dissatisfaction in the character of >the Mission President, and how clueless he was in the lives of >the = Elders. He was twenty times more clued-in about the lives of the Elders in his = mission than my mission president ever was. =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 10:55:13 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Marie Knowlton, in a post I very much enjoyed, wrote: >the fact that the Church has ventured back into=3D >the territory of live theatre is a good thing. I think live theatre has = >the=3D > ability to touch people in ways few other experiences can. >Brigham = Young=3D > recognized this fact and insisted that live theatre be an important = >part of=3D > the culture in pioneer days.=20 I quite agree. The important thing about the new Conference Center = Theater is that it exists, and as such, affirms the genuine worth of this = art form.=20 >Second,  we should recognize that=3D >Church-produced theatre is not going to be very controversial or >venture = too far towards the cutting edge. It's out there to testify, >perhaps = illuminate, and maybe bring the Spirit to the stage (and >thereby to the = audience). This shouldn't surprise us.=20 The point is, they could be cutting edge and it wouldn't be controversial. = The Church can do anything it likes in that venue; they're essentially = immune from criticism. I don't know what they 'should' do there. It's = not my stewardship. (My stewardship is to sit on the sidelines and carp.) As far as doing shows that invite the Spirit, that becomes a very tricky = issue, actually. My experience is that the Spirit can manifest itself in = many ways and in many venues, and that it's perfectly possible for one = person to be deeply moved by and touched by the Spirit, while the person = sitting next to him is unmoved, even offended. I don't believe that there = are certain kinds of art that are automatically inviting to the Spirit and = other kinds of art that automatically offend the Spirit. I'm far more = moved by and made receptive to the Spirit by Picasso's Guernica, for = example, than by the Christus. >If we don't like it, we're certainly free to stage alternative >production= s. =20 Not just free to, but obligated to. We're all supposed to be anxiously = engaged in, for example, community and public service. I think that for = active LDS people to be engaged politically is compatible with the Gospel. = But that may mean that we are engaged politically in opposing camps and = causes. This doesn't trouble me. By the same token, we LDS artists have = an obligation to express ourselves artistically, and (I'm going to state = this strongly), an obligation to base our work in differing, perhaps even = competing aesthetic principles. We do not all believe in the same = aesthetic. Nor should we. >I don't believe we have legitimate grounds for complaining that >the = Church is quashing us as LDS artists because it isn't >inclusive of all = our different views on what it ought to be >staging. Agree absolutely. Though I do wish the Church treated its artists with at = least some rudimentary courtesy. =20 >As to how it should be judged, I'm not feeling any urgent need to = >compare it to the likes of , oh, say, "Rent." There's plenty of >historica= l precedent for religious theatre -- the Passion Plays of >the Middle Ages = are a good example.=20 Yes indeed. Those wonderful plays of Corpus Christi, the greatest = religious theatre of all time, with all their raucous, bawdy, funny, = violent, crude, poetic, farcical, tragic attempts to connect the sacred = with the vulgar. Wow. What a model for us! Can we compare Savior of the = World to medieval drama? I'd love to, but there's no possible way we'll = ever do work at that level. >Who says we can't entertain the audience and spiritually feed >them at = the same time? As all good theatre does. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:28:26 -0500 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _God's Army_ Well, as the one that reintroduced the topic to AML, I kind of take exception to the term picking apart the movie. I made some comments on it, more good comments then bad comments, but I could be wrong. Yes, things are picked apart here on AML, I don't know how many times I have suffered post after post of people picking apart _The Work and the Glory_ series, or even _Legacy_, which I admit isn't perfect, but I like it. I rarely post my opinion on anything because I can't pick apart the lyrics to _I Am A Child of God_ let alone _God's Army_ with the style and finesse of Eric Snyder or D. Martindale. Now again, I could be wrong, but is _God's Army_ immune from being picked apart because it's the first time a film about Mormons has reached such a large non-Mormon audience? It's no more immune from being picked apart than, say, _Orgazmo_ which is: Synopsis: "South Park" creator Trey Parker's film (which was created before South Park's success) centers on Mormon missionary Joe Young and his unusual entry into the pornographic movie industry. Now, I haven't seen _Orgazmo_, but I'm going to assume from the synopsis, that it isn't telling a fun and engaging 95 minutes about the everyday life of a Mormon missionary. Has anyone here seen it? Debbie Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:26:44 -0800 (PST) From: plus two Subject: [AML] Introductions: William Morris Hello. Since the list seems to have spawned a recent rash of introductions, I'd like to add mine. My name is William Morris. I am a male living in Oakland, CA with my wife Angela and our cat Yeti. I was an AML-Mag subscriver off and on for three or four years until the past summer where a new job (Public Relations Coordinator for San Francisco State University--where I am also a grad student in comparative literature) finally allowed me the time and access to be a full-fledged list member. I think that I will send my connections (some of which are rather dubious) to Mormon literature in a later post and instead mention how I found my way to the list, since I didn't come by way of BYU. When I returned home from my mission (Romania), I moved in with my grandparents and enrolled in a local community college. It was my first college experience (I left for my mission right after high school), and because I was straight out of the mission field, I was jonesing for a straight-up IV feed of knowledge. That first semester I didn't work and my classes were easy so I spent all my time either in the library (re-reading works I had read as a teenager as well as studies in Kaballah, philosophy, and psychology) at school or the small library at the LDS institute across the street (where I plowed through whatever was available with an emphasis on Nibler, the Journal of Discourses, and all the Teachings of.... style books). It was a wonderful, heady time which came to a quick close because the next semester I increased my course load and started working 20 hrs a week. Flash forward two years. I'm beginning my first semester as an English Lit. major at UC Berkeley. I couldn't find a work study job that semester and again found myself with time. My studies in literature and my weaks efforts at writing LDS-tinged fiction for a creative writing class (while I was at community college) had sparked my own thinking about Mormon literature, but beyond "the Bishop's Horserace," I had no idea what was out there. With free time, I once again turned to the Insitute library---Berkeley had three full shelves of Mormon lit! [Almost all of it donated and from the 70's] I read "A Believing People," a couple of Clinton Larsen's plays, one of the early short story collections, even delved into some turn of the century home literature. It was challenging, interesting stuff, and I found myself looking for some sort of theoretical context or critical response to help me frame everything. This desire led me to the Internet, the Mormon-J list, followed their link to the BYU Mormon Lit pages, and linked from there to Benson Parkinson's AMl-List page. I relate this story, not because it is particularly unique or thrilling, but because it illustrates the challenge for those of us outside (and without the benefit of contacts from time at BYU, UofU etc.) of the intermountain west of even discovering this literary history and market. Even with my predisposition for literature (deeply ingrained by my mother) and an interest in Mormon culture, it was only by accident that I discovered that there was Mormon lit. beyond the young-adult market. Bless those either wonderfully giving or ignorant, perhaps distrustful, (what should we do with all of Uncle LaShawn's weird church books that aren't written by GA's? I don't know---give them to the institute. They'll take anything.) saints who filled those three shelves at the Berkeley Institute. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ 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, 05 Dec 2000 15:54:10 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Loved this long post from Scott Tarbet on SOTW. I wish I had time to = respond more specifically. I actually agree with pretty much everything = he's saying. I just want to add this note: SOTW is not different, or unusual, or particularly valuable in any way. = It's institional theatre, intended to invoke a positive response to a = particular value of the sponsoring institution. Structurally and = aesthetically, it's indistinguishable from, say Soviet drama in the = fifties, or Chinese opera as correlated by Mao, or a business presentation = created by a corporation. A few years ago, I was invited to write a play = to be performed at a theme restaurant. I wish I'd taken the commission, = frankly, because it was pretty lucrative, but I didn't have time. The guy = who got the gig is a friend of mine, and he said that the institutional = micromanagement, and the concern with issues of 'appropriateness' and = 'positive value' were identical to the approach taken by the Church when = it micromanages art commissions. SOTW isn't special or different or = particularly valuable because the sponsoring institution is one to whom I = owe my allegiance. =20 Now, that doesn't mean that it's without any value. It's been created for = a specific purpose, and presumably it achieves that purpose for most of = its audiences. And when I say 'it's a lot like Soviet drama', I'm not = being deliberately incendiary. I'm just saying that institutional drama = has a certain structure to it, and that our insitutional art shares = structural similarities with institutional art created by different = institutions. I well remember the first time I was in Moscow, and got to ride on the = subway. Moscow has a wonderful subway system, the best I've ever = seen--they did a few things right, unimportant ones. Anyway, in the = subway stations, they commissioned some painters to do these big murals, = and I was amazed by the paintings. Arnold Friberg redux. Big sunny = pieces of realism, with wonderfully attractive young people staring = soulfully into the heavens, optimistically embracing a brave new future. = As a Provo boy, I felt right at home. I had the same deja vu feeling when = I visited the Schuller's Crystal Cathedral in Anaheim, and walked through = their bookstore. Thought I was in a Deseret Book. Jack Weyland lives! = The books had exactly the same covers! =20 =20 Theologically, we don't have much in common, frankly, with evangelical = Christianity. Philosophically, we haven't a thing in common with Soviet = socialism. Aesthetically, we're blood brothers with both. And, manifold = ironies aside, I don't think these similarities should give us pause, = frankly. Aesthetics does not necessarily suggest an ideology. And I know = enough Mormon artists to know that we do not share any single aesthetic. = The institutional aesthetic of the Church itself is nothing more important = that an expression of a certain kind of Church culture. And one which, = IMHO, hasn't much, if anything, to do with the Gospel. Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:10:14 -0500 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _God's Army_ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric R. Samuelsen > He was twenty times more clued-in about the lives of the Elders in his mission than my mission president ever was. > > Eric Samuelsen Then that is just really sad, and I can only hope and pray that my daughter's MP is twenty times better than the both put together. Debbie Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:17:36 -0800 (PST) From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] DUTCHER, _God's Army_--PG Rating Debra asked: "His one question was why [_God's Army_] was rated PG?" It was language, pure and simple. My ears are still ringing from the "flips", "fetches," and "Oh My Hecks." When I saw the movie here in Georgia (it took forever to get here) I thought I was in Sacrament Meeting. Little kids where rustling about. People audibly said "amen" periodically. Somebody in front of me snuck in a Tuperware stuffed full of Cheerios. And then a guy next to me fell asleep. No one remembered to bring tissues. To top it all off, one "sister" allowed her 2 year old to run around the theater screaming, up and down the aisles, till someone got up and hailed an usher. (What ever happened to ushers in the church anyway? Anybody remember the "Usher" pins?) For me, _God's Army_ was wonderful, in spite of the weird feeling I had wandered into a "Rocky Mountain Picture Show." Ed ===== Among best sellers, Barnes & Noble ranks _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_ in its top 100 (thousand, that is). Available now at 10% off http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5SLFMY1TYD&mscssid=HJW5QQU1SUS12HE1001PQJ9XJ7F17G3C&srefer=&isbn=1560851368 __________________________________________________ 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, 6 Dec 2000 14:27:35 +1100 From: "Covell, Jason" Subject: RE: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) I have a wonderful little book at home called _Marxist Aesthetics_. You'd think so just from the title, right? [Hey, I love the density of "serious" marxist writing (that's a little micro-aesthetic in itself, but not in fact what the book's about), although this book is relatively straightforward in tone. Translated from a French original, I think.] Anyway, one thing I've been meaning to do is to quote slabs of it to some of the most conservative Church members I know, only substituting "gospel" for "marxism", "missionary work" for "promoting class struggle" etc etc. I can almost guarantee that the reaction would be nods, approving noises. The overwhelming focus of the book is on how art is (or should be) harnessed to furthering the cause, how artists have a duty to be aware that everything is either for or against the grand vision. Nothing strange to AML-listers here. I think Eric is absolutely right - and I'm no more horrified than he is, I think. Jason Covell > [Re: _Savior of the World_]... Structurally and aesthetically, it's > indistinguishable from, say Soviet drama in the fifties, or > Chinese opera as correlated by Mao, or a business > presentation created by a corporation... > ... > And when I say 'it's a lot like Soviet drama', I'm not being > deliberately incendiary. I'm just saying that institutional > drama has a certain structure to it, and that our > insitutional art shares structural similarities with > institutional art created by different institutions. > ... > Theologically, we don't have much in common, frankly, with > evangelical Christianity. Philosophically, we haven't a > thing in common with Soviet socialism. Aesthetically, we're > blood brothers with both. > ... > Eric Samuelsen > > > > > > > - > 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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:31:20 -0800 From: Rob Pannoni Subject: [AML] Orgazmo (was: DUTCHER, _God's Army_) "Debra L. Brown" wrote: > > Now, I haven't seen _Orgazmo_, but I'm going to assume from the synopsis, > that it isn't telling a fun and engaging 95 minutes about the everyday life > of a Mormon missionary. Has anyone here seen it? Okay, I will confess. I am a total heathen. I've seen _Orgazmo_. I guess fun and engaging is in the eye of the beholder. If you like South Park and have a high tolerance for graphic sexual humor, it has a few entertaining moments. But it's not a movie about real mormon missionaries any more than _Attack of the Killer Tomatoes_ is about real tomatoes. It is entirely over-the-top farce. The mormon reference is sort of incidental--a generic portrayal of a religious stereotype. The only thing Parker got right about mormons missionaries was the white shirts. The rest was more in line with Bible-belt religions. The missionary ends every phone conversation with his girlfriend with the phrase "Jesus loves you and so do I." He needs to earn money because "temple weddings are so expensive." It makes you doubt that Parker has ever actually had a conversation with a mormon missionary. Fortunately, because of the farcical nature of the movie, I don't think anyone would come away thinking it represented real mormon missionary life or beliefs. It's not intended as an attack on mormonism. Parker has said publicly that he has mormon friends and doesn't have anything against mormonism as a religion. The main character is portrayed sympathetically, if totally erroneously He is the hero--a pretty decent guy in Parker's weird, off-kilter universe. Actually, the movie is as much a lampooning of the porn industry as it is of religion. It stars Ron Jeremy, a widely-recognized porn star, which gives the movie a sort of insider joke "we can laugh at ourselves" quality. Somehow, the porn industry making fun of itself makes the mormon parody seem less offensive, or at least less hostile. It may be in bad taste, but it is intended as good fun. I doubt many on the list would enjoy the movie's "nothing is sacred" style of humor. If you don't see it, you certainly won't have missed much. - -- Rob Pannoni Rapport Systems http://www.rapport-sys.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:40:39 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > As far as doing shows that invite the Spirit, that becomes a very tricky issue, actually. My experience is that the Spirit can manifest itself in many ways and in many venues, and that it's perfectly possible for one person to be deeply moved by and touched by the Spirit, while the person sitting next to him is unmoved, even offended. I would assume when the Brethren make recommendations on how to change a play to make it more spiritually inviting, they are doing so based on what _they_ think is inspiring. But what inspires an apostle of Christ is bound to be radically different from what inspires a person in need of conversion. Therefore, when the Brethren attempt to tweak a work of art to make it more inspiring, I fear they may actually be making it unrelatable to those most in need of inspiration. - -- 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: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:45:29 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _God's Army_ "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > He was twenty times more clued-in about the lives of the Elders in his mission than my mission president ever was. Or mine. I only figured out after the fact that my mission president considered me a problem elder. I wasn't a problem elder. I was just clueless. I had no idea how to be an effective missionary. Nor did anyone teach me how--not senior companions, not zone leaders, not the mission president. No one ever tried to discuss it with me directly, either; they just beat around the bush and tried to second guess what was in my mind and what would help me. My verdict: if there's anything about the mission president in _God's Army_ that's unbelievable, it was that he wasn't clueless enough. - -- 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, 05 Dec 2000 17:14:49 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: [AML] Christmas get-together on 12/18 Monday, December 18, looks like the best date for those who voted for an informal AML get together, prompted by AML-List moderator Jonathan Langford's visit to Utah. As of now, we will meet at Guadalahonky's in Draper at 5:30 p.m. for dinner. That's the only firm plan. Afterwards, different groups could spontaneously go downtown SLC for lights and dept. store windows, or go to a movie in Sandy somewhere, or go to someone's house for some socializing and deep literary talk, or try to make it to Marilyn's Villa musical in Springville, or go their separate ways. I am not personally offering to arrange anything in advance except for dinner reservations at 5:30, but I favor downtown SLC sites and ice cream and maybe a late movie if a group goes to something I want to see (I don't get downtown to the Tower or other artsy theaters very often, so it might be a good opportunity). I'm also open to live music at the Zephyr or elsewhere, if something good is on that night (the band Jerry Joseph and the Jack Mormons might even yield AML-List commentary). Bring newspapers and ideas, if you're up for things beyond dinner and want to see if you can entice anyone else along. Please RSVP directly to me so I can make us reservations at Guad's (chosen mainly for its convenience to both Salt Lake and Utah Counties). Anyone can still jump on board at any point, but if our numbers get unwieldy we may have to split up tables. Also, we could change the restaurant if the chads lean that way. Happy holidays, Chris Bigelow chrisb@enrich.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:52:48 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Orgazmo (was: DUTCHER, _God's Army_) "Debra L. Brown" wrote: > Now, I haven't seen _Orgazmo_, but I'm going to assume from the synopsis, > that it isn't telling a fun and engaging 95 minutes about the everyday life > of a Mormon missionary. Has anyone here seen it? I'm not too proud to admit I have--although I waited until it was on cable to minimize my financial contribution to it. There are two things to discuss about it: was it offensive, and was it any good? It was definitely offensive. The picture it painted of a Mormon missionary, even as a spoof, was crude and utterly inaccurate, even beyond the bounds of what would expect from a satire. But was it any good, which when dealing with a satire means, was it funny? The answer is no; it didn't even have that redeeming quality. The jokes were just too stupid and irrelevant to genuine LDS culture to have any impact on anyone except the ignorant. Contrary to what one might expect, the film didn't even have any nudity--it doesn't even redeem itself at that prurient level. If you didn't see _Orgazmo_, you didn't miss a thing. - -- 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: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 07:57:15 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] DUTCHER, _God's Army_ >Well, as the one that reintroduced the topic to AML, I kind of take >exception to the term picking apart the movie. I made some comments on it, >more good comments then bad comments, but I could be wrong. Yes, things are >picked apart here on AML, I don't know how many times I have suffered post >after post of people picking apart _The Work and the Glory_ series, or even >_Legacy_, which I admit isn't perfect, but I like it. > I rarely post my opinion on anything because I can't pick apart the >lyrics to _I Am A Child of God_ let alone _God's Army_ with the style and >finesse of Eric Snyder or D. Martindale. Don't let that stop you. I use a ham-handed, bull-in-a-China shop approach, and as long as I don't outright insult someone, the moderator usually lets it pass. Like arats, crticism of art has different aesthetics. I agree with Eric Samuelsen virtually 99 percent of the time, but he is a lot more articulate than me -- I tend to foam at the mouth and go ballistic. Both *opinions* are valid. >Now again, I could be >wrong, but is >_God's Army_ immune from being picked apart because it's the first time a >film about Mormons has reached such a large non-Mormon audience? No, I picked it apart quite a bit when it first appeared, but not for the same reasons you did. I thought the ending was contrived, for instance. It seemed tacked on to me. After we'd been seeing an hour and a half of real life missionaries, he throws in a typical Mormon-y ending which, except for his own masterful performance, could have easily been schmaltzy as well as gratuitous. > It's no >more immune from being picked apart than, say, _Orgazmo_ which is: > > Synopsis: "South Park" creator Trey Parker's film (which was created >before South Park's success) centers on Mormon missionary Joe Young and >his unusual entry into the pornographic movie industry. > >Now, I haven't seen _Orgazmo_, but I'm going to assume from the synopsis, >that it isn't telling a fun and engaging 95 minutes about the everyday life >of a Mormon missionary. Has anyone here seen it? >Debbie Brown Before you joined the list, we went the rounds on Orgazmo, also. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:11:20 -0700 From: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Okay, Eric D. Snider -- you've got the bully pulpit. Don't you agree it's time for a new term for this kind of presentation? And aren't you just the guy to get the ball rolling? If such a term were in use the Church wouldn't have had to apply the term "musical" to SOTW with the concomitant confusion and dissatisfaction by those of us who were expecting a real musical. To be useful the term would have to be quickly adopted, meaning it would have to be intuitively grasped by those hovering at the lowest common denominator at which the Church aims its presentations. It would need to be broadly applicable to devotional presentations done by Young Women and stakes and Relief Societies. And it would need to be snappy, without boring institutional overtones . . . like "devotional presentation" ;-) This reminds me of Chesterton's wager that he could get a made-up word introduced into the English lexicon and into wide use in a period of a few months, as evidenced by it appearing in print in the Times of London from a writer unacquainted with the wager. The word: "quiz". - -- Scott Tarbet - -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Snider The problem is that the church isn't touting this as a missionary tool or a method of perfecting the saints. They're calling it a theatrical production. I agree that you have to judge a work by what it is ... but what if the artist himself is incorrect about what it is? Do we judge "Savior of the World" by theater standards (which is what the church says it is), or do we judge it by make-the-audience-feel-fuzzy standards (which is what it actually is)? - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:33:11 -0700 From: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric R. Samuelsen > As far as doing shows that invite the Spirit, that becomes a very > tricky issue, actually. My experience is that the Spirit can > manifest itself in many ways and in many venues, and that it's > perfectly possible for one person to be deeply moved by and > touched by the Spirit, while the person sitting next to him is > unmoved, even offended. I don't believe that there are certain > kinds of art that are automatically inviting to the Spirit and > other kinds of art that automatically offend the Spirit. I'm far > more moved by and made receptive to the Spirit by Picasso's > Guernica, for example, than by the Christus. I agree that the form of the art doesn't equate to offense or invitation of the Spirit. But I also think there are kinds of art that are more faith-promoting to a greater number of people. "Guernica" may make you and me weep, but it doesn't have that effect on the majority of those who view it, let alone the public at large. That makes us "elite" by definition. And the Church can't aim its efforts at the elite. The responsibility therefore devolves on the faithful elite to understand and support the differing aims of the Church's projects. > >If we don't like it, we're certainly free to stage alternative > >productions. > > Not just free to, but obligated to. We're all supposed to be > anxiously engaged in, for example, community and public service. > I think that for active LDS people to be engaged politically is > compatible with the Gospel. But that may mean that we are > engaged politically in opposing camps and causes. This doesn't > trouble me. By the same token, we LDS artists have an obligation > to express ourselves artistically, and (I'm going to state this > strongly), an obligation to base our work in differing, perhaps > even competing aesthetic principles. We do not all believe in > the same aesthetic. Nor should we. Huzzah! Let me take it a step further and say that I think we have an obligation to challenge the cultural biases of Mormondom. We need to be staging productions that shine a strong light on and hold up a clear mirror to our society. It can only make us stronger. Now if would only put butts in the seats.... - -- Scott Tarbet - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:33:02 -0700 From: "Scott Tarbet" Subject: RE: [AML] _Savior of the World_ (Drama) Such a wealth of things to respond to! > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Scott Bronson > Back to my lamentation ... many people coming to see "Savior of the > World" will think it's great art. That's fine. My daughter loved it. I > will not deride their judgement. What I think is unfortunate is that > many people will also believe that great art is created by committee with > apostles making everything "appropriate" in the end. I'm really tempted to enter into the "what is art" discussion here, a topic we all doubtless pummeled to death as undergrads. So I'll content myself with saying that there are many different levels of art (starting at the "refrigerator" and "cave" levels ;-)) -- all of it art. I think it's a dangerous trap to fall into that only efforts that tingle the sensibilities of the artistic elite can be considered art. So can a production from a committee be art? Yes. Can it be "great"? Difficult in the extreme, but again, yes. Is SOTW great ? It probably *is* great art in the minds of some audience members. And I don't think that's unfortunate at all. As an LDS artist I'm just happy that the Church is validating my art form, if not turning out stellar examples of it. > Again, I am not > saying that the church did anything wrong, or underhanded or anything > like that. A little unorganized maybe -- several people were cut from > the show at the last minute and some of them had their feelings hurt. Ouch ouch ouch! That would have been devastating. I feel very badly for those who were cut after all that effort, for David and Eric and whomever else the duty of hatchet man fell to, and if it was compounded by being handled badly that was even more unfortunate. > What I'm trying > to reiterate here is that the "institutional bias in the Church > against arts and artists" that you mentioned will be -- I fear -- fueled > by this play, rather than doused. I find that unfortunate. It saddens > me ... for myself, yes, and for every artist trying to gain favor in the > eyes of their own community. I'm curious why you feel that the bias may be fueled? > And the questions arise that I must seriously consider now: Is > exuberance irreverent? Is the passion in my work unsuitable in the eyes > of God? Is the tone of my crafted expression unworthy of divine praise? I think the more appropriate question might be, "Are my exuberance and passion appropriate in a Church-sponsored production?" When my exuberance and passion are called into question I like to remember King David dancing naked in the streets before the Lord in his exuberance, and what trouble it got him into with the Correlation Committee ;-). Bottom line, though, was that divine praise is divine praise, and the story is more about the stick up the back of society than David's love of the Lord. I have come to understand and accept the Church's "lowest common denominator" standards, not just in art, but in all its teaching materials. After all, the Lord himself set the standard when he said, "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." Now don't get me wrong -- I'm not preaching a gospel of mediocrity. I'm just saying that the Church's official efforts have to be geared to that standard. Those of us with higher aspirations have a duty to seek out other venues for our praise. BTW, I'm not without hope that the theater at the Conference Center will be used for more exuberant offerings, just not as official Church presentations. - -- Scott Tarbet - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:43:10 -0800 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Anti-Intellectualism Back at the beginning of this thread, on Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:43:35 Jacob Proffitt wrote: > But I don't think that the solution to the problem is to develop > better understanding of intellectuals or of anti-intellectuals. > I think that the root of the problem is the line being drawn > in the first place. This is a fine point. I am uncomfortable with distinctions such as intellectual/anti-intellectual, liberal/conservative. They don't often make sense to me, though I'm not sure how to avoid them, except for refusing to use them as labels for people rather than labels for certain kinds of mental actions. Jacob continues: > 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. I often get a sense when we discuss intellectuals on the list that people use 'intellectual' as a synonym for 'liberal,' votever dot meinz. I have a hard time making sense of that equation. What would you call someone who holds a Yale Ph.D. in AmLit, is a Mark Twain scholar, served as a university president, has a polished literary style, cares passionately about ideas and their consequences and writes books and essays in his spare time if not intellectual? Is he politically liberal? I don't know, and the next time I see him I probably won't ask. (The last time I saw him was at Gene Dalton's funeral in my parents' ward (he and Pat attended there while at BYU), where my father spoke. Afterwards he said to his freshman English teacher, "Marden, I want you to speak at _my_ funeral," and my father missed the opportunity to say, "Only if you'll speak at mine, Jeff." One of those replies you don't think of till later. (I'm afraid that second possibility is more likely than the first and I'm not happy about it. Donna keeps telling how she's seen my father go down hill the last couple of years, and my mother says the dr. says maybe a couple of years. Feels like a personal defeat for me. His uncles and great uncles lived into their 90s and 100s and noone in his generation has made it past the mid 80s. Reminds me a bit of the line in Bela Petsco's "Salem" where Agyar says, "Sometimes I get so angry at Salem [for dying in childbirth].")) Or, what would you call a man who cares passionately about ideas and their consequences, their effects on the family and on civil life, had a career in public communications before moving on to another career that involves a lot of writing and public speaking, reads a lot writes books and essays in his spare time, has a polished literary style and a fine sense of humor with great comic timing, and invites Joe Lieberman to write a blurb for his book. Surely, anyone who uses the intellect in all those ways is an intellectual. Some people would also insist such a person is a liberal. Indeed, that's what the picketers at October General Conference were saying (in the spirit of D&C 123 I collect anti-Mormon pamphlets, "the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality" (love that phrase--anyone who can use words like that must surely care about the intellect and its powers and abilities): "Gordon B. Hinckley is Helping Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman Get Elected . . ." (They should have taken their message to TV, maybe Utah would have voted Democrat--love that line in Dean Hughes' _Rumors of War_, "This is a Democratic state. A vote for a Republican is a wasted vote.") It is more useful to talk about how intellectuals function in public life than to associate them with either the liberal or conservative side of public life, or the left or right arm of the Body of Christ. A look at how intellect functions in people's lives suggests that many people we might not consider intellectuals are, and that the intellect is exceedingly important in knowing the mind of God. It is possible, of course, to define _intellectual_ as a term which has no reference to intellect, learning, love of ideas and concern for their consequences, and give it a wholly negative connotation, but that definition has consequences most LDS would not like. Perhaps the patron saint of anti-intellectual philosophers (not an oxymoron by his definition) is Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher who describes an intellectual as someone who wants to lead other people, tell them how to live, influence their thinking, control their lives. In one passage (in _The True Believer_, I think, which I've only read a small part of so far) he says that intellectuals from Moses to Lenin have always felt that the current generation is not good enough to enter the promised land and will have to die out before we can have a true utopia. I suppose most LDS would be pretty uncomfortable with Hoffer's including Moses and Lenin in the same three words, especially if they stop to think that Hoffer would also group our modern prophets and apostles with Moses and Lenin as people who spend their lives telling other people how to live, and who are therefore arrogant and dangerous. And from what I gather reading _Working and Thinking on the Waterfront_ Hoffer would consider himself conservative. I mention this to emphasize what I've said before, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to equate conservative with Mormon and liberal with 666 (which the White Stone Foundation, who produced the handout quoted above, airbrushed into the forehead of Gordon B. Hinckley in one part of their "whole concatenation of diabolical rascality" (Gotta love a man who can use words like that--hey, wasn't there an intellectual in the Church who said he felt like shouting Hallelujah every time he thought how fortunate he was to have known that man?) Not that I think there's no value in Hoffer's bracing definition, or that his analysis of intellectuals doesn't give us some tools to use in thinking about the world and how we should live. If I can scare up some time I'll post on that later. BTW, the thread on Stupid People reminds me of a rap group in SLC. Part of their act is to play stupid. Another part is to keep time by banging chains on a table. They call themselves the Moron Table Nicker Choir. Harlow Soderborg Clark So few people appreciate the ineffectual qualities of a lady. - --Mrs. Malaprop (in Richard Brinsley Sheridan's _The Rivals_) Renounce war and proclaim peace. - --Joseph Smith (August 6) We train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot. - --Spencer W. Kimball, "The False Gods We Worship," _Ensign_, June 1976 ________________________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #215 ******************************