From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #341 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, May 30 2001 Volume 01 : Number 341 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:27:10 -0500 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Wanted! Dead or Alive! (was: WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_) Jim Picht: If Weyland isn't getting better (assuming he's still alive - I was out of town for a couple of weeks, I'm not up on the history of this thread, and I don't know whether we're flogging a dead horse or a live one), critics have an obligation to tell him so, the more so since he writes for sale, not just to hand out his stories as gifts for friends. _______________ I'm pretty sure this is a live one, Jim! I would hope he got better over time. I enjoyed a story or two of his many years ago. My teenagers enjoy him now. If I were still a teenager, I would probably still enjoy his work. But, alas, I have grown old ... (and don't care for all that orange stuff on my hands anymore -- reference to snipped food item). 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, 29 May 2001 18:38:55 -0600 From: LuAnnStaheli Subject: Re: [AML] Brady UDALL I've heard he is LDS. He is giving a workshop or judging a contest for the Writer's at Work event comng up soon in SLC at Westminster College. I just started reading "Hounds. . ." Lu Ann Staheli Tom Johnson wrote: > Hi, I'm quite ignorant about Brady Udall's lds background--is he mormon? = > I just finished his latest, and had read hounds last year and fell in = > love with buckeye the elder and beautiful places. Has the discussion of = > edgar mint already occupied a stream of posts on this list, or not? Can = > anyone refer me to some links with udall interviews and other = > information (besides the www.edgarmint.com page)? Thanks > > Tom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:10:15 -0500 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN Book of Mormon Manuscripts Published for the First Time: Mormon Village From: Kent Larsen To: Mormon News Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 22:00:00 -0500 Subject: MN Book of Mormon Manuscripts Published for the First Time: Mormon Village 9May01 A3 [From Mormon-News] Book of Mormon Manuscripts Published for the First Time PROVO, UTAH -- "Publishing the original and printer's manuscripts is arguably the most important work FARMS has ever been involved in it's a harbinger of landmark research to come in the Book of Mormon analytic text series," says Daniel Peterson, FARMS Chairman of the Board. These volumes help interested readers discover the original phrasing of the Book of Mormon (including Hebrew-like expressions), provide remarkable insight into the process by which Joseph Smith translated, and show how editors and printers have modified the wording to make it conform to the expectations of contemporary English readers. The original manuscript is the text written down by scribes as Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Most of this manuscript was destroyed by mold and water seepage. Only 28 percent of the original is extant. The printer's manuscript is the handwritten copy made to take to the printer for typesetting. It is virtually 100 percent extant. The volumes feature the following: * Typographic facsimiles of each manuscript (an exact reproduction of the text in typescript) * A fragment showing what is considered the oldest existing sample of Joseph Smith's handwriting * Color and ultraviolet photographs of select parts of the manuscripts * A history and physical description of the manuscripts Source: Book of Mormon Manuscripts Published for the First Time Mormon Village 9May01 A3 http://www.mormonvillage.com/viewer.asp?id=1440&type=article By Cami Hurst >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:25:06 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Hale Theater >Nan McCulloch wrote: >> >> It is interesting to me, an actor >> in the play, to greet an appreciative sold out house every night since we >> opened--and hear the comments from hundreds of people telling me how much >> they enjoyed the play and how funny they thought it was. These theater >> goers seem to be reasonably intelligent somewhat sophisticated folks. > Thom Duncan: >The majority of theatre-goers of the Hale Center Theatre never darken >the door of other theatres. They are not theatre-goers per se, but are >Hale Center Theatre goers. Their plays appeal to a certain kind of >person and as long as they continue in that vein, they'll have >audiences. They don't love theatre as much as they love laughing and >being heart-warmed. Nothing wrong with that, in my estimation, by the >way. I agree whole-heartedly with this, though I would amend it to allow that many Hale Center patrons also attend the SCERA in Orem. (I know, because I recognize a lot of the same people at both theaters.) Hale and SCERA are very nearly the same in terms of content, though the SCERA tends to do more musicals and Hale does more straight comedies. It has struck me often that while Utahns claim to be great lovers of theater, this really only goes so far. We talk about how many theaters we have -- far more than we should, given our population size -- and how we love to be patrons of the arts. But when you get right down to it, what do people actually go see? Shows they've seen before ("Joseph," "Forever Plaid," "Fiddler on the Roof"), shows their friends and relatives are in, and shows at one particular theater they always go to no matter what. Put on an unfamiliar show or a drama or one that challenges people's sensibilities, and suddenly people aren't quite the theater-lovers they used to be. This is fine, I guess. Like Thom said, people can be a patron of just one theater (or one type of show) and that's OK. I'm just bemused -- yes, bemused, not angry -- at how we extol our cultural virtues in speech, but act much differently in practice. Going back to what Nan said, I don't doubt that Hale patrons are intelligent enough (as much as the general populace, I suppose). But sophisticated theater-goers, they are not. Assuming Hale is their primary source of theater -- and I honestly believe that to be the case with most of them -- that means they might go to a show every six weeks. This makes them very knowledgeable of Hale theater, but not very wise at all about theater in general. One hates to sound like a snob, but much of what the Hale Center does is stuff that, frankly, would be the most entertaining to someone who doesn't see a whole lot of theater. People who go a lot, to a variety of venues, have seen those jokes before, seen better acting before, and heard better dialogue before. I have to be careful here, because my extreme dislike for the current production might make it sound like I'm saying, "If you like this show, it's because you don't get out much." And that sort of is what I'm saying, but in a much nicer way. Facts are facts: If you don't see much theater, you're going to be a lot easier to please. And easy-to-please is a perfectly OK thing for someone to be. But one shouldn't declare the easy-to-please people's favorites as being great theater, because that's setting the bar too low. How can you say a Hyundai is best when you've never even driven a Rolls-Royce? Eric D. Snider - -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 09:50:29 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: RE: [AML] Submission Advice Requested First of all, your initial query letter should have stated that it was a = simultaneous submission, right? If you do that, unless the agent ASKS for = an exclusive look and you agree to it, you are free to mail out the = material to whoever asks for it, whenever they ask. But in any subsequent = correspondence you should always remind them it is a simultaneous = submission. As long as you inform them, you're acting ethically and don't = need to worry about overlapping submissions. (As I've described before, I had the difficult situation of having about = 20 agents all say yes at the same time to my promiscuously circulated = query about my missionary memoir, about half a dozen of them quite = aggressively e-mailing and phoning multiple times and asking for exclusives= . I find that if I am up front with them, they are generally gracious and = cooperative, although they will keep campaigning for exclusives if they = think your project sounds hot and you have to start ranking them. I = limited the exclusives to two weeks and had several agents willing to wait = in line. But my manuscript, essentially an edited/rewritten transcript of = my missionary letters and journals, flopped, so I pulled it out of = circulation and am trying to start over with a narrative more in the style = of _Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil_. Most of the agents said = they'd take a look at that when I'm done, hopefully by the end of this = year. The power of an effective query letter is astonishing.) Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:45:03 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ Travis Manning asked: > Would you consider Dutcher's movie-making efforts as a form of proselyting? I think to see Dutcher's movies as a form of proselyting is to see all film as propoganda. A film with happy, devout Catholics proselytizes for the Catholic church, a show about corrupt preachers may be anti-religious proselyting, a show with happy gay men proselytizes the gay life-style while a show with miserable gay men proselytizes against it, _The West Wing_ is pro-Democrat anti-Republican propoganda, _The Practice_ would have us believe that there's something noble about the practice of law while_LA Law_ suggests that it's glamorous, and _Leave it to Beaver_ is propoganda for patriarchal, nuclear families and an affront to single parents everywhere. Perhaps I exagerate, but I don't think that art and literature that anyone cares about comes without a point of view. Whether intended or not, there's always a statement to the effect, "this is the way the word is," or "this is the way the world ought to be," or "this is the way it ought not to be." From that perspective, it seems to me trivial to claim that Dutcher proselytizes with his films. You might as well note that the cameras he shoots them with have lenses and that his actors were all born on Earth. The observation itself is uninformative and uninteresting. The hows and whys of a films proselytizing, on the other hand, seem to me very interesting questions, just as from a more technical perspective might be a discussion of how the camera was used. I think we can take the _existence_ of the camera as given. Jim Picht - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:08:25 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ I'd like to ammend my last post to note that, so far as there are Mormons in Dutcher's movie, one would expect it to take either a positive or negative view of them (if the Mormonism is completely neutral, then it's probably irrelevant, and one would wonder what it's doing in the movie at all). Of course, he could have set the movie in a town of Baptists or Unitarians or Moonies, but then he'd have had to change the flavor and behavior of his characters (the dynamic between members and minister in a Unitarian congregation just isn't the same as that in an LDS ward, and a town full of Unitarians certainly wouldn't see the world the same way as a town full of Mormons). I'd think that rather than ask whether the film proselytizes for Mormonism, then, it would be more to the point to ask why Mormons are central at all. But one could ask the same of any film that features any religion, any political party, any gender preference. ("Hey, they're using a regular pair of heterosexual parents in _Seventh Heaven_. Are they proselytizing? Why not make it a black family of Wiccans headed by two committed lesbians, one a Wiccan priestess?") Why Mormons and not Baptists? I dunno. Why Baptists? Aren't Mormons part of American diversity? Something about this whole question just annoys me. It's not that we're interested in the proselytizing element of the film here, but that we ask the question about a film featuring Mormons as if it has particular relevance, as if a film about Mormons by a Mormon will be particularly sneaky in the propoganda department. If that's true (and we are a proselytizing church, so it may be), then Mormon film (and literature) always has to be suspect as something other than art. That seems to me an awfully heavy burden of assumption to place on LDS artists. Jim Picht - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 03:59:39 +0800 From: Steve Subject: [AML] FCMA Pearl Awards Hi listers, The FCMA (Faith-Centered Music Association) has announced its list of finalists for the 2001 Pearl Awards, to be held July 13th at the Cottonwood Auditorium in Salt Lake City. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/music/010525pearl.html Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:58:58 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] (Andrew's Poll) Mormon Juvenile Literature (Comp.) [MOD: This is a compilation post of several responses to save List slots.] From: "Morgan Adair" >>> andrewrhall@hotmail.com 05/29/01 01:16PM >>> > >So, tell us what you think. What would you reccomend for my kids? >Oh, also be sure to tell us roughly what age group the books are = directed=20 >towards. I am interested in everything from picture books for small=20 >children up. _A World of Faith_ by Peggy Fletcher Stack and Kathleen Peterson (illustrat= or), Signature Books. The book gives a brief introduction to the origins, = beliefs, and practices of a couple dozen of the world's religions (just a = couple pages on each), including, of course, LDS. The artwork is gorgeous = and richly symbolic. The author and illustrator spoke at the Great Salt Lake Book Festival a = couple years ago. Peggy Stack said that she met with leaders of the Muslim = community in Salt Lake to review what she had written about Islam. They = told her that she captured the essence of the religion so well that surely = Allah must be leading her to become a Muslim. MBA - ---------------------------------------------- From: "Sharlee Glenn" Andrew Hall wrote: > Question for the group: > What are your favorite pieces of Mormon juvenile (or young adult) and > children's literature? Please tell us what impressed you about your > choices. By Mormon literature, I mean works either written by Mormons (of > any kind), or works about Mormons (by anyone). Aargh! I can't believe you did this to me. I've been *such* an exemplary lurker of late, outdone only by Eric Samuelsen (Eric? Hello? Eric? We miss you.). Unfortunately, I can't pass this one by. I don't have much time though, so this is going to be quick and purely off the top of my head. Picture Books: Rick Walton is our LDS picture book writer extraordinaire. He has published extensively on the national market (Pig, Pigger, Piggest, Once There Was a Bull. . . Frog, How Many Bunnies, etc.). He's also done a couple of things with Deseret Book. The Beuhners (Carolyn and her husband, what's-his-name) have also published (very successfully) on the national market. Their book, _Fanny's Dream_ is one of my all-time favorite picture books. The LDS publishers haven't really done much in this genre yet. I know that Covenant is actively pursuing picture book manuscripts right now, but their focus will be exclusively LDS-oriented stuff. The two most successful (in terms of sales) LDS picture books currently on the market are _The Walnut Tree_ (the story of the walnut tree planted by President Hinkley and how it became the pulpit in the new Conference center) and _The First Vision_. MiddleGrade (ages 8-12): We have a number of very fine LDS writers publishing middle grade fiction in the national arena. Carol Lynch Williams and Laurel Brady immediately come to mind. Carol's best book to date is probably _The True Colors of Catilynn Jackson_. Dean Hughes has also published numerous middle grade books, many of them with a sports theme. _Family Pose_ is one of his best. My favorite middle grade/YA book published by an LDS publisher is, of course, _Circle Dance_ by yours truly. _The Kaleidoscope Season_ by Sharon Jarvis (?) is quite good, although it is almost ruined by the overtly didactic ending. I have not read any of Chris Heimerdinger's Tennis Shoes books, but I know they are very popular. My 11-year-old son recently discovered them and read all seven (?) books in the series in a two week period. YA: Louise Plummer is probably our best writer of young adult fiction. Her recently released book, _A Dance for Three_ (HarperCollins?) is outstanding and is receiving a great deal of critical attention. It is an amazing book--bold, funny, heartbreaking, and real. A.E. Cannon is another excellent YA writer. _Amazing Gracie_ won a number of awards (ALA Best Book, etc.). She just had a new book come out, but I can't remember the title. In terms of YA books published by LDS publishers, _Summer Fire_ by Doug Thayer is still one of the best. Both _Circle Dance_ and _The Kaleidoscope Season_ probably straddle the line between YA and middle-grade. That's it for now. I'm sure I've forgotten some important titles, so I'll probably be sending an addendum in the next couple of days. Cheers and shrieks! Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - ---------------------------------------------------------- >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Tue May 29 16:00:17 2001 > > So, tell us what you think. What would you reccomend for my kids? > Oh, also be sure to tell us roughly what age group the books are directed > towards. I am interested in everything from picture books for small > children up > Andrew Hall > Pittsburgh, PA > I know members of this list will probably scoff at my choice. But I love the Tennis Shoes Books. It's like watching a Mormon Indiana Jones movie. Sometimes when I read, I want to go on a great adventure. And I always feel that when I read one. Anna Wight - ------------------------------------------------ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 01:42:33 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) LuAnnStaheli wrote: > > Is anyone taking into account the fact that Weyland himself admits in today's > market he wouldn't get a book accepted or published if he hadn't already > established a track record? The first of the 22 immutable laws of marketing (there was such a book by that title) is, it's better to be first than to be best. That's why Jack Weyland is popular. He was one of the first, if not the first, popularist LDS authors, back when the competition was approximately nil. He is now surviving on his laurels because he followed the first law: he was first with his product. > I've heard him speak at a couple of writer's > conferences and he always credits his editor for patience as he writes, then > rewrites, then rewrites again and again to the suggestions she gives him. I am familiar with Weyland's attitude toward his own writing. I respect him for recognizing his own limitations. Which just makes me wonder all the more, why doesn't he seem to want to learn better skills? I know, I know, because people buy his books as is, so why bother? =Ahem= I think the question is its own answer. > Each of us is entitled to > his/her own personal taste in reading, and no one has the right to tell anyone > their taste is wrong. Once again, yes, we all agree everyone is entitled to his/her own taste in reading. Who is arguing with you on that? But the critic has every right to say an author's writing is not good. That's what the critic is for. The critic has no reason to exist if he can't point out poor writing, no matter how popular the writing is. And I still say Weyland would only improve his audience if he understood how to handle POV and backstory. Yes, previous generations accepted different standards on these things, and the rules we use today are recent cultural developments that only modern audiences care about. But isn't that who Weyland is writing to? So why would following the rules today's reading audiences expect drive Weyland's audience away? I'm still baffled. - -- 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, 30 May 2001 11:01:41 -0400 From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted scene request: I didn't think God's Army was quite daring enough. If it'd been my mission, the healing episode would have ended in a morgue. Anyway, my wife and I were talking, and we think it wouldn't be too risque--okay, it might be, but not lewd--if you slipped in a subtle, not even a scene, but a suggestion of a scene, a hint of something "extra" between the two sisters as they dress or undress in the morning or night--a little longer stare, an extra pause of the hand that helps button a dress, a full-body hug that lasts an instant too long. That would set sirens roaring! Tom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:10:51 -0400 From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: [AML] Missionary Stories (was: Female Writer Wanted) >Of course we need a real perspective from a woman's > side. I've read and heard more stories about male missionaries than I > really care to have read, and I'm kinda tired of them. There hasn't > really been anything new in them in the last fifty years. Yet another > expose of how silly Elder missionaries are fills me with a colossal > sense of "so what?" > Scott, I actually haven't read any missionary stories at all, though I recently ordered some (the danube one and the benson duo); didn't pelasco or petasco or something already write some female missionary stories? i'm curious to know which missionary stories you've read and which is the best, since you've read so many. which is the literary masterpiece of missionary narrators. I'm surprised that you would think the missionary novel is a sort of closed genre, defunct of interest, considering the yearly crusades of reinforcements. but then again my lack of reading doesn't inform me to give a tenable opinion. Tom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:16:12 -0700 From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: Re: [AML] Influencing Mormon Culture This response addresses several points made. To Jeff's point about a possible regional influence: I moved from Oregon to Ohio and then back again, and only among Mormon men do I get the heck beat out of me when one hugs me. It's also not simply a matter of the context. I've given or received blessings that brought tears to both recipient and blesser, very emotional stuff, but the hugs still involve getting beat on. If there are Mormon men who don't hug like this under any circumstance, I'd like to meet them. I'm sure they exist. One I knew was a recent convert. I imagine by now he's getting with the program. I can hear the slaps now. To Jeff's point: >If a writer decides that the foibles of LDS culture getting in the >way of doctrine would be a great starting point for a novel, I agree >completely. But if they write the book to prove their point and change >people's cultural attitudes, they should write a pamphlet. Jeff, I don't believe and never have believed that any writer of any kind writes purely for the art. I've never read anything not biased by its author. The story may not draw any conclusions, but the questions the author asks are the questions the author finds important. It reminds me of a very old Dennis the Menace episode. Mr. Wilson was competing to be allowed into a bird-calling club and practicing. A beatnik heard him practicing and practically worshipped him for having made music that completely obliterates all melody and rhythm. Writers who claim to not be pushing an agenda of some kind remind me of that beatnik, looking for pure literature, unfettered by anything but the drive to tell the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story. To Jacob's point about a cultural distance in general among men: I agree, Jacob. I do seem to be singling out Mormon men, but that's only because of the almost ritualistic obligatory flapping that goes along with hugging. At a recent seminar I attended on the importance of touch, given by a well-known author, he described three embraces that are common among people who are afraid of what same-gender affection might mean. They were: 1. The A-frame hug. This is where you lean forward and make certain that nothing below the general area of the diaphragm touches. It's quite comical. 2. The side-saddle hug. This is where the two people approach each other almost from the side, again in an effort to minimize the contact points. 3. The duck hug. This is in reference to the quacking sound the hands make when they slap the other guy's back. I think that modern American men in general are too phobic about contact, not just Mormon men. We just someone chose the duck hug over the A-frame and side-saddle. There are probably lots of places around the world where this is irrelevant, because affection among men isn't suspect. I fear that modern American is all too dirty-minded. "To the impure, all things are impure." It is reflected in our cultural artistic expressions. What I hope will not happen is that the more dirty-minded American becomes, the more standoffish Mormon men will become, and the more bland our literature. By the way, at that seminar, I was paired with an older gentleman to be shown how a real hug should be. There was a long embrace, no A-frames, side-saddles, or duck whacks. It was to last a couple of minutes. Not long into it, he began to shake and cry. When it was over, we were supposed to tell each other what he felt. He cried, "I only wish I had held my son that way." I wanted to ask him more but never got the chance. To Sam's point, which had similarities to Jacob's: Sam, I agree that it is more of an American thing. I also agree that a story intended to separate out a cultural quirk from a doctrinal requirement would not be a good story. However, I would not find a story believable that had a scene of two Mormon men embracing after one ordained the other to the priesthood if they didn't slap each other's backs during the embrace. It would be a detail that I would consider missed. The hugging example was only a small example of a greater question. Are we recorders of culture or shapers of culture? If only recorders, then for realism's sake, have Mormon male characters who embrace also slap each other's backs. If shapers, then can you write convincingly about a more meaningful physical contact between two Mormon men so that others can feel it and not feel bad about it? In a writing group, I shared a snippet from a story about two Mormon men who were acquainted with each other finding each other in a mutually embarassing situation, a situation that most Mormon men would think would be improbable. In fact, one comment from a man who read it said it was too far-fetched. Oddly, it was a composite account that I took from similar true-life incidents involving several men I know, and it was not in the least far-fetched. The reviewer also commented on how the piece contained powerful emotion, but he didn't think it likely. It might have been likely if the characters had been less active instead of a gospel doctrine teacher and a ward mission leader. It's only unlikely in the world we choose to see, a world where good men only do good and bad men only do evil. That is also Mormon-cultural. To Michael's statement: "It's not the agenda that's the problem. It's elevating the agenda above honesty to the story." See all of the above. Also, what about dishonesty to the story? Would I avoid a scene like the one described above merely because the average Mormon reader would find it too incredible? Should I second-guess my motives for including it? I may want Mormon readers to know that certain things do happen. Now if I throw it in the story in a gratuitous fashion, without it having any real connection to the rest of the story, it would certainly detract from the quality. I can agree with that. If a story is written in the first person, it is going to have a detectable point of view. Even if it's written in the third person, a point of view will be evident. Running around trying to make sure every point of view on a them is represented by some character seems like a ridiculous way to compose a story. I do write what I know, and the fact is, I know a different side of Mormon life than a lot of Mormon men will even admit exists. I also know the other side, having lived in both. I prefer the side that most men hopefully prefer, but also know that the other is inhabited by good men too. My agenda isn't to recruit people to either side. It's to give a tour of both through the eyes of people who have lived in both. I think that is an agenda. Some people think it's just storytelling. I'm only saying that I don't believe in pure storytelling any more than I believe in agenda-free writers. Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:33:51 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Female Writer Wanted On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 03:31:36PM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > Interesting. And here I was getting annoyed because we belong to a > church where generally we only hear men's voices. Yet when someone > wants to hear a woman's voice, the men get upset saying they can do > just as good or a better job. Lets not conflate the desire we express for a well rounded literary canon with a desire for politically (and legally) correct hiring practices. IANAL, but I believe that you cannot state a particular sex as a requirement for employment. In reality, you can give preference to one sex over the other when filling a position; you just can't make that preference publicly known. > We've been focusing on the ad asking for a woman. What they were > asking for was a woman writer. The writer part was as important as > the woman part. Somehow the thought came that a male writer could > write better than a woman about women's experiences. But could a > good male writer write better about a woman's experiences than a > good female writer? The "woman part" is probably the illegal part. Also, no one made the explicit claim that a male writer would write better than a woman. The general implication expressed the idea that one should look for good and accomplished writers over writers of a particular sex. > I guess I get annoyed by men who claim to know how women feel in > situations that men couldn't possibly know. It's as if men are > trying to take away those experiences, or lessen them. Standing by > someone's side watching a birth, is not the same as actually going > through the experience giving birth. As I stated in a previous post, I believe that the range of human emotions is fundamentally static. Pain is pain, joy is joy, grief is grief. I believe that empathy works because human beings all share the same emotional palette. We would not deny that God (or Christ) could understand the emotions of childbirth. We are all created in the image of God, so I conclude that we have his same ability to understand all human emotion, even when a person of the opposite sex experiences that emotion. In fact, I believe that God grants empathy as a gift of the spirit and to deny that empathy denies a gift from God. (Terry's personal doctrine, 35:2.) I think your post demonstrates one of the logical flaws of feminism. At first you start out wanting women to have a more accepted place in the mainstream. You want to have more balance between men and women's voices. You want women to have the same status and acceptance as men. Then you re-establish the class barrier between men and women by telling men that they cannot possibly share in a woman's emotional experience. If men cannot truly understand women, then why do we bother to get together for Sacrament meeting to hear from the members of the congregation. We could just as easily stay in our segregated Priesthood and Relief Society meetings. Also, your statement implies a failing in women writers: that no woman writer could ever describe the birthing experience in a way that a man could understand. Do you really believe that childbirth provides such a unique experience that no one, man or woman, can adequately express that experience in words. I don't believe that. I don't know why God gave men the Priesthood and women childbearing, except that some eternal precedent requires such roles. But I do not believe that these roles provide some sort of mutually exclusive sets of emotions that create a barrier between the sexes. I believe that in addition to our divinely appointed roles, we also have the divine gift of empathy (or charity if you will) that enables us to feel the same emotions as another of our brothers or sisters. Some people also have an additional gift to express those emotions using nothing more than the written word. - -- Terry Jeffress | No book is really worth reading at the age | of ten which is not equally (and often far AML Webmaster and | more) worth reading at the age of fifty AML-List Review Archivist | and beyond. -- C. S. Lewis - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:15:42 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Ashley and Jen_ (Review) On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 03:40:54PM -0500, REWIGHT wrote: > I think we need to stop looking down our noses at people who "loved > the book because it made them cry". This reason is as valid if not > more so, than any other. It's honest. And it's probably what the > writer was hoping to do. Ok, I admit, I'm having an emotional response to your posts Anna, but since I still hang on to some tenets of reader response criticism, please let my try to explain my emotion: frustration. My response in no way invalidated emotion as an acceptable response to a book. In fact, you were the one who wrote a post that looked down its nose at the intellectual treatise. This frustrated me, because I believe that an intellectual treatise provides just as valid a response to a work as the reader who sheds tears while turning the last page. A reader cannot give a work an inappropriate response. The author might have intended one response over another, but we cannot fault the reader for the response. Literary criticism tries to catalog and explain the responses we as humans have to literature. In science we pose a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, and form a conclusion. Scientists will respect that procedure if the experiment produces reproduceable results. Literary criticism tries to describe the methods of reproduceable results in literature. Some results come easily. Put a child in mortal danger, or kill a child in your fiction and you will probably evoke similar responses in your readers: outrage at the killer, a desire to protect the innocent child. Some results come with greater effort. Can you evoke an emotional response with your sympathetic description of an unsympathetic character? Thom expressed an opinion that he places a higher value on the emotion bought a greater expense. But that's just one reader's response, and does not invalidate the response of anyone who does cry at the first story. I'm not trying to invalidate your emotional response to a book. I just wanted to point out that contrary to your statement, I would feel complimented that someone wanted to put in the effort to read and reread my work for an intellectual treatise. - -- Terry Jeffress | Wherever they burn books they will also, | in the end, burn human beings. AML Webmaster and | -- Heinrich Heine AML-List Review Archivist | - - 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 #341 ******************************