From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #361 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 Monday, June 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 361 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:27:50 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] re: MITCHELL, _Angel of the Danube_ I'll dare to tread not only where Scott Parkin has gone (a fearful prospect indeed), but even have the temerity to do so in a forum frequented by the author of the work in question. I just finished the book at 4:30 am this morning so my experience with the book is still pretty raw. That's probably a good thing. As you can surmise from the above, I was captivated by the book. It managed to be engaging from the first person perspective and that's hard to do. I don't know if the book managed to be universal as Scott has pointed out, though I think that any time you do first person you are begging to be universal. Danube was too close to my own mission experience for me to gauge its universality. So as far as I can tell, it's descriptive of a single experience. I served my mission in Northern Germany and I can tell that the author knows the German people intimately from the perspective only available to a missionary -- as someone who spent a lot of time talking to Germans (okay, technically Austrians, but I didn't detect a lot of difference) about personal, spiritual matters. He nailed it dead on, though it was a little disconcerting to have no overt time references and yet include some clues that placed it about a decade before my time. Anyway, universal or not, it spoke to me. That's the culture I experienced. The missionaries rang true, too. I liked the clowns, but I'll disagree with Scott that they are our only close depiction of missionaries. I think that the apes are well described, though they appear infrequently. Elder Brannan was particularly sympathetic as someone who knew the score but still let his spirituality show through. Also, Unts was a good description of a missionary who is willing to work hard and with the Spirit at the same time (a rare combination, in my experience). Unts messed around sometimes, but like (and possibly better than) Barry, he was also very spiritual and able to keep things in perspective. Frankly, the relationship with Unts was one of the things that made the book multi-faceted enough to be believable and not just some humorous riff on the life of a missionary. The integration of Unts is what allowed me to go with Monroe when things turned serious at the end. Without that seriousness throughout the book, the transition at the end would have been much tougher and would probably have lost me. Before I get too gushy, I should probably point out that I didn't buy some of Elder Monroe's actions. I think that there is some wish fulfillment at the end when Monroe "goes prophet". What missionary didn't dream of doing those things? I certainly did. I think it was too convenient to get the Fashing invitation and that the Austrian judge was way more lenient than any Germanic authority figure I've ever known. I think Monroe was too facile, too glib, and that he got a response at all in situations where he would have been allowed none. The circumstances were too convenient and the responses too scripted. I won't go so far as to say that they are impossible, just that it was one point in the book where I couldn't follow with full suspension of disbelief. That said, I think those scenes were important to the book because they allowed Elder Monroe to go ballistic in a way that would highly contrast to his post-mission life. It adds to the stark contrast that I think was important as he tried to figure out what post-mission spirituality was supposed to be. Anyway, I laughed. I cried. The book made me want to evaluate (possibly even write) my own experience, but that's too painful, so I probably won't. I'm going to make Melissa read it because I want to be able to point out the things that I experienced that are so well captured by Mitchell -- things that I have tried to explain, but with indifferent success. Then again, maybe you just had to be there... Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:35:14 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Value of Experience (was: Childbirth) On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:27:34 -0500, REWIGHT wrote: >When I first brought up the subject, I didn't mean to suggest that a man >couldn't write from a woman's perspective. In fact I had stated that he >could and that I had written from a man's perspective in the book I = wrote. >In fact it's somewhat like the one mentioned here where each chapter is = from >a different person's perspective. I wrote from the perspective of = several >different people both male and female. > >What I was suggesting, that if you have a good male writer, and a good >female writer writing about an experience that is uniquely female, the = woman >will do a better job of it. >I will be the first one to put up my hand and say that I don't know how = the >male mind thinks, what his sexual experience is, how giving a blessing >feels, what it's like to be able to write my name in the snow, why = bodily >function contests are necessary when in groups of the same gender, or = why >getting married means you don't have to dance anymore. > >All I can do is guess based on my observations and my own experiences. > >So by all means, write from a woman's perspective. But realize, it's = just >guessing. I couldn't understand how the original conversation went from men saying = "we can write about women's experiences as convincingly as a woman can" to = women saying "you men have no idea what women go through; don't pat our hands = and tell us 'I know just how you feel' when we're having a baby." I even = read the original thread from the beginning and discovered something = interesting: Not one man on this list ever said that his ability to write about = women's experiences meant that he knew just how women felt. =20 This was something that certain *women* concluded the men were saying. = That those men later gave some examples of pains they'd suffered or metaphors they'd heard that helped them imagine childbirth only served to reinforce this notion. The above post has given me an idea why this happened. The logical leap here goes from the passage: >What I was suggesting, that if you have a good male writer, and a good >female writer writing about an experience that is uniquely female, the = woman >will do a better job of it. to: >So by all means, write from a woman's perspective. But realize, it's = just >guessing. In other words, there's the idea that by writing about something, a = writer is in some sense laying claim to knowledge about that subject; if the = writer didn't understand the subject, how could he or she possibly evoke understanding in the reader? The corollary to this is that a person = who's experienced something is always going to understand it better than = someone who hasn't. This is true as far as simple understanding goes. We don't tell a person who's lost her husband that we know just how she = feels--even if we've also lost a husband! We don't presume to guess at other = people's emotional states through observation. This has nothing to do with writing an experience. A writer who depicts--let's stick with childbirth--isn't saying "I know = just how you feel; you can tell because this description is so realistic, even though I've never given birth." He or she is simply describing an event = as clearly and evocatively as possible. It's the reader who decides how realistic, how effective the scene is. If it's *really* powerful, if the reader is seriously moved by it, then it's tempting to ascribe that = emotion to the writer's insight and skill. But mostly, it's the meeting of the = two, reader and writer. I've been reading Rachel Nunes' latest book _This Time Forever_. I won't= go into detail, because I'm going to review it separately, but speaking of = her books in general--there's a lot of awful stuff that happens to people. Rachel has said many times (here and on her web site) that responses to = her books are tremendous...readers, mainly women, contact her to tell her how true her stories are, how well she's depicted their experiences, how = they've been through exactly the same things as Rachel's characters. Yet to my knowledge Rachel has never had a baby die of a heroin overdose, watched a child die of AIDS, had another child need a kidney transplant as a = teenager, divorced her husband, lost a husband due to epilepsy-induced depression, = or been to Kodiak Island (neither have I, but her descriptions sure made me want to live there). In writing about these tragedies, and how people overcome them, Rachel has never claimed to know "just how people feel." = She has a good imagination and she's done a lot of research--and she *has* = had tragedies of her own. Everyone has. Terror, sorrow, longing, love, = hatred, jealousy, pain--these emotions are remarkably similar at the core, once = you get past how many different reasons people have for feeling them. But we don't want to hear that we're similar. We want to keep our uniqueness. And when it comes to women's writing in particular, a lot of= us are pretty sensitive. I do know about this. Women writers and critics = have worked too hard to get their writing heard around the world to want to be told they can be replaced by men--that their voice isn't *that* unique. = How can a man who's passed a kidneystone imply that he now understands childbirth? we demand. With good reason. Except--again--it still = doesn't apply to writing. Passing a kidneystone teaches you pain. Holding your first child teaches you love. Reading books teaches you the technical details (something even women learn by reading; labor pains do not = announce themselves by shrieking "Hey! I'm called Transition!"). If a man can = take these details and a hundred other observations and turn out a description= of childbirth that makes a woman say "How did you know this is exactly what happens?!" then I don't see any difference in effect from a woman who's borne nine children describing it the same way. Because THE MAN ISN'T CLAIMING UNDERSTANDING. He's just setting something down on paper and hoping it hits the target. I had a surprise Caesarean with my first baby. It went very well, I felt= no pain, I was walking around two days later, and I've had three VBACs = since. A former co-worker of my husband's had a C-section with her first baby; = the incompetent doctor botched it, she nearly died, and has had terrible fertility problems ever since. I could describe my experience to the letter--exactly how I felt and what I thought--and still have women tell = me "that's not how it goes at all." So what if I'm a woman? So what if I actually experienced it? My experience just gives me a leg up in the research department. >For some reason this seemed to cause problems with the male audience. = Why? >Is it that men don't want to think that women might know something that = they >don't? Or is it an insult to suggest that the woman might do a better = job at >something? You give our men too little credit. I can't think of a single man on = this list who is threatened by the women here or anywhere, except for Thom, = who is actually a sweet teddy bear of a guy and is threatened that one of us = who knows his secret will reveal it. (oops) The men responded as they did because every one of them has experience = with depicting things and emotions and situations they've never felt or seen = or experienced. I'd bet most of them have received feedback from people who told them, as Rachel's readers do, that they've written a play or story = that exactly mirrored someone's own experiences. They know full well it's not the same as living it. But they also know that this has very little to = do with how profoundly you can reach a reader or a playgoer with your art. I won't deny that experience gives you a tremendous advantage when = writing about a topic. But it doesn't give you a corner on that subject. If the reader doesn't believe it, your experience won't go very far. But here's the real question: If you really believe that a good female writer can convey a uniquely female experience better than a good male writer, then find some examples of each and let's see! If it's true, it ought to be provable. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:39:39 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) [MOD: Please note that I very much appreciate Jacob's taking on the minority viewpoint here. Sometimes on the List, people on one side of an issue will speak eloquently, passionately, and first about how they feel on it--and those who feel otherwise will simply not say anything at all. Which doesn't help the conversation. So bravo, Jacob!] Well, I guess I'll stop waiting for someone to dare defend the movie and just give my own opinion. I saw the movie shortly after it first came out, so I'm going to be a little hazy on details. Still, I remember it well enough because I discussed it with Melissa all the way home. Let me just start by saying that Testaments is light-years better than Legacy. What a relief to let that one die finally. I'm not sure I can deal with the proselytizing aspects of Testaments. I mean, supposedly that's its purpose, but I'd be willing to bet that more members see it than non-members. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with that, and I suspect that the movie's creators knew full well that members would not only be the primary audience, but also the major source of feedback they would receive. The heavy emphasis on missionary work is an easy way to justify the expense, but I just don't buy it much. At any rate, the response of non-members is a foreign planet as far as I'm concerned, so I'll have to restrict my comments to those of a believing member seeing the movie. As a faithful member, I enjoyed Testaments and found it satisfying on an emotional as well as spiritual level, and I'll even admit I cried. That statement puts me in something of a pickle, though. I mean, how could I prove that my reaction wasn't just emotional manipulation? You on AML-list have no idea if I can tell the difference. I thought that the director was spiritually inspired, even though I disagree with some of his choices. I mean, intellectually, I wish the little sister bit had been left out entirely in order to make room for exploring the ex-believer mother of the girl. But that's a small nit to pick in a movie that I thought resonated on so many other deeper levels. Deep? I dare call the movie deep when so many more distinguished, more professionally qualified people have ripped on it for being so shallow? I can't speak to the professional quality of the acting or dialogue. I'll admit that I am mostly uncritical of movies in general and tend to analyze after the fact, and even then with a light touch. I don't know how well the actors portrayed their roles -- though it was at least well enough not to draw my attention. What I do know is that Testaments dealt with some powerful archetypes that were put together in interesting ways to show eternal principles. The main evil guy may or may not look like a weasel, but to me, he portrayed the facile face of evil that puts on a good show, denying its own existence in order to get what it wants. Evil people exist and they can and do combine into secret organizations that manipulate others for evil purposes. The main kid was a son that didn't understand the faith of his father -- a faith that made life inconvenient for him and one he was willing to compromise in order to make what he considered a better life for himself. By relying on his own wisdom, he was caught in a situation where he was in great physical as well as spiritual danger. That happens. It also showed how a person who was willing to find the truth and who was willing to sacrifice for it was made happier in her decisions despite her problems that resulted from her decision to be a believer. Maybe the movie took too much on trying to show all these changes. The son and the romantic interest both have to undergo conversion in the course of a film that is complicated by having to divide its attention further by the cut scenes of the Savior. It's a lot to do in a movie, but I thought it brought it off credibly enough for me to enjoy. Okay. So I liked the converging conversions of the main characters. I liked that evil had a face and that we saw the public image and the private depravity that put the hero in danger. But the crowning moment for me was as the very end. The boy's father was, for me, the hero of the movie anyway: a man of faith who honestly looked forward to seeing the Savior someday. I identify with that. I look forward to seeing the Savior, and I wish I had lived in that day when I knew that the visit of the Savior would occur within the span of a lifetime (the sign of the birth had been given and the prophecy existed that Christ would visit them shortly after his death). I identify with his struggle seeing his son depart the faith, and I get emotional to witness his willingness to sacrifice himself to save his son both physically and spiritually. And then, to realize that he is even willing to sacrifice seeing the savior and be content with that sacrifice was a powerful thing to me. And what an interesting way to experience Christ healing the blind! We hear about it often enough, how Christ healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, and the blind to see. It has become something of a rote phrase, even trite, in our theology, but Testaments gave that face substance. The father was content with his fate. He wanted to see the Savior, but he had made his choice and he was happy with his decision and had great joy in his son being at his side in the presence of Christ. And the reward was unexpected to him (however much we might have been expecting it) and you could see that in his face as he was cured and saw what he had always dreamed of seeing. Emotional response? Sure. But deeply spiritual as well to see the faith of a man who held steady, made his sacrifices, and still loved God. It was powerful and moved me deeply spiritually. I cried. I was moved. It was emotional. But all of those things don't mean that it wasn't deeply spiritual as well. So my question is: if that is manipulative, then please explain how any story depicting sacrifice and hardship, that ends with true reward, can not be manipulative? Just because we see the blessings afterward doesn't lessen the impact of the sacrifices to get there -- at least not for me. Sometimes, movies (and books and whatever) should show the good guys getting an unadulterated reward. Particularly when depicting Christ visiting the righteous. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:17:20 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) [MOD: Ditto for Darvell (what I said about Jacob's post on this subject).] The comments about this church film have been interesting, to say the least. But I personally think many who have seen the film have actually missed the point. I was very touched by the film. There are two reasons why. The biggest reason that liked the film is because it made me feel that Christ really does live and that he visited these people. You hear that in the church so often that you may think, "Yeah, yeah, we know that. What else does this story have to say?" DON'T gloss over that fact. It's a big deal. The second is that these people from the Book of Mormon really lived. I doubt the film makers got their lifestyle correct, but who cares? The hat-status thing was pretty cool, but it probably wasn't like that. But that's not the point. What this film helped me to understand was that, even though these people may have been different from us and separated from us by time and culture -- THEY LIVED. And they believed in Christ. Two very simple ideas. This film was meant to bear testimony. It did that to me. The thought that Christ actually lives and visited these people was very strong to me. I didn't care a lot for _Legacy_, but this film really touched me. If it worked for me, it must've worked for others. If it didn't work for you, well, that's okay, maybe something else has or can. Darvell Hunt [MOD: Part of this message snipped for another post.] _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:17:20 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: [AML] Yahoo! BTW, I'd like to announce a small YAHOO as a P.S. here. This week I got my own somewhat-weekly column in a local Utah County newspaper for which I've been writing news clips since January. (The Lehi Free Press edition of the NewUtah! [exclamation theirs, not mine]). It's a satirical editorial called "West Side Stories" that deals with the people and places on the west side of Utah Lake, where I live. I hope this provides some sort of stepping stone for my writing career, both in gaining knowledge and becoming noticed as a writer. My editor really seems to like my stuff. Yahoo. Darvell Hunt _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ (Review) For a similar perspective on "The Two Testaments" to Terry's, one where the reviewer acknowledges the film's "Spielbergian" nature in trying to ingratiate itself with today's audience (and yet the reviewer attempts to see the film as made in good faith by talented people) check out http://www.xmission.com/~aml/reviews/b/B20029.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:22:34 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Critique of Writing It's interesting that this anecdote has generated more interest than I'd expected. Most of the replies have been good, but have indicated to me = that (because it was anecdotal) I haven't explained the situation clearly. Because I seen in my mother-in-law an example of how some writers begin = and never go on, I'm going to try to clarify the situation, using Frank's queries as a jumping off point. Everything I'm about to say could be construed as extremely negative. I should explain that I love my mother-in-law and that, having seen how my sister and my friends cope with their in-laws, I am extraordinarily = grateful to have this one. :) I admire her ability to raise eleven (!) children = and her love for all her descendants. For the past two years she's been recording books on tape as Christmas and birthday gifts for her grandchildren. She has 19 of them. She has a wonderful, evocative voice and the kids love these gifts--so do I. She's also been very generous to our family over the years. So basically, I think she's a great lady. I also do understand more or less why she's given up on a writing = career--even if I'm incredulous about it. On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:21:26 -0700, Frank Maxwell wrote: >Re: Melissa Proffitt and her mother-in-law's not-quite-rejected novel: > >I'm wondering, Melissa. Do the dynamics of the >mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationship make it difficult for your = MIL >to accept your advice? In general, isn't it difficult for MILs to take >advice from their DILs? I don't know about most such relationships, but mine appears to be in the minority. I have a great relationship with my mother-in-law; we have the same birthday, we love Jane Austen, we have any number of personal characteristics in common. (Strangely enough, my brother's wife has the same kind of relationship with *my* mother. So there's two.) I don't = think she has trouble taking advice from me because of that family dynamic. = Even if we didn't have a good relationship, I've seen her take this same = approach with other people--some her own children, some totally unrelated. Let me draw you a picture. Jacob's mother is strong-willed, fairly = bright, and artistically talented. She is, however, emotionally motivated rather than intellectually so. Having come to a conclusion about some issue, = she then holds fast to her opinion in the face of all argument--even when the argument reveals that she's overlooked something in her reasoning. She = is *extremely* stubborn about almost everything, and even more so when it = comes to her art. =46urthermore, writing is not the first thing she's given up on. Earlier= in her life she practiced drawing and painting. She's moderately good. Actually, her art is at about the same stage as her writing: full of = feeling and inspiration, but in need of some technical development. I have no = idea why she stopped; maybe Jacob knows. For a while, she assembled and sold dolls in a craft store. She stopped doing that when the payoff = diminished to the point that she wasn't making money--EVEN THOUGH it was something = she really enjoyed doing. (Or, I should say, she stopped enjoying it when it became work instead of play.) With all of that, you would expect her to be the kind of mousy person who doesn't trust her own ability and gives up at the first sign of = resistance. Not even close. She simply doesn't care. As far as I can tell, all of = her artistic endeavors are something she does to shed excess creative energy. She's not trying to become a painter or sculptor or writer--she's just painting or sculpting or writing to give herself something to do. = They're hobbies, performed for her own entertainment. As such, she doesn't need = to push her talent because that would make it less fun. >Obviously you feel very strongly that your MIL should have a different >attitude about her "rejection" letter. And any of us would be envious = of >the encouraging feedback she received from the publisher. But has she >perceived your energetic opinion as being judgmental of her? If so, she >may be less likely to follow your advice. =20 I was considerably less energetic when I spoke to her. Mostly I was incredulous. I pointed out that the "rejection letter" was an = encouragement and asked if she was pursuing it. She said (roughly--this was about = seven years ago) that she just didn't feel like it...said with a laugh and a = shrug of the shoulders that I interpreted as "yes, I'm disappointed, but this = is the best I can do, so what's the point in trying harder?" She didn't = want my advice, so I didn't give it to her. Some of this was undoubtedly that= I was a callow youth in the first throes of smug self-righteousness over = Good Writing, but mostly she'd already made up her mind. >Or is she reticent to compare herself against other family members who = are >writers? I knew a girl who was an excellent pianist, who would come = home >from school & find her mom playing the piano. But as soon as the = daughter >walked in, the mother would quickly stop playing and get up from the = piano. > The daughter felt that the mother was embarrassed to be playing the = piano >in front of her. My impression is that she either thinks she's the best writer in the = family, or doesn't much care. (Or is happy for everyone else's accomplishments.) But beyond that, I'd have to read her mind. >Maybe your MIL needs to get feedback from a neutral observer, who is not >emotionally invested in what happens next. This would address the issue of having to take criticism from a relative/friend (always tricky, *especially* if your relationship is = already good, and one reason that I don't critique friends' work anymore). But I don't think a neutral assessment would have any more impact than = mine--even weighing in the "neutral" and "professional" aspects. =46or some reason, most of the work I've done in critique has been with = raw beginners. The one characteristic every one of them has in common is an inability to divorce their own ego from the work at hand. They *say* you can be brutal, but it's not true. They just want reassurance. They want praise. This is *hard.* But most of you have probably been through this minefield yourselves--learning how to coax someone to keep trying without comparing their magnum opus to something you took out of the cat's litter box last night. Somehow my mother-in-law got stuck on this step. She takes = criticism--even something as mild as "its, not it's"--very personally, as though it's a comment on her intelligence that *she* didn't see the error you pointed = out. But she's experienced enough that she doesn't have the newbie's = diffidence and lack of confidence. Instead, she is *profoundly* self-confident. = But beyond observing this, I can only guess at motive. Is she hardening = herself to criticism so it doesn't hurt? Is she unable to impartially judge literary merit, including her own? Does she dismiss all other critics as less intelligent to bolster her own sense that she's not quite as good as she could be? I have no idea. Everyone who's spoken up on this subject has had very good suggestions. = =46or my mother-in-law, it's all moot. This all happened SEVEN YEARS AGO. She entertains herself writing her mother's life history, a weekly family newsletter, her scrapbooks, and other odds and ends. She's happy doing this. Sure, it's frustrating to those of us who want to sell our stories and novels and poetry. But some people will always be hobbyists. Some people have loads of talent and don't seem to care about developing it. =46rustrating as it is to us onlookers, it's ultimately their call. I = can't make my mother-in-law go back to her keyboard any more than I could force her to join a real writing group--because you have to have desire before anything else. Desire will not compensate for inadequate writing; but without it, you'll never be more than a hobbyist. Still, this discussion has brought up some excellent points about the writing industry that I think are unknown to most beginning writers. Usually people start writing because they have a story to tell, or = because they love reading and want to create a book themselves, or because some teacher or friend has complimented their talent. But so much goes into writing that isn't obvious from reading books. All of publishing is = opaque while you're reading. Writers pick up bad habits from observing = techniques without understanding why or how they're used. The processes of = completing a manuscript and getting it into a form that someone will read--never = mind figuring out who should read it if you want it published--aren't easily deduced from looking at a published book. Setting aside my = mother-in-law's personal quirks, any number of aspiring writers can have their potential careers blasted by a misunderstood rejection letter, an inadequate = support system, or a poor (or antagonistic!) critique. These are the kinds of things we who are better informed can help beginning writers with. They have to find the desire on their own. Melissa 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 #361 ******************************