From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #372 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, June 26 2001 Volume 01 : Number 372 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:28:09 -0600 From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: RE: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs I want to take issue with the sentiments expressed below. I love fiction. In fact, I kept track of the books I read several years ago, and the total came to 368. Fiction had a slight edge over nonfiction. I mention this simply to show that I am not opposed to being entertained, and I simply love to let my imagination soar as I read a good tale. BUT, when it comes to Church magazines, I really desire doctrinal works, of the type the come from the General Authorities. So what if it is reprint of what was said at Ricks or BYU-Hawaii. I wasn't there to hear it, and, in the world in which I live, I probably needed to hear it. Even if several writers are addressing the same topic, they will have a different slant on it that will make it worthwhile, even if it is on just one point. Perhaps those who will be contributing to the magazines are former businessmen, lawyers, doctors, etc., and not professional writers. So what? They have been called to bear witness of Jesus Christ, and of the restored gospel. They are called to stand as watchmen on the tower, and to sound the alarm. From where I stand they do a great job, and I believe we need to hear/read more of what they have to say. And yes, three magazines, published monthly to various age groups is probably a minimum. Would I support a LDS fiction magazine publication, I would if it were well done. There are enough good writers, including several on this list to make it work. Roy Schmidt >>> Christopher Bigelow 06/21/01 05:46PM >>> <<< I think we might be disparaging this new policy when in reality we should be celebrating it. Think of all those GAs who were businessmen and surgeons instead of aspiring writers--now they've got to put pen to paper. They've got to pull up that blank Microsoft Word screen and begin *writing*. Surely this is the Lord's idea here--he's saying hey, you guys need to learn to write, so I'm going to make you do it. Yes! Yes! Think of it....what if one day an apostle actually became a novelist, or a novelist an apostle? wouldn't that be the most wonderful thing to happen to the church since brigham young?>>> Actually, I predict about 90% of the GA-written stuff will be edited transcripts of speeches given in various places around the Church (especially at Ricks and BYU). [MOD snip] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:32:19 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Literary LCD (was: Testaments...) Margaret Young wrote: > > Well let's not stop with film makers! Writers, artists, composers ALL need to > reach a higher level. We can't insist on satisfying the lowest common > denominator in our audience or we will never create great art--and we certainly > have the talent in the Church to make great art. However, that talent is too > often turned over to a committee or strained through a very strict filter. Good place to insert a message I was planning on sending anyway. Have I ever mentioned my online writers group WorLDSmiths? On our e-mail list we've been having a rather heated discussion about what the LDS market will bear as far as graphic descriptions of unsavory acts. The general consensus seems to be that it will bear some--unless it's sex, then virtually none at all. I personally have been trying to figure out why sex, of all the sins, is hush-hush while other sins are not (rf. Linda Adams _Prodigal Journey_ for an LDS book which explores all sorts of sordid acts of humanity--except sex). Language tends to be right behind sex as a no-no, and one of our members who has sold a book told about his experience with the editor who insisted the word "pee" be changed to "go to the bathroom." I declared that the LDS publishers are trying to do just what Margaret decries above: publishing to the lowest common denominator so any LDS can walk into a Deseret Book store and pick up anything and, without knowing fact one about it, feel "safe" letting it sit out in their living room where the kids have access to it. (In other words, let Deseret Book make his moral decisions for him.) SIDELIGHT: This reminds me of a billboard I saw recently about "the CLEAN murder mystery" (or however they worded it) that's out now. That was the selling point: it's CLEAN. My reaction was, "Okay, but is it GOOD?" I always wonder about an entertainment product which is promoted because it's CLEAN or WHOLESOME or yada yada. I wonder more about the public that buys by that criterion. Nobody cares if it's good? BACK TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING: Is there a market out there for books that are faithful to the Gospel, but depict the gamut of human degradation? Specifically, books that show acts of sex (not gratuitously, but when necessary and with as much detail as necessary) that may not be moral sex, but which does not glorify immoral sex or show that it has no consequences? (In addition to any other questionable acts besides sexual ones.) I'm pretty confident that the traditional LDS publishers wouldn't release such a book because they have to maintain their lowest-common-denominator reputation. But what if a new publishing company were to emerge, possibly with an add campaign like this: "Deseret Book we're not!" "Our books are faithful to the Gospel--but not all the characters are!" A publishing company that doesn't attempt to "sneak" edgier material in and slowly push the envelope with baby steps, yet doesn't go all out and print radical things that many would perceive as critical of the Gospel either. A publishing company that comes right out proclaiming loudly that they are going after the market that is tired of Deseret-Book-filtered fiction, but is not interested in criticism of the Gospel itself. A company that positions itself as the mischievous little brother of the industry whom everyone shakes their head at, but when push comes to shove, he's still a loyal part of the family. A company that Thom Duncan could love. Signature comes closest to that right now, I think, but doesn't fulfill my requirements. Fairly or not, it's got a reputation of not being entirely loyal when push comes to shove, because some of its scholarly treatises appear critical of the Gospel itself. And its literature tends to be pretty litarary--not especially geared towards the popular market. I would think, if the market is out there, such an ad campaign would draw them like flies to honey (sorry about the cliche--I save my good similes for my books). Let people keep buying doctrinal resources and presents for their mother-in-law from Deseret Book, but when they want some fascinating fiction to read for themselves, they come to our new publisher. Would it work? - -- 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: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:09:49 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine These were wonderful magazines -- sometimes very meaty with good articles. They come in to DI from time to time, and I love going through them and reading the articles. [Jeff] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:25:09 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings Rex Goode: > > >Thanks for your comment about the idea that something is manipulative in the >pejorative sense if it doesn't earn the emotions it evokes. > >If you or anyone would care to elaborate, I'd be interesting in why the >Testaments film did not earn the emotion it evoked. Of course, that would >have to come from someone who felt manipulated. I did not. > ... >How does a film, or book, or whatever "earn" my emotions, particularly when >I give them so freely? > Apparently, I need to go see this "Testaments" thing. I've been putting it off for a while because of the reasons that have been discussed on this List: It seems like it's probably a bit manipulative, hokey, or whatever else, though probably rather touching, too. I don't look forward to it, and since no one's MAKING me watch it, I haven't done it yet. This isn't true of most films (even films allegedly dealing with spiritual matters), but the final scene "Brigham City" makes me cry because of the spiritual truths being taught. (SPOILERS AHEAD, FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET.) My investment in the main characters and my sympathy for their plight -- i.e., a killer in their town -- is enough to make me tear up a little when they kneel down and Peg prays vocally. ("If we're not strong enough or smart enough to stop him, please stop him for us," or words very close to that, and it's a great line because it conveys so much faith, vulnerability and child-like trust in God.) But what absolutely kills me is the final scene, with Wes taking the sacrament. There, it's no longer just my interest in him as a character, though that is significant. It's because it brings to my mind this flood of personal feelings about the sacrament, the Atonement and the Savior. Regardless of what Wes may have wrought on the town due to his carelessness, he can be forgiven of it. The Savior's love for us is very real, and that scene demonstrates it powerfully. In most cases, of course, it is just emotions that are being worked on by movies; "Brigham City" is an exception that uses emotions AND the Spirit. I think the difference between earning the emotions and yanking them out of us comes down to nothing more than a matter of skill. If the actors seem real, the dialogue sounds honest and the director doesn't beat me over the head with loud music or other tricks, then it earns it with me. But if I sense laziness -- like a screenwriter saying, "I learned in Screenwriting 101 that Cancer = Sadness, so I'll stick that in here all of a sudden" -- then it bothers me, and the movie loses credibility. I don't know that there's a clear-cut definition (at least not for me) of what's honestly emotional and what's just manipulation. Going back to "Brigham City" again, there's a scene where Wes has to tell a couple that their daughter has been killed. Both times I saw the movie, I was very impressed with how much I really believed this scene. On paper, I would cringe at the melodrama: Wes stops by unannounced, is invited in by his gracious host and hostess, says he has something to tell them, is interrupted by a phone call that tells them the news much less tactfully. Everyone cries loudly. Ugh. But in the film, it's done beautifully. Everything everyone says sounds real, particularly in the small talk as Wes first comes in. This is one of his bishopric counselors, and you can sense it right away: He's friends with the man, he knows the wife really well, too, they want him to stay for dinner, etc., etc. Then, when the emotions come after the phone call, those seem real, too, which would be thanks to the acting from these two fine actors who, as far as I know, have never appeared on film before. Dutcher didn't do any flashing editing or camera tricks; it's mostly a quiet, unobtrusive style. If there's music in the scene, it doesn't get in the way. It's a great scene. So it's skill, I guess. Let's hear it for skill! Eric D. Snider - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:32:48 -0600 From: "ROY SCHMIDT" Subject: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine It folded in 1971, along with the Children's Friend, and the Improvement Era. This was done, in part, to bring the Church publications into compliance with the Prophet's desire for a correlated program. Dan Ludlow, who served on the committee, said that the most difficult part of getting the correlation program in place, was getting the Relief Society to give up its magazine and its bazaars. Roy Schmidt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:20:50 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine > I love that magazine (The Relief Society Magazine). I acquired a > bunch > of them in weird ways and I've been considering actively collecting > them. The magazine started in 1914 and I have issues as late as 1958. > I'm not sure how or why or when it folded. > > Jacob Proffitt It folded when all the magazines changed. In my youth, what we now call the _Ensign_ was called the _Improvement Era_, it doubled as a magazine for "youth" with a segment keyed to the MIA. The Primary published the _Children's Friend_ and the Relief Society published the _Relief Society Magazine_. The Sunday School also published a magazine (a VERY good magazine called _The Instructor_. They all had advertising till the 50's. Advertising went before the mags changed. They exact year leaves me, but the _Era_ became the Ensign_, the _Era for Youth_ became what is is and the _Children's Friend_ became the _Friend_ and the _Relief Society Magazine_ and the _Instructor_ went to the scrap heap. Richard Johnson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:01:41 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Relief Society Magazine Jacob Proffitt wrote: > I love that magazine (The Relief Society Magazine). I acquired a bunch > of them in weird ways and I've been considering actively collecting > them. The magazine started in 1914 and I have issues as late as 1958. > I'm not sure how or why or when it folded. I suppose the church still owns the rights to it? If someone puts out the new LDS fiction magazine to replace the lost fiction in the church publications, one feature should be reprinting some of the articles and stories in the RS Magazine. From the sound of it, that should be a draw for many people. - -- 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: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:10:57 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Mag for Kids Sharlee Glenn wrote: > > > But what if a _Seagull_ magazine comes along and gobbles you up? > Dang! You stole my thunder. That was exactly the title I was going to > propose for the new magazine! Think about it. It's perfect on every level. Good joke, y'all, but I doubt "Seagull Book and Tape" would think it's funny if you really did it. [MOD: I doubt that any commercial entity can make any exclusive claim to use of "Seagull" in connection with Mormon publishing.] - -- 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: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:26:02 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ Terry L Jeffress wrote: > All communication (including art) relies on some preestablished > symbol-meaning relationship and accepted syntax for stringing those > symbols into a unique, ordered set. In most cases, an author does not > create new symbols, but instead creates a new ordering of existing > symbols. > so why should you not use > the symbol "christ" and take advantage of the same preestablished > relationship. The operative word here is "unique." If you string established symbols together in a non-unique way, then you have no claim to the results. If such an act is done at the word level, we call it "plagiarism." If done at a more conceptual level, we call it "unoriginal" or "derivative." None of these labels are considered particularly positive. As far as the Christ-in-Israel elements in "Testaments," they were completely derivative--nothing original. The Christ-in-America elements were not so derivative, becaue that hasn't been done much. But they were depicted sloppily, so had no emotional impact. The only effective Christ-element was the healing of Helam, and I have already called that the only effective scene in the film. And that one wasn't effective because of any unique usage of Christ symbols, but because of an original story about some Nephites/Lamanites. > I believe that although an author may not know the > exact results a story may have on the audience, the author may rightly > claim those results, in the same way a computer programmer can claim > the results of a program. Not if the programmer wrote the same program as somebody else. > Michael's post argues that if an author chooses to use certain > "powerful" symbols, then the author can no longer claim the results of > those symbols on the reader. I disagree. You're disagreeing with something I didn't say. An author can claim the results of the symbols if he did spomething new with them--strung them together in a new way. "Testaments" didn't. "Testaments" has no claim to the evocation of emotion from the Christ scenes, because their power came entirely out of a story that "Testaments" didn't create or add any new insight to. > If I had made _Testaments_, > I certainly would have chosen some different paths through the plot, > but to criticize a work because it draws on established symbols > criticizes all communication. I didn't criticize that. I hope that's clear now. > Michael didn't like the _Testaments_ because > it did not significantly modify his internal matrix. Well, you got that one right. > I guess I don't understand your vehemence against _Testaments_ when > you have acknowledged that the movie makers probably weren't trying to > communicate with you. I don't acknowledge that the filmmakers weren't trying to communicate with me. I said IF they didn't care about communicating with me, then perhaps the film succeeded. But I believe they would have liked to communicate with me, and thought they were. ("Me" meaning people who had hoped to experience something new about the story of Christ.) My vehemence against _Testaments_ comes from the assumption I make about what audience the filmmakers wanted to reach. If my assumption is wrong, my belief that the film fails is wrong. I don't think my assumption is wrong. As Richard Dutcher said, anything that appears on that screen should be the most powerful film we can make. I believe the church wants to do that and thinks it has. I say they are wrong--way wrong. If that wasn't their intent, then I guess I may have to recant. If they wanted a feel-good fluff piece about Christ, then I must admit, they succeeded. > I don't think our additional experience with > literature means that we have to go lessen our criticism, but I do > think that we should avoid making critical statements about those who > do like a work. So what have I done wrong then? I sure didn't lessen my criticism, even in the face of a fair amount of disagreement. And I tried to be careful about saying that for those people in the audience who liked that kind of film, fine with me. I'm glad they had a good experience. But from all the hype, I went in expecting something profound. IT WASN'T IN THE MOVIE! My beef is the film didn't match the assumed intent. Debate with me whether my assumption of intent is wrong, and you may convert me. Otherwise... _Testaments_ is a poor film. - -- 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: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:21:25 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _Macady_ (Review) Review ====== Jennie Hansen, "Macady" 1995, Covenant Communications, Inc. Paperback, 235 pages, $10.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle The back cover of "Macady" asks the question, "Can two people who have been hurt by love learn to trust again?" Good question. I suppose it depends on how deep the hurt was. In the case of this fine novel, there is plenty of hurt to go around. But there is also redemption, belonging, and a sense of family that can overcome even the deepest pain. Macady Jackson is part of a large extended family, a close family with deep roots in their community. Macady has left her home to pursue her career, but when her mother turns ill, she returns temporarily to help her run the family grocery store. One day, while riding her horse in the countryside, shots ring out, pointed toward Macady. Who could be trying to hurt her? The shooter, it turns out, was aiming for a deputy sheriff who had a lead on a drug smuggling operation in the area. Both Macady and the deputy, Aaron Westerman, we're dressed similarly, and from a distance, a shooter could easily be confused. Hearing the shots, Aaron sees that it was not he who was under attack but an innocent bystander, Macady. The two had known each other since childhood. One of the most effective parts of the book is the detailed description of their grueling escape from the would-be killer, who had by now summoned help in tracking down, and killing, both Aaron and Macady. The drug trafficers begin a vicious campaign of terror against Macady, Aaron and Aaron's daughter, Kelsey. Identifying the criminals has become very difficult, since they've left few clues. But with each act of terror, Aaron becomes more determined to track them down and bring them to justice. Parallel to the mystery there is the theme of hurt and betrayal mentioned above. Macady had been disappointed by both a father who abandoned his family and by a love interest that had gone sour. Aaron had lost his wife not long before, and was vexed by her over-protective and meddling mother. Neither had any desire to become involved in romance again, until their accidental meeting that day. "Macady" is a very good book. The plot takes enough turns to keep the reader interested until the end. The author does a fine job of intertwining the dual plot lines, bring both to a satisfactory resolution. Hansen is a very good writer. She manages dialogue very nicely, and gives us a tale that challenges our assumptions about family and friends. The heroes aren't all good, the villains aren't completely evil. Some of the good guys have drifted away from the Church; some of the villains are active priesthood holders. I've long enjoyed such books. The characters are well drawn, the story fast- paced and full of surprises. Hansen is to be commended for a fine entry into the world of Mormon fiction. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:22:33 -0600 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] DUTCHER, _Brigham City_ We finally got to _Brigham City_ and after loving _God's Army_ and being very pro-Dutcher and pro-his-genre, I was expecting to fall in line with loving this movie. We didn't love it so much though, and spent a good deal of time trying to figure out why. Here's what we came up with: It seems uneven. There are some absolutely beautiful scenes, such as the opening autumn shots among the trees. But unfortunately there are less artistic shots. We compared the ocean baptism in _God's Army_ (I know, it's not the way baptisms REALLY are) artistically to the literal baptism in _Brigham City_. It was much less effective artistically; it looked like a clip out of a missionary movie (perhaps that's why we have had the long discussion on whether the film was proselytizing or not). Similarly, knowing it's a mystery, we get glimpses of all the suspects. However, we get many, MANY more long closeups of Wes the sheriff than of almost all the suspects put together. Artistically during the movie it made us wonder if this movie was a complex psychological study of an inscrutable criminal. In contrast we get just glimpses, almost truncated vignettes, of the other suspects, including the actual criminal himself. Why do we have so much closeup work on the sheriff? It was just a little heavy handed. We were uncomfortable with the long, literal church sequences. To have two complete sacrament prayers, for example, just didn't work for us. I wonder if there would be another way to set up the sacrament as a focal point for redemption in the movie without the long, literal shots? In contrast, the sequence where the congregation all took the sacrament and placed their cups with a click worked well because artistically it established the almost-universality of a congregation taking the sacrament in contrast with meaningful abstinence. Again, taking this film as part of the mystery genre, perhaps the scenes of the suspects with the tire iron and the shotgun could have been handled with just a little more delicacy. They just seemed imagistically heavy handed. We want to feel scared but not bludgeoned. The final sacrament meeting scene was superb. Like everybody else, we cried a lot, and we felt that the whole system of symbols worked great, including the deacon's role. Dutcher here is facing the very same challenges that LDS fiction writers have faced from the beginning: how to render the culture without the heavy hand. Perhaps that's partly what has engendered the discussion on proselytizing. The literal renderings seem pedantic, and this doesn't work artistically in a movie setting out to do other things. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:09:58 GMT From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] LCD Michael wrote: Specifically, books that show acts of sex (not gratuitously, but when necessary and with as much detail as necessary) that may not be moral sex, but which does not glorify immoral sex or show that it has no consequences? We just got back from a trip and listened to a book on tape, _Privileged Conversation_, that dealt with this very issue. The book was interestingly written in first person present ("I open the door and let myself in; I see this or that"]. The protagonist is a psychiatrist that gets into an affair that turns bizarre. However, nobody gets away with immorality, because the consequences are dramatic and clear. The book is interesting because it demonstrates that sexual acting out often originates with (usually traumatic) stuff that happened to us when we were little. Cathy Wilson - --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ - - 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 #372 ******************************