From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #380 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, July 2 2001 Volume 01 : Number 380 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 11:10:45 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Jeffrey Savage wrote: >There are many great novels=20 >and movies that manage to tell amazing stories without any of that, = but=20 >the popular trend is to add extra sex and profanity, just as tobacco=20 >companies add extra nicotine to their cigarettes. What a harsh judgment! I would be loathe to characterize my fellow = artists so dismissively. Broken record time: I don't think we get to make this kind of judgment. = =20 I think we owe all our brothers and sisters the courtesy of a presumption = of good will. I think we need to understand that for most writers, the = choice to make profanity part of a character's voice is an aesthetic = choice, not a moral choice. By the same token, the choice, in film or = theatre, to use the artistic tool of nudity is an aesthetic choice. = Certainly all aesthetic choices have moral ramifications, but the choice = to use profanity or nudity or to depict sexual behavior artistically isn't = freighted with more moral significance than the choice to have a character = say "I love you," or "let's eat," or wear a blue jumper rather than a pink = one. Perhaps, as LDS artists, we feel that we shouldn't create characters = who use profanity, or perhaps we feel that we can give a scene the same = emotional power without nudity than we could with nudity. Those are = surely decisions all artists must make for themselves. But please, let's = not judge the choices made by our brothers and sisters. =20 I was thinking about this recently while watching Pearl Harbor, actually. = I found it a profoundly annoying movie. I detested the love story, which = I found simultaneously cliched and preposterous. I felt like I was always = an hour ahead of the movie, so that each big plot revelation elicited, not = an astonished gasp, but an irritated moan. "Typical Hollywood nonsense," = I thought, watching it. And then I kind of caught myself. I don't know = the writer, and I don't know where the story came from. It could easily = be the true story of the writer's grandfather and how he met his wife, for = all I know. The acting was pretty good. The love story bugged me because = I felt like I'd seen it all before, and because I found it predictable, = and so I judged the writer; I assumed that he (I think it was a guy) stuck = in a love story because that mythical entity called Hollywood (also known = as Jerry Bruckheimer) figured that American audiences wouldn't watch a = three hour movie about a battle we lost without some 'human interest' = (otherwise known as romance) to keep our attention. And that may be what = happened. It could be that the essential integrity of the story was in = fact compromised for commercial reasons. But I don't get to make that = judgment. I can only respond to what I saw on the screen, and what I saw = was a love story that did not engage my interest. By the same token, the = film states that the Jimmy Doolittle raid was the 'turning point' of the = war in the Pacific theatre, and that from that point on, the Japanese = began 'pulling back.' I'm just enough of an historian to consider both = those statements utter nonsense. The Doolittle raid accomplished nothing, = the turning point of the war in the Pacific was pretty obviously the = battle of Midway, and Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal show how interested the = Japanese were in 'pulling back.' But those are my interpretations of = historical fact. I believe that we have an obligation to speak carefully = about the work of artists. I would say that those two statements are = inconsistent with my understanding of history. I would be hesitant to say = much more. =20 Okay, back to the main point. I don't think that the question of profanity = or sexuality is in any way germane to the quality of fiction. I don't = think we should say that LDS fiction needs more sex and profanity or less = sex or profanity. Those considerations strike me as irrelevant and = uninteresting. I do recognize that other LDS critics disagree with me, = and I want to understand and respect the points of view of anyone on the = List. But surely the more important issues have to do with the relative = truthfulness of the fiction, the ways in which fiction illuminates the = human condition. =20 We're commanded to learn from the 'best books.' I've been thinking a lot = about D & C 88 lately, mostly because I just taught it in Sunday School. = What are these 'best books' we're to learn from? Would genre fiction be = included? Of course it would; I can't imagine that the Lord wouldn't want = us to gain from the insights into the human condition offered by Elmore = Leonard, J.R.R. Tolkien, P.D. James or C. S. Forester. Or Stephen King. = The 'best books' must include imaginative fiction, and Young Adult = literature and good television writing and really good movies. I really = don't think that the Lord wants to work our laborious way through the = Harvard Classics or some list of the 100 greatest novels, and then when = we're done with them say to ourselves 'okay, right, I'm now finished with = that commandment.' Nothing wrong with reading classics, too, of course.=20= This past summer, I spent two long trips on a bus with a man named Colin = Rich. Colin was our bus driver. He's the best driver I know, and I loved = watching him drive. I love to drive, and I think I learned a lot. But = Colin is also a man who loves trees and plants and nature. Wherever we = went, we'd see some oddly shaped tree or strangely blossoming flower, and = we'd ask him about it, and he always knew what kind of tree or flower it = was, plus all sorts of fascinating information about it. Colin is not a = well educated man. But in some ways, of course, he's a very well educated = man, and I loved learning from him. For Colin, the 'best books' included = gardening manuals. And for me, that's just one more thing I'm going to = have to learn more about. =20 Eric Samuelsen=20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:10:26 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > Overcoming the downsides: whatever money is available is > available--everyone will have to understand that, and be willing to take > whatever cut is worked out. In return for sacrificing some of the > royalty, the author will have a means to rise above the usual iUniverse > publication, because it will have been selected and edited by editors, > thereby assuring better quality. I'm wondering if an arrangement can be > struck with iUniverse: they insist on having their imprint on the book, > but I'm wondering if they'd share an imprint with us, so we can get our > books to stand out from the iUniverse crowd. No need to go that far. Alexander's here in Orem can do POD but you have to provide the ISBN and the color cover. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:08:36 -0700 From: "Christopher Bigelow" Subject: RE: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher The AML already has the Marilyn Brown novel contest with a $1,000 award = toward publication. Maybe the AML itself should start publishing good = novels that come through that channel. However, we wouldn't want to divert = winning authors from better publishing opportunities, such as Alan = Mitchell's good book with Cedar Fort and Jack Harrell's upcoming winner = with Signature. But we could at least get a start with some books we = believe in that don't find other publishers. We start with a trickle and = work toward a stream (of sales figures as well as number of releases). And another thought: the AML is an award-giving and scholarly/critical = organization; would it be a conflict of interest to start publishing = original creative works? If so, maybe Irreantum should be spun off as an = independent magazine and book publisher--but not without a new, major = source of funding (not that the AML has enough funds to support even = Irreantum magazine presently, but it's a better platform to work from than = nothing).=20 Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:23:33 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Joseph Smith Project Frank Maxwell wrote: > > However, the disadvantage of your way of dramatizing the First Vision would > be that some people would construe it as disproving or devaluing the 1838 > account. They would say that you didn't dramatize the 1838 account because > it is less accurate than the others (even though it's longer and more > detailed). They would construe it as having dramatized their alternative > version of Joseph Smith's story: that he only saw angels, and that he > later made up the stuff about seeing Deity. > > I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of being "fresh". True, if I were making a film primarily for Church members. This script was designed for the General Public who, you can bet, would be less bothered by Joseph have a general purpose vision than one where Christ tells him that all Churches were false. > I would suggest 2 other ways to cinematize the First Vision: > > 1. Dramatize the Vision in a way which includes details from all of > Joseph's written accounts (none of which contradict each other, by the > way). James Arrington did this orally for a conference of the Mormon > History Association years ago, when they met in the Kirtland Temple. I > think his "combined" account of the First Vision was published in Dialogue. > This version would include both Deities, and angels, and everything else > that Joseph described. Think motion picture here. A film where you've spent maybe a hundred million dollars and you have a major star playing Joseph, and you're hoping for an Academy nomination. I believe the above portrayal would be seen by credits as manipulative, another attempt by Mormons to convert the world. > 2. Dramatize each of his accounts in flashback format, but in a way that > tantalizes the audience into wanting to see the next flashback. For > instance, start off when he's writing down in his personal journal his > earliest account of the Vision, the one in which he writes that Jesus told > him that he is forgiven of his sins.* I would portray the First Vision as accomplishing only that. I would not end the vision there, but cut-away, suggesting that other things were said. The reason is because getting forgiveness of sins is something that more people can deal with. Joseph's vision then becomes a personal vision, and because it's personal, it stands a better chance of touching a non-Mormon audience. Adding all the flashbacks would, IMO, muddy the motivational waters. Look at Braveheart. William Wallace's wife's murder was the catalyst that gave him his real motivation: Freedom. Very simple. That's why the film worked, imo. The main character's motivation was easy to understand. In reality, I'm sure it was much more complicated than that. In reality, there may have been some ego involved, the sense of power, the rush one gets when other people hang on your every word. But I'm not sure the story would have been helped by including all those possible motivations. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:39:17 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Art - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > > But art is, well, art. It isn't worth the danger of offending somebody. > > We are happy to offend people for the sake of the Gospel, but we > > *don't* want to offend for the sake of anything less important. > > > > The thing is, when you talk about people and the gospel, you are > > dealing with eternal consequences. > > > Which means that the Church actively softens things for the easily > > offended as long as they don't compromise doctrine. > > > If just one person takes that advice and the effect is to irreparably > > harm their eternal progression then there is all the damage you need > > to justify squelching exactly that message. The worth of souls is > > great, after all. > > The fallacy in this argument is assuming that softening > things doesn't offend anybody. The church isn't decreasing > offense--it's shifting it. The church is tacitly stating that > easily offended members who don't like to think for > themselves are more inportant than members who think. The > church is telling artists and lovers of art that they are not > important. And guess what! These kind of people are falling > away in droves. Um. Droves? I think you overstate. And frankly, I've never heard of an intellectual/artist/writer/whatever who left the Church because of Church policy about art (or because there wasn't enough swear words in a play). They tend to leave when they find something that few members know about or because they can't accept some doctrine that has been taught--i.e. for ideological reasons not presentation reasons. But yes, it is a shift of offense. I tried to make that clearer in the bottom half of my response when I discussed the effect on artists in more detail. At any rate, I think it may be a legitimate shift to take the burden from those who are struggling with the gospel, have less understanding, and are easily offended to those who, as you say, think. And if you want to claim victim status, it is a shift from a larger population to a decidedly smaller one. > So here's my summary in my usual crude, offensive way: "The > worth of an ignorant soul is great in the sight of God. As > for the rest of you--you're on you own." That's what the > church's attitude as you postulate it says to me. Well, like I said, I don't think we're losing people because of the simplifications. We lose some of our intellectuals, but not because of how the Church has decided to present its message. > > Personally, I hate the effect that this reality has on some members. > > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." > > > I think it would be much more useful to teach the principles of their > > decisions while they implement them. > > > But then, explaining things is hard. And dangerous. I mean, it takes > > time and work to craft an explanation in the first place. The risk is > > that you give wiggle room when you explain your decisions--you risk > > someone disbelieving in your calling and your message because they > > disagree with your reasons > > An explanation gives wiggle room, but silence and a lack of > information doesn't? Silence gives _maximum_ wiggle room. At > least with an explanation, they have to wiggle within a > well-bounded region. Silence gives free reign to roam anywhere. The lack of an explanation means that people have to pray about it and follow or not. Giving an explanation means that people can deal with the explanation without dealing with the message. No explanation means people have to argue with God. An explanation gives people a chance to argue with the GAs. I'd call that having more wiggle room if I can take on the reasoning of a GA instead of God. > Explaining is hard? Let me try... > > "We've decided that the purpose of church magazines is to > disseminate doctrine, not fiction. Therefore we are > discontinuing fiction in church magazines. But this in no way > suggests that we think something's wrong with fiction. We > encourage our members to continue reading good fiction, and > would like to see some independent sources for fiction move > in to replace that which the church magazines used to carry." > > Didn't seem so hard. I don't think there's anything > doctrinally problematic in the statement. I don't know where > you'd find much wiggle room to get it wrong. Seems like a > pretty benign statement to me. And wouldn't that be a great > shot in the arm to LDS fiction! Okay, now try getting that explanation through a correlation committee and/or a unanimous vote of 15 people with vastly different backgrounds and opinions. Getting the resolution itself passed by a group is a cake walk compared to getting that same group to agree on a statement of reason. Looks easy if you have full autonomous authority to craft a reason for yourself, but spread the responsibility around a bit and it quickly becomes a Herculean task. > > Just > > because it would make me feel better, doesn't mean it is worth taking > > the time away from their official calling to preach the gospel to all > > the world. Which brings me back to my first point that art isn't as > > important as teaching the gospel--no matter how good or True it might > > be. > > Why can't art be _equivalent_ to preaching the Gospel? Do we > really think General Authority speeches are going to reach > the hearts of every person on earth? Because art is nowhere *near* the equivalent of preaching the Gospel. No doubt you *can* teach gospel principles through art. We've had a number of discussions that indicate a faithful Mormon can't really *not* teach gospel principles through art, at least as much as they understand and believe gospel principles. But that is a whole lot different from preaching the Gospel direct because the direct address challenges the listener/reader to recognize the truth of doctrine taught plain. And as much as you may think you know or can communicate about something like the Atonement, you won't *really* know anything at all about it until you hear the story told plain and with accompanying testimony of its truth. Art may prepare someone to accept the Gospel, but a) it isn't the only way to be prepared to accept the Gospel and b) it isn't enough by itself for someone to accept the Gospel. That is why I say that as much as I like and even value art, it is nowhere near equivalent in value to preaching the Gospel. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:40:37 EDT From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Sex doesn't make you gain weight? Obviously spoken by somebody who had never been pregnant! Frankly, as one who doesn't particularly want to eyeball what goes on in someone else's bedroom either on the printed page, or on the screen, there are as many ways of handling sex in art & literature as there is artists & writers. I choose to go with those who handle it at least somewhat discretely. Same thing with profanity & guttermouth vocabulary. I know it exists, but don't choose to fill my life with it. It's why I didn't finish the first Stephen King novel I ever picked up and have never picked up another. If there was anything redeeming in the novel, I couldn't get far enough into it to find it because of the language. I don't talk that way. Most of the people I associate with don't talk that way, and even those at work who sometimes slip in front of me, apologize...not that I've made a big deal of it--but that they recognize my standards. I buy a lot of books, doctrinal, fiction, non-fiction, both Church oriented and not. Fiction authors that I know to use a lot of language that I don't want to hear, or a lot of steamy scenes--I don't purchase. But one of the most powerful books I've read in LDS fiction dealt with an extramarital affair. Things can be done tastefully. But it takes care. Karen Tippets - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:00:10 -0500 From: "thomasb5" Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs If I understood you correctly, McConkie was working on a SF trilogy? What is the history behind this? Rick T - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Picht" > The hymnbook is a somewhat different beast. Every ward buys them, whether they contain > hymns by McConkie or not, and McConkie's hymn inclusion seems almost an example of > vanity-press printing rather than the market-driven acceptance his SF trilogy would > have received (had he ever finished it). - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:18:07 -0700 From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: [AML] Good News I'm delighted to announce that my first picture book, HALLOWEEN SURPRISE, will be published by Doubleday Books for Young Readers, probably in the fall of 2003. It's an exciting time, with lots to learn. Right now I'm beginning to think about website designs and school/library presentations, and all the things that first-time authors must learn to do to sell, sell, sell those books! It's fun to get to share my news with all of you. :0) Beth/Elizabeth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:12:38 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Art - ---Original Message From: James Picht > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > > That is because there is a fundamental difference between "doctrine" > > and "art". > > While that difference is clear to me, the line between the > two is not. Doctrine would be well-served by great art, and > for a much larger community over a longer time than by the > safe and simple art that's now preferred. I think that the > evaluation of art-in-service-of-doctrine by the brethren is > extremely difficult, requires judgements that they aren't > always willing or able to make, hence they prefer the use of > iconography - set patterns and symbols that often strike us as bland. I wish I could have communicated that as well as you do here. It isn't what I was thinking at the time, but it certainly makes sense to me. > > But art is, well, art. It isn't worth the danger of offending > > somebody... The thing is, when you talk about people and the gospel, > > you are dealing with eternal consequences. You can't dilute the > > gospel without potentially damaging the eternal destination of the > > very people you want to bring to God. > > You seem to forget that there's a trade-off. If bland art > doesn't offend, neither does it engage, and an opportunity to > present the gospel is lost. Rather than turn someone off to a > particular eternal destination, you may fail to get him on it > in the first place. That also ignores the fact that "safe" > art may not be safe at all. There are clearly people on this > list who find it at the very least irritating, if not > offensive. It might be nice to do an eternal cost-benefit > analysis of our homogenized art, but we can't. We can see, > though, that there are costs as well as benefits, and those > costs are measured, as are the benefits, in the welfare of > souls. Hence the argument that follows doesn't make much sense to me: > > > If just one person takes that advice and the effect is to irreparably > > harm their eternal progression then there is all the damage you need > > to justify squelching exactly that message. > > Either way, there will be damage. You'll lose at least one > either way, I think While I'll concede that you'll lose at least one either way, I think that you'll lose more if you offend those who are easily offended or who don't understand what you are trying to do because they can't get past how you do it. It's a bigger population, for one. It's also a population of people who, by the way we've defined it, will take action based on the presentation whereas those who don't like the blandness are more likely to respond based on message anyway. That said, I think your point below is a more likely explanation of Church Art policies because an eternal cost/benefit is simply out of our reach. If we assume that the decisions are driven by an eternal cost/benefit, then we have to assume that the policies are set directly by God (who is the only one capable of such analysis) which, while certainly possible, I don't find likely (at least not in the sense of direct, minute examination of policy). > so I perceive the course the church > takes to be the easier one, since its costs are lower in > terms of institutional decision-making. That is, since we > can't measure the costs of our policy in souls, we choose to > reduce more easily discerned institutional costs. Rules are > easier to administer than a policy of discretion, and simpler > art is more easily evaluated according to rules. I don't > think we need put this in terms of lost souls at all. Makes sense to me. > > Personally, I hate the effect that this reality has on some members. > > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." I'm afraid > > that this is only the beginning of the inevitable fallout. > > It may be, and it illustrates the potential for offense and > lost souls as a cost of the "no fiction" policy. The attitude > of the Primary president is offputting to me, to say the > least. I won't leave the church over it, but we all know > people who might. You see, I don't. I don't know anyone who would leave the church because a Primary President said she thought the GAs had decided fiction was wrong. Offputting, sure. Enough to leave the Church over? The thing is, I just don't think that there is much of a cross section between those who are offended easily enough to leave over such a minor comment and those who are likely to be offended at that comment. > > By implementing a no fiction policy at Church magazines on the sly..., > > they imply things that they probably don't mean (that fiction is bad). > > I think that making the reason for the policy explicit is > possible only if the brethren can articulate it to > themselves. I'm not certain that they can, since most of the > cost-benefit analysis we do in life is done at an intuitive > level, without a clear understanding of why we do what we do, > only a feeling that it's right. As you say, Well, even if the brethren are personally clear on their reasons, I think it would be very difficult to create institutional clarity. Which was my point below. > > But then, explaining things is hard. And dangerous. I mean, it takes > > time and work to craft an explanation in the first place. > > It also means clarifying the issues to yourself, and we > sometimes shy away from that instinctively. It is, as you > say, dangerous. Yes. The writing of the explanation isn't the barrier, the formulation of it is. > > Which brings me back to my first point that art isn't as important as > > teaching the gospel--no matter how good or True it might be. > > I agree with you to a point. The tool isn't as important as > the product. Art is the tool, spreading the gospel message is > the product. If there are better tools than art, we should > use them. But aside from direct learning through the spirit, > the message is spread through words, symbols, images - > elements of art, if not art itself. A better use and > understanding of that tool can have a tremendous impact in > getting the product out, but only with some risk. Life is a > risk, and the Plan of Salvation entails enormous risk. Why > should church leaders shy away from risk? Well, that's a good question, but one I think you answered already (better than I did). I agree that the distinction is between a tool and a product. The question is what are the risks of using more difficult tools and what are their benefits. As you pointed out above, the risks are eternal in nature and fundamentally unknowable--as are the benefits. Since both the risks and the benefits are fundamentally unknowable, then it's probably best to stick with easy, or at least uncomplicated which is essentially the same thing. As an explanation, I think it is at least as likely as my own. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:12:19 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Re: Church Endorsement (was: Institutional Art) D. Michael Martindale opines: >I'll never forget the day I was hawking my opera to some retail stores >and one guy asked me, "Is it approved by the church?" Where on >earth did this fellow get the idea the church _ever_ endorses art? This is an issue faced by everyone who attempts to pursue normal life amongst the Saints. We who homeschool are often asked the same question -- often in a most accusatory manner. The correct answer to this fellow, and to every other fellow like him, is "Yes." If he requires further light and knowledge, the correct response is: "Define 'Church.'" ("The church is the organized body of believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ by baptism and confirmation." ["CHURCH." Bible Dictionary ]) Then you propose this syllogism: "I am the Church; the Church is me. And I - -- who am as much 'The Church' as any other member -- approve. Ipso facto, 'The Church' approves." - --lmg - ----- MEET MY KIDS>> http://www.pagoo.com/signature/pagoo28 WHAT ARE WE WRITING NOW? Do you have your copy of LauraMaery's book " Mormons on the Internet 2000"? Thousands of LDS Internet resources, categorized, reviewed and rated. New sections on Internet safety, teaching helps, resources for senior Saints. Hundreds of Hotlinks, a top-25 list, and a list of honorable mentions. Did you make the list? Order your copy of Mormons on the Internet 2000 at . - --------- Have an LDS Internet resource? Post it to the Mormons on the Internet submission site. It's easy! Just find your category, and submit your resource. It'll appear on the site almost immediately! . - --------- Visit our Web site at - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:56:47 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Jeff Savage wrote: > Maybe you are reading me wrong here. > I just don't think that good (and here I > am using good in the quality sense, not the moral one) LDS writers need to > have profanity or explicit sexual encounters in their books. > But I am saying that I don't need to know > what position my protagonist favors to understand that he/she is sexually > active. > But that doesn't mean that I would encourage my > teens to be sexually active before they are married. > But I don't think that any Mormon literature needs to have > graphic sex scenes or profanity to be good. The problem may not be that we disagree. It appears the problem is that you're assuming an either/or approach. Either literature must be squeaky clean or pornographic. What about that huge spectrum in between? Why, whenever I campaign for the right to place sex in my stories, do some people react like I said I want to put pornography into my stories? The very fact that this misinterpretation takes place is what bothers me. It shows that these people _do_ think sex is always pornographic. Sex is not pornographic! Those who assume it is are the problem, in my opinion, not those who want to address sex responsibly in their literature. Notice how your descriptions of sex in literature are extreme: "explicit sexual encounters," "encourage teens to be sexually active," "graphic sex scenes." I never used these phrases. I encourage as much detail as necessary and no more. Sometimes that will be no sex at all. Sometimes very vague references to a person's sexual activity. Sometimes mentioning a specific act without going into detail. And sometimes a story will require some details about a sexual act or the arousal a character feels because of a sexual act. If the story requires it, the author should report these details--without fanfare, without more graphic imagery than necessary, without any attempt to titillate the reader--and not feel bad about doing it. I don't want to publish pornography to the LDS market. I just want to be able to address sex when necessary. But the LDS market seems to only allow me squeaky clean stories. As more and more examples are given of how Covenant and other publishers are releasing more and more challenging stories about the realities of life, it just makes the absence of sex and sex alone all the more glaring. Why sex, of all the sins? Sex isn't even a sin much of the time--unlike for example, murder or beating the scrud out of somebody--but we still can't talk about it except in vague euphemisms and hints. I'm convinced this situation exists because Mormons deep down _do_ believe sex is dirty, although they may not admit it, even to themselves. And I think that's awful. I refuse to cater to the attitude. - -- 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: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 02:02:07 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Amelia Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Jeff Savage wrote: > Amen sister. Challenge me, stop me, make me think, question, ponder, and if > you are really good, maybe even change. But don't tell me that I have to > know the details of Dick and Jane's sex life or have every other word out of > their mouth be four-letters to do it. Are you really suggesting that if a > book doesn't include explicit sex or profanity it can't be deep? Jeff, I'm interested to know which part of my post asked for explicit sex and/or use of profanity in literature in order to make it deep. What I am looking for is reality--an accurate depiction of real people. I am not looking for an inaccurate depiction of real people which is what I get when I read about someone who may, in reality, swear but who is never recorded swearing in the artistic representation of their life. I am also looking for the lattitude to create a work of art which may depict a "sinful" sexual encounter (rather than just allude to it in passing) with enough detail that the reader can understand the simultaneity of joy and sorrow experienced because of sin (and, no, I am not talking about pleasure or passing happiness and sorrow; I'm talking about JOY and sorrow). I'm asking for the freedom for a writer to create complex characters in complex situations. Absolutely, this can be done without sex and without profanity. I've seen movies and I've read books that accomplish that, excellent movies and books. But the issue at hand has less to do with sex and drugs and profanity and violence per se than it does with the chance to depict those things when necessary in order to maintain artistic and, I would argue, moral integrity. > > >And, I hope I am > >correct here, the desire for a midstream Mormon publishing house is not a > >desire to sell thousands and thousands of books to a wide Mormon audience > >in order to make money but rather a desire for a way of publishing the > >kind of art I spoke of above. > > The publisher that doesn't make a profit on it's books is not going to be > able to publish very many books. (Unless it is owned by someone who is > willing to back it herself.) The publishers that print Stephen King's books > also take chances on less mainstream books. But they can afford to because > they make it up on the big sellers. If a publisher barely makes a profit on > its mainstream books, how many chancy books is it going to try. (And how > many really promising new writers will it take a chance on?) Understood: publishing is essentially a commercial enterprise, not necessarily an artistic one. I've been meaning to comment on this for a few days but everyone else seems to have done so very nicely so I haven't. But here goes my two bits: of course a publisher must make a profit of some sort--something to at least allow them to meet the costs of the business and of maintaining their own lives. What I see in the list, at least hinted at and in places articulated, is the need for a co-op. Mormons tend to be a bit scared of that idea sometimes but I'm not. What's to keep us from taking D. Michael's research about POD's seriously? Why shouldn't list members who are, while all busy people, well-educated and capable of helping edit new books offer to do so? I would. Together we could publish novels and poetry and stories and essays. Sure the output would be small. Sure it's a sacrifice. but I guess this is where we decide how important it is. Do we continue to sit here knowing that there are people capable of writing excellent work, people who probably do write excellent work, but can't publish it because there's no forum? Or do we do something about it? Time for some action. I know, I'm being my normal idealistic dreaming self, but it takes some of us in order to keep the ultra-realist pragmatic types from ruling the world. Another thought, there are plenty of publishing markets that are small. the books created for such markets are generally more expensive than what you'll find in the average reader's library. I'm thinking of academic markets and of poetry markets. Niche markets. It is, as several others have said, a matter of marketing the product correctly. It is a matter of being willing ourselves to pay thirty bucks instead of fifteen in order to have the privilege and experience of reading something that could actually change our lives rather than have us frustrated with wasting our time on drivel. Or even of being willing to have a book co-op; you know like books used to be a hundred years ago or more. They were passed around to everyone and their dog because they were too expensive for everyone to buy. So we only run a print of say a few hundred books. But we do so with the understanding that when we finish reading the book we pass it on. I don't know, a literary law of consecration. By the way, lots of authors used to not rely upon publishing their books in order to make a living. But now I'm getting off track. > > >When the Mormon literature available creates a > >dichotomy between acceptable Mormon problems (any problem you can point to > >in a Jack Weyland novel) and unacceptable because un-Mormon problems (more > >than incidental sex, drug addiction, the kind of hypocrisy that comes with > >calling ourselves a chosen people which results in drawing lines of > >love--those we will love and those we won't, etc.), then there is a > >serious problem. > > Have you ever read a Jack Weyland novel? I did a quick scan on his themes > over the Internet and came up with, bulimia, drug use, a girl disfigured by > burns, immorality, & drug use. Yeah, I have read a Jack Weyland novel or ten, though the last time I did so was probably ten years ago. And you're right: he does deal with some heavy issues (by the way, the romance plots I summarized in my post both came from Weyland novels). However, when was the last time that you read a Jack Weyland novel that ended with the heroine who has struggled with bulimia throughout her high school years leaving home still struggling with it? Or when did you read one that acknowledged that sometimes a priesthood blessing isn't enough to heal someone or to help someone overcome drug addiction and then accurately show slipping faith rather than a point blank acceptance of the "failure" of the priesthood as a manifestation of the will of God? The point is that Weyland, along with a lot of other Mormon writers, uses his novels/writing in order to reaffirm and only to reaffirm. I think that I would be incapable of finding a Jack Weyland novel, even if I were to read every one of them, that left me questioning anything other than why it is Mormon's can't deal with the fact that they are just like the rest of the world--that we are part of the world every bit as much as others are. > I honestly believe that LDS publishers are much more open to these types of > themes than they were ten years ago. I think what is missing is for more > writers that are good enough to get published in the "outside' world to > write for these publishers, and as I stated earlier, I think that a big part > of this is economics. Maybe you're right about this. Unfortunately, there's so much unprovocative Mormon lit being published that I usually don't deem it worth my time to wade through it in order to find something decently worthwhile. It's one of the reasons that I'm glad I have a friend who turned me onto this list. I've actually found a way to figure out what is worth reading. And now maybe I'll be more willing to give some of the lit published by the companies you're talking about a chance and send some reviews to the list. One problem with what you're suggesting above is a problem I've seen discussed on this list in the last week. Why would any author who is good enough to have his work published in the "outside" publishing world come to a Mormon publisher who will make him remove four-letter words, anything resembling explicit sex, and other things not nearly as bad as these (like the word "pee", to use an example posted to the list)? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be willing to watch my work be adulterated that way. Stylistic suggestions and grammar corrections are one thing; watering down my reality in order to make it palatable is another. I'd rather publish with an "outside" firm who would let me represent the reality I see. I said this in my former post and I'll say it again: I am interested in reading literature that can help me figure out how to navigate the intersection of being both Mormon and American, of living within a very patriarchal religion while being a staunch feminist, of the ideal presented by Mormonism and my own humanity. I am not interested in reading something that, while it may address a problem or two that I will encounter both in Mormonism and in the world, ultimately pats me on the back and tells me what a good girl I am. I can get that kind of affirmation from my mother when I need it. I'm not asking for the Church itself to publish such literature. But I am asking that the opportunity be there for an author to write such literature and then not be immediately questioned simply because the heroine of his novel is both an adulteress and a warm, kind, loving, lovable woman. Is it possible to show how sin and being Christlike can simultaneously be a part of our lives? [Amelia Parkin] - - 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 #380 ******************************