From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #383 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 Thursday, July 5 2001 Volume 01 : Number 383 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:01:04 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > Broken record time: I don't think we get to make this kind of > judgment. > > 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. I think you may be right up to a point. We certainly shouldn't look at a play or a book and make judgments about the author and how morally corrupt they must be to write such a thing. We just don't know the motivations of the authors enough to assign blame or divine motivation. But I think we need to consider very carefully a presumption of good will. If a play by an author disturbs me and is one I judge carries a morally depraved viewpoint (I'm perfectly comfortable personally judging a play, and while it is difficult not to extend the judgment to the author, it is not at all impossible) then I will be likely not have a presumption of good will for the next play by that same author. The presumption of good will only extends to the unknown. Through experience, I think it is perfectly valid to evaluate the work of an artist or publishing house and evaluate their new presentations based on their past works. It doesn't take Mick Jagger confessing to a GA on the airplane that the purpose of his music is to encourage kids to have more sex to know that his songs seem geared towards encouraging kids to have more sex. Good will is fine and all, but once that good will is compromised, it has to be earned back. It is true that people (and publishing criteria) can change, but that change will (or at least should) be accompanied by some announcement or sign of change. Which is why I won't likely read any more fiction in Irreantum without first asking people what the stories are like, for example. I don't want to toss the publication entirely because I think it is a worthwhile periodical, but I don't want to stumble on any more stories like "The Chastening" (in the latest issue) unannounced. We already hashed this out in November (which, interestingly enough, is printed in part in the latest issue of Irreantum) about faithless fiction. There are some things that I am so tired of reading that an author or publication that prints them has lost the presumption of good will. Well, that isn't entirely correct. I have all the good will in the world to the editors and publishers of Irreantum. I think they do good work that is hard and time consuming and I extend them my best wishes and all the good will I possess. But the stories printed there won't have the presumption that I can stomach them any more. I'll even maintain a presumption of good will about Helynne Hollstein Hansen (the author of "The Chastening") because I hope she is as dedicated to the gospel as anyone else and I don't think that just because I couldn't stomach her story that it means she is destined to an eternity of fiery brimstone. But I won't read any more of her stories unless I first ask someone I can trust if it is another one of the faithless presentations so adored by the academically trained. I'll read Kirby and Adams and Allred and Nunes and, well, you get the picture all unscreened, but no more unknown Irreantum fiction. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:21:34 -0700 From: Elizabeth Hatch Subject: [AML] Best Books and BY (was: Midstream Mormon Publisher) Eric R. Samuelsen wrote: > 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? Yesterday, while working in the ward library, I came across these quotes in _The Discourses of Brigham Young_: "And inasmuch as the Lord Almighty has designed us to know all that is in the earth, both the good and the evil, and to learn not only what is in heaven, but what is in hell, you need not expect ever to get through learning. Though I mean to learn all that is in heaven, earth, and hell. Do I need to commit iniquity to do it? No. If I were to go into the bowels of hell to find out what is there, that does not make it necessary that I commit one evil. . ." 2:94 (p. 249) "If I do not learn what is in the world, from first to last, somebody will be wiser than I am. I intend to know the whole of it, both good and bad. Shall I practice evil? No; neither have I told you to practice it, but to learn by the light of truth every principle there is in existence in the world." 2:94 (p. 248) "In them we are taught to study the best books, that we may become as well-acquainted with the geography of the world as we are with our gardens, and as families (familiar? I can't read my handwriting) with the people--so far at least as they are portrayed in print--as we are with our families and neighbors." 8:40 (p.255) It seems to me that he's saying it's good to learn all about this world (the good and the bad) through print, without having to commit the acts to gain the knowledge. And it seems he's saying that reading about the acts doesn't mean we'll necessarily go out and do them ourselves. Have I interpreted these correctly, do you think? Beth Hatch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 02:03:13 -0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Paris Anderson I'd like to extend a welcome to Paris Anderson. Paris wrote a very good missionary-journal-as-novel, "Waiting for the Flash" (1988). There was a lot in the novel about psychology that was interesting (are you trained in psychology, Paris?) I also remember his 1987 story in Sunstone, "You: A Missionary Story", which was written entirely in the second person. My bibliography says that he also wrote a children's novel once called "Claire: A Mormon Girl". Paris, have you published any other works? Was "Waiting for the Flash" self-published? I saw copies of it at the BYU bookstore for several years, were you able to get it in many other bookstores as well? Andrew Hall Pittsburgh, PA > >Wow--I've been trying to get on this liist for a week _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 19:18:01 -0500 From: Wes Rook (by way of Ronn Blankenship ) Subject: [AML] MN Author B. Weston Rook Tells Story of Rediscovered Faith: Wes Rook Press Release 29Jun01 US CA SF A2 From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list. Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com Author B. Weston Rook Tells Story of Rediscovered Faith SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA -- LDS author B. Weston Rook's latest novel, "The Junction" explores what could happen when a bitter less-active member of the church is partnered with an anti-Mormon and given the assignment of living the life of a missionary. The book's main character, Deems Ellison, turned his back on God soon after returning home from his LDS mission to Colorado. He rarely thought about those days anymore, preferring to bury himself in his work as a criminologist for the FBI. But now Deems is forced to confront his past when he is assigned to go undercover as bait for a serial killer who is targeting Mormon Missionaries in Grand Junction, CO. As he battles his personal demons and plays a dangerous game of cat-and-mouse with a madman, he inadvertently uncovers a disturbing secret about his own past, and rediscovers his faith in the process. Rook simply smiles when asked about the criticism that his book is too graphic or deals with mature themes. "The only people who seem to have a problem with it are those who only read the first chapter before passing judgement, " the author explains. "Everyone who has read the whole book has loved it. Chapter One had to set the scene for the rest of the story and establish the existence of a murderer. But I don't agree that there is anything graphic about it. I was very careful to only write about the investigation and examination of violent crime scenes by an FBI agent after the fact. There is nothing violent about it." As for the complaint that his book deals with mature themes, Rook dismisses this also,claiming that all the experiences faced by his characters are based on his own experiences as a missionary in Colorado. "I think anyone who has actually served a mission for the Church will tell you that some of his experiences were on the mature side. I think this story is just a fair and accurate portrayal of missionary life, both comical and tragic." Rook comes from a strong Mormon background and was raised in Sacramento, California. He began writing after several of his college instructors noticed his talent and urged him to consider changing his major from Film Production to Journalism. When forced to quit school to care for his ailing grandmother, Rook saw this as an opportunity to try his skills at writing a novel. The result was "A Shadow From The Past" which was called "an earnest novel, deeply felt and worked out with a good deal of honesty and force" by author Mark Jolly. Rook was a Seminary Teacher for three years and is currently teaching Elders Quorum. "The Junction" has already enjoyed good word-of-mouth praise, with sales across the Western States, Alabama, and New Jersey. Now the book is heading to bookstores and is available worldwide on the Internet at the author's website WWW.BWESTONROOK.COM or by calling 1-888-795-4274. Source: Author B. Weston Rook Tells Story of Rediscovered Faith Wes Rook Press Release 29Jun01 US CA SF A2 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 20:53:36 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Here's the problem as I see it: In reading "mainstream" or "secular" literature (including genre fiction such as SF&F, mystery, horror, etc.: I personally don't have a lot of experience reading romance fiction ;-) ), I note that much of it includes scenes of explicit sex and/or violence. While such things are sometimes necessary to the plot, in other cases, such scenes do not seem to develop naturally from the storyline, but almost seem to be added in after the main story was finished. This makes me, as a would-be writer, wonder if publishers do not consider the presence of such explicit scenes as necessary to make a work a commercial success. IOW, can I compete with Stephen King (or even get my first novel published) if I don't include explicit sex, violence, or language? If I don't include them, am I limiting myself to the Jack Weyland market, meaning also that I am limited to the kind of stories he writes? Can I write a story that will be of interest to readers outside of Happy Valley and get it published if I maintain Happy Valley standards for content and language? Thoughts? - -- Ronn! :) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:40:35 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Sex in Literature - ---Original Message From: Amelia Parkin > 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. But you see, we *aren't* just like the rest of the world. We may be part of the world every bit as much as others are, and we certainly are as human as others are, but we have something that none of the others have (the Gospel). And if that doesn't make a difference in your story, then your story will be abandoned by Mormon readers. > 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? You can't be sinning and Christlike at the same time. Christlike is by definition without sin. I think you could show someone who *has* sinned and is Christlike. You could probably show that someone is Christlike and still sins, but you'll have to show how that sin affects your characters because fundamental to LDS theology is that sin carries damage. I think that your specific example is possible, but it would be exceptionally difficult and would have to be more or less the focus of a novel. You can't take a warm, kind, loving and lovable woman and add adultery without changing the picture substantially. Adultery is specifically troubling to add to a Mormon novel without it becoming the focus. Adding adultery will dramatically change the expectations of your story. In order to be truly Mormon, such sin has to have consequences. Not necessarily the ones you would expect (things that may or may not happen like STDs or pregnancy) but certainly adultery will have some damaging affect on a person. If you show someone who commits great sin and has nothing change as a result then you will lose your market. Sin has consequences and not just ones saved up for judgment day. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:59:56 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] McCLOUD, _Kirtland_ (Review) Thank you for posting this review. I'd like to focus on the following cite from the book: > "Eden came below stairs.and informed him with as much coy smugness > as a cat who is licking the last of cream from her whiskers that he would > allow her to keep company with the gentleman, else she would pack her > belongings on the instant and go stay with Bertha Walker-who has > already offered her the use of a cozy little room above the millinery shop." > I will have to admit that I own about half a dozen of McCloud's books but don't recall ever finishing any of them. The above example may explain this. Her prose is often tortured and difficult to follow. Her romantic style is also not one I enjoy much. There must be an audience to which she appeals, or she wouldn't be publishing so many books (this is an assumption on my part, of course). I'm wondering just who this audience is. The other day I picked up an old Ensign magazine at DI that had an article on the writing of romance fiction. I haven't read it in its entirety yet, but skimming it, I see the writer questions the quality of LDS romance fiction. Thanks again for this good review. [Jeff Needle] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:38:36 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Art Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Um. Droves? I think you overstate. Here's a quote from opera singer Michael Ballard at the 1995 Mormon Arts Festival: I met with the Bishop and the Stake President and had a book, a very substantial book of all the artists who were Mormons living in the Manhattan Ward. It was page after page after page after page, but most of them either had an 'X' or an 'X' in parenthesis around them. I said, "What does this 'X' mean?" "It means they've been excommunicated." "What does the parenthesis around the 'X' mean? "It means if they come through the revolving door they'll be excommunicated." Ballard attributes this to the highly corruptive nature of the business. But I say, the low opinion that church members and occasionally even General Authorities seem to have of art greases the wheels of that corruption. If artists are not appreciated by their own people, they'll go where they're appreciated. If we appreciated them more, perhaps fewer would be so enticed by the corrupt artistic culture out there. > 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. And do you think this happens out of the blue? I've learned all sorts of things about the church, it's doctrine, it's history, it's leaders, that give one pause, but I'm still here. Something has to have prepared an individual to let things like that knock him out of the church. I'd say the preparatory things are much more significant than the final straw that makes them act. > 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 who says that, just because people think, they can't also struggle with the Gospel, have less understanding in critical areas, and become offended? This truly sounds like anti-intellectualism to me. > And if you want to claim victim status, it is a shift from a larger > population to a decidedly smaller one. Well, that seems a bit calloused to me, but is only valid anyway if we're talking an either/or proposition. I have no idea why we can't accomodate both populations. After all, the "unthinking" population is going by what the church leaders say. So if the church leaders say, "Fiction is okay," why are they harmed? On the contrary, I believe they'd be helped. > 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. Like I said, I don't think it's a simplistic process, that one day an intellectual learns something and leaves the church. This intellectual has long ago become disillusioned with the cavalier approach the church seems to have at times toward truth and facts. The way the church presents its message can be a big part of that. > 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. And if a large portion of church members did that, you may be right. But I don't see it. I see many of them treating the silence as if it were a message as loud and clear as a statement. But since there is no information in silence, they provide their own information--i.e., interpretation--then accept or argue with that. Same process + less information to work with = larger wiggle room. How many members of the church do you think are really praying about the new fiction policy in church magazines to see if it's a message that fiction is bad? > Okay, now try getting that explanation through a correlation committee > and/or a unanimous vote of 15 people with vastly different backgrounds > and opinions. Well, I was thinking of that statement being delivered by a General Authority, not a committee of church magazine editors. But the correlated approach to art is what I'm complaining about. As I give my solutions, I'm doing so in the context of alternatives to correlation committees, not as add-ons grafted onto them. > 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. I just plain disagree with you here, for the same reason that we differ on reasons for artists leaving the church. I'm getting the impression that you're only looking at the highly visible catalyst event to these things: the straw-on-the-camel's-back fact from church history that finally drives the intellectual over the edge, or the tracting missionaries that find the golden contact and teach him the discussions. But the preparatory stuff is equally as important--I'd say more important. Without the preparation--the opening (or closing) of the heart--the catalyst event becomes quite meaningless. Art will open hearts much more effectively than sermons. I've heard many sermons on loving your enemy. All of them put together did not drive that point home to me like one scene out of a movie: the "Les Miserables" film with Richard Jordan as Valjean and Anthony Perkins as Javert. When a bishop invites the destitute Valjean into his home, feeds and beds him, then Valjean steals his silver plates and utensils, and finally the police arrest him and bring him back to the bishop, the bishop says the silver was a gift to Valjean to help him start over, and also gives him a pair of silver candlesticks. This completely turned Valjeans's life around, and etched itself indelibly in my mind as a marvelous sermon of Christian love. This one scene is what instilled in me the passion I have for the story behind "Les Miserables" as a superb example of redemption and the efforts of one man to be truly Christlike. I don't so much as remember a single one of the sermons about this that I've heard over the years. Not even from General Authorites! Maybe sermons have seemed more effective in preaching the Gospel because we as an LDS culture have hardly use art, so we don't have the experience to understand its power. > 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. Neither is the sermon if the heart isn't prepared. The fact that other ways exist to prepare a person does not in any way diminish the importance of art in doing so. Certainly not to the individual who _was_ prepared by art. Since art in no way conflicts with other methods, why should we diminish it? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 02:52:06 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Literary LCD Frank Maxwell wrote: > Okay, I understand what you mean. However, I'm not sure that a writer > should limit himself or herself by specializing in stories which depict the > "gamut of human degradation." I feel like I keep fighting the same battle over and over. It's all a matter of balance. Evangelical Christians use the writings of Paul in the New Testament to support their belief that faith and faith alone is what leads to salvation. They do so because Paul's writings seem to say that. What they forget is to add the cultural context. Paul was talking to people who had gone off the deep end following the letter of the law, not to mention a bunch of rules and interpretations added on to that. He was emphasizing faith because that's what his audience needed to hear. Nowadays evangelical Christians think Mormons emphasize works--just live the commandments to be saved--and ignore the role of faith. We do not ignore that role. We emphasize works because those Christians have gone to an extreme in defining the role of faith in salvation, so works is what they need to hear about. When something goes to one extreme, you counteract that by emphasizing the other extreme. Not because you believe in the other extreme, but because averaging one extreme with another produces balance. How in the world could you think my comments support the idea that authors should be limited in anything? I'm for the exact opposite. They shouldn't be limited at all, except by their own choices. Why should they be limited to the gamut of human niceness anymore than to the gamut of human degredation? But in the LDS market, they are limited to the niceness. So I emphasize the opposite extreme. If I were talking to authors and publishers in the outside world, I'd be emphasizing the niceness extreme. I'd be demanding the right to NOT put sex in my stories to get published. > But even if I'm wrong about that, I feel more strongly that this kind of > niche marketing is the wrong approach for a Mormon publisher to take. I'll > elaborate more on this later, but I think a "midstream Mormon publisher" > should try to publish a wide range of books, not a narrow range. I agree. The narrow range already exists: human niceness. To create a wide range, you have to move beyond human niceness. I don't want a narrow range of degradation any more than a narrow range of niceness. I want the range wide open. > I wonder why, when we talk about addressing "serious" matters in Mormon > literature, some people immediately bring up sexual degradation. I'm not > trying to insult any of you, but is there a voyeuristic component in some > people's call for an "edgier" Mormon fiction? Fighting the same battle over and over. "Some people" bring up sexual degradation because it's taboo in LDS literature. That's a limitation on the author. That's a narrowing of the range. Why, when I try to expand the limitations and range, am I the one accused of trying to limit and narrow? This is yet another example of how I believe Mormons, deep down, think sex is dirty. When an author wants to put some sex in his story, instantly he's accused of voyeurism. Sorry, but a few words scribbled on a page does not thrill me anywhere near as much as the actual act with my wife--why would I even need literary voyeurism? Or at the very least, go out and buy a Playboy magazine if I were really after some voyeurism. Sticking a bit of sex into an LDS novel doesn't strike me as particularly satisfying, sexually speaking. > I think there are lots of serious matters that could be addressed in Mormon > lit, which do not fall under the category of "degradation". In an elders > quorum lesson I just gave, I asked the group to help me list on the board > the kinds of trials and tribulations that had occurred to people whom they > personally knew in their families or in the ward. In addition to job loss, > family problems, and converts being persecuted by their non-LDS relatives, > there were several cases of deaths from cancer or other tragic accidents. > Are these matters serious enough for Mormon literature to address? Yes, and they ought to be addresses, and they ARE being addressed. That's why we're not emphasizing them. Sex is just barely getting to be addressed, very cautiously, very timidly, and in my opinion, very ineffectively. Thus I emphasize it over others. Just aiming for balance. This trend of addressing the more gritty realities of life generally is new in LDS literature, but for the most part it seems to be well-received. Even Gerald Lund impressed me with some of the issues he was willing to tackle in "Work and the Glory," and Jack Weyland is addressing some of them to the best of his ability. But sex lags behind all this like the ugly duckling that the rest of the duck family doesn't want to acknowledge. And I keep asking myself, why? Why, of all the gritty realities of life, is sex singled out as the one which still gets the dark ages treatment? My hypothesis: Mormons still labor under the Puritan cultural baggage of thinking sex is dirty. Oh, we've changed the word to disguise this attitude: sex is sacred. But we still treat it as dirty in our behavior, and as the saying goes, you actions speak so loudly... > But if I really wanted to read about human degradation, I'd start looking > up reports from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. The Job-like > sufferings of innocent victims around the world seem much more significant > to me than the imaginary sexual hangups of fictional Wasatch Frontians. Some of the suffering of these victims is sexual degradation, is it not? Yet a novel about that wouldn't fare any better in the LDS market than the soap opera of Wasatch Front hangups. Any of the other suffering would be fine, but not the sexual stuff, because sex is dirty. I guess that means murder and pommeling and slavery is not dirty, because those could be in the novel. > Perhaps if Mormon literature is to become truly mature, it should stop > looking inward at its own emotional and psychological troubles, and start > looking outward at the world that surrounds it. Just as long as it doesn't look at the sexual part of that world. Naughty naughty. Voyeurism. In other words, you're not making the issue go away by trying to redirect our vision outward. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:49:03 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Yea! I received a good supply of contest novels. I'm about to see if any of them look publishable. The best one will get the thousand bucks. The others? They may work on the market. Who wants to choose, edit, discuss? I can get them published by Salt Press IF THEY ARE GOOD! Usually, if they are good (like ANGELS of the DANUBE), the author can get them published himself through a house already in operation. However, if there are some novels that are not being accepted by the usual houses, and YOU people can convince Chris, or Scott Parkin or Tory Anderson, or myself (or who ever else wants to join the "Rejected Mormon Novels Board?") that the world needs it, we'll publish it. Marilyn Brown - ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Bigelow To: ; Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 5:08 PM 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). Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 18:36:27 -0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] NY Times Udall review Call me the official forwarder of Edgar Mint reviews. I came accross this brief one in the NY Times. I assume we don't have a reprint agreement with them, so I'll just quote a part of it. It has arrived at my local library, so I hope to read it this month. New York Times, July 1, 2001, Late Edition. By Jennifer Reese "rambling and generous first novel" "Contemporary fiction is full of cynical, world-weary protagonists. One of the strengths of this big, uneven novel - -- it reads at times like a John Irving novel touched up by Roy Blount Jr. -- is the lovely and complex character of Edgar, an innocent whose struggle to survive is at odds with his fundamentally gentle nature. ("Don't go bad, Edgar," an aide at the Indian school whispers to him after a fight.) The conflict is never presented as simple; Edgar almost does go bad. But he manages to detach himself from miserable experiences by setting them down on paper. Other characters are less rich, the denouement seems rushed, and the book is too long. But it is also sweet, sad and refreshing." Andrew Hall _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:01:51 -0600 From: Chris Grant Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Eric Samuelsen writes: [...] >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. Is it your impression that there would not be significant disagreement with this assertion among the General Authorities? For example, on more than one occasion in General Conference, mention has been made of a survey of "influential television writers and executives in Hollywood" which showed that they tended to hold more liberal views on sexual behavior than the American public in general. Commenting on this survey, President Hinckley said that these writers "are educating us in the direction of their own standards, which in many cases are diametrically opposed to the standards of the gospel." It appears to me that President Hinckley saw more moral significance in their decisions regarding sexual matters than in their decisions regarding jumper colors. [...] >But please, let's not judge the choices made by our brothers >and sisters. Certainly we should try to make our judgments righteous, but should we really try to avoid judgment altogether? Isn't the way we make sense out of the world largely by trying to understand *why* things happen? In most of the fiction I've read, the author has seemed to be trying to give us insight into his/her characters' motivations. Do most authors wish us to confine the insight thus gained to the realm of nonentities wherein their characters dwell, or are they often trying to say something indirectly about the motivations of real people? And if artists can say things about others' motivations, why can't others say things about artists' motivations? One of the General Authorities commenting on the aforementioned survey of television writers was Elder Ballard in the April 1989 General Conference. He said: =20 "I express my own and this Church=92s disappointment, disagreement, and even outrage with television that turns our attention and sometimes our inclinations toward violence, self-serving greed, profanity, disrespect for traditional values, sexual promiscuity, and deviance." Is the outrage expressed by Elder Ballard appropriate? [...] >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 was the reaction of your class members to the lesson manual's quote from President Benson about what books *not* to read? [...] >I can't imagine that the Lord wouldn't want us to gain from >the insights into the human condition offered by . . . >Stephen King. I guess the question is: Are the insights worth the price?=20 In a 1983 BYU Devotional, H. Burke Peterson voiced what has been a frequent theme among General Authorities: "As we go through life, we may be exposed to stories, pictures, books, jokes, and language that are filthy and vulgar, or to television shows, videos, or movies that are not right for us to see or hear. Our minds will take it all in. They have the capacity to store whatever we give them. Unfortunately, what our minds take in they keep, sometimes forever." Chris Grant grant@math.byu.edu - - 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 #383 ******************************