From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #386 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 9 2001 Volume 01 : Number 386 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:19:53 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > You can't be sinning and Christlike at the same time. Christlike is by > definition without sin. Then you have described an impossible condition for all mortals who walk this earth. I suggest that Christ-like is closer to trying to be without sin, not committing sins on purpose,. - -- 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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:23:36 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Art "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > 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." Forget whatever connotations this may have to whether artists remain active or not. What in the *&^%$ is Ballam doing looking at a list of excommunicated members at all? The Bishop and the SP who showed him those names ought to be exed themselves, imo. - -- 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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:31:56 -0700 From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: [AML] Realistic Newspaper Reporters I am taking up my pen (word-processor) again to work on a novel that I keep procrastinating. Most of my characters I know, but one I don't. What I mean is that most of them have identities I know something about. It would be silly for me to populate a story with people I don't understand, but it would also seem dull to leave out the characters I don't understand. I have one character who is a newspaper reporter, but I know nothing about newspaper reporting. I don't want to make him cliche, because there is much about him that is not at all stereotypical. The interesting things about him not related to his job I can handle, but when I show him doing his job, how do I make it believable without making him a caricature of every other newspaper reporter I've ever read about in a novel? Any newspaper reporter here want to give me an assist? Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:38:26 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons At 11:10 AM 7/4/01 -0400, you wrote: >. I know that most members of the Church recognize >that other members experience problems. But in addition to understanding >that reality, most of them also hold onto an ideal image of what it is to >be a good Mormon and unfortunately that ideal image somehow cannot include >struggles with normal problems. We don't need literature that reinforces >that idea. I've been reading a book called More Jesus, Less Religion. The author is a non-LDS Christian. He calls it a form of "toxic faith" to believe that if you're really good, God will protect you from harm and sorrow. I think he's right--and I think there's a tendency in the Church for people to believe that. It keeps people from seeking help--they think that by admitting they have problems, they're admitting that they're bad Mormons. I'd love to see some strong fiction that undercuts this notion. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:57:29 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: RE: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher - --- Jacob Proffitt wrote: > 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 messages have been flying back and forth on so many interesteting topics that I've been finding it difficult to come up with meaningful responses of my own, so I just wanted to mention that I appreciate that Jacob has been taking the time to represent his viewpoint in this and other threads. I for one need the occassional reminder that artistic discourse has a real effect---that it shapes people's lives, their way of thinking. I believe the 'orthodox' Mormon audience needs to develop better critical skills and be less easily offended, but I also believe that subsuming the demands of aesthetics to the larger goal of spreading the gospel is a valid position. I think most of us want the art and the spreading of the gospel to proceed in a harmonic way (which doesn't mean that notes in a minor key can't contribute to the overall harmonics)----each stream of discourse complementing, shaping and enriching the other. Frankly, I'm awed (but also find oddly humorous) by the conceit, the presumption that: 1) Mormons are trying to convert all those who will listen and 2) Mormons are trying to create meaningful, well-actualized art. As we move forward with both endeavors, my hope is that these two streams never become conflated, but that they also don't become parallel (or even divergent) tracks. I'd like to tread in both paths and am willing to throw my support and energy behind those with the same goal. I think that a midstream Mormon publisher, or the expansion of current publishing lines that work with authors that fit this category, is an important step in making sure the two remain entangled (in a healthy way). ~~William Morris, who, in one post, just used up his allotment of path/stream/flowing lines metaphors for the year. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:22:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Amelia Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Jacob Proffit wrote: > 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. Jacob, you have struck the core of my argument. And you have struck a raw nerve with me. So here goes. Since when do Mormons have the Gospel and, let's say, Baptists do not? Last time I checked, there were still more copies of the Bible sold than any other book, worldwide. And if the Bible doesn't contain the Gospel of Christ, what does? It's time to take off our blinders. There are people who will never, in this life time, be Mormon. And they are every bit as good as you and me. And they have as much access to the Gospel as they need in order to be good people. It's time for Mormons to recognize that we in no way have the corner on the market of Gospel truth. Sure, we have some knowledge that other religions don't. That's important. That's very important. But, as I discovered one hot summer afternoon in a Baptist church, they have some knowledge that unfortunately we seem to not have--not because we *can't* have it but because we remain culturally blindfolded to it. It's time for Mormons to begin to understand that other people are not to be pitied because they don't have the Gospel. I know, this isn't much about Mormon lit but it's important. Jacob wrote: > > 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. If this is true, than we may as well all give up. We certainly *can* be sinning and be Christlike. If not then everyone alive is hopeless. No one, ever, with the exception of Jesus Christ himself, has lived a sinless life. And I would argue that it's not even done in brief stretches for most people. I can, and have, simultaneously loved my family dearly (Christlike) and hurt my family (sin). Just a small example; there are other larger ones. The point is that we constantly struggle to become more Christlike. But the fact that we sin does not mean that we are in not at all Christlike. I have many friends who are sinning but who somehow manage to love selflessly, to serve others, to seek truth, to be honest, and on and on. If that is not a combination of Christlike behavior with sinful behavior, then I'm not sure what it is. Of course sin affects us. Of course this must be represented. But it must be represented accurately, or I'd rather not have it represented at all. It affects us in infinite gradations, not just in black and white. And it's about time that we represented this accurately enough that we begin to truly understand the principle of non-judgment. So that we don't see a "sinner" who suffers the consequences of sin so completely that we utterly condemn them. And so that we aren't scared to death of sinning ourselves, so scared that we transfer the condemnation of other sinners onto ourselves. Sure we need to be wary of sinning. And yes, we need to be able to condemn sin when we commit it. But we don't need the kind of paralyzing condemnation that results from a black and white understanding of the nature of sin. and on the same subject to Chris Grant: > [...] > >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). >Why did you put scare quotes around the word "sinful"? As >for wanting to tell a story conveying the notion that there >is joy in sin, it seems to me that there are few ideas more >likely to alienate the General Authorities and those who >value their opinions. I put "scare quotes" around the word "'sinful'" because we too often condemn something as sinful and only sinful without thinking more deeply than that about it. It's a surface categorization. It's easy. It's all too often thoughtless. Second point, I didn't say I wanted to convey the notion that there is joy in sinning. I said I want the latitude to represent the actuality that joy and sin can be conflated in the same act or set of acts. I want to be able to represent complex reality. As with anything, sin or sinful acts are complex sites of intersection. Sometimes sexual sin is not purely lascivious gratification of desire. Sometimes it actually has to do with love. And as such it can be an expression of love, just like it is between a husband and wife. The fact that it happens outside of the bonds of marriage may make it sinful but it does not negate the fact that it is a loving act, one which may and probably does bring joy. That creates a whole new situation than that of the situation of depraved sexual sin. A sinner who experiences joy in conjunction with their sin will have a very different struggle than he or she who does not. And I believe that there are those out there who face that situation. Why is it that we can't talk about such situations so that people can figure out how to deal with them outside the isolation of actually being in the situation? amelia parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 03:23:37 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher At 12:10 PM 6/29/01, Eric Samuelsen wrote: >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," There's a solution, then. Whenever we have two characters meet and want to show that they are attracted to each other, instead of doing what the world would do, let's have them say to each other "I love you. Let's eat!" Then we can introduce the non-members in our audience to the concept of green Jell-o . . . - -- Ronn! :) - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:50:34 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? - --- "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > I seem to have left the impression with several > people that I was > gearing up for a campaign to get advertisements back > in the church > magazines. That will never happen, and I don't have > any desire to get it > to happen. I just want to know--where do we > advertise now? > This is a vexing problem and one that I've been thinking about on the consumer end of things (I'd love to see market research, etc., but for now I'm going off my exposure to Mormon-related advertising). If things continue to consolidate in the 'Mormon' Web site arena, then it's possible that it might be good to advertise with the survivors (Meridian Magazine? Mormon Village?)---Has anybody in book publishing/distribution approached any of these sites and heard they're marketing pitch? What sort of hit count do they get? I imagine that another good way would be to try and develop a list of interested readers and use direct mail combined with a list of approved retailers and/or e-commerce site (run by the distributor). But how does one get such a list? My wife and I found ourselves on the Living Scriptures mailing list---and yet neither one of us had done anything to trigger our name being added to the list. I was not pleased. I don't mind getting mailers, I just want to be the one who outs my name on the list. I would imagine that DB, Signature and other imprints have their own lists that they've built over the years, and considering the limited market, I'm sure they jealously and carefully guard their lists. Is anyone going to the LDSBA convention? Is anybody willing to schmooze around and get some of this info.? I for one would be happy if the LDSBA put together a unified fiction mailing that included titles from all the publishing houses and focused on both genre and literary fiction---something like what university publishing houses do with their scholarly titles--but with a little more sales copy. If they had to highlight Lund or Weyland titles in order to justify the expense, but also found room for the others, that would be fine with me. And, of course, if we could increase the circulation of _Irreantum_, then the advertising that it accepts would be that much more effective. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:06:04 -0600 From: "Paris ANDERSON" Subject: Re: [AML] Paris Anderson Dear Andrew Hall, I'm flattered that you would remember "Waiting for the Flash." I've pretty well forgotten about it myself. Though I have occationally thought of rewriting it and hand-binding a copy or two--just for personal use. You mention the element of psychology in the book and ask if I am trained in psychology. The only experiences I've had with psychology are occational fits of insanity. I've also learned a lot by learning the control and overcome the fits (post-traumatic stress disorder.) I'm pretty OK now--knock on wood. The novella "Claire: A Mormon Girl," is actually a five book series. I have also published a fairytale set in Utah among the children of the Hole-in -the- Rock expedition. It is entitled "A Large Blue Feather Trimmed with Crimson and Gold." I think it's probably the best thing I have ever done. It didn't do very well, though. Send me your address and I'll mail a case full to you This summer I'm going to publish the first book in a series for boys. It's entitled, "The Recollections of Private Seth Jackson, Company D, Mormon Battalion." It should be done this month. Mostly, though, I hand-binding some of my stuff. It takes a lot of time. I'm working on a picture-book entitled, "Tough Luck: Sitting-Bull's Friend." I'm kind of thinking it might go national. My eight-year-old son and I are working on a book together. It's called "Into the Cesspit." Other than that I'm just happy to bew here. Paris Anderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:13:54 -0600 From: Chris Grant Subject: Re: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons Lauramaery (Gold) Post writes: [Quoting someone else] >>But what's wrong with writing about good people. They're >>interesting too. > >I can think of no fictional character about whom that is true. For starters, how about Galadriel, Atticus Finch, Alyosha Karamazov, Prince Myshkin, Father Brown, Joe Pendleton from "Heaven Can Wait", Mrs. Cummings from Douglas Thayer's _Summer Fire_, most of the people in Eric Samuelsen's _Singled Out_, Ransom from C.S. Lewis's space trilogy, the fictionalized C.S. Lewis character in "Shadowlands", or the fictionalized Thomas More character in "A Man for All Seasons"? Too bad, too boring, or both? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 03:47:51 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Beth Hatch quotes Brigham Young: > "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. . ." > "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..." Beth, you must go back and look some more. Surely you missed a quote somewhere where B.Y. says: "...except for sex--don't read about that." Otherwise, these quotes seem to pretty much clinch my side of the argument. We should read about everything, good and bad, and the reading alone does not constitute a sin. (I think it's an obvious corollary that the writing also does not constitute a sin.) ================================ Jacob Proffitt wrote: > 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. The difference is what we believe, and what we do about temptations, or what we do to fix things if we succumb to temptations, or what the consequences will be if we don't try to fix things. These are the differences that our fiction should reflect. Instead we're bean-counting the morality in our art. We don't ask if the message of the story is moral, we count up sex scenes and cuss words and judge morality from that. That doesn't reflect the true difference between Mormons and the rest of the world. That doesn't reflect much of anything but anal-retentivism. I invoke _Titanic_ again: leave the message in the film that sex is okay when you're in love, but cut that nude scene. Wrong difference to reflect. ============================================ Kathy Grant wrote: > Could you clarify what you meant when you > said, "I'm not sure we can turn the minds > of these hot teenagers much"? This is a > topic I'm very interested in, as YW counselor > working with the Mia Maids. The girls seem > to be simulaneously interested in and a little > embarrassed by talk of physical intimacy, and > they definitely have some distorted ideas > they've assimilated from the current cultural > climate. But they also love good stories--I'm > finding that's a wonderful way to reach them. Here in a nutshell is what I'm talking about. Embarrassment and distorted ideas from "the current cultural climate" about physical intimacy. ("Sex" for the euphemistically challenged.) The aforementioned climate would be the one that doesn't want to have any sex in its literature--it should all be behind closed doors where we can assume what's happening. (So what are the people with distorted ideas assuming?) What does this invoke in the girls? Interest. Except I'd put it: INTEREST! Curiosity made all the more urgent because they are getting no information to satisfy it, and are inheriting the embarrassment their parents feel, so they find it hard to seek out the information themselves from any reliable source. (Hence, distorted ideas.) Kathy says she's reaching them through stories. I can't help but wonder what stories she's using. Certainly nothing in the LDS repertoire, because there is no physical intimacy there. It's all behind closed doors where we don't see it (and therefore can't learn anything from it.) Let's talk about embarrassment for a moment. Is it a fair statement to say that the basic reason for wanting sex kept "behind closed doors" is embarrassment? Why else would people not want on-screen sex in their literature? It can't be because sex is a sin. Sex is usually not a sin; it's usually a glorious expression of love, the "very key" to the plan of salvation. But even when it is a sin, that can't be the reason. We can read about other sins depicted live. So why can't we see sex in our literature? Embarrassment, handed down from generation to generation--people unable to talk to other people, not even our closest loved ones, about one of the most basic parts of human existence. There's no logical reason for it--it's just a deeply conditioned emotional response that begins at a young age and is reinforced every time the subject comes up. Embarrassment is what keeps us from teaching our children what they need to know about their bodies and how they work; about intimate relations between spouses so they go into marriage without a clue. Literature that is embarrassed to tackle the subject head-on only perpetuates the problem. Why do you think that book about sex for LDS couples sold like hotcakes? Even though, by the reports I read, it was still substandard in its effectiveness for discussing the topic? A whole subculture starved for information about sex--the adults, mind you, not just MIA Maids--information that members of the subculture have every right to receive, but have nowhere to get it. And you try to tell me that hiding sex in my writing is a good thing. You try to accuse me of voyeurism when I put it in. I'm getting real tired of the accusation. I'm also beginning to wonder what sort of relationship those who make the accusation have with sex. Why does every invocation of sex seem voyeuristic to you? ============================== Anna Wight writes: > I guess you don't know my R.S. friends. Please elaborate! I'm not sure what you're getting at. ============================== Diann T. Read writes: > My personal concern, and perhaps Jeffrey's > as well, isn't the topic of sex itself but > the reason for and the manner of > *depicting* it. That's where "lowering > the bar" can occur if we don't use great > care. The rest of your message belies this claim, because your idea of the right way to depict sex is NOT to depict it. > *How* should sex be handled in LDS literature? > ...I personally don't believe it's necessary > to follow characters into a bedroom, whether > they're legally married or not, either to > depict sex as it should be, or the consequences > of it's misuse. See what I mean? So it IS the topic of sex itself that lowers the bar, according to you. > That, to me, is voyeurism, and a cheap, > worldly cop-out. There's that accusation again. I'm trying very hard to keep from responding the way I feel like responding, becaue I would clearly exceed AML-List guidelines if I did. > I believe both the righteous and unrighteous use > of sex can be demonstrated through the characters' > interactions with one another in non-sexual > settings, through their dialogue and behaviors. But can it be demonstrated _effectively_? Or will it be an artistic "cop-out" in the name of some misguided morality? > I think the bottom line is, what is our motivation > for depicting sex? Why ask this question? You already answered it: voyeurism and a worldly cop-out. What other possible motive could there be? > Is it truly to uplift others, to increase their > understanding and appreciation for this sacred > aspect of our lives? Or is it merely to titillate, > to compete with worldly entertainments? Speak for yourself. As for me, I am quite capable of discussing sex without titillation or self-serving efforts to compete with the world. > That, I think, is the core issue. No, it's not. You've presented two extremes and completely ignored the vast spectrum in between. That's side-stepping the core issue, not confronting 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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:42:02 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Value of Mormon Romance (was: McCLOUD, _Kirtland_) At 12:59 PM 7/2/01 -0700, you wrote: >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. I think it might have something to do with the subject we've been hammering on the list for a while--the tendency for LDS writers ( or their publishers) to hesitate to show the human flaws in their characters. Dutcher did it right in his two movies--Mormons were sometimes good and sometimes not. For example, a missionary fell for the poison in anti-Mormon literature. A non-LDS viewer might see that as his breaking away from his brainwashing, but the point is, the LDS characters were unique in themselves, and truly human. The weak missionary is balanced by the healing missionary. Wow. If you're going to have a romance, you've got to have sexual tension. You don't have to have fornication, but you have to have two people who are powerfully attracted to each other. Romance readers are perfectly happy with characters who choose to control those urges until the appropriate time. But it takes more than having majored in the same thing at BYU to match a romantic match. Biology has to be in there somewhere. I would like to see a romance featuring LDS characters sell in the national market--one written as a traditional romance, not as a showpiece for Molly and Michael Mormon. I recently read an historical romance featuring a Jewish heroine, and it worked wonderfully. The Rothschilds basically saved Wellington's butt during the Napoleonic Wars, making sure under dangerous circumstances that the troops got paid. The heroine helped them do so, and the story was quite adventurous. A Mormon historical romance, of course, would have to come later in time, and the Victorian Age makes me shudder. WWII romances are becoming popular--I'll bet a really good story could be told within that venue. Sayyyyy. . . . . barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:30:22 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Jacob, on the subject of the presumption of good will. >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. I basically agree with this, although I think I'm maybe a bit less = inclined to judge the morality of a work of fiction. I certainly do know = works that carry what I consider a morally depraved viewpoint, but I also = know people who disagree strenuously with me about the moral depravity of = the work in question. And the question I've been wrestling with is this; = to what extent does a judgment about a work of art extend to include those = who admire it? For me, the big musicals of the '40's and '50's are generally the sorts of = things I think about when I think about works with morally depraved = messages. I think The King and I is a great example. I find the very = notion of a Victorian woman bringing 'civilization' to a ruler of Siam, = which is one the oldest and greatest cultures in the world, utterly = appalling. I think the whole musical is the purest expression of cultural = imperialism imaginable. I just detest the whole thing. But I suspect = that most members of the Church disagree. I think most members of the = Church think Rogers and Hammerstein (or Lerner and Loewe or any of the = rest of them) musicals represent theatre at its finest, that they = represent a wholesome kind of entertainment that we've unfortunately lost, = that the decline of moral values started with Who's Afraid of Virginia = Woolf and continued through David Mamet and Sam Shepherd and Harold Pinter = and all the rest of them. All of whom I love. So there we are. I don't = want to judge most Mormons, Mormons like, for example, my parents and my = wife's parents and pretty much all the people in my ward, people who like = South Pacific and The King and I and Oklahoma and Brigadoon, all of which = I loathe. And yet my feelings of detestation run pretty deep, as deeply = as their feelings that those are all good shows and that contemporary = theatre is a cesspool. =20 I still think the best solution is to say that I'm no longer going to be = in the business of declaring works of art moral or immoral. I can say = that I'm troubled by some of the implications of certain works of art. = But I can't see any way around this. I can't see how I can say "The King = and I is racist" without saying "my parents, who like The King and I, are = racist." =20 Back to the presumption of good will, though, I think it runs deeper than = Jacob suggests. I think I should presume good will in the authors of = works I dislike. I think I should presume that Rogers and Hammerstein did = not intend to create a work of cultural imperialism; that at some level, = their respect and admiration for Siamese culture informed their work, but = that they were artists writing at a time and place where imperialist = values were more or less inescapable. South Pacific is a better example; = they were obviously trying to create an anti-racism musical. ("You have = to be carefully taught" couldn't make their intentions clearer.) But the = result is: a racist work. Now, I'm also going to try to presume good will even to the works of = authors I don't generally like. Obviously, a reputation means something. = I don't like the films of Randall (The Blue Lagoon) Kleiser. I would have = to be drawn kicking and screaming into any other film by the guy. But . . = . 'if there is ANYTHING . . . of good report . . . we seek after these = things.' Seek, active verb. =20 =20 Eric Samuelsen - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:56:18 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: Re:[AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers "Sharlee Glenn" worte >I wrote back and said that the last >thing I wanted to do was perpetuate erroneous stereotypes of Native >Americans. In fact, one of the major themes my story concerns itself with >is the debunking of such sterotypes. "On the other hand," I wrote, "I did >not attempt to gloss over the very real problem of alcoholism among the Ute >Indians." I know exactly what you mean. I grew up within the original borders of the Ute Indian Reservation in eastern Utah. My Great-Great-Grandfather homesteaded a portion of the Ute Indian Reservation that was made available for homesteading in about 1906. I grew up on a portion of that original homestead just northwest of Roosevelt. Much of my extended family still lives there. I personally saw Ute Indian kids in high school not doing the work that they were fully capable of doing, simply because their friends accused them of "being white." It's was an interesting sub-culture to watch while growing up. The problem spoken of by the publisher may be a cultural misunderstanding that arose because they do not know the area. More about this below... >So, back to your original question: "Why would any author who is good >enough to have his work published in the "outside" publishing world come to >a Mormon publisher . . .?" Perhaps because only a Mormon publisher allows >for certain realities to be represented at all. This is changing, I think. >But slowly, and with great resistance in some corners. Still, the fact >remains that many New York publishers simply aren't interested in what some >of us want to write about--our Mormonism. I think that's exactly why some of us aren't currently interested in the mainstream market, but could very well break into it if we tried. I, for one, want to write about who I am -- and I am LDS. I want others to understand who I am. "Outsiders" may have difficulty seeing who I am because of a cultural difference. I write for passion first, to sell second. I would rather write something that I'm passionate about and sell only a few copies than write something I don't give a darn about and sell a million copies. (Oh wait, did I say a million? Maybe I would for a million! ;) ) It's part of being true to yourself. There are mainstream LDS writers out there who don't put any LDS material in their writing. Doesn't that kind of feel like they sold "us" out? (Not trying to sound critical here.) And there are writers like Orson Scott Card, who do write about LDS material, but yet in the mainstream market. And yet if he wants to write about real LDS themes, he has to publish under LDS labels. So, as I see it, this is the bottom line: Writing for the LDS market greatly limits your audience and circulation, but may provide more satisfaction. Writing for the mainstream market may sell more copies, but it may also greatly limit the scope of your material and satisfaction in writing it. It seems to me to be that simple. It's kind of like bearing your testimony. It may be an appropriate thing to do in sacrament meeting "among friends," but you certainly wouldn't do it in a national medium, like on TV. It's just not the right place to express your innermost, honest feelings. >Sharlee Glenn >glennsj@inet-1.com Darvell Hunt Saratoga Springs, UT _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:53:04 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Fiction in Church Mags On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:22:15 -0600, J. Scott Bronson wrote: >Apparently there is an explanation out there. Frankly, I'm surprised >none of us have heard it. I was explaining this all to a friend the >other day and he said that in his ward a letter was read to them saying >that the reason the fiction is being removed is that too many members = are >just unable to distinguish between fiction and reality when it comes to >church publications. Too much fiction, apparently, is being quoted as >doctrine, or near-doctrine from the pulpit. Yes, why haven't any of us heard this letter? (I've never heard fiction being quoted as doctrine, though I've heard stories I knew to be = fictional recounted as true events. I think this falls under the heading of Urban Legend, though.) >Yet, how many times have we heard about the Steeds from the pulpit? How >many Mormons are desperately trying to find a link to the Steeds in = there >genealogy? Let's see: Number of times I've heard about the Steeds in sacrament meeting talks: = 0 Number of times people have told me it's happened: 10 Number of those times which were first-hand accounts (i.e. the person telling me had actually heard it themselves): Unknown, less than 5 As a matter of interest, I'd like everyone who's actually heard someone = cite the Steed family (or any of the other characters from The Work and the = Glory series) as real historical figures to respond here. First-hand accounts only, please, and I don't care if it was in a talk or in conversation. = I'd like to know how serious the problem really is. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #386 ******************************