From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #400 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 Friday, July 20 2001 Volume 01 : Number 400 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:57:21 -0700 From: Terri Reid Subject: [AML] Mission of Mormon Letters? I finally have had a day when I can actually read the post and enjoy them - thank you all for all of your interesting insights. Now, I have a couple of questions: The three-fold mission of the church is to: 1. Redeem the dead 2. Preach the gospel 3. Perfect the Saints (Not necc. in that order.) So, do we, as Mormon writers have any obligation to try and fulfill any of those mission statements? And, if so, does that mean that those who write for LDS publishers are in the process of "perfecting the Saints." While those who write for "gentile/national" publishers are those who are "preaching the gospel?" (i.e When Orson Scott Card writes a story based loosely on Joseph Smith, is he, in some way, helping to preach the gospel?) Thanks for your time. Regards, Terri Terri Reid Executive Producer - Midwest Region PIXELight www.itpnow.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:14:02 -0600 From: Chris Grant Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature D. Michael Martindale writes: [...] >Even KSL was willing to air the nudity in _Schindler's List_ >(while balking at the F-word), a tacit acceptance of the >notion that nudity can be integral to the story. As I understand it, KSL's choice was between airing the movie with the nudity intact or not airing the movie at all. If that is true, it does not seem reasonable to me to interpret KSL's decision to air the movie as anything more than a decision that the nudity was not enough of a negative factor to outweigh the positive messages conveyed by the film. This would be similar to OSC's apparent decision that although the nudity in "NYPD Blue" was a minus rather than a plus, it did not outweigh the pluses to the point that he was unwilling to watch the show. Furthermore, I don't think we should equate KSL's business decisions with the Church's imprimatur. Since KSL televises Jay Leno's monologues, are dirty jokes now okay with the Church? In the eyes of the Church, is watching "Fear Factor", "Spy TV", and "Weakest Link" an appropriate Sabbath day activity since KSL airs them on Sunday nights? 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:19:27 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Sex in Literature I want to respond to this thread and have been trying to collect my thoughts to express my feelings on the subject. As an LDS author it's an issue I can't ignore or fail to deal with. I want to thank Jacob for expressing most of how I feel: Sex is a powerful force. You can't ignore it. First I want to express briefly my tiredness and exhaustion with the argument that sex, even depraved sex, is recorded in the Bible, therefore graphic titillating scenes in today's literature are equally "okay." Sorry. Doesn't work for me. Take the story of Lot's daughters which D. Michael related. I've read it. It tells the basic facts: they got Lot drunk and "lay with him" (<--exact words) to get pregnant. NOWHERE in the text of the Bible is ever related any sexual explicitness unnecessary to relating the basic story. We don't know exact details of how they completed that act, or any such business. It is NOT necessary for us to have those details to understand the gist of what happened. The Bible is NOT more graphic than needed, EVER. Yes, sex happens. The Bible is full of righteous begetting as well as the consequences of immoral sexual behavior. Even the Song of Solomon (which my father called a dirty book and doesn't believe belongs in the Bible) is not anywhere near what I call explicit. Second, I believe that while sex is an ultimate, powerful life force, it is also sacred. As the temple is sacred. You're SUPPOSED to attend the temple often. When you're married, you're SUPPOSED to have sex (I might add, often, and for three basic reasons--the preservation of intimacy between the two of you, for fun, and (duh) for procreation). Embarrassment is not the only reason for not writing detailed sexual encounters; some things are sacred and should be, must be, treated as such. Relate as much detail as is necessary for us to understand what's going on. No more. (The same rule holds if you were writing a scene inside the temple, which we discussed recently: be very cautious.) I don't lock my bedroom door ONLY because of embarrassment if my 11-year old daughter walked in (though it would be an embarrassing moment, sure). Some things are sacred, and for me and my spouse alone to know. So far I believe I've done well teaching my own children about sex without embarrassment. The same daughter I mentioned above knows more about the mechanics of sex than I knew when I got married. In today's world, she has to. If she doesn't hear it from me she'll hear it elsewhere, and it will be incorrect information. STILL, I don't want her reading explicit sex scenes or viewing explicit scenes in movies and have those things swimming in her head at her age. I know I read things as a teen that I wish I hadn't. It was too overwhelming and took my thoughts in directions far from virtuous. Therefore, when I write, I feel I have a responsibility to consider the hormones of my readers. If I were to write something explicit and a married LDS person read it and happened to be aroused by it, that person has a legal and lawful outlet to vent those feelings. That person also has life experience to relate with such a scene, and may not be "thrown out" of the story by it (although they could be, depending). My single readers don't have that. My teenage readers don't. Many of my readers are twelve and thirteen and may lack the maturity to handle a graphically detailed scene. Thankfully I haven't found it necessary to BE very graphic in anything I've written to date. Sex happens in my writing. It's obvious sex happens. It's also obvious that in negative circumstances it's very destructive. But the DETAILS of the particular sex the characters have don't need to be shared, unless a particular thing actually *changes* the character. (Biblical example: it's important for us to know Onan "spilled his seed" on purpose--refusing to raise children to his brother as the law required--to know why the Lord struck him dead. Yet it is still NOT important for us to follow every detailed movement of that fateful event.) We DO have an obligation to keep sex sacred. A former Bishop of mine had a favorite phrase: TMI--"Too Much Information." He'd say it when ward members would converse on such things as their problems with diarrhea or other intestinal distress or health problems. I think the same goes for sex. I've had people give me TMI about their sex lives that I'd really rather not know, thanks very much. I think FREQUENTLY Hollywood gives us TMI about characters' sex lives. Like Jacob was saying: it's an important part of life, but it's not the ONLY thing, either, as Hollywood et al. would have us believe. It's also possible to write in "code" when necessary and use phrases that sexually experienced readers will understand, but virginal and trying-to-stay-that-way readers will not, or will not get as visual an image in their mind as an experienced reader might. Most of the language in _The Color Purple_ describing the relationship Shug and Celie have is veiled in this way. I saw Sharon Stone last night on Actors' Studio. One of the students at the end asked a question about how she reconciled God and her religious upbringing with her work (known for several explicit sexual scenes). I don't agree with everything she said in reply; but one thing she said (paraphrasing) was that we have to acknowledge our sex as part of us. "Not just our sensuality, or our passion, but our **SEX!!**" she said. She said you can't remove that part of yourself or separate it out. It's part of you and you have to accept it and acknowledge its power. (I would add, whether your circumstances allow you to be righteously sexually active or not. You have to cope with that powerful force one way or another.) Are we possibly (culturally, as a group) still afraid to come out and publicly own our sexuality? Are we embarrassed by its sheer, raw power? Afraid it will become "lust" rather than a potent spiritual life force to be celebrated and enjoyed? It occurred to me that many Latter-day Saints DO seem to do this--to separate our sexual selves from the rest of ourselves, at least IN PUBLIC. Maybe not in the privacy of our own bedrooms. Yet--to explain (was it D. Michael who asked?)--the majority of RS sisters I know don't mind talking about it in a healthy way (without violating personal spousal trust.) Most sisters I know-- we've got a good, healthy happy attitude about sex. There *are* those who "don't like it" or feel it's "dirty" or a "duty," but those are the minority (also, shall we say, not frequently found among the younger generation either). According to my husband, men, however, DON'T talk about sex among their Priesthood brethren, at all. Is this part of the problem? Men? Speak up. Never has there been a better statement on morality than "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" by Jeffrey R. Holland. If you haven't read it, get a copy. It's excellent. I attended the original devotional address at BYU. While he wasn't explicit, either, he explained better than anyone ever had to me why chastity and monogamy and morality were so vital to righteous living and personal happiness. ...The only challenge left, really, is comprehending that something on an equal sacred plane as the sacrament or temple ordinances, considered sacred and holy, doesn't have to be performed with the same decorum as a temple ordinance... :-D > > Randomly thinking of stories with sex in them: Sex scenes that took me straight out of the story: _Forever_ by Judy Blume (read as a teen; I couldn't get past the explicitness to comprehend the story she intended to tell); most other books by her _Meet Joe Black_ was downright embarrassing as well as unnecessary to forwarding the plot Ken Follett --I don't even remember the TITLE of this book, that's how much this 8-page scene stood out... the main character was a woman, married to one spy from one country (turned out to be the bad guy) and had an affair with the other spy-guy, had to shoot her husband at the end to save herself and her baby? Rebecca something, maybe? _Shakespeare in Love_ --unnecessary nudity and detail, plus I kept thinking how puny Gwyneth Paltrow's figure was, poor thing... Well-handled sex scenes that kept me in the story, forwarded the plot: _Heartburn_ with Meryl Streep/Jack Nicholson (very funny, brief scene) _Songmaster_ by Orson Scott Card --didn't bother me, but likely would bother many, yet was not overly descriptive _The Color Purple_ by Alice Walker --the sex included was vital to the character and plot development, also tastefully handled _What Women Want_ the scene was important to character development, besides being hysterically truthful, without being overly explicit. In a movie _about_ a man able to hear women's private thoughts, leaving sex out of it would have been incomplete. That's all I have time for right now. Baby's crying--naptime! ...come to think of it, I do suffer some personal embarrassment when I take all FIVE of my kids out in public... there is *that*.... (I'm FAR from Utah and 5 kids is an oddity here) the comments people make about don't I know how that happens by now... (but do they mean sex, or birth control? I'll ask the next rude person I bump into.) still I feel embarrassed by the sheer volume, physical evidence of the healthy state of things in my marriage, though I shouldn't be ashamed of *that* at all. working on it... (**still off-topic: another sister with six kids once told me she started answering that with "yeah, isn't it fun??" and said people don't have a good response to that one. I've tried it. It works. They generally shut up.) Well--back to Real Life. Linda ================= Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:45:26 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > > > Stories are not advanced by nudity, > Doesn't the quote indicate he's referring to "NYPD Blue" specifically? Or > did Chris misidentify it? He jumped off from NYPD Blue, but swerved into a general statement when he said "stories." - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #400 ******************************