From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #430 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 Wednesday, August 22 2001 Volume 01 : Number 430 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:36:12 -0400 From: "Debra L. Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Noted Mormon Author and Intellectual Eugene England Dead: England Family 19Aug01 US UT Prov A2 Noted Mormon Author and Intellectual Eugene England Dead PROVO, UTAH -- Mormon author and intellecutal G. Eugene England, died Friday at his home in Provo, Utah at about 10:30 am after a six-month struggle with brain cancer. His family has released the following obituary. Mormon News plans its own obituary later this week. Surrounded by his wife, Charlotte, and their six children, G. Eugene England, 68, died at home August 17, 2001, after a six-month struggle with brain cancer. Gene England was born in Logan, Utah, July 22, 1933, to George Eugene and Dora Rose Hartvigsen England. Gene grew up on a wheat farm in Downey, Idaho. A brilliant and persistent man, he convinced Charlotte Ann Hawkins to marry him in the Salt Lake LDS Temple on Dec 22, 1953. As newlyweds, they served a mission to Samoa for The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. Inspired by the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and influenced by Lowell Bennion, together Gene and Charlotte led lives of generosity, service, creativity, and profound faith. They have run an open house, always making room for friends and strangers. Countless lives have felt their influence for good. After serving as a captain in the Air Force, Gene was a Danforth Fellow at Stanford University, where he received a Ph.D. in English literature. He was Dean of Academic Affairs at St. Olaf's College in Northfield, Minnesota, but he always preferred teaching over administrating. He taught at St. Olaf's, the LDS Institutes of Religion at Stanford Univ. and the Univ. of Utah, and the English department at Brigham Young Univ. for 22 years until his retirement in 1998, and finally at Utah Valley State College as Writer-in-Residence and director of Study Abroad. Gene has served as a branch president, a bishop and in several bishoprics. Until recently he was a Gospel Doctrine teacher in the Pleasant View 1st Ward. A person of remarkable intelligence and faith, Gene never made anyone feel stupid or unworthy. Idealistic in his desire to continue the conversation between more conservative and liberal positions, he served as a bridge over troubled waters in the Mormon intellectual community. He naively assigned the best intentions to people, even those with whom he disagreed. As a founding editor of Dialogue and a ongoing contributor to Sunstone, he promoted Mormon scholarship and writing, especially the personal essay. A fine poet himself, he authored several books of personal essays and compiled and edited several collections of Mormon Literature. Before his health failed, Gene especially enjoyed fly-fishing with his friend Doug Thayer, remembering childhood follies with Bert Wilson, seeing the best theatre in London, leading willing victims on impossible hikes, convincing people to watch, again, one of his favorite movies with him, telling stories to his grandchildren (Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight were favorites), and being at the cabin he built with Charlotte. Gene's family includes his wife, Charlotte H. England, his sister, Ann England Barker (Duane A. Barker), his six children, Katherine England (Paul Nelson), Jody England Hansen (Mike Hansen), George Mark England, Jennifer England (Mark J. Asplund), Rebecca England (Jordan A. Kimball), and Jane England. Their 14 grandchildren are Jordan, Charlotte, Jacob, Anna, Hannah, Amelia, Christian, Bronte, Joseph, Porter, Janey, Maya, Isaac, Katy Rose. The family appreciates the love and affection people have expressed for Gene. The family has established the Eugene and Charlotte England Memorial Education Fund at Zion's Bank to honor Gene and continue his work, especially his interest in Mormon studies. Those who can are invited to contribute. Gene England was buried in a private graveside sevice Aug 18 at Wasatch Lawns in Salt Lake City. Friends are invited to honor Gene at a memorial service that will be held 1 pm Saturday Aug 25 at the Provo Tabernacle 100 S. University Ave., Provo, Utah. Source: Noted Mormon Author and Intellectual Eugene England Dead England Family 19Aug01 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/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:03:39 -0500 From: "Darvell Hunt" Subject: [AML] Screenwriting I have recently decided to seriously consider shifting my focus from novel writing to screenwriting. I definitely watch more movies than read books and I think there may currently be a good opportunity to break into this market right now. Awhile back I took a screenwriting/novel writing course from Dave Trottier at UVSC and have since ordered his book _The Screenwriter's Bible_. With Richard Dutcher, and hopefully others paving the way, the market for regular LDS films could very well be on the rise. I'd like to contribute what I can to this new medium. Is anyone else on the list doing this sort of thing? I'd like to learn more more about writing scripts. I'd like to convert my current novel into a screenplay. I would welcome any suggestions that anyone could offer on this matter. And before you ask, no, this is not just a whim, I've considered doing this for many years. But, like I've stated in other posts to the AML list, I didn't really want to get into the mainstream market. Now I might have the chance to write screenplays for the LDS market. I don't think I can pass that up. Thanks, 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: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:02:50 -0700 From: "???n ??e" Subject: Re: [AML] Spiritual Pornography I find your definition of pornography far too confusing and subjective. You've made it a matter of the eye of the beholder, which provides license for anything to pass, i.e, one man's poison... The first point I want to make is to provide a definition of addiction, and at the same time concur with you that you are not likely a pornography addict. Before that, the phrase, "the random porn images that fall into my line of sight" is confusing. Pornography, of the type you seem to be describing, never falls into my line of sight. I spend a large part of every day on the web, data processing and web development being both my vocation and avocation. Porn doesn't fall into my line of sight there. I never see it. I hear stories from people who did a search and clicked on a supposedly harmless link only to be exposed to disgusting images. With all the time I spend on the web, it has never happened to me. So, I find it rather confusing for someone to talk about happening on it by accident. Magazines don't fall on my desk from nowhere. I'm not making an accusation here, just trying to understand how random images fall into one's line of sight. Are you talking about accidents, or occasional partaking with your consent? An answer is not owed me, but it seems to me that the answer to this question has a great deal to do with the point of view you've expressed. The presence of addiction does not depend on the inherent goodness or badness of a thing. A person can be addicted to something good or bad. A person can partake of something evil, even often, and not be addicted to it. He can be addicted to something he not only partakes of regularly, but is a necessity, such as in food addiction. Addiction is present when a person becomes powerless over something, when, despite compelling reasons to avoid it, he returns to it again and again. Without a compelling reason to avoid something, there is no addiction. It's only a hobby. The most often-used example of addiction is addiction to alcohol. A social drinker is only an addict when a compelling reason to not drink is present, such as developing health problems, endangering others by driving drunk, or even a profound belief that it is wrong to consume alcohol. For example, a man who drinks alcohol learns that he has a medical condition that is aggravated by alcohol consumption. If he decides to stop drinking and can make that decision stick, he is not and never was an alcoholic. It is interesting to note that a profound belief against drinking alcohol exists for believing Mormons, and therefore, a Mormon who drinks regularly is an alcoholic, by definition. Addiction also requires the presence of unmanageability, defined as that part of the "compelling reasons" equation that is the set of negative consequences that have happened as a result of indulgence. Someone into whose line of sight falls random pornographic images is not likely an addict. To be an addict, you would have to have evidence of both powerlessness and unmanageability. My wife often says, when she means to say that a room is stuffy, "Could we open a window? I'm addicted to air." It's a cute thing to say, but not really accurate. She has no compelling reason to cease or cut back on partaking of air, and her breathing has not caused any unmanageability in her life. Since one can be addicted to food, sex, pornography, alcohol, drugs, relationships, etc., the definition of addiction is generally irrelevant to the identification or definition of pornography. Addressing the topic of pornography addiction and pornography definition is very difficult, because it's pretty clear what alcohol is. It can be measured. It's not clear what pornography is, and I don't believe your definition has made it any clearer. On the contrary, if you are trying to define what pornography is, I believe you have confused the issue more. There is definitely a layer of subjectivity surrounding what constitutes pornography for you or for me. If speculations about Michelangelo's orientation are true, then he and I have something in common, and I'm not talking about artistic talent. I don't sculpt or paint, but I do write, and I have written scenes involving two men being physically intimate with each other. I don't believe I've written pornography, but it has more to do with the context of those scenes, as opposed to being merely about the fact that I am homosexually oriented. If Michelangelo were gay, and his homosexual feelings contributed to any aspect of "David," I concur that it is irrelevant to the context. If anything, it gives him an edge in his attempt to make the sculpture beautiful, but it doesn't make it pornographic. It also doesn't mean that a heterosexual sculptor couldn't have done a better job. Add to this confusion about definitions the fact that the knowledge of Michelangelo's orientation would have a different meaning for me in appreciating "David" than for you, even if you can imagine what it would be like to be attracted to men. In that same way, I can probably write same-sex scenes of physical intimacy a lot more accurately than most men here. Some may be better writers than me and could make it more believable to an audience of people who wouldn't know if it were accurate or not. I could intend to make it painful or poignant, and to other men like me, it might be, but "straight" men might see it as completely prurient. My point here is that art involves measurements of the artist's talent for creating, the patron's talent for appreciation, the artist's life experiences, the patron's life experiences, the artist's motives, the patron's motives, and some elusive demarcation of whether it has any redeeming value. With so many factors, a definition of pornography that is related to context or intent is impossible. I do not think we can make a defining statement about what pornography is. As used by many, "pornography" is merely shorthand for something else entirely. It is shorthand for the various ways we might commit sexual sin in relation to other human beings. Jesus said that whosoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Some men can look at nude women without any lust at all. I'm one of them. Frankly, I don't see what y'all see in them. If my level of lust were the only moral consideration, pictures of nude women would not be pornographic to me. There is also the consideration of the harm to women I might be condoning by supporting an industry that clearly abuses and promotes abuse of women. Naturally, I doubt that Jesus' statement was intended to excuse me from looking at men to lust after them. I accept his use of gender identificaton to be in the universal sense. More hardcore pornography goes beyond solo poses into the realm of immoral acts photographed and filmed, whether simulated or not, promoting sins that have been clearly condemned by those we believe have the authority speak for God. Can we be guiltless for lending our support? In my opinion, your definition of pornography as anything that cheapens the human experience cheapens the gravity of these matters, but I would not go so far as to say that for you to say so, you've exposed me to pornography. I also don't accept the more strict definition of pornography being any nudity or sexuality in art, or elsewhere. I saw several naked men this morning at the gym while I showered. I didn't lust. My thoughts remained clean. I wasn't promoting their abuse by my patronage of the locker room. I wasn't witnessing or encouraging them to commit fornication or adultery. They, like me, were there to shower and get ready for work. I can sympathize with your objections to trivializing or shallow art, but I can't agree with your adding them to the definition of pornography. I saw the Ensign photograph that you disliked so much. It did look rather plastic to me too, but I hardly felt my spirituality assaulted by it. If you did, that's your own business and I hope you won't judge me as lacking in spirituality because I refuse to let something so trivial shake me. I'm the choir director in my ward, a stereotypical calling for me, and I think my choir members look posed. They'd better look posed! Good choir singing requires good posture and paying attention to the director (I like anything that makes me the center of attention). I want them to be nicely dressed, because it matters to the presentation. Good lighting doesn't hurt either. Their faces should reflect the message of the music. If we're up to standard and someone were to take a photograph, I daresay people would think they had been posed. Of all candid shots that could be taken, a candid shot of a good choir would look contrived, unless the photographer was intentionally trying to catch a tenor picking his nose. Rex Goode www.ldsr.org _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:35:05 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Booksellers Convention Quick note: Contrary to Dean Hale's comment at the bookseller's convention, Zion Films is NOT looking for scripts. Richard has three wonderful screenplays lined up and waiting to be produced. We've got enough to keep us busy. Thanks, Emily Pearson Managing Director Zion Films - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:22:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Sunstone 2001 [MOD: Without meaning to quash R. W. Rasband's query, I need to add that in order to be truly relevant to the List, comments should be connected to Mormon lit in some way--either as part of the original (Sunstone) context, or in the "spin" given by the reporter.] Did anyone attend this year's Sunstone symposium? Anyone have any enlightening comments? R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $0.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:07:23 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers At 01:53 AM 8/17/01, Anna Wight wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Scott and Marny Parkin" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:44 PM >Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers > > > > Anna Wight wrote: > > > > > > I believe Proffit and Wight and Hume can reach both their literary and > > > > their financial (read "copies sold") goals in whatever markets they > > > > pursue. > > > > > >Just out of curiousity (here's my geneology side kicking in) who is >Wight? > > > > I was thinking of you. You write, right? Or did I get that wrong? > > > > Scott Parkin > >Hi Scott, > >Yes I do write, not under the Wight name. But it went completely over my >head that you were talking about me. And here I thought someone in my >husbands family was a writer. Thus proving again the old adage that two Wights can make a wrong . . . - --Ronn! :) - --------------------------------------------------------- I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle - --------------------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:55:53 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum fiction contest winners Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > > Survey: how many of the women writers on > this list get the proverbial indulgent pat on the head when it comes to > matters career? And I know that the men will cry foul because they get it > too but somehow I have to say that we women seem to get it more. I'm sure > you'll correct me if I'm wrong... Not correcting you, and not speaking for men generally. All I can say is that no one I know would dare pat me on the head and say "How's that little writing thing you do coming?" At least, no one would make that mistake twice. They'd get straightened out real quick. - -- 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, 21 Aug 2001 11:29:46 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] > >The Church's official position on abortion is to decry, but not prohibit. >The Church recognizes that abortion may be necessary to save the mother's >life on occasion. Members are very strongly encouraged to pray and discuss >the issue with bishops and/or stake leaders before having an abortion. > >What that means, as someone wrote in Sunstone years ago is that, given >the status of law, the Church's official position would equal abortion on >demand. The article was part of a roundtable and I only read the pull-out >quote (got diverted from reading the rest of the articles, go back to it >some day, came out in the mid-80s I think) so I didn't get the reasoning >behind it, but I've thought about it for a long time and the reason would >likely be that the Church doesn't have an official Spirit Compliance >Checker. We're not asked to get a revelation about it from the prophet or >stake president, but directly from the Lord, and the Church doesn't >doublecheck that decision, which is a tacit admission that, while the >Church deplores abortion, the Lord might inspire someone to have one. >Very troubling to people who find abortion absolutely evil. Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list ******************** Woa! I think that before we look to "Sunstone" or the "White Stone Foundation" to interpret "The Church's official position on abortion," Maybe we should read the before and after section from whence all the rhetoric, about these things, is coming. Prior to the Nineties, the Bishop's handbook said, In the case of abortion= the guilty parties (I'm uncertain if this includes the doctor or not)= should be brought before a Bishops court and excommunicated. Now it says If the abortion was to save the mothers life, or if the pregnancy was due to rape or incest, the question of whether or not the mother would deliver the baby should be left up to the family, and the Bishop is not required to excommunicate. You will notice it says, not required to excommunicate; it doesn't say = shall not excommunicate, and it certainly doesn't say abortion is alright= or good or justified, it just says it's a family, or personal matter. This directive gives the= individual or the family and the Bishop just a bit more agency in the matter, but certainly does not relieve anyone from any consequences for their actions. I think the main reason for this change was to take some of the heavy responsibility for the actions of the flock, off the already overloaded Bishop's shoulders. The above quote is my recollection of my reading and understanding of it= when it first came out a number of years ago. I have not heard of any= changes since then but I haven't been in a responsible position of= leadership since I left the "Mission Field" and moved to "Zion." My point is: Before we concoct any life and death moralistic dramas involving Church doctrine, we should be sure we have our sources straight. We certainly shouldn't rely on information coming from well-meaning, members or non-members, whose firsthand knowledge of such things is at best questionable. When we want to know what the church's official position is on= a point of doctrine or morals, especially if we are going to write about it,= we should go directly to the official source and get the latest word. A= good place to start, with a question like this one, is your Bishop. If he= doesn't know, I'm sure he wouuld be more than willing to find out for you.= I'm not sure I would even use the Ensign as a quoatable source for= doctrine, unless it was from the first presidencies messages. =20 Bill Willson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:47:04 -0700 From: "Terri Reid" Subject: Re: [AML] Irreantum fiction contest winners This is such a sore spot with me (pats on the head.) I find that - except for you folks - I don't share my writing successes with members of the church. (Well, actually with members of my ward.) Although there have been a few people who encourage and support, I have found that there are many more (or perhaps it's because they are so vocal) that belittle or disregard successes with things like: 1. Oh, well, I could write too - if I wanted too. 2. I don't think women should be trying to earn a living - if they do, their children will grow up to be delinquents. 3. This doesn't seem that good to me. If I had written it... AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!! So, do you smell a bushel burning? It's me hiding my light! Terri - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:11:26 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Sunstone 2001 R.W. Rasband wrote: >Did anyone attend this year's Sunstone symposium? Anyone have any >enlightening comments? I did--or at least the first two days' worth. I have some comments, but I don't know whether they're enlightening or not. I've been crafting a short e-essay tentatively titled "Under the Tent: Musings of a Sunstone Novice" to try to post on this list, but I'm not sure it really falls squarely enough within the framework of this list. It's one conservative Mormon's impressions of the event, and acts more as a cultural comment than a literary one, though my core point focuses around the stories we tell each other and ourselves about ourselves. We shall see. Overall, I thought it was quite fun. I especially liked the panel with Richard Dutcher and his aggressive approach to Mormon storytelling. I understand that some unfortunate (and possibly quite inaccurate) reports of his stance have been published in some of the Utah newspapers. Richard did (rightly) suggest that his work is a new kind of Mormon story within the world of film. He did not say that the work being done (now or in the past) is unworthy of comment or respect as I have heard reported. Short impression of the whole event: an intriguing venue that has the power to both enlighten and enrage. A noble goal that succeeds to different degrees in different panels. Some of the most interesting comments came from those who are not part of our little community, and are thus freed of cultural/ideological axes to grind. Not everyone would enjoy their visit to Sunstone, but everyone who goes will find much of value to to think about--whether they accept the slant of the presenters or not. Sort of like Mormon literature--not every story appeals to every reader, but I think there is value to be had for those willing to trust their own thoughts and accept that some stories do not represent the world I choose to live in. Still, in discussing those stories, we can learn more about ourselves and others. Which I think has great value. FWIW. Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:10:58 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Screenwriting Darvell Hunt wrote: With > Richard Dutcher, and hopefully others paving the way, the market for > regular LDS films could very well be on the rise. I'd like to contribute > what I can to this new medium. Welcome to the club. Trottier's book is my Bible. > > Is anyone else on the list doing this sort of thing? I'd like to learn more > more about writing scripts. I'd like to convert my current novel into a > screenplay. I'm turning my Moroni Smi8th novel into a screenplay and having a blast. Why don't you consider joining my list LDScreenwriters@yahoogroups.com Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:44:31 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Spiritual Pornography Rex, Nice to hear from you again. It's been a while since you've shared with the list and I think we all miss your contributions, that swing both ways between insight and humor. I will try to address a couple of questions you raised. ???n ??e [Rex Goode] wrote: > So, I find it rather > confusing for someone to talk about happening on it by accident. Magazines > don't fall on my desk from nowhere. I'm not making an accusation here, just > trying to understand how random images fall into one's line of sight. Are > you talking about accidents, or occasional partaking with your consent? An > answer is not owed me, but it seems to me that the answer to this question > has a great deal to do with the point of view you've expressed. In the last six months or so I have started finding stuff in the mail. It's promotional and disguised to look like any other mass-mailed item. I tend to open things that are addressed to me and there you go. I throw them away when as I see what they are, and have learned to recognize a few of the companies by name and will toss them without opening. I also filled out a form from the Post Office that will stop these promo porno packets from being delivered. Also once I was at a barber shop strapped in and listening to the snip snip of scissors. This guy walks in off the street and starts trying to sell my barber a stack of bootlegged videos. He kind of tosses them on my chest to spread them out so my barber could look at the titles. The cover photos were explicit and there you go. These guys were loud Italians and ended up screaming at each other over the price and kept asking me if the other one was being unreasonable. I felt like I was in the middle of a Sopranos episode. This is how random images of porn have occasionally fallen into my line of sight. And then you brought up a lot of good points about addiction that I can't address because I have no first-hand knowledge about any sorts of addictions (except chocolate) and was grateful that you shared these insights. > Addressing the topic of pornography addiction and pornography definition is > very difficult, because it's pretty clear what alcohol is. It can be > measured. It's not clear what pornography is, and I don't believe your > definition has made it any clearer. On the contrary, if you are trying to > define what pornography is, I believe you have confused the issue more. Mostly I was expressing sadness that people take a few things that are easily measurable, like alcohol, and saying that if a movie contains these things then it must be porn. Usually nudity and sexual content. That so many of my fellow Saints use these items as an indicator for porn just makes me sad. > In my opinion, your definition of pornography as anything that cheapens the > human experience cheapens the gravity of these matters, but I would not go > so far as to say that for you to say so, you've exposed me to pornography. Whew! I don't need that particular millstone. > I can sympathize with your objections to trivializing or shallow art, but I > can't agree with your adding them to the definition of pornography. My definition would tend to encompass a great deal (re: Sturgeon's Law). But I'd restrict it by only including the shallow art that targets sacred moments. > I'm the > choir director in my ward, a stereotypical calling for me, LOL > and I think my > choir members look posed. They'd better look posed! Good choir singing > requires good posture and paying attention to the director (I like anything > that makes me the center of attention). I want them to be nicely dressed, > because it matters to the presentation. Good lighting doesn't hurt either. > Their faces should reflect the message of the music. If we're up to standard > and someone were to take a photograph, I daresay people would think they had > been posed. Of all candid shots that could be taken, a candid shot of a good > choir would look contrived, unless the photographer was intentionally trying > to catch a tenor picking his nose. I refer you to the cover of Harry Nilsson's tribute album, "For the Love of Harry" A truly inspirational photo of a choir. But for all the reasons you mention, I have never wanted to be in a choir. For me, singing is a personal joy that is utterly ruined by being told how to dress and stand, being told exactly when to breathe, being dictated to in every nuance of my worshipful expression of song. Is it any wonder that there are such great choirs in our church? Tony Markham - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:58:39 +0000 From: "Dallas Robbins" Subject: Re: [AML] Screenwriting I haven't read much on screenplay writing, but that is something I plan to pursue in the future. A standard book that I highly recommend is "Story" by Robert McKee. He is considered on the best on how to write a screenplay, and the book is an enjoyable read even if you are not a screenwriter. Dallas Robbins cloudhill@yahoo.com - -------------------------------------- Harvest - An Online Magazine for the LDS Community. www.harvestmagazine.com - --------------------------------------- >From: "Darvell Hunt" > > >I have recently decided to seriously consider shifting my focus from novel >writing to screenwriting. I definitely watch more movies than read books >and I think there may currently be a good opportunity to break into this >market right now. > >Awhile back I took a screenwriting/novel writing course from Dave Trottier >at UVSC and have since ordered his book _The Screenwriter's Bible_. With >Richard Dutcher, and hopefully others paving the way, the market for >regular LDS films could very well be on the rise. I'd like to contribute >what I can to this new medium. > >Is anyone else on the list doing this sort of thing? I'd like to learn more >more about writing scripts. I'd like to convert my current novel into a >screenplay. > >I would welcome any suggestions that anyone could offer on this matter. And >before you ask, no, this is not just a whim, I've considered doing this for >many years. But, like I've stated in other posts to the AML list, I didn't >really want to get into the mainstream market. >Now I might have the chance to write screenplays for the LDS market. I >don't think I can pass that up. > >Thanks, >Darvell Hunt _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:15:08 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] Sources of Information (was: Listening to the Spirit) (Repost) [MOD: For some reason, this post originally came through (on my machine at least) without its proper thread title and return address. On your machine, it may have also come through with some sentences missing. So I'm reposting it. Please let me know if this version seems to have any problems.] >Harlow S. Clark wrote > >The Church's official position on abortion is to decry, but not prohibit. >The Church recognizes that abortion may be necessary to save the mother's >life on occasion. Members are very strongly encouraged to pray and discuss >the issue with bishops and/or stake leaders before having an abortion. > >What that means, as someone wrote in Sunstone years ago is that, given >the status of law, the Church's official position would equal abortion on >demand. The article was part of a roundtable and I only read the pull-out >quote (got diverted from reading the rest of the articles, go back to it >some day, came out in the mid-80s I think) so I didn't get the reasoning >behind it, but I've thought about it for a long time and the reason would >likely be that the Church doesn't have an official Spirit Compliance >Checker. We're not asked to get a revelation about it from the prophet or >stake president, but directly from the Lord, and the Church doesn't >doublecheck that decision, which is a tacit admission that, while the >Church deplores abortion, the Lord might inspire someone to have one. >Very troubling to people who find abortion absolutely evil. ******************** Woa! I think that before we look to "Sunstone" or the "White Stone Foundation" to interpret "The Church's official position on abortion," Maybe we should read the before and after section from whence all the rhetoric, about these things, is coming. Prior to the Nineties, the Bishop's handbook said, In the case of abortion the guilty parties (I'm uncertain if this includes the doctor or not) should be brought before a Bishops court and excommunicated. Now it says If the abortion was to save the mothers life, or if the pregnancy was due to rape or incest, the question of whether or not the mother would deliver the baby should be left up to the family, and the Bishop is not required to excommunicate. You will notice it says, not required to excommunicate; it doesn't say shall not excommunicate, and it certainly doesn't say abortion is alright or good or justified, it just says it's a family, or personal matter. This directive gives the individual or the family and the Bishop just a bit more agency in the matter, but certainly does not relieve anyone from any consequences for their actions. I think the main reason for this change was to take some of the heavy responsibility for the actions of the flock, off the already overloaded Bishop's shoulders. The above quote is my recollection of my reading and understanding of it when it first came out a number of years ago. I have not heard of any changes since then, but I haven't been in a responsible position of leadership since I left the "Mission Field" and moved to "Zion." My point is: Before we concoct any life and death moralistic dramas involving Church doctrine, we should be sure we have our sources straight. We certainly shouldn't rely on information coming from well-meaning, members or non-members, whose firsthand knowledge of such things is at best questionable. When we want to know what the church's official position is on a point of doctrine or morals, especially if we are going to write about it, we should go directly to the official source and get the latest word. A good place to start, with a question like this one, is your Bishop. If he doesn't know, I'm sure he wouuld be more than willing to find out for you. I'm not sure I would even use the Ensign as a quoatable source for doctrine, unless it was from the first presidencies messages. Bill Willson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Screenwriting - --- Darvell Hunt wrote: > > Is anyone else on the list doing this sort of thing? > I'd like to learn more > more about writing scripts. I'd like to convert my > current novel into a > screenplay. > > I would welcome any suggestions that anyone could > offer on this matter. I'm anyone. Not that I have amazing screenwriting credentials. But I have written (or doctored) four screenplays in collaboration with a friend and made two of those screenplays in to short (20 min.) films. So this is not 'professional' advice, but rather some observations from someone who is much more comfortable in the world of narrative fiction, but dabbled in screenwriting. Observation 1: Writing good dialogue is hard. You can have the most amazing concept in the world, yet it falls flat because the dialogue isn't good. I don't have any tips, except read your scenes aloud a lot and read them to people whose ear you trust. Observation 1A: Writing good dialogue is hard, but don't bash yourself up too much if what you've written seems fake. I am always surprised to read scripts for plays/films I've seen that I thought had fabulous dialogue and find that on the printed page it doesn't sparkle quite as much. Unless you are Oscar Wilde, then it flows and leaps off the printed page as well. Observation 2: It's hecka easy to telegraph stuff. Sometimes this becomes the director or editors fault, but even in the screenplay it becomes way too easy to telegraph important plot movements. Continuity and flow is good, but resist the temptation to add that clever piece of dialogue or visual symbol that reveals too much about the way ahead. That said, some of the most satisfying writing takes place when you go back and rewrite earlier scenes to provide better continuity and/or character development for the payoff in the ending scenes. Observation 3: Pacing is difficult, but let scenes be the length they need to be. If the writing, acting and directing is excellent, then the scene length doesn't matter. Certainly you want a crisp flow to the screenplay, but if every scene is either 3 or 4 minutes long, then something is wrong. Observation 4: Don't say things that can be better represented visually, but don't lay on the visual storytelling to thick. I don't know what else to say about this, except that I loved figuring out how to tell the story in both words and images (and I include gestures and facial expressions as images). The interplay between the two fascinates me. Observation 5: And this holds true even if you're not adapting a novel: Strip down! Even when you're just writing from a few images and scenes in your head, it's easy to inflate the story. I think that it's necessary to develop as much of the story as possible and get to know your characters and the world they are in, but when it comes to the actual screenplay, strip it down. What is absolutely necessary for the audience to know? What scenes really move the plot forward? And what scenes can you include that don't directly move the plot forward but still flesh out story and character in a profound, necessary way? Where's the crucial conflict and what do you need before and after it? My guess is that most of this can be found in any book on screenwriting, but never having read any books on the subject, I thought that I'd just offer up my limited experience. What do the pros have to say? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.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 #430 ******************************