From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #499 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 Tuesday, October 30 2001 Volume 01 : Number 499 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:24:29 -0700 From: Mike South Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff Eric Samuelsen wrote: > I enjoyed your definition of fluff, but then I found myself wondering what = > sorts of humor would fit, or not, into your definition. Essentially, you = > were describing various forms of sentimentality; bathos. I think bathos = > is funny. My reaction to Touch of the Master's Hand is to giggle. And = > I'm an incurable hymn re-writer; and my father's an opera singer, and I = > have a loud, if unmelodious voice. So when I sing "we all have work, you = > lazy jerk, put your shoulder to the wheel," they all hear it. So whaddya = > say: sophomoric silliness (and therefore fluffy), or sardonic wit (loopy)? = > Anyone? I certainly hope it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. Some of my favorite humor combines both. The sight of the Pythons dressed up as the ladies' auxiliary and re-enacting the battle of Pearl Harbor by whacking each other on the head with their purses and then falling in the mud seems to cover both bases. It makes me laugh out loud every time I see it. Sophomoric? You betcha. But there's another level to the joke when you realize how they are poking fun at middle-class mores and standards of propriety. On a more Mormon note, I've always loved the Calvin Grondahl cartoon where Laman discovers what Nephi has been writing on the plates. ("Hey Lemuel...it says here that we're dark and loathsome. DARK and LOATHSOME?!"). A great joke that works on a couple of levels by mixing our notion of a near-perfect prophet with our understanding of how families usually work. I think that's where humor helps our culture most. It can let us acknowledge our cultural shortcomings with honesty, not antagonism. The sophomoric fluffiness helps us see what a goofy state we children of God are in during our mortal probation. Mix it with a little sardonic wit and you create wonderful in-jokes that are not exclusionary. I think that lightening the spiritual load through humor helps us focus inward less and outward more by acknowledging that we're all in the same boat. One of our biggest cultural targets for humor is our constant desire to appear near-perfect and always in control. I wish we had someone like a Mormon Stan Freberg. He was a master of creating situations where no matter how hard the protagonist tries to control a situation, chaos ensues (anyone remember his versions of The Lawrence Welk Show?). Maybe he or she is already out there. Anyone know? - --Mike South PS. I think my favorite re-written hymn line is from _I Am a Child of God_: "...has given me an earthly home, with parents kind of weird." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:40:06 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction "J. Scott Bronson" wrote: > Like you, Barbara, I miss the presence of God in most LDS literary works. > I think His influence should saturate our work. Sometimes blatantly, at > other times more subtly -- behind the scenes as it were -- but still > pervasive. I almost never see it. Is it shyness that keeps people from showing God in their work? Or just being true to character? Satan has no compuctions about what he does. Whatever works to forward his goals is fine with him. But God is supremely concerned about our wellbeing, and won't do things that can harm us. This translates into a big difference in modus operandi: Satan will come in and muck up whatever he can; God stands back and lets things unfold according to the plan he's already put into place. God is hands-offish until he's invited to intercede. Satan does whatever the hell (literally) he wants. Are people just reflecting in their literature what they perceive as the different approaches these two characters use? - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:41:24 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Lee ALLRED, "For the Strength of the Hills" (Review) Lee ALLRED. "For the Strength of the Hills." Originally published in _Writers of the Future XIII_. Ed. Dave Wolverton. New York: Bridge Publications, 1997. Pages 417-485. Reprinted in _Irreantum_ (in two parts), Winter 2000-2001 and Spring 2001 issues. Reviewed by Jonathan Langford There's a category in speculative fiction known as alternative history. Many of the best sf&f writers have been known to play the game. What would happen if the Nazis had won World War II? If someone went back in time and stopped Booth from assassinating Lincoln? Or--in the case of this story by Mormon author Lee Allred--if the Utah Mormon settlers, using repeating rifles developed by Jonathan Browning (father, presumably, of the famous gunsmith John Moses Browning), managed to hold off Johnston's Army for three years in Echo Canyon--until, in fact, the larger world intervened in the form of the Civil War? Allred's lengthy story--technically a novellette or novella, I'm not sure which--is superbly crafted, and seems (to be the best of my limited historical knowledge) thoroughly researched. The story is told from the point of view of a Captain Beck, who commands Sidney Johnston's artillery. He's a likeable character, a man of intelligence and integrity who despises Johnston but serves out of a sense of duty, despite some personal sympathies with the Mormons whom his sister has joined. At the time the action starts, the army has been blocked in the canyons for three years. New supplies have arrived, however, including lighter repeating artillery and more men. Anxious that Robert E. Lee, who is sailing around the Horn to California with troops to attack the Mormons from the West, will get to Utah before he does, Johnston orders another attack, only to find the canyons all but abandoned and the Salt Lake Valley burned to the ground by the retreating Mormons. Johnston, Lee, and Grant (who has meanwhile attacked from the south) meet in the ruins of Salt Lake, only to face the prospect of an ongoing guerrilla war. And then Porter Rockwell comes in with newspapers from the east, telling of South Carolina's secession. It's a fascinating tableau. Johnston is buoyant over the secession. Grant is firm for the Union. Both try to woo the Mormons, through Rockwell, to come in on their side. And Lee is troubled, uncertain where his duty lies. Allred has Peck say something that may not be true, but that we all have to wish could have been: that Lee, making a choice for the Union, could himself bring Virginia along with that choice. The story ends with Lee walking amid the granite blocks of the temple lot, trying to decide "whether those granite blocks lying there are the unfinished foundation of a new nation; or the tombstones of a foolish, lost cause." This story has many excellences. I haven't studied the historical record to know if Johnston is as thoroughly slimy as Allred depicts--lying and scheming and murdering through "duels" anyone who challenges him (including, in one scene we are shown, George McClellan)--but in general, the story seems to have an authentic "feel": one of the hardest things to get right in an alternative history scenario. You get the sense that you're meeting Lee, and Grant, and above all the ordinary men, in a setting that's a bit different than the one we know--but that they remain themselves as they might have been in that different setting. It's tempting to try to imagine how the Civil War itself--and Mormon history--would have been different in the scenario Allred envisions: with virtually the entire army (and its best commanders) off in Utah when the secession occurs, and with the Mormons possessing the ability to block anyone from swift passage back up the canyons and across the plains to rejoin the main body of the nation. Would the chances have been increased, in this case, for a Mormon-controlled Deseret, in or out of the Union? Allred merely tempts us with these possibilities; still, it's precisely this kind of speculative twist that adds flavor to this variety of tale. There's a deftly understated personal story here as well. Peck orders his men to rescue an injured Mormon, pinned under his dead horse. They engage in some conversation before the man, Reddick, succumbs to his wounds. Then, overseeing Reddick's burial, Peck finds a picture of his own sister in the man's locket. Talking to one of his own men afterwards, Peck asks, "He was my brother-in-law. Is that what the Army is for? Brother against brother?" The Civil War was, in many ways, the world's introduction to the horrors of modern war: devastating artillery used against men, with massive losses; scorched-earth policies (remember Sherman's march to the sea); and utter destruction as the price of a war not simply between two nations but between two ways of life. In this story, Allred makes the Mormon War a bitter foreshadowing of all that--one which its principals can clearly see. As Reddick tells Peck before his death, "It's our turn now, but yours is coming. Mark it well. This is your future, too." Or as Peck puts it to Lee: "Do you want Virginia to end up looking the way it does outside that window? Do you want a war of brother against brother, father against son?" On top of all this, what makes this story perhaps the best single work of speculative Mormon fiction I have read is Allred's skillful drawing together of the twin themes of slavery and polygamy, and his thought-provoking linking of the causes of Deseret and the American South. As Allred's Lee puts it, "This new war we're about to fight will still be over the same questions this unfinished war here is being fought over. Who holds the higher allegiance: one's people or one's nation? Do you have the right to live in a manner your neighbor finds morally repugnant? Does he have the right to prevent you?" There remains, of course, the significant difference that--as Allred has Porter Rockwell argue--"At least us Mormons enter our 'peculiar institution' by free consent--we don't require chains or whips. We have no auction blocks." Still, this story brought home to me in a way I had never experienced before just how closely linked the Mormon troubles with the United States were with the conflict over slavery and the Civil War, both ideologically and historically. (Yet another spin could be brought into the mix by adding the early Saints' efforts to get the Federal government to intervene on their behalf within the state of Missouri, which was essentially denied on the basis of states' rights.) Reading Allred's story made me consider both Mormon and American history from a different perspective. If this is the sort of thing you enjoy at all, I highly recommend this story. Even if it isn't your cup of tea, if you want to know what speculative fiction can contribute to Mormon literature, you need to read this. jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:57:00 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] High-tech Thriller Definition (was: _Cutting Edge_ Review) Jeffrey Savage wrote: > One of the things that suprised me most though, was your assumption that my > novel was over-billed or as you described it, that I was pattering around in > my parent's shoes. I went back and reexamined the marketing that Covenant > did for my book to see if they inadvertantly insinuated that my book was a > global political thriller. > I couldn't find anything though that contained any inaccurate information. I > have to assume then, that your expectations were based on your definition of > high-tech thriller and the title. No question that's where it came from. But I don't think I'd be alone in making that assumption. Taking the story by itself, there's nothing wrong with its scope. But when the label "high-tech thriller" is applied to it, I certainly do start getting images of big-time espionage with a large scope. And the title "Cutting Edge" combined with that made me expect something really snazzy, something big, something the military would want to come in and snatch up for their own evil purposes (thank heavens you didn't go anywhere near that hoary cliche). I'm not quite sure how you'd get around this: it's really only four words that caused the mis-expectation, and I can't argue that it didn't technically qualify as a high-tech thriller. I think a change in title would be a good thing: the book really isn't about any technology that's particularly cutting edge, not in any sexy way that a reader picking up a "techno-thriller" would expect. Calling it a "high-tech" thriller is technically accurate, but a reader isn't a court of law who's going to be influenced by such technicalities. If the reader expected fancy missiles or exotic deep-sea diving innovations, and gets furry animals that look up Internet information with great AI efficiency, he's not going to care about your technical argument. He's just going to be disappointed. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:39:48 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Covenant/Seagull Terry L Jeffress wrote: > A new publisher would have an incredibly easy time getting books into > the hands of the shopping public. By selling titles to Deseret Book > and Seagull, you have covered about 90% of the LDS marketplace for > books, and getting your title to Deseret Book means that it will > appear on their website. > Edit your manuscript, typeset it, get it > printed, and sell copies to the bookstores. Not really that hard. > You just have to have a quality product that the people want to buy. Peace of cake. You seem to be selling short how hard it is to get Deseret Book and Seagull to carry your product. It's not a given just because it's LDS, and if you're a start-up with just a product or two, good luck! That may very well be the most difficult part of the process. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:44:53 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: Patriotic Music Eric Samuelsen objects to "God Bless America" on the grounds that America is already the richest country on the earth. Huh? I wonder why so many people insist on equating blessings with riches. The song doesn't say "God bless America, send us lots and lots of money." It says, "God bless America . . . stand beside her, and guide her." Don't we want that? Don't we need that? Guidance, direction, wisdom. *These* are true blessings. Let's give the song a break already! (By the way, I don't like it much either--I'm partial to "America, the Beautiful" myself--but I think Eric's wonderful glibness needs to be challenged every now and then. :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:20:08 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormonism as Distinctive Stephen Carter wrote: A lot of >literature (Mormon, Christian, or otherwise) will dig for a remedy in a >story >at any cost. Maybe its this insistence on a remedy that takes the first >step >toward fluffdom - when the interpretation takes precedence over the story. >I >think stories are a lot like dreams, they aren't created for us to assign a >final meaning to them, they are there to point us in a direction, and the >directions may change from one moment to the next, from one image to the >next. I tend to agree, but I feel as if I'm in the minority as far as Church members go. My observation is that the Church and the evangelical communities seem to attract many of the same types of people: those who feel there is something inherently wrong with life on earth--something screaming out for a cure. And so they are attracted to what I call the Gospel According to Hallmark--and in a much broader sense, Life By Hallmark. Just as a get-well-soon card may momentarily lift one's spirits when one is ill, these people look for a momentary spiritual lift; they see the world as (to quote a talk given yesterday by my Stake President) "an evil place." And so these types look for the "get-well-soon" effect in their literature. The purpose of literature is teach a lesson, put a band-aid on the sores we all get simply by living in this world. Thus, we have the dreaded "fluff." This type of literature is escapism from reality. But my understanding is that ART is the creation of a reality according to the artist's metaphysical values and views; the finished work of art helps us EXPERIENCE this reality. If the reality created bears no resemblance to, or fails to resonate with, objective reality (the world as it really is)then it will only speak to people who seek to escape the real world--not gain insights into living in the world. The desire of the above mentioned types, to reduce a work of art to a simple teaching device for a particular moral, extends even to their approach to scripture. My personal favorite book of scripture is the Old Testament. Even were I not a believer, I would find it a great literary work--probably the most influential piece of literature in the Western world--and currently the most neglected. When I told a good LDS friend this several months ago, he seemed a bit troubled. "Really?"he said; "Why isn't your favorite scripture the Book of Mormon?" When I told him that the Book of Mormon and the New Testament would be at the bottom of my list of preferred standard works, he seemed truly perplexed, as if I were somehow "in the know" about something he had missed out on. "I haven't read the Old Testament in years," he explained. "I just don't 'get it.'" Two days later, he told me that he was nearly half way through the book of Genesis, and that the text really bothered him; he was confused by what he had concluded was the underhandedness of Abraham and Jacob; how these two prophets, whom we're supposed to revere, seemed pretty unethical and dishonest. My friend, his wife,and I had a long discussion about the story of Jacob dressing up like Esau, deceiving Jacob and getting his father's blessing. "But Isaac was the prophet," said his wife."How could he have been fooled." After a few moments, she concluded that "I think Isaac knew all along that it was Jacob; he just didn't let anyone else know that he knew." We had some great discussions, but what seemed to bother my friends was how these Biblical characters did not fit their American (and Protestant--though they are LDS) idea of what is "Christian" (i.e., ethical). A few days later, they borrowed my copy of MORMON ENIGMA--the Emma Smith biography. When they read the portions about Joseph Smith and polygamy, they were really "thrown for a loop." Referring back to our discussions on the Old Testament, we began to discuss these aspects of our LDS history--things of which they had been totally ignorant, and which ran contrary to all their previous assumptions. The result was that we began to have a greater appreciation for the complexity of human behavior and the interaction of Deity in the human experience. This what great literature can do. This is what we can expect when we engage in something more than a superficial study of scriptures and literature. ROB LAUER _________________________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:52:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Re: God in Fiction J. Scott Bronson wrote: >>>Here's the question: Why does Satan get a "face" in Scott's books if God > >> does not? > >> In the Alvin Maker series Satan is embodied as a priest, an overseer and > >> I can't remember what else. But the point is he appears to his servants > >> in some kind of physical form, whereas God never does. Actually - that's not Satan - it's the Unmaker. There's one scene where Talespinner (aka the poet Blake) makes a careful distinction between Satan and the Unmaker - Satan does not Unmake - if he did, he would have nothing to pervert. The Alvin Maker series may use Jospeh Smith as a starting off point, but it's mystical universe is not traditional Christian or LDS - it's very Manachein in that evil and good are true opposites. But the Unmaker is not Satan - Card makes that very clear. Your other examples were valid, though. >>I'm just about to start rehearsals for a play in which I have >Christ represented by an actual human being and he speaks in >sentences not gleaned from the canon. One actress who was >considering the part of Christ's mother wanted to know why I felt >I could do that if the Church never would? (Remember the > point I brought up last year in my report of "Savior of the World?" >People will point at the Church productions and > >> consider them remplates for my own work.) > > I'm not sure how one example can be construed as typical since the church seminary videos have Christ as a person speaking (Remember the "Lamb of God"? what about "The Testaments"?) I could name dozens of church videos that have Christ as a person, speaking sentences - in a deep, rumbling voice with lots of reverb perhaps, but still speaking and seen. To say the church "never would" do that is a misinformed cheap shot, IMHO. Even though I must admit the words he usually speaks are "canon" - it's often edited down, changed - "The Lamb of God" for example has Chrsit say things out of order, or omits part of his speech, or has him give answers to a different question than he was asked. The words he speaks are *technically* canon if you mean straight from the King James Version - but they are basically all-new because they are given different contexts. I see your point in that the Church has to stick to the only recorder words of Christ we have so as not to be "putting words into Christ's mouth" - but they do quite a bit with what is there. And then there are those old filmstrips of the Children's simplified books (published by the church) that have Christ's words simplified, so they aren't truly "canon" either. > >> My answer to her was this: > >> The Church CAN'T do that. > > But, as I said - the church has done it (sort of). The Savior of the World is an odd example - there was probably some artistic reason for why they did it that way in this one particular production (whether it was a good artistic choice or not I leave it to others to decide for themselves). Oh - heck. Who knows? You had some great points, I just felt it should be clairified. >> J. Scott Bronson -- Member of Playwrights Circle > > - --Ivan Wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:06:13 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Cedar Fort Publishing I've been interested in the fact that some of Cedar Fort's books are = "author sponsored" and some aren't. Does an author who puts up 3K for his = or her book have any guarantee that they are not in any way subsidizing = the other books that don't require an author partnership? Also is there any guarantee of an initial print run of some given amount? = I've seen the Cedar Fort contract, and there isn't, as I recall, any = indication of that kind of thing in that document. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:11:24 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff This has been an interesting thread to keep up with. I've appreciated much of what I've read even if I don't agree with some of it- it made me think. It seems to me, that "fluff" is in the eye, ear, and brain of the beholder. For instance, I LIKE Noah's Ark diaper bags, (though I don't miss changing diapers), I LIKE Pooh, & Tigger, et al. I also like "Buffy", "Angel", The Far Side, and the unabridged version of "Dracula". In some people's minds that probably makes me "one sick puppy". I never thought Pauly Shore was fluff, I just thought he was stupid. Same for Adam Sandler. But, there is obviously and audience for them as proved by their box office numbers. Just don't make me watch their movies! I think I understand that one of the points being made is besides the sometimes light "uplifting" stuff there is a place for heavy, serious, possibly depressing themes in LDS literature, and many of you already published writers have had to endure irksome, ignorant and nasty criticism that your work, "contributes nothing to promoting goodness and light". That being said, I don't think that will ever change very much. Lots of people say they watch artsy stuff on PBS to pollsters and then go home and turn on the WWF. More poignant however, is some people want more upbeat fare beacause they have so much in real life to deal with. I am not going to criticize the person that wants to go see "My Fair Lady" at the local dinner theatre to take a break from caring for their spouse that has Alzheimer's. Ditto how some people have used humor to deal with our national tragedy. I think there is room for both light and heavy literature and light and dark humor. That being said, here's where one's own moral agency comes into play: Some people probably shouldn't watch or listen to certain things because of how it might affect their mood or personality, possibly even their actions. Parents have this duty toward their minor children, but legal adults get to choose! Now note I said SOME people, and not everything affects everyone the same way. There are some people I would prefer to watch or read fluff-keeps 'em saner and less scary. I just think it's unfair that some LDS authors get picked on for wishing to delve into deeper and sometimes darker areas of human culture and behavior. Finally, many like to feel at the end of a piece of literature, film , theatre, etc, that there is some sense of order restored, that there is some hope, or balance or justice after all that may happen in a strory. That may not be how it always works out in this life, but most people want some reassurance that ultimately it will. As for whatever duende means, I'll either watch the "Highlander" episode of the same name or ask my stepmother-in-law for the definition-she's from Madrid, Spain. Kathy Tyner from the fluffy world of Disneyland in Calif. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:30:43 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Three cheers to Eric Samuelson for that sermon on the curb. And also to = Marianne Hales for warning that we should let people have theirs. But let = us let EVERYONE have theirs. I know that Jonathan indicated that he didn't think that fluff (as the = lighter side of the gospel) automatically leads to an exclusionary = attitude toward things and people that are not fluffy. Furthermore, I got = the impression that he didn't think that there was any connection at all = or that making a connection between the two is a bad thing to do, though I = could be wrong about that. When I told my wife about these posts she said, I'm glad you all are = talking about that, because when I was at Ricks I spent a lot of time = feeling bad because I didn't like all the church music my roommates were = playing, and they didn't like the Gipsy Kings. I do, in fact, think that people who like and advocate fluff tend to be = suspicious of people who do not. Likewise, people who don't like fluff = are often suspicious of people who do. Marianne pointed out (rightly I might add) that it would be very arrogant = of her to lecture her friend on her taste in movies. But doesn't that = happen all the time the other way? Lectures fly at a body left and right = if they watch a film for some reason other than being entertained, maybe = in order to learn more about the holocaust or the American skinhead = movement. Maybe just to understand the spiritual emptiness of marital = affairs. The same happens with books as well, except for the fact that = most people in general conversation don't talk books. We are, as Marianne says, "coming from different places, folks, with = different needs." I'd like to point out that this list has just as much a = penchant for using the word "intellectual" in the pejorative as has for = using the word fluff that way. As for Eric's question about fluff, camp, and kitsch--I too am a sucker = for definitional arguments. I L-O-V-E them.=20 I think that LDS campiness is something that could use a little further = discussion. My understanding of "camp" is that, like irony, it requires = some intentionality. I don't think cheesy farewells count as camp, = because the participants are often dead serious. This is something I'm = dealing with right now in a novel. I have this guy, Jens Thorsen, who has one church story: the story of how = as a boy he almost killed a bunch of his grandmother's turkeys, by letting = a remuda of ranch horses race into a corral. Everyone in the ward has come = to hate this story because they've heard it seventeen thousand times. = Jens's grandson asks his grandfather to speak at his farewell, knowing = that his grandpa is going to tell that story and drive everyone mad. His = reasoning is that he wants to see the anguish on everyone's faces FROM THE = STAND. That, is camp, to me sort of--a conscious manipulation of a cultural = context for an ironic effect. In my case it is to address the very funny = issue of people telling the same stinking stories over and over as if they = have just come down, freshly-carved, from the mountain. And kitsch. Boy, Mormon kitsch to me is best represented in form of a = Franklin Planner. - -- Todd Robert Petersen, who is not a Libra but maybe should be =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:13:14 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Definition of Literary [MOD: This is a compilation of two posts by Barbara on the same topic.] At 10:51 AM 10/19/01, you wrote: >Barbara Hume wrote that she thinks literary fiction is somehow only >focused on style and isn't all that interested in plot and character. I >find that a curious thing to say, and I'd like to hear more about the >"literary" books she thinks are lacking in plot and character. I didn't say that literary fiction doesn't have any plot and character, just that these elements seem to me subsumed in favor of self-conscious rhetorical pretentiousness. Now that wasn't such a mean thing to say, was it? In the past twenty years or so, any book I have attempted to read that was marketed as "literary" so utterly and completely failed to hold my interest that I can't even recall their names--not that I've picked up that many lately. I am not a totally unsophisticated reader, since I hold several degrees in English lit'ra'cha, but I have become so enamored of the concept of story that I lose patience with works labeled "fiction" that IMHO contain more blather than story. Thinking about your question causes me to conclude that what I want is genre fiction that is capable of meeting the expectations of its audiences while using the best of literary techniques to do so. Believe me, people who read mysteries or romances or westerns don't want bad writing, either. It throws the reader out of the story! But then, so does prose that calls attention to itself by its eccentricity. - ------------------------------------- At 10:57 AM 10/19/01, you wrote: >I think all I mean by "literary," Barbara, is that strong literature which >has a tendency to last. Styles can be of different varieties. How do you >define it? Marilyn I like your definition. If I look at it that way, I am forced to be less opinionated! According to your definition, though, it's difficult to apply the term to contemporary work, because we don't often know what will last. The term as often used is aristocratic and exclusive--I suppose that's what gets my back up. Sometimes I wish the marketing people would take their mitts off the publishing business and let us sell books as "books" rather than in categories. If they took off the labels, perhaps we would all (including me) be more open-minded. To me, "literary" has taken on the same connotation as "spinach" or "liver"--stuff you should like because other people say it's good for you, but experiencing it still causes great distress! One of my favorite novels is Jane Eyre. I think we can call it literary--it has certainly passed the test of time. I(t's actually a prototype romance, but I'm not supposed to call it that because it's good, and it's fashionable to consider the two mutually exclusive. ) This is a book with a great story and wonderful, memorable characters, but the style is beautiful--the work has all the components I look for. I prefer it in print form, not in a video, because I want to enjoy the way the writer expresses herself. Same with Charles Dickens--I love the way he uses language, but his style does not take over and shove aside plot and character. barbara hume provo, utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:56:22 -0700 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff Eric Samuelsen: >I'm sorry, but I'm just incurably addicted to this kind of >discussion. Can we distinguish between, say, fluff, kitsch and camp? I agree with Eric about the definitions of these things, and their importance to our health and well-being. But I have a question about this: > > > >Camp is a performance. It's an unintentionally funny recitation of >a ludicrously inappropriate poem, a badly sung song, a poorly >performed play. James Arrington is a genius in exposing elements of >Mormon camp; that's what the Farley pieces are all about. The word "unintentionally" jumps out at me. It seems to me that many things considered to be "campy" are that way quite intentionally. The pop-cultural artifact most often associated with the word "camp," in fact, is the 1960s "Batman" TV series, which was clearly MEANT to be that way. Can things be campy (or kitschy or fluffy) on purpose, or only when their creators don't realize what they're doing? If it's done on purpose, does it become something else? I say no: camp, kitsch and fluff can all be intentional, too, though I admit I laugh much harder at them when they seem to have been unintended. (Nothing funnier than a guy who doesn't know he's funny.) Eric D. Snider - -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:04:38 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Definition of Romance At 11:11 AM 10/19/01, you wrote: >So what is the correct term (or at least *a* correct term) for describing >and discussing that dominance of romantic interest in a book. I don't read >romance novels of any of the wide variety of subcategories defined for >them by marketing types, so I have not the slightest clue how to refine >the term. I could fall back on "chick story" but I think that's too glib, >dismissive, and incomplete. > >I really would like to know because I see a lot of books, especially in >the Mormon market, whose stories revolve around social intrigues, the >search for romantic fulfillment, and the search for the ideal mate. >Whatever it is, there seems to be a lot of it about. A true romance is about people finding love, which is what everyone needs and wants, but it isn't about meaningless sex. It's about creating something new that didn't exist before--a partnership, a family--and putting an end to the isolation and loneliness of the characters. It's really a confirmation of life. I think the reason most men don't like them is that they focus on the emotional lives of the characters--something males are trained to squash and hide from. But not every novel that emphasizes emotion over car chases or murders or whatever is a romance. since a romance is a confirmation, it must have an HEA (happily ever after) ending, which many readers dismiss as "unrealistic" or "fluff." Well, I know more people who are happily married than have been trapped on a bus with a bomb in it! If a story focuses on the emotional relationship between two people, but at the end one of them is dead and the other is left alone, it isn't a romance. Pardon my initial knee-jerk reaction. It's just that when you really love something, you wish other people could understand it. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:23:55 -0700 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Fluff > Come on, folks. We're funny! [snip] It's all us. It's all pretty funny. It's > all pretty amazing. > > Eric Samuelsen > Best description of what it feels like to be a Mormon that I've read today! Thank you Eric for helping me laugh instead of crying about all of the above. One of the principles I have picked up from new-age philosophers/psychologists/self-help spiritualists is that the "dramatic" personality has a harder time in life than the person who accepts the mundane as normal, as expected. I've always had this sense of living on a stage, being a part of something that there indeed has not been anything like before, and I can't be very calm about it. I'm high strung; I'm an actress on the landscape of the amazing and funny that you've described. Gae Lyn Henderson > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #499 ******************************