From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #506 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, November 6 2001 Volume 01 : Number 506 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:54:30 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] AML Writer's Conference Whew! What a great day! Congratulations again, DMichael, on a great meeting. I feel so rejuvenated--more from rubbing shoulders with such interesting people than from anything that I learned in the classes. But I did learn. Some things that I've been thinking about ever since: 1. Who is this American Books? Does anyone know any more about them? Have they published any LDS fiction at all? How do they distribute? Are their books available at bookstores? From what I could tell, the definition of what they are looking for in the way of fiction is "clean books." Does that mean that they are wary of "hard books?" 2. I was reminded again of what an amazing thing Richard Dutcher has done for us. I wish I could believe that his work will have as great an impact on the LDS fiction world as it is having on the film world, but even so I believe we are lightyears ahead because of what he's done, especially with Brigham City (which, by the way, could not have come about had God's Army not come first). Dutcher spoke of the imaginary audience of 50-year old RS presidents--imaginary because, though we're afraid of it, it doesn't really exist. Members are more sophisticated than we artists sometimes believe. I hope he's right. But if he's wrong, he is doing a great work by teaching them that a story doesn't have to be "light" or easy to be worthwhile. (Intimations of the FLUFF conversation here?) In fact, the more painful the journey, the more powerful the lesson. Obviously it took a lot of work and personal investment for Dutcher to do what he's done. Read RISK. Do we have people in the literature world willing to take the same kinds of risks? Publishers? Writers who can find their own financial backing or self-publish? Critics who are willing to be disliked because they have high expectations for literature instead of giving everything positive reviews just because it was created by a member and it's clean? I hope so. Meanwhile we've got to do what we can. That means I have to bring a measure of hope into my work as a writer. I have been reluctant to really dedicate myself to some writing projects that are inside me because I don't see who would publish them. But Dutcher has taught me that if it is in me, it's my obligation to write it. And I'm glad he's doing what he's doing, because when I get it written, the audience he's educated may be ready to accept it. ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 15:00:29 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] BRONSON, "The Whipping Boy" (Review) On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 06:13:48 +0000 "Andrew Hall" writes: > Author: J. Scott Bronson > Title: The Whipping Boy > Unpublished, written around 1995. > > I have read several excellent pieces of LDS literature > over the last 12 years, many of which I was introduced to > through this list. But I have never read a more thoroughly > religious work than J. Scott Bronson's excellent novella The > Whipping Boy. [snipping a whole lotta stuff that sorta embarrassed me but made me feel real good too ...] > I think something as powerfully close to home as this should > ... have its place. I think I've mentioned before that after Dave Wolverton read this book he said, "I don't know if I want to look at myself that closely." I'm still not quite sure if he was speaking for himself or if he was speaking figuratively as an "average" Mormon. Either way, that may be what frightens the publishers about this piece. Dave's comment was prompted by my assertion that one of the things that I was trying to do with the story was to bring out what are almost always sub-conscious thoughts in people and make them conscious thoughts in the characters that I was dealing with. In examining my own behavior I have found that what I have oftentimes told myself was good and kind was actually motivated from a darker place and ultimately caused pain and resentment, though in such subtle ways as to be largely unnoticable until so much of the behavior had piled up as to become an impentetrable wall that seemed to have suddenly sprung up. Painful as it may be, my feeling is, if we can SEE the construction taking place, we can put a halt to it before it gets too big. See? All art is propaganda. Thank you, Andrew, for a very kind review. J. Scott Bronson -- Member of Playwrights Circle - ------------------------------------------------------------------ "The sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent upon it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do." Galileo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 23:21:55 -0900 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Dave EGGERS, _A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius_ (Review) When I moved to Alaska AHWOSG was one of the few books that made the cut to come with me. I'm reading it in a different way than Scott did. I haven't gotten to the end yet. I savor the book. I wallow in it. I don't care where the plot is going. I don't care if there is an epiphany at the end that I need to get to. I just want to have the option to open it at any time and have a few minutes with the most honest person I know (not to mention a consummate writer). AHWOSG is like the book of Job. A guy gets hit with just about everything all at once. But instead of going out of the city and donning sackcloth and ashes Eggers goes to California (I don't know, is that better or worse?) and wanders through life the way Job wandered through the riddle God had given him. Though both Job and Eggers are always on the lookout for meaning, the riddle of their lives is the most important thing. Getting back into their riddles helps me remember the riddles my life has. Then I start finding new meaning. Come to think of it, AHWOSG acts as a kind of scriptural text for me. A scriptural text is one that simply can't be read quickly. It stops you. Your eyes blur as you sink into thoughts triggered by only a few pristine words, images or sentences. This kind of thing happens to me when I read the poetry in the Old Testament, when I read Christ's words in the New Testemant, when I read the Tao Te Ching, when I read Rilke's poetry. I read with interest Scott's ideas on why this book should matter to Mormons. The comment that I think is most important is that Egger's work shows how one can honest in writing. That's what I struggle with most. I remember reading that Virginia Woolf had to kill the angel in the house before she could write honestly. Another female author (whose name I can't remember at the moment) wrote about the mustachioed man who with pursed lips and slicked black hair who peered over her shoulder at everything she wrote until she showed him the door. Those same ghosts sit next to my computer. They want me to find the answer, to uphold the platitudes. Or they want me to blow the platitudes out of the water, along with anything that may be swimming nearby. I know that ghost is alive and well in most Mormon writing. You haved to read Eggers' bizzarely frank writing to understand honesty. The way he envisions the cancer cells inside his mother's body as clusters of tiny, foul-mouthed aliens. The descriptions and maps of his living spaces, the garbage, the smell, the hall you can slide down in your socks. The more specific he gets the more he becomes everyman, but not because the details of his story sound like yours. As I read AHWOSG, I don't think to myself. "Shoot, that guy should clean up his act. He should repent. Then everything would be all better." Because the very structure of the story is above such lame moralizing. It is on a higher plane than the sermon. That's one thing I, as a Mormon writer, struggle with: supplanting the moral to get the story. The story's the thing. But, as the last blurb on the back of the hardcover edition of AHWOSG states: "This book needs no blurb." Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 07:05:06 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Credit/Blame in Drama, Movies With apologies to Richard Dutcher, who is great- Who to credit or blame when a movie or TV piece does or doesn't work? That is a question with so many possible answers. I agree with Eric that consistency of the quality of work speaks a lot to the ability of the actor, director, screen/ script writer, playwright, cinematographer,etc. Having been on a number of movie and TV sets the working relationship between the director, crew and cast can make or break a perfectly good script. The children's movie "Stuart Little" is a good example. You had a classic children's story, a good cast, a set that was easy to move around in, and a competent crew. The director was a co-director of the animated "Lion King" with that being evidence of success. It didn't translate well. He would insist on 15-20 takes of EVERY shot. My experience is after about 5-10 takes an actor can get stale on the emotion of the scene, especially working with kids. Go on to something else and come back to it or take a break. The guy just didn't get this. He even missed how happy everyone was the day one of the cameras fell in the lagoon and a whole days shooting was lost. We all felt sorry for the cameraman but it was, like a relief to forget the rest of the shots even though we knew it would have to be picked up another day. It could have been such a better movie. On the positive side, the set of "Malcolm in the Middle" works well because of some very good assistant directors. The main director can change on different episodes, but the ADs are pretty constant. They know how to work with a changing group of kids along with cast regulars. The crew is very good but took awhile getting used to kids. The cast is great, but it's probably Frankie Muniz that makes the show. He's a nice kid and a real pro. The scripts are tight and well written, simple as that. I realize in some cases the script is so bad nothing is going to save it, not even Carrie Fisher. Usually it's not the book a movie it may be based on it's the scriptwriter that either didn't know how to translate it to the screen well or it wasn't a piece that would work too good on TV or in a movie. It looks like the Harry Potter movie is going to be good because J.K. Rowling is powerful enough that she secured a great deal of say so over many aspects of the movie. The screenwriter was very respectful and consulted her a lot. She insisted on an all british cast and got it. Spielberg was interviewed for the director's job but passed to direct A.I. Chris Columbus interviewed and really kind of lobbied heavy to get the job and I'm glad he did. Steven Spielberg is a genius but I just don't think he could have resisted tampering with the Potter story and putting his own spin on it. Chris Columbus knows how to work very well with kids, was committed to staying as true to the book as possible and hand-picked Daniel Radcliffe to play Harry, who I think is going to be fantastic. To try and encapsulate this with some of my opinions on it-I think the right director makes a HUGE difference, but you need to have a good script, crew and the right casting. Why do some people agree to to make films that are bad start to finish? Sometimes greed, sometimes they were presented with a proposal that is very different from the finished product and they can not get out of contractual obligations. Who to blame? In an industry with egos this big? They'll probably blame the key grip or bad weather. Everyone will take credit if it's a hit. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:56:49 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff The footprints poem I can agree with. I have an even more nauseating, to me, picture on my wall right now with Christ's hands and a statement "I didn't say it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it" or something very similar to that. The only reason it's there is that a good friend gave it to me and I haven't had the backbone to take it down permanantly. But, the violin poem? I love it. I heard it recited once by someone who did it wondrous well. When ever I read it (not often) I hear it in his voice and it is marvelous. On the other hand, there was a story called seminary donuts going around earlier this year that made me gag. There's just no accounting for taste. Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 09:41:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction > I think no fiction could be more powerful than LDS fiction that portrays > God as he really is. I hope with all my heart that there *are* in fact > those on this list who know God as he really is and can include that > understanding in their fiction or whatever kind of mormon letters they > create. In fact I'm sure there are those here who know God sufficiently > well to convey his influence because I've felt the Spirit while listening > to or reading their work, some to a depth that has surprised me. I have no problem with that - I have had first hand experiences - but my main problem is that too many authors try to portray a God that does not equal my experience/belief in God. So - If they are merely portraying a fictional god who has a literary purpose, I don't mind. But if it's all too obvious that "this is GOd and if you don't see god this way, you're wrong" then I don't like it. I know plenty of LDS people who see God as some type of advanced scientist who is bound by quantum physics and has no knowledge of teh future. If that is how they see God, well, I can live with it, but I do not see God that way. I can see a fictional God that way, but I am unable to see the real, actual God that way. So that's my beef. Usually when authors write about how "God really is"- it becomes too didactic for me. - --Ivan Wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 09:16:41 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] God in Fiction Darlene Young wrote: "You see, I want the story to be about what the character does after God speaks to him and I want it to be UNQUESTIONABLE that God really did speak to him, just in the same way that we don't question what anyone else in the story says. I don't want there to be any discussion about "Did God really say that?" "Would God really say that?" "Maybe he was just imaging it; it's what he wanted to hear, etc." I can picture a situation where a character does really have God talk to him or her. And that they have really experienced a physical miracle in conjuction with that manifestation, but that as Thom suggests it might appear to be nothing more than a strange coincidence and that's how the other characters treat it. The dialogue I picture is the frustration the person feels in wanting to share this and not being believed and asking God why. I believe God could reply that he could indeed manifest the same or similar experience to the person's associates but to what end? Will they temporarily believe because of what they've seen, but not bother to study and pray for a deep, internal spiritual witness for themselves? Where will that take them? What is in their best interests, because God will tell the main character that is what he wants for them. I visualize God tossing questions back at the protagonist to make them think, like the Brother of Jared having to come up with a way to put lights in the barges, making the stones and then going back to the Lord for his help or instruction. God could point out the experience of Paul on the road to Damascus, he saw and heard the Lord and the people with them heard a voice, but there is no record that they responded to it the same way Paul did, that is after being baptized by Ananias he went witnessing in the synagogues alone. Where were the people who were on the road with him? What did they do with their experience? Did they dismiss it? Were they afraid of the Sanhedrin? The Roman soldiers standing guard saw the thunder and lighting and the angel descending to roll away the stone from the tomb, yet they let the Sandedrin buy them off to keep quiet or deny what they saw and heard including interceding so they wouldn't get in trouble, (read execution), for falling asleep while on watch. The rich man in hell asked Abraham to let him go back and warn his family but Abraham told him they already have the law and prophets. I can picture God saying they have the evidence of the universe with revolutions of planets, times, seasons and balance in nature if they are looking for some empirical evidence of a supreme being. They could look at the statistical near impossibility of life existing on this planet if they was not a certain thickness to the earth's crust or the proper mix of the right gases to form a breathable atmosphere. And yet, God could say many still do not believe. That he is there if anyone wishes to find him and the protagonist can indeed witness to this, but everyone must find out for themselves. And if they don't that too, is their choice. Sounds a lot like Joseph Smith's own story. But I see nothing wrong with a character having a direct one-on-one conversation(s) with God. I guess the writer will have to feel for the truthfulness of what they think the dialogue would be like. Undoubtedly, there can squeamishness of charting such a course, but it sure sounds like a great challenge. Just assume that SOMEONE will be offended by it, some people LIVE to get their knickers in a knot over something. BTW, the conference was GREAT! I felt like I got to go to a buffet and leave with a big doggie bag of goodies. I learned so much! Terry, Thom, Richard, Scott, Gideon, Rick-thanks for listening to me and sharing your advice and wisdom, it's more appreciated than I can say. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 12:40:08 EST From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Lee ALLRED, "For the Strength of the Hills" (Review) > So: Did the Saints have these rifles at the time the > action in the story takes place? If that's the case, why didn't they use > them as Allred suggests? Although Browning was in Utah, the Saints did not have access to Browning arms at the time of the Utah Expedition. The reason for this somewhat surprising fact will be discussed in the forthcoming documentary history edited by William P. MacKinnon, "At Sword's Point," a volume in The Arthur H. Clark Company's "Kingdom in the West" series. Arms had been brought to Utah from both east and west, sometimes openly and sometimes clandestinely, beginning several years before the Utah Expedition and continuing through the winter of 1857-58. There were some experiments in Utah by others (not Browning) to produce local weapons and a few pistols were produced by the Public Works department in Salt Lake in the autumn of 1857. Had a resolution with the federal government not been reached in the spring of 1858, the Saints might have had the incentive (the ability is questionable) to produce local weapons on a larger scale. The real problem in Utah in 1857, though, was not a lack of arms -- it was a serious and crippling lack of gunpowder and lead. Efforts to manufacture powder locally were far more intense than the effort to manufacture arms. Some of the colonizing efforts traditionally attributed to Indian missions or to agricultural settlements were motivated at least in part by the need to locate lead and the components of powder, and the church sought out and paid for the immigration of a handful of European converts with the necessary background in chemistry. We have enough intrigue in our history to rival anything that could be invented! It would be natural for Allred and anybody else familiar with Browning's presence in Utah to assume that he would have been producing arms for the Saints at this time, so Allred might have intended this to be fact in our universe, not a launch piont for his alternate universe. Either way, Browning is a great bit of local color to weave into the story. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 10:59:14 -0700 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Fluff Eric Samuelson, said:=20 >But fluff isn't an aesthetic choice at all. It's almost never an aesthetic choice. I don't think anyone sits down and says "I'm going to create >a piece of fluff here. I'm going to dumb down some doctrines." I don't think that ever happens. I mean, it might, but look at the people who >are getting fluff-labeled. Doug Stewart for Warrior? Jack Weyland? Gerald Lund? Richard Paul Evans? They're not unserious people. They are, >in fact, intensely serious people. You may say that they're not very talented artists: perhaps not. But they're all of them people who are >sincerely, truthfully, earnestly striving to do good in the world through their art. And I think that saying that they are, in fact, not doing > good in the world is a judgment we just flat don't get to make. Tools of the devil? Please tell me that's just a bit of rhetorical overkill. In this paragraph Eric turned a judgment of a certain type of art into a judgment of the people who created that art. He did this, I judge, because of the viewpoint that he expressed later in the same post, "At any rate, I repeat what I've been saying for years; when we judge the morality of a work of art, we judge the morality of those who created it..." with which I must respectfully disagree. To believe that is to believe that an artist is fully aware of and capable of controlling how people will interpret and react to their art, which is not the case and never has been. To equate a judgment of a work as fluff and therefore a tool of the devil with a judgment of the artist as fluffy and therefore a tool of the devil is simply not reasonable and rather obviously not what D. Michael was saying. =20 Fluff is a tool of the devil because, as D. Michael pointed out, it can be used to secure the ignorant in their ignorance. Doug Stewart is not to be blamed for the interpretation put on his work by those co-eds who went looking for Mr. Right instead of Mr. Good-Enough. The work itself, however, can be pointed to as a factor in the decision making process of those co-eds and we can in turn point to it and say this work used a questionable tool (the idea that there might only be one eternal mate for each of us) in order to promote a warm fuzzy feeling for the audience when the characters found each other. We can say that this was irresponsible and perhaps even lazy on the part of the author (the same effect could have been achieved in a myriad other ways that did not involve a questionable tool) but we certainly cannot and do not say that the author meant BYU co-eds to make hasty and ill-thought-out marriage decisions. And we can say that the work is fluff because it promotes fluffy thought processes. This enters the realm of moral judgment when the author has created a work that encourages fluffy thought surrounding how one achieves eternal salvation. =20 So, is any work that doesn't get every little thing right therefore fluff? No. Is any work that can be misinterpreted by fluffy thinkers therefore fluff? No. I've had anti-Mormons toss Book of Mormon scriptures at me as proof of their attitude toward the church. I even had an anti-Mormon read a passage from the B.O.M. as a very sound explanation of the trinity. Taken alone it _was_ a pretty good explanation of the trinity. There is a line between what I would consider fluff and non-fluff. I can't point to it but when a work crosses my line I know it. That line, of course, is different for everyone but I do think there is a universal line beyond which art becomes not only fluff but damaging fluff. Again, I cannot point to that line but I think this discussion has heightened my understanding of where it might be. - -Ethan Skarstedt How could fluff be used to damage someone? Smothering? Could it be twisted into a garrote or perhaps hardened to a point? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:05:17 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Writers Conference (was fluff) [MOD: Amen to all of William's requests!] - --- Annette Lyon wrote: > Annette Lyon > (By the way, D. Michael and everyone else involved with the > conference--great work!) > I was going to spare the list whining for details of the AML writers conference, but since Annette brought it up... Anybody willing over the next week to give those of us who weren't able to attend a report? What did Richard Dutcher have to say? Anything come up about publishing and promotion that seemed particularly interesting, effective, fresh or astounding? Did Kenny Kemp just get lucky or can his model be duplicated (with a little luck, of course)? Who was the coolest person you met at the conference (i.e. who you hadn't met before)? What was Eric Samuelsen's play like (review please)? Is there any chance that we could do the one next year as a teleconference with satellite locations on the west and east coasts? (I would travel to LA for an AML teleconference). [William Morris] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 12:23:03 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Creating a Second, Unmoderated List Terry L Jeffress wrote: > Since we will probably not move to an unmoderated AML-List, I would > propose a few adjustments of the charter. I would like the limit of > 30 posts count only toward discussion. Reviews, announcements, and > forwarded news items should not count toward the daily total. To me, > this would extend the amount of discussion space available and not > severely overload those who do not want to have their mailboxes filled > to overflowing. Out of all the suggestions everyone has made to change AML-List, this is the only one I would support with some enthusiasm. I would also suggest that such things do not count toward an individual limit per day either. I know I've put off sending a review through on occasion because I didn't want to take away from my quota of discussion messages (like right now). - -- 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, 5 Nov 2001 12:42:54 -0700 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] e they remained in shared and improvised housing until the Uta Jonathan Langford wrote: >Chris asked: > > >Could someone state briefly how Lee's story is different from what really > >happened? I may have read it in Jonathan's review, but it didn't sink in. > >My answer: I'm not entirely sure. Obviously, the Church *didn't* resist >Johnston's army for three years in Echo Canyon... > >I had thought that perhaps the historical "crux" of Lee Allred's >alternative history was the invention of repeating rifles by Jonathan >Browning, at that place and time, so that the Saints had the means of >effectively resisting. But according to Marny's post, "This is a point Lee >didn't invent." So: Did the Saints have these rifles at the time the >action in the story takes place? If that's the case, why didn't they use >them as Allred suggests? Or, to put it another way: What's the event or >set of events that made history in Allred's timeline go in a different >direction? A short answer: The major point of departure in Lee's story is that the Mormons never had a shooting war with Johnston's army. In reality we evacuated SLC, but didn't resist the army beyond some guerilla actions against their supply trains (go Porter Rockwell!) designed to slow them down. There were no battlements in the canyon, and we did not burn SLC as we evacuated (though we did evacuate the citizenry to Provo). Browning did invent repeating rifles, but I'm not sure how wide-spread their use was among the Mormons, and I'm sure we never fired one on Johnston's army. We'll try to get in contact with Lee and have him respond directly. A longer answer: Here is an excerpt from _The Encyclopedia of Mormonism_ under "Utah Expedition" (article written by Richard D. Poll): The Utah War of 1857-1858 was the largest military operation in the United States between the times of the Mexican War and the Civil War. It pitted the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, against the army and government of the United States in a bloodless but costly confrontation that stemmed from the badly handled attempt by the administration of President James Buchanan to replace Brigham Young as governor of Utah Territory. It delayed, but did not prevent, the installation of Governor Alfred Cumming, and it had a significant impact on the territory, its predominantly Latter-day Saint inhabitants, and the Church itself. Because the conflict resulted from misunderstandings that were distorted by time and distance, had the transcontinental telegraph been completed in 1857 instead of 1861, the expedition almost certainly would not have occurred. The decision to replace Governor Young was inevitable, given the national reaction to the Church's 1852 announcement of plural marriage and Republican charges in the campaign of 1856 that the Democrats favored the "twin relics of barbarism"--polygamy and slavery. The method chosen to implement that decision, however, is still puzzling. Apparently influenced by reports from Judge W. E. Drummond and other former territorial officials, Buchanan and his cabinet decided that the Latter-day Saints would reject a non-Mormon governor. So, without investigation, mail service to Utah was suspended and 2,500 troops led by Albert Sidney Johnston were ordered to accompany Cumming to Great Salt Lake City. Remembering earlier difficulties with troops and perhaps swayed by the ardor of the recent reformation movement (see Reformation [LDS] of 1856-1857), Church leaders interpreted the army's unannounced coming as religious persecution and decided to resist. Brigham Young, still acting as governor, declared martial law and deployed the Nauvoo Legion to delay the troops with "scorched earth" tactics. Harassing actions, including burning three supply trains and capturing hundreds of government cattle, forced Johnston's expedition and the accompanying civil officials into winter quarters at Camp Scott and Eckelsville, near burned-out Fort Bridger, some 100 mountainous miles east of Salt Lake City. During the winter both sides strengthened their forces. Congress, over almost unanimous Republican opposition, authorized two new volunteer regiments, and Buchanan, Secretary of War John B. Floyd, and Army Chief of Staff Winfield Scott assigned 3,000 additional regular troops to reinforce the Utah Expedition. Meanwhile, Utah communities were called upon to equip a thousand men for a spring campaign. Predictions of hostilities came from LDS pulpits, Camp Scott, and the national press. There is persuasive evidence, however, that Brigham Young never intended to force a military showdown. He and other leaders often spoke of abandoning and burning their settlements rather than permitting their occupation by enemies, as had happened in Missouri and Illinois. That Brigham Young hoped for a diplomatic solution is clear from his early appeal to Thomas L. Kane, the influential Pennsylvanian who had for ten years been a friend of the Mormons. Soon after Christmas, Kane received Buchanan's permission to go to Utah, via Panama and California, as an unofficial mediator. Reaching Salt Lake City late in February, he found Church leaders ready for peace but distrustful. When the first reports of Kane's contacts with General Johnston were discouraging, the apprehension was reinforced. The "Move South" resulted. President Young announced on March 23, 1858, that all settlements in northern Utah must be abandoned and prepared for burning if the army came in. The evacuation started immediately. Though at first perceived as likely to be permanent, the Move South was transformed into a tactical and temporary maneuver soon after word came that Kane had persuaded Cumming to come to Salt Lake City without the army. Still, in numbers at least, it dwarfed the earlier Mormon flights from Missouri and Illinois: about 30,000 people moved fifty miles or more to Provo and other towns in central and southern Utah. There they remained in shared and improvised housing until the Utah War was over. When Kane and Cumming arrived early in April, Young surrendered his political title and soon formed an amiable working relationship with his successor. However, the Move South continued, probably because the government representatives insisted that Johnston's troops must be admitted but were unable to guarantee that they would come in peacefully. Meanwhile, President Buchanan responded to rising criticism by appointing Lazarus Powell and Ben McCulloch to carry an amnesty proclamation to Utah. Arriving early in June, they found Church leaders willing to accept Cumming and a permanent army garrison in exchange for peace and amnesty. Johnston's army marched through a largely deserted Salt Lake City on June 26, 1858, and went on to build Camp Floyd forty miles to the southwest. Soon the refugees returned home; the Utah War was over. [end quote] All of the actual events in Lee's story are fictional, though they are all based on either what did happen or what we were prepared to do. The point of departure from real history happens before the story opens. In the story we decided to fight a shooting war to keep Johnston's army out of SLC, and to burn the city rather than let it be occupied. In history, neither of those things happened, and as a result, Lee and Grant never came to SLC to have the conversation that wraps the story up. Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 12:35:50 -0700 From: Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Credit/Blame in Drama, Movies Eric Snider wrote: > I have a theory that some movies, in fact, are made only by the > on-camera cast and one other guy. No technicians, writers, crew > people, craft services, or anything. Just a guy, a camera, and some > actors. This theory comes from the fact that some movies are SO > ridiculous, you figure if anyone else were involved, SOMEONE would > have said SOMETHING along the way. Not always the case. There are some people who are creative enough to pull it off. Christopher Guest's films leap to mind as a case of great films created by the cast with not much more than a few notes about characters and a brief plot outline. Not even a script. In fact, in the DVD release of _Waiting for Guffman_, Guest mentions something to the effect that there were a few times when the camera crew wondered when they were going to start working on the film, when in fact they were already into it. The only part of that movie that was scripted and rehearsed was the "Red, White, and Blaine" play. I don't know of any LDS improvisational cinema tradition (unless videotaping a family home evening counts). There is a Utah man named Nyk Fry who creates a show on KJZZ called _Liquid Television_. It's basically Nyk running around the state with a camera and filming interesting things he finds. He edits an interesting show each week out of the material he's gathered, but it's usually more of a documentary than a story. - --Mike - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 21:13:22 GMT From: cgileadi@emerytelcom.net Subject: Re: [AML] BRONSON, "The Whipping Boy" (Review) Is this available online anywhere, so we could read it? - --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:57:47 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Interesting how some terrible cliches or oversimplifications can take on new meaning given a profound context. My sister-in-law, who died of Multiple Sclerosis, had that saying ("I didn't say it would be easy...") on her wall in the care center where she died. It brings her to mind whenever I see it, and though I recognize how it trivializes the atonement, I cannot help but see Nancy suffering through the final indignities of her disease and somehow getting inspiration from those words. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 14:58:10 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: RE: [AML] Fluff The fluff discussion has shifted slightly to a discussion of intention and = responsibility, which is a good shift, I think--one that has particular = value for LDS writers, since I think that we'll be responsible to account = for our fruits at the judgment bar, and that is going to include our = literary fruits, I imagine. People can accidently cause some kinds of car accidents, yet they are = still "responsible" for them. I think the same is true of literature. An = author may not mean for her work to be taken in a particular way, but if = people do, and there is a problem as a result, then the author could be = seen as negligent, though it's hard to say just when that might happen. Dutcher mentioned repentance as a response for crossing "the line" during = his address at the conference, and that is important--something I can't = even believe I've overlooked. Can any of us imagine a situation in which = we would find ourselves trying to repent of a story we've told, a book = we've published? I think this is a fascinating thing to think about. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #506 ******************************