From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #528 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, November 26 2001 Volume 01 : Number 528 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:42:39 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Writer's Lament (pt. 2) [MOD: This is Part 2 of a 2-part post.] 1995-2001: Foundering/The Wall, Part II (1997-2001) Then a series of things happened and my whole approach to writing was transformed. I'm still not sure whether it was for the better. * Event 1 -- Scott Bronson * After a writing group meeting one night, Scott Bronson commented that his goal with writing was to "build the kingdom of God" and that he saw all his fiction as serving that larger goal. It seemed like a relatively innocuous comment, but it stuck with me, and began to infect the way I thought about fiction. I had been looking for an overarching purpose for my writing, and this seemed as good as any. In many ways, this was a sort of turning point in terms of how I thought about my religion--being a Mormon became a more active sort of thing for me at about this point, part of my direct philosophical exploration. Thank you, Brother Bronson. * Event 2 -- The Dream * Near Christmas in 1996 I had a dream. I don't know what personal revelation looks or feels like, but this dream felt like more to me than just the playground of my own subconscious mind. To this day I haven't decided whether it was just chemical euphoria induced by bad diet or whether it was something more; one of those questions I'll have to ask God if/when the time comes. My interpretation of the dream was that I needed to pursue national and critical audiences to prove my talent to myself, then turn to stories founded on my belief in Christ. While my performance wouldn't be as polished, I would reach a greater audience and feel more satisfaction in doing so. I wish I knew whether I could dismiss the dream as just a dream, because it's completely confused my goals as a writer. (If anyone is interested, I'm willing to share the details of the dream in a private note.) * Event 3 -- The AML-List * I started lurking on the AML-List in late 1995, and started participating actively in early 1996. By the middle of that year I was a regular contributor and was writing one of the weekly columns. The AML-List had completely engaged my interest. This was both good and bad. Good, because I discovered a community that could encompass both my Mormon-ness and my writer-ness. That gave me a sense of belonging, a place where my ideas on how and why stories are told could find voice. It awakened a certain excitement in me, a sense that I could somehow participate in the development of a literature of my own people. Combined with these other events, it gave me a social purpose that had not existed up to that point. My time began to be taken up by reading and writing for the List. I began to focus on pop criticism as much as adding my own bits to the literary canon. I became a popularizer, not a producer. I became a cheerleader. And I stopped writing fiction regularly, though I continued to think about it constantly. Part of what happened, I think, was that all of the expressive energy that had gone into telling stories was now diverted into commenting on other peoples' stories, and the almost manic desire to be heard by some audience was being fulfilled in this venue. The itch was still there, but I had found a different method to scratch it. Not completely effective, but enough for now. The Lament - --------------- Which brings me to now, and the annoying little hole I've managed to work myself down into. In criticizing how well other writers succeeded at their tasks I began to be unsatisfied with my own success at those same tasks in my fiction. By and large, I wrote stories because I wanted to understand how and why the world worked, and in writing a story I was forced to make abstract ideas concrete. By expressing my own little explorations into how and why people made the decisions they did, I felt like I was contributing some small bit to the sum total of human experience--but more importantly I was attempting to understand the world on a purely personal basis. And if no else agreed with my observations, so what; as long as they found the ride entertaining, it was irrelevant whether anyone else found value in my words or not. But as I began to participate not only in criticism of craft, but also of content, morality, intent, self-definition, and social impact in our little Mormon literary movement, I began to see my stories as unworthy of inclusion in the discussion. I didn't deal with big things, with the finding or losing of testimonies or the grand questions of Truth in the universe. I told small stories about little people just trying to muddle through until tomorrow, and maybe finding some hope or grace along the way. I wasn't writing manifestos for the people, I was just telling stories. In my mind those stories were not important enough to occupy space in this literature of my people, this cultural exploration of what it means to be Mormon and Human and children of God. To paraphrase a good friend, I felt that my critical faculty had exceeded my talent and I could no longer imagine myself telling a story that I considered worthwhile. I had stopped being a writer and started becoming either an editor or a cheerleader. Now don't get me wrong, those are both completely valid roles that need to be fulfilled if the whole system is to work. I had always imagined that I would *also* edit and cheerlead, *also* work to expand and popularize whatever market I wrote for. But I always saw myself as a writer first, and the rest of it second. Even in my dream I was singing along with the others. I haven't written fiction seriously in a very long time (several years now), and every time I try the joy is gone--replaced by fear that I may really have been an imposter all this time, that I'm not a writer and never have been. The easy, almost careless ability to take an idea and run with it in narrative has been replaced with agonizing over what that idea *means* and how it fits into the larger dialog. My former ability to write three or four different stories at once has been replaced with staring at the screen for an hour trying to figure out what to do next on a single story. I seem to have forgotten how to write. Which would be fine if I didn't have this horrible itch to tell stories, to write *something* for an audience, to put my words out into the world and see how (or if) they came back to me. I still spend hours a day writing (yes, these mini-essays take me hours to write), but none of it is the body of work that I would like to be known for--my fiction. I once considered leaving the AML-List, and did for a short time. But then I developed two itches--one to write fiction, and one to participate in the AML-List dialog. It drove me to distraction and I ended up coming back. I could be content as a cheerleader if I weren't so desperate to be a player in the game. I want to write, and I want to do it well. But like Salieri in _Amadeus_ I feel like I've been cursed by God with a desire to do something that I'm ill-equipped to succeed at. I have enough critical faculty to know what I want, but I'm not sure I have enough talent to realize it. And worst of all, it plays back into the fears that had started years ago, that I never did have the talent to succceed, that I've been a self-deluded imposter all this time. Why do I spend all these words to tell you how I feel about my own writing? For two reasons. First, so anyone else struggling with similar questions knows that they're not alone; I may not have any answers, but I do know the struggle and I sympathize. Sometimes that helps. Second, I write it so that I can understand it. By putting it down in words I confine it, reduce it from an unknowable phantom into a described concept that I can now look at with less passion, with less frustration. Therapy. Maybe we shouldn't share our therapies with an audience. Then again, maybe that's part of the difference between an audience and a community. Maybe that's part of what makes the Mormon literary market capable of being different from what the rest of the world has to offer. Or maybe it's just self-justification; that works, too. So what's my lament? Trying to figure out how to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. I suppose it's a sort of stage fright, but at a pre-performance level. Maybe that's what those others have that I can't seem to find in myself--a desire to tell stories even when they're afraid. Maybe it's extreme confidence; others never question the value of their own contributions so they don't have to break down that initial wall of reserve. I admire that. I hope I can learn to do it. In the meantime, the itch remains and I struggle to learn how to scratch it without fear that I'll tear a gaping wound in the process. Maybe it's fear of embarrassing myself. Because in my own special kind of arrogance I don't feel that it's the editors or the publishers that are blocking the way, it's the internal critic that has stopped the creative wellspring at its source. But one thing is certain: I continue to itch, for better or worse. I don't know whether to thank this list for that, or to to curse it. But I do want very much to get back into a game that I once played in, and that I think is very much worth participating in. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:31:34 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Eternal Feminine in Lit 130-138,139-32767 From: kathy_f@juno.com Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:25:35 -0700 Eileen Stringer writes: > Love is the uplifting and redeeming power on earth and in heaven;=20 > and to man > it is revealed in its most pure and perfect form through woman.=20 > Thus, in the > transitory life of earth, it is only a symbol of its diviner being;=20 > the > possibilities of love, which earth can never fulfill, become=20 > realities in > the higher life which follows; the spirit, which woman interprets to=20 > man in > this life, still draws us upward (as Margaret draws the soul of=20 > Faust) > there. The idea Man cannot be saved without Woman and that Woman=20 > embodies > divinity here on earth. Woman embodies not only the power of > creation but of > redemption. When I first read this my skin crawled just a little -- it reminded me of a conversation I had once with a Wiccan about her beliefs. As I am way behind in reading my mail, I also got to read Jacob's reply almost immediately, and didn't have to find words for my own feelings because Jacob had done it for me. If I were a member of your class, Eileen, I'd be extremely uncomfortable with this Eternal Feminine "ideal" to help explain the sanctity of Womanhood. If it were me I'd be approaching it from the writings of Patricia Holland, Elder Holland's wife, as they are published in _On Earth As it Is in Heaven_ (sorry for slaughtering the capitals in that title -- can't ever remember the rules), or in her new book, _A Quiet Heart_. The other approach I'd take is found in some of Hugh Nibley's work, but my favorite version is found in _Woman and the Power Within_, the compilation of 1990's BYU Women's Conference talks. (That might be 'Women" in the title, but I'm too lazy to go find it and look, sorry.) It is the essay titled, "Eve's Role in the Creation and the Fall to Mortality" by Jolene Edmunds Rockwood. While the entire essay left me breathless (I was so excited with what I was reading I took it into Walmart with me to read in line or any chance I got, ran into my friend Sarah in the middle of the children's clothing section and held her hostage while I read two full pages to her) there is one part that specifically addresses the true role women were intended to play in mortality, and for me defines in many ways that very sanctity of womanhood you desire to teach.=20 "First, Adam and Eve were created symbolically as two equal parts of one unified whole and were united in all their actions. The word translated as man is the Hebrew =91adam, meaning "humankind," or man in a collective sense.5 It is used throughout most of the story rather than the more specific Hebrew noun =91ish, meaning "one man," or "husband." The plural sense of ha-=92adam is seen when it is used with "them," a plural pronoun, in "Let us make man in our image.., and let them have dominion... , So God created man. , . male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26~27.)" =20 This gives an entirely new and deeper meaning to the phrase "becoming one" or "cleaving unto" one's spouse and no one else. There's a lot more on this particular aspect, but not what I want to concentrate most on.=20 "The Lord states, "It is not good that the man [collective] should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." (Genesis 2:18.) This phrase "help meet" (Hebrew =91ezer kenegdo) is an interesting one. =91Ezer, which= in this context is translated as "help" (meaning "helper"), has the unfortunate connotation in English of an assistant of lesser status, a subordinate, or inferior=97 for instance, a willing but not very competent child. In Hebrew, however, the word describes an equal, if not a superior. The other usages of =91ezer in the Old Testament show that in most cases God is an =91ezer to human beings, a fact which makes us question whether "helper" is an accurate translation in any of the instances it is used. A more accurate translation in this context would be "strength" or "power." Evidence indicates that the word =91ezer originally had two roots, each beginning with different guttural sounds." Over time, the two gutturals were merged into one word, but the two meanings, "to save" and "to be strong," remained. later, the meanings also merged into one word, "to help." Therefore, if we use the more archaic meanings of =91ezer, and translate =91ezer as either "savior" or "strength," we clarify not only the context we are discussing but also the other passages in the Old Testament where =91ezer is used, especially when =91ezer refers to God in his relationship with humankind. =91Ezer translated as "strength" or "power" also fits in nicely with the second word in the phrase, kenegdo, which has traditionally been translated as "meet for" or "fit for." Because kenegdo appears only this one time in the Old Testament, earlier translators had little upon which to base their translations. An important clue to the meaning of this word is found in its usage in Mishnaic Hebrew, where the root means "equal." Kenegdo, then, means "equal to" and the entire phrase =91ezer kenegdo means "power or strength equal to." Thus, when God makes ha-=92adam into two beings, he creates woman, a power or strength equal to man. The King James translation of kenegdo as "meet for" is based on the seventeenth-century meaning of meet, "worthy a meaning no longer in current English usage. This archaic translation has led uninformed readers over the years to hyphenate the noun and adjective as "help-meet," detach the sense of "meet for," and then develop the neologism "helpmate,=92 a term that never existed either in the original Hebrew or in the KingJames version. The phrase has, however, become so much a part of the Christian vernacular that references to wives as help-meets and help-mates are common. The Lord then removes a "rib" from which he forms man=92s companion. (Genesis 2:21=9722.) The Hebrew sela=92 is used more than forty times in the Old Testament to mean "side"; only in this passage has it been translated as "rib." Nearly every other usage gives construction details for the tabernacle or temple (i.e., side of the tabernacle, side of the altar, etc.) Se/a=92 in Genesis 1:21=9722 thus should be similarly read as construction information, though the object being constructed is a life form. The Lord, as master builder, takes the "side" (se/a) of the human and uses it to "build" (banah) another person. Reading se/a=92 as "side" rather than as "rib" also better dramatizes the unity of the man and the woman, enhances the phrase "power equal to him," and makes the man=92s later characterization of woman as "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" even more meaningful. Thus, when God causes the human to sleep, he takes one of his sides and creates two beings out of one. I wish I could quote the entire essay, because there is so much more, but this will suffice for my point. Or, I should say, the writer's point. Essentially, the man is not greater than the woman, and the woman is not greater than the man. And we must both be holy and sanctified, becoming one again as we were in our perfect state. One in purpose, as God is. The term "ezer" does seem to indicate the "Eternal Feminine" as woman being 'superior' to man; man's strength and power, and saving grace. But I would also venture that man is also the same for woman, given that they are two halves of the same whole.=20 The term "kenegdo" also has personal interest for me. My husband's patriarchal blessing says he will find a woman who would be "suitable" to take to the temple. That's it. That's me. Suitable.=20 (If anyone wants to read the entire essay, I have it scanned into an rtf file on my computer -- I was emailing it to some friends. Just let me know if you'd like a copy.) Kathy Fowkes Mesa, Arizona kathy_f@juno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:40:20 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Tasteful Ellipses - ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > That's why we need to allow our authors to tell any story they want, and > not adhere to some artificial black-and-white definition of moral > literature. I know what you meant in your post, so this is going to sound useless and assinine--but . . . no one is insisting that writers (me, in particular) adhere to an artificial standard of morality. I can write whatever I want to--if I have courage--I just have to be ready to be hugely unpopular. And actually, the more I adhere to the restrictions the more creative (and subversive) I have to become in order to satisfy my own sense of truth and justice. (It must be a good day. I think that almost made sense.) Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 23:30:10 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: [AML] Selling One's Library I'm cross-posting this to several lists. I ask forgiveness for this rudeness, but I really need some help. (The folks at mormon-library have already been a great deal of help; I'm looking for all available options.) I find that I must sell some of my older, rare books. I need to maximize the amount I get for them. It has been suggested I go to ebay, but I don't have any idea what a fair price would be for some of the books. Is there a place, perhaps on-line, that can give me this information? And is ebay a good choice? How do *they* get paid? I've set up an account there, but I know I don't understand much about it. It has also been suggested I contact folks like Curt Bench, who I know personally. But isn't it a given that I'll get less for the books when I sell them to someone who will be looking to make a profit on them? Is there some advantage to going through a dealer? Any insights will be much appreciated! Thanks. [Jeff Needle] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 08:32:22 -0700 From: luannstaheli Subject: Re: [AML] B.J. ROWLEY to Help Orchesis I read this article to my students who loved the book, but we weren't quite sure WHERE and WHEN you would be doing the autographing. One of the girls is performing in the concert, so she's hoping it's then. Thanks. BJ Rowley wrote: > Orem author to help Orchesis > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:24:25 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Point of View I think that Eric points out the most useful thing about POV: who is present? If one is writing a novel that focuses on a single character, the main issue is does one NEED to have that character in every scene, can they enter the scene late or must they be there from the onset. Think of Dicken's A CHRISTMAS CAROL: Scrooge is always there except for a few times, generally when we're with the Cratchits. The scenes are quite powerful BECAUSE we're without the main character. One can handle POV this way, but one has to set up the reader for the fact that this is going to be what happens in the work by doing it consistently throughout the work and/or by doing it in major scenes, so that the reader will be able to say: "ahh, this is on purpose." If you just dip or break for a moment, then the reader will be free to say: "this author isn't in control." And that is something you don't want them to say. A writer can really break any rule they want to if it seems like it's on purpose and for a reason that supports the aims of the work. Accidents make the reader think that they're dealing with someone who doesn't know what they're doing. An editor's job, then, is to catch the accidents and not the things that an author is doing on purpose, which is not always an easy distinction to make, and in some cases is impossible. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:40:18 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] Scott BRONSON, _Stones_ (Review) One of the songs in Marvin Payne=92s Planemaker changed my impressions of what being godlike really means:=20 "Then we are fierce and holy; then we are wild and wise." Fierce and wild! What a contrast to the Mormon culture I had been raised in! Could it be that God has something else in mind for me=97for all of us=97than just flowered dresses and warm fuzzy stories in sacrament meeting? I think as a culture we are afraid of strong things, power, fierceness. Too many times we choose the safe, the warm (lukewarm), the sweet and the mild--after all, Christ taught us to be mild, didn't he? But he also taught us the keys of power! The early church and the early restored church are full of stories of power, of fierceness and strength. It is something to be mourned that our arts have not been able to reflect the true potential of souls for power and fierceness that I believe God intends for us. Too often our arts are mild and therefore lose potential to move us to higher levels. What a refreshing experience it was to me, then, to see Scott Bronson's Stones last night. Here is a work full of pain--refining pain, pain that forced me to assess my worldview and become a different person because of the experience. This is true art--art that causes growth through experience, not didacticism.=20 I'm still pondering the complexity of this work and I know that more insight will come to me over time, but I had to speak now so that I can get more Listers to go and support this great work. People, this kind of thing directly affects all of us as artists. Any time one of us is able to raise the standard of LDS art, he is benefiting all of us. And Scott is doing what Richard Dutcher spoke of doing: educating an audience. And, I believe, the education of the Mormon audience means teaching them to appreciate fierceness in art. We MUST support each other in this endeavor!=20 So go see this work! Go! Go! =20 And don't just go to support Scott in his worthy endeavor. Go because this work is worth seeing. This work is GOOD. (Note: Throughout this review I'm using the word "work" to refer to the set of two plays which intertwine so well in theme that they are more like two acts of a single play which just happen to have completely different characters.) The work is based on two stories, Abraham's revelation to Isaac that Isaac is to be the sacrifice, and Christ's revelation to his own mother of what he is going to go through for the sake of the world. And yet these stories are just background, really, because the work is actually about so many things that affect all of us. What is it like to be a parent who does not have all the answers? How does it feel to tell someone you love about pain that they or you must go through? How do you relieve a good mother of mother-guilt? How do you help your children forgive each other? What does it feel like to bring yourself to do something hard, something you never thought you could find the strength to do? There were some utterly beautiful moments in this work. There were some utterly agonizing moments in this work. What more could you want? The acting was breathtaking. All three actors had some supreme moments. I will not soon forget any of the performances. Especially moving to me was the grief of the mother (played by Kathryn Laycock Little) in the first moments of the second play. She communicated, first in complete silence and later in the most realistic, heart-wrenching sobs I've ever heard in theater, the pain of being parted from her mate. Scott was especially good as Joseph, bringing more depth to my understanding of how difficult it must have been for the real Joseph to parent this remarkable child--the turmoil of feeling humbled by the child that he must teach and correct. And remembering Elwon Bakly as Christ in Gethsemane gives me shivers even as I write this. Excellent, excellent actors, all three. This work reminded me a little of listening to Neal A. Maxwell speak: I kept wishing I could pause the action and rewind to the last sentence to ponder it for fifteen minutes before I moved on--just so I wouldn't miss anything. There were so many thought-provoking lines that I was scribbling madly to get them down. Joseph's lecture to the boy Jesus after the temple episode was one of the best parent lectures I've ever heard, extremely well-written and thought-provoking. Mary's conversation with Jesus was so realistic in its depiction of a mother's insecurities. Every woman desires to be given proof of what she has done right as a mother--don't just say I am a good mother; tell me how! And Jesus does:=20 (paraphrase) "You were always there, teaching us to ask, 'How do you know she meant it that way?' 'Could I be wrong about this?'" He shows a masterful understanding of a woman's heart. Also in this conversation, Mary's description of the effect on her of the knowledge of Jesus' upcoming pain was eloquent: "If you tell me [of what will happen] today, it happens today, and every day until I die!" Later she asks, "Is there no other way?" And, of course, Jesus answers, "There is no other way." Amazing words with a familiar ring . . .=20 The sets and costumes were so minimal as to be non-existent. A very effective choice. In this way, the people and the story were emphasized and, what's more, made timeless and universal. The language, too, was meant to be transparent, I think, although there were occasional slips into biblical or "higher" language that were a little stilted distracting (words like "deed," for example). The lighting functioned only as a signal of flashbacks and was also very effective. The flashback structure was perfect, the transitions smooth and interesting. My only real complaint about this work is that at times I felt Scott was shying away from the potential power and fierceness, of the work. The father in the first play could have shown even more agony. I picture Abraham sobbing through the difficult revelation to his son of who was going to be the sacrifice. The point of revelation more than the actual administration of the killing blow is, I would think, the most agonizing moment for Abraham. And it is just this revealing of pain to a loved one that is so well contrasted in the second play. We compare Abraham's agony to the agony the empathetic Christ feels on behalf of his mother at the loss of her son.=20 I would have liked to see more intensity from Abraham (although it was quite intense already). =20 And I think Scott dulled the intensity of the absolute climax of the work, an extremely tense scene in which Christ foresees/experiences the agonies of Gethsemane--he added background music. The particular music he chose unfortunate because it is so commonly overplayed in Utah. If he must add music to this scene--and I think that is a mistake--it should be something we don't already recognize. This is the only scene in the work that is accompanied by music.=20 I assume the music was added to remind us of the ultimate purpose of the agony and its relation to us--but I can't help thinking that it was also meant to dull the pain of an excruciating scene. Watching this scene was extremely uncomfortable. But imagine the power of forcing the audience to experience this discomfort, which seems to go on and on, in silence.=20 I think the fierceness of such a moment would increase the work's power immensely. Already, though, the moment is one of the finest I've seen in drama and particularly in Mormon drama. The skill of Mr. Bakly was, as I mentioned before, absolutely amazing. I will not soon forget this scene. Summing up, this is a work that the audience doesn't just view and be entertained. This is a work to experience. In one of my favorite parts of the work, Joseph explains to the young Jesus that one of the ways we must learn in this life is through experience. In fact, some things MUST be experienced. An important doctrinal point, I think, and one that provides a good interpretation of how a young Jesus could learn and grow--and even possibly make mistakes that are not sins--and still remain a flawless lamb.=20 (Although my husband disagreed about Christ's capacity to make mistakes, and we had an energetic debate about the question all the way back to Salt Lake--just another example of the thought-provoking nature of the work.) So, we must learn by experience. And here is an experience that I recommend for anyone not afraid of the pain of learning something new and fierce. Go, experience this work, and become a deeper, more powerful person. Note: this work is being performed in the Little Brown Theater (Springville), which is the perfect intimate setting for it, tonight, Monday night, and next Thursday, Friday and Saturday (Scott, correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks, Marilyn and Bill Brown (theater owners), for your continuing support of Mormon arts. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:44:41 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Eternal Feminine in Lit Ah. I must have gotten names mixed up in my memory. My apologies. Jacob > > Huh? I've never read an LDS romance novel, let alone written one. > > Sharlee Glenn(?) > glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:53:20 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Tasteful Ellipses Concerning a stnadard for LDS literature, Todd Petersen wrote: >I'd offer the standard of this: LDS writing should have a trajectory of >hope in it, not one of despair. This means we can travel with the >fictional sinner, experience grief and even depravity. If we feel can >read a difficult story and still feel like there is a God and a Savior, >and some method to us for making our lives into something graceful, then >we're in the ball park. I think if a work cuts us off from that, it is >at odds with the gospel and thus can't really be considered LDS. I agree with this. "Men are that they might have joy." (II Nephi 2) "Happiness is the object of our creation." (Joseph Smith writing to Nancy Rigdon) What sets Mormonism apart from all other theological systems is that in it,the existence of humanity--its very nature--is already justified. Human existence is not something that must be apologized or "atoned" for; humanity is not cowering before any Deity, but is presented as the very offspring of the Gods. In fact, the eternal preservation of human life on an eternal earth is defined as the work and glory of Deity. Mormon theology is inherently positive and humanistic. I think it captures the essence of what "Age of Reason"-era Deists were striving to express. I'd call Mormon theology "Sectarian Humanism"--as opposed to "Secular Humanism." It seems logical, then, that this positive view should be reflected in any literature laying claim to the title of "Mormon literature." Such literature can explore any topic, any subject, any sin or evil in depth at great length because evil itself will be defined as that which is contrary to and destructive of the life of mankind. Nihilism--the dominant philosophy serving as the foundation of most 20th century art--will be swept away. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:17:47 -0700 (MST) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Tasteful Ellipses > 5. Voyeuristic appeal. This can be similar to gossip, and again, giving evil the name "evil" is irrelevant, and even showing it's "evil" effects is largely irrelevant, if what you and your readers are really doing with it is getting yourselves heated up. > Ben Parkinson Yes - this is one that's bothered me a lot - it seems too often all the slime we have to wade through to get to the "good" or "Happy" or at least "morally centered" endings is more oftern than not the point, with the moral tacked on as a way to justify all the vicarious sin we just experienced. For example Linda Lovelace's interesting books (only having read small selections and a few citations in academic studies of "moral" literature) on her life as a porn star. It's suppossedly meant to show the evil degredation of the lifestyle, and she ultimately affirms a sort of traditional lifestyle in being a mother and homemaker - but apparently you have to wade through hundreds of pages of explicit sex and bondage fantasies. At which point I have to ask - is it worth it? I often think, no. If teh moral center isn't really introduced until the end, or only casually mentioned along the way, the moral center often comes across as merely an excuse to justify vicarious indulgence in sin. There are times it is acceptable, but not as often as the critics would lead me to believe. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:29:57 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? on 11/10/01 1:39 AM, D. Michael Martindale at dmichael@wwno.com wrote: > "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > >> Anyway, I think there's something to this. I think that there's an element >> of, what, mysticism to writing. I think that some characters have an >> existence outside the page. I think that a character is not just a construct >> of language, but . . . a person? A spiritual creation? Something more real >> than not, at least. Or am I just being weird? > > You're just being weird. Your subconscious mind, knowing that you wanted > to write a TYA play, was working on the plot and characters without your > awareness. Finally one day it said, "I'm done! Here's what I've come up > with!" and it popped into your conscious mind as a flash of inspiration. > > Sorry I couldn't be more mystical for you. On the other hand, I think > the workings of the subconscious mind are pretty mystical anyway. I'm going to be very mystical about this whole thing. I'm shocked that I haven't seen this mentioned before. Why do character's spring full-blown from the unconcious? How many billion years of memories are buried behind the veil? How many world have we watched, how many people have we seen grow up on world that vanished ages ago? For all you know you were the guardian angel of someone greatly resembling these characters who looked up at a sun who's light will never reach Earth. I am a writer because of that tap into the infinite, because it's the Spirit who tears back that veil a little, gives me a glimpse of the whole of myself. All that I can't remember is still there, and bits and pieces come through. All the "Worlds without End" are buried deep in the mind and spirit, and every character that seems to live on the page has at least a spark of those lost and forgotten worlds. Freud can go jump in a lake. The subconcious is vastly larger and more complex than he ever dreamed. James Wilson dukerhenand@home.com thelairdjim@hotmail.com gymnus@go.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:26:48 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] LDS Film Festival (Daily Herald) LDS Film Festival offers look at local talent ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Friday, November 23 PROVO -- The first Young LDS Film Festival comes to Provo next week, with screenings Thursday and Nov. 30 and Dec. 1. Prizes totaling $2,000 for the best films and screenplays will be awarded the evening of Dec. 1, as decided by a panel of judges comprised of LDS filmmakers. BYU film student Christian Vuissa organized the event, which was open to all filmmakers who were LDS, whether their films contained religious themes or not. He said he received more than 70 entries, mostly from Utah and California. Many came from BYU film students and have previously been featured in BYU's Final Cut film program. Twenty-three finalist films have been culled from the submissions, and two 2-hour programs will be shown Thursday and Dec. 1. The programs Program B is the better of the two, if only for the presence of "The Wrong Brother." This 14-minute film by Chris Bowman is by far the best film in either program, and it swept all the major awards at BYU's Final Cut earlier this year. It tells the story of Hector Wright, the fictional younger brother of Orville and Wilbur who got lost in the shadow of his brothers' airplane fame. The film is professional and polished, not to mention outrageously funny and well-acted. Take any opportunity to see it. The rest of Program B is an interesting mix of styles. There's "Inspire or Damage," an entertaining documentary about wheelchair- bound filmmaker Travis Eberhard; "Andy," a charming story about a rambunctious foster child; and "Gestures," an impressive computer-animated film. Program A also has some noteworthy entries. "4:53" is extremely well-done in terms of camera work and editing, and mockumentary "Auteur" -- about a director who has no idea how bad his films are -- is highly enjoyable. "Closure" tells of the horrors of being an unmarried 25-year-old man at BYU. "Crushed" and "Shattered," aside from having similar titles, also are both conceptual pieces dealing with self-worth and self-esteem. Both programs have a few experimental works, as well as some films that seem to have been exercises in oddness rather than in storytelling. But most are no more than nine or 10 minutes long, and either two-hour program is worth seeing, particularly as it promotes local filmmaking. =A9 2001 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #528 ******************************