From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #529 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 27 2001 Volume 01 : Number 529 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:23:42 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] BRONSON, "Stones" (Daily Herald) Two plays focus on family relationships ERIC D. SNIDER The Daily Herald on Friday, November 23 SPRINGVILLE -- Local actor and writer J. Scott Bronson will debut his new play, "Stones," tonight at the Little Brown Theatre in Springville. The show will run for six performances. "Stones" consists of two one-act plays, both about families and both based on biblical figures. "Altars" focuses on the story of Abraham and Isaac. Most of the play takes place on Mt. Moriah, the place where Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son. Bronson conceived the idea for "Altars" in the 1980s. "I thought I could do it because I was a son, and I knew all about being a son," he said. "But it wasn't until I was actually a father that I could write both parts." "The question I started with was: How does someone get to the point where he can willingly lay down his life and be killed, and how does someone get to the point where he's willing to kill his own son without bitterness or malice toward God?" The second play, "Tombs," examines the relationship between Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary. It takes place in Joseph's tomb as Mary prepares it for her husband's burial. This one came much more quickly, Bronson said; he thought of it and wrote it all last year. He'd been trying to come up with another one-act play to produce with "Altars," and was finally struck with the idea of Jesus' relationship with his mother. "I didn't start writing until I knew how it was going to end," he said. "This line popped into my head, where he tells her everything he's going to do, and she says, 'Can you do it? How will it be possible for you to do all that?' And he says, 'I can do it. My body will survive because God is my father, but my heart will survive because you are my mother.'" Commenting on the biblical source for both stories, Bronson said, "They are very religious pieces. I make no apology for that. But they are not just for religious-minded people." He said he believes the plays are about families most of all. It's apparent who the characters are, he said, but they are not named in the dialogue or the printed program. "I want people watching the play to think along the lines of, 'Hey, that mother isn't so different from my mother. And my son is like that son.' " Bronson has been involved with Actors' Repertory Theatre Ensemble (ARTE) off and on since its inception in 1989, and "Stones" was to have made its ARTE-sponsored debut at the Castle Theatre this summer. However, health problems forced Bronson to put the production on hold, so the Little Brown Theatre staging will be its first. He is directing the show and also plays the Abraham character. Elwon Bakly and Kathryn Laycock Little play the other roles. =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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:33:55 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Point of View Terry L Jeffress wrote: > Ok, mediocre writing aside, I would much rather read the second scene > over the first. The second scene gives us more action to follow. The > second scene communicates Jennifer's same feelings, but we get a > better sense of her rage through her actions rather than just having > the author tell us about her anger. This was a strawman example. You weren't comparing the advantages of two approaches to POV. You were comparing the effectiveness of "show, don't tell" to boring generalized exposition. You used a horrible example of writing for the POV choice you were arguing against, and some pretty decent writing for the choice you were supporting. You also brought us further along the time line in the second example than the first, telling us what happened after George snatched the glasses and Jennifer had her emotional reaction. More stacking of the deck! Sort of like showing a "before" photograph of a fat person with messy hair, no make-up, and an out of focus amateur's snapshot, then the "after" photograph a professional glamour shot. Showing feelings through action and getting into a character's head are not mutually exclusive. You just need to present the internal state of the character with the same detailed, snappy writing that you did with the cinematic action. You learn to mix the two thoroughly, so thoroughly that the internal dialog seems as much a part of the action as the action itself. And to put my money where my mouth is, here's my rewrite of your example, combining the action with internal information. Perhaps others would disagree, but I think it adds a bit of depth to the scene without stalling the action. (I also fixed a subtle POV violation, where George's sidekicks see the Nerd crying.) George snatched the Nerd's glasses, threw them to the ground, and ground them under the heel of his Air Jordan sneaker. Jennifer stared at him in shock. She couldn't believe what he'd just done. "You shameless bastard." She balled her fists inside her pockets. "Now you've gone too far." George shrugged and walked into the schoolyard. His sidekicks followed, looking over their shoulders and nudging each other as they doubled over laughing. Tears ran down the Nerd's face. Jennifer's heart beat faster, and she felt her pulse behind her eyes. "You'll pay, George Romney," she whispered through clenched teeth. "You'll pay." Oh, by the way, "She balled her fists inside her pockets" _is_ getting inside Jennifer's head, because the camera wouldn't see that. > I think the more you stay out of the characters' heads the better. > Show me the characters' actions and let the actions reveal mood. So I > fully support a "cinematic" approach to writing. This certainly would be a cinematic approach. If you think it's better, go for it. But I'd guess that those who prefer exciting cinematic action over involvement in the character's mind are probably already going to movies, not reading books. Remember that getting into a person's mind includes experiencing all the sensations that person experiences: all five senses. With cinematic, you restrict yourself to two senses. As a result, your story may end up feeling as flat as a movie screen. Films can get away with only two senses because they provide such vivid incarnations of them: the real thing, not just words describing them. Books can overcome that by grounding the reader in the scene with all five senses--six, if you want to include internal states--something neither movies nor the cinematic approach can do. Why write a cinematic book when you could make a movie and provide much more powerful images to the audience? Yes, I know that writing a book is vastly cheaper than making a movie, but that's a business choice, not an artistic one. - -- 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, 26 Nov 2001 09:36:51 -0500 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: [AML] Neil LaBute Interview New interview with the Mormon filmmaker and playwright, although Mormonism isn't brought up at all: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/int/2001/11/26/labute/index.html Eric - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:52:15 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Point of View Richard Hopkins wrote: > Please forgive me, but does this seem a little clumsy to others on the list? > [Having the POV character guess what another character is thinking or feeling.] > Frankly, it does to me. Is there another way to do this. I agree that in the > context Thom has proposed, it would not be good to invade the other > character's head, but I wonder how a cinematic approach might work, > providing the things described are openly visible to the POV character's > eyes. Or would it be better to describe more of what Jack perceives in > Abigail as he kisses her--e.g., her excitement, passion, the strength of her > embrace, etc.? You're right. ("Wait a minute. They can't both be right." "You know, you are also right." --Fiddler on the Roof) I think you're describing how to do it best, not providing an alternate way of doing it. The difference between detail and "glittering generalities." Describe what the POV character is seeing in the other character, and let the reader deduce the other character's internal state. "George looked angry," as opposed to, "George scowled with lips pursed tightly, and his face flushed." But sometimes the information is too minor to bother with sensory details, and all you want is "George looked angry." Sometimes what you want to convey is too much for sensory details to fully communicate. You want the POV character to assume some complex internal state in another character, perhaps to suggest a possible motive for the other character's actions that won't be fully understood otherwise, perhaps to provide a red herring that will be contradicted when the other character's true internal state is revealed. Trade-offs trade-offs. Learn the rules and why they're rules, then break them as best serves your story. The ones who do this well are called great writers. The ones who don't are not. Writing is an art, not a science. No rule fits everything. As an editor, I would generally be a real stickler for rules. If the author has a definite, well-thought-out reason for breaking a rule, he can then defend his choice (and thereby demonstrate he's not breaking it in ignorance). Then the negotiation can commence, depending on how well I feel his choice works and on how strongly he feels about the choice. (If the rule violation stood out to me so much in the first place, I would tend to be skeptical that it's working.) - -- 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, 26 Nov 2001 08:25:20 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: [AML] Spirit and Body (was: Buffy the Vampire Slayer) Ronn asked awhile back if anyone noticed the Buffy musical episode seemed to be reminiscent of LDS-themed musicals such as "My Turn on Earth". I thought it looked more like "Saturday's Warrior". Maybe it's the theme of Buffy anyway-preordained or in her universe, predestined to be the slayer who always seems to be looking for "the one". I also wonder if the current theme of Willow's use/misuse of magic is similar to the song "Voices". ( A stretch, but that's what it reminded me of). A comparison I thought of about Buffy came after I saw "Harry Potter". In a previous episode before the musical one Buffy confided in Spike that she did remember an existence before they summoned her spirit back to earth. She gave an interesting description of a spiritual realm where she seemed to mingle with other spirits, if not melding with them completely in a place she said was filled with love. It was a well written bit making this place she spoke of sound very beautiful and desirable and how much she regretted leaving it. She then told Spike not to tell the others about it so they wouldn't feel guilty about calling her back. However the truth came out in when she sang about it in the musical episode. The other interesting thing was part of what the musical was about-trying to save Dawn from being brought down into hell as (I think) Satan's bride. Here's the contrast with Harry Potter: In the Buffy universe and well as most other forms of cinema and literature, even some theologies, not having a body, but existing in spirit form is almost always portrayed as preferable or a higher state of being than having a body. The Harry Potter books/movie are different in that respect. The archvillian, Voldemort, has lost his body and spends most of his time trying to obtain a new one or restore his old one. Even possessing someone else's, (Quirrell's) is not enough for him, he wants a body of his own. Granted, Lucifer has never had one, but the parallel seems to be there, for me anyway. Great importance is placed on having a body in the Potter universe, you can't perform magic without having one in some physical form or another. For that reason also, Harry's parents are limited in their ability to communicate or help him and the books always leave it a question of whether it's really them helping from the beyond or some form of memory or magic taking place. The other thing in the books relating to having a body is that Voldemort can't have children and never wanted any. That is resevered for marriage and corporeal existence in this series of books. Compare that to "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Omen" where Satan is supposed to be able to produce a physically born son with a mortal woman that he unleashes on the world to further his evil purposes. In contrast, Jesus is never portrayed as having a wife even though that would have been consistent with his own observation of Jewish law during his ministry. My question in all this is there any other books or stories out there that portray corporeal existence as a higher form of being than existing as a spirit entity? Either in the world of Mormon letters or general market? I'm curious to know, especially out in the general body of literature. BTW, I've seen the "Harry Potter" movie and despite a little disappointment with some parts I loved it. Anyone else care to proffer an opinion? Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:32:00 -0600 From: "jana" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Jana's Viruses [MOD: This was in response to several AML-List members who have received messages from Jana with attachments that apparently include a computer virus. So far as we can tell, no such messages have been generated over the List itself. (Our software strips out attachments, I believe.)] Jonathan: Would it be possible for you to run a note of explanantion and apology to everyone over the List? I have many Listers in Outlook and it looks like more than a few were infected. I am so sorry. The viruses are W32Badtrans.B@mm and W32Nimda.A@mm. Directions for removal of both are at www.symantec.com. I am doubly sorry that many of you thought you were getting nude pictures of me (ha!), or some equally exciting file. :) My apologies, Jana - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:27:24 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] re: Scott BRONSON, _Stones_ Fellow AMLers, On November 24, I went to see J. Scott Bronson's "Stones," a compilation of two separate but related plays, "Altars" and "Tombs." This message is to convince you why you must also attend (it performs tonight [Monday] and November 29, 30, and December 1 at the Little Brown Theatre in Springville.) Reason 1: It is Mormon Literature in the finest tradition, only acted out instead of written down. And I mean "Literature" with a big "L," worthy stuff, deep stuff, heady stuff, entertaining as well as enlightening. If you've been confused about recent list discussions about the nature of fluff, go see "Stones" and you'll see what fluff most certainly is not: it is, instead, emotionally evocative without being overly manipulative. Reason 2: It is Mormon theatre at its best: The tears you shed when the Son (Elwon Bakly) asks his mother (wonderfully portrayed by Kathryn Laycock Little) to be present at his crucifixion are genuinely earned, not cheaply wrenched. J. Scott Bronson's performance as the father in "Altars" is a marvelous mix of conflicting emotions: on the one hand, the desire to do what he believes God has told him to do, and, on the other, the love he has for his favored son whom he has been asked to sacrifice. In "Tombs," when Elwon Bakly lives a vision of his future crucifixion, he does it right in front of you, writhing in agony. In the intimate surroundings of the Little Brown, this scene would have appeared cloyingly sentimental had not it been performed with such skill and finesse. Reason 3: Supporting LDS theatre is different from supporting LDS literature. It requires more from its patrons than books do. You can't just go the bookstore at your convenience and pick up the latest Yorgansen. Theatre, by its nature, requires that a bunch of people show to the same place at the same time. Like books, it costs money to put on shows like this, but unlike books, plays can't wait until they get to the remainder tables to make back their money; they need to be seen the first time around. The Little Brown is very intimate: 95 seats. Just the right size for a play this personal. If you want to see great acting, great writing, and have a truly spiritual/artistic (un-fluffy) zap to the heart, go see "Stones." Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:52:22 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: [AML] Critiques and Writer's Dreams This is a reply to a couple of posts earlier this month. I must say to Terry-touche. You are right. If I or anyone else gets something published it's out there for any and all commentary. My point was this: there is a fear among some of us new writers that there are those that seem to lie in wait ready to eviscerate anything we post on the list or get in print. That's frightening for new authors, heck for any author I would think. I wonder if some criticize just for the fun of it, or because they simply don't like some types of books no matter how well written. That being said, all this might be good for us writers if it doesn't kill us first. Overcoming the fear and developing a thicker skin is the important thing. I personally relate it to the dream Darlene Young told about having after having one of my own. Her dream concerned the Church sponsoring a program that paid your bills while letting you pursue your writing, no strings attached, you just had to pass a written test. Sounded like an enjoyable dream. Mine was more scary. I dreamt I was lacing up my wrestling shoes just as I was getting ready to go out onto the mat and meet my opponent. Let me give a little background: My husband has been a high school wrestler, college team manager, coach and referee for lo these many years. (He makes a living with computers). Our son was a wrestler all four years of high school, three of them varsity level. He also did a season of coaching before his mission. I don't wrestle. I support the coach, I tie toddlers to benches to keep them from running back out on the mat and getting crushed, I sell candy and work the concession stand, I cheer on the team and scream at the ref if I think he's being unfair to my kid and try not to be there when he breaks a couple of ribs, but I DO NOT WRESTLE. So finding myself in this situation was terrifying. While I was trying to figure out if I should avoid tying up and just doing a leg sweep with this unseen opponent my husband appeared. I said to him, "What should I do?" He said, "Just go out and wrestle!" I was annoyed and thought, "That's a lot of help." About that time I woke up. I sat up and thought about it and concluded the dream was about my subconscious fears about writing. About facing my fears. It must have helped. I got moving and did two outlines and have finished the second draft of a picture book manuscript. BTW, that is exactly what my husband says about sitting down and getting to writing, "Just do it!" The one thing I remember liking about the dream was I was about 15 pounds lighter and in good shape.. I can even tie this in with fluff. High school and College Wrestling is real. When done right, it's poetry in motion. The WWF is fluff. The athletes may be in good shape, but most of it is not real. It's somewhat harmless, but can be considered dangerous by the mindless rot it creates and when kids think it's fun it hit each other in the face with chairs. It drives real wrestlers nuts what's been done to their ancient sport. How's that for a tie-in? Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:24:11 -0700 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Eternal Feminine in Lit Cathy wrote: "I have heard this used as an explanation for why women don't hold the=20 priesthood: because men NEED the priesthood in order to be kind, charitable,=20 obedient, willing to serve . . . all that. Before you turn red and fly to=20 pieces, note that this reasoning was given by a very high-up GA in a regional=20 conference a few years ago. . .I nearly exploded out of my Marriott Center=20 folding chair when I heard it but my kids strapped me down :)." I would like a reference where a GA said this in the "thus sayeth the lord" mode(General Conference, Ensign article, etc...). Anybody? Every time I have heard this concept touted, it has felt like fluff, patronizing and cutely made up to make women who have problems with the current man-only priesthood organization feel better about themselves. Which is a cheap and dangerous way of avoiding the necessity of teaching true concepts that explain/reconcile the differences in how the two genders are treated in the current incarnation of the plan of salvation. While this list is not the correct forum to explain my own reasoning surrounding the matter I will say that statements like the above lump women and men into homogenous groups, implying that all women are alike in some major way and all men are alike in some major way. Aside from anatomical concerns, that implication is simply wrong and leads to all kinds of nastiness. Perhaps I am wrong and the above statement by the nameless, very high-up GA at a regional conference is correct, but if I am, I'll have some serious worldview changing to do. Literary tie-in: If I ran across a book that treated women and men as homogenous groups, I would find it painful to read, would most likely drop it halfway finished, and would vilify it to my friends. - -Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:43:19 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Leonids Wasn't that a disappointment? My husband and I got up at 3:00 a.m. to see the meteor shower. Nothin' but clouds. I guess now I know what it felt like for members of various groups who had figured out just when the Second Coming would happen and waited outside to get raptured into Heaven. Mormon literature connection: I have a story in _Love Chains_ that includes meteors as metaphors. I have meteors in _Salvador_. I plan on writing more about meteors in the future. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 12:00:45 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _One More River to Cross_ (Review) Good critiques, Roy. Thank you. I do hope you find the characters better developed in Volume two (which is being typeset today). I consider Volume 1 as sort of an introduction to the characters, and volume two their development as they face some remarkable trials. Research for Volume 2 was exhaustive and exhausting. But fascinating too. One interesting thing about the narrator: I see the narrator as an old Black woman. My co-author sees the narrator as male (probably a version of himself). We agree that he/she is old and Black. Deseret Book folks think the narrator is Darius Gray. I think it's someone like Darius's mother. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:59:12 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Eternal Feminine in Lit To stay within list guidelines, what would this advice mean about our characterizations in LDS literature? Must we make every non Priesthood holder a lazy gadabout? Is every woman by nature more spiritual than every man? Are woman really more conscientious then man? I mean, they may be perceived like that, but are they really? Are "natural" men so bereft of human kindness that without the Priesthood they would be louts of the first order? Such statements, meant to be of more general in nature, can, imo, cause some problems if misapplied as literal descriptions. In human relationships, much damage can be done if both sexes think this explains in toto the oppositie sex, implying that one sex is by nature superior to the other; in literature, using these descriptions as templates for every character leads to one-dimensional cardboard people. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:22:17 US/Eastern From: djdick@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu Subject: Re: [AML] Beards > On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:56:43 -0700 "Sharlee Glenn" > writes: > > > What!? Another big guy with a beard? > > > > I'll buy Scott Bronson's argument that a beard is the best way to > > cover up a double-chin, but what is the AML connection? :-) > > Well, it's a (now, not so) secret combination. You have found us out. > Brethren, we will have to change our meeting time and place. The > remainder of this message is encrypted: > > Happy Thanksgiving. > > scott It appears that I don't belong anymore. After serving 11 years as a high councillor, the last five with a beard, my new (my third in this calling) stake president came to me after a PEC meeting a few weeks ago and asked me to "step into his office". "Now brother Johnson" sayeth he. "What can I do to get you to shave off your beard?" Said I, "I sustain you, ask me to do it". He was hesitant to make it that easy (he doesn't believe in compulsion) and asked me to fast and pray about it. I did, and my chin is bald (Actually I was on the vierge of shaving anyway since my wife and I have been planning to go on a mission, and you know how that goes.) The sad thing is that my health is suddenly going down the tube (I have a persistent internal infection, and am on my fourth course of antibiotics, all of which seem to have no effect at all, but I should be safe from anthrax because I have had six weeks each of both of the medicines that are used to treat it) and I may not get on a mission anyway. I have also been released from the high council, at my request, (not because of the beard, because of the health). Is there such a thing as excommunication from the body of fuzzy faced AMLers or is this something else? Richard B Johnson > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using GSWeb Mail Services. http://www.gasou.edu/gsumail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:46:02 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] EVANS, _Christmas Box_ (In Japan) Wow. This is absolutely fabulous. I desperately wish I could see it. What I'd like to know is whether they had any problem getting the rights. = For us, it was an absolute nightmare. One of many. . . . Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:47:41 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Ryan Shupe Benefit Concert I'm forwarding the following from my brother with the literary justification that Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband have been featured in Richard Dutcher movies. (For example, they were the band playing in the bar in _Brigham City_.) >To all who may be interested, >HART (the Humanitarian Aid Relief Team) is having a benefit concert this >Friday, November 30th, at 7:30 p.m. at the U of U Marriot Center for Dance >Auditorium. The group performing is "Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband", a >local group known for giving lively concerts and their good music. >Tickets are $10.00 each, and proceeds will go to benefit HART's medical >missions to treat the Buruli ulcer in Ghana. It's a great cause, and I >wanted to invite you to come along. >If you want tickets reserved for you, let me know how many and if you'd >like to pick them up before the show or at the door. Please make it if you >can, and forward this email to anyone else you think might be interested. >Thanks, >Jeff Bigelow >President of HART S.A., U of U >tinybigs@hotmail.com > Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:56:23 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Scott BRONSON, _Stones_ (Review) Darlene Young wrote: > 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. I, too, was initially bothered by the tune ("Silent Night"). It seemed intrusive. But afterward I heard Scott talking it over with someone who mentioned the "irony" of using "Silent Night." Then it made sense. The Mother, in her scenes with the Son, mentions how utterly un-silent the birthing of Jesus was, telling us the audience that there can be nobility in pain. Using Silent Night while Christ is seeing his crucifixion/Garden of Getheseman experience was meant, it seems to me, to point out how also un-silent was the Lord's sacrifice. In true LDS fasion, Scott was re-interpreting the standard Christian belief that Mary was in some sort of beatific state during conception that she, of all women, was somehow made free of Eve's curse. Mormonism teaches that we can't know true joy without pain. This is one of the Book of Mormon's simplest and most sublime teachings. Scott's play had many themes and this theme about the salvific powers of spiritual and physical pain was perhaps the most "LDS" of all. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:03:39 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Point of View I took D Michael one step further and re-wrote this from Jennifer's perspective, using some of my favorite third person limited tricks: "seeing" a scene from a limited perspective, philosophizing through a character, and focusing the third person narration through the character. I also tried to avoid the "straw man" problems D. Michael brought up. So here goes: George plucked the Nerd's glasses and threw them to the ground, not for a moment thinking that he was out of line, that this is the kind of thing that would keep a girl from coming anywhere near him. Obviously he was oblivious to all of this, which wasn't strange to Jennifer. Boys generally don't consider such things; they are too busy trying to prove Darwin right. She, stared at the heel of George's shoe in shock as the twisted bows hung out from either side, glass dusting the pavement on either side. She plunged her fists into the pockets of her coats, but she would not look George in the face. She would not turn away from him either. "You're a creep, George," she said. "That was too far." George shrugged and turned, his heel spitting out the Nerd's the glasses as he walked away. Jennifer watched George's sidekicks nudge each other, all of them doubled over in laughter. It was chicken, she thought, but she knew that saying so would do nothing but inspire more laughter and make it worse for the Nerd. She walked over to the glasses and tried to salvage them, but they were gone. The Nerd sniffed and tried to clear his eyes on the sleeve of his sweatshirt. Behind him the boys continued to make apes of themselves, whooping and clapping their hands. "I'm sorry," she said to the Nerd, her heart beating faster. She stood with the glasses in her hands and offered them. The Nerd refused. It was pride again, Jennifer thought. Why are boys like this? But she knew that there was no answer to that question. At twelve years old it was clear to her that these were mysteries a lifetime wasn't going to clear up. For your wise analysis and edification. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:51:36 -0700 From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] New LaBute Interview in _Salon_ BYU grad Neil LaBute is interviewed in the new Salon magazine under the title, "The Misanthrope Speaks." The interviewer, Kerry Lauerman, begins with the line, "Is there another artist who seems less post-9/11 than Neil LaBute, the misanthropic writer-director of stage and screen?" LaBute discusses his successful new play, "The Shape of Things", and culture in a time of war. The article can be found at: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/int/2001/11/26/labute/index.html R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@hotmail.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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:23:32 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? "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. Something more real than not, at least. Or am I just being weird? D. Michael Martindale wrote: 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. 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 wrote: I'll agree with you that the subconscious is pretty mystical, but there is something weird going on here. Back the early '90s I wrote a series of books for young girls, entitled, Claire: A Mormon Girl. In the second book fictional Claire gets a job doing wash at the mansion house in Nauvoo. Her supervisor is historical Jane Manning. While I was writing that book I "sensed" a presence, like heavy air, standing to my left. I don't recall that anything was said or communicated. I just felt the presence was there making sure I was being fair. I got the impression it was vitally important that I be fair. And weirder than that--I wrote a picture book about ten years ago entitled, "Tough-Luck: Sitting Bull's Friend." I didn't think much of it, but people seemed to like it, so I polished it up and sent it around. One day I was watching a PBS special about The Battle of Little Big Horn, and about half-way through this . . . oh . . . strange, heavy feeling came to me--an opressive air. It originated just to the right of the TV, and for some strange reason I couldn't lift my eyes to watch the show. I sat there for a few minutes, getting more and more nervous--and then completely unnerved and shaken. I got up and walked away, and the presence followed me. I went upstairs and found my wife and I said, "There's this really powerful guy following me around, and I don't know what he wants." Then without hardly taking another breath I said, "He wants me to make a tribute to Sitting Bull." Since then it's been a struggle all along. And sometimes i've had to set the project aside while I worked on something else. When my time freed up that "presence" made it known that I still had work to do. When I had time again I started to run into people who've contributed to the overall effort, and I finally got a decent looking book made. Last July I went to a writer's conference at BYU and met an editor from Random House. I gave her a copy. I haven't heard back, but I don't think it matters if she'll take it or not. I've done what I was told to do. I've thought about what happened, and it occures to me that's exactly the same thing as what goes on in the temple. Folks on the other side need favors done on this side. So folks on this side do stuff--and feel great relief when we're done. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:57:27 -0800 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: [AML] Re: Point of View > From: Terry L Jeffress > Frankly, I think too many writers use get inside a character's head as > a lazy form of exposition. Would you rather read > > George snatched the Nerd's glasses, threw them to the ground, and > ground them under the heel of his Air Jordan sneaker. > Jennifer's ire rose. She balled her fists inside her pockets as > she watched George turn and walk into the schoolyard. She felt > indignation at George's audacity. Her heart beat faster and she > felt her pulse behind her eyes. She wanted to avenge the Nerd, even > though she didn't like him a bit. > > Or does the scene work better without ever looking in Jennifer's head. > > George snatched the Nerd's glasses, threw them to the ground, and > ground them under the heel of his Air Jordan sneaker. > "You shameless bastard." Jennifer balled her fists inside her > pockets. "I don't like the Nerd any better than you, but now you've > gone too far." > George shrugged and walked into the schoolyard. His sidekicks > followed but kept looking over their shoulders. When they saw the > tears running down the Nerd's face, the nudged each other and nearly > doubled over laughing. > "You'll pay, George Romney," Jennifer said through clenched > teeth. "You'll pay." I agree absolutely that pov needs to fit the story and that there's definitely a place for the omniscient or cinematic povs. However, the problem with this comparison is that the second one really is better written--the dialogue adds a lot-- and the first really doesn't effectively show a limited 3rd person pov. "Jennifer's ire rose" and "she felt indignation at George's audacity" are "telling" the reader her feelings rather than showing them from Jennifer's pov. Telling isn't always bad, but these obviously don't work. Third person limited pov is not telling a reader in every sentence how a character feels, which is the essence of amateurish writing--it is viewing the actions solely through a single character's eyes. By that definition, the second example could all be in Jennifer's pov except for perhaps the "when they saw the tears..." That "view" doesn't need a constant examination of feelings, which are often best exposed by what a character says and does. Thus '"You shameless bastard." Jennifer balled her fists inside her pockets...' works much better than "Jennifer's ire rose" and could be entirely in her pov. Scott Card's excellent CHARACTERS AND VIEWPOINT explains all this better than my efforts here. Sue - -------- "The Niman Project" now out in the sff.net anthology BONES OF THE WORLD - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #529 ******************************