From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #559 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, January 2 2002 Volume 01 : Number 559 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 18:52:51 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Re: Mormon Authors in Nat. Market While I agree with Jacob's reasonings about why many Mormon women might stay home and write with a target children's audience, I don't think that address the question of why Mormon children's writers seem more successful than their adult counterpoints on the national market. Quite honestly, I'm not sure the original statement *is* true. But I've never tried to keep track of the religious backgrounds of writers. One thing I've noticed though....until recently most of the children's/mid-grade/YA novels written by Mormon's were not about being Mormon. If there is anything Mormon there at all it is very slight. Sharlee Glenn's picture book is similar to many other books appearing in the Christian market. The only thing Mormon about it is the final quote--which is not credited to a Mormon source. (A decision I agree with BTW.) I haven't read everything by Carol Lynch Williams, but those I read had very little religion in them. A character might live in UT and have friends who are Mormon, but the religion isn't part of the story. She might mention the person was Mormon and came from a large family, but that doesn't even come close to being about being Mormon. Rick Walton writes fabulously fun picture books, none of which have anything remotely religious in them (unless I've missed some). Dean Hughes writes mid-grades, mostly with sports themes. I haven't read very many, not being a young male sports fanatic, but the ones I read didn't have anything overtly religious. The closest to religious that I've read is A Dance for Three, which I highly recommend--not that I don't recommend the others!!. The main character is Mormon, as is her family and I believe her boyfriend's family. (It's been a while since I read it.) The bishop plays a minor role. But again, religion isn't a big factor in the story. The girl could have been any religion, as I believe that the moral expectations would have been the same, and the story would have changed very little. In fact, as a Mormon reader I would have liked more exploration of the Mormoness. On the adult market Anne Perry is very successful, but she doesn't write religious books. There is only one of her detective series books that I can think of that includes anything Mormon, and it isn't Mormon by name. I read it before I knew she was Mormon and realized that was the religion she was referring to. Orson Scott Card writes a lot of books with Mormon themes, but most non-mormon's don't realize that. I wonder if he had said to the publisher, oh and by-the-way I based these stories on the Book of Mormon. Let me show you how they follow the story, if they would have sold. Maybe it is simply because Mormon writers writing for the adult market explore Mormonness more than their children's writers counterparts that they are not found as much in the national market. I wonder too, if we didn't have 'our own' publishers, if there would be more openness in the national market? Or did our publishers become as a result of a closed national market? Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 20:08:23 -0700 From: "Steve" Subject: Re: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ on 12/28/01 9:48 AM, Sharlee Glenn at glennsj@inet-1.com wrote: > I have never read Tolkien, so my reactions here relate exclusively to the > film. I was disturbed by the fact that, while there was a very obvious and > potent source of evil (a clear "Satan figure"), there was no corresponding > "God figure." Sharlee, My opinion follows: In the books, Sauron is referred to as once being only "a servant of the greater evil," though he has grown now in power. That "Greater Evil" isn't much more defined than that throughout the "Lord of the Rings." So -- the "God" figure is mostly missing, but so is the "Satan" figure. Sauron is a servant (whether he knows it or not) to evil just as Gandalf and the rest are servants of the good. I think Tolkien wisely left the exact definition of the ultimate Good and Evil up to the reader. :-) Steve - -- skperry@mac.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 22:27:46 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ Sharlee Glenn wrote: >Okay, my husband and I saw _Lord of the Rings_ last night, and here's my big >question: Where was God in this whole mythic struggle between good and >evil? [snip] >Is this true of the books as well? Good question, with (as I see it) several elements that contribute to an answer. First, a couple of general points: * Tolkien was very much a Christian, indeed a devoutly practicing Catholic. As I think Ivan Wolfe mentioned, he played an important role in the conversion of his close friend, C. S. Lewis, to Christianity. * For many of us, there is much in _The Lord of the Rings_ (the book) on a thematic level that resonates deeply with Christian theology. For example, the denoument of the story of the Ring, involving Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, is perhaps the best playing-out of the balance between grace and works that I have ever seen in any work of literature. I would indeed say that on a thematic level, Tolkien's fantasy is much more deeply Christian (and much more perceptively Christian) than Lewis's. Lewis uses a sledgehammer; but there's more depth (in my opinion) to Tolkien's Christianity as it comes out in his works. That said, it is absolutely true that there is no overt Christianity and very little that could be called religion in _The Lord of the Rings_. Here are some quotes from letters by Tolkien to Robert Murray, a priest, on this topic: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 172). Again: "I have purposely kept all allusions to the highest matters down to mere hints, perceptible only by the most attentive, or kept them under unexplained symbolic forms. So God and the 'angelic' gods, the Lords or Powers of the West, only peep through in such places as Gandalf's conversation with Frodo: 'behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker's.' " (Letters, p. 201) We learn in fact in the Appendixes to _Lord of the Rings_ that Gandalf (indeed all the wizards) were sent as emissaries of these "angelic" powers of the West, and have something of the same stature themselves. They are *not* magicians; rather, their mission is a largely moral or persuasive one. (One of the things I find distressing about the movie is the way that the "magical" side of their abilities and nature is emphasized, as in the staff-blasting scene with Gandalf and Saruman--a complete fabrication.) In _The Silmarillion_, published posthumously (but on which Tolkien actually started working long before writing even _The Hobbit_), we find out more about the nature of these angelic powers, and their relationship to the One God in Tolkien's universe. There is a (to my mind) stunningly beautiful creation story in the first part of _The Silmarillion_ that actually resonates better, in my mind, to Mormon theology than to Catholic theology. An important detail that the movie gets wrong is that Sauron is not, in fact, the embodiment of evil in Tolkien's world. I recall a point in the movie where is speaks of the destroying the Ring as a way of "destroying evil forever" or some wording very similar to that. But that is not at all the case in the book. Sauron is indeed a Dark Lord, and a source of temptation in the world, but by no means the unique source of evil in the world. Rather, he is really much more like the wizards (in fact we learn in _The Silmarillion_ that they are of the same order of beings), except that he has made a different choice as to who and what he will serve. This, it strikes me, is an idea worth considering further, particularly in light of the discussion we've had on this list about why God isn't as evident in fantasy novels as Satan is. I'm one of those who's actually comfortable with that, and thinking about _The Lord of the Rings_ has made me realize one reason why. Satan, in Mormon theology (and in the brand of mainstream Christian theology to which Tolkien adheres) is not an anti-God, a figure of parallel stature but opposite alignment. Rather, he is a rebellious servant of God--a fallen angel, not a fallen deity. Those who are set in opposition to Satan are, generally speaking, others of God's servants, not God himself. Certainly in Tolkien's world that's the case. Wizards and the like are emissaries, sent with a specific mission that involves helping people to be aware of the choices they must make. They also have choices to make, and the ability to fall, themselves, as Saruman illustrates. To Tolkien I think it would have been sacrilegious to depict God as a direct actor in the drama of his story. This is all the more true because Tolkien's world is not (according to the logic of his story) simply a "different" world, but our own, set in some prehistoric and therefore inherently (according to mainstream Christian thought) pre-Christian time. For Tolkien, there were very strong reasons for using such a setting for his story. Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon, one of the foremost scholars on _Beowulf_ (and other similar works) of his generation. There has long been a debate in Beowulf studies about the nature of the Christian "interpolations" in this poem, which is woven from legends that clearly date from before the conversion of the Germanic tribes to Christianity. Tolkien had strong beliefs on this subject, holding that the poet who put Beowulf into the form we have it now was definitely Christian, but nonetheless had a love and appreciation of the pre-Christian myths and legends of his forebears. In other words, his was a sympathetic backward look into an age that possessed less light than his--that did not know the whys and wherefores of their existence but had to live as best they could according to their own limited light and knowledge. For Tolkien, the writing of _The Lord of the Rings_ (*not* an allegory, as he always insisted, but an invented history) was, among other things, an attempt on his part to demonstrate that such a story could indeed be told, in the manner that he had argued the _Beowulf_-poet had done it. Tolkien's desire, as Humphrey Carpenter and others have described it, was to create a "mythology for England"; and indeed much of the inspiration for his world-creation came from picking up dangling threads of story and language from the literature he had studied so long and so deeply, and then expanding on them in profoundly original ways. Part of what all this means is that the Incarnation of Christ is a real (though as yet largely unsuspected) future event in Tolkien's Middle-Earth. This is not an element that receives much attention in the book (there are a few passages that may be veiled references to such a future happening, but if so extremely obscure). But one implication is that any religion depicted in Tolkien's world must, by his own premises, be either incomplete (like that of the ancient Israelites) or idolatrous. And so, rather than deal extensively with the external elements of religious practice and what individuals living before the time of Christ might or might not have known about the God they worshipped, Tolkien chose instead to subsume his Christian elements into the structure of the work itself, the counsels people give and take (does anyone else remember Neal A. Maxwell's quotation of Gandalf on hope in a recent General Conference?), and the moral choices his characters must make. Certainly by no means the only option he could have taken, but a highly successful one for his own individual work, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see what the movie makes of all this. Some of the strongest references to Providence are yet to come, including particularly ============= SPOILER ALERT!!! ============= the return of Gandalf, which (as Tolkien's letters make clear, but as is not particularly clear in the book) is the result of a direct act of intervention by the One God in Tolkien's world. But what I have seen from the first movie gives me no confidence in the movie-makers' handling of this or deep thematic elements in Tolkien. ============================ END OF SPOILER; BEGINNING OF RANT ============================ There's a lot to Tolkien that's very different from most of the popular fantasy novels in our day: a lot of thematic depth, and a lot of significance to how his world is created and the rules by which it operates. This depth is what suffers most in the current movie--which displays remarkable fidelity to the details of the original text, for example, in the matter of scenery. Even the structural changes to the plot are mostly defensible as necessary condensations for translating to a movie medium. But at a deeper level, the significance of characters and events has been altered in a way that changes the meaning of the story. The thing that concerns me most is that this is likely to affect not only the interpretations of those who have never read the book (like Sharlee), but those who have read it before and will read it in the future--because Hollywood's interpretations are easier, they are vivid (and extraordinarily well-done in many instances on a cinematic level), they are less challenging and more familiar. And so Tolkien's story becomes remade in the image of its imitators. It makes me very sad. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 22:39:03 -0600 From: "Dallas Robbins" Subject: Re: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ To address your question, I would ask, what where your expectations? Did you expect an anthropomorphic God to be a character? Or did you expect some form of religious worship to be practiced by the characters, such as prayer, etc.? You did associate that Sauron is a "devil" character and Frodo, Gandalf, etc are Christ figures. But others have probably watched the same movie and see Gandalf as the Buddha figure, and Sauron as Hitler. Of course everyone will have different interpretations according to their beliefs. Tolkien himself said that "Lord of the Rings" is not an allegory, and any attempt to categorize it as such, only diminishes its inherent qualities. Of course that hasn't stopped any one from doing so, especially Christians. But besides the question of interpretation, Tolkien developed a mythology that did incorporate God-like figures into the back story of LOTR. Though this didn't make it to the screen, it seems to me that it has cursory relevance in the LOTR books, compared to the main action of the story, (but still I would consider it a intergral and important aspect). The main book that contains the story of his Gods and Goddesses is "The Silmarillion," and since the filmmakers did not have the film rights to that book, there was little the filmmakers could use from Tolkien's expanded mythology. The very rough basics: Essentially there was one god Eru, in the elvish named Illuvatar, a creator god-like figure that created a choir of gods, male and female called the Ainur, who through music created the world etc. The most powerful of the spirits of Ainur were called the Valar, a group of immortal god like figures, who dwell in Valinor, who have affected the history of Arda/Middle Earth. This, if I remember correctly, is the basic make-up of Tolkien's beginning mythology. All of the creation stuff and the account of the Valar are recounted in the "Ainulindale" and "Valaquenta" section of the "The Silmarillion." To answer your question, "where is god in the movie," one should simply look at the characters, especially Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel. All of these charaters are immortal with strong ties to Illuvatar, Ainur, and the Valar. Gandalf is an Istari, an immortal type sent by the Valar to Middle Earth to help the direction of history for good. Elrond and Galadriel in the film were poorly portrayed as snooty, cold, know-it-alls, whereas compared to the book there is more warmth and charity portrayed in their characters. But the filmmakers was more interested in making an action epic, insuring a long term commercial franchise for AOL Time Warner's coffers. I thought the film was good by itself, but as an adaptation from the book, I thought it made too many irrational changes, and lost the spirit of the books, except for a few moments. Dallas Robbins cloudhill@yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 21:31:35 -0900 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ You can find what you're looking for in Tolkien lore, but it's most clearly discussed in the Silmarillion where Illuvitar, or Eru, the one creates the world and the races of elves and men (his children) who inhabit it. Hobbits and men besides the Rangers (who are the Numenorians and of more noble blood) don't know much about Illuvatar, or at least it doesn't come up much in day to day stuff. But Gandalf is accepted to be His servant. On the bridge when he is fighting the Balrog he tells the monster that it can't pass and that he (Gandalf) is a servant of the secret fire. He is referring here to the Flame Imperishable which is the sorce of creation that only Illuvatar has access to and which Melkor (the Satan figure) tries to steal, but can't ever find. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 10:14:49 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] De-Christianizing of C.S. Lewis? Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > What they are doing is performing a "marketing makeover." > HarperCollins hopes to make more money from Narnia by "distancing it from its > Christian roots," and a memo to that effect was leaked, which was the source for > the N. Y. Times article titled "Marketing Narnia Without A Christian Lion." And wouldn't this approach actually help to promote Christianity, since unsuspecting people will read the books and be exposed to Christian concepts? Isn't this the same approach many LDS writers are advocating for getting LDS literature into mainstream markets? - -- 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: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 07:09:54 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Louise PLUMMER, _A Dance For Three_ (Review) Author: Louise Plummer Title: A Dance For Three Delacorte Press, 2000. 230p In a "Year in Review" post that I wrote last January, I listed a number of wonderful Mormon novels that were published in 2000. Later I read Louise Plummer's "A Dance for Three," and now I put that book at the top of that list. Louise Plummer is clearly in the very top ranks of skilled Mormon writers. Some may have hesitated to read her work, because all her novels have had adolescent teenage protagonists, and are marketed as girl's juvenile literature. Well, I'm here to tell you to cut it out. I have read three of her novels so far, and very rarely have I ever seen someone so skillfully mix together the readability and flow needed in juvenile literature with literary excellence. I'm not a literary person, so I can’t explain it very well, but some writers' literary styles feel fulfilling. My mind is stretched, the characters are complex, and I become emotionally involved, not emotionally manipulated. Brady Udall, for example, is one who does this for me. Plummer is one of those who does it well, one of the best in Mormon literature. And A Dance For Three is the best novel of hers I have read. There is a good summary of the novel in the review archive. Very briefly, Salt Lake City teenager Hannah gets pregnant, and her boyfriend responds by beating her up and leaving her. Hannah's father died a few years eariler, and her mother had descended into a debilitating depression, leaving Hannah to run the house. Hannah cracks under the pressure, and is put in a psychiatric hospital. Hannah and her mother are able to regain some stability through professional psychiatric help and help form a neighbor, friends, and the local bishop. There are a lot of good things to say about this novel, but a reason I have a strong attachment to this book is because my wife and I adopted our son, and hope to adopt more. Therefore the story of a pregnant teenager who (at the end) must decide whether to give her baby up for adoption means a lot to me. Such a story poorly done would make me mad, but in my guts Plummer's story feels right. She let's her character live, not as an object lesson, but as a full fleshy individual, whose pain I feel as my own. The final scene, in which Hannah mourns for and celebrates her baby, will stick in my head forever. I only met Lachlan's birth mother, Sarah, very briefly, and only know a little about her. So Hannah's actions help me, I think, understand Sarah better, and love her that much more. It isn't often a novel can have that kind of impact. I'll never get around to writing reviews of them, but let me just say that I also highly recommend Plummer's "The Unlikely Romance of Kate Bjorkman" and "My Name is Su5san Smith, the 5 is Silent." They are about young women who are a writer and an artist, and so don't have the same kick-in-the-guts resonance with me as "A Dance For Three". I just enjoyed them as great books. The first has no Mormon references, the second is about a Mormon girl, but her religion doesn't come up too much. Mormonism comes up more (but still peripherally) in "A Dance For Three." Mostly in how the Bishop realizes his mistake in not helping Hannah's once active family more after her father died, and starts to make up for his actions in the second half. Andrew Hall Wenatchee, WA _________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 07:21:18 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Joann JOLLEY, _Secrets of the Heart_ (Review) Secrets of the Heart Joann Jolley Covenant, 1998 Suggested retail price: $13.95 (US) So many books published in Mormon literature are romances, I figured I should give one a try. List members in the past have mentioned Marilyn Arnold and Joann Jolley as two of the better romance writers at Covenant, so I picked up one book by each author recently. I found the first two chapters of Arnold's book dull, and I haven't gotten back to it yet. Jolley's "Secrets of the Heart", however, did grab me. In part, because the tough, businesswoman protagonist also turns out have given up a baby for adoption as a young woman, a theme that interests me. The long and short of it, however, is that the I found Jolley's writing to be flabby and unengaging, too many unbelievable things happened, and the final "surprise ending", that the missionary who teaches her is her long-lost son, was crassly manipulative. I don't know if this is really a romance, since not much "romantic" goes on, in the lovey-dovey sense. But the title, cover, and style of writing seems to be reaching out to what I assume are romance readers. The writing style seemed to me to be too much light for not enough heat. It also annoyed me that we had to get the details of what she drank, how she felt, what she read everytime she went to bed. The characters rarely broke out of their original stereotypical presentation. It bored me. Secondly, too many events didn't ring true. My least favorite was the explanation of why the famous former reporter quit his job. It was because during the Gulf War he discovered a major case of American soldiers dying of friendly fire, and the White House threatened him not to report the story. Oh, give me a break. There is nothing a reporter would love more than to be threatened by a major government official. The threat would be as big a headline as the original story! And then there is manipulative surprise ending, which she began telegraphing about halfway through. Less said about it, the better. It was Jolley's first novel, maybe she has gotten better. Maybe I'm missing something, something that Mormon romance readers enjoy. I haven't read much other in the genre, maybe some of the other stuff is better. Can someone explain it to me? Naw, forget it, I don't want to know. Andrew Hall Wenatchee, WA _________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 07:28:39 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Dave WOLVERTON, _On My Way to Paradise_, _Serpent Catch_ (Review) Author: Dave Wolverton Title: On My Way to Paradise Bantam, 1989 $4.95 paperback Title: Serpent Catch Bantam, 1991, 418p $4.99 paperback I have picked up many of Wolverton's novels in used books stores over the years after reading his praises from the list's many SF fans and writers, and I have enjoyed a few short stories of his I have come across. I am finally getting around to reading the novels, and I am glad I did. Except, however, for his first novel, On My Way to Paradise. In it, Wolverton amply demonstrates his ability at world-building, creating complex characters that I come to care about, and telling a good tale. But the balance is off. It kind of feels like he threw in everything that he had in his bag of tricks at the time. The opening is strong, but by half way through the story feels like it is getting longer than the material warrants. Three quarters through I am begging him to end the thing. A good chunk of the last quarter involves a long voyage over an alien planet, with lots of descriptions of the exotic creatures they encounter. The creatures are interesting, but it feels like an exercise from a "creating alien creatures" unit in a science fiction writing class. It doesn’t move the story ahead at all. As I say, there are good parts, and Wolverton's favorite theme--the struggle to act morally in a violent, immoral world--is clearly presented. But all the parts don't add up to a satisfying whole. I'd advise readers to skip it, and move on to his second novel, Serpent Catch, where things start getting good. Serpent Catch is set in the future, on an alien planet which humans have cleaned out and used as a zoo for reconstructed species from Earth's past, including humanoid species like the Neanderthal. The planet has been cut off from the rest of humanity, and technology seems to have reverted to an early modern (about 1700) level. Despite the outer space setting, Wolverton follows the tropes of fantasy more than science fiction. In particular Wolverton seems to use the quest from Lord of the Rings as a model. A small, motley group of humanoids from different races depart their happy (but threatened) home to enter a territory they greatly fear in order to steal something precious from under the noses of the evil realm's leaders. There is even a Gandalf-like character, the last of the original starfarers, who wears a special suit that gives him superhuman power and extends his life span greatly. There is lots of sword play, and lots of violence. But then Wolverton does interesting things with this basic premise. First of all, he does a great job at creating the other humanoid species, giving them rich and intriguing cultures and characteristics, which the reader comes to understand little by little. And unlike On My Way to Paradise, where his ability to create seems more like a game, this time the unique aspects of the different species are used in fascinating ways to advance the plot. Also, unlike Tolkien, the characters' sexual lives are an important aspect of the novel. His portrayal of the different sexual practices of the different races and individuals is both fascinating and (in my opinion) tastefully done. Wolverton delves into the subject about as well as any Mormon author I have read. And lots of other good stuff. There is a sequel, Path of the Hero, which is next on my list of reading material. I look forward to starting his Runelords series as well. Andrew Hall Wenatchee, WA _________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 07:33:58 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Geoffrey CARD, _God's Army_ (Review) Title: God’s Army Author: Geoffrey Card, based on the movie by Richard Dutcher Excel Entertainment, 2001 200 p., $14.98 I didn't enjoy this book too much, and I think the main reason is that the genre/concept of a film novelization holds no interest for me, something I didn't realize until afterwards. Part of fun of reading a novel for me is the mystery of the unknown, the tension of not knowing what is coming next. Having seen the film of God's Army first, there was none of that tension reading the book, and so it never really held my attention. I certainly have read and enjoyed original novels after seeing the film upon which they were based, I guess the films change things enough in all of those cases that there was still that unknown factor. But film novelizations appear to be required to follow the exact story line of the film, just with more background provided. I enjoyed reading some of the inner world of the missionaries (and investigators) that Card provides, but in the end that wasn't enough to draw me in. Within the limits of what I now see as a boring concept, Card does an adequate job. He fleshes out the motivations for the dour central character, Elder Allen, making the character more interesting. I also liked his portrayal of Elder Kinegar, the reader of anti-church literature. He enters the head of Elder Dalton (Pops) only a few brief times, probably because there is another novel based on that character coming up (we do at least see the "throwing away the pills" scene through Dalton's POV). Card spends a lot of time explaining some of the things that struck people as not true to life in the movie, like Allen not being able to tie a tie on his first day, why the mission president is so gruff in the beginning, etc. The explanations are interesting, but sometimes interfere with the flow of the story. Another problem I had was the long interior dialogues that Card gives his characters in the time frame of just a few seconds between lines in the film. He does create a few non-film scenes to give the characters greater depth, maybe more of them would have helped. One thing I really liked was how he portrayed the "healing of Benny" scene through the POV of Brother Rose, the eternal investigator who can't stop drinking coffee. It made what could have came out as schmaltzy or false if portrayed through the eyes of the Elders or Benny, and made it more interesting. It also made the next scene, where Rose throws away his coffee, more than just a joke. So, not bad, but not so great either. Still, it is an important work in that it is the first novel published by Excel Entertainment, the distributor of the movie. They list at least two more upcoming books, "One Soul", by J. Scott Bronson, about Elder Dalton, and "Burden of Faith", by Deanne Savage-Blackhurst, about Sister Fronk. Brent Rowley is the editor of the series. Since Card already covered the basic novelization, I hope that these works will not just repeat the film story from different perspectives, but instead create mostly new stories for these characters. Andrew Hall Wenatchee, WA _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 07:39:46 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ God doesn't appear in Lord of the Rings at all, other than hints and a few references to the Valar, who are the equivalent of Archangels. The Five Wizards, however, are not wizards in the usual sense, but are emissaries from the lands beyond the sea--ie Valinor, land of the Valar. They are more like prophets than wizards, and of course the word "wizard" really just means wise or wise man. There are many references in the book "the Wise," which are rendered into "the very wise" in the movie. The second movie is a little more clear, but the true power of the good guys is always subtle and enigmatic, while the "deceipts of the enemy" are always clear and obvious. JRR Tolkien was an ardent Roman Catholic, but there is nary a hint of "church" all through the books. It was Tolkien, incidentally, that influenced the formerly agnostic/atheistic CS Lewis to convert to Christianity. I enjoyed the movie very much, though the first time I saw the the massive omissions shocked me at every turn. The second time was much better when I knew where those holes would be, and after the third viewing I have become amazed that they managed to get as much of the book into the film as they did. With all that missing stuff it's STILL three hours long! By the bye, after all that can anybody guess what sort of writing I do? And you don't get three guesses. James Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 08:08:53 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Authors in Nat. Market Chris wrote: (This post is actually a bit hypocritical for me, because what I really want to happen is for explicitly Mormon stuff to stealth its way into the mainstream of contemporary literature, for starters my own or someone else's realistic account of the Mormon missionary experience.) It did WARM my heart to get this little true confession. Actually, you make sense in the entire post, Chris. A good "touchstone" for the answer to your "secret desires" is the national criticism of GOD'S ARMY, since that is probably the most successful truly exposed Mormon work we've seen. And a lot of the national "criticism" wasn't that good (if I can remember--can you, can anyone? At least it wasn't as good as the Mormon criticism?). It would be good to make an assessment of that criticism to see if we're coming any closer. And frankly, I think we ARE coming closer. I want to throw in appreciation to Darlene Young for an excellent review (revealing warts and all) of my HOUSE ON THE SOUND. She makes one TELLING statement: "I think that it is through this kind of story that we are going to break into national markets. I'd like to see more of us try this kind of thing. [and p.s. you all can do much better!] Brown's work is a good example of one way it can be done." I'd just like to add that twenty years ago I thought so too, and although it made the rounds of national publishers without success, it won kudos from national editors and critics I respect. (Norton's Carol Houck Smith even got converted to me when she read it, and still says I'm a good writer, even though she can't publish my stuff. [And I think it's the marketability more than anything? She still expects "great things" from me.]) It's like one of those bitty mini-steps we used to take in "MOTHER, MAY I?" Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 10:48:17 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Authors in Children's Lit It is not that it's easier to get published in Children's/YA, you're right in pointing out it's not. The reason is the commonality of themes. Although there have been great changes in the social structure of our society, children remain in many ways, still the same. They like stories about animals, (bugs and worms included), nature and the wonder of the world around them, folk and fairy tales, magic in general and when silly things happen in every day life. Sometimes they like a little tension or scare in a story-and note a little scare differs from terrifying them, the two often get confused and children do not like to be terrified. And most important, they want a sense of security and to know someone loves and cares for them. Perhaps another reason Mormon authors have had success in this aspect of the market is the Church's emphasis on children and families. I'm not saying people outside the Church don't identify with, love and nurture children, not at all! But, since most LDS families are larger than the national average there is longer period of time there are young children in the household and a desire for books and other items for them is naturally of greater duration, including more familiarity with certain authors and and their stories and a desire for more of their work, hand-me-down books included. If these same families share the books with their neighbors you get a good word-of-mouth going. Yet another reason is they're good writers! Plain and Simple. There is an emphasis in Mormon culture on the written word and an encouragement of both scripture reading and "out of the best books" kind of literacy. I think with that background we probably should be turning out even more writers, (I'm working on it, okay). Another thing, it's generally considered an honorable profession among our people and a "safe" one for women-ie it's possible to stay at home with the family and still be a writer. I also think we have many writers in children's books, especially in picture books, because again it's safe. These types of books either handle controversial topics in a gentle way or not at all. Therefore, among our own people and out in the market in general there's a greater acceptance. I'm not saying any of these authors went into this aspect of writing because they didn't want to rock the boat, that's where their interest and talent may lie. I'm only saying people may be less timid in trying new stuff in the children's lit market than in other genres. I know some of you might scoff at the "honorable" label about being a writer, especially if you have family or church members who keep asking you when you're going to get a "real" job, but in the abstract it's generally admired in the LDS culture and I think society in general. Ask any woman if she gets more interest in her at a party if she says she's a stay-at-home mom or if she says she's a writer, trust me, the writer label gets more attention and respect. We also have excellent illustrators as that's also an emphasized part of our culture and a talent that encouraged to be developed. We tend to recognize and nurture it at any early age. When we get into the teen aspect of the market we are still working on it because that's when sexual themes are often introduced and the LDS (traditional) take will be different because a desire to discourage becoming sexually active and a reluctance to discuss or portray the many aspects of sex that certain other authors have no hesitation diving into. I have liked some LDS teen fiction I've read, and maybe we just need to see if we can get it out there in the national market whether the characters are overtly LDS or not. It's worth a try, anyway if publishers are willing. Well that's my take on the subject. I appreciate Sharlee posting a list of LDS authors and illustrators in the national market. I printed it up and have been going into book stores to see if I can find them among the books themselves or on the store's in-house computer list. I'm going to start looking on their internet lists next. I own a black belt in shopping and book stores are especially dangerous, so I'm going to avoid them for awhile while I'm doing my unscientific survey of finding LDS authors in national book stores. So far, the big winners are Rick Walton, Richard Paul Evans and Carol Lynch Williams, the others are much harder to find so far. I'll post more on what I'm finding out there in a few days. BTW, when I entered a big Barnes and Noble yesterday in Northridge, CA, there on the new fiction table at the front of the store was a nice hardcover copy of The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint. So congrats to Brady Udall, that is a very busy bookstore with a lot of sales. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #559 ******************************