From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #562 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 Friday, January 4 2002 Volume 01 : Number 562 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:19:18 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ All I know is that for me as a young teen, Lord of the Rings almost entirely replaced the Mormon religion. When I say Lord of the Rings, I also mean everything else it spawned, from other fantasy books to Dungeons & Dragons and the movie Star Wars. These things are rich and compelling and magical enough to replace religion for some young people who aren't naturally speer-chul in the Mormon sense. On the other hand, perhaps all that fantasy quest good-and-evil stuff helped prepare my mind to accept religion once I grew out of the fantasy, using Stephen King as a segue back into the more real world. Unfortunately, what was initially waiting for me back in the real world was not Mormonism but sex, drugs, and rock and roll, which I had to fully explore and sense the evil behind before I finally defaulted to Mormonism. Maybe for some kids fantasy could deposit them safely at the doorway of Mormonism, but I'm afraid a conservative part of me is capable of seeing fantasy mainly as a counterfiet for true religion, a decoy. I can't say I feel any remorse for my involvement in it, however. Rather, I blame Mormonism for being so boring and not providing anything near a gripping alternative for creative kids. For as big a role as fantasy and D&D played in my early development, I'm ashamed to say I never read the 3rd book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. By then I was taken by more accessible, entertaining fantasy books like the Riddlemaster of Hed, Xanth, Thomas Covenant, Dragons of Pern, and others. As an adult I've reread the Hobbit but bogged down on Tom Bombadil, which is kind of like the Isaiah hurdle in the Book of Mormon. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:03:21 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Marilyn BROWN, _The Wine-dark Sea of Grass_ (Review) On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 05:32:47PM -0500, Tracie Laulusa wrote: > My friends and I in discussing this book felt that, although it appeared to > 'be about' the Mountain Meadows Massacre, it seemed much more about > polygamy, and not a very happy view of it, with the MMM as a backdrop. I think with a title like _Wine-dark Sea of Grass_, that Marilyn clearly intended to use the massacre as a central event in the lives of the characters. I agree that polygamy has an important role in _Wine-dark_, but I disagree with your take that Marilyn created an unhappy view of polygamy. I think Marilyn showing a balanced view of polygamy. Some polygamous relationships worked well, others had significant problems -- not unlike our modern day marital relationships. Marilyn repeatedly showed John D. Lee's family as happy and prosperous. The wives and children liked Lee and doted on him. We can infer that if the massacre had never occurred (or if Lee had not played a leadership role there), that the Lee family might have enjoyed a relatively anonymous happiness. In several places, Marilyn goes into detail about why wives might want to have their husbands take additional wives. Elizabeth would gladly share Lee's attention with other wives as a vast improvement over her marriage to J.B. Lorry. Elizabeth also comes to understand that she really likes having another wife around that can entertain J.B.'s passion, especially for those times when you just have a headache. Overall, I think Marilyn wanted to show how a single event like the massacre continued to affect the lives of southern Uthans for decades. Because of the massacre, most of the property changed hands as the militiamen moved away to avoid persecution. Since the saints in southern Utah followed polygamy, it of course gets discussed and stands out as something very different than we have today. But in the end, I don't think Marilyn really wanted to comment on polygamy as much as how a self-proclaimed spiritual people might lead themselves astray and lose some of their many blessings by involvement in butchering their fellow men. - -- Terry L Jeffress | Advice to young writers who want to get ahead South Jordan, UT | without any annoying delays: don't write about | Man, write about a man. -- E. B. White - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 12:13:09 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: Re:[AML] De-Christianizing of C.S. Lewis? - --- Kathy Tyner wrote: > William wondered which is more important, staying true to the author's > vision or intent for their books or getting them into more hands in > the general public by a secular type of marketing. > > Isn't it almost of form of thievery to intentionally take away what > the author meant? It's still their work, whether they're here or not. > Readers, of course may take away from a book or story whatever it > means to them and that is fine, especially if it helps their life in > some way. But to purposefully turn away from the book's origins, that > bothers me. If the author never spoke about what they were trying to > say with a certain book or story then interpretation is up for grabs. And in a separate part of the same thread, Scott Parkin wrote: > > Absolutely. I think awareness of marketing issues is a necessary part of > being a writer in the modern market. Overt Christianity is a barrier to > entry right now, so authors need to be aware of that and work with it. I think that Scott is right. But I'm also sympathetic to Kathy's viewpoint. I don't know many critics who would argue with her point that the readers will take away from a text what they will. But how they receive that text---the decisions that go in to buying (or borrowing) the work and the assumptions (the schema, to borrow a term from the reading/writing community) that they bring to it are influenced by how the book is published, marketed, reviewed, talked about and honored, the literary value it has accumulated. So on the one hand, I think that Mormon writers need to have an awareness of marketing issues and they do need to work with it. Being a successful author is more than just writing the story. But at the same time, I think that Mormon writers shouldn't give up on their authorial intentions whatever they may be. Compromise and negotiation is okay. So is working with the marketing gurus. But writers shouldn't feel pressured to shut up about what their intentions are because the writer-text-reader relationship is not a pure, untainted one. All that other stuff comes in to play. This idea is somewhat contrary to the notion of an author's place in the current world (see the Johnathan Franzen/Oprah brouhaha or some of the reactions readers/critics have had to OSC's speaking out in his afterwords or in other forums). I don't believe that the author has the final say on his/her work, but since once the work becomes published it become a contested field of meaning, then the author should assert his/her right to help influence the field. Things get more difficult when the author is no longer alive as in the case we've been discussing here. And it points to why literary scholarship that goes beyond textual criticism is important. As boring as it may be, someone has to go back and look at the various drafts the author left behind, the notes, the communications with the editor, the marketing dept., the public comments on the work, etc. Most of the time, the results are only of interest to scholars, but sometimes things come out and new editions are published that make the text much different (and in some cases better). And this is why I continue to flog the importance of Mormon literary studies, of critics and historians --and-- bibliographers (thanks Terry Jeffress, Gideon Burton, Eugene England, Scott and Marny Parkin and Preston Hunter, and Andrew Hall and anyone I'm missing). It may be that because of how the national and local markets work for Mormon writers (esp. those writing explicitly about Mormonism), this kind of stuff will be even more important for future readers/critics of Mormon lit. and more so for all of those interested in Mormon culture. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 15:22:39 -0500 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Heinlein Preston wrote: > I don't know what kind of heretic drops Heinlein (one of the cannonical "Big > Three") in favor of Zamyatin... The first year I taught the class, I used "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" but couldn't stomach the way he treated Wyoming Knott. Heinlein creates a strong, smart female character and basically sends her out for coffee and then into the bedroom. The kids hated the book as well, finding its political diatribes tedious. The next year I tried to teach "Stranger in a Strange Land," but all the problems as before were doubled, nay, tripled. Heinlein is a chauvinist pig and on a sentence-prargraph-page level, a clumsy, ham-handed writer. Odd to think that as an adolescent, I worshipped him and fumed that his books would be classified as "Adolescent." Zamyatin--the kids don't like him much better, but for different reasons. His prose is so evocative and concise that it takes real focus and concentration to let his images and meanings and patterns emerge. I teach "We" and by the end of it, the smartest kids are converted. But it is work. One scene that always chills me is the riot on Unanimity Day. Citizens get off work to sustain their leadership and the leaders are always sustained with an uplifted hand, unanimously without a single, dissenting voice. The riot is caused when one day a small group votes against... "We" is one of those rare books that gets better and better with each re-reading. > But that aside, I've only heard good things about _The Jaxon Files_ and I'm > wondering why I don't see it on shelves? You probably only hear good things because I'm usually the one talking. As far as shelving goes--I was an experiment into fiction by a publisher trying to expand into that market. Let me say that R.K. Books treated me very well and generously and every author should be so lucky. But their marketing abilities were limited. The book has been remaindered to my basement where it will remain until I publish a more widely received book that may or may not foster interest in previous work. > Is it only available from Amazon.com? Amazon, Borders and me. Send me your address, I'll send you a copy. > Preston Hunter > www.adherents.com > ---------- Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 13:38:26 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Request for Storytellers - ---Original Message From: Amy Chamberlain > I hope that this isn't terribly off-topic.... > > I teach a college-level Freshman English class, and thought > that you literary types on this list could help me once > again. Do you know any people who are really good > story-tellers? [snip] Interesting request. The annual Timpanogos Storytelling Festival in Orem is one of the largest in the nation and attracts national talent. You can hit their web page at www.timpfest.org to see who some of the prominent national storytellers are. Storytelling is one of those arts that requires a lot of talent (and developing skill), but doesn't pay very well. It's like theater that way. That usually means that it doesn't take much money to attract the top talent. Most of the listed storytellers sell CDs as well, which might be an option for your class. Our family has loved Bill Harley for years and we have many of his tapes. We discovered Bil Lepp this year and we fully intend to buy one of his CDs as soon as we can. Lepp's stories are hilarious. Most storytellers don't really rely on physical aspects of their stories so CDs are fine (though all of the featured talent at the Timpanogos Festival had marvelous stage presence). An exception to that was Eth-Noh-Tec who have a lot of physicality in their stories. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:02:04 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: _The Fellowship of the Ring_ (Movie) Scott Parkin writes: >(And yes, I understand the argument that Tolkien originated the story, >therefore he is the one and only authoritative storyteller in his own world. >Then again, Tolkien borrowed extensively for his mythology from the older >Norse--specifically Icelandic--myths and texts making at least part of that >argument moot.) Not surprisingly, I have to disagree with Scott's take here. There's a fundamental difference between the type of borrowing Tolkien does of older mythology, and the retelling of Tolkien's story that is done by the movie. The two cases really aren't parallel; for one thing, the degree of creativity, of original ownership, is vastly different. There are a lot of fantasy works out there that *are* retellings of traditional tales; Tolkien's isn't one of them, though he uses elements of mythology as jumping-off points for his own imagination. The difference is easily and overwhelmingly demonstrable. In addition to the issue of creativity, though, there's the issue of packaging and audience effect, which was the point I was originally making. Tolkien's use of mythic elements that belong freely to the entire body of literature are unlikely to replace specific earlier stories from that mythology. For example, our view of dragons is likely to be influenced by his dragon, if we read _The Hobbit_; but none of us is is likely to read _The Hobbit_ and think that we have read _Beowulf_ (though there's significant evidence that _Beowulf_ was one of Tolkien's inspirations for _The Hobbit_). But everything about the labeling and marketing of the _Fellowship_ movie tells us that this is, indeed, the *same* story Tolkien told, from the movie title to the fact that the books are now being sold with covers taken from the movie (or at least _Fellowship of the Ring_ is; I didn't notice the other covers when I was last in Barnes and Noble). There's vastly greater potential for audience effect and overlap; indeed, there's a *claim* of overlap, which demands (in my view) that the question of comparison be directly addressed, and that the movie be evaluated on that basis, no matter how different film and book may be as media. If they didn't want to be judged in comparison with the book, they should have used another story--and title. I agree with Scott that _Fellowship of the Ring_ (the movie) can be profitably viewed as someone else's retelling of a plot that is fundamentally the same as Tolkien's (though with a lot of differences). I disagree profoundly with Jacob Proffitt that the movie is "every bit [as much] a master work as the original books are"; works of genius are far rarer than that, and though the movie was well done (for what it was), I saw no evidence that it was a work of genius as the books were (a conclusion that is defensible on numerous grounds, whether or not they are to your taste). As Scott comments, we must wait on the complete set of movies before rendering a true verdict on their merit as a separate entity. But I don't think it's too early to say that there are some ways that the story this first movie tells is profoundly different from the one Tolkien chose to tell. That being the case, I am very much afraid that viewers of the movie will indeed come to read the books in light of the movie--not least because the books are *not* standard fantasy fare as we have come to expect it, in so many ways. The adaptations made by the moviemakers make the story far more cinematic, and bring it much more into line with audience expectations for a work of modern fantasy. Perhaps, as such, it fits our modern tastes better than the books. But if we value the original work of literature, I think we must take seriously the question of what effect the movie is likely to have on our (and by "our" I include both those of us talking about it on AML-List and general audiences) perceptions of the book. For a variety of reasons, I think Tolkien's story is particularly susceptible to this kind of cross-genre contamination. I won't go into all those reasons here, but I will say that I think some of them relate to the particular excellences of Tolkien's work, which do not translate well onto the movie screen. That being the case, I can't help but regret the movie's impact, at least part of which will be (I think already has been) to minimize differences and distinctions which have demonstrable importance in the original story. Tolkien's work is a carefully constructed whole; change one type of detail and you may find that you've subtly changed a lot of other things as well. It is probable that most readers are not aware of this level of subtle interconnectedness, but it exists and arguably has an impact on readers, whether or not they consciously realize it. For what it's worth, I agree that Tolkien's work is particularly hard to bring to screen. So what? I'm not especially inclined to judge the filmmakers more leniently in that regard. To some degree, the challenge is inherent whenever one undertakes to bring a classic to the screen. The moviemakers are clearly profiting from Tolkien's name and fame; why shouldn't they be held accountable for what they do with it? I'm aware that my viewpoint can easily be dismissed as that of a Tolkien "purist" who would not be satisfied with any movie, no matter how good, simply because it was different from the book. Indeed, it's clear that the success of the movie is part of what upsets me: after all, a poorly made or unpopular movie would have little potential impact on how readers approach the book. Personally, I think my reaction is more than that, and that the way the moviemakers have adapted the story for the screen is particularly damaging to the original story in a lot of ways that are all the more distressing because they aren't immediately obvious. But it seems clear that my view is a minority one. (Sigh...) Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:50:17 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Re: Orson Scott Card (was: Mormon Authors in Nat. Market) I think there is a whole generation of readers that don't know that much about him. My daughter was introduced to him by a friend who was surprised to learn that he was LDS. But, and I really am asking, do you think that those who know he is LDS realize how much some of his books are LDS? I haven't gotten around to reading them yet, sorry, but my daughter tells me that one series was obviously based on the Book of Mormon. But someone who hasn't read the Book of Mormon would not necessarily realize that. Tracie - ----- Original Message ----- Tracie Laulusa wrote: > > 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. Most of his readers know that Scott is LDS and that he puts LDS themes in his writing. He's been around long enough that people have figured that out by now. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:11:29 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Re: _God's Army (was: Must-Read Lists) speaking of the sister missionary................I loved her hair the way it was and hope in her book its explained why she would straighten it just to please what his name who was nothing special in the looks department. Just my two cents. Debbie Brown - ----- Original Message ----- > I note that three of this list were those chosen by the sister missionary > in God's Army! I picked up a copy of Asher Lev after seeing the movie. > > barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:51:47 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] re: Must-Read Lists Just off the top of my head: "Immortality", "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", and "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting" by Milan Kundera. Novels so beautifully readable you will barely notice your mind and perspective is being rearranged (for the better, of course). "All The King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren. *The* great American novel, IMHO. "The Collected Short Stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer". Its effect is as close to scripture (for me) as you can get. "Mormons and the Bible", by Philip Barlow. Really about how Mormons perceive Truth. "What I Saw at the Revolution" by Peggy Noonan. She writes about politics (and life) like an angel. "The Corrections" by Jonathan Franzen. Over-hyped to be sure, but a wonderful novel about compassion and forgiveness, nevertheless. "Animal Farm" by George Orwell. The primary social text of the 20th century. "Adventures of a Church Historian" by Leonard Arrington. A great book by a great man. "Huebener and Other Plays" by Thomas F. Rogers. What LDS writers can aspire to. Well, I had better stop here. This is a dangerous inquiry:-) You are liable to be deluged with enough lists to keep you reading well into the indefinite future. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 21:47:14 -0600 From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re:[AML] De-Christianizing of C.S. Lewis? Scott also mentioned C.S. Lewis >detested Mormons. What's the source of that? I"d like to know, >because if it's true it has to be one of the biggest cosmic jokes >out there! I don't know a direct source for that, but read the description of Eustace's parents in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Doesn't sound very flattering to me, and yet, don't we fit that description? Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 21:58:29 -0600 From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Must-Read Lists Here's my must-read list (well, some of them, anyway), in no particular order: 1. Dorothy L. Sayers' mysteries, especially Gaudy Night, which addresses women in academia and egalitarian relationships as well as the mystery itself. 2. Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, for characters that I can't help loving, not to mention the resonance it has for me as a Mormon. 3. Hugo's Les Miserables 4. Wilkie Collins, The Woman in White, for ingenious plot and characterization. 5. Madeleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time (and following books) 6. Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series 7. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia 8. Rowling's Harry Potter series 9. Allan Say, Grandfather's Journey (Yes, I have an interest staked in YA and juvenile lit.) Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 19:41:43 -0900 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? Hitler's Niece is written by Ron Hansen. It is a very good book. I've seen the hardback version on remainder shelves, so it can be had for cheap. However, I don't think Hitler is the main character in this book. His niece has that honor, though Hitler comes in at a definite second. One interesting side note: in Hansen's book of essays "A Stay Against Confusion" he tells about how a few of his ancestors were converted to Mormonism in Europe and made it all the way to Winter Quarters, where they were offended by the callousness of a leader and decided to just stick around and be farmers instead of heading off to Salt Lake City. Now Hansen is one of Catholicism's most prominent, honored, and faithful contemporary American authors (though certainly not tremendously orthodox in his writing as you can tell during some of the scenes in Hitler's Niece). He holds some kind of lay ministry position in his church. It's kind of a loss on our part, imagine having such a fellow in our midst. But at the same time, it's inspiring to see how essential Hansen's religon is to his superb writing. Stephen Carter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 21:45:44 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] re: Must-Read Lists 1. Anna Karenina - Tolstoi 2. War and Peace - Tolstoi 3. The Grapes of Wrath - Steinbeck 4. The Great Gatsby - 5. Great Expectations - Dickens 6. The City of Joy - Lapierre 7. Undaunted Courage - Ambrose 8. Atlas Shrugged - Rand 9. In Cold Blood - Capote Nan McCulloch Draper, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:22:27 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Annual Movie Tabulation Christopher Bigelow wrote: > BEST OF THE YEAR > Traffic Overrated. It was good, but didn't merit the hype surrounding it. > GLAD I SAW > Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Mondo overrated. So boring I didn't finish it. So what if the flying ninjas was a cool effect? The story was a snoozer. > Memento Why isn't this in the "Best of the Year" category? This is one of the topnotch sophisticated plots ever put in a film. Masterful storytelling. > AMBIVALENT > On the Waterfront (the old one) A classic which deserves the label. Should rate higher than this. How can you not like Marlon Brando's "I could have been somebody" quote? > Meet the Parents Fairly entertaining with offbeat humor. Casting the intimidating Robert DeNiro as the father alone is enough to make this film worth viewing. But as far as Ben Stiller films go, _There's Something About Mary_ was orders of magnitude more hilarious. Trivia question: what's the funnest, most bizarre role Robert DeNiro has played? Answer: the black market duct repairman in Terry Gilliam's _Brazil_. > The Testaments I'm not ambivalent about this film, unless you consider nausea ambivalent. > Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Ambilavence is a pretty good description of my feelings about this film. > Unbreakable Certainly a step down from _Sixth Sense_, but a step or two above ambilavence. Interesting twist that was fun, if not great. > WISHED I'D MISSED > Planet of the Apes I don't wish I'd missed it, but it was the first Tim Burton film that actually disappointed me. Mark Wahlberg is to Charlton Heston as Bozo the Clown is to Charlie Chaplin. Helena Bonham Carter in a monkey suit sniffing everybody is an image I never asked for. (Tim Roth was great, though.) A vivid illustration of my sentiments: I bought myself the six-disc DVD set of the old Planet of the Apes movies for Christmas (including "the making of" documentary). I haven't touched the DVD of the new film. > Chris Bigelow I definitely wish I missed this one. Oops, my mistake--this isn't a movie. - -- 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: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 03:15:27 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Peter JACKSON, _Fellowship of the Ring_ (Review) THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING Peter Jackson, director, writer, producer Film released December 19, 2001, by New Line Cinema "Is It Safe?" Perhaps the worst part of the film is when Gandalf says to Frodo Baggins, "Is it safe?" How can this not sound like a goofy satire of the quote in the Dustin Hoffman film _Marathon Man_? Yet the quote is appropriate in its own way. Filmmaker Peter Jackson took upon himself a burden unequaled by any filmmaker in the history of movies by trying to bring the fantasy world of Middle-earth to the silver screen. Not even the expectations George Lucas faced when delivering the much-anticipated "Episode I" of _Star Wars_ could match it. Millions of fans over several generations have fallen in love with author J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy world, from hobbits to elves to invented languages to the landscape itself. They all want to visit Middle-earth themselves, and they all have their own personal idea of what it should be like. What fool of a filmmaker would take on such a burden of expectation? It simply isn't safe to do so. No one will be satisfied! But that didn't stop Peter Jackson, a relative newcomer to filmmaking with a short resume that includes _Heavenly Creatures_ and _The Frighteners_. In spite of the efforts of a few before him who failed miserably to effectively adapt the epic-sized story to film, he decided to shoulder the burden. _The Lord of the Rings_ is a classic epic tale of a fantasy world populated by icons from our cultural history--elves, dwarves, wizards, magic rings. Plus a remarkable concoction original with Tolkien: hobbits. These are endearing beings half the size of humans that are remarkably similar to nineteenth century British folk, except for their hairy feet. Bilbo Baggins is an old hobbit of questionable respectability who went off on a dragon-slaying adventure with a band of dwarves many years ago. He happened upon a magic ring during that adventure, and as the film opens, Bilbo is about to celebrate his 111th birthday by disappearing on another adventure and willing his estate to his young cousin Frodo, including the magic ring. Gandalf the wizard, renowned in Hobbitton for his astounding fireworks, discovers a terrible secret about that ring: it is the One Ring, an evil artifact forged by the dark lord Sauron. In an ancient battle, Sauron was defeated and the ring of power lost. But now that the ring has resurfaced, Sauron is gathering his forces and searching it out again, sending dread emissaries to haunt the pleasant environs of the Shire, home of the hobbits. _The Lord of the Rings_ has been tremendously influential throughout the decades. It virtually invented the modern genre of fantasy, and has often been imitated, but rarely matched. For Mormons, it is a superb example of how to write a religious and moral tale disguised in the trappings of a fantasy adventure. Author J.R.R. Tolkien was a committed Catholic, and enmeshed his own strong beliefs into the moral fabric of his fantasy world. When Peter Jackson decided to adapt the series, right off he made the right decision: a trilogy of films to match the trilogy of books. Nothing less would have a chance of success. As it is, this lengthy three-hour film adaptation is a severely compressed version of the story in the first book, _The Fellowship of the Ring_. To have tried to compress the whole trilogy into less than three films would have resulted in the same disastrous failure that previous efforts experienced. Jackson allowed himself great artistic license in the plot details, as one would expect in a movie adaptation. But he remained true to the overall plot. And his efforts in evoking Middle-earth to the finest faithful detail were masterful. Jackson succeeded in this risky endeavor as much as he did because he himself is numbered among the millions of fans who feel a personal stake in Middle-earth. He cared about the story and the characters and the world. Full disclosure compels me to admit that I came to this film as a frustrated would-be filmmaker and a fan of Tolkien who wants to visit Middle-earth. Not just any Middle-earth, but _my_ Middle-earth: the one I've imagined in my head all these years. Therefore it was impossible for any filmmaker to please me with a screen adaptation of _Lord of the Rings_. Inevitably, there would be a million things I would do differently. That turned out to be true when I saw Jackson's _Fellowship of the Ring_. There _were_ a million choices I would have made differently. Yet I still enjoyed the film as much as was possible for me. The choices and trade-offs Jackson made, though not mine, were reasonable choices, and I couldn't fault him for making them. I would have fleshed out the prolog opener that rushes through some vital backstory essential to the Tolkien novices in the audience. I would have transformed that hurried narrated sequence into an integral part of the action, as Gandalf explains to Frodo what this magical ring is that he inherited. I wouldn't have peppered the landscape with so many familiar faces of popular actors, but have helped the verisimilitude of Middle-earth by using as many unknowns in pricniple roles as I could. I definitely would not have cast super-good guy Elrond the elf king with Hugo Weaving, the evil AI villain from _Matrix_, a terrible choice. I could have done without Liv Tyler as a heroic elf figure, considering the baggage of cheesy films she drags around in her wake. But I'll watch John Rhys-Davies any day. As the dwarf Gimli, he was unrecognizable anyway under all that makeup. Only his characteristic voice gave him away. The greatest concern I have is the ending. It dragged out much too long, first the battle, then the departure of the Ringbearer. The parts in the ending that dragged were also parts that didn't stay true to the book, and here is one place Jackson should have remained more faithful. Tightening up the ending would also have provided him with precious minutes to help flesh out other parts of the story that received too short shrift, in my opinion. The history of Gollum was the part that wanted most glaringly. For such an important character in the story, his film version is nothing but a vapid computer-generated concoction, a pathetic spook in the night with no meaning. Cut down the tedious goblin battle at the end and give Gollum a little substantive screen time, please! Yet with all these complaints that I walked out of the theater with, the bottom line was that I couldn't wait to go back and see the film again. Peter Jackson _had_ invoke Middle-earth, _had_ let me live there for three hours, and the experience began to haunt me the minute the images faded from the screen. With such a reaction, I could only conclude that I did like the movie after all. Peter Jackson had taken the risk, shouldered the burden, and succeeded. Is _Lord of the Rings_ safe? Can the millions of fans in love with Tolkien's world come to the movie and avoid deep disappointment? Absolutely! The film is a sincere, loving adaptation by a genuine fan, and does indeed allow you to visit Middle-earth, not only with breathtaking, state-of-the-art movie magic images, but with a respectful portrayal of the story, the characters, and the environment itself that, if not exactly matching your imagination all these years, still satisfies. If you're a fan, it's safe to visit Middle-earth through the vision of Peter Jackson. And if you're not a fan, you may enjoy the film even more, without all the baggage of anticipation and dread weighing you down. I envy you your fresh exploration of a story that has enchanted untold millions before you! - -- 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: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 04:35:01 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] My Life in Mormon Culture (was God in _Lord of the Rings_) Christopher Bigelow wrote: > Maybe for some kids fantasy could deposit them safely at the > doorway of Mormonism, but I'm afraid a conservative part of me is capable of > seeing fantasy mainly as a counterfiet for true religion, a decoy. I can't > say I feel any remorse for my involvement in it, however. Rather, I blame > Mormonism for being so boring and not providing anything near a gripping > alternative for creative kids. These words resonated as I read them. As I look around me at the LDS culture I find myself in at this period of my life, I have to align myself with Chris on this one: Mormon culture is boring! It wasn't always this way. I grew up an oddball. As a kid, I didn't have a lot of friends. Most of the things that interested others didn't interest me. I'd been writing stories of one kind or another since I could remember, and reading the stories of others even longer than that. Where other kids had imaginary friends, I had an imaginary TV station that broadcast nonstop, 24 hours, seven days a week--me. My aunt (who ironically despises science fiction) got me started into serious science fiction by giving me as gifts HG Wells' _War of the Worlds_ and Frank Herbert's _Dune_. But I had been reading the juvenile stuff long before that. I was one of the few who loved Star Trek from the airing of its first episode, not who discovered it later in reruns. I grew up in Minnesota. As I reached the teenaged years, the unique nature of my Mormonness became more and more apparent. Perhaps some kids would cringe at this strangeness, even eschew it, but I gloried in it. In sixth grade I tried to explain deep LDS theology to my classmates--eternal progression, God a perfected man, the whole nine yards. One of them compared the Mormon God to Superman, from the planet Kolob instead of Krypton. In high school I was one of at most four Mormons in the entire school of two thousand. Of the other three, one was an ugly misfit girl my age with no social standing whatsoever, the second was her younger brother, much more normal but still with the whiff of outcast that clung to their entire family, and the third a delinquent who had spent a year in reform school and was then in the "dummy" track of classes sequestered in the basement. In other words, I saw myself as the lone apostle of Mormonism in White Bear Senior High, Minnesota. I played it up to the hilt. The younger brother was often my sidekick in my escapades. Everyone knew we were Mormons. We enjoyed inciting religious discussions with other students every chance we got. My English teacher, a born-again Christian, became a favorite foil. She invited us once to speak at a youth group she was in charge of in her church, giving them an overview of what being a Mormon was all about. She greatly disliked our concept of heaven. The idea that she might end up in the terrestrial kingdom, shut out from association with God the Father, disturbed her. I had a handful of friends in high school, most notably Tom, a reluctant Baptist, who I figured out in later years was homosexual. (I'm not sure _he_ knew he was in high school.) But most of my friends were in the ward: St. Paul 2nd Ward of the Minnesota Stake. That's how small the church was in the Twin Cities in those days: two wards in St. Paul and four in Minneapolis, and one stake for the whole state. I loved going to church so I could be with my friends of like mind. We'd visit each other and sleep over at each other's homes as often as we could. We were spread throughout all the high schools of St. Paul and its suburbs, so we never took associating together for granted. There were many other opportunities to get together besides church. We had scout trips, we had sports, we had theater. Each summer the scouts spent a week canoing from lake to lake in the northern wilderness of Minnesota, "the land of ten thousand lakes." Our volleyball team dominated the region--all the way down to Kansas City, Missouri. We won every championship. We attended the last two Salt Lake all-church competitions that were ever held. We'd not only put on real roadshows--weeks of planning and writing and practicing in preparation for the night of competition, both locally and regionally, not these one-day noncompetitive things my current stake does--but we'd put on all sorts of other plays just for the heck of it. And we'd have dances. We attended the monthly stake dance religiously, scoping for new girls to prey upon. Without fail we'd have a New Year's dance, and our goal was to bag a girl we could kiss at midnight. We had a family in the ward with about a zillion sons, and every time one of them would leave or return on a mission or get married, they'd throw the same shindig: a big polka dance in the cultural hall with boxes and boxes of glazed doughnuts. The whole ward was always invited, and the whole ward always showed up. None of us felt "uncool" dancing polkas--on the contrary, we were sophisticated young men, and knew that indulging in that sort of retro thing now and then showed class. Those were the official activities we took part in, but we invented our own religious fun on the sly. The Minnesota state fair is one of the grander state fairs in the country, and we'd haunt the fairgrounds several days each year. In addition to stalking girls that caught our eye, or attending the occasional Neil Diamond or Carpenters concert, we always sought out the born-again Christian booth and tormented them. The poor Minnesotan Christians had little experience with Mormons, and we vanquished them every time--at least that's how we saw it. One year Billy Graham came to town in some huge outdoor arena. A few of us attended, and when they called for people who had "found Jesus" to come forward and show their commitment, we went--we were commited to Jesus, after all. And we tormented the poor workers there who were only trying to help people get saved. I also got a nice close-up view of Billy Graham in his trenchcoat on that cold windy day as he surveyed with grim satisfaction the harvest of his labor. I loved LDS theology. There was not a cooler religion on earth. I'd compare what we had to what others had, and it was like comparing a Lamborghini to a Yugo. I would spread the coolness of my religion with the enthusiasm of a Southern Baptist dropped in the middle of Salt Lake City. I probably didn't do one ounce of good for the image of the church, but I sure had a great time doing it. Now I live in Salt Lake City of the early 21st century, and I can barely stifle my yawn at what I see around me. Attending church is so often a Jobic exercise in patience as I listen to the same old tired sermons and lessons that I've heard a million times before. The roadshows at the stake center are a joke, and I can't think of one theatrical use our wardhouse stage has been put to in a dozen years. Every week in priesthood opening exercises we get some report on some sports game from last week: with any luck enough people showed up to avoid a forfeit. My kids don't get any thrill out of going to church; heck, the faces they see there are the same faces they see all week at school. Nobody throws a party when a missionary comes or goes--maybe an open house with the usual tired refreshments in their home. My daughter tried a couple of stake dances--or were they regional dances? Who knows; who cares. In my youth, we went dressed casually, but tastefully. Today's dances are haunted by old men in suits enforcing rules with an iron hand, and all the kids come dressed like it was sacrament meeting. My daughter hasn't asked to go to any since--and I don't blame her. This last New Years Eve, she asked if she could go to a friend's party. I asked if there was a church dance she could go to, and she looked at me like it was the strangest idea she'd ever heard. A church dance for New Year's Eve? What was that? Not having one sounded as strange to me as having one did to her. Tormenting born-again Christians has lost its appeal. Not only have I come to realize in my maturity how dubious such an activity is, but the Christians around here are well-versed in Mormon peculiarities: it's just the same old dreary arguments rehashed over and over again. I know buried somewhere in the theological dungeon of my religion are the same exciting, mind-boggling doctrines I grew up with, the same colorful, outrageous, half-legendary church history that our early-morning Minnesota seminary teachers liked to rumormonger with us. Where did it all go? Nobody seems to care anymore. Nobody wants to hear or talk about it. I stand in dread thinking of what might have happened to me if I had grown up Mormon in 1990s Salt Lake City, Utah, instead of 1960s and 70s White Bear Lake, Minnesota. I'd have been bored to tears. I don't see what appeal the church would have had for me. Sure, it would have been great if I could, at age 12 or 13, have had a powerful spiritual manifestation that held me for life, but it didn't happen that way. I stayed with the church through my formative years because it was _fun_. Neither I nor my children see a whole lot of fun about the church these days. Considering the gold mine of sparkling doctrinal and cultural nuggets lying beneath the "We're Christians just like you" and "Don't do anything that's not correlated" mentality of the modern Mormon, I can only ask myself, why? Is this really better than what I grew up with? - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #562 ******************************