From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #578 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 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 578 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:22:40 -0700 From: katie@aros.net Subject: [AML] Cheri CRANE, _Forever Kate_ (Review) Crane, Cheri J. _Forever Kate_. Covenant, 1997. Paperback, $11.95. Reviewed by Katie Parker This is the first book in Cheri Crane's "Kate" series that really had me=20 turning pages at some places. It's the sequel to _Kate's Return_, which=20 follows_Kate's Turn_. All of the "Kate" books are categorized as young=20 adult books. In _Kate's Return_, Kate started college and continued involvement with=20 several worthy young men. There's Randy, a former ranch hand who's=20 older than she is and is serving a mission, Then there's Mike, who is=20 Kate's age and left on his mission more recently. She's also started=20 spending time with Mike's friend Keith, but she thinks that they're just=20 friends. Keith was jilted in the last book by Kate's friend Sandi when=20 Sandi married Ian, who had been dating Kate until she realized that she=20 didn't feel anything for him besides friendship. Keith takes Kate=20 completely by surprise when he kisses her, but it's soon established that= =20 it's all just a misunderstanding on Keith's part and that he and Kate sho= uld=20 only be friends. (Follow all that?) Kate goes to BYU for her sophomore year of college. She's kept busy=20 with classes, a few dates, and helping her roommate with her romance=20 problems. Then Randy comes home from his mission. His communication with Kate=20 lately has been little more than occasional hasty notes, and Kate has=20 misgivings about going to the airport to meet him. However, she's still=20 great friends with his mother, and at her invitation, she goes. After a = few=20 awkward weeks, and at his mother's insistence, Randy and Kate have a=20 polite date and then discuss honestly where they stand. Randy knows of=20 Kate's relationship with Mike, and it turns out that Randy met a special=20 sister missionary named Laurie on his mission. With this in mind, they=20 agree to give things a try and see what happens. They're kissing by the end of that first date, and things progress from=20 there. Kate is still confused over her feelings for Mike, but Randy's th= e=20 one that's here, and they get along well together. Crane depicts their=20 growing relationship in a natural way, with a snowball fight, a dressy=20 dance, passionate but chaste kisses, and some advice from others along th= e=20 way. Randy finally puts an end to the confusion by proposing to her: <<<<<< "Did you have fun tonight?" Randy asked as he helped Kate out of the car. Kate nodded. She was almost afraid to speak, fearing light conversation=20 would ruin the magic that had been between them at the dance. Several=20 times she had felt like she was floating. She shivered, reliving the int= ense=20 emotions of the final dance=85She glanced up at the temple. Randy had=20 driven here after the dance, claiming he wanted to go somewhere=20 special=85Randy motioned to a nearby bench. He brushed off the light=20 covering of snow and helped Kate sit down. Then he nervously sat beside=20 her. "Kate, I was going to wait until Christmas, but I brought this along=20 tonight, just in case." Kate's eyes widened. She tried to speak, but Randy silenced her by=20 placing a finger on her lips. He stood, removing a small box from his pan= ts=20 pocket. Slowly kneeling in the snow, he opened the box, revealing a=20 diamond ring. "Kate Erickson, I love you. Will you marry me?" He didn't get the reaction he had anticipated. Instead of squeals, there= =20 were tears as Kate embraced Randy. "I love you so much," she said when she could speak again. "It's a good thing 'cuz you're stuck with me now," he assured her, pullin= g=20 her to her feet. Sliding the ring onto the appropriate finger, he sealed= their=20 engagement by kissing her in front of the temple. (97) >>>>>> Wedding plans go smoothly until three months later on page 106 when the=20 couple runs into Laurie on the BYU campus. Suddenly Randy barely=20 remembers that Kate's alive. They decide to think and pray about it, and= =20 finally Randy gets his answer. He breaks up with Kate on page 121: <<<<<< =85Kate pulled away from him. "The one I feel sorry for is Laurie. Does= =20 she realize that you'll drop her when someone else comes along?" "I'm not that kind of guy." "You're talking to the wrong person. You just did it to me, remember?" Randy gazed steadily at Kate. "I know Laurie's the one. I think it's=20 something I've known all along, but I let doubt creep in=85Laurie and I h= ad=20 never talked about how we felt, not until she came to Provo. You were=20 here and real, there was a strong attraction between us. I convinced=20 myself it was love." "You convinced me, too," Kate said tersely. "But when I saw Laurie that day, something went off inside of me. Big- time promptings that I still tried to ignore because we were engaged." >>>>>> Although having Laurie in the picture at all seems to be a bit of a _deus= ex=20 machina_, I appreciate how Randy is still depicted as a nice guy, and a=20 good one, even if he does make some mistakes. Kate is understandably=20 upset about the whole thing, but I would have liked more details on how=20 she handles things immediately afterward. The chapter after the breakup=20 opens with "Kate finished the semester in a daze" (123). We completely=20 miss any scenes where she has to break the news to her family, or contact= =20 the people they'd already sent wedding announcements to. Maybe this=20 isn't exactly relevant to the story of Kate finding true love and happine= ss,=20 but it would have been interesting. The next few months are depicted in a few pages, and then Kate's evil ex- boyfriend Jace re-enters her life. Now he's a wealthy drug dealer out fo= r=20 revenge on her for ruining his life. He kidnaps her younger sister Sabri= na,=20 and dies trying to fend off a higher-up drug lord who wants to kill her. = =20 The ordeal makes for a mildly interesting twenty-four pages or so, but=20 adds nothing to the overall story except to answer the question of what=20 happens to Jace (which I hadn't been asking). I think that these pages=20 would have been better spent showing Kate's life immediately after her=20 breakup with Randy. Mike returns from his mission a few months later. By now, Kate has=20 decided to serve a mission of her own. The two of them agree to keep in=20 touch, and if Mike's still single by the time she gets back, they'll give= a=20 serious relationship a try. But for now, things are still casual. That'= s a=20 good policy to illustrate for youth, even if it's not as easy to do as is= looks. Kate is sent to Scotland on her mission, and there she helps some people=20 who turn out to be distant relatives of hers, descended through her same=20 ancestor whose journal she read in _Kate's Return_. They are converted,=20 and Kate has a wonderful mission. Meanwhile, Mike sends her a letter=20 saying he's getting married. Kate feels a little sad, but wouldn't trade= her=20 mission experience for anything. She has faith that she will be blessed=20 with what she needs, whoever or whatever that may be, when she returns. When she does return, she finds out that Mike didn't get married after al= l,=20 and=85well, it's not quite as simple as all that, but they do finally get= back=20 together in the last chapter or so of the book. And in the final pages, = Mike=20 covers himself in tinfoil and rides up on a white horse and proposes to=20 Kate as her knight in shining armor. Unfortunately, I found myself much more involved in the story of Randy=20 than in the one with Mike. I suppose that says something for the Kate- Randy storyline; it's interesting to see a relationship that basically lo= oks=20 and feels right turn out to be wrong. But the same care is not taken in=20 developing the relationship with Mike. I felt like Mike was something of= =20 a backup that Kate had to settle for because Randy dumped her. =20 To make matters worse, the book ends with Mike's proposal. We don't=20 get to see much of their courtship, any of their engagement, or even if t= hey=20 actually take the plunge afterward. After all the time spent on developi= ng=20 the storyline with Randy, the time spent on Mike is miniscule by=20 comparison. Actually it would be miniscule by any standards, but=20 especially in light of the fact that Kate's relationship with Mike is=20 supposed to be "the real thing," we really should see more of its=20 development. After reading the last chapter, I reached for the next "Kat= e"=20 book (_Following Kate_) only to find that Kate and Mike have been=20 happily married for two years. Meanwhile, we miss the engagement, the=20 wedding, and their newlywed days. =20 Still, in all I found it an enjoyable read. It stands out as a story abo= ut=20 normal young adults trying to live normal lives. Except for a short=20 departure with the Jace subplot, there's nothing in here that's exotic or= =20 extreme. There are no burning buildings, chronic illnesses, or anything=20 else to take over center stage. This is simply a book about situations t= hat=20 any young adult could encounter. And I think that's a worthwhile subject= ,=20 too. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:59:25 -0600 From: "Kumiko" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report (Jan. 11) Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of January 11, 2002 "Ocean's Eleven" and "Behind Enemy Lines" continue to exhibit legs, each dropping only one place in national rankings this week. Despite its weirdness and off-putting themes, "Mulholland Drive" continues its wave of critical buzz and has crested $6 million in U.S. box office sales. Still only showing in Utah and a bit of Idaho, "The Other Side of Heaven" has passed the $800,000 mark after one month in release. Audiences around the country have seemed eager for the film to come to screens near them. Director Kels Goodman doesn't begin principal photography on his pioneer epic "Handcart" until January 28th. But Goodman's Shinebox cronies Paul Green and David Skousen have posted a cool "behind-the-scenes" look at the making of "Handcart" on the film's official website at http://www.handcartthemovie.com If you blinked you might have missed "Singles Ward" director Kurt Hale's recent announcement of his NEXT comedic movie project: "The RM." More information can be found in the Utah County Journal article at: http://www.ucjournal.com/ucjournal/pagespeed/url/News/story/455499 And in case you've heard of something called the Sundance Film Festival... Keep in mind that the whole thing was co-founded by LDS filmmaker Sterling Van Wagenen. Of course, Van Wagenen was no longer running things by the time the whole event grew to what it is today. Just a historical footnote. [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker or Actor Total Gross Theaters Days - ---- ------------------------------ ------- ----- ---- 4 Ocean's Eleven $7,738,381 2,670 38 LDS characters: Malloy twins 162,676,461 17 Behind Enemy Lines 1,448,957 963 45 David Veloz (screenwriter) 55,645,275 29 Mulholland Drive 156,835 98 98 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 6,014,253 33 The Other Side of Heaven 92,336 29 31 Mitch Davis (screenwriter/director) 804,427 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 59 Out Cold 12,261 44 54 A. J. Cook (female lead) 13,626,013 60 Galapagos 11,272 6 808 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,102,314 64 China: The Panda Adventure 7,381 6 171 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 1,796,654 65 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 7,202 3 619 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,031,302 74 Island of the Sharks 4,082 2 990 Alan Williams (composer) 10,592,938 93 All Access 124 1 283 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 992,861 - - Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:03:06 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Public and Private Mormon Lit Richard refers to "public" and "private" LDS fiction and wonders about = the differences. I think he's made some accurate observations, but I = disagree with his conclusions. Utah Mormon culture seems to vary enough from non-Utah Mormon culture that it's probably natural to assume that differences in fiction styles relate to the cultural differences, but I don't think that's the whole story. In talking about Rachel Nunes's book _Love to the Highest Bidder_, = Richard R. Hopkins wrote: >But I think this difference between the public Church in Utah and the >private Church outside of Utah has a huge impact on writing. I think it has an impact on the *writers.* I do not believe it has relevance to the *readers.* In other words, I can imagine someone from a large LDS community only writing the kind of public LDS fiction you refer to, but I don't think such fiction is only read by readers belonging to = the same community. This is supported by my knowledge that a lot of Nunes's fans don't live in Utah. >For one thing, the principal characters in Rachel's book were perfect >examples of obedience to the uttermost letter of the law. The = 33-year-old >hero from New York averted his eyes from the sexy villain's cleavage and >even from the heroine (a Californian) when she was wearing a modest >nightgown. I enjoyed these things about the characters. They represented= an >ideal I feel is good to encourage. But no Californian or New Yorker, = member >of the Church or not, that I know of would behave quite that perfectly. = I >think members of the Church in Utah have a MUCH higher expectation of >behavioral perfection than we ever did in California. Well, no Utah member behaves that perfectly either, and they know they don't. In discussing Nunes's books with her fans (usually women) both inside *and* outside of Utah, I've observed that what they enjoy about = them *is* that the characters live that higher ideal, even though they (the readers) would never expect that level of perfection from themselves or anyone else. There's never any confusion about right and wrong in = Nunes's books. Good is obviously good, evil is obviously evil, and the sins of = her heroes and heroines, while portrayed compassionately, are never condoned.= I think Nunes's ideal audience enjoys the--I've never found a good word = that doesn't sound condescending--the safety of her books. _Love to the = Highest Bidder_ and its sequels, _Framed for Love_ and _Love on the Run_, are not representative of the majority of her novels. Most of her books deal = with very sordid, terrible problems, and depict those problems unflinchingly = but not graphically. This allows her readers to see a darker side of life without feeling sullied by it. What's more, many of her readers are women who have experienced the same horrible traumas Nunes's characters face. They say things like "the book made me feel not so alone" or "I felt as though she knew what I'd been through." In this sense they serve as both catharsis and testimonial--a sort of reference guide for surviving life. But I'm also of the opinion that Nunes's primary audience is a particular kind of reader: >Thus, in my idea of an LDS novel, >the hero might say "damn," even "hell"--never "heck." The heroine might = wear >a skirt that goes above her knees, yet still be a very good Mormon. A = Utah >audience of members, would generally find such characters lacking, less >attractive and less interesting. At least, that's what I suspect. I completely disagree. You're right that, for example, Nunes's audience might not like it, but I think it's because many of them don't draw a distinction between *portrayal* of sin and *promotion* of sin. Having = lived in a number of different LDS wards all over the US, I can definitely say that there are readers like this EVERYWHERE. If the percentage of them = is higher in Utah, that still doesn't make this a uniquely Utahn phenomenon. >Also, non-Utah members treat the gospel as a sacred but hidden treasure.= So >we tend to separate our public lives--employment and other activities >involving non-members--from our private, church lives. When writing, we = do >not tend to mention prayers, thoughts directed heavenward, impressions = of >the Holy Ghost (unless they are significant to the plot), etc. For me, = even >Sunday activities are hard to write about. To non-Utah Mormons, the = Church >is private, and that's reflected in their writing. The Church is public = to >Utah Mormons, and hence a part of their daily lives in a way that is = openly >reflected in their writing. Their characters appear bolder about the = gospel >in a public context. They speak of their religion openly, never forget = to >have their characters say their nightly and morning prayers, pray = together, >if possible, read the scriptures every day, glance heavenward, think = prayers >to God, hear impressions from the Spirit, etc. It's out there, on their >sleeves, all the time. These things members outside of Utah also do, but >they don't talk about it publicly, and hence it tends not to appear in = their >writing. They don't live where people are public about their faith, so = they >tend not to write characters that are public about their faith. I think this is an inaccurate overgeneralization, true as it is in individual cases. Kristen Randle, who is as immersed in the Utah culture= as anyone, writes fiction that only obliquely mentions the Church. Carol = Lynch Williams and Louise Plummer do the same, just to name a few. What you're describing is a particular kind of LDS writing intended for a very = specific audience, not the universal nature of Utah Mormon writing. I'm not saying you're mistaken about the effect living in Utah has on people. I've only lived here two and a half years, and it's taken me = nearly that long to get used to how commonplace Church culture is here. I can imagine a writer, immersed in this culture, writing under the assumption that this is how all Mormons should behave. But I don't think it happens all the time, and I don't think all LDS readers in Utah are accepting of = it when it does. >I would suggest a distinction between public LDS fiction and private LDS >fiction. By public LDS fiction, I mean books like Rachel's where the >characters wear their membership on their sleeves, where the story is >immersed in Mormon-ness, where every ideal of the Church is portrayed in= the >characters in all that they do all the time. By private LDS fiction, I = mean >books where the story is entirely unrelated to the fact that any of the >characters are LDS, where the LDS characters are mostly private about = their >faith, maybe even hide it from other characters in the book, where they = are >good Latter-day Saints but don't always behave publicly as though they = were >ready to be translated. I know there is a graying of these extremes in >Mormon Lit, but I see the perspective of the authors and especially the >audience as being quite distinct in most instances, based on whether or = not >they are Utah Mormons. I agree that the distinction between the two exists. I don't think it correlates strongly to geographical residence, but rather to personal inclination. >Now for the big question: Which style of writing--public LDS fiction or >private LDS fiction--do you think might sell best in the national = market? I >don't think the answer to this question is as easy as some may think, so= I'd >appreciate any comments you have along with a straight answer. Here is my answer--and you're right that it's not an easy question, but = I've been thinking about it during the course of responding to this post: Neither. To the national market, public LDS fiction is too preachy; private LDS fiction is too reticent. In one of Rachel Nunes's recent books, there's = a passage where one woman is trying to entice another to go to a movie = because the second woman needs cheering up, and she says "there's a good one = playing downtown, a PG." This is not the sort of thing most adults outside the Church (or outside any strongly conservative value system, perhaps) = consider when they are making movie viewing decisions. Much as I love Nunes's = books, they are heavy on the proselytizing, and I think that's off-putting to a = lot of readers. Including, probably, a lot of Mormon readers. But the other kind isn't much better, because that privacy comes off as secrecy or embarrassment. Fiction that tries too hard *not* to preach starts sounding weird or even incomprehensible; it's one thing not describing the temple ceremony, but if (for example) you won't even = mention temple robes or refer to the endowment as merely a "religious ceremony," = I think a lot of readers will start wondering what you have to hide. The kind of LDS fiction that I believe will succeed best in the national market is the kind that seeks to describe accurately and thoroughly, not = to preach; the kind that isn't afraid to talk about the things that make Mormons unique; the kind that neither takes our religion for granted nor assumes that it is too bizarre to be accepted by others. There is no = more virtue in hiding our faith from the keen gaze of outsiders than there is = is shouting it from the rooftops. What you describe as private LDS fiction = is probably closer to this than the other, but only because I believe public LDS fiction is already not directed at the national market. I don't = think private LDS fiction as you describe it is the ideal writing style for success on a national level either. What we really need is a combination= of the two. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:44:03 -0500 From: "nadyoung" Subject: [AML] Re: Life in Mormon Culture <> I don't agree that it's the prevailing Mormon mindset but I do agree it's prevalent in literature. My opinion has always been that when we stop questioning, studying and exploring our religion and instead follow blindly, we become cultists. Nadine Young Brockport NY - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:35:08 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Life in Mormon Culture There have been so many interesting and profound posts on the subject, and I'd like to address some of what I've read. Todd said the worst advice any writer could give is to write what you know. I disagree, to a certain point anyway. Why would we belong to the Association of Mormon Letters if we didn't write what we know? We want to write about the experiences we've had as Latter-day Saints don't we? We've been trying to figure out how to make our lives in this faith and culture something our children can lay hold of, hasn't that been some of what the discussion has been about? If certain people didn't write what they knew we wouldn't have books like 'Tom Sawyer', 'Life on the Mississippi' or 'Huckleberry Finn'. Twain wrote what he knew and made it accessible to people who didn't know that life. I use him as an example because we just got done watching Ken Burns' documentary about his life and writing. That doesn't mean one shouldn't try and stretch oneself and look into other things and write about them. We wouldn't have murder mysteries sci-fi and other genres if people didn't want to go into new worlds and do research into things they didn't know and want to understand. As far as the supposition that if what I said before is correct that it sounds as if our kids would be better off being raised outside the Church-If I believed that I wouldn't have raised my own children in the Church. People who have been members all their lives and those of us who are converts bring different things to the table, but each can be equally valuable. I like that my husband was raised in the Church, even though he warned me when we were getting serious that there were a lot of flakes and nuts in the family tree and that his own family had a spotty record of activity, but that his mother was faithful and had seen to it they, the kids in his branch of the family, had stay active and engaged with the Church. He was proud that he came from pioneer stock and was learning more about their lives all the time. Some had grown into strong righteous branches-think Ron Staheli here, and some had withered or grown little to one degree or another taking the Church for granted living in Utah. Nevertheless, there are some of his relatives who have lived in Utah all their lives and do take the Church seriously and love being part of it. Utah is definitely a mixed bag on that issue. I was proud of what I brought to the table in terms of my own heritage. I am the granddaughter of immigrants who recognized the danger and fanaticism of a man named Mussolini long before their fellow countrymen did. They left a life of affluence to gain freedom, my mother being their only american-born child. My father's people had been in this country for generations, at least one branch being potato famine survivors. Together, I think we've brought a lot of good things and a lot of baggage to the life we've built, but we've let our children know where they came from, we've told, or in essence wrote what we knew and tried to write things we didn't to make a better life for them. To have them hold fast to the Church while knowing there are other things out there to explore, just don't throw away the truth you have while seeking to add to what you already possess. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's like a Tapestry, woven with many different threads, I believe we have enough of the fullness of the truth for our salvation, but there is other truth out there and is worth finding if it adds to what we already have. For some, maybe it is better if they don't stray too far from their own backyard, for others, different fields beckon-each must find his own way while holding to the sure foundation. Do I have answers for all this? Maybe if we all keep putting our heads and ideas together, we'll come up with something worthwhile, we can only hope. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:18:11 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Geoffrey CARD, _God's Army_ (Review) GOD'S ARMY by Geoffrey Card 2001, Excel Entertainment Publishing Trade paperback, 200 pages $14.98 "Pod People from a Spacetime Nexus" review by D. Michael Martindale The film _God's Army_ was a groundbreaking work: a film made by an LDS filmmaker for an LDS audience, distributed and exhibited in the regular Hollywood venues. A film that didn't want to convert or inspire--not that writer/director/ producer/star Richard Dutcher would have complained if it did--but a film that would simply tell an interesting, honest story about the people he loves and is a part of: Mormons. It was a milestone for LDS art, something that had never been done before. And now something else new has been done, something that must surely be the baptism of fire of LDS commercial entertainment into the real world: a novelization of the film. By this we must surely acknowledge that we have arrived. But I'm just getting started. This must be some kind of nexus in the spacetime continuum, one of those things that causes clocks to run backwards and cosmic geodesics to contort into Moebius strips. Not only was an "it-can't-be-done" mainstream LDS film made, exhibited, and reasonably successful, not only did that instantly result in a novelization of the film (where's the novelization of _Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_?), but the author chosen for the novelization is an author who has never been published, an author who's main interest is also filmmaking, and an author whose father is the inestimable Orson Scott Card, vastly successful science fiction author, who blazed a few LDS trails of his own in the world of storytelling. But it doesn't stop there. Orson Scott also wrote a film novelization--something he swore he'd never do--of James Cameron's _Abyss_. This book was a groundbreaker in its own right: a novelization that both author and filmmaker wanted to be in a class by itself. This novelization would actually follow the final version of the film--not an earlier draft of the script, complete with egg for the face of the poor author whose good- faith efforts to reproduce the movie get betrayed on the editor's cutting room floor. And this novelization would strive for quality--a science fiction novel that could stand on its own. How could it not succeed, with Orson Scott Card writing it? The book _Abyss_ filled in the background and motivations of both the human characters and the fascinating aliens, information missing from the film. As father Card did in his novelization, so did son Card do in his, revealing to us thoughts and off-screen activities of _God's Army_ characters lacking in the film. If that isn't enough, Orson Scott Card is also deep into finagling a project which is the reverse of _God's Army_--getting his groundbreaking science fiction book _Ender's Game_ made into a movie. A "filmization," if you will. With such a Gordian tangle of parallels, contrasts, and coincidences, I fully expect an alternate universe Enterprise D to slip through the spacetime nexus and save Earth from some bizarre planet-busting threat, perhaps Bill Gates' Microborg. (Resistance is futile.) Now that I've had some fun, maybe I ought to tell you what I think of the book. I can answer that in one sentence: It's a novelization. The movie plot is faithfully presented, the characters are all there doing the things you saw them do in the film. It's all very familiar. And yet not. The Elder Dalton in the book is not the same Elder Dalton in the film. He's author Geoff Card's interpretation of Elder Dalton. The same with apostate Elder Kinegar, black Elder Banks, cute and intimidating Sister Fronk--they're all there, and not quite there. Having seen the film first, I inevitably preferred the film characters. To me, they are the real ones, where Card's incarnations are interesting pod people who look like the real thing, but somehow don't feel like them. Card necessarily ascribed motives, thoughts, and attitudes that weren't in the film, because this is a film novelization, and film novelizations must do that. Not that his interpretations weren't interesting; not that Card didn't do a fine job crafting and writing the book. It's just that it's a novelization, no more--but also no less. Card gets the job done as any good journeyman writer would do. If you like the God's Army film and you like novelizations, you will assuredly like Geoff Card's book. I don't care for novelizations. I found it difficult to get into the book, because it had the whiff of novelization all over it. But eventually Card overcame these odds, at least enough to make the book interesting to read. Even touching in spots. One cannot fault Card for the weaknesses of the book. They are inherent in the format. He was an author-for-hire. The title page of the book says "Copyright Richard Dutcher," not "Copyright Geoffrey Card." In the words of Papagallo in the Mad Max movie _Road Warrior_, "He fulfilled his contract. He's an honorable man." But I for one would have preferred spending my time picking up the latest book by his father and diving into that with relish. All this begs the question, what would a Geoff Card book be like that he designed and wrote himself from the ground up? To me this is the most interesting part of the whole experience. Card now has his name out there, he has credentials; he's a published author, and we know he can write well. I look forward to finding out what he can do on his own. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. After all, Card is really a filmmaker, not an author. He attends the Chapman University School of Film and Television. We may have to wait for his first feature film to find out what he can do on his own. And wouldn't that be icing on the cake of our spacetime nexus. A groundbreaking LDS film by Geoffrey Card--novelization by Richard Dutcher. - -- 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: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:47:42 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] _Fellowship of the Ring_ (Movie) I've wanted to go see Lord of the Rings a second time, but haven't had the chance so I've chime in with my two cents worth having only seen it the one time. I'm one of the ignorants out there for whom J.R.R.Tolkein and the world he created is still fairly new. In high school I knew some of my fellow students were just wild about these books, couldn't get enough of them. They drew pictures, maps and made up additional storylines for LOTHR. One girl in a group of gifted students I belonged to even did a project on speaking elvish. (Isn't great that gifted students often use their hobbies as projects). I thought these people where a little over the top. To them it was almost like a religion. Sort like the "Trekkies". I mean I liked Star Trek and stuff like that, but I had no desire to go to conventions. I watched the animated "Hobbit" when it came out on TV and liked it. One of my friends explained the books so I could get a better understanding of the plot. I thought the choice of Orson Bean as the voice of Bilbo Baggins was good and Richard Boone as the voice of Smaug the Dragon excellent, such a menacing, malicious tone he had. But for one reason or another, I just never picked the books and got going on them. I probably had to read excerpts for English classes, but that's all. So after thinking the people I knew in school were a little nuts for being obsessed with all this, along comes Harry Potter and I join the ranks of ardent fandom. So when the we read that LOTHR was coming out about a month after Harry Potter I really looked forward to it understanding that this was a more complicated story for a more mature audience. I wasn't disappointed. The portrayal of the Shire in all it's pastoral beauty and simplicity is a wonderful contrast to all the darkness that's in the rest of the movie. I think Elijah Wood is an excellent choice for Froto and it's good to see this under-rated actor get a chance to get his chops into this part. I think Sean Austin is a good side-kick for him, he never seeks to overshadow Wood. Ian Mckellen and Christopher Lee are in the right parts as the wizards, I found them to be very believable, as one can be in a fantasy anyway. I liked Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchette, I just need to see them again to get a better grasp on their characters. My daughter and her friends are drooling over the guy that played the blond archer elf, they think he's a hottie. And John Rhys-Davies never fails to disappoint. There were times when the movie was hard to follow for me and that may have been due to my ignorance of the books, but some of it was the movie. Some of the violence felt gratuitous and some of the battle scenes too long, especially the last one. When I start to wonder what the Foley Artist used to make certain sounds, the scene has gone on way too long. This isn't a movie for little kids. As far as finding God in the movie, not overtly. There was certainly a delineation between good and evil and temptations to overcome as the followed their quest or mission. Gandalf tended to remind me of a prophet more than anything else, Moses-like with that staff. Froto struck me as a reluctant prophet-in-training or a disciple who has been given their life's mission or an assignment they'd really rather take a pass on. I did feel that they would overcome and finish their mission, but only after a difficult and at times terrible journey with all kinds of tests and losses along the way. The one thing I haven't seen anybody comment on is the humor I saw in the movie. When the one Hobbit says something about "Doesn't he know about second breakfast?" and the other little meals Hobbits like got me laughing. And the joke about dwarf-tossing was hilarious and is very inside to New Zealand and Australia. The crowd in the theater we were in laughed at all the things we did. At one point I leaned over to my husband and told him I thought it was nice the Rancor monster in "Return of the Jedi" was still able to get work, because that's what one of the monsters looked like, another one looked like it came from another movie. We also figured out we are from the long-lost tribe of Hobbits because that's what we look like. It was nice to some of us vertically-challenged types in major screen parts. At the end I, like most of theater crowd I was with went, "That's it?, That's what we sat here for three hours for?!" "We want more!" To paraphrase Bilbo in the "Hobbit", "I don't like adventures, they make one late for dinner!" I'm glad LOTHR won the AFI best picture award, I can hardly wait for the next installment, even if it makes me late for dinner. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:11:12 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] Re: Pablo Neruda (was: _Don Quixote_) William Morris wrote: > Perhaps there's something else we could rumble about. Let's see. I'm not > too fond of Pablo Neruda's poetry, are you by chance a Neruda fan? I love Neruda. But that's part of my psychotic past. It's hard to talk about. I like the stuff he wrote in Madrid. I went to Spain one time. I guess I was closer to the edge at that time than ever. What really threw me Iguess was was the day I spent in Toledo. My father was telling me how it had been the western-most fortification of the Roman Empire and how every miltary power in Spain since then--Moors the various Christians-- had had a a garrison there. I went on the tour of the castle there and I thought it was just another mideval castle. I admired the srchitexture, the arrow-loops and this and that--all mideval stuff that had grown sterile over a thoousand years of not being used. The I noticed the old-fashoned hospital beds in a cordoned off room and a plack that said "This is where many heros died after making the ground holy with their blood (or something like that)." I was shocked--like a jolt of electricity. I was expecting mideval. Stuff from the barbaric past. But those beds were Nazi-type era, from about the thrities. It didn't fit. Nothing fit and I was so confused. Suddenly that whole place became too surreal. I remember a man with a rifle, but he wasn't there. And I remember rubble all over. And I almost started crying, because that meant we as a species hadn't learn anything for two thousand years. I finish the tour, but I was staring at my feet the whole time. In the last room there were pictures of General Franco standing in the rubble. On the way back to Madrid my father explained that was the site of one of the great decicive battles of the Spanish Civil War. I remember walking through Madrid and seeing a statue of Don Quixote off aways, and when I got close there were pok marks from bullets. That had kind of the same effect on me. It just didn't fit. When I needed it neruda was so comforting. I was so releived to know someone else had seen the blood in the streets and was shaken and horrified. Some one else knew "the blood of children runs like children's blood" I was so happy to finally have a friend who understood. I shouldn't have remembered all that. I hope things don't turn bad for me now. I don't want to go back there where things are dirty and there is no sun light. But sometimes I don't know what to do. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #578 ******************************