From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #639 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, March 8 2002 Volume 01 : Number 639 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:11:49 -0700 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Horn Tooting (Shelly Johnson-Choong Great to hear from you again, Shelly! And it's great to see that you've got another book out! - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:40:57 -0700 From: Jennifer Vaughn Subject: [AML] Popularity of M*A*S*H Along with the cultural quirks of Mormondom, I am curious to know why M*A*S*H (the TV show, not the movie) is so amazingly popular in Utah. Currently it is on at least four times a day (I don't know anything about programming occurring between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m., so another fifty episodes could probably be crammed in there somehow). Is it the general silliness (Trapper John/Frank Burns era) or the "family values" of the B.J. Honeycutt era (although he did succomb and cheat on his wife once) or just the bad acting (does it subconsciously remind Mormon viewers of roadshows)? Please enlighten me. (I was astounded when I first saw entire LDS families who otherwise eschewed TV and liberalism gather 'round the TV and laugh hysterically at the wife-cheating, sexist, anti-war antics. I guess I like M*A*S*H all right, but heck, I think even The Facts of Life is better.) In Utah but not of Utah, Jennifer Breinholt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:52:59 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello... Another cultural note. French people hate jello, saying they don't like the way it shakes just sitting there. And this from a people who don't at all mind eating frogs legs. Go figure. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:10:01 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Sugar Beet in SL City Weekly Gae Lyn wrote: <<< I must admit though that when I read the article about a certain authority figure in the actual paper I had a moment of pause. >>> I think the Packer piece cost us somewhat and taught me a little lesson. The only misgivings people have expressed to me personally were about the Packer piece (3 now, counting Gae Lyn), although I've also had people (well, a person) say they liked it. We had two Deseret News reporters pursuing us, but to my knowledge nothing has appeared, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's mainly because of the Packer piece. (I remember a Deseret News reporter pursuing me when I was 15 and publishing a successful Dungeons & Dragons magazine, but nothing appeared and I'm sure the editors filtered it out because of over-sensitivity about D&D.) I thought the Packer piece was quite benign, closely based on a true story involving my own boss and motivated mainly by feeling sorry for Elder Packer for having to be such a patriarchal paragon all the time. But using real GAs is a pretty big taboo, one even the City Weekly had us claiming we weren't going to do at all. I didn't see it as a mocking piece, more a slice-of-life kind of alternative viewpoint on the life of a GA. I saw it as nowhere near speaking evil of the Lord's appointed, which I've covenanted not to do. I'm sending up Neil LaBute next issue, so hopefully people will see we have balance. And I don't have any other real-GA pieces planned. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:15:10 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Educating an Audience Susan Malmose wrote: But I have no idea where to > start (one of the reasons I joined this list). I have of course read some > Card, because you can find him at used bookstores, but I'm not big on sci > fi. And I know I should check out my local DI, just haven't had time yet. > > One other thing that occured to me that may be holding me back from buying > LDS fiction is I have a bit of an aversion to Mormon culture in general. Being dyslexic I rarely buy LDS fiction. I have read a few LDS Fictions that make me tired--make me wish I had never read them. I never get tired of Levi Petersen, though. I bought Canyons of Grace twice. I bought The Backslider three times. I promise you--you will not get tired of those books. You will not be sorry to have read those books. You might even come to think of yourself a little magnificent. His characters come from many different segments of Mormon culture, but none of them eat jello. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:16:20 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Educating an Audience BJ Rowley wrote: > I, too, thoroughly enjoyed this session at the AML conference. But > the more I think about this whole issue of educating the LDS market, the > more I think that what's really needed here is VALIDATION -- not marketing. BJ goes on in his post to wish that the general authorities would provide a(nother) direct endorsement of the arts so that artists would be validated in their pursuits. A flippant response is to wonder why we seem to need explicit approval of the general authorities before we pursue a thing with vigor and a clear conscience--are we not agents unto ourselves and responsible to work out our own beliefs, to determine our own practices without specific and constant ongoing approval of our Church leadership (or parents, or professors, or social/political leaders)? Isn't it enough that we were commanded once; do we really need to be commanded again and again? Isn't it the slothful servant who needs to be commanded in all things; wasn't it the good and faithful servant who went out on his own and turned his five talents into ten--without the specific direction or approval of his master? Where's our backbone, our personal fortitude to encroach on the domain of the gods and create virtue on our own effort and responsibility? And yet... While I essentially believe in the need of the individual to discern, develop, and disseminate truth as they understand it, I also appreciate the power of leadership to provide the good report, the praise of virtue that in essence gives both author and reader permission to seek after a thing. In my own lament posted on this list some months ago I also talked about the issue of validation, of believing that what I'm doing with my writing has merit in and of itself, of needing to feel that there is some value in it. Validation is a powerful issue, and a core concern for both readers and writers alike. So my question is what consitutes validation? I'm not sure it's really part of the general authories' jobs to name names or endorse titles--in fact, I think it's important that they stay above such a discussion and speak only in the broadest possible terms so as to create fewer arguments and/or stumbling blocks. Does recognition and discussion on a list like this one count as validation? What about critical essays appearing in the various journals or presented at the AML annual meeting? Discussion in Mormon-lit classes or inclusion in recommended reading lists? How about the AML awards? What if there were to become a more active effort to publish/republish excellent works for Mormon audiences? Do we require the explicit approval of the general authorities, or can we find that approval and validation in other ways? Can we be validated as Mormon audiences when publishing with someone other than Deseret Book? This comes back to the issue of educating audiences. It seems to me that while it's certainly possible to educate people with prescriptive glee (this is how you should read Mo-lit; these are the titles you must read to be considered educated), I think this method is as likely to turn off non-academic readers and further the stratification of the learned vs. the populist as it is to encourage wider reading. Another method is to do what we do here--to discuss, to share our reasons for liking or disliking a work; perhaps even to argue with each other over whether the work is really worthwhile or not. Because many of our discussions stay at the personal level rather than getting into academic critical modes, I think such efforts remain accessible to ordinary readers (like me). Some excellent pop-critical work has been done on this List that deserves to reach wider distribution. The issue of validation has always been a part of producing work or an audience. As Mormons we have all the same concerns that most artists have (am I accepted by my target audience[s], be they critical or popular?), but further add the concern of ultimate validity (is my work virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy--is it *good* in a moral sense as well as well-wrought?). It's a tough row to hoe for Mormon artists. What constitutes validation? And what constitutes education? Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:03:56 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Educating an Audience In a previous post, Jacob Proffitt raises the question "*Does* the LDS audience need to be educated?" To which D. Michael replies: >There may be some pride > involved on our parts, but I think the "audience" is not blameless. > > I wonder how strongly we'd feel about educating the audience if we > didn't feel like the audience were judging us in the first place? From > extreme examples like a whole ward that believes reading fiction is > evil, to those who wonder why we ever have to show evil in our > literature, to those who think their personal standards of > appropriateness for literature should be carved in stone for everyone > else, I think there's a real desire among elements of the audience to > educate _us_ according to their moral tastes. > First, let me throw out there my belief that all audiences are educated and that such education (esp. in the form of print culture) has been crucial to the formation of community identities in the modern world--both national, ethnic and religious identity. If you agree with this premise it follows that: Because the official discourse of Mormonism already has a strong print culture (the scriptures, church magazines, and conference talks being the most widely-disseminated examples), it's easy to see why some Mormons don't feel the need for more. Their identity is already reinforced by the official discourse. This official discourse must by necessity be as orthodox as possible because it has to reach the widest swath of Mormon culture. This is further complicated by the fact that it is trying to reach an international audience along with an audience of converts that do not have the same cultural foundation as much of the 'historic' Mormon audience. I have no problem with this strategy although I think that the brethren could be a little less careful at times. I don't see Mormon literature as successfully challenging this discourse, nor do I think most Mormon artists want to do that. However, I do believe there is a field of struggle. Alongside the official Mormon discourse there are subsidiary discourses in the form of doctrinal commentary, non-fiction works (self-help), historical work, political discourse, and discourses built around things like food storage, family history, missionary work and 'Mormon values' (i.e. books and products that keep Mormons 'unspotted' from the world) etc. Part of the problem for Mormon literature, as I see it, is that many of these discourses are much better established than Mormon literature. Both in terms of market share and products available and in terms of what marketers call 'mind share' (the legitimacy of a product or brand in the minds of prospective consumers). One of the major difficulties that I see (and a criticism that I have) is that these discourses have been able to legitimize themselves by closely aligning themselves to the official Mormon discourse. In my mind, you can become a better latter-day saint by reading Mormon literature as much or even more so than reading some doctrinal or scriptural commentary. But that's because I've been educated (or educated myself mostly) to accept that premise. These discourses legitimize themselves, in part, by presenting the work of folks who have a high value to the Mormon audience (CES instructors, BYU faculty members, the relatives of general authorities, and in some cases, general authorities themselves i.e. many of the works that Deseret Book publishes). Mormon literature has a more difficult time with this approach because Mormon artists, for the most part, can't claim that same status, although it is heartening to see the way Margaret Young and Darius Gray's work is being marketed by Deseret Book. Nor do most want that status because literature, as a discourse, doesn't have the same constraints that these other Mormon discourses do. So I agree with D. Michael that Mormon artists should try and educate the Mormon audience. After all, they have already been educated to accept these other discourses. How ones goes about doing this is problematic for the reasons I list above. And I think that Jacob, in asking the question of whether or not the audience needs to be educated, bring up a good issue that those who would educate need to ask themselves. If our education is an attempt to supplant the official discourse, then I'm uncomfortable with it, and I think it is doomed to fail. If it is presented as an add-on, if it competes with (or complements) these subsidiary discourses, then I'm all for it. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:10:12 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Lime Jello... Anybody read Dave Berry's column on Sunday? He discussed a potluck community dinner in North Dakota that he attended, where residents were assigned one of three items: hot dish, bars (such as lemon, chocolate . . .) and Jell-O. He proceeds to describe and exaggerate the various things in the Jell-O, including vegetables and "office supplies." He even joked that the world Jell-O supply was in danger from North Dakotans (that might one might have been in the previous week's column). Sounds like it's not just a Mormon thing at all. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:28:12 -0600 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Finnish Saunas D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I'm sure all the scholars on the list understood this, but I have no idea what > Clark just said. I fear I've spent too much time in the company of English profs - I understood Clark and didn't break a sweat doing it. I think I'll grab my copy of _Discipline and Punish_ and bludgeon the post-modernist down the hall about the head with it. (And really, what sort of smug nincompoopery is it to call your approach to theory "post modern?" I think she's just earned an extra whack.) Not that there's anything intrinsically post-modern about semiotics - Umberto Eco's been been plying that trade for years, and he must be older than dirt. Besides, he sometimes lapses into perfectly clear English (well, Italian, but it would be clear English if he were from Brooklyn), and that's a sure sign that he has no business talking about modern theory, let alone post-modern. Makes you wonder what barber college sold _him_ a doctorate. Anyway, all that body-stuff Clark was talking about makes perfectly good sense, and it all boils down to the gaze ("G-A-Z-E," as Holly is always quick to note, probably afraid that the gay students will whack her over the head with her own Kristeva if she accuses them of eye-balling womyn like common tarts of the non-edible variety (no sniggers from the dirty-minded crowd in the galleries, thank you!)). Don't you notice how women are always primping and glossing and buffing their nails? It's The Gaze. They'd just as soon run around as naked as jay-birds, but their bodies have been symbologized and the Mormons probably want them to wear burkhas so all those protruding parts won't show and get mens' tongues wagging. And that's what we mean about linguistics and the politics of nakedness. I don't think _D&P_ will do the trick. Liza, where's that dratted baseball bat? Jim Picht - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:44:29 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Educating an Audience - ---Original Message From: Thom Duncan > > No argument from me. I *do* hate it when there is no hope in > > supposedly "LDS" fiction. > > What makes me nervous about this statement is its implication > that LDS > literature must "always" be hopeful. My preference is that > LDS fiction > always be truthful, regardless of whether that truth ends > hopefully or > not. > > Jacob's seeming insistence that all LDS work be hopeful > requires that an > artist end a play, novel, or book, with similar scenes of > hopefulness. > But what IF the writer happens to see a certain story as without hope > (in the here and now at least). Do they not have the right > to explore > those emotions? Thom, I *never* said that LDS literature should always be hopeful. I *don't* want all LDS work to be hope *full*. Explore all the emotions you want to. We do experience depression and darkness and all of that is important to recognize. What I object to is the *absence* of hope in a supposedly LDS work. Hope, faith, and the efficacy of repentance are core tenets of the gospel and a story that features LDS characters needs to reflect the availability of forgiveness, understanding, and reconciliation that our core doctrine implies. I don't mind at all if the characters don't avail themselves of the salvation available to them, or that they experience deeply depressing situations. Those things are all part of life. Frankly, I'm convinced that they are important parts of life and the test that we are asked to undertake by being here. But the message of the gospel is that God *is* there, he *is* available, comfort exists and is free to all who seek it. A supposedly LDS character (like the Father in "Faith of the Fathers") who experiences a deeply disturbing life event and *doesn't* turn to God and the gospel for insight and comfort is, IMO, not much of an LDS character--he's missing core aspects of vital LDS belief. And if that character is supposed to represent *general* LDS members (as in "Faith of the Fathers") then the story isn't much of an LDS one, IMO. He might not find the comfort he *expects* and he might not find it *when* he wants, and nothing in the gospel is exactly *easy*, but if it isn't even *sought* then I won't have much respect for that story. > > But you missed a category. You missed those who read with > the desire > > to see the darkest LDS flaws and hypocrisy exposed. I'm > afraid that a > > lot of my sensitivity to hopeless literature comes because > I know that > > there are those who glory in the fall of the righteous. > > We only glory in the fall of the pseudo-righteous, or the > hypocritically > righteous. I'm not really addressing you here, Thom. My statements above are deliberately broad because they deal with motivations and judgement. I would be reluctant to apply my general categorization to *anyone* on the list. I met some people during my undergraduate studies at BYU who were that way, so I know they exist. But even they may have changed during the intervening 8 years. > There are readers > > (and writers) who want to see our flaws exposed so that > they can tear > > us down to a more comfortable level. > > And there are those of who want our flaws exposed so that > they can help > others (and themselves) understand how human we all are. The > standard > Church view of Joseph Smith has him a little lower than the > angels but > closer to angels than human. Until I wrote a play about him and his > human failings, I was never able to fully understand what he > was like. > He was never more appealing, and never more prophetic, to me > than after > I knew that he once got so mad and a man that he kicked him down the > street, that he was so depressed the afternoon of his > martyrdom that he > knocked back a bottle of wine with Hyrum, John Taylor, and > Willard Richards. I don't like the setting of prophets on pedestals either. For one, putting people on pedestals means that they are comfortably separated from us--distant and unattainable. And impotent (which is why I object to people putting their wives on pedestals). I don't want to hide flaws, I'm just tired of the absence of characters who are honestly faithful and generally successful in their faith. If a work wants to depict Joseph Smith's weaknesses, then it had better deal with his considerable strengths as well. My gripe is that we seem to be stuck in an either/or mentality with most of what I see being lauded as superior quality falling into the "we're all hypocrites" camp. > Well, I resent the implication that literature must ALWAYS be > populated > by ONLY good and decent people who, if they make mistakes, always > repent, and live their lives in complete harmony with the Lord > thereafter. I think the world of Mormon literature is large > enough to > allow for both extremes and every variation in between. Who's asking for that? I certainly didn't. Frankly, I'm not a fan of *either* extreme. I'm a fan of complexity. Complexity is not only more interesting, it tends to be more true. Why does *every* bishop have to be incompetent, simple, or hypocritical? I'm griping about that because it *is* the tendency right now. If every bishop in our literature were portrayed as wise, benign, and capable I'd have a problem with that. What I want is more works like Eric Samuelson's layered "Gadianton" (I'm sorry to keep putting you on the spot, Eric. You just had the misfortune to produce a couple of plays that I think embody what I'm talking about) and less like "The Chastening". > We think we have a better version of Christianity so we feel > compelled > we must share it with the world. It is our religious duty, > in fact, to > do so. Similarly, and LDS artist may have an inner > compunction to share > his or her personal vision with a benighted, yet needy, public. Benighted and needy? Don't you find that condescending? You aren't a prophet on a hill with a divine right to call the masses to repentance for their literary habits. We don't have a message better than those readily available in the scriptures and General Conference. We might have something great to share that can entertain or assist others. But no matter how great *I* think it is, I have no right to judge those who decide to give it a miss--whatever their reasons. Missionaries are urged not to judge harshly those who reject their message (in modern times at any rate) and their message is infinitely more important that anything we can produce. Be grateful for those who want what we have to offer. Look for unfulfilled needs that we might be able to supply. But be very careful when tempted to judge those who find no value in our work. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:50:35 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Educating an Audience In reply to BJ Rowley's post, I'm forwarding (with his permission) a post from Richard Cracroft when I was getting his advice about doing an Irreantum interview with a GA. It touches on some points relevant to Rowley's post. (And it persuaded me to table the interview idea, even though I have a foot in the door with a Church Public Affairs executive who said he'd pursue the initiative on our behalf. Maybe we should pick up the idea in some other format, such as what Cracroft suggests or Rowley. My mind's not completely wrapped around the idea yet, so if anyone wants to help develop a pitch to someone at the Church to do something on the role of literature for Irreantum, let me know.) Dear Christopher Bigelow: I've just returned from a week away and have just now had time to respond to your query about interviewing Elder Holland. Upon consideration, I think I'll pass on this one, Christopher, primarily because my experience with the Brethren has led me to the realization that they are simply 1) not interested in declaring on matters of art, music and literature, because 2) those areas are so remote from their purposes of testifying of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 3) because whatever they say becomes definitive of "the Church" and becomes too binding upon fields which should not be bound. Recently one of the Irreantum writers on humor said he hoped the Church wouldn't declare on Humor and the Church; he's right; similarly, we don't want an aposte/prophet to speak so directly on literature as your questions request. His answers would only lead to controversy and upset. Instead of requesting answers to interview questions, why not ask Elder Holland to respond to his views on the uses of literature in the lives of Latter-day Saints. Such a general question might ellicit from Elder Holland a discourse such as that of President Kimball in his Second Century address at BYU in 1976--wherein he calls on the artists and writers of the Church to produce something commensurate to the message of the Restoration. Elder Holland touched on some of those matters several years ago (I believe he was still a Seventy at the time, so it must have been about 1993), in an address delivered to the faculty and students of the College of Humanities. He said, as I recall, that he had been moved by specific works of literature and told us why. But, as I recall, he then went on to show that, however important, literature is secondary and subservient to the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and must take second place to the purposes of the Gospel. I think that such a message must be and will always be forthcoming from the Brethren about art and literature. And to attempt to get them to declare more specifically is, I think, futile. I think that if I were to write Elder Holland, I would request that he address the matter as I have outlined--what is the role of literature in the lives of the Latter-day Saints? I'd be happy to sign my name to such a request. As Ever, Richard Richard H. Cracroft Professor of English Brigham Young University - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:58:55 EST From: DiannRead@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: Educating an Audience Gideon, Thanks for your comments. You said so well the kinds of things I've felt for a long time and reinforced my personal validation of my work. Diann Read - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:25:05 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Sign and Symbol (was: Finnish Saunas) At 01:15 AM 3/7/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Clark Goble wrote: > >"A general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals >especially with their function in both artificially constructed and >natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics." > >Now I don't understand what two people said. > Without, at any point, interpreting Clarks meaning, I will attempt, in very few words to explain a point that Korzibski spent an entire book confusin me about. In the early study of language (early, really meaning early to middle twentieth century) some (semanticist) scholars divided those phenomena which affect meaning in communication into two categories-- symbols-- meaning phenomena that carried meaning (words in particular) and -- signs or signals-- (those things that affect meaning without interpretation or really carrying intrinsic meaning because we have trained ourselves to react to them without thinking. (Sometimes these two are words, but words to which we react non-intellectually.) A stop sign, for instance, is a signal which causes reaction without one usually thinking about it. Words too can be signals or signs for some people though they may have started out "with" meaning. For instance the word s*** once had a clear single (semantic) meaning as feces or solid excrement. Over time the word has become S*** which may have that meaning but more often is just an explosion of angry sound. If one hits one's finger with a hammer "S***" is a legitimate statement (if uncouth), but people would think you had lost your mind if you hit your finger with a hammer and said "feces", because feces is still a symbol to which one attributes clear meaning. In that way , Mormon is a legitimate symbol to some, with a definition and some clarity of meaning while others hear the word and want to upchuck or throw rocks without any reflection--So it can be either a symbol or a signal depending on the user (Most ethnic epithets, most profanity therefore sits in the realm of sign or signal _having no intrinsic meaning but affecting the interpretation of all the symbols that precede or follow it. Thinking about that last sentence, along came, not semanticists, but semioticians (creaters of semiotic theory) who decided that the affects of signals is so significant that they must be treated as more than button pushing epithets but as elements that convey meaning in themselves. Many non-verbal things that were considered signals without real meaning became signals WITH meaning. This included a lot of non-verbal things like the way you comb your hair, how low your pants, whether your undershorts show above your belt when you are dressed, whether your shirts (this is dated folks) have little alligators on the left breast etc. It is in this context that semiotics have signs included with linguistsic (_originally_ spoken) phenomena as contributing to meaning. I think that is how "the body as language" comes to have linguistic meaning. How one dresses, or doesn't and/or how one moves dressed or undressed has as much intrinsic meaning to semioticians (really to anyone if you take the time to analyze) as what one says, and the tone in which it is said. Boy, that looks complicated for what started out to be a simpification. But it is the quick and dirty substitute for a ten page essay with footnotes. My original graduate semantics teacher would stare and stutter at it, but he was also a phenomenologist which adds about three more levels of complexity that we don't even want to think about. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Teacher, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:35:49 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Educating an Audience My standard is, personally, I never read anything by non-LDS writers. = Ever. Of course, my definition of 'LDS writers' is 'writers who are = currently members of the Church, or, in my opinion, based on their = writing, are likely to become LDS in the afterlife.' Widens the field = considerably. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:56:45 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Depicting of Hope (was: Educating an Audience) Thom Duncan wrote: > Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > Jacob's seeming insistence that all LDS work be hopeful requires that an > artist end a play, novel, or book, with similar scenes of hopefulness. > But what IF the writer happens to see a certain story as without hope > (in the here and now at least). Do they not have the right to explore > those emotions? Actually, I'm not sure that either Jacob or anyone else requires much of anything from anyone on the issue. Each of us is allowed to practice our own beliefs in fiction, just as in life. But when we put a story out into the world we also invite people to challenge the assumptions in that story, and to express their beliefs about how well those stories do or don't touch on their own concepts of what it means to be Mormon. It seems to me that Jacob finds it hard to accept the explicit Mormonness of a story that doesn't address the issue of hope, since hope is such a fundamental part of the gospel that brings us together. I think I agree with him more than I disagree, because while I'm not sure that any of us can legitimately demand that anyone else follow a specific formula or cease to call themselves or their work Mormon, I still think that a failure to address hope as a foundational concept in the Mormon worldview makes for an incomplete Mormon story. That inherent incompleteness then begs the question of honesty in both the "all is wonderful" story as well as the "everything sucks then you die" story. I know that in my own case I think hope can be addressed in any number of ways, including (but not limited to) the following: * Showing the outward expression of hope. Be it in the form of an explicit reconciliation, a glorious redemption, or public forgiveness, the direct expression of hope says that no matter what went before there remains strong hope in the minds of the characters. * Showing the inward expression of hope. This is the story I tend to tell most often, where outward events tend to be dark or difficult, but where the character finds inner hope and a desire to continue despite those events. To me this is how the Book of Mormon and the story of the martyrdom end. Moroni didn't mope; while he certainly mourned the passing of his own people he also looked forward to the glorious hope of restoration and redemption possible for those who would find and read his account. Despite the fact that the bad guys win, the overarching message is of hope. Telling the story of how Joseph Smith was killed by evil men and emphasizing how his greatness came to naught is a hopeless story; everyone loses. Telling how Joseph Smith stayed true to his testimony and sealed his faith with his blood is a story of hope; Joseph Smith wins in eternity despite his violent mortal death. Showing how the legacy of the church that Joseph Smith founded survived even his death and led to the redemption and eternal salvation of millions is an extraordinarily hopeful story. I find that a story that emphasizes the brutal nature of his death but doesn't speak to his own hope for building the literal kingdom of God on earth stops short of telling the whole story of JS. Horrible events, yes. Hopeless situation and outcomes, not by a long shot. * Showing the explicit lack of hope. In this story everyone dies and nothing worthwhile is accomplished now, later, or ever. If a Mormon offers this story as a reflection of universal truth, I think that Mormon has failed to understand the vast hope that the gospel is founded on. If a Mormon offers that story as the real and valid mindset of someone who has no belief in a greater hope, then the story functions as a sort of warning and actually argues very much for the importance of hope in mitigating the ugly experiences so many of us have. Rather than cheering the lack of hope we read that lack as a sad thing to be overcome in our own lives if at all possible. A lot of people don't like this kind of story. They see enough hopelessness in their own experience and want to see how hope can at least mitigate pain if not eliminate it. I can't argue with them on that issue; the stories I tell from my own perspective must contain at least the suggestion of hope (though often the suggestion of it is all my stories contain--still, it's in there). ===== I'm not personally convinced that hope and happy endings are the same thing. Many a happy ending is devoid of hope, and many a dark ending contains a powerful conviction that hope will be realized if not in this generation then in the next, if not in this life then in the next. Hope and happy are different concepts, though I think hope implies at least peace if not cheeriness. > The story of the Texas (?) who drowned her five children is about as > hopeless as you can get without forcing an ending where we see her kids > redeemed in the afterlife. How is that an explicitly Mormon story? If the woman was Mormon, then the issue of hope is very much a part of the story and it becomes nearly critical that the author address the question of how she so completely lost hope--or whether she continues to have any hope for her children, if not herself. If the story avoids the issue of hope, then it ignores the whole concept of the atonement and the hope it represents. If a Mormon tells the story as a non-denominational tale, I still think the author has to grapple internally with the issue of hope and that this Mormon mindset will inform the telling of that story. In my case, I could tell the story as an illustration of the downside of an utter lack of hope--showing the fact of hope through its opposite. Or I could tell the story as a twisted form of hope; a loving mother putting her children through a moment's pain in the hope of saving them from greater pain later on. A broken Christ. Or I could tell the story as a journalist, trying to show only what was in her mind--but at that point I'm telling her story and not mine. My role as a storyteller is reduced to a description of her mind, not an exploration of mine. My Mormonness becomes irrelevant to the story and what remains is hard to classify as Mormon lit except in the fact of my membership. > We only glory in the fall of the pseudo-righteous, or the hypocritically > righteous. I'm not convinced that glorying in the fall of anyone is really all that nice a thing to do--even when they deserve it. But that's a discussion of personal philosophy, not fictional esthetic. > Well, I resent the implication that literature must ALWAYS be populated > by ONLY good and decent people who, if they make mistakes, always > repent, and live their lives in complete harmony with the Lord > thereafter. I think the world of Mormon literature is large enough to > allow for both extremes and every variation in between. I didn't hear Jacob say that. What I think I did hear was a desire to see more stories that dealt with hope and redemption, stories that show possibility of success rather than the inevitability of failure. He's allowed to wish for stories of hope and dislike those containing none of it. I think this is where the issue derails for me. Showing faults (or warts) isn't the same thing as glorying in them or using them to debunk the idea of hope. Showing repentence and redemption isn't the same thing as glossing over the unpleasant or denying that evil people often do prosper in this life. But Mormons do believe that everything will eventually be set right (if only after our deaths), and that belief must inform our storytelling somehow. If it doesn't, then I don't think we're telling true stories--which is the one theoretical commonality among all of the approaches: that good fiction tells true stories. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #639 ******************************