From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #651 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 Monday, March 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 651 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:14:31 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Literary Theory / BYU Eng dept I'm pleased to hear from Gideon that things have changed from how I saw them, at least, while I was at BYU, and from what friends of mine described in the early 1990s. I really don't think that "armed camps" is an overstatement of what was the case then, but of course, in any department as large as BYU's, there will be many different simultaneous realities for different people. It may simply be that my friends and I were caught up in the worst of it (through no desire on my part, I might add). I can say without unfairness that relatively few English classes during my time at BYU (that I attended), either undergraduate or graduate, addressed the question of why what we were studying was important, and fewer still related this to the gospel. I don't recall getting a sense from nearly any of my professors of why they thought that English studies was worth spending one's life in--or at least, why it was worth spending their own life in. And yet they clearly thought it was, or they wouldn't have been doing what they were doing. Perhaps they thought this was a becoming reticence, this avoidance of the personal in their classes. I can only say that I for one would have welcomed it. (I'm including, here, many professors for which I have the highest esteem personally and professionally; indeed, I think those are probably the ones I would have most liked to "bear their testimony" of the importance and relatively value of literature and literary studies.) But again, each person's experience will be different. If BYU is, as Gideon says, "the heart of most of this sort of productive integration of things Mormon and the world of literary theory," then I think it has been hiding its light under a bushel--or rather, to stay with his metaphor, the circulatory system is doing very poorly at pumping things out to those of us in other parts of the body. Yes, there's a lot of past history of such efforts, including those Gideon mentioned and others as well. (I'm very fond, for example, of a little volume by Marden Clark titled _Liberating Form_ with some essays on literature and the gospel.) But if the conversation is taking place there these days--or rather, I should say, to the degree that the conversation is taking place there--I think it's fair to say that we see very little spillover into venues like this one. So I'd agree that the BYU English department has an image problem in the larger world of Mormon letters--not entirely unjustified, in my view, in light of past history, though perhaps inapplicable now. To the degree that it is unjustified, it is only through information like Gideon's post (and Bruce Young's) that we are likely to learn differently. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List (B.A. in English, BYU, 1986; M.A. in English, BYU, 1990) jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:49:38 -0700 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Writers @ Work Conference Writers @ Work, recipient of the 1999 Governor's Award in the Arts, would like to welcome you to Writers @ Work 2002 at Westminster College in Salt Lake City. We are looking forward to our fourth year on the beautiful Westminster campus and our seventeenth year as an organization. Every summer since 1985 emerging writers have discovered guidance and encouragement from a dedicated Writers @ Work faculty. Our faculty includes nationally renowned authors, editors and agents who have a generosity of spirit that makes Writers @ Work an outstanding and unique conference. We hope you will join us at our home at Westminster College June 23-28 as we provide a quality experience for the beginning, as well as the more experienced writer. We have planned a curriculum that we think will fill the needs of writers at all levels; from workshops where students get valuable feedback about their own manuscripts to craft classes that will include in-class writing, feedback and craft discussions. We have also included Blank Page workshops, where students can learn to spark their creativity when facing that blank page of paper. See http://www.writersatwork.org for complete descriptions of events and faculty and a registration form. Workshops: $395.00 Each workshop is held Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 Noon. Enrollment includes workshop, afternoon sessions (excluding "The Blank Page"), and a 30-minute manuscript consultation with a visiting writer, editor, or agent. Enrollment is limited to 15 students per workshop. Afternoon Panels: Held daily at 1:30 and 3:00. These sessions are designed to provide practical insight into the process of writing and submitting your work for publication. Attend as many as your schedule allows for $75.00 (included in the price of workshop). Blank Page: John Gregory Brown, Monday, June 24th and Tuesday, June 25th from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. $125.00 (now six hours of workshop instead of four!) Combo Afternoons: the Blank Page workshop and afternoon sessions $175.00 (a savings of $25.00) Roundtable Box Lunch Discussion with Editor or Agent from noon to 1:30 p.m. $15.00 (For full workshop participants only. Registration necessary. Contact Lisa Peterson by Sunday, June 23 for available schedule and registration.) Young Writers @ Work is a program designed for aspiring writers ages 15 to 19. Tuition includes workshops daily from 9:00 - noon, followed by activities and group sessions ending at 4:00 daily. Students are also encouraged to attend evening readings and activities. Check out our Young Writers web page for more information and scholarship applications. SCHEDULE Sunday 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. Conference Registration 6/23/02 1 - 2 p.m. Fiction: Craft Orientation Fiction: Short Story Workshop Orientation Fiction: Novel Workshop Orientation Poetry Workshop Orientation Nonfiction Workshop Orientation Young Writers Orientation 2 - 2:30 p.m. General Orientation 2:30 - 4:30 p.m. Ice Breaker 4:30 - 8:30 p.m. Readings Monday 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Fiction: Craft Workshop 6/24/02 Fiction: Short Story Workshop Fiction: Novel Workshop Poetry Workshop Nonfiction Workshop Young Writers Workshop 12 - 1:30 p.m. Open Mike Readings Round Table Box Lunch Discussion 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Young Writer Event Panel #1 Publishing 101: The basics of publishing your first work Panel #2 Researching Voices in History 3 - 4:30 p.m. Young Writer Event Panel #1 Speculative Fiction (Sci-fi/Fantasy): What are the modern implications and craft of the genre? Panel #2 Uncovering the Urban Legend 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Blank Page 1 - Writing Workshop 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Readings Tuesday 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Workshops 6/25/02 12 - 1:30 p.m. Open Mike Readings Round Table Box Lunch Discussion 1:30 - 3:00 p.m Young Writer Event Panel #1 Poetic Form as Anticipatory Gesture Panel #2 Place as Character in Fiction and Non-fiction 3 - 4:30 p.m. Young Writer Event Panel #1 The Mentor's Craft: Teaching Creative Writing Panel #2 Across the Arts: Film, Dance, Visual Art, Spoken Word 4:30 - 7:30 p.m. Blank Page Writing Workshop 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Readings Wednesday 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Workshops 6/26/02 12 - 1:30 p.m. Open Mike Readings Round Table Box Lunch Discussion 2:00 - 5:30 p.m. Free day - Extracurricular and outdoor activities available 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Autograph Party, King's English Bookshop 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Readings Thursday 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Workshops 6/27/02 12 - 1:30 p.m. Open Mike Readings Round Table Box Lunch Discussion 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Young Writer Event Panel #1 Using Memory, Writing Memoir Panel #2 Advanced Publishing: Launching the Book-length Work 3 - 4:30 p.m. Young Writer Event 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. Readings 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Readings 8:45 - 9:00 p.m. W@W party--dancing, entertainment, food, and spirits Friday 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. Workshops 6/28/02 12 - 1:30 p.m. Open Mike Readings Round Table Box Lunch Discussion 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Young Writer Event Panel #1 Creativity Blast: An Interactive Panel Panel #2 The Writer in the Work: Authorial Distance Across Genres 3 - 4:30 p.m. Young Writer Event 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. Readings 8:30 p.m. - Conference farewell social - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:25:22 -0800 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Trauma and Good Writing (was: Good Mormon Lit) > The bigger question in my mind, is why are so many who write good LDS > fiction either expatriates or dissatisfied, or hmmm....what would the PC way > to put it be..."less faithful"...? Can one be a peaceful, contented, > believing LDS person and write good fiction? Maybe this is a faulty > observation on my part, but it just seems that minds who can create > something free of trite didacticism are also minds who eventually give up on > the LDS faith and choose another path. Either that or they are shut out of > the community, as Maureen Whipple and others of the "lost generation" of LDS > authors experienced in their lifetimes. This reminded me of a quote by one of my favorite authors, Pat Conroy: "One of the greatest gifts you can get as a writer is to be born into an unhappy family." (One of the reasons I love him is he's one of the few people who must've come from a family even more messed up than mine.) I'm curious what everyone thinks. (Maybe this has been discussed before?) Do you have to have experienced a lot of emotional trauma to be a good writer? And how does this relate to the issue raised above? Susan Malmrose - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:47:51 -0700 From: "K.D. Enos" Subject: [AML] Publicity for AML (was: Good Mormon Lit) Kim, I found AML through a newspaper article on Marilyn Brown and the contest they have at Cedar Fort (I think it's every two years). It had an e-mail address and Marilyn responded telling me about AML. Konnie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:05:29 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: "Name Withheld" Sugar Beet article Linda Adams wrote: > (wow, did that actually make sense? did my brain actually function > coherently to put ideas together, or am I dreaming? ...I think it's my > brain that's suffered the most with this pregnancy and childbirth--I'm > still recovering...) Did you know that a woman's brain literally shrinks during pregnancy? It's true! I read it in a reputable medical journal. Explains a lot, doesn't it? :-) By the way, Linda, I loved your post. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:39:12 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] RE: Publicity for AML - ---Original Message From: Kim Madsen > I must say I'm a living example of a searching audience > member who has had a difficult time connecting to excellent > LDS literature. This place (AML list) has been the biggest > treasure trove of all for me, and I found out about it by > accident. I joined a cyber-writer's group on Hatrack River > (OSC's site), and was told about it by the group moderator, > Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury. Thanks, Kathleen! I'd say, outside > of academia, this place needs some PR. There are a lot of > searching readers who don't move in those circles, and so, > like me, are outside the loop. And that's probably another > entire discussion that you've all had time and time again... Well said. I still wonder why I never hear about AML on the LDS-Gems mailing list. We get news items from every other possible LDS source, but I didn't hear about the AML awards there, the election of a new president, the issue of Irreantum dedicated to Gene England, etc. All of those things should have been news releases on the LDS News list. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:37:58 EST From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: [AML] Mormons and Soldiers I had tried to post once before and was asked to post in plain text but I=20 can't find ay option for that on my CompuServe e-mail. I hope this is=20 acceptable. I think that much of the US Church membership has a dual image of military= =20 service. They do serve when drafted and will insist that they support the=20 government and that military service is honorable but there is a reluctance= =20 to have your son or (heaven forbid) daughter choose a military career. I=20 think that this prejudice is not as prevalent as when I was a young adult=20 (1960-1970) but that may be a false impression generated by the active=20 military service of two of my nephews. =20 I think we can see a few things in history that have lead to this attitude. = =20 There is still a memory that lingers in the heart of the Church of Utah= being=20 invaded by the United States Army. If my great grandfathers couldn't=20 remember the event they certainly were raised by people who could. The=20 attitude of most people in the church up into the middle of the 1900s was=20 that Church membership was not appreciated out of the Rocky Mountains. Men= =20 were not about to leave the Wasatch Front to serve in a military that seemed= =20 to be hostile to them because of their faith. The US military did not even= =20 recognize their religion. My father and Uncle were drafted for the Korean= =20 conflict and their dog tags were stamped "o" for "other" in the place where= =20 religion was indicated. I remember the Ensign article which told how neat it= =20 was thatthe military would now indicate on your dog tag thatyou were a= Mormon=20 and that there are now a handful of Chaplains who are LDS. The atmosphere in= =20 a military barracks was generally not thought of as a place to grow=20 spiritually but a huge trial to overcome. I think my grandparents prayed=20 more on behalf of the spiritual well being of my Dad and my mother's brother= =20 during Korea than they did for their physical safety Another big issue was military and mission service. For some reason the=20 general view of all the young men I knew at BYU and at home (Montana) in= High=20 School was that military service would exclude a mission. Maybe it was the= =20 emphasis in the 1970s on getting married soon after a mission that made most= =20 men I knew not consider military service even after a mission. My BYU Ward= =20 had a few military veterans but they almost always came from families that= =20 could never have supported them financially on a mission or send them=20 college. They were attending college on the GI Bill and were also much older= =20 than the average (at least the ancient age of 25 or 26) and my 19 and 20= year=20 old apartment thought they were too old for us to date even when they asked= =20 us out.=20 Military service was seen as interrupting family life. Military men were=20 often gone from home and families would have to often relocate to places=20 where there was little or no Church organization. Heaven forbid if your= famly=20 would have to live in North Carolina or Alabama! Because of the distrust of the military institutions, not many young Mormon= =20 men who were well educated or dedicated to the Church joined the military in= =20 my time and I don't know of a single active young women of my era who even= =20 considered it. As a result, just being in the military was seen to be=20 evidence by many that you were not a good member of the Church.=20 Gradually, these attitudes are changing. I remember being a bit surprised=20 when they started to announce at Stake Conference the number of missionaries= =20 serving from the Stake and the number serving in the military from the= Stake.=20 It seemed to me that the unspoken message was that military service was as= =20 honorable as missionary service. Because I came from this Mormon background= =20 I had a very poor image of men who chose the military. I had an opportunity= =20 to tour a working military vessel when I lived in Portland, Oregon in the=20 late 1980s and was extremely surprised at how wonderful the young men=20 assigned to the ship seemed to be. They were bright, dedicated and very=20 impressive. I felt like I was seeing a bunch of missionaries at the MTC.= I'm=20 proably typical of many LDS in my suprise that a military man could be=20 something other than a tattooed, smoking menace to my daughters. If the attitudes of the Church members are changing, the military has also= =20 changed. One of my sons seriously considered attending a Military Academy= =20 because it is now possible to serve a mission and return to the Academy. =20 That was not an option just a few years ago. My nephews are in the Army=20 National Guard and in the Marine Reserves and have been able to sign up for= =20 six years active and two years inactive service. The inactive service has=20 been their mission. (The Marine is on his mission now and his unit was just= =20 called to active duty but he will stay a missionary until his two years are= =20 up.) Maybe the attitude towards the military was the result of the average member= =20 of the Church not studying our own sacred literature enough. No one my age= =20 seemed to know anything about Captain Moroni, who was a career military=20 leader if there ever was one, and was described by Mormon as what every man= =20 should aspire to be. Perhaps another failing has been that those who served= =20 in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam have been reluctant to tell their stories. = Having=20 national projects such as the Veteran Project which is doing oral histories= =20 has inspired Mormon off shoots and books. These WW2 Mormon Vets came home= =20 and pretty much buried their experiences. Telling those stories may help us= =20 all to appreciate how anyone someone can be a solder and a Latter Day Saint= =20 at the same time. =20 Cathryn Lane Little Rock, AR - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:15:06 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: "Marsha" Subject: [AML] Sensual Poetry (was: Desensitized Nudity) "This all points back to our acculturation--what we've learned as we grew up I think it is true that nudity does not necessarily mean sexuality. And I also believe that it's worth thinking about how we perceive sexual response. Cathy Gilead I'm completely with Cathy. I was raised with a healthy attitude towards sexual feelings and behaviors I believe, but I know many who were not. Many friends whose marriages have suffered much because of it. All right, going out on a shaky brittle limb here. I write erotic poetry. It may not be the taste for some, and it is not explicit, but I guess I have wondered for a long time now if there is a market for it in LDS homes? I call it "Sensual Elegance". It is not LDS in content, just relationships between a man and a woman. I've often thought that I wished there was something for me to send my husband that would be the beginning point of a wonderful sharing. I found nothing . . . and so wrote it myself. Now I have about 40 of them, sharing different experiences of intimacy, distance, joy, wishing to get close again, all sorts of sentiments that we go through in our long term relationships. All of that said, my question is this. . . is there a market? Is there a publisher that would publish it? (( on the determination that it is good of course )) Any thoughts would be appreciated I don't know who else to ask. . . so, a private response would be fine, but if you have an opinion, I'd love to know it. [MOD: I have no objection to a more general discussion of the place of such things in the Mormon market, in particular.] Marsha [Steed] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:28:42 -0700 From: Laraine Wilkins Subject: Re: [AML] J.C. Duffy on _Brigham City_ [MOD: I'm adding a "spoiler alert" here that this post, like most others on this thread, reveals details about the plot. However, I also have to say that in general, when you read a post related to a specific work of literature/movie/whatever on AML-List, there's every likelihood that this will be the case, and I don't think this is something that the author of a post should need to signal. Caveat lector.] I've been lurking for several months now, and I just can't resist continuing the thread on J.C. Duffy's paper on _Brigham City_. Before I get into what I really have to say, I'll introduce myself briefly. I live in the Boston area for right now, am a graduate student trying to get a degree in German literature. I don't know if I'll stay much longer, as other things are calling out to me with more persistence. I know several names on the list from elsewhere--either because I've read your work, or have crossed paths with you in other Mormon-related venues. I hope you'll say hello if the latter is the case... But on to my real point. I found Duffy's paper very thought-provoking, but I was surprised at his negative assessment. I saw the film to be incredibly sensitive in asking hard questions about evil and forgiveness, without really giving clear answers. In my opinion, the black-and-white / us-vs.-them mentality is something Duffy reads into the film, unjustifiably. The film is, in fact, a gem of a work that explores vast gray territories against a background of black-and-white small-town mentalities. For example: When Duffy discusses the character of Terry and points out that he is, in fact, not "one of us," but rather an outsider, I would argue that this is precisely where the gray area of "insider" vs. "outsider" comes to the fore. Terry has been accepted as a full-fledged member of the community, largely because he knows small-town life--he fits in. If I remember correctly, he was himself a product of Snowflake, Arizona, not exactly a thriving metropolis on the eastern seaboard. In fact, Brigham City and Snowflake are both Mormon communities, sister towns, in a way, whose original settlers came from the same stock and whose inhabitants have a similar sense of Mormon identity (why else would the Church build a temple in Snowflake?). If Snowflake, Arizona could produce a rapist/serial killer, why couldn't Brigham City? If the citizens of Snowflake can't accept him or forgive him, then what is a recently released criminal to do? Go somewhere else where they know and trust his type (young, clean-cut, do-gooder), but where they don't know him personally. What the film seems to be asking is what forgiveness really means? Both for the sinner (killer) and for the victim (potential victim, guardian of the community)? Is true repentance actually possible for someone with such grossly pathological behavior? Can such a person actually change? How do we love and forgive someone with such terribly destructive behavior? Another example: Duffy cites the motivation for Wes not taking the sacrament as self-blame for his part in the murder tragedy. But I wonder if it could also be a sense of guilt over having killed someone? Perhaps he even liked it (at least a little bit--as Duffy himself cites the lines where Wes confesses his discovery of liking to kill rabbits)? Perhaps he understands what he has done has caused incredible pain to Terry's wife, as he himself has lost a wife and child to a tragic death? Perhaps he also realizes that it is impossible for him to protect the community, in either the spiritual or the secular sense? He has not been able to "cure" the member of his congregation who is addicted to porn, for example; and he has violated this person's legal right to privacy by insisting on an illegal search of his home. There is simply no way for Wes not to feel some heavy sense of guilt about what he's done, both as the town's sheriff and as the town's bishop. The real message for me is that this becomes the moment when the meaning of the atonement can take effect--when one reaches the point that one realizes that there is no way to live a life free of evil influences, free of harmful acts. The feeling of unworthiness is, ironically, necessary for true forgiveness to take place. And somehow the congregation seems to sense that. It seems to me that they all come to a realization together that, if their well-meaning, kind, and generally competent community leader can't make everything work out, then they might also have a hard time feeling blameless. A final example: Duffy argues: "The Saints have had a horrific experience, but they've learned from it how to protect themselves, and their virtue, from the threat posed by the outside world. The black and white worldview, the siege mentality, has prevailed." I don't think they've learned how to protect themselves; they only know that they're not invulnerable ("Hmm... so I guess we really don't live in the Garden of Eden any more. Gee.") Perhaps they are only wiser about their own tendencies to judge based on outward appearance. Indeed, perhaps we as viewers are meant to become aware of our tendencies to believe fictions. The film sets us up to believe that the most likely suspects are the "outsiders." The most suspicious characters in the town seem to be those who aren't Mormon. The local bar is where Wes has his secretary/assistant go undercover to get fingerprints from all the glasses. And, well, I guess you'd have to say a lot of them are truckers, so not necessarily from the town. But they would also have to be NOT Mormons, at least not active ones. They are all under suspicion; yet none of them are guilty. And then there's the recently-baptized fiance of Wes's assistant (sorry I don't remember her name). Remember the tense scenes toward the end of the movie where she's driving home with her fiance? We are led to suspect the fiance is the killer, and she the next victim. The film seems to implicate the audience, in fact, for being duped into believing that this "outsider" is the next likely suspect. But we are wrong--just like Wes, just like the townspeople. And while I felt a bit manipulated by this strategy, I have to wonder if Dutcher's trying to get us to ask ourselves what part we, as viewers, as members outside of the fictitious community he's created, have to play in making wrong judgments based on unreliable evidence and Hollywood tradition. - --Laraine Wilkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:57:19 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Literary Theory / BYU Eng dept - ---Original Message From: Gideon Burton > BYU's English department received some negative attention a > few years ago due to several faculty who left or who were > let go, most notably two feminists. This was a great setback to > feminism at BYU and to literary theory generally here, > because all parties involved might've handled things better > and in the end there was a taint on the people, the literary > theory, and the department. In that sort of context it was > possible for much contemporary criticism to be characterized > as dangerous and extreme, at odds with orthodox Mormon > thought or behavior. And yes, this was a time of some intense > factionalism within the department as loyalties to the people > involved, to the social issues involved, to the church and > the curriculum and the students all got quite confused. > Tempers flared. Letters were written. Lawsuits were > threatened. Friendships and students suffered. I'm going to guess that you are referring here to 92-95ish. That's when I attended BYU (I graduated in '94 with a degree in English). Having participated as a student and sometime TA, I don't like the throw-away here that "all parties involved might've handled things better." While this is undoubtedly true, I don't think it is particularly accurate. I can see that it is one way to bandage a wound so that past conflicts do not erupt into present distress. But I think it also makes unfair moral equivalencies that, in the end, do us a disservice. I think that one or two professors abused their positions in a way that caused active harm to students, faculty, and department reputation. They may have had the best of intentions and been honestly convinced that their opinions were right and their actions justified, but that doesn't mean that they are correct in their convictions or that they should be excused for their violations of trust (in my mind). Students, other faculty, and the administration reacted in ways that people will when they are hurt or attacked--defensiveness, counter-attack, diplomacy, recriminations, ignorance, etc. In its sphere, it was quite traumatic and while we might all honestly have handled things better, the bulk of the "blame" lies with those who deliberately undermined communication and subverted their positions of trust to indoctrinate questing/questioning students. I don't like that they can be so easily let off with what amounts to a condemnation of all involved. They may not have been the only ones who did wrong, but they *were* the ones who precipitated the argument and enhanced the damage by refusing to communicate honestly and by misrepresenting themselves in a way that widened the conflict. That said, it *was* something of a tempest in a tea-cup. The potential for harm of one or two maverick professors among so many who were qualified, honest, and sincere is really quite small. The rest of the BYU faculty, while no doubt hurting in their own ways, were very open and accepting of student inquiries and patient and measured in their responses. At least, as I experienced it at the time. Interestingly, I entered the BYU English department a self-described feminist and left with the determination to separate myself as much as possible from that label and accompanying movement. > I must say that even at its very worst in terms of some inner > factions, BYU's English department never approached the > internecine, highly politicized and public wrangles of many > other universities in the country. Syracuse comes to mind as > a particular embarrassment. I have seen close friends have > their graduate careers completely sabotaged because of the > infighting among their professors over literary theory. That > does not happen at BYU, or if it has it has really been the > exception. BYU's English department remains an intensely > student-friendly place. And that is exactly what I was trying to say above. I thought BYU was extremely student-friendly and I have no trouble imagining that it continues to be so. > We have had many feminist critics, some of whom > have made great efforts to tie their feminism to the ethical > dimensions of their Mormon faith (Susan Howe, for example). Susan Howe taught the Victorian Women's Literature class I have mentioned a couple of times before on the list. I *greatly* enjoyed her class and think she is one of the best professors I had at BYU. She single-handedly rescued feminist critique for me as a viable critical view-point. She was open to discussion and comment, deftly avoided excesses by individual students, and still delivered a strong framework for feminist literary evaluation. I am *so* glad she is still teaching at BYU. I am glad that BYU was (in the end) able to differentiate between her strong and honest feminist representation and the others who I saw as damaging to the department. In my experience (both at BYU and since), Susan Howe is an all-too-rare example of ethically, principled applied feminist perspective without the excesses that, IMO, violate essential gospel principles. Feminism has a tough time because there are valid points of criticism with male hierarchies past and present but it is difficult to get at the causes and effects that lie at the heart of those valid criticisms. Some take the easy out and simply condemn all forms of hierarchy as male and inherently abusive. Unfortunately, that doesn't set well within a gospel that is organized around a priesthood hierarchy. Susan Howe is a great example of someone who is able to handle that kind of complexity with grace and communicate her position in a way that is nuanced and can allow examination of core beliefs and complex cause-effect relationships without polarizing discussion around self-interested, defensive camps. > There is a far richer amount of good-faith and good quality > efforts to integrate literary theory and Mormonism than has > been acknowledged, but it takes the patience to look for it. > We could and should do better to encourage and publicize such > efforts, but it is incorrect and not very fair to generalize > that such efforts are not being made, especially at BYU, > which is the heart of most of this sort of productive > integration of things Mormon and the world of literary theory. I hope that my discussion of canon hasn't been seen as directed harshly at BYU. I'm afraid that Gideon is right that many of my comments are due to my BYU experience during a time of extraordinary conflict. My concerns with agendized professors stem directly from that experience and from reports from other campuses that indicate that BYU is a small example of a wider academic trend. I know that agendized professors exist who are willing, and even eager, to violate their positions of trust to push their ideas for reform in ways I find abhorrent. I should make it explicit that in my experience at BYU I only knew of one or two professors that evoke those fears, those professors no longer teach at BYU, and that all the other English professors at BYU were outstanding in ways I personally believe are unmatched at any other university. I still believe that a published canon represented in survey courses is important and carries benefits that outweigh the potential pit-falls. But I also believe that the benefits of a published canon represented in survey courses that prohibit professorial abuses are less necessary at BYU than any other campus I am familiar with. Jacob Proffitt - who feels perfectly justified in ending sentences with prepositions because he learned at BYU that prohibitions against ending sentences with prepositions is a left-over from grammatical rules based on assumptions of Latin grammar superiority and an attempt to apply Latin grammar rules to English sentence structures (which have mainly Germanic and not Romantic origins). - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:05:35 -0800 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] Jerry M. YOUNG, _Elena_ (Review) - ----- Original Message ----- From: > > Maybe he's trying to find the prophecy about the Elders of Israel saving > the Constitution when it's dangling by a thread. > Big grin. > > One minor gripe -- many chapters begin with what are presented as > > news snippets, giving us background to the story. Here's an > > example: > > > Fear of terrorist attacks have brought increased security > > measures across the United States, especially in airport > > facilities as numerous bomb threats have been reported. (p. > > 226) > > > > "Fear...have brought..."? This lack of agreement dots the book. > > I found myself blanching a bit each time Young slips. I thought > > an editor ought to have caught the errors. > > Interesting you should mention this. Traditionally in English the verb > agrees with the subject of the sentence, but in the past several years > I've noticed verbs agreeing with the closest preceding noun instead, > i.e., this happens when another noun intervenes between the subject and > the verb. I've made little notes of this, because I want to mention it in > the language column I hope one day to write. I've heard NPR reporters do > this several times, and I'm intrigued that I've never heard anyone write > in about it--of course, I don't always hear the Letters segments, but I > also haven't heard people complain about it in other forums of our > linguistically picky society that loves on occasion to complain (a la > Edwin Newman's _A Civil Tongue_) about how language is going to hell in a > handmaid's tail. > Perhaps it's more difficult to catch when a) it's a part of a spoken text, or b) when the error is committed only once during a session. In "Elena" it is a constant, and irritating, error. [Jeff Needle] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:53:41 -0500 From: "Kristy Thomas" Subject: [AML] Fwd: _The Other Side of Heaven_ to Opens Nationally NORTH AMERICAN DEBUT SET FOR APRIL 12 The much-anticipated motion picture THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN will open in theaters across the U.S. and Canada FRIDAY, APRIL 12. >From the Academy Award-winning producer of "Schindler's List" and "Jurassic Park", starring Christopher Gorham and Anne Hathaway of "The Princess Diaries", "HEAVEN" tells the true story of John Groberg's remarkable mission to Tonga in the 1950's. Sent to one of the most remote islands in the world, Elder Groberg is given a simple charge - to learn the language and build the kingdom, then left to face what would become the greatest challenge of his life. Daily Variety, one of the entertainment industry's most respected news publications, hails THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN as "Rousing and family friendly with a big, epic look and state-of-the-art visual effects. A high-profile example of the mainstreaming of Christian entertainment." Watch it opening weekend, and discover all the adventure, beauty and grandeur of THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN. See you at the show! If you would like posters or flyers to help spread the word about our April 12th release, please click here: www.othersideofheaven.com (Please forward this email to all those who may be interested.) More information at http://www.othersideofheaven.com Get the soundtrack at http://www.clicktobuyonline.com ========================================================== You're receiving this message as a member of the Excel Entertainment Film list... _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #651 ******************************