From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #692 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, April 26 2002 Volume 01 : Number 692 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:00:36 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Competitive Righteousness Ethan Skarstedt wrote: > Thom said: "I define humility (which I also profess to not have one iota > of) as the > inability to speak of one's own accomplishments in a positive light." I don't buy this definition of humility for a minute, but... > I've met people who were so good in so many areas that I would never > have believed them as characters in a book, but I lived with them and so > was forced to conclude that they were real. Such people exist and we > should feel free to include them in our writing where appropriate. I don't buy that totally good people exist either. (Although I'm not entirely clear that's what you intended to say.) I can buy that very good people exist, but everyone has some foibles or weaknesses or blind spots--it's inherent in the human condition. My straight-arrow stake president who just got called to be a general authority at the last General Conference had a real hang-up about WW2 generation manners and would preach them from the pulpit as if they were eternal gospel truths. He also had a real bias against the arts as far as I could tell, literally banishing them from the stake because they detracted from family time (but not basketball, of course, God forbid). My stake president was a really good guy--that was obvious. But he still had these weird foibles. Granted, they're not serious foibles, but they were there. And they were only the obvious public ones I noticed. My former bishop, now a mission president, was also a real straight-arrow, a real good guy, no question. Everyone could tell. But his boys were absolute brats and his parenting techniques handling them, in my opinion, lacked much. Nobody is perfect. Nobody is even really, really good. That's what this life is all about, dealing with all these human foibles as best we can, taking the sacrament every week because we are in constant need of repentance and absolution. There are people that have achieved a happy existence of living the gospel well and seem to be perfect. But there are still things they need to work on. This is no insult to them--on the contrary, to try to paint them as without foibles is the insult. Just try it on one of them. They'll be the first to deny the level of goodness you try to categorize them with. One of the greatest, saintliest heroes in all literature is Jean Valjean from _Les Miserables_ (fresh in my mind after my attendance at the latest performance of the musical in Salt Lake City). He did awe-inspiring, heroic things. But he was also fraught with human foibles as much as anyone. He stole from a bishop who fed and bedded him. He broke his parole. He assumed a false identity and became mayor of a city using it. He totally screwed up handling the situation with Fantine in his factory, literally destroying her life. He nearly let someone else mistakenly identified as himself go to jail in his place. He escaped from jail when he landed there again. He over-protected his adopted daughter to a fault, and gave her a solitary life hiding and moving from place to place because of his fear of Inspector Javert's unrelenting hunt for him. He envied her love for another man when that love obviously began to take her attentions from him. Jean Valjean was a very human character, suffering from his weaknesses and foibles even while he accomplished acts of charity and heroism few men rise to. He is one of the most inspiring literary characters in my life. But he wouldn't be if Victor Hugo had painted him as supersaint. Whenever people object to others wanting to show the warts of good men in literature, I get the impression they think those others want to degrade the good men, pull them down to a level that makes them no longer good. Wrong-o. We just want them to be relatable. Someone who is totally good is NOT believable, and I truly don't care how many real world examples someone might be able to point out--because I don't believe the examples. Because there's no way to know everything going on in that person's life. They may not be hiding terrible sin, but there are some kind of human foibles in there somewhere, I guarantee you. All of this doesn't even address the fact that it doesn't matter what exists in reality; you still have to make your fiction believable. If someone is so good, you'd never believe them as a fictional character, then you can't use them as a fictional character. - -- 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, 25 Apr 2002 10:59:42 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Competitive Righteousness > But, Thom, maybe it really *did* happen last week in the temple or during > their morning scripture study or when her husband was a Bishop...those > things don't necessarily say to me "Hey look at how righteous I am" any more > than saying "The other day when I was walking" is bragging about my > mobility. I define humility (which I also profess to not have one iota of) as the inability to speak of one's own accomplishments in a positive light. Such public proclamations as I list above remind of the Publican braggin about how often he pays tithing while standing on the street corner while the truly humble sinner can hardly raise his eyes to heaven. I think the Lord wants us to see an example in that parable. Basically, "Keep your righteousness between you and me. No one else has to know about it." There is a difference between bragging about one's righteousness and one's mobility. The second one does not make one appear to be "holier-than-thou." *** I'd be very careful with saying this kind of thing--it implies that, for example, when President Monson begins his stories with, "When I was a stake president" (or bishop or whatever) that he is being holier than thou. I seriously doubt you mean that. He is truly just telling the story, and his position happens to be part of the story. I think that the main issue is not exactly *what* is said, but two other things: 1) the intent of the speaker and 2) how the audience perceives it, which are not always the same thing. For example, while my parents were presiding over a mission, my brother was rather antagonistic about the church and about serving a mission (he was back in the states and coming up on age 19 soon). My parents wrote to him regularly, and he was regularly offended at their letters--they were trying to cram mission and church down his throat, he said. My parents, on the other hand, tried very hard NOT to do that, but since missionaries, zone conferences, etc. was their entire life, they had little else to write about. Any reference to their daily activities was construed as preaching. This is one reason that literature can be difficult--what the author intends is not always what the audience receives. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:11:11 -0600 From: Darlene Young Subject: [AML] The Sugar Beet in the News Hey, Chris and Todd and all, I was so excited to see the article about The Sugar Beet in my Pocatello newspaper on Saturday! I see that the article was picked up by the Scripps Howard News service. Who knows how many other states will print it? (Well, I suppose Idaho is still Mormon corridor territory, but still--you're broadening.) Congrats! Darlene Young ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:03:38 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Humility Are we all giving our definitions of humility? :) Humility to me means being teachable. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:26:18 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Good Young Adult Lit FWIW, I remember that when I edited _Circle Dance_ for Bookcraft, they asked me to consider shutting it down even earlier than the manuscript's then-ending. They didn't lop off the real ending, did they? I guess my point is that they almost didn't give it whatever resolution it has now. (Sorry I can't remember particulars.) Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:58:29 -0600 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Eric Samuelson said: "Religion is in sad decline in Europe, in large measure, I think, because they made the disastrous mistake hundreds of years ago to establish state churches. The genius of our Founders in creating the anti-establishment cause led to, ironically enough, to a deeply religious nation; secular values, imbedded in a constitution, made possible genuine worship. In England, people are generally spiritually minded, but they don't go to Church because the C of E is utterly irrelevant to them. We did that one right. And we did the arts right too." This paragraph got me thinking. Our Founding Fathers got it right by ruling out state churches, and ?ironically? we ended up with a deeply religious nation. Presumably because our predecessors did not have the C of E, or any other religion that was irrelevant to them, forced down their throats. They were left free to pursue whatever religion interested them, met their needs. I've experienced similar things in my life. Let someone try and browbeat me into believing something is cool or neat or important, despite and no matter what I think, and I find myself rejecting what they offer almost out of hand. Could, perhaps, a parallel be drawn between religion and art? Can the NEA be called State Art? Can its contributions be called irrelevant to most of the folks of this nation? I think the point has been amply made in this discussion that much of the art sponsored by the State Art organ(NEA) _is_ irrelevant if not offensive to most of the people in this nation. And the fact that we're forced to pay for it sans any kind of input is rather similar to it being forced down our throats. Therefore, although we may have done "the arts right too" the more state sponsored art looks like state religions in Europe the more our arts will look like religion in Europe. (at least federally and unresponsively sponsored art(the more local you get the more responsive and therefore "relevant" you get)) In fact, from what Eric described of the European art community, it sounds an awful lot like our religious community: centered in the community, responsive to the community, participated in by the locals, etc... and not the NEA. Which leads me to my final paragraph. As we've discussed this topic I find myself excavating a greater understanding of my own opinions on state sponsored art. I don't object to state-sponsored art, I object to state sponsored art for which I am taxed without representation. Were the NEA less of a monolithic FEDERAL PROGRAM and more of a subsidizer of local art things I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Perhaps my dislike of the NEA stems from a misunderstanding of how much it's involved in my community. Is it? Is that kind of thing most of what it does? Are all these highly objectionable (to my mind) art things (cross in urine, chocolate and broccoli, etc...) products of local subsidization that have been tossed into the national spotlight and misrepresented? If so, bravo to the NEA for encouraging diversity. - -Ethan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:07:37 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Eric Samuleson wrote: > (Quick aside: I was thinking about this last night, while watching Snow > Dogs with my eight year old, a film, like all Disney children's films, > that's basically about sex. It has some pretty dogs in it, and some > >very pretty scenery, so there was something to look at rather than Cuba > Gooding falling comically on his behind and the crowd of colorful and > eccentric yokels that Disney apparently thinks constitutes the population of Alaska. Being from Alaska, I'd say that someone at Disney had actually lived there. Trust me, it is an eccentric state. (Except for Anchorage which is closer to big cities here in the lower 48, but we always refer to it as "In Alaska, but not of Alaska.") - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:24:54 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Silencing the Internal Critic I think the best place to look for this kind of thing is in Julia Cameron's books, especially _The Artist's Way_. She is fantastic in teaching deceptively simple techniques that turn off that internal critic and allow creativity to flourish. Her book _The Right to Write_ is also quite good, but I recommend taking your time to work your way through her program in the other one first. Good luck! Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:23:22 -0600 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: RE: [AML] Competitive Righteousness Kathy Fowkes: > > I've frequently made the mistake (and I'll call it a mistake because I see > where you are coming from, and I think you're right, it does > sound tacky) of > giving a log report of how I came to have a verse or Prophetic > utterance in > my head prior to giving the scripture or quote. Did I do it to promote my > righteousnous? No, I don't think so. The feelings at times I've done this > are better defined as nervousness and what amounts to almost a > compulsion to > exactly explain myself. I not only do this with conversation, which btw > drives my husband just a little bit crazy. I also do this with > writing -- I > edit myself as I go, and have a tendency to write things three different > ways in my desire to be precise and understood. It's a very > irritating habit > that I try to avoid, but often don't succeed. I have also been known to drive people (husband, kids, students) crazy with explaining myself! Explaining oneself is, after all, human, natural, and we would be poor listeners to label someone in church in a judgmental way because of it! Aren't we all explaining ourselves everyday on AML list? Isn't expressing one's feelings and beliefs a fundamental human need? So it would be poor listening indeed to label a brother or sister in the church with the nasty appellation of "competitive righteousnes." How could I ever have brought that term up??? To further EXPLAIN MYSELF, since I brought up this topic in the first place, I want make it perfectly clear that 99 times out of a hundred, I appreciate the genuine sharing of self from members of the church, including mentions of going to the temple and reading the scriptures! I admire those who are courageous enough to share. I wish more sisters would speak up in Sunday School class and so I certainly would defeat that hope if I were to criticize the context or explanatory material of the comments made. Plus Kathy makes an excellent point--that getting up in front of a crowd, say in testimony meeting or giving a lesson-- brings out (for many of us) lots of words and explanatory material that we may or may not have planned (just ask my beleaguered students). However, I think there is a real (and probably positive) tendency in the church, to challenge one anther by mentioning some of the good works that we may do. This may be a very wonderful thing, because after all, as has been pointed out we could be competing in bad arenas rather than in righteous ones. And they may not be regarding righteousness as much as they are about simple hard work. For example, one sister mentions that she does her shopping monthly rather than make weekly trips to the store. Then the rest of the class thinks, wow, that is a good idea, I should do that too. Let me list some of the many things I've heard in my current ward along these lines. I've probably said some of them myself--in fact, I'll label the ones I've said myself. I'm realizing that I do this as much or more than anyone else, but just think it is an interesting phenomenon. Rather than call them Competitive Righteousness Comments, let me come up with a new title. How about "Let Your Light So Shine Before Women" comments: I have my housework arranged according to the 6 days of creation. I make all my own bread, cheese, pasta. I live off my food storage and never go to the regular grocery store. I read the scriptures while I walk on my treadmill every morning. I kneel and pray 3 or more times a day, as so inspired. I pray about what food to fix my family and that it will be healthy and work for their good. I only read church books and scriptures because I only want the best things in my mind. I don't watch TV on Sunday. I don't watch TV (okay, that is mine). I don't read the newspaper on Sunday. I don't use birth control. I nursed all my babies for 20 months (mine). I gave birth with no drugs (me again). I visit nursing homes regularly and take my children so they can learn to give service. I go to the temple every week. I fast and go to the temple every week. If I fast and go to the temple every week the temple president said I can bring back any lost souls into the fold. I do family names whenever I go to the temple. I have hundreds of family names that I've researched out and for which the work needs to be done. I planted my peas in April (me). All my children play two musical instruments, play sports, and are active in dance and drama. Are these bad things???? NO! They are all good things. I agree that all these kinds of challenging and provocative things may have a great influence on us to do good and to try harder. But effects are never all one way. The incidence of depression among Utah women may have something to do with the feeling that one can't keep up, or is never quite good enough, or working hard enough. So there needs to be balance and perspective in all things, including good ones. Moreover, at points of crisis in my life, I've found myself rehearsing mentally how I might talk about it in testimony meeting. Let's just face it, early training giving talks and testimony spurs a rhetorical impulse that is hard to ignore. This kind of bearing witness is the very basis of the church. But even though it can be 99 percent good, it is also ripe fodder for cultural critique and satire. And it is okay to laugh at ourselves I think. > > So there are people like me, and unlike me, who give log reports for many > reasons other than self-righteousness. This topic makes me wonder, though, > if this perception of others who share spiritual experiences with the > scriptures etc are one of the reasons people avoid sharing such > experiences? > They don't want to be labeled or thought of as self-righteous, > holding their > candle up not to light the way to Christ, but to glorify > themselves instead? I agree Kathy, and after this posting, I'll have to be very careful myself about what I say. Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:49:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Blogging A glimpse of one possible future for discussion groups on the Internet can be had at "The Corner" on National Review Online. The link is http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp It's sort of a group-blog. The page is administered by one editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez ("K-Lo") and the other editors post opinions and links, and playfully comment on each other's postings. I'm perfectly happy with the current e-mail set-up of AML-List, but I can envision an evolution at some future point into something like this. Or "The Sugar Beet" (or any other LDS online endeavor, for that matter) could develop a similar feature. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:50:11 -0600 From: "Robert Starling" Subject: [AML] Re: Art and Money Eric wrote: >But if properly subsidized, good repertory theatre companies could = flourish in every medium sized town. >(A town the size of Provo/Orem, for = example... Perhaps it should be noted that Orem DOES have a good theater company, = - -The Hale Center Theater- which operates quite well _without_ any = subsidy, as do all the several Hale theaters. I say let the people vote with their feet and dollars about the art they = want to see. Robert Starling - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. ============================================================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:34:00 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: [AML] Washington Times on _Brigham City_ I was reading the "Washington Times" this morning, when I opened the "Weekend" section of the paper (page M20) and read the following headline: 'BRIGHAM CITY' FULL OF SUSPENSE, AVOIDS PREACHING Under this title was the following review: "The fact that BRIGHAM CITY, new this week from Spartan Home Entertainment, is set deep in the heart of Mormon country and was created by a Mormon filmmaker might turn off some viewers. This would be a big mistake, because BRIGHAM CITY rates with the greatest modern indie noirs (e.g., the Choen Brothers' BLOOD SIMPLE, John Dahl's RED ROCK WEST) shot during the last two decades. It's our... "VIDEO PICK OF THE WEEK "Richard Dutcher, writer-director of BRIGHAM CITY (priced for rental VHS, also avaiable on DVD) also takes the lead role of Wes Clayton, chief temperal (as sheriff) and spiritual (as church bishop) protector of idyllic, sheltered Brigham, Utah. But Wes is no shinning hero; he's a damaged soul with a tragic history (wife and son killed in a mysterious road mishap that left Wes with a permanent limp and haunted heart) and a mjor blind spot--a reluctance to acknowledge the "outside" (i.e., non-Mormon) world. As he tersely tells young deputy Terry (Matthew A. Brown) about violent crime, "It doesn't happen. Not here. Here's all I care about." No sooner are those words out of Wes' tightlipped mouth than the lawmen stumble on the body of a slain woman in a deserted barn. "The viction is indetified as an out-of-state traveler, so Wes is only too happy to turn over the investigation to Salt Lake City FBI agents led by Scully-like Meredith Cole (Thayna Patch). But when pretty, innocent "Miss Brigham 2001" (Jacque Gray) becomes the unknown killer's next bludgeoned victim, Wes is forced to admit that it's indeed an "inside" problem and quite possibly an inside job. "Like such vintage moral noirs as Nicholas Ray's 1952 ON DANGEROUS GROUND, BRIGHAM CITY is a model of economy wherein every detail serves the story, with nary a wasted word or plance to be found in its swiftly paced 115 minutes. Auteur Dutcher explores his main themes--outsiders vs.insiders, self-destructive denial vs. self-protective guile--while delivering a taut, tense, at times emotionally devastating thriller than will keep you guessing to the end. Anything but a proselytizing Christian film, BRIGHAM CITY is a must for everyone in the mood for a terrific, textured suspenser that will echoe long after the end credits roll." (WASHINGTON TIMES, Thursday, 25 April 2002, page M20) I thought this was one of the best reviews I've read from a non-Mormon source. I thought BRIGHAM CITY was one of the best 10 films last year. Even if I weren't LDS, I'd have liked it. What I enjoyed most about it was that it presented the unique Mormon view of the Fall of man and the nature of good and evil. Just yesterday I was having a conversation with an Evangelical friend about the LDS understanding of the Fall; this guy's also a movie buff, so I plan on making sure that he sees BRIGHAM CITY, since it presents a theological view without being at all "religious." Speaking of LDS films, I saw THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN, and was pleasantly surprised. I tend to dislike bio-pics because they are episodic (unless focused on one aspect of their subject or one period in the subject's life) and they tend to have weak plots. THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN has both of these weaknesses. And yet I thought the performances were very winning, the direction first rate. I cared about (I liked) the characters. Last weekend I spoke to some non-LDS family members who saw the film on their own (without me suggesting it to them). They said that they really liked--that they thought it was better than GOD'S ARMY (which I encouraged them to see last year). While I think that dramatically GOD'S ARMY is without question the superior film, I still think that THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN is pretty good. The two films really can't be compared; they're both different genres. GOD'S ARMY explores issues of faith and doubt while THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN is more of a travelogue and memoir.As a Mormon artist, I'm happy "that both exist." But of all the LDS films so far produced, I think RBIGHAM CITY is the best example we have of "Mormon Art." I saw it four times and was deeply moved by each viewing. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 01:49:03 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] BROWN, _Throwing Stones_ (Deseret News) Deseret News Thursday, April 25, 2002 'Throwing Stones' debuts Friday SPRINGVILLE =97 "Throwing Stones," an original comedy/mystery by Bill Brown, co-founder of the Villa Institute of the Performing Arts, will premiere this week at the Little Brown Theatre, 239 S. Main. Based loosely on an experience that realtor/thespian Brown actually had, the plot revolves around a big-name rock star invading a small town real estate office to buy a mansion. Brown began writing the play when he was studying under Tim Slover at Brigham Young University. Opening night =97 Friday, April 26 =97 coincides with Brown's graduation at age 61 from BYU with a degree in theater and media arts. Director Betty Lee's cast includes Bryant Plautz as real estate broker Brad Doughnut; Merrily McGowan as his fiancee, Edith; Kaye Pead as the seductive Boots Ellsworth; Ben Stout as rock star Rick Jogger, and David Bunnell as an Enron-type entrepreneur, B.J. Hunter. Performances will be 7:30 p.m., Mondays, Fridays and Saturdays, through May 18. Tickets are $6, $7 and $8. For reservations, call 489-3088. Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:55:38 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art A small disclaimer-- In this post I'm arguing a point that only marginally intersects with Ethan's comments. Ethan didn't argue most of what I comment to below; but his comments caused me to think about these ideas, so I responded to his post in order to make them. Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >>> Could, perhaps, a parallel be drawn between religion and art? Can the NEA be called State Art? Can its contributions be called irrelevant to most of the folks of this nation? I think the point has been amply made in this discussion that much of the art sponsored by the State Art organ(NEA) _is_ irrelevant if not offensive to most of the people in this nation. And the fact that we're forced to pay for it sans any kind of input is rather similar to it being forced down our throats. <<< I know it proves my desperate naivete, but I think we do have representation--or at least we can, if we're willing to jump through the hoops and position ourselves to be involved in organizations like the NEA. It's certainly not easy, but it is possible. Remembering that the fact of representation doesn't mean that our version of policy will be implemented--or that our candidate will be elected. More on that in a minute... It's a difficult question. I think I find myself coming down more on Eric's side of the fence, myself. Given a choice between too much support of the arts and not enough, I'd rather do too much. I know, art doesn't mean much to many people so why should they be required to pay for it with a portion of their tax dollars? At the same time, interstate highways running through South Dakota don't do a lot of good to the general public, but I still think it's right for us to pay the taxes that facilitate the building of that highway I am unlikely to ever use. Just as I think it's right for Vermont's tax dollars to help replant grass and trees on the mountain that burned last summer next to my central Utah home, and just as Ogden's and St. George's tax dollars helped build the silt fence s that will keep the unbound, hydrophobic soil on that same mountain from washing into my basement with the spring runoff (assuming there is any in this drought year). I know, public works projects improve the lives of real people and are knowably worthy causes, but what's the public value of broccoli and chocolate? I can't answer that question except to say that people are inspired to different things by different things. A couple of days ago I decided to take a post to work--Edward Gorey's "The Gashlycrumb Tinies," a sort of spoof alphabet primer featuring children killed in violent ways ("A is for Amy who fell down the stairs; B is for Basil assaulted by bears..."). As I took it out to my car, my seven-year old asked what it was and took it out of my hand to look at. Trying to explain to a seven-year old why dead children is funny is hard, and I didn't do a very good job, especially at explaining the concept of black humor. So I took it to work and posted it behind my computer where I could look at it in the gaps between writing for/about technology as a sort of creative/spiritual restorative. My coworkers stopped by, looked at it, and had pretty much the same reaction as my daughter; they didn't see the humor and thought I must be a little sick to be amused by it. I tried to explain, and a few understood my point. But most thought I was just emotionally damaged to find humor in dead children. (You have to see it to appreciate it; part of the humor is the simple absurdity of it all, but part of the humor is also in the charmingly macabre illustrations. I especially like "V is for Victor squashed under a train" where Victor is standing on the railroad tracks shading his eyes and looking to the right--of course you know the train will come from the left. Or "X is for Xerxes devoured by mice" with a drawing of a little boy cowering in the corner as five tiny mouse-blobs move toward him; the absurdity is wonderful. To me, at least.) So I brought my poster home today and now have it back on the wall behind my computer in my basement office where I can look at between writing my moralistic little diatribes. I could have left it at work, but I didn't think my point was worth defending and I let my policy be influenced by the few people who actually complained. In the end it doesn't matter, because their opinion is largely irrelevant to me, and I perceive that I have done no wrong with my preference in posters. It improves my life, even if it degrades the lives of others. So I choose to enjoy it in private. Art is, to a very great degree, where you find it and is so personal as to be very difficult (if not impossible) to legislate. Judge for yourself; but recognize that such a judgment is necessarily specific to yourself. There are few absolutes, in my opinion. You go on to make an excellent point: >>> Which leads me to my final paragraph. As we've discussed this topic I find myself excavating a greater understanding of my own opinions on state sponsored art. I don't object to state-sponsored art, I object to state sponsored art for which I am taxed without representation. Were the NEA less of a monolithic FEDERAL PROGRAM and more of a subsidizer of local art things I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Perhaps my dislike of the NEA stems from a misunderstanding of how much it's involved in my community. <<< I am also deeply frustrated by what appears to be inequity in the system. It appears that the NEA funds a great many projects that I consider to be trivial or actively insulting. It also appears that similar funding is not offered to a Mormon artist who wants to paint or sculpt positive images of Christ. Subjects I consider to be worthy of depiction or expression are (often loudly) dismissed as unworthy of the interest of a "serious artist." In other words, artistic facilitation seems to be a one-way argument defended on the basis of protection of only a certain class of works--but not the kinds of works I find value in. Dismissive, judgmental elistism at work. Of course I don't know what-all the NEA funds. I do know that these examples (chocolate/broccoli wrestling; immersed crucifixes) are often used to characterize an entire selection process and ethic--a characterization that I'm not sure is fair. It may be, but I don't know. And until I know, I'm inclined to take a cautious approach to demanding policy reform on the issue. At the risk of speculating on doctrine, I wonder sometimes if this is not an opportunity for us to exercise the same kind of trust and faith with our tax dollars that we should be exercising with our tithing dollars. I'm not sure it's possible for one person to know how every tax dollar is spent and whether it was for a purely worthy cause. But aren't we blessed for learning to trust others--whether that trust ends up being earned or not? Which is not to say that we shouldn't become involved in the policy-making organizations that demand our attention, or that we should never run for office. If anything, our concern that tax dollars are spent wisely should lead us to ever greater involvement in our governance. It should lead us to deeper involvement in that policy making. Unfortunately, most of us just complain about things we haven't researched sufficiently to have an informed opinion on, and fail to get involved in revising policy ourselves. In many cases, it's surprisingly easy to get involved in local organizations (I was recently voted president-elect of my local PTA only fifteen minutes into my first-ever PTA meeting because I raised my hand and asked several questions, apparently convincing people that I was a worthy candidate on the basis of those few questions). Yet so many of us don't. In the end I'm not really disagreeing with you, and I'm certainly not accusing you of uninformed or unworthy opinionation--I'm riffing off your words to make a general comment on what I see a lot of other people doing. Frankly, I don't have enough information to accuse you of anything and would see no value to doing so even if I did. I do feel like my input into policy-making in the NEA is rejected out of hand by those whose levels of spiritual or moral uprightness don't necessarily inspire me to trust them. Still, if the general cause is good then it seems like the best answer is to change policy from within the organization by getting involved in it, or by electing representatives who will implement the policies we believe in--and accepting that sometimes we just don't get our way. Far too many of us just lob stones from a distance without having a clear sense of what the target looks like. I don't see that as overly helpful. But I think festering resentments are always spiritually damaging, regardless of whether they're justified. So I try to let as many of them go as I can and focus my attention on a few, well-chosen causes, and let others choose their causes with as little judgment as I can muster. Or at least I try. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 01:53:47 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] JENSEN, _Two-Headed_ (SL Tribune) Salt Lake Tribune Utahn Wins Playwrighting Award Thursday, April 25, 2002 Playwright Julie Jensen, a Utah native, was awarded LA Weekly's Playwrighting Award in the category of one-act plays for "Two-Headed," which was recently produced at the John Anson Ford Theatre in Los Angeles. In the category of one-act plays, LA Weekly also recognized "Two-Headed's" Veronica Brady as Best Director and Mary Mara as Best Actress. "Two-Headed," set during the aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was produced at Salt Lake Acting Company in 2000. Other SLAC productions of works by Jensen include "White Money," and "Last Lists of My Mad Mother," which television station KUED adapted to film. Jensen serves as playwright-in- residence at SLAC on a grant through the TCG Pew Charitable Trust. Her new play "Wait!" will be produced there next season. Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #692 ******************************