From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #724 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, May 24 2002 Volume 01 : Number 724 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:15:32 -0600 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Young Heroes (was: _Attack of the Clones_) >Clark Goble: > This really isn't that uncommon. You used to be pretty much an adult at a > much younger age in the past. Consider for instance Nero who was 16 when he > took control of Rome. Uzziah was only 16 when he became King in Israel. > I'm sure there are plenty others. > Well, yeah. But some of these guys were called to, or inherited, their positions. Queen Amidala was elected by the people. I've heard it said before that the Nephites must have been hard up if they wanted a 16-year-old to lead their army. I think the same of the Naboo. Furthermore, her accomplishments in Episode II aren't along the lines of those of a gifted monarch or gifted senator. If she were truly concerned about her people and what was going on in the Senate, she'd be studying and doing everything she could to prepare for her return. Instead, she goes on picnics with Anakin. And sits by the fire with Anakin. And gazes at the lake with Anakin... Sure, we don't see everything that happens while she's away, but if she's working that should have been alluded to, at least. Plus she shouldn't have let Jar Jar take her place in the Senate. That was really poor judgment on her part. She should, at the very least, have briefed him on everything going on and what he should do. I don't know whether these problems are part of Padme's character, or if they're flaws in plotting. I can accept them as being part of her character, which would add a further twist to the story. But it's possible that this aspect of it just wasn't written very carefully. (Or that the answers were in the movie and I didn't catch them.) - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:57:40 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: Frankness in Mormon Writing [MOD: Thanks to Sharlee for this contribution to the discussion. I think this is a good post that helps move the conversation in good directions--among other things, in talking about the sorts of things I think we need to address if we want to write realistically, and read realistic fiction, about marriage. At the same time, I also don't want to get into ever-more-intimate discussions of the specifics of the marriage bed, so to speak. So by all means respond to this post--but keep in mind that this is a public venue, and that this post as written goes about as close to the line in describing private conduct as I want to go for AML-List.] I've been playing catch-up with my e-mail lately, and while I found the "Frankness in Mormon Writing" thread fascinating, at first I had a difficult time figuring out how it tied into Mormon literature. But then I realized that the very fact that we were Mormons writing frankly about sexual matters was ample justification in and of itself. It's been interesting to see how defensive some of us get when it comes to any discussion of gender responsibility in a sexual relationship. I'd like to respond to a couple of points. 1. D. Michael Martindale and others were quick to denounce the observation by Stephen Lamb and Douglas Brinley that wives who are uninterested in sex are "often women who have been mistreated by their husbands." Why the defensiveness? The authors are not making a blanket statement. They say "often," not "always" or even "usually." And this observation is just one small part of a chapter entitled "Some Thought for Husbands." In the next chapter ("Some Thought for Wives"), Lamb and Brinley talk at length about the fact that sex should never be used by a woman as a "manipulative tool." "Sex is not a reward or punishment for behavior," they caution. "Don't withhold intimacy as a way to get even, to seek revenge, or to teach your husband a lesson" (159). Obviously, there is no attempt here to foist all the responsibility onto the man. 2. Someone (Gae Lyn, I think) said she believes that when wives reject sex, it's almost always because of anger. I have to disagree. I'm sure that this is sometimes true (has probably even been true on occassion in my own marriage), but I am convinced that a much more common reason is plain ole' EXHAUSTION--mental, physical, and/or emotional. Forgive me for being personal here, but my own marital relationship is the only one I'm really familiar with, and, hence, the only one I can draw on for anecdotal purposes. (Besides, I think it's probably fairly typical of LDS marital relationships.) When my husband and I were first married, sex was INCREDIBLE. We had both been very chaste teenagers (an awkward peck on the lips was as far as either of us had gone with anyone we dated), so our mutual discovery of the joys of sexuality was wonderful and brand-new. And there was certainly no deficit in the libido department where I was concerned. In fact, we often giggled together at the memory of our obviously uncomfortable Stake President counselling us on sexual matters just before we got married. "I would suggest that you set aside one night each week--Sunday night, maybe--and make that the time when you share your physical intimicy with each other." "ONE night a WEEK!??" we would howl. Our first baby was born just before our 2nd anniversary. This didn't slow us down much. Then the second baby came along, then the third, then the fourth, then the fifth. And suddenly everything changed. I was still madly in love with my husband, but I was tired. ALL the time. Deep-down bone weary. Nursing a baby and caring for several toddlers all day long left me exhausted and feeling all touched out. What I craved more than anything else at the end of the day was TIME TO MYSELF. This was a difficult period for us. Sometimes we talked about it, and sometimes we didn't. It was always better when we did. My husband was sometimes frustrated, but very long-suffering for the most part, and I tried to be available to him, even though, frankly (and boy or boy, am I being frank here or not!? I still haven't decided whether or not I'm actually going to post this thing), I wasn't all that interested much of the time. I think we really tried to understand each other and our different needs, but it was still hard. But the good news is . . . that season has passed! Oh, don't get me wrong. It was a wonderful season--full of hugs and sticky fingers and the pitter-patter of little feet--but it was exhausting too. Anyway, things are good again in the intimacy department. GREAT, in fact. Better than ever. But I really think we need to do a better job of teaching our young people what to expect in marriage, sexually-speaking. Those child-bearing years are tough. They just are. But they pass. And then we get a brief respite before we have to start dealing with things like arthritis and impotence! :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:26:14 -0600 From: "Amy Chamberlain" Subject: Re: [AML] Music Query Sorry, Tony, I can't help you here, but now I'm fascinated: what do you mean by Windham Hill "suppressing" a CD? Amy Chamberlain - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony Markham > Anyway, I'm looking for a certain CD. It's been "suppressed" by Windham Hill [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:48:24 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] DANSIE, _Unwound 2002_ (Short Films) [I am forwarding the following announcement from young Latter-day Saint filmmaker Tucker Dansie, with his express permission: - -- Preston] - ----UNWOUND 2002 A Collection Of Short Films By Tucker T Dansie/Admission is FREE!---- Salt Lake City, Utah--Young Short Filmmaker Tucker T Dansie, in association with local new-media & technology company Digital Options Inc. are proud to present an annual exhibition of Dansie's newest, award-winning short films, collectively entitled UNWOUND 2002. The event will take place on Saturday, June 15th, 2002, at the Jewett Center for the Performing Arts on the Westminster College Campus (1700 s. 1300 e.); it will be free of charge & the films are suitable for all ages. Afterwards will be a meet-&-greet with the director & various actors from his films. Dansie is a graduate of the Vancouver Film School were he received top honors in his class. While at school, among other duties, he wrote/directed an award winning 16mm short film that was screened at the Vancouver International Film Festival & also received a nomination at the prestigious LEO awards (Canadian Oscars) in 1999. Since then it has been screened in over 15 festivals worldwide, winning many awards. Upon his return, he was able to write/direct/shoot/edit many short films including a 30-minute documentary about Logan-based LDS band COLORS. The film earned him much critical acclaim and was picked up for distribution by Excel Entertainment and is available in most Deseret Books stores. Afterwards, Tucker made movies; any movies he could think of. His upcoming film "Finding Freedom" is a powerful new documentary about an African man who was seeking Political Asylum in the United States, and his struggle to get to this Nation. It's a compelling story about survival, and personal instincts being your only guide. This man has not seen his family in over 3 & 1/2 years, talk about a "survivor". Although short(his website reads "Short Films/Short Filmmaker")his films are full of compassion, comedy, love & lately enough emotion to bring his mother to tears. He loves to make films, but more over, he loves people to see his films. UNWOUND 2002 is sure to bring that love to everyone who attends. Admission is free, everyone is welcome. for more information & a map go to www.tuckertdansie.com/unwound or e-mail tucker@digop.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:03:37 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy (was: _Attack of the Clones_) On "inherent social conservatism" in science fiction, Jonathan Langford wrote: >So what do I mean by inherent social conservatism? Here are some of the >points that I see frequently recurring in much fantasy literature that I >think help to create a sense of underlying social conservatism: > >* Emphasis on blood inheritance >* Character as a function of group: family, race, nation of origin, etc. >* Story focus on those of "noble blood" >* Character as something that is revealed over the course of the story, >rather than as something that changes. (This is tricky, because you >can get a lot of development that *looks* like change but is actually >simply an unfolding of inherent, preexisting character traits.) >* Interpretation of a society, people, or nation largely in terms of its >past >* Glorification of the trappings of quasi-medieval society, without >attention to the "violence inherent in the system" (as the Pythons would >put it) >* Use of largely antedated belief systems as sources of magical power. >(E.g., magic comes from knowing something's "true name"--harking back to a >view of language as containing meaning, rather than as strictly arbitrary.) Wow! "Conservatism" as defined in the US is the opposite of what is described above. The above sounds more like something that Marxists and COLLECTIVISTS of all type would embrace as their ideal. After all, Marx did believe that the concept of the individual was fiction. Langford continues his list: >* Notions of destiny >* Totalizing descriptions of good versus evil (we know who the good guys >and bad guys are) >* Attachment to archetypes, hierarchies of knowledge and experience, etc. >* Willingness to associate a right to rule or govern with possession of >unique personal qualifications > These would certainly be more easily linked with American conservatism because they vale the concept of the individual and the idea that individual achievement(not blood, race, etc.) are what qualify one for a particular role in society. The above also are based on an understanding of and appreciation for the human faculty of consciousness.( The ability to recognize and categorize good and evil however broadly or narrowly; hierarchies of knowledge and experience.) Question: Isn't all knowledge by its very nature hierarchical? I know that Post Modernism rejects this; but then it also rejects the efficacy of human consciousness--which is man's only tool for acquiring knowledge--so even their convoluted arguments, to be consistent, must reject any semblance of certainty. >Not all these factors are necessarily innately conservative, but taken >together I think they contribute to a genre that probably comes closer than >almost any other to deserving a marxist critique. Marxists would certainly reject my thoughts on these things. I am not a big science fiction fan, but I think its appeal lies in the fact that it is a classically Romantic genre; it views individuals are agents who are in control of themselves, their actions and, therefore, of their fate. This is a noble view of man--almost religious--and in a culture that has increasingly rejected the very existence of objective standards of universal morality, it fills a very real human void. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:33:55 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Changes in Usage harlowclark@juno.com wrote: > There's a difference between saying, "The answers were all right" and, > "the answers were alright." The first means all the answers were correct. > The second, depending on tone, can mean that the answers were > satisfactory, or that they were just so-so. Exactly. "Alright" has come to mean something different than "all right." But the anti-alright crowd claim they're interchangeable, and that "all right" is the only acceptable version. As far as I know, virtually all editors will change "alright" to "all right," even thought "alright" now serves a useful function distinct from "all right." - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:15:36 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy on 5/22/02 10:23 PM, Jonathan Langford at jlangfor@pressenter.com wrote: > Jonathan Langford > Speaking (babbling, really) for myself, not AML-List... While I do not dispute the fact that all of the listed qualities appear in almost all Fantasy literature I do dispute the fact that these things are in any way representative of social conservatism. The only way such an interpretation can be made is to take an absolutist definition of conservatism, and one not defined by adherents but by yourself. By your list you have decided that conservatives believe that the middle ages were the good old days, but there are no conservatives, social or otherwise, who believe that, at least in America. No, for lovers of feudalism you have to look to radical Islam and Socialism. All of the things listed work perfectly well in the context of current neo-Marxist and radical Islamic literature and rhetoric, though of course the terms and language is different to give a modern flavor. I am myself a social conservative, and very familiar with the arguments, beliefs, and people who make up the movement. Conservative itself is a unfortunate word in the modern sense, because it doesn't really fit, but since my side has been defined that way by the left there's not much point in arguing it anymore. For once I'll take them in order: * Emphasis on blood inheritance The conservative view of blood inheritance is that there isn't any. A man or is what he does--his deeds make him. His family background is largely irrelevant, other than it may make the self-made man more admirable because of the difficulties of his background, such as Clarence Thomas. This applies equally to women. * Character as a function of group: family, race, nation of origin, etc. Social conservatism is individualistic. Family, race and nation of origin are merely trappings, actions are what define a person. To a conservative the difference between black and white and red is skin deep. Culture is not something that cannot be divested--it is a free choice. If you don't like the culture you were born to you can reject it. This is what's known as the American Ideal, which is believed by conservatives of every stripe. * Story focus on those of "noble blood" Social conservatives do not believe in the existence of noble blood. Nobility is in the deed. * Character as something that is revealed over the course of the story, rather than as something that changes. (This is tricky, because you can get a lot of development that *looks* like change but is actually simply an unfolding of inherent, preexisting character traits.) While this is true of much fantasy, it isn't true of Tolkien and really has no relevance to any of the beliefs of conservatism. All brands of conservatism recognize the right to change camps, or repent, or whatever you want to call it. This is why people like David Horowitz can be so widely accepted among conservatives despite his past leftist radicalism. * Interpretation of a society, people, or nation largely in terms of its past Social conservatives tend not to believe in society at all. They believe that society is a construct of the left to try and take away individual freedom. People goes back to race. There is no American people except in the sense that Americans as a nation are those who accept the American Ideal. An American can't just be born, he has to be taught to be American. As far as the past goes it is the left that tends to define America that way. As a conservative I don't feel any guilt for what America did; she did nothing, people individually did things that were evil in her past. The fact that the ideal was failed by many individuals in the past doesn't make the ideal necessarily wrong. * Glorification of the trappings of quasi-medieval society, without attention to the "violence inherent in the system" (as the Pythons would put it) Again this occurrs in ALL fantasy writing but has nothing to do with social conservatism. Perhaps you have not noticed but there is little respect for authority per se among social conservatives. I am part of the Neo-Federalist/Hamiltonian wing. There are too many wings for this bird to fly which is why social conservatism hasn't taken over the world. We have so much fun arguing with each other that we forget who the real opponent is. * Use of largely antedated belief systems as sources of magical power. (E.g., magic comes from knowing something's "true name"--harking back to a view of language as containing meaning, rather than as strictly arbitrary.) Again with the Fantasy, but not with the social conservatism. There is really no "accepted" linguistic school among conservatives. Almost all despise Chomsky because of his hatreds, and know little or nothing about his linguistic theory (which I personally think is bunk). I may add that it is the left that tends to view language as imperitively meaningful--by limiting the language one will limit the bad thoughts that go along with it. Hence the concept of "hate speech" and Orwell's parody of it, Newspeak. * Notions of destiny I have never met a conservative who believed in destiny, and I correspond with some of the famous figures around the country as well as many others locally and around America. Prophecy is not the same as Destiny, but conservatives all believe in freedom, not fate. The fact that God knows what is going to happen beforehand is irrelevant. I know Lutherans do not believe in free will (or at least Luther himself did not) but then I have never met a conservative Lutheran, though I'm sure some exist. It would seem to be a contradiction in terms to believe in freedom and fate, and conservatives (and especially social conservatives) come down on the side of freedom. Smith's "invisible hand" is not fate. * Totalizing descriptions of good versus evil (we know who the good guys and bad guys are) There are two different, almost diametrically opposed ideas in this section. Knowing who the bad guys are doesn't make them "totalizing." Conservatives when they talk about lefties tend to do it apologetically. Lefties mean well, they're just misguided, etc. Lefties, on the other hand, tend to demonize conservatives. Bush KNEW that they were going to bomb the WTC. Gingrich is going to starve children and throw old people out into the street. Reagan (or Goldwater for that matter) is going to blow up the world. As a rule social conservatives are more willing to act against evil, but no conservative that I have met or talked to believed that Russians were all evil, or that all Chinese are evil now. On the other hand all conservatives agree that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc, were evil, but that is not the totality of their characters. Hitler petted his dog frequently. Mao let all those twelve-year-old girls he (expletive/deleted) live afterwards. Evil is considered to be a seduction that draws one to evil deeds, but repentance (or change) is always part of every conservative (particularly social conservative) worldview that I know of. In the fantasy literature this is also true. Gandalf let Smeagol live even after all those horrible deeds. Edmund was the traitor who mended. Though Sauron was totally evil by the end, so were Hitler or Stalin. The fact that they ended up totally evil is a warning, not a description. * Attachment to archetypes, hierarchies of knowledge and experience, etc. While entirely apt in describing fantasy, this is mere literary device rather than any belief. It's simply easier to write in those terms. As far as social conservatism goes, there is no attachment to archetypes, merely a hesitation to reject them out of hand. Stereotypes and generalization are always false, but they are also often true. There is an element of truth to all, but there are always exceptions. There is little love for hierarchies of any kind outside of their proper place in the Church. The ideal of the self-made doesn't really go in for the Chinese technical school that you describe here. * Willingness to associate a right to rule or govern with possession of unique personal qualifications Of this list this is the one that is the farthest away from the social conservative viewpoint. It describes in no way any belief that any conservative of any stripe believes. The "right to rule" anyone other than oneself is something that doesn't exist from the conservative way of thinking. While we certainly believe that every individual is unique, and therefore has unique personal qualifications, that doesn't give them any right to rule anybody. This also is not the usual case in much of Fantasy literature. Theoden told Saruman: "Even if your war on me was just, as it was not, for were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine, for your own profit, as you desired..." The old English ideal of freemen in a kingdom is a little strange to Americans, but it exists. Even the Spartans, who lived in as structured (and as rotten) a society as ever existed, believed themselves to be free. You have to give the Spartans this--their kings were not kings because of blood but because of their abilities. You had to be a good general to king it in Sparta. In this case there may be a semantical difference, but the concept as stated is anathema to conservatism. I agree that Star Wars are fantasy movies. I agree that fantasy tends to use the middle ages as an ideal. I agree that many fantasy writers often may sound conservative to a non-conservative. I agree that Tolkien was certainly a conservative in the English sense (his political ideal was the Holy Roman Empire after all). The problem comes down to definitions as always. In the American sense almost no fantasy literature is conservative. All of the points you list are un-American. My own writing is almost all fantasy and does have an American social conservative flavor that is obvious to the initiated. Those who take the Washington Post and NY Times as the proper definers of conservatism will not recognize much of it. The word "conservative" is probably the biggest sticking point in the whole argument. Since it is a relative term is can be pushed any which way. In Egypt a conservative longs for Pharoah. In France for the Capets, or maybe Charlemagne. In Russia after the fall of Communism he longs for Communism, or before the fall he longs for the Czars. Even in America it can be misinterpreted. Some "conservatives" long for the "era of good feeling," ie Jeffersonian democracy. Some want the Washington/Adams/Hamilton federalism back. Some long for the antebellum South. The conservative political movement doesn't long for the past. The name is really a misnomer. The essential beliefs are very simple. Do not reject tradition without testing it first. Freedom is more important than money or security, and is worth even the ultimate sacrifice. Progress should be measured and careful, with due regard for facts. People are not universally good. Evil exists, and some will fall prey to it. People are the same now as they have always been--human nature has not changed one iota since the beginning. Progress is based on individual achievement. Laws, regulations and rules must be understandable to all. Too much of law, regulation and rule stifles creativity and imperils freedom. I could go on all day, but that will do for now. Social conservatism is not merely a belief in traditional "family values" or a discomfort with "new" thoughts. It is a progressive, vibrant belief system with many radical ideals many of which have never been tested. Some say capitalism has been tried and failed--the pure version Smith wrote about still hasn't been tried, so it may still be considered a radical vision. At the risk of being insulting, Jonathan, I have to say this: while describing yourself as a social conservative you show very little understanding of it. It is a much more complete and complex interpretation of life than Marxism ever hoped to be. Marxism is an attempt to revive feudalism, with intellectuals as the lords instead of warriors. You seem to hold your view from a Marxist perspective, as if you are in a culture, looking at it from without, and understand neither the culture you live in nor the culture from whence your perspective originates. Anyone can tell how much I despise Marxism, and not only because of the horrors perpetrated in its name. Marx was wrong about every single thing he wrote about. He described a world that can't exist replacing a world that never existed. He rejected reality and wanted to replace that rejected reality with an unreachable one. The great tenet of socialism, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is bunk. It can be refuted with the greatest of ease. Hand me a couple of pounds of cherries, sugar and flour, and I will take what is already valuable and turn it into an inedible mess that my vanity would call a cherry pie. My abilities subtracted value. Hand them to my mother and she'll make a bang-up cherry pie that anybody would like, thus enhancing the value of what she was given. The same material given to a great chef might increase the value tenfold. The question is, if I, and my mother, and the great chef, are all paid the same, why would anybody bother to increase his abilities. Since the value is neutral, nobody would have any pie. They'd just eat the cherries and sugar, and make the flour into bread. This is, by the way, how feudalism works. A peasant works on his lord's farm 3 or 4 days a week, and on his own little plot the rest of the time. Which do you suppose receives more love and care and effort? The fact is I hope the guy that invented Golden Rice get's stinking rich. I'm glad that there are lots of billionaires among those who invented and developed the computer. I hope that the guy that invents my flying car gets richer than Croesus' dreams. If he doesn't, he won't invent it! And I want a flying car. There you go. My belief in capitalism is really just a desire for a flying car. That's why capitalism works and socialism never will. Sorry to be so long, Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:20:16 -0700 From: The Laird Jim Subject: Re: [AML] Young Heroes (was: _Attack of the Clones_) on 5/23/02 2:15 PM, katie@aros.net at katie@aros.net wrote: > > I don't know whether these problems are part of Padme's character, or if > they're flaws in plotting. I can accept them as being part of her character, > which would add a further twist to the story. But it's possible that this > aspect of it just wasn't written very carefully. (Or that the answers were in > the movie and I didn't catch them.) > > --Katie Parker I believe that we're seeing definite character flaws. If she were really as wise as her foolish people believe she wouldn't be secretly marrying Darth Vader, no would she? After all, she did it with eyes open. Nobody else knows that he commited an atrocity after his mom's death. She alone knows, and still she married him. It's like Winona Rider's Mina knowing that Dracula has babies for breakfast but "I don't care, I want to be with you." Sometimes a girl who believes she can reform a wild, wicked young man is SORELY mistaken. Of course, when I saw Anakin's mom a-dying, I said to my cohorts, "It's atrocity time." But I would never DO it...I hope. - --Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:40:50 -0600 From: Kellene Adams Subject: [AML] Baby Exhaustion (was: Frankness in Mormon Writing) Sharlee wrote: > Then the second baby came along, then the third, then the fourth, then the > fifth. And suddenly everything changed. I was still madly in love with my > husband, but I was tired. ALL the time. Deep-down bone weary. Nursing a > baby and caring for several toddlers all day long left me exhausted and > feeling all touched out. What I craved more than anything else at the end > of the day was TIME TO MYSELF. This was a difficult period for us. > Sometimes we talked about it, and sometimes we didn't. It was always better > when we did. Completely off topic here, but I jumped on this part of Sharlee's post. It's very timely for me. Currently I have three children, aged 5, 3, and six months. I have never been so emotionally, physically, spiritually, and intellectually exhausted in my life. I got great solace from Sharlee's observation that the season passes; I'd suspected it, but having someone confirm it was very heartening. Now for my questions. This pure and deep and even desperate fatigue has taken me by such surprise, yet when I talk to people, it seems very universal. Just about every mother of several young children seems to experience it. I have been trying to come up with a useful, interesting, and purchase-worthy book idea targeting young mothers that contained hints and tips for dealing with this season of their lives. Question 1: Do you think this topic has any merit? I know there's some stuff out there. . .has the subject matter been dealt with thoroughly? Question 2: Would you focus it on an LDS market so you could include gospel-related material (i.e., Relief Society, prayer, scriptures, etc.) or look toward a national market and keep it nonLDS specific (although you could certainly still include prayer-like suggestion, yoga, meditation, etc.) Question 3: Are there any great experiences, suggestions, ideas, tips, etc. that anyone would care to share with me if I can get my act together and get this project going? (This one you may want to respond to me personally; I'd sure appreciate any and all input. . . ) Thanks for your thoughts. . . Kellene - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:37:47 -0600 From: Boyd Petersen Subject: Re: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) O.K. I don't understand where people get the idea that ancient Egyptians were black. Most aren't black today. Certainly the BoAbraham was used to justify the ban against giving blacks the priesthood, but we're beyond that now. In Maryland, where I lived for over 8 years, I was extremely distressed to find black latter-day-saints who believed they were living under a curse, were fence sitters in the pre-earth life, or were not valiant in some way. I was sad to see such folk doctrines enter their lives. I have discussed this issue with one Egyptologist who said that what we know about Egypt at the time of Abraham (whenever that might have been) is that there were some pharaohs who were black some who were definitely not black, but for most we just don't know. At the very least we know that race was not really an issue for the ancient Egyptians. And if you look at the facsimiles in the BoA there is only one person who is represented as black--a servant in fac. 1. We have wrenched the meaning of the BoA to accomodate our past practices, but there just simply is no reason to continue this. In his book _Abraham in Egypt_, Hugh Nibley (btw, the biography is all done except for final proofing!) challenged the folk belief used by many members and leaders of the Church to justify the official pre-1978 policy of excluding Black members from holding the priesthood. "Why was Pharaoh, 'a righteous man . . . blessed . . . With the blessings of wisdom' (Abraham 1:26), denied that priesthood, which he 'would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham' (Abraham 1:27)? Certainly not because of Ham, 'a just man [who] walked with God' (Moses 8:27). Rather, Hugh argued, Pharaoh was denied the priesthood because he claimed it through the "matriarchal line" rather than the "patriarchal." Hugh concluded that "there is no mention of race, though enemies of the Church have declared with shock and outrage that these passages are proof of Mormon discrimination against blacks." Hugh may not have been correct about the patriarchy/matriarchy line of this argument. At the time he wrote his book it was a fairly common belief that Egyptian society was matriarchal. But that has been pretty much dismissed. Nevertheless, it is not hard to imagine that Pharaoh claimed the priesthood through an illegitimate channel. Regardless, we no longer need the Egyptians were black argument and I believe it's time for it to go. I saw "The Ark" in its first incarnation and reviewed it for AML. I found it troubling then that McLean had chosen to make Egyptus black and I raised the issue in my review. I'm really sad to hear that after overhauling the play she is still black. There's just no reason for it. And despite the fact that the woman playing the role then was the best member of the cast, I thought it wrong-headed to perpetrate this folk doctrine. Why not make Noah black instead. That I'd really like to see. - --Boyd Petersen > Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:20:41 -0600 > From: margaret young > Subject: Re: [AML] MCLEAN & KELLY, "The Ark" (Daily Herald) > > Actually, I've never made the claim that the evidence that Egyptus was > black is not strong. I think she was black. I think most Egyptians were > black. Likely what Andrew is thinking of is my assumption that Joseph's > Egyptian wife (Asenath, the mother of Ephraim and Manessah) was black. I > also think Rahab (mentioned in the genealogy of the Savior) was black > It's a long discussion, and I'm just taking a brief break from very > concentrated writing to correct this little tidbit. Happy to pursue it > AFTER this third installment of the trilogy is done. > > [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:10:31 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Conservatism in Fantasy Rob and Jim's replies make it clear that I need to clarify what I meant in using the phrase "social conservatism." (Which probably means that I was insufficiently clear in my original message.) So, here goes: By "social conservatism," I did *not* mean political conservatism of any stripe--including the type that focuses on social issues--or any political movement currently called conservative. Rather, I simply wanted to reference a basic view of society that values stability very highly (often over other values such as democratic representation) and that tends to support existing social structures, including class structures where they exist--seeing the alternative as a chaos that damages both individuals and societies. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that this set of values maps in any way to the movements called "conservative" in the United States today. Possibly I ought to have used a different term. But in discussing societies (as opposed to political movements) as "conservative," I think something like this is very generally what is meant. (Looking in the dictionary, I find both types of meanings listed under "conservatism" and "conservative," which simply attests--as Jim noted--just how widely the meaning of this term can vary.) It's in that sense that I meant my list of characteristics of fantasy literature. And I do think that these characteristics tend to support that sort of view of the world. I don't mean to say that all the authors who work in the fantasy genre support this view, but rather that the structures of the genre itself seem to make such a meaning very easy to read into fantasy works, and sometimes rather hard to work against, if that's what you want to do. (I agree, by the way, with Rob's characterization of science fiction as a modern Romantic genre glorifying the individual. I think, however, that this is not true in the same way of fantasy. Many of the items I listed as characteristic of fantasy are not standard features of science fiction, at least sf books.) With regard to subjecting literary works to a marxist critique, again I do not mean to make any specific reference either to marxist political philosophy or to the writings of Karl Marx. There's an entire branch of literary criticism known as marxist criticism that was developed by a group of scholars who saw the marxist view of the world as a fruitful place to start in asking questions of literary texts. Many of these were political marxists; a number were not, and many literary critics (including some LDS scholars) who are not marxists in any way use the tools of marxist literary criticism to interrogate texts. Marxist literary criticism tends to look at texts from the perspective of class structures, social values, and political and economic power, and how these are depicted within a literary work. As I use it (which is only pretty minimally) and as it is used by those critics whose works in this area I value, it has less to do with finding a particular ideology in a literary work and more to do with the types of questions that you ask about the work. It focuses, among other things, on the social impact of a literary work. What will be the effect if many people read this book and accept its ideas? What impact will that have socially and/or politically? These are the kinds of questions that a (good) marxist critic asks. (I have to also add that there's a lot of marxist criticism--most of it, in fact--that *is* doctrinaire, and a lot that's relatively unsophisticated. Still, I think there's value in the approach. Even if I disagree with someone's position, there's a lot I can learn from listening to someone who *has* a position from which he or she makes an argument.) (Ironically, in the world of literary studies, the marxists are now considered--in alliance with the liberal humanists--as among the "conservatives" in English departments. It's a bizarre world out there, and while there are a lot of connections to real-world politics, the labels--and the lines of alliance--don't go where you think they ought to go.) (A quick story before I end this aside: At the University of California at Riverside, where I attended graduate school, there was another graduate student who was of the radical lesbian criticism school. She was very friendly to me, though. I couldn't figure out why, until I realized that she saw me--a conservative, religious student--as being, in some sense, an "oppressed minority," in the same way that she viewed herself, fighting as an underdog against the existing power structure. It was very strange. "All politics is local," the saying goes, and I certainly saw that to be true in my own view of departmental politics.) So the point I was trying to make had a great deal to do with types of societies as they are commonly described, and very little to do with political labels. Part of the problem is that terms, such as "conservative," are used in many different ways in many different fields. Because they do have all these meanings, we can't discard those labels--say that when we use the word "conservative," it has to mean only thus and such, and not this other. By the same token, I hope that Rob, Jim, and others will recognize that I do not mean to get into an argument over terminology, or to make any statements about political movements. Rather, my intent was simply to share a set of observations about what I see as the social implications of structures in fantasy literature. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #724 ******************************