From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #778 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, July 22 2002 Volume 01 : Number 778 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:31:27 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" I want to ponder this and here is my question. What is the average age of a GA at this moment? And what is the youngest age they ar usually made a GA? Debbie Brown - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" > Here's my question: what happens when we get the first generation of General Authorities who grew up liking, and kept liking, rock and roll? [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:45:22 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias > From: Jacob Proffitt > Scarcity is the central feature of *all* economic systems. Scarcity > is > a primary feature of our mortal life and I believe deliberately so. > I > think God set it up this way so that we can learn to be generous, > loving > and kind. Since things are scarce, we are tempted to hoard our > resources and to find security in our possessions. God set this up > so > that we can learn to find our security in him and share our good > fortune > with those in more desperate need than ourselves. Not that there > isn't > enough and then some on the planet, but we *do* have to learn how to > distribute it wisely. Distributing resources is tough and it is a > problem with every economic system. It's a little unreasonable to > blame > capitalism for it--particularly when capitalism solves the problem > of > scarcity better than any other system we've ever tried. If there is > something that people want, then that thing will have value and > others > will be motivated to provide it. The higher the desire vs. quantity > on > hand, the higher the price--and higher the motivation to provide. > Individual companies may *try* to control supply in order to > maximize > profits, but as long as there is no illegal barrier to entry they > will > ultimately fail because as long as there are profits to be made new > companies will crop up to meet the desires of the people. > > Drugs are an interesting example of the strengths of capitalism and > the > utility of patent laws. > It is true that all economic systems deal with the allocation of scarce resources--but there are parts of our economic system that seem to encourage it, rather than simply dealing with it. Detailing why seems inappropriate in a literary forum. We were talking about Utopia's after all, and I was just adding another potential take on it, not arguing for political changes. I would also hold out the City of Enoch as an example that it is possible to eliminate scarcity--however, the references to it give us no idea of how they achieved their lack of poverty. This thread has also devolved into referring to Capitalism and Socialism as two opposing, set-in-stone systems, which isn't really the case in the real world. Even in your post here, you start out by defending unfettered free markets, and then segue into patent law by which government limit free markets. There is also a great deal of confusion on the difference between economic, social, and political systems. They are intertwined, but not the same. Most countries, even the US, socialize certain goods and services. The Military, for example, or the post office or the highway system. Socialism does not always equal a completely centrally controlled economy--nor does having socialized medicine mean everyone acts as a doctor for the week. You can have specialization within a socialist system. Meanwhile, fascism was a free market system that most definitely did not value freedom. When looking for a good story to tell, it might help to remember that there are a lot of different options. Russell Asplund - --- "In the long run, we're all dead. " John Maynard Keynes - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:13:05 -0700 From: John Remy Subject: RE: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Eric said: > But when we ask about writing that might decrease faith, that seems to me a different question. > Then we're asking, is there stuff out there that, if we read it, will cause us to question our testimony > so substantially that we might stop believing in God or in the Church. And to that question, I would > say that the answer is an absolute, unequivocal, no. It is not possible that anything could be written > that would cause us to lose our testimony, if indeed a testimony is something worth having. I agree with Eric that "most writing is simply a testimony itself", that writers transmit to paper their convictions and their views of the world. I'm not sure that my personal experience squares with the above statement, however. I have come across a lot of material over the years-fiction, history, science, writings from other religious perspectives which have challenged my basic convictions in several of the fundamental principles of the gospel. I apply the same conscience, the same open mind, and similar techniques to these new perspectives which I applied when first discovering gospel truths, and sometimes my heart and mind tell me that the new principles make more sense than the LDS ones. I do not intend to make this post too personal. I am drawing on personal experience to demonstrate that we are quite capable of writing stories and reading works which transform worldviews and challenge existing perspectives-even personal religious convictions. Perhaps Eric and I agree on one thing here. Everything we read contains truth and untruth. Eric labels his truth "Gospel", and I feel that "Truth" is my gospel (Gandhi once said that "Truth is God"). The more we read, the more we are exposed to truth and untruth. Hopefully, with each exposure, we apply the various tools with which we measure truth-our conscience, the Holy Ghost, critical thinking, our code of ethics and morality, our life experience, etc.-and come away a little wiser. John Remy UC Irvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:59:25 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] "Choose the Rock" There is another thread about what literature helped us spiritually. If we broaden that to music, I'd have to list a lot of rock music. (I am, by the way, the other list member from Scott's band. I still miss playing.) To quote from a song by Frank Black, "I need peace/I feel so down/ I've got peace/ turned up so loud, turned up so loud." That being said, there is a lot of Rock music that has the opposite effect. Just like good TV vs. bad TV, good books vs. dirty books, etc. It seems like we want a shorthand to simply avoid all of Category X, rather than be asked to use our judgment and the spirit to seek out the praiseworthy from the evil. candesa Russell Asplund Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. English Translation: I have a catapult. Give me all of your money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:41:09 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Utopias Okay, since we seem to be, yet again, in a moment where the pet rocks of = the right are given warmth and sunlight and nourishment, I'm going to hope = for, at least, equal time to air out my little pebbles here on the left. Capitalism, as it seems to be construed by The Laird and by Jacob and by = several others, is the freedom-and-choice alternative to nasty old = collectivist central planning communism. Fine and dandy, as far that all = that goes: right now we seem to be a moment in history where capitalism = seems to work pretty well, and where socialism seems a ludicrous and = brutal failure. I share the same historical moment as the rest of you, and = am, in fact, a fan of market economics. In the '30's, a different picture = seemed to be emerging. For a time, the Soviets seemed to be feeding their = people better than we seemed able to do; that is, when they chose to feed = them, when Stalin wasn't busy starving the Ukraine or Georgia, or sending = all the smart people to the Gulag. Okay, we're post-Solzhenitsyn; we know = who Stalin was. 'Sovietism' vs. 'capitalism' isn't a useful topic much = anymore. The Soviet system was able to build terrific subways and terrible = cars, wonderful rockets and lousy shoes, create really super parades and = really awful art. It's dead, and not many mourn its passing. =20 I'm a Norwegian, and have lived in Scandinavia for some time since my = mission. It's very nice to live in a country without poor people, or to = live in a city the size of Oslo and notice that it has no slums. At the = same time, I have no desire to live in Norway. I have a great uncle who = died because his head injury took place late on a Thursday, and the = state's doctors only worked M-Th; his aneurism killed him late Sunday = night. My father, on a mission in Norway a couple years ago, had a mild = heart attack, but received no treatment; there was a four month waiting = list for an angioplasty. He had to cut his mission short, come home, and = receive immediate attention. =20 Now, let me add that I'm a huge fan of America and of American capitalism, = especially in its tackiest manifestations. I like telemarketers. I love = personal injury attorneys. I like big ugly billboards. I think there = does not exist on this earth a more intensely pleasurable activity than = buying a used car. So I'm no enemy to capitalism. 'Socialism doesn't work.' But that's nonsense; in some ways, socialism = works very well indeed; i.e. rockets, subways and parades. The devil's in = the details, and broad statements about Adam Smith seem at times to duck = an uncomfortable truth; capitalism is inherently and fundamentally amoral. = Market economies are very good at generating wealth, and that's not a bad = thing. But wealth also tends to accumulate at the top, and at the bottom, = emerges endless, inescapable and crushing poverty. Laissez faire = economics has been tried on a national scale just as communism was tried = on a national scale; in terms of human misery and suffering, they're about = even. Stalin starved kulaks because he thought they were a threat. = Victorian England starved an equal percentage of its society's children, = because there was no profit to be made in feeding (let alone educating or = training) them properly. Read Brigham Young's comments on arriving in = England, and feel in your bones the shock and outrage of a prophet of the = Lord as he recoiled in horror from, well, libertarian political and = capitalist economic theory in action, slightly alleviated by private = charity. =20 The relationship between capital and business and government is a complex, = ever shifting interaction, but one fundamental purpose of government must = always be to ameliorate the worst and cruelest excesses of capitalism, = while also providing rule of law, infastructure and appropriate regulatory = controls which foster and help enable economic growth. =20 I look at my father, for example. A dirt poor Norwegian immigrant, came = to the US at seventeen, was drafted to fight in Korea before he'd even = become a citizen. His father, my grandfather (who we called Bestefar), = had two years formal education, and worked at Geneva Steel for thirty = years. He made a decent wage, though, because he worked for a union that = won good wages and benefits through collective bargaining. My father went = to college, bachelors and masters, on the GI bill. He taught in Indiana = for thirty five years at a public university, and every year we traveled = to Utah to see his parents, and drove there on highways built with federal = money. Would Geneva have paid Bestefar enough so he could afford a decent = home, or a car, or even enough food on the table without the union? Would = Geneva have bargained with the union, had they not been forced to by a = panoply of federal and state labor laws, regulated by the NLRB? Would = Indiana University have existed if it had only been privately funded, its = education available only to those who could afford it? Would my father = have had a career as an opera singer and professor of music without the = substantial intervention of a variety of government programs, paid for by = tax dollars? My dad is a success story. He hauled his bad self up by his = bootstraps. He could, because he had help. From the gummint. Point is, = this is not a bidness vs. gummint issue. Both have crucial roles to play, = both, in part, ameliorate the excesses of the other. What is the millennium? What will it look like? I have no idea. But to = suggest that it's a capitalist paradise is nonsense. John D. Rockefeller = built a capitalist paradise. Robert Blake looked at the capitalist = paradise of his day, and wrote about it: 'England's dark, satanic mills" = was his word for the textile industry. Any paradise would have to include = intelligently conceived, adequately funded programs to ameliorate poverty = and ignorance, and those programs can not, can never arise from capitalism,= because there's no profit in them. And mostly, they have to be funded = and run by the government, because private charity has always, always, = been unequal to the task. Might be worth pointing out that King Benjamin = was quite a high ranking government official. =20 Deep breath. Point is, whatever structure or theory we can think of, it's = been tried. Everything's been tried. What works is balance. =20 I will say this; I'm not sure how relevant Joseph Smith or Brigham Young's = experiments in the United Order are, because they conceived of them taking = place in the only society they knew, an essentially agrarian society. = Joseph's United Order is perfect, for a society of small farmers. My = family would starve pretty quickly on that plot, because I can't even grow = zucchini. What would an information age utopia look like? Especially one = in which everyone was good, or reasonably good? Interesting thoughts. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:52:55 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Millennial Economics Since I seem to be disagreeing with Jacob Proffitt a lot lately: >The Indians got along (on those occasions when they weren't killing each >other) because they were so few spread out on a land so large. And >they >led short, brutal lives that ensured that their numbers remained few. >When the Europeans came, they were able to support the same population >as the Indians on a fraction of the required land. It wasn't a >difference of ownership, it was a difference of technology and culture. As a matter of historical fact, this isn't true. It's an illusion caused = by the awkward fact that while what most Europeans encountered looked like = a vast and empty wilderness, when what it really was was a vast burial = ground. The American continent was depopulated by the greatest pandemic = in recorded history well before Lewis and Clark. No one knows exactly how = many natives the land originally held, but no one seriously argues with a = death toll in excess of 95%, and a pre-Columbian population in excess of = 40 million. =20 The native peoples also probably lived a good deal longer than Europeans, = because what we know of their culture suggests a far healthier diet with = far fewer endemic childhood diseases. For the most part, they were not = hunter/gatherers, but very sophisticated farmers; a number of excavations = in the American midwest have shown how very advanced they were agricultural= ly. They weren't particularly peace loving--no human peoples ever have = been, but remember that the 'Indians' most Europeans came into contact = with were the tiny remnant of a far vaster society. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:21:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Education Week Get-Together > I'll go along with the majority. I have no preference as to night or place > (don't even know the good places down there). I'd just like to get together. > See you. > > Richard Hopkins ditto me. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:47:49 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] John D. FITZGERALD, _The Great Brain_ (Review) Thanks for this! I've never read this book, saw it on the shelves, but never did pick it up. I was unaware of its connection with Mormonism. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 7/19/2002 at 1:07 PM Terry L Jeffress wrote: >TITLE: The Great Brain > AUTHOR: John D. Fitzgerald >PUBLISHER: Yearling, 1967 > ISBN: 0-440-43071-2, Trade paperback > PRICE: $4.99 > - ----------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:16:38 EDT From: LSWeber@aol.com Subject: [AML] Publishing Questionable Items (was: Elijah Able Society) I've been lurking for an awful long time, but I wanted to respond to this discussion. I had replied individually to Margaret after her initial post that I had been approached by the Elijah Abel Society to publish their tract. I'm co-owner of a small publishing company and we've been interested in getting some more titles in print. I had only done a superficial look at the manuscript and while I didn't agree with what I saw, I thought that maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to publish something that might contribute to an important and interesting topic. Without going into the merits or lack of merits about the specific piece, I'd like to ask the group about the ethics, for lack of a better word, of publishing something that you really don't agree with in order to raise an issue or maintain dialogue. And, to take it to the next step, where do you draw the line with something that may be unpopular or even undoctrinal. When does something go from controversial to undoctrinal or even to anti-mormon? Lloyd Weber - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:39:26 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Faith-Building Literature? Thank you to Eric for his astute observations about "not to read less, but always to read more" and "to educate ourselves". They were inspiring words, and succinctly described how to differentiate between writing that could "damage our relationship to the Holy Ghost" and writing that challenges our worldview and makes us think. I appreciate your time in writing the response to Cathryn Lane's original question. It was an important thing for me to read, and I plan on sharing your words whenever I can. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:14:35 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Elijah Able Society I have indeed heard the "They didn't want it in the pre-existence" balderdash. And I've heard a Black man respond to it: "Well, I want it now." I love what Elder Cecil O. Samuelson said at a Genesis meeting last year. He quoted Alma talking about the mysteries of God and saying, "I do not know all things; therefore, I will forebear." (Sorry I don't have my Book of Mormon with me at the moment or I'd give you the actual reference.) Elder Samuelson then said, "I wish others had made the same decision Alma did." Yep. It's amazing how folklore manages to fill in the spaces where truth hasn't flowered. Reminds me of my neglected garden. As soon as my grand-baby arrived, all my petunias got abandoned and have now been overrun by weeds. That's an example of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So is folklore and its devastating fruit. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:19:17 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Institutional Repentance (was: Elijah Able Society) In regards to past institutionalized racism, Scott Parkin said we believe in continuing revelation and repentence. Big question. I'll even link it to Mormon letters. Scott, HOW do you suggest we repent AS AN INSTITUTION? Can we as Mormon writers/artists help that process along? Can we do it better than we are now? Can we be vocal about a need without "rocking the boat" and risking the "Gene England" fate? Or is it necessary for us to be vocal about it in our writing and speaking? [Margaret Young] Scott Parkin wrote: > A lot of things have been preached from the pulpit that were later rescinded > or clarified, and institutional racism was one of them. That we know better > now in no way changes the fact that a lot of questionable or untrue ideas > were offered as doctrine for many years. > > That's part of the joy of being Mormon--we believe in continuing revelation, > ongoing progression, and repentence. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:58:14 -0600 From: "Travis Manning" Subject: Re: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries

Preston Huner wrote on 18 July 2002:

>John D. Fitzgerald was a Mormon.  I do not believe, however, that he was ever a baptized Latter-day Saint.  Ethnically, he was half-Catholic and half-Mormon.  John D. Fitzgerald was "born in Price, Utah, in 1907 to a Scandinavian Mormon mother and an Irish Catholic father, he grew up influenced by both cultures. He left Utah behind at age eighteen..."
(http://humanities.byu.edu/MLDB/94/godfrey.htm : Audrey M. Godfrey : "The
Promise Is Fulfilled: Literary Aspects of John D. Fitzgerald's Novels")

Not to strain at a nat, but months ago I called Wallace Stegner a "Jack Mormon," and was kindly reminded by AML-listers that he was never baptized.  I guess what I had in my own mind was that because Stegner lived in and amongst Utah Mormons in his youth, he was, culturally, Mormon. 

Switching gears, Preston Hunter says above that children's novelist "John D. Fitzgerald was a Mormon," then, "I do not believe, however, that he was ever a baptized Latter-Day Saint." 

I'm not sure what to think about the notion of an unbaptized Mormon still being considered "Mormon."   Just as I am not exactly sure how to categorize "Jack Mormons."  Preston goes on to say: "Ethnically, he was half-Catholic and half Mormon."  So, from a literary historical perspective, could it be said then that there are several types of Mormons:  ethnic (cultural, or "dry" Mormons); baptized (or "wet") Mormons; finally, Jack (once wet, but now gone astray from church teachings and modern leadership) Mormons?

Not that we ought to delineate and "segregate" (I use the term loosely) classes of people, but where do we draw the line between being Mormon, non-Mormon, Jack Mormon, or any other kind of Mormon?  Is labeling Mormons instructive?  (Other than for the media emphasis explained by church leaders prior to the Olympics.)  For the purpose of literary analysis and clarity, can a person be considered "half-Mormon" because their mother was a Mormon, but not the father?  Finally, in the eternal perspective of things, will God and Christ themselves ever "draw a line" somewhere near Judgement Day defining or separating Mormons and non-Mormons?

Or, does it even matter....

Travis Manning


Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
- -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:18:41 -0500 From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] New Brigham City Reviews and More Found two new reviews of "Brigham City." They're both interesting, well-written and very positive. You can read them at: http://www.fanboyplanet.com/movies/mc-brighamcity.htm http://www.coldfusionvideo.com/b/brighamcity.html Last week we sent notice of another review that was... well, positive, but a bit unusual. It was written from the standpoint of a staunch Constitutionalist. These reviews are written by experienced movie reviewers who are also Latter-day Saints, and they're quite insightful. - ---- Just a reminder: Actors who will be auditioning for Mark Potter's feature film about missionaries, "Suddenly Unexpected" NEED TO PREPARE LINES. The lines can be found on the official website at http://www.suddenlyunexpected.com, as well as http://www.ldsfilm.com/SuddenlyUnexpected.html Auditions will be held August 3rd in Houston and August 5th in Provo. Preston Hunter ldsfilm.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:37:24 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Originality in Art ___ Scott ___ | ...she says she wrote using those specific assumptions because | they met the audience on it's own turf using settings and major | plot elements that are familiar and comforting (as it were). | She doesn't claim the lore as true, only as common. ___ One thing that is interesting when reading the scriptures is how often the prophecies can be taken in so many ways when looking forward. They tend to be more "fixed" only when looking back. It is the old "hindsight is always 20/20" principle, only intensified by several orders of magnitude. Let's be honest. Even given all the primary prophecies of the last days there are many ways things can go. Once your throw in secondary statements which are often a tad more dubious in nature (i.e. the Woodruff/Taylor "prophecy" found in the temple regarding a plague in a America in the last days) things get even more confusing. The problem is that what is familiar and comforting tend to be interpretations of the scriptures which are comforting. i.e. a last days which fits our fairly biased reading of scripture. This is why I rather liked Card's _Folk of the Fringe_. While it really did take some common readings of LDS prophecy, it did so with a dramatic twist that I found interesting. I'm not sure Lake Bonneville could rise again the way he says (isn't the land dam down by Nephi broken which would prevent his scenario?). What I'd like to see in apocalyptic literature is writing that shakes things up a little. It fits the prophecy but not in the way we anticipate. ___ Scott ___ | In very real ways, the Mormon world experienced apocalypse in | both Missouri and Nauvoo, and because those foundation stories | end with corrupt politicians using government troops to suppress/ | oppress our religious, economic, communal, and political freedom, | we assume that the next crushing of our freedom will take place | in pretty much the same manner. ___ If so, then I think we'd be the cause of most of our own problems. The mainstream "sanitized" histories tend to paint a rather idealized version of what was going on in our eastern persecutions. I'm not saying there wasn't persecution, but the history is much more complex than the "eschatological" version. (Which I've always found interesting and apply that idealization process to how I read scripture since scriptural histories probably are the end result of such rethinking of events) So I agree completely with you, but I think this relates to what I said earlier. Anyone who reads the history of persecution in seminary and compares it with more mature histories notes the difference. I think the same phenomena ought to accompany any "mainstream" use of our apocalyptic folk doctrines. (i.e. the various interpretations of what the constitution hanging by a thread entails) ___ Scott ___ | I can accept that. But I also accept that this is a very | different world than it was in the mid-1800s, and I'm a little | surprised that we haven't updated our doomsday scenario to | take a newer world into account. ___ I'm not sure I agree with that. One popular set of folk doctrines arises out of a prophecy of the last days that Wilford Woodruff found in the temple back in the late 19th century. I'm sure most here have read it and it is often attributed on John Taylor due to the author apparently knowing foreign languages. In it we have a discussion of what sounds like a genetically engineered plague. The scenario, minus the going east to build the temple in Independence, sounds remarkably like science fiction of the last 20 years, such as Stephen King's _The Stand_. With the recent fears regarding bio-terrorism many of the folk doctrines of the 19th century sound all too remarkably topically and in their way don't fit the 19th century that well. The prophecies that still are hard to fit in are the rise of the Lamanites prophesied in the Book of Mormon. Card plays with this a bit in _Folk of the Fringe_ but I'm not sure he does so in that believable a fashion. (And he tends to sweep a lot of issues under the rug) Further I have to admit I found the adultery he uses of the Utah governor as rather distasteful. (Although it does fit the criteria of "shaking up our preconceptions). - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:09:17 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Acting vs. Performing I don't know if this is close enough to the them of Mormon letters. I'm searching for the "Mormon" connection. However I thought I'd send it through anyway given that I think most recent threads have tended to finish their course. However if it isn't close enough and I don't see it on the list, that's OK too. Some friends and I were discussing last night the issue of why comedic actors rarely get recognized as actors. I suggested that many in film tend to distinguish between acting and performing. After the inevitable debate that confused semantic issues with meaning we got past word choice to the heart of the subject. As I see it, people see "real" acting as portraying on screen (or stage) a fully nuanced real person. It isn't an issue of subtlety nor exaggerated characteristics. There are many real people who have subtle aspects of their personality and exaggerated characteristics. The difference is whether in the performance one aspect of the performance is portraying the character as a real person. In most comedies the character doesn't really matter as a real person. All that matters are the punch lines and so forth. This isn't true of all comedies. Dustin Hoffman in _Tootsie_ is a great example. I think he tried to portray the character as a real person, even though it was a comedic role. The Ace Ventura character that Jim Carrey portrayed really doesn't. This isn't to say that comedic actors like Jim Carrey, Groucho Marx, Jim Belushi or others aren't skilled performances. Rather it just says that in many of their performances they aren't really acting in the sense that some see "real" acting as being. It is closer to doing a skit or stand up performance. Now many comedic performers do move towards more real acting. Jim Carrey, for instance has moved towards drama as has Robin Williams. I think that the difference which I designated as performing vs. acting (for simple need of words for discussion) really relates to the issue of "embodiment" that we'd discussed last month. There is a certain question of authenticity. I don't think I was able to convey that notion too terribly well to my friends who don't have a background in philosophy. However I do think that this is a notion that exists in the film community even if it isn't always analyzed well philosophically. Anyone agree? Disagree? Is there a good way to explain this without invoking too much philosophy? Now for the (somewhat strained) LDS connection. It often seems like in our literature, even written literature, our characters are less "acting" than they are "performing." Characters exist for their role in the plot and not as fully fleshed out characters. While this is understandable in scriptures, where the significance isn't figures are real people but their theological or typological roles. Yet it often seems in a lot of "popular" fiction and film that characters don't resonate a true characters. This is true in a lot of church films I've seen. I think that there has the last few years been a move to more real characters. (_God's Army_, _Brigham City_, etc.) I've not seen it, but I've heard some suggest that _Other Side of Heaven_ moves more on the performance line rather than the acting line. In literature the more "serious" fiction often has characters who are "actors" rather than "performers" but I think a lot of fiction doesn't. Perhaps for literature this the terms acting vs. performing is less appropriate than whether a character is embodying a real human being. (A term I lifted from Heidegger but which does pop up in both film and literary criticism) In other words is the character believable as a real human being. Now in comedy this is often less necessary. However I'd simply point out that I think that the comedies which have both the comedy and the real characters are much more powerful than simple comedies like say _Ace Ventura_. Clark Goble - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:54:41 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias ___ Scott ___ | Since a perfect system cannot be implemented without a | perfect dictator it's foolish to try, or even to imagine | a system other than our own. All we can do is wait for | Christ to come and do it for us. ___ Just a minor theological quibble. My understanding is that the ideal of the gospel is more a kind of anarchy where all involved are so good that their choices are always in harmony. I don't think you necessarily have the direction you discuss. For one it isn't necessary - the individuals in question have sufficient power that they don't need the organization that resource poor communities do. For an other all fully born again beings share the Spirit in some way we don't really comprehend. i.e. why do you need a "dictator" for beings who have in some sense a shared will The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou heareth the sound thereof but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the spirit. (John 3:8) This was what I was getting at last week when I asked the question of "utopia for whom?" It seems that the nature of an ideal civilization for a well educated society will be different than that for an uneducated society. Likewise it will be different depending upon the level of that society's spiritual growth. So once again I ask, utopia for whom? We bring up the stories of the Garden of Eden, but perhaps the Garden of Eden was only a utopia for Adam and Eve in their innocent childlike state. I personally doubt it would be a utopia for the Adam and Eve towards the end of their mortality and certain not had they had the veil lifted. Call me cynical, but to me being stuck in a garden with only one other person and no challenges is hell. The desert island "fantasy" to me is a hell. I always found Tom Hank's _Castaway_ as a kind of anti-utopian critique of the utopia of the desert island which is itself a kind of re-presentation of the utopia of the garden of Eden. And of course the folks on Gilligan's Island, for all its utopia, still wanted to home of America rather than the garden. Even Lehi points out that Adam and Eve had to leave utopia to be happy, which suggests that utopia really isn't. I note that in a lot of Jewish literature that the Garden of Eden is a kind of middle point in the heavenly ascent. Roughly it corresponds to our notion of the terrestial kingdom. Heaven, or the *real* utopia requires moving beyond the garden. ___ Scott ___ | Are Zion and Utopia the same ideas packaged for different | audiences? ___ My personal opinion is that Zion is not utopia. Rather it designates a kind of people. The kind of people live in a kind of place, but the place is determined by the people and not vice versa. Put a way there is no way to structurally create a utopia. As Joseph liked to say, for a Zion people you could put them anywhere, even hell, and they'd make a heaven out of it. That's an other reason why I find the notion of utopia in literature so interesting. It tends to focus on utopia as a kind of engineering project. As if human beings could ever design a utopia in that fashion. Perhaps that is yet an other play on Moore's pun of Eutopia as both good place and no place. It is a no-place because the key is that it isn't place at all, but people. It is good because of the people, not because of the place. Something to think about in light of the war in heaven which I mentioned last week as the ultimate critique on any notion of utopia. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #778 ******************************