From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #781 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 Wednesday, July 24 2002 Volume 01 : Number 781 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:50:40 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] English Departments Etc. ___ Jacob ___ | She isn't a fan of [postmodernism] and her points are | well-considered and I have to say that they match up | well with my observations while an undergraduate and | that the problems extend "even to BYU." ___ Just to make a point as diplomatically as possible. I'm not sure most in English departments are equipped to handle philosophically difficult texts. When they do they write things that *sound* similar but are without much content. I don't want to generalize and say everyone in English departments are like this. (Christopher Norris, for instance, is primarily in English but has written some good books on Deconstruction) However the problem is I think training and background. By the same token I *cringe* when I hear English majors discussing thermodynamics as they love the idea but typically misunderstand it horribly. I should add that while many equate relativism and postmodernism this is *very* unfair and wrong. Relativism is one of those "boogey men" that get passed around along with "nihilist" or "pyrrhic skeptic." In general it is hard to find real *philosophers* who advocate such positions. Unfortunately it is easy to find people who have made na=EFve readings of philosophers who adopt these positions. I know this sounds like elitism. (Sort of like physicists making fun of the statistical analysis within the social sciences) And perhaps there is some. However most attacks on postmodernism attack not postmodernism but simply bad scholarship and shoddy thinking. I'm all for attacking those. However instead of looking at individuals ability to think they attack a movement. Often these attacks make misreadings of major philosophers nearly as egregious as the sloppy papers coming from various humanity departments. This often happens even with philosophers who ought to know better. For instance Habermas misreads Derrida quite badly in _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. Indeed a lot of his "reading" of Derrida is actually dependent on an other person's readings while making an attack on post modernism - Ellis. I'll note, with apologies to Pres. Bateman's inaugural address, that this sort of plagerism of misreadings is rather common in attacks on postmodernism. Few seem willing to try and grasp the texts in their context. This is especially true in Sokal's recent book. (For those of you not familiar with it - Sokal produced a "fake" postmodern critique of science that was nothing more than mumbo-jumbo and then said it was a hoax after it was published. The resultant firestorm still hasn't died down. Unfortunately instead of taking the supportable conclusion that many humanity journals publish based on style and not content and that their "review" process is shoddy, he leaps to the conclusion that all postmodernism is unrigorous mumbo jumbo. A rather questionable leap of logic for one critiquing supposed irrationalism. I'm not suggesting that everything in postmodernism is correct. Obviously people make mistakes. But that is true of *any* movement. Heavens, in the sciences we expect mistakes. We don't damn an entire movement because of a few isolated mistakes. I should also add that I think the postmodern movement has a lot to offer Mormonism. Alfred Whitehead, the famous mathematician created a form of postmodernism called process thought in the 1920's. Some, such as Blake Ostler, suggest that this is very close to Mormon thought and can illuminate many aspects of Nauvoo thought. Others, such as Jim Faulconer at BYU, are very into Heidegger and feel that concepts such as Daesin explain the Mormon position. Indeed I think that many early Mormon ideas are closer to postmodernism than they are traditional analytic thought. I notice from my reading and discussions with various philosophers at BYU that postmodernism is very popular there. One big problem is that "postmodernism" is such a giant rubric. Even if you think folks like Richard Rorty or Jacques Lacan are full of it, does that justify throwing Whitehead or Ricouer out with the bathwater? - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:56:19 EDT From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: [AML] Education Week Get-Together Before this goes into serious production, I think we ought to give penetrating consideration to the idea of not having a get-together on Monday. While it's all very well for those of us who are there without family, I think it manifestly unfair to request of those whose families live in the area, to decide between family home evening and an AML get-together. Better that the rest of us sacrifice some couple hours of Education Week, if you ask me. That said, while I really look forward to meeting you guys (if I can get past the personal sense of inferiority and trepidation), since my daughter's baby - - our first grandchild! - is due that week, I may not be able to make it no matter what the chosen date. So for me, attendance at the wingding depends on little Abby Diniz. If I can't make it, I hope it will be enlightening and uplifting - and fun - for all. Linda Hyde - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:18:38 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Princess and the Pea Premiere The long-awaited premiere of "The Princess and the Pea" will be on August 16th. This is an animated feature film for the whole family. I've checked out the trailer and I must say -- the animation is absolutely stunning and fresh. Really a quality-oriented piece of work. Although the film does not have Latter-day Saint characters, most of the key filmmakers are Latter-day Saints, including director Mark Swan, producers Forrest S. Baker III and Don Judd, and composer Alan Williams. Local voice actors include Frank Gerrish and Chrystine Potter Hyatt. - - Preston Hunter www.ldsfilm.com Here is the press release: July 23, 2002 Swan Animation is proud to announce the premiere theatrical showing of it's first animated feature, Princess and the Pea. Gateway Megaplex 12 165 South Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 304-4636 http://www.megaplextheatres.com Friday, August 16th Premiere Gala & Showing 7:00 P.M., Tickets $25.000 Saturday, August 17th 5:00 P.M., Tickets $5.00 Sunday, August 18th 7:00 P.M. Tickets $5.00 Monday, August 19th 5:00 P.M., Tickets $5.00 All proceeds from these showings will benefit the Children's Justice Center. See an image of the poster: http://www.princess-and-the-pea.com/newsletter.html - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:14:51 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" Hi Eric You wrote: >snip >When I wondered if there were any GA's who rocked, I >intended to implicitly challenge those assumptions. I >think those assumptions are inherently false. I think >there's just music. >snip I still believe that there must be some GA's who grew up listening to and dancing to Rock. I think it might make an interesting theme for a short story or even a documentary. "The Musical Pasts of our General Authorities." I'm well within the median age group of the GA generation, and although I spent a lot of time listening to Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, and Bach, I also spent a lot of time listening to Elvis, Buddy, The Comets, The Everly brothers, Sachmo, Ellington, Stan Kenton, Lionel Hampton, Ella, and Ertha Kit. My musical tastes like most people's are eclectic. You are absolutely right, "there is just music," and we all have our agency to determine what we listen to based on how it effects us. I firmly believe that music can be spiritually uplifting or it can drag our spirits to the depths of despair, if we let it. How it effects us depends entirely on how or what our spirits are tuned in on. Rock on Bro' Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:27:50 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Institutional Repentance Scott Parkin wrote: >>Of course if we as a community knew how to be that kind of patient and >>compassionate and forbearing, we would be able to resolve most of the >>social issues that remain in the Church. I still hold out hope that we = can >>learn to do so and that we will learn to cut each other some slack = while we >>work to change our hearts and minds to become better than we were. >>Literature is one of many tools to aid in educating our community both = to a >>need for change, and a method for it. Some of that literature will be >>simple, didactic, and obvious. But I think it's all necessary. = Recognition >>of sin is the first step to repentance, and learning a new way to = behave is >>the next. With time and love one for another, hearts will change. Cathy Wilson wrote: >>Perhaps this segues into Margaret's suggestion that the Priesthood = wasn't given to the blacks till >>the general church membership could = receive everyone with love--and sadly that seemed to take a=20 >>very long time. So it all comes back to. . . .to me. There's no = escaping the condition of my heart >> :), no matter how much I want to = deflect any discomfort by discussing things. It's my=20 >>responsibility to repent and become a Zion person. Times that by = however many people are willing >>to do the same, and we're on the road = to Zion. There are two key parts in both Cathy and Scott's posts that I want to = emphasize here: With time and love one for another, hearts will change. So it all comes back to. . . .to me. There's no escaping the condition = of my heart :), no matter how much I want to deflect any discomfort by = discussing things. It's my responsibility to repent and become a Zion = person. I learned the weekend of July 13th that the love of one special man can = truly melt your heart. My wife and I went to see "I am Jane" here in = Southern California. Darius was there. During the intermission Kathy and = I walked back to see him. We knew he would be busy signing books so we = held back a little. When he saw us he said: "There are the Tyners!" He = took my hand, pulled me into his bosom, and picked me up off the ground. = At that moment my heart melted. I had known he loved us because you = cannot meet him and not feel that love but there was something special = about what he did that I cannot describe. You just have to experience = it. I know Darius knows why but he is waiting on the Lord to be able to = teach that knowledge. To me he is one of the greatest examples of = patience I have ever met. I cannot express in words how grateful we as a = family are for his friendship and love as well as Margaret's. As writers and members in the LDS community we have a great = responsibility maybe even overwhelming at times. That is to express our = testimony of the continuing restoration (not just revelation) of the = Gospel. Things are going to continue to be revealed line upon line = whether we are ready for it or not. Things that will rock us as members = to the very foundation on which we stand. Are we ready? It is said our = testimony needs to be alive but think about what that means. I happen to agree with Margaret's assessment as to why the Priesthood = was withheld. Even when "The Revelation" was given in 1978 the Church = membership (not the Church) struggled with this. I'm sure all of us have = stories to tell about that day it was proclaimed and the days that = followed. Like I said before many mistakes were made over the years but = none of the books that have been mentioned which teach false doctrine = about the black members and the Priesthood were ever canonized as = Scripture so my personal testimony is intact. I was even told on my = mission not to take the book "Mormon Doctrine" as literal because there = were concepts not supported by revelation or scripture. Someday we will = be told why and maybe an apology will be made for false = doctrines/understandings which were taught but not until the Lord feels = it is time (ready or not). The best thing we can do as a people and as = writers is to prepare for that day and write in such a way as to promote = a Zion feeling in our own hearts and do all we can to spread that to = others. Zion is the Pure in Heart. What are we doing to promote that? Jerry Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:59:07 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] "Choose the Rock" >So when I wonder if there are any GA's who rock, I mean, are there any >GA's who deeply love hard core rock and roll, and have enjoyed the same >deep communion with the Spirit while listening to the Who, or Pink Floyd, >or The Clash, or Elvis Costello, that I have felt. 'Cause I know some of >'em have felt the same communion with the Spirit that I have felt while >listening to the Rachmaninoff Third, or to Brahms German Requiem. Your post makes me wonder whether a piece of music can be good for one person and bad for another. I remember giving a ride to a 17-year-old male while I was playing a heavy metal album. Okay, it was a Krokus party album. I liked their sound, all right? So of course I had it cranked. This boy looked at me ( a middle-aged, middle-class Mormon matron), then at the stereo, then at me, then at the stereo -- then he took a chance. "You got any pot?" Obviously, in his mind this music was associated with drug use, while it had no such connotations for me. (Who knows what it would if I could understand the words.) Anyway, what he got was a lecture on how pot-smoking destroys your sexual vitality and that's God's way of ridding the world of potheads. (I wanted him to be really, really sorry he mentioned pot in my presence. I'll bet he never hitchhiked with a little old lady again.) I found that music energizing, which is good when you have to do something tedious like housework. Same music, different effects. I thought myself really cool to be still into rock music on into the eighties. But when it deteriotated (pardon the opinion word) into grunge and alternative (don't hate me, Parkin), I mourned the end of true rock and roll. But never, from Bill Haley's Rock Around the Clock on to The Scorpions, did I think of it as evil, or think I should give it up when I joined the Church. You know, the waltz, now considered suitable mainly for the old poops, was considered scandalous and fast when it was first introducted to English society around 1814. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:30:59 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) Kathy Fowkes wrote: > Given all the prophecies regarding Zion that exist, and aren't very hard to > find, really (D&C is a great place to begin), and after reading all your > commentary regarding what y'all seem to deem folklore, I have one question. > In your estimation and conversation, does prophecy that is not in the four > standard works, or even prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal > folklore? Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been > said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made between the > two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. Kathy, you need to make two distinctions. First is between canonized prophecies and uncanonized prophecies. The latter must be treated with a grain of salt, either because they may be flat out incorrect, or they may not express what is supposed to happen accurately enough. The second distinction is between the words of a canonized prophecy and the interpretation of that prophecy. A canonized prophecy means what it says, though that meaning is often intentionally vague and may, in fact, describe more than one historical event. Interpretations of prophesy are the specific province of prophets, so if Pres. Hinckley (or someone else who was the prophet at the time) hasn't said it, it may simply be a personal opinion, to which the General Authorities are as much entitled as the rest of us. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:11:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Repentance Thom wrote: > We > realize now that Mormon Doctrine by McConkie contained thousands of > doctrinal errors and even though it was initially quashed, it was eventually > published. Several generations of Mormons were influenced by MD and its > personal opinions posing as official doctrine. The institution (meaning the > Church) could have insisted that the book never be published and even now, > could insist that it be taken off the market. > > Thom And if they had, wouldn't we be decrying them now for censorship? - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:32:15 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) > > I see no reason to believe that the whole eleven million of us will trash > > what we have and migrate to boring Missouri. This planet is covered with > > children of God who need what the church has to offer, and they'll need it > > even more in the dark days. The faith will be where the stakes of Zion >are. > > The church has not spread over the earth only to contract to a single > > (overcrowded) space at some point. > >> barbara hume >Kathy F.: >In your estimation and conversation, does prophecy that is not in the four >standard works, or even prophecy that *is* in the four standard works, equal >folklore? Because if it does, I object to the definition. Given what's been >said in this discussion, I haven't seen a big distinction made between the >two, and it's confusing the heck out of me. Kathy, Let me try to break it down. You're not as confused as you think. :) Barbara's quote (above), I feel, is accurate, and so are yours in your post. It has been stated in General Conference that the "gathering place" for Mexico is Mexico, for Siberia is Siberia, etc. I am no good searching for quotes, though I probably have it somewhere on my computer--but I distinctly remember this being said. And yes, the *scriptures* *do* testify of the building of a New Jerusalem (in Missouri) in the latter days. The timing is actually somewhat iffy. But even our Articles of Faith affirm this principle. And I love the imagery of the Center Stake raising the tent: >Zion is the pure in heart, and Zion the City, the New Jerusalem, is >more correctly called the center-stake or center place of Zion. Like putting >up a tent, the stakes of Zion in which we all live have been placed before >the center stake goes up, raising the tent, to be semi-symbolic. >_The Coming of the Lord_ I'll have to get this one. It sounds like a fair treatment of what has been written. I like hearing that Lund makes little commentary, just reports actual statements. These, I hope, are also given in fair context. That's important. Now, to break down folklore vs. scripture: Scripture says: New Jerusalem will be built in Independence, MO in the Last Days or thereabouts (it could perhaps come simultaneously with, or even after, the Second Coming, however). During the *Millennial Reign,* the Word of the Lord (doctrine) will come from Jerusalem and the Law (government) from New Jerusalem. Unless I've mixed them up. Someone will correct me if I did. :-) Therefore, the seat of government, the location Christ physically will reign from, is to be in this Center Stake, Zion, the New Jerusalem. Common Folklore says: Missouri will be cleared out by some destructive force, after which the Saints will return to the place we were once kicked out of and build up our prophesied Holy City. We will migrate en masse (and very likely on foot) to accomplish this tremendous feat, from all over the world, to Gather to Zion. Current counsel from General Authorities *has* tried to dissuade these ideas, which are unfounded in modern or ancient prophecy or revelation, by stating that Zion is built in *each* organized stake and that *each* stake of Zion is a gathering place, and reminding us that Zion is a condition of purity and NOT a specific ideal location. (Again, I can't find that quote right now, I'm sorry.) The origin of this folklore comes mainly from second-hand reports of statements Joseph Smith may have made, and from early speculation (*not* prophecies, but ideas) by the Saints who moved West as to how they were ever going to get back to Missouri--something difficult for them to comprehend. These include a statement the Prophet reportedly made to _Alexander Doniphan_ that _Doniphan_ would see the day when Missouri was devastated and ruined, which did happen during the Civil War and has been fulfilled. His actual statement, much like when you play "Operator" at a party, has been warped over time and added to by others, including the "not a yellow dog left to wag its tail" part. Joseph F. Smith [before he was President] related how he *thought* things might or could be when the Saints returned--again, this was not actual prophecy, but his concept--and this is where the images of broken, rusted trains and Saints migrating on foot from Utah to a desolate land come from. He added that he imagined traveling by train wouldn't refine the people sufficiently enough to perform the task. It is in no way reported as "I have seen a vision..." or any such thing. (My source for this info. comes from _Behold, I Come Quickly,_ by Hoyt W. Brewster Jr., pp. 155-157, Deseret Book 1994--a good book for debunking a lot of the folklore compared to revelation. For these particular stories, he quotes from an article by Elder Graham W. Doxey, "Missouri Myths," _Ensign,_ April 1979, p. 65.) Now, it's possible all this could come to pass, sure. It's not _out_ of line with any scriptures. But it certainly isn't the only way to shake it down, and it's a very 'sensational' scenario besides, with great appeal to early Saints carrying bitterness for Those Evil Missourians who deserved their comeuppance. Considering that the Lord prefers to work with small and simple things, I personally don't feel this is the scenario that is actually going to take place. Yes, people will be called here to build it. Some may already be here (Jackson County) and in place for when the time comes. The injunction to buy land or build the Temple (in the Doctrine & Covenants) has not been rescinded, and it is a known fact that the Church is the largest single landowner in Jackson County (it drives developers nuts). But in no way do I think that everyone, or even a humongous mass gathering of Saints, is going to be necessary to build this prophesied Center Stake. There are already six bulging stakes full of Saints in this general area. We have recently built the St. Louis, Winter Quarters, and Nauvoo temples in a relatively short time period without requiring Extra Saints to move here to accomplish the task. All it would take to build it today is an announcement. (Well, and a few other small things, like hiring the architects and buying certain pieces of land back from the Community of Christ [RLDS] Church and other smaller splinter groups, but I think you get my point.) The bottom line is, lots of things are possible. There's also a lot of spurious fluff out there that is only precepts of men mingled with, shall we say, the actual modern revealed Word of God. You have to study the actual scriptures to sort through which is which. That's not so difficult (and I know Kathy--she does her studying! that's why she's asking questions)--but many LDS are not doing this simple, basic thing and are more easily influenced by stories unfounded in actual truth. For a religion which stresses finding truth out for one's self and praying to receive personal revelation, there are surprisingly large numbers of members who take this more sensational stuff for granted, doing no research to learn what has actually been said. But that goes back to D. Michael's excellent commentary on "pseudodoctrines," which he stated much better than I could here. I guess my Mormon Lit connection on this post goes back to that I wrote the book that started this thread. And it was interesting to do a booksigning and have potential readers ask me if my book was True. (Yep, that really happened.) :-) Linda Adams P.S. Kim, I'm happy to hear your book group is enjoying the read. Thank you! I look forward to your report on the List. Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:19:28 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] LARSON, _Wake Me When It's Over_ I'd like to thank Nan for this sensitive review. I shared her assessment = of the play. =20 Aesthetically, Melissa probably erred in directing the play herself. I = thought the performance was occasionally and unnecessarily flat, not = because the relationship is poorly written, but because Melissa is an = inexperienced director and didn't know how to direct actors to build = scenes from moment to moment. And Nan is also right about the curtain = raiser, which just isn't as strong a work, or a compatible one with the = main piece. But this is educational theatre, and Melissa hopes to direct = her own work someday. So educationally, her decision to direct was = obviously the right one.=20 =20 The play, in my opinion, is a gem, an intelligently written and sensitive = exploration of a marriage we come to care about, by a young writer who is = mature beyond her years. Thanks so much to Nan for taking the time to see = it. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:02:56 -0700 From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] English Departments Etc. >Erin O'Connor, a professor at Penn, has been blogging lately about the >state of academia under postmodernism. What's a blog? Is that like b-log, only the hyphen's been dropped? What does the "b" stand for? Can't seem to figure it out. Kathy Fowkes, displaying her woeful ignorance yet again :-) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 23:30:52 -0700 From: JLTyner Subject: Re: [AML] 3 LDS Lit Queries The "Five Kinds Of Mormons" essay" is in a Robert Kirby book entitled "Sunday Of The Living Dead". Can't remember the publisher offhand, but they've done other books of his as well. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:26:01 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_ (Review) At 11:44 PM 7/22/02 -0700, you wrote: >The building of Zion, the people as well as the city, was the prophet >Joseph's main goal -- sanctify the people so they could build the City of >Zion and be ready for the coming of the Lord. It's so well documented it >isn't funny, so how is this folklore? I don't think the concept of the building of Zion is folklore. But some people apparently think that all the Mormons in the world are going to move there. Your statement agrees with my thinking that some members will be needed in that place, but not all of us. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:12:48 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Gerald Lund's Fiction (was: Linda ADAMS, _Prodigal Journey_, Review) Kathy Fowkes wrote: > I know many of you have little respect for Gerald Lund's fiction. I have to respond to this. I respect Gerald Lund as a writer. He tells a very good action adventure story, especially when he sticks with non-modern settings. More importantly, he reaches a very large audience with his work and does so in a manner that has strengthened their hopes and desires and beliefs. I admire his success, his integrity, and his vision. I respect his fiction as meeting its primary goals and successfully reaching a particular audience on its own terms. But I don't like some of the stories he's tried to tell. I don't think he's done a very good job of deeply exploring some of the issues he's raised. I don't accept some of his political or social assumptions, and thus don't like or agree with some of the messages some of his stories offer. I don't like many of his metaphors ("her eyes were twin volcanoes belching fire"). I don't like the way he builds many of his characters, find many of his situations strained, and just plain disagree with many of his speculations. I will not likely pick up one of his novels to read for enjoyment. I don't like broccoli, but I respect it as a healthy vegetable with an exceptional calcium content--but I particularly respect it as a vector for cheese sauce and ranch dressing. I don't like haggis, but I respect it as the best they could do under the circumstances. I don't like spiders, but I respect their place and value in an ecological chain. I don't like Gerald Lund's fiction. But that's not the same thing as having no respect for it, and it says nothing about my respect for the man. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:10:09 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Chaim Potok Dies (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post from many who have sent in news of this sad event.] >From hpalaw3@wasatch.com Tue Jul 23 14:32:30 2002 Just thought I'd pass this sad note along. Chiam Potok died today, a victim of cancer. He was 73. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020723/ap_on_en_ot/obit_ potok_7 Dave Hansen - ----------------------------------------- >From rrasband@yahoo.com Tue Jul 23 19:06:45 2002 Chaim Potok, author of "The Chosen" and other novels about religion and life, dies at 73: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/books/AP-Obit-Potok.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - ------------------------------------------------------- >From AEParshall@aol.com Wed Jul 24 08:22:08 2002 Chaim Potok has just died, of brain cancer. Here's an obituary from the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/3724245.htm I thought this was an appropriate topic for AML because from time to time list members say they "want to write about Mormon culture the way Chaim Potok did about Jewish culture." For most of us I think that means we want to write about our own world view unapologetically, but in such a way that others outside the culture can understand and in some measure feel a part of it. Some phrases from this obituary that might resonate with list members: "... opened up Orthodox and Hasidic life in America to readers around the world ... a novel that came from a person on the inside, a believer, one who is not a skeptic ... Mr. Potok decided then that he wanted to write fiction about traditional Jewish life in its American context, even though his family and teachers opposed that ambition ... Asked once about being referred to as a Jewish American writer, Mr. Potok remarked that he preferred to be described as 'an American writer writing about a small and particular American world.' ... Ardis Parshall - ------------------------------------------------- >From kathy_f@cox.net Wed Jul 24 11:49:56 2002 Deseret News article gives details: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405019716,00.html I love his books. It sure would be something to see an LDS novel of equal caliber. Kathy Fowkes - -------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:07:27 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Acting vs. Performing On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:09:17 -0600 "Clark Goble" writes: [snip] > I suggested that many in film tend to distinguish between acting and > performing. [snip] > people see "real" acting as portraying on screen (or stage) a > fully nuanced real person. [snip] > 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. [snip] > 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. Considering myself at least a minor authority on this subject I will hazard an opinion on its. The word authenticity caught my eye. Here is how an actor acquires authenticity: They believe everything they're saying and doing. Whether the style of the performance is presentational, representational or just plain abstract doesn't matter in the least as long as the performer believes in what they're doing. If they are committed, that is fully invested in what's happening, it's real acting. Take for example Jim Broadbent's performance as Harold Zidler in "Moulin Rouge." Over the top? Absolutely. Brilliantly and believably so? You bet your sweet bippy. Another example: (I know that it's fashionable to hate Keanu Reeves, but open your hearts and minds for a moment and trust me) Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." Understated. Sure. And perfectly so in my opinion. He is fully committed to that piece. That level of commitment is what makes a movie like "Strictly Ballroom" (another Baz Luhrman project) such a delight. > 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." I believe that's because of one of two things. Either the author is forcing the character to serve the plot, in which the case the character may not be committed to the story, or the author has created a world that is so unbelievable to you that no matter how committed the characters might be, you simply can't believe they would behave as they behave in any reasonable universe. This is what happened for me with Rachel Noones's first Ariana book. I just couldn't make myself believe that there existed a place where a girl could join the church and then convert virtually everyone with whom she spent more than ten minutes of conversation. J. Scott Bronson -- The Nauvoo Theatrical Society *********************************************************** "If I were placed on a cannibal island and given the task of civilizing its people, I would straightway build a theatre for the purpose." Brigham Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:34:59 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Utopias As usual, Jacob and I agree as much as we disagree. Our disagreement = centers on a few main points: >Problems of poverty and ignorance aren't solvable via programs no >matter >how intelligently conceived or adequately funded. The belief that they >are is contributing to those problems. =20 Demonstrably false. A great many governmental programs to alleviate = poverty are quite successful, provided that they are adequately funded and = intelligently administered. =20 >They are personal problems and >must be solved on a personal basis, and even then solutions are only >possible if people are motivated to solve them. =20 This sounds very much like blaming the poor for their poverty. It is = quite true that the motivation of someone in poverty is a key to escaping = it. But the working poor I've met (and in our old ward, they were very = much the majority), work a good deal harder than I do, and are highly = motivated to escape poverty. They can't, not because they're not smart = enough, not motivated enough, not driven enough, but simply because it's = next to impossible. And the programs which could help aren't adequately = funded. This is an article of faith on the right, that programs intended = to alleviate poverty don't work and make bad situations worse. It's not = true; never has been. Obviously some programs work better than others. >Again, I like the >church's methods of handling poverty and ignorance because however >flawed the decision-makers involved are, they're at least personal, >available, and start from a position of intimate knowledge of the real >situation. It's a tough system to defraud, and one that is often >eschewed for the easier options available from other sources-->preventing >the long-term solutions that would truly alleviate suffering. I'm a big fan of the Church welfare program. It helps. In conjunction = with government programs to alleviate poverty, it can make a difference. = Up to a point. >King Benjamin's solution to poverty wasn't governmental at *all*. He >didn't tell his people, "You aren't doing enough to help the poor so I'm >going to take your stuff away and do it for you." He *could* have done >so (he *was* king) and he might arguably have done some actual good if >he had. Instead, though, he worked by example (by refusing to live a >life of leisure) and by entreating his people to care for the poor among >them. He rallied them to their personal duty, not to some governmental >program. He *had* force he could have employed, he chose instead to >teach and leave people to their responsibility. We don't know that. His great talk, the greatest ever given on the = subject, doesn't address issues of taxation at all. It doesn't say = anything about the existence of government programs or the lack thereof. = We can conclude that what he's talking about urging greater private = support for private charity, or we could just as easily conclude that he's = urging his people to be less grudging in their support of public assistance= . The text supports either interpretation. What I think he's saying is = "I'm the king, but look at my palace. Pretty shabby! I've kept your taxes = pretty low when it comes to supporting me. That was so tax dollars could = be spent where they're most needed, to support the poor. So get with the = program and pay up what you owe." Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #781 ******************************