From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #864 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, October 16 2002 Volume 01 : Number 864 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:04:45 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Margot Theis RAVEN, _Mercedes and the Chocolate Pilot_ (Review) Review Title: Mercedes and the Chocolate Pilot Author: Margot Theis Raven Illustrated by: Gijsbert van Frankenbuyzen Publisher: Sleeping Bear Press Year Published: 2002 Binding: Hardback ISBN: I-58536-069-4 Price: $17.95 Reviewed by Nan McCulloch Some of you from Provo and BYU are acquainted=20 with Colonel Gail Halvorsen known in Germany as=20 The Berlin Candy Bomber. I know him as my=20 husband's old flying buddy from post-WWII. They=20 roomed together and flew out of West Palm Beach,=20 Florida prior to my husband's being sent to China=20 as an advisor to the Chinese Air Force and Gail's=20 assignment to the Berlin Airlift. Gail went on to=20 become an historical icon and a hero in Germany=20 and around the world. As most of you remember, in 1948 Russia=20 attempted to seize control of West Berlin and put=20 it under communist rule. Stalin blockaded the=20 roads, railroads, and canal routes to cut off West=20 Berliners from all food, clothing, heat and electricity. =20 Without outside help, over 2.2 million people would=20 have died. The Berlin Airlift began a humanitarian=20 rescue mission that utilized British and American=20 airplanes and pilots to fly in needed supplies. As=20 one of the American pilots, Lt. Gail S. Halvorsen,=20 wishing to ignite hope, got the idea to parachute=20 candy to the hungry war-weary children of West=20 Berlin. Mercedes and the Chocolate Pilot is a wonderfully=20 illustrated children's book about the Berlin Airlift=20 and the candy that dropped from the sky. It is the=20 true story of a seven-year-old girl named Mercedes=20 who lived in West Berlin during the airlift and the=20 American who came to be known as the Berlin=20 Candy Bomber. Margot Theis Raven, a writer of historical fiction,=20 has written a charming, heartwarming account of=20 this loving, hopeful operation. In a time when=20 true heroes are once again being appreciated, this=20 is a book to be enjoyed by children of all ages. =20 It will make you proud to be an American and proud=20 to know Brother Gail S. Halvorsen, Col. USAF-Ret.=20 (Note: Col. Halvorsen has written a more complete=20 account of this wonderful story. It is called _The=20 Candy Bomber_ and it is published by Horizon=20 Publishers.) _________________________________________________ Nan McCulloch Draper, UT - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:56:56 -0700 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Lee Benson on _Charly_ Ha! Well, since I don't have a testimony, it really can't be shaken. And unl= ike Mr. Bond,=20 I prefer my testimonies stirred, not shaken... Thanks for the information. 10/14/2002 8:28:21 PM, "gtaggart" wrote: > >Anyway, I hope this hasn=92t shaken your testimony. If you do have the >jitters, I hear that snorting mega doses of green Jell-O does wonders. > >Greg Taggart - ------------------ Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:59:38 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Johnny Lingo I don't remember Johnny Lingo, although I'm pretty sure I've seen it. Does anyone remember a short church film, it may have been called The Bridge, but I'm not sure--about a man whose job it was to throw a switch on a railroad track by a certain time each day? I'm sure to get the details wrong. It looked like it was made in the 70's. For some reason my in-law's had a copy of it, possibly on super 8. The film starts out with a man playing with his small son on their farm, a nice sunny day, your typical cheesy scenes. But then later that day he goes to throw the switch on the track and realizes his small son had followed him onto the railroad bridge. The train is coming, and the switch is stuck, so he has to hold it in place, otherwise the train will derail. He has to choose between rescuing his small son who is on the tracks, and rescuing a train full of people. That film really hit me hard. It starts out so cheesy and sweet. The ending is so jarring. I haven't seen too many church productions, but of the ones I have, the Lamb of God is a favorite. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:18:54 -0500 From: "Craig Huls" Subject: RE: [AML] Johnny Lingo Eric Samuelsen wrote: With apologies to Kellene, I should say that I conducted an extremely informal poll in one of my classes, in which I asked which was the best and the worst films ever made by the Church. (Commercial films were excluded). For best film, there were several candidates, including Man's Search for Happiness and Windows of Heaven. Worst film, hands down, was Johnny Lingo, with Cipher in the Snow a distant second. Students almost universally found it tremendously sexist and more than a little racist. (Girls hated it a lot more than boys did, I found). The idea that there's a commercial film based on Johnny Lingo depresses me more than I can say, but I'm glad it's popular outside Mormon culture. I find it comforting to think that Mormons aren't the only ones to like something I find depressingly tacky. Eric Samuelsen *************************************** Nothing personal just my opinon: Perhaps the methods used were not up to the excitement of todays productions but issues they were addressing still exist. Who rents the biggest Limo for homecoming or who has the sportiest pickup truck. Or the best looking boots. Size and cost of the coursages The vanity issue exists. To continue, the price tag on the Prom Dress VS the dress handmade by a single mother trying to help her daughter feel part of the action. The resultant embarrassment at the dance when it looks two generations older than the rest of the girls. Took 8 months to get that girl back to school. I have counseled LDS youth with low self-esteem issues and you cannot believe how often "Johnny Lingo" and "Cipher in the Snow" have kept me working and pleading for divine intervention by the peers of those youth to come to their aid. I have used CITS in teaching youth and I have seen it touch and change the lives and relationships within a quorum. It is still IMHO a tool of value. Get a SS class into a discussion of what the objective of JL was and how it was addressed and soon the methods are less important than the issue that was being addressed. Serious Art they may not have been. Pickup a body sometime where suicide was involved and recognize that it was the zero relationship that was shown in "Cipher in the Snow" that lead to the act. There is a need out there for cinema and literature that teaches caring and sharing with real life situations. I felt "Brigham City" did that. I believe many of the Videos that have been developed for CES of late are high quality. But I have yet to see one that handles the issue of zero relationships with as much impact as CITS. With JL and CITS someone was at least trying. Amateurs? Well we all have to start somewhere. If either movie prevented a lifetime of low self-esteem or a suicide I say thanks be to those who at least tried. BTW I still have JL as a filmstrip! Anybody have a projector they want to unload? (Just kidding!) Craig Huls - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:08:40 -0700 From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Single Bishops Wasn't Elder Oaks a widower when he was called to be an apostle? I seem to recall something about it, but can't remember for certain. Kathy Fowkes - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:27:09 -0600 From: "CLARK DRANEY" Subject: Re: [AML] Single Bishops >She said she saw Brigham City and could not take it seriously from >the very beginning because a sheriff would never be called to be a bishop. >Church policy, according to her, says there's a conflict of interest. I=20 >tend >to trust her since she knows all sorts of secret things as a church=20 >employee. > >--Laraine Wilkins My father was called to be bishop while he was a county attorney and was=20 later made stake president while he was a state judge. When Elder Perry, who= =20 called and ordained him, reported to the Twelve that he had called a judge= =20 as a stake president, another of the Twelve reminded him that that wasn't=20 policy. Elder Perry replied that sometimes the spirit overrides policy.=20 Shortly thereafter Dad was invited to meet with Elder Oaks to discuss the=20 possible conflicts of interest. Apparently (and I don't remeber if Dad told= =20 me this directly or if I merely inferred it) Elder Oaks had been in a=20 similary situation. So... it can and does happen, occassionally. Clark Draney _________________________________________________________________ Broadband?=A0Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.=20 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:30:37 -0700 From: "gtaggart" Subject: RE: [AML] Lee Benson on _Charly_ Mary Jane wrote, "Personally, I found Lee's column uncharacteristically mean-spirited. He took pot-shots at the film, at Utah culture and just had an overall nasty tone." Then why did I--about as True a Believing Mormon and as defensive a wet blanket towards things even remotely negative about Mormonism as you will encounter--laugh all the way through Benson's review? (This is not a comment on the movie, by the way. I haven't seen it, though my wife insists that we will go to see whether it lives up to her fond, very fond, memories of the book.) Greg Taggart - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:45:23 -0600 From: "David Hansen" Subject: Re: [AML] Johnny Lingo Speaking of Johnny Lingo, I saw one of the best summarys of this film last week on, of all places, the University of Utah sports web board. The first two thirds of the post deal with a personal interpretation "review" of the film, while the last third deals with how Brett Elliot, Utah's quarterback of the moment, is the Utah fan's "Mahana." No question he's cynical about BYU, but what do you expect from the Ute Web Board? It's found here: http://www.utefans.net/webboard/ftboard/archive.php?id=55&action=View Dave Hansen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:35:57 -0400 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Single Bishops > >I have a question to add to Barbara's list of one: Wouldn't the >Sheriff/Bishop have picked up on some discrepancies in the murderer's >membership records? Or maybe I simply live in a la-la land where you >can fool the Social Security Administration, but you'll never fool the >membership department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day >Saints. Or maybe Dutcher has a pre-quel in the works: "Snowflake Second >Ward Clerk's Office." > >Greg Taggart Actually, the membership department gets fooled rather often. I have six children who live in a variety of locales. The daughter (not active in the church, though when she invited missionaries into her home was stood up by them) who lives in Ocala, Fla. seems to flummox them completely. At least once a year I get a call from the membership department asking her address. I always give it to them, but they can't seem to keep track of it. (I suspect this is more a problem with the church authorities in Ocala than with the membership department, but the problem is persistent.) I received another call looking for my other daughter while she was serving in a Stake Relief Society Presidency at BYU. Two of my sons, though not permanently (full time) military are in Reserve or National Guard Units that get called up for terms from six weeks to eleven months (Bosnia) and each time it happens the membership department feels the need to make multiple phone calls. Richard B. Johnson, (djdick@PuppenRich.com) Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:07:36 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Culture: Good & Bad Larry Jackson wondered: > Scott Parkin: > > I read ... three of the Harry Potter books instead > of listening to the talks ... > > _______________ > > Uh, please help us out here, Scott. > > Brown paper covers? Leather-bound copies? Inside > a notebook with papers and notes from leadership > meetings? Some other form of innocuous disguise? > > And how did you keep the others from trying > to snatch the books away from you? > > This could be very valuable information. A lot of the classic literature that I read comes in either textured cloth or leather-bound editions that I got from my father--duplicates of his Franklin Library editions that he gave me as a Christmas gift. Otherwise, I try to use standard hard-cover editions with the dust jackets removed and I pay careful attention to make sure that the spine is always held down when walking or held in my lap with the spine toward my body when sitting. Otherwise, it's just a matter of sitting against one edge of the pew (or in the back corner of a classroom). If you bring your scriptures and hold them on top of the book until you decide to read it people's eyes just slip right past it. I've tried carrying regular paperbacks but it becomes far too exhausting to keep shifting your grip and making sure it's under your scriptures (or a well-placed program). The sf paperbacks, especially, have back covers that are every bit as lurid as the fronts (though I was able to successfully read a couple of Orson Scott Card's paperbacks anyway; when asked I reminded folks that Card is Mormon). I didn't bother trying to hide my paperback of Les Miserables (unabridged) because it was so easily defended as a religious book. Of course my best disguise is a glowering demeanor and a reputation for carrying "boring" books like Virgil and Plutarch and Voltaire and Dostoevsky. They know I'm reading something non-churchy, but they assume that it's something they would find boring and they leave me alone. Of course I've also been known to carry a spare to lend to others in an emergency... Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:10:36 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Death Wish Scenes Ronn took me to task (inoffensively, I should note) for insufficiently = considering the audience for this particular piece of writing (Singles = Ward, I mean), in criticizing it. In part, my response is that I must = surely be part of that audience (active LDS, sense of humor, interested in = a critical examination of our culture), and that I found the film = dispiriting, unengaging, and colossally at odds with itself. =20 But doesn't the fact that a story is told in the medium of film suggest = that it's aiming for, at least at some level, something resembling a broad = popular audience? If the intended audience for Singles Ward was solely = Wasatch front Mormons, then it's unlikely, it seems to me, to be particular= ly profitable. And movies cost a lot to make, and must therefore aim at a = broad enough audience to at least have a chance to recoup the initial = investment. Singles Ward is full of in-jokes, and perhaps is only = intended for a Mormon audience. But it's also a romantic comedy, and as = such could potentially reach an audience of folks willing to overlook = cultural references they don't quite get in order to follow a story they = find engaging. My Big Fat Greek Wedding comes immediately to mind as a = film that explores a culture not my own, but which does so in such a way = that I don't mind missing some cultural references, because I dig the = story and characters. Singles Ward might have had that kind of potential. = But the death wish scene causes us to so thoroughly loathe the female = leading character, that her eventual union with the hero seems tragic. = This will, I maintain, damage its box office appeal to non-Mormon = audiences who might otherwise be willing to give it a chance. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:22:30 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Single Bishops I'm going to have to talk about this one and consider several parts. = Here goes: Quoting Barbara Hume : > At 11:30 PM 10/8/02 -0700, you wrote: > BTW, no one has ever answered my question about how that character = could be > a bishop now that he's single. Am I wrong to think that bishops must = be=20 > married? We just had a situation like this in our Stake (the Ward we had moved = from two years ago). The Bishop's wife passed away suddenly this past = January and he was not released until September of this year. The reason = given by the Stake President was: "Until the Lord tells us to release = you we will let you serve." The Stake President said this in Ward = Conference in February. The Bishop had two young sons (11 and 13) to = take care of as well. I know it was hard on him and his sons but it also = gave the Bishop some time to have the "Mantle" in place to have that = extra comfort only the Lord can give. I know it was hard for him to = continue to serve but the Ward was great and helped out and gave service = to the Bishop that never would have happened otherwise. Most of the time = it is the Bishop giving unselfish service to the Ward. It was a great = blessing to allow the Ward to give service to their Bishop and a tribute = to their love for this unselfish man.=20 - -- Laraine Wilkins wrote: - -- I had this question, too. Some friends of mine discussed it at an = after-movie=20 - -- get-together (Exponent was showing it for a fundraiser here in the = Boston=20 - -- area), and someone pointed out that our stake president, whose wife = died of=20 - -- cancer about a year ago, is still our stake president. Maybe = widowers,=20 - -- especially if they're in the position when widowed, can stay in? It = still=20 - -- seemed weird that a bishop who has no wife could be the bishop.=20 Like I said above, I think it is circumstances as much as anything. In = "Brigham City" both the wife and his child was killed so he (the Bishop) = did not have any children to care for after he came out of his coma. As = hard as it is there is potentially a reason for people to be left in = these positions and at some point I'm sure the Stake President would = council the Bishop to start looking for a wife. I'm sure the same would = go for a Stake President in the same situation. - -- Laraine Wilkins wrote:=20 - -- There's another incongruity for Wes as a bishop character. A friend = of mine,=20 - -- when I told her there were interesting things happening in Mormon = cinema,=20 - -- looked at me blankly and said "What Mormon cinem?" I told her: = "Richard=20 - -- Dutcher!!" She said she saw Brigham City and could not take it = seriously from=20 - -- the very beginning because a sheriff would never be called to be a = bishop.=20 - -- Church policy, according to her, says there's a conflict of interest. = I tend=20 - -- to trust her since she knows all sorts of secret things as a church = employee.=20 As the old saying goes: "Trust in Allah but tie up your camel." I would = ask her to show you where it says that in the Handbook of Instructions. = I do not see this as a conflict of interest. If the Lord calls the man = and the First Presidency approves the call he is called to be a Bishop - = law enforcement career or not. I see annoyance just like "Wes" felt = having members come to his Sheriff's station to confess sins in that = office rather than the Bishop's office but other than that I see it as a = great blessing to the community as a whole. I do not see what would be = considered a conflict of interest. Just my humble opinion. 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, 15 Oct 2002 15:32:41 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] Lee Benson on _Charly_ Well, the audience includes both people who liked it (those who wrote you) and people who didn't (Lee Benson and well, me, for example.) I think you may need a bit thicker skin if Benson's article was that offensive to you. Just because a film speaks to one segment of the population, or has a great message, or high artistic ideals---or whatever other qualifiers you might add--doesn't give it a free pass from criticism. Many people I know were significantly moved by the song "I'll Build You A Rainbow" in seminary. I still think it was manipulative. The fact that it succeeded in manipulating many people did not make it any more palatable to me. I bring that up because it was in seminary that I was also first exposed to Charly, and they are both lumped together in my mind. They both rely on the audience coming in desperately wanting to agree with the message, wanting to be moved and to believe their feelings are deep and pure. The problem is it leads the artist to be lazy. There is no effort made to reach me as a skeptic or draw me in, instead I will just be branded hard-hearted for not crying and being moved. Just as the letter writers brand Benson for not agreeing with their take on the movie. In a way, it is the reverse of the emperor's-new-clothes argument that Robert Laurer worries about with "Finnegan's Wake". It is an argument that tries to set the work of art above criticism for one reason or another. I happen to like "Finnegan's Wake," but I do take his point about people trying to shield things from a critical eye. Anything is fair game. So, at some level it's about the audience. But at another it's about craft and meaning and personal response. If you like the film, by all mean's argue it's merits. But writing in to complain about Lee Benson's article just reminds me of my deep ambivalence about being seen as a Mormon artist. Too often, I perceive artists using their Mormoness as a shield from criticism by claiming some higher purpose. As if my craft should be judged differently because of it's ideals. (It's not the Benson is criticizing a film that's worthy of writing a letter about, it's that he's criticizing a _Mormon_ film. How dare he. And in a Mormon paper, no less.) I don't think it should. My Mormoness does not forgive my art it's flaws any more that my being an artists forgives my being a bad Mormon. And if I want to really have an impact, I have to try harder to reach the skeptics and those who don't agree with my point of view. Which means I tend to hold work from my own culture to a higher standard. And works like Charly and I'll Build You A Rainbow, by seeming to make no effort to reach even me, a fairly sympathetic skeptic, make me angry because their shallowness makes my world view seem more shallow. By not even trying, it leaves me feeling like on outsider, and I can only wonder what it does to people who really are outside my culture. Other's have called Charly a tear jerker. Well, I want a film to earns my tears, not one blatantly try to rip them from me. (Yes, I do hate Bambi, too. So sue me.) Russell Asplund > ---------- > From: Mary Jane Jones > > Personally, I found Lee's column uncharacteristically mean-spirited. He > took pot-shots at the film, at Utah culture and just had an overall nasty > tone. While my position as media relations director for Excel (which is > distributing the film) puts me in a not-so-objective position, I still > thought the column was over the top. And for the record, there have been > several letters to the editor in support of the film (and in support of > Benson). [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:37:35 -0700 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Single Bishops My wife prompted me on this one or I would have by passed it: >> Greg Taggart asked: >> I have a question to add to Barbara's list of one: Wouldn't the >> Sheriff/Bishop have picked up on some discrepancies in the murderer's >> membership records? Or maybe I simply live in a la-la land where you >> can fool the Social Security Administration, but you'll never fool = the >> membership department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day >> Saints. Or maybe Dutcher has a pre-quel in the works: "Snowflake = Second >> Ward Clerk's Office." I served as a Ward Membership Clerk back in the 1970's and 1980's. Back = then you had to send to Salt Lake for records when someone moved into = the Ward. There were always things you had to get cleared up when people = moved in and when Priesthood Ordinations took place. Part of Tithing = Settlement time was used to clear discrepancies. Now for the question - = would there be some discrepancy? My guess is potentially it would say = the person was deceased but then again some clerk could say there was a = mistake in Snowflake and send the record with a question about if this = was the same person. Mistakes can happen when it comes to paperwork = (even as computerized as we have become) and I find that this one is = believable. 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, 15 Oct 2002 15:48:50 -0600 From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Single Bishops I think it takes at least six months for the machinery of calling a new bishop to get going. Every bishop that is called is reviewed and approved by the 12 apostles and the first presidency as well as the stake president and , sort of, by the local high council. Usually this is all completed and then the date to call the new bishop et. Al is set for another month out. I would think that with the sudden death of a spouse the bishop could be left in easy six to eight more months. Peter Chamberlain - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:56:12 -1000 From: Randall Larsen Subject: Re: [AML] Sam Taylor Inquiry Eric Samuelson, I checked my copy of the book. The publisher (1984) was Apsen Publications, Murray Utah. (address on request). There is a good chance the publisher (if they are still in business) will know what bundle of rights they own and who has the adaptation rights. Sam's book cries to be made into a play. Hope this helps, Randall Larsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:03:22 -0600 From: Russ Asplund Subject: RE: [AML] _Finnegan's Wake_ and _Ulysses_ > 2. A literary work must stand on it's own. If the reader is told that he, > in > order to understand the work, must read what critics have written or that > he > must understand the author's culture, religion, nationality, personal > history. etc, then such an argument makes the case that the work CAN'T > stand > on its own. > Umm, why do you say that a literary work must stand on it's own? Some do, but certain forms of poetry--from William Carlos Williams to T.S. Elliot and many others--are specifically written so that shades of meaning are revealed as you study them. They rely on both a knowledge of the culture as a whole, from mythology to religion, to a knowledge of the poet's circumstances when the poem was written. Almost any book is going to be enriched by a familiarity with the culture it was created in. For example, it now takes quite a bit of study to get all of the jokes in Shakespeare and Chaucer, but it doesn't make them less successful as literary works. > 3. Literature is a form of communication. I agree that Joyce was "impish." > I > would say that he was an "imp" out to distort communication itself. I can > readily understand why that would appeal to a 10-year-old. QUESTION: Could > > you define what you mean by Joyce's impishness? > But what if what I want to communicate is the inefficiency of the written language to communicate an entire experience? Joyce is, in many cases playing with language the way a child plays with playdough. I can see why you might not enjoy this, but I don't find it a moral failing. Literature is more a form of entertainment that a form of communication. Musical notes can entertain without intrinsic meaning. Is it wrong to feel that word can sometimes do the same? There is a medieval Jewish form of literature that consists entirely of nonsense stories-- they exist solely to play with words having the shape of meaning without the content. And if you know anything about the Jewish culture you should know they took words seriously. > 4.Words have specific meanings. > Marks on paper, sounds coming forth from the mouth--these are symbols for > specific concepts and abstractions, which in turn must be traced back to > objective physical existence or experience in order to have any meaning. > > Also punctuation is NOT a STYLE ELEMENT. As any actor or public speaker > worth his or her salt knows, punctuation is vital in recreating verbally > not > only the language the author imagined but also its fine shades of > meaning.To > throw out punctuation, or to not use it properly, is to distort language > and > thus the communication process itself. > > Language is an attempt to convey specific ideas. When language is > distorted > the union of one individual mind to another breaks down. Thus the genius > of > the Gods in thwarting Babel's tower by confusing the language of its > builders. > Well, maybe in Adamic there will be no such thing as nonsense rhymes. But I hope not. The thing is, Joyce does communicate to me on some level. What I sense is his love of words for their own sake. He likes to play with them, build odd shapes and unexpected patterns. Yes, it get tiring in large doses, but I don't think there is anything evil about it. He shows some things it's possible to do with language that you may not have thought of before. He's not trying to communicate directions to the supermarket or how to build an atomic bomb. He's communicating the flexibility and mutability of language and experience. Not successfully in your case, and I defend your right to say so, but you seem to be seeing some nefarious purpose to his use of language. He's not pretending his work is crystal clear communication, so that you will doubt your own senses. His not claiming his use of words reflects the one and only truth. I think people miss the playfulness in some literature. One of my favorite plays, Waiting for Godot, is almost always proceeded poorly because people think it has to be Serious Literature. They miss the fact that much of it is meant to be funny. A version was done with Steve Martin and Robin Williams as the leads and Bill Irwin in a supporting role. It was hilarious, and all the more moving because the funny parts were funny. > 7. Why is being a "plain thinker" a detriment to understanding Joyce? > > Frankly this phrase ("plain thinker") makes me think of the arguments of > the > fraudulent tailors in the Emporer's New Clothes: "to see this > (non-existing) > fabric, you must not depend on your physical senses or rational mind; you > must not be so earth-bound in your thinking." > I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Instead, I see it as you pointing at a swimming-suit and arguing that it is a lousy set of armor. I agree, it is a lousy set of armor--but the Emperor knew it was a swimming suit when he put it on. Now if somebody tells you its a suit of armor, by all means complain. But I don't find your blanket statements on literature any more convincing that a blanket statement saying that all clothes must function as suits of armor. Russell Asplund - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:18:28 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Lee Benson on _Charly_ Mary Jane Jones wrote: >>> The truth is, this movie is speaking to people (as Kim Madsen's post about the effect it had on the teenagers in the car illustrates). We have been getting all kinds of emails and calls from people who have seen it and have had some deep, moving experiences. The story and the characters are getting inside people's minds and hearts in a meaningful way. So I think the filmmakers did some good. After all, on some level it's about the audience, isn't it? (Now that's an artistic can of worms if there ever was one...) <<< Okay, I'll bite... Of course the film touches *some* people at a deeply spiritual level; the story is one that the author delivered as honest to his own hope and vision of storytelling, and it does touch some people. Those people have a full and God-given right to be touched by any story they choose to be touched by. They have a right to appreciate a story that shows a faith and a resolution that they see as admirable and worthy. I have a hard time with those who want to dismiss the film as totally valueless when it so clearly *does* have value to a fairly substantial number of people. At the same time, the film also offends *some* people at a deeply spiritual level; the author makes some assumptions about "the right way" that stories should be told and characters should be formed that irk some people as being too easy or pat or dismissive of other kinds of experience. When the film's promoters push it as *the* pinnacle of moral storytelling or *the* template for Mormon cinema or *the* ultimate expression of Mormon hope or the Mormon mind some viewers feel judged and dismissed and pushed to the margins of "real" Mormon culture. They feel rejected because they were not touched in the same way as others were. Both sides do each other a terrible disservice, in my opinion. They try to state ultimate truths about something that can only be interpretted on an individual basis. They try to claim authority to make ultimate judgments about a thing's worth--and thus to reject as unworthy those whose opinions differ. Even Christ's own words fell as stone on some ears--those deaf to one mode of expression sometimes need for those worthy ideas to be packaged differently before they can be touched by those ideas. What difference does the package make when it's the souls of people that should count--people in their infinite diversity and godly individuality and often radically different backgrounds and viewpoints. Different people are touched differently by the same inputs. I despise broccoli, abhor mushrooms, and detest cauliflower; my wife loves each of them (though she readily admits that for her broccoli and cauliflower are best used as a vector for either cheese sauce or Ranch dressing; mushrooms are perfect in all their incarnations). I adore raw spinach, but find cooked spinach to be hideous. I love dark, bittersweet chocolate and find light, milk chocolate to be generally bland and uninteresting, whereas my neighbor believes all chocolate is an abomination. I love egg nog, but it gives me terrible gas so I have to limit my consumption. Who's morally right? Me for hating mushrooms, or my wife for loving them? The fact is that the mushroom is one of many healthy veggies created by God for the benefit of Man. That I dislike the package doesn't mean that I reject God; it means I reject the chewy, musty, earthy flavor of the mushroom and seek my appreciation of God's bounty with other veggies. That's why He made many different kinds--to reach different palates while still ensuring that each finds adequate nourishment. As it turns out I was very strongly affected by the film _Boogie Nights_ and found it to be a powerful exploration of community and the inherent needs that each of us have to belong somewhere. It's not a film that shows the heights of human glory or the power of hope to overcome all challenges, but it is a film that touched me deeply (in a quiet, introspective sort of way). My spirit did not soar at the end of the film, but both my mind and soul did find understanding and appreciation of the ways that difficult experience can form our views and change our hopes. I won't recommend that film to very many people, but I do recommend it highly to some. Just as I suspect I will strongly recommend _Charly_ to some (though I'm not naturally inclined to enjoy the film myself, I will see it so I can form my own opinions on it and make honest recommendations to the best of my ability). But all people are not the same, and all are not touched equally by all things. That's why we need to tell *all* of our stories by whatever means most touches us as individuals. Because to some is given one gift of appreciation or perception, and to another is given other gifts. If even the gifts of God come in different packages suited to different people, then why do we seem to have such a hard time accepting that different stories can touch different people differently--but with equal power? Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #864 ******************************