From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #883 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, November 4 2002 Volume 01 : Number 883 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:55:19 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] _Finnegan's Wake_ and _Ulysses_ ___ Justin ___ | I have a problem with Rob Lauer's polemic that language is only | valid when it is instrumental; that is, when it is used to | "communicate" something. ___ I've stayed out of this, mainly due to time, but I have to fully agree with Justin and his criticism. One of the most amazing things about all things linguistic to me is finding the unexpected. There isn't this transparent mastery of the "tool" by the author. Rather the author always communicates unexpected things, unconscious messages of themselves and their culture, and then language itself can open up many interesting avenues. This isn't just in more "poetic" language and literature, such as found in John Donne or James Joyce. Rather it occurs all the time in mathematics - probably the most "unpoetic" form of language there is. Yet any mathematician will tell you there is a poetic beauty to mathematics that is stunning. I bring up mathematics because I think it illustrates how I feel about Joyce. Mathematics takes years to master so that you can really read even simple writings and appreciate them. Yet thousands upon thousands have and historically math was considered the most transcendent of human writing. To such an extent that Plato wanted to ban the regular poets from his state. Yet at the same time the vast majority of even the educated populace can not stand reading math. To them it is gibberish and they can't understand how anyone could possibly read such things for enjoyment. I think the same is true with Joyce. Joyce is not a simple read. Further he is, I think, designed to read in a way that is closer to studying rather than the way one reads Stephen King. Yet, as with mathematical writings, those few who have the ability to discern the beauty there are thrilled. Further many people enjoy the very kind of reading that requires so much of them. That is part of the beauty of mathematics. Reading isn't transparent at all, but rather the very act of reading puts one in a kind of relationship with the text that can't occur in simpler ways of reading. Now just as most mathematicians enjoy other kinds of books, I suspect most Joyce readers do as well. The only difference is that some authors, whether Joyce, Derrida or whomever, can be attacked simply because they are so confusing to those who've not prepared themselves to read it. Further, just as with mathematics, those who "feign knowledge" of how to read the texts often produce a great deal of gibberish on the subject. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:34:30 -0700 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] Book of Mormon Movie Casting Call Just to keep the record straight, the Book of Mormon movie is far from underfunded. According to the writer/director/producer, it has a multi-million dollar budget (which I take to mean at least $2 million, which is more than twice the production budget for Brigham City) and that all funding for the film is complete, which is why they are now in the casting stages. Filming is to occur in Utah, California, and Mexico with some limited additional filming in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The film is currently scheduled to be released in the spring - so it is difficult to see a scenario where the film would not be made. I believe that often production companies will choose to not use SAG actors because SAG requires that actors be paid again if the film is to be released on video or DVD and again each time it is to be aired on television in some form - in other words, each additional use - but the production company does not want to do this. I know this is a simplification of a complicated union agreement, but I believe that is more or less accurate. I think these may have been the problems with "Legacy" referred to by another contributor, although I am not privy to any specific information about that particular situation. I also am not aware of the producer's specific reasons for not wanting to use SAG actors in the case of "The Book of Mormon Movie". Thomas - ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 21:12:06 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Laurel Thatcher Ulrich and BELLESILES, _Arming America_ - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen > > Okay, I've read the Emory report and I've read all the > material available at the website cited in this post. I've > gotten interested in this controversy because I've read > Bellesiles' book, and find it most interesting. A few comments: > > 1) The Emory report strikes me as a model of fair minded and > academically responsible peer review. Bellesiles' response > to the Emory report quite correctly points out that the Emory > committee found fault with only the tiniest corner of his > research. But that's not relevant. He is, at the very > least, guilty of shoddy note-taking, and of misrepresenting > his data. It doesn't matter that the errors only occur in > three paragraphs. The scholarly standard is and must be > higher than that. No one represents that higher standard > more than Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Did we even read the same report? Bellesiles faked data. Worse, he deliberately lied to cover his fakery (which is how the LDS mention happened). > 3) Bellesiles' book has now effectively been discredited in > academic circles. That doesn't mean he's wrong, that doesn't > mean his arguments aren't valid, and that doesn't invalidate > the literally thousands of pieces of untainted evidence that > bolster those arguments. What this means (and this is all > that it means) is no reputable scholar is going to be able to > cite Bellesiles as a source, probably ever, not until another > scholar replows the same ground. Which, I predict, will > happen, and that right soon. I highly doubt that. For one, you can't get the information he claimed to get from the records he claimed to get it from. Estate inventories are singularly useless as a gauge for ownership of anything--particularly something so common as not to stand out much. Wills are even worse because it is a rare will indeed that doesn't have an "elastic" clause to catch things not specifically enumerated. If you really want to come close to gun ownership numbers, you should hit shop-keeper inventories and manufacture and distribution statistics. Or you can rely on contemporary accounts--visiting Europeans are particularly useful here because they tend to mention specifically how many guns they found openly carried in the U.S.--mainly as a contrast to their home countries. Bellesiles' studies are most misleading because they look like they represent a good way to come at the information he claims to be searching for, but rely on a fundamentally weak method to arrive at his supposed facts. > 4) As usual, those outside the academy with a passionate > interest in the issues Bellesiles raises have overreacted in > the most deplorable way, unnecessarily politicizing and > grotesquely oversimplifying a reasonably complex issue of > academic integrity. (You can really see that in the comments > links on that website) It's difficult to imagine a more > emotionally charged series of issues than those raised by the > Second Amendment. Bellesiles chose to jump right smack in > the middle of that debate. Shame on him for not documenting > his work more thoroughly. He's still right, of course. The > fact that his work is academically discredited does not > render it invalid, or false. But still, shame on him. Um. This isn't just lousy documentation. He lied. He lied repeatedly to the committee investigating his work. He made up stories about getting information from an unnamed "LDS friend" and he made up stories about getting data for pre-1908 San Francisco. He has effectively taken himself out of academic credibility and anybody who plans to pursue his line of research had better do a markedly better job at it. I'm sure he felt comfortable attacking the "right-wing gun nuts"--we're a group academia feels free to attack with impunity because "right-wing gun nuts" is enough of a label all by itself to ensure no effective rebuttal. To me, Bellesiles illustrates how very far you have to go before academia is forced to take you on to protect what little credibility they have left. > 5) Bellesiles is not a star. He's not famous, he's not a > celebrity-scholar. And he took on a very controversial > issue. Of course his shoddy scholarship was going to catch > up to him. Too many people care too fervently about this > issue for him not to get caught. If he were a celebrity, > like Stephen Ambrose, he would still have been okay. Barbara > Tuchman (who I adore) literally peppered her work (esp. A > Distant Mirror) with factual errors. It didn't matter, > because she was Barbara Tuchman. Fame helps. First off, in the circles Bellesiles frequents, his book is *hardly* controversial. It's practically dogma and it doesn't surprise me that he was blindsided a little bit that he would come under any scrutiny whatsoever, let alone enough to prompt official responses. What's amazing about the whole episode is that it took over a year of steady pressure to get an investigation going at all. Even then, it began grudgingly until it became clear that the accusations were unskirtable. But we've had this conversation before about increasing academic agendization. Academia is doing itself huge harm with this carelessness that has become *way* too common. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 22:33:52 -0700 From: "Jennifer Ellsworth" Subject: RE: [AML] Teaching at BYU [MOD: I also know that John Murphy has been a highly respected member of the BYU English department. I think I've heard of a number of other non-LDS professors at BYU, but he's one example that comes quickly to mind.] There are two non-LDS full professors in the psychology department. I believe that non-LDS faculty are held to pretty much the same standards as the rest of the faculty. - -Jennifer Ellsworth John Remy: Must one be an active, temple-recommend wielding member to teach at BYU? Are there examples of non-LDS tenured professors at BYU? (I honestly don't know.) _________________________________________________________________ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 13:55:06 -0700 From: "Janelle Higbee" Subject: [AML] Re: Single Bishops - -----Original Message----- From: "Jacob Proffitt"=20 >>Most women are used to considering the alien/other as something they do e= very day. It has to do with community, sociality, and other stereotypical "discourse" tendencies found = common among women.<< True, true. In one of my literary theory classes at BYU several years ago,= we discussed this subject as an issue of feminist criticism. I can't re= member who we were reading--Helene Cixous? I'd have to dig out my notes--= but the theorist pointed out that when it comes to discursive patterns, w= omen learn to be "bi-sexual" as well as "bi-lingual" in order to communic= ate effectively in a public discourse that is predominately male. =20 from Jacob: <= > This is very intriguing. (And it also gave me something new to talk about = when delivering the visiting teaching message last week; the topic was "S= ustaining the Priesthood." So thanks, Jacob!) Certainly the organizational structure of the church can have this effect o= f blurring gendered differences--encouraging men and women to become more= like the Other. Quite a surprising effect, really, considering how ofte= n the church (and organized religion in general) is blamed for reinforcin= g gender stereotypes. I've done some research related to these issues. My master's thesis was a = study of the rhetorical patterns and public discourse of early Relief Soc= iety and female suffrage leaders in Nauvoo and Salt Lake. I'm convinced = we don't give the church enough credit as an agent of radical change (for= good!) in how men and women interact in a community. I'm also convinced we still don't take enough advantage of all the opportun= ities such a radical, Christ-centered discourse community offers us to im= prove our communication skills. (Although the AML-List community is certa= inly doing its part. Kudos, everyone!) - -Janelle Higbee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 15:13:16 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Sealings At 05:00 PM 11/1/02 -0600, you wrote: >Shameless plug: >My novel, Lost Without You, deals with this issue with a perspective I don't >think has been done before in LDS literature. Who's your publisher? Is it available now? I'd enjoy seeing a new perspective. It might enliven the constant discussions I have with other Mormons on this issue! barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 15:38:23 -0700 (MST) From: Melanie Dahlin Subject: Re: [AML] Lee Benson on _Charly_ I stand corrected. Of course, I DID recognize that Weyland was not the only one writing Mormon literature. I just feel that he is one (not the only one) pioneer that made Mormon literature well-known. Although, I suppose I can allow you to contradict me, just this once. - -Melanie Dahlin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 15:45:12 -0700 (MST) From: Melanie Dahlin Subject: [AML] Re: Johnny Lingo [MOD: This is a compilation of two posts from Melanie.] That would be hilarious! I'd watch it! - -Melanie Dahlin I'm sorry. Let me try this again. I think Alan's ideas for a sequel to Johnny Lingo are hilarious! - -Melanie Dahlin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 20:17:04 -0700 From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] The Role of the Reader At 08:15 PM 10/31/2002 -0700, you wrote: >William Mulder has said that "the burden of creating a Mormon literature in >the future rests as heavily on the reader as on the writer." > ...we must first examine the >reason readers continue to buy the Weyland-esque novels. . . . .readers >want safe, easy answers in the literature >they support. A novel like _Charly_, which spells out and nearly preaches >lessons in standard doctrine, faithfully preserves the status quo. It does >not shock expectations of didactic entertainment as does Virginia Sorensen's >_A Little Lower than the Angels_. Mormon readers do not want to be forced >to ask questions while reading Mormon literature; they only want simplistic >affirmation of doctrine through formulaic means. Productive ambiguity in >exploring imperfect characters, which was the work of Shakespeare, Bronte >and Faulkner among other great writers, is not welcome to a readership >expecting safe and effortless stories. > >.... >The reader's responsibility in the creation of good literature, then, comes >down to honesty. Readers must be honest about the ambiguity of striving for >perfection in an imperfect world, for if they ignore this reality there is >no hope in shaping the market forces that dictate the direction of our >literature. > >Andrea Lewis It has not been my experience that Latter-day Saints "do not want to be forced to ask questions" while reading literature. There are oh so many Latter-day Saints who love to read "Shakespeare, Bronte and Faulkner among other great writers." And there are many people out here who love to "be honest about the ambiguity of striving for perfection in an imperfect world." On the other hand, for a writer to cultivate an audience, takes lengthy study of one's audience with an honest realization of what they read and what kind of lives they live. I find Orson Card's blunt honesty healthy and of a clear vision. I found the blunt honesty of a writer on this list who's book I read earlier this year degrading and vulgar. Good literature, in whatever genre, even murder mysteries, which cause us to search the deepest and darkest recesses of our souls, will give the reader a healthy, balanced diet. I think that to understand how to write healthy, balanced honest fiction for any group is a challenge. I feel that to write so for the Latter-day Saints is especially challenging because they have the gift of the Holy Ghost. By narrowing the genre to that group exclusively, a writer must appeal to all levels of maturity to make it financially. That is a near impossible demand, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established to be "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." D&C 89:3. (A note of interested, one can find in 89 a terrestrial and celestial law that not all are aware of. Those parts are not requirements for baptism). If, instead, a writer selected a maturity level to write for and expanded the audience to all people of that level and then applied true and correct principles, it is my self-righteous opinion that they might begin to experience the success of Orson Card. There is a writer loved and accepted by all who can read his work, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. Frankly, there are those on the maturity level of Jack Weyland. I am grateful he writes for such people. Those folks do grow up and mature to other literature. Perhaps such a writer would bless us all if he or she could encourage a little stretching of the mind. On the other hand, perhaps such a writer's audience would expand, if he or she would like to reach out to an audience across a greater diversity, still keeping that maturity level. My opinion is that Gordon Bowen hit the nail on the head when he said the following: "...please, resist creating art specifically for "the Mormon market." That's putting the candle under the bushel, if you ask me. One of my favorite pieces of modern sculpture is the gold statue of Prometheus stealing fire from heaven at Rockefeller Center. You must risk and sacrifice to bring new light. One of the roles of the artist is to bring the celestial fire to the earth. And to do that, you must carry the torch in your own hands." So what do I think the purpose of AML can be in light of that opinion? Gordon Bowen said we must compete with the world, but never, never with each other. It is here that we will cultivate in each other, not ourselves, the Shakespeares, Brontes and Faulkners of the Kingdom of God and I think they will put such writers to shame. But we will also cultivate the Louisa May Alcotts, who wrote to a group of young women who loved and cherished her literature because it spoke to them. They were the ones who, when out in the cold dark world away from home, then fell in love with Thoreau and other perhaps more "mature" peers of Louisa. Lynette Jones - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:18:09 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Generalizing from Experience Michael wrote a treatise about "Cautionary tales." A great discussion! I loved reading it, and I couldn't agree more! We must not avoid creating scary worlds. I am hyped up again about creating the killers' world so we can face that one full steam ahead. Plus I wanted to say thank you to him publicly for a terrific forum of writers, readers, film people, Saturday! What a lot of work, and it was wonderful. We learned so much from each other! Thank you for all of your efforts, Michael! You did a terrific job. Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:26:01 -0800 From: "R Seagle" Subject: [AML] re: Getting Started with LDS Screenwriting If I could have only one reference book on screenwriting it would be = SCREENPLAY: WRITING THE PICTURE by Robin Russin. =20 Robin teaches at UCLA's graduate screenwriting program, and also at = University of California at Riverside. I had a class with him at UCLA = and he's fantastic. Not the David Trottier isn't, but I've read his = book also and I still favor Robin's heavily. Rebecca Seagle I also had the pleasure of having Robin as a teacher at UCLA's = screenwriting program. Just about any question you could have on the = process of writing a screenplay is addressed in his book. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:37:05 -0700 From: "Ben Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] SAMUELSEN: _Peculiarities_ (Review) > > I enjoyed all the parts and pieces of this play, and admire the playwright's > skill in both conceiving and executing on a difficult theme. In the end, > though, I didn't understand what question Eric Samuelsen was trying to ask > with _Peculiarities,_ and so I left the theater feeling ambivalent about how > well that question was asked. I was clearly outside the target audience for > this play, but I'm not sure I was supposed to be. That's a question I don't > have enough information to answer--or even to ask well. > > Scott Parkin I won't try to say what you should have gotten out of _Peculiarities_, nor will I try to interpret what the playwright intended because Eric himself said at the AML Writers' Conference yesterday that his intention was not to ask or answer questions, but rather to say, "This is the world as I see it." I will, however, say what I got out of the play. First of all, I agree with Scott in that the play was well conceived and executed, and I too enjoyed it. Beyond my initial enjoyment of the play, though, I've appreciated the questions it left me thinking about in the week since I've seen it. In my interpretation, the questions asked by _Peculiarities_ are found in what was NOT portrayed. The play showed a number of people in seemingly hopeless situations, and did nothing to rescue them from those situations. At the end of the play, each of the characters and their plights had been well developed, but I was left wondering, "How will they get out of this?" And I really appreciate that I was left to find my own answers to that question. I probably would have felt insulted if Eric had answered that question by showing at the end of the play that all of the characters prayed and read their scriptures and talked to their bishops and lived happily ever after. I also enjoyed the universality of _Peculiarities_. I've never gotten married and divorced over the weekend only so I could have sex, I've never been a 23-year-old girl despairing because I'm not yet married, I've never had NCMO with anyone, and I've never been in a near-adulterous situation, but I could still relate to the emotions portrayed. In that sense, the play was very real to me. My brother, who is a very-much-not-sexually-repressed atheist, also saw the play and identified with the emotions of the characters--particularly the loneliness and the feeling of being manipulated by someone else. Obviously, not everyone will identify with the play, but the affected audience extends far beyond sexually repressed single BYU students. [Ben Christensen] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 14:10:51 -0800 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: [AML] Hugh WYNN, _The Mormon and Mr. Sullivan_ (Review) Review ====== Title: The Mormon and Mr. Sullivan Author: Hugh F. Wynn Publisher: Writers Club Press (an imprint of IUniverse, Inc.) Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 305 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 0-595-23831-9 Price: $17.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (Note: Publicity for the book, and the front cover of the book itself, put the title as "The Mormon...and Mr. Sullivan." But the cover page, the spine and the page headers all omit the ellipsis. I have chosen to follow this convention for convenience purposes only.) "The Mormon and Mr. Sullivan" is a most curious book. Having heard that yet another volume had come forth concerning the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I was, of course, anxious to get my hands on it. Would it be apologetic in nature, or would we have a budding Bagley on our hands? Mr. Wynn's position was made startlingly, and abundantly, clear, at the outset. The opening words of the Foreword follow: America has twice witnessed September 11 episodes of terror: in 2001, the twenty-first century Islamic horror show that brutalized New York City and Washington, D.C., and in 1857, the senseless slaughter of Americans by other Americans near a desert oasis in nineteenth century Mountain Meadows, Utah. Both acts of violence reflect a chosen people's blind faith in their Savior's Divine Purpose. (p. ix) Wow. A bit overstated? I don't know. At the very least we know where Mr. Wynn stands. We can expect little sympathy for John D. Lee and the Mormon attackers, and, in fact, we get little. But this book isn't about assigning blame or condemning an entire people. It's about how the past can reach into the present and affect the lives of real people, sometimes in unexpected, and unwelcome, ways. The Mormon is J. Doyle Lee, namesake and direct descendant of the infamous John D. Lee. He goes by the name Doyle, and shares with his family a dislike for Mormonism and the for the Church that turned its back on his ancestor, leading to his death at the hands of a firing squad. Mr. Sullivan is Jody Sullivan, a wealthy businessman and soon-to-be oil magnate, who befriends Doyle as he (Doyle) begins a new life following an acrimonious divorce. Jody had heard tales of his ancestry, and it soon emerges that he is a descendant of Zealy Sullivan, a scrappy pioneer who had an incidental involvement in the murder of Parley P. Pratt. He subsequently joined the Fancher Party in their trek through Utah, and was murdered in the massacre. "The Mormon and Mr. Sullivan" documents the progress of the lives of the two men. While there are certainly intersections in their lives and careers, and while their friendship is enduring and sincere, they are motivated quite differently and thus find themselves on divergent paths toward clarity. Doyle is out to forget, and grow out of, his past; Jody wants to explore and learn the truth about his past. But when Jody discovers that his new best friend is a descendant of the man who murdered *his* ancestor, how will this affect their friendship? Along the way, Wynn steeps us in detail about the men's lives. Their work (including an extended, and detailed, explanation of the art of oil exploration), their loves and their ambiguities, are explored, nicely developing the characters. Wynn does a good job in defining the characters and placing them at strategic points in the story-telling to keep the plot moving. However, the episodic nature of the book should have encouraged Wynn to at least add some chapter headings, including the years covered. Jumping rapidly from Doyle's childhood to his adulthood, and back, was a bit disconcerting. More than once I had to read into the chapter to know whether I was dealing with the child or the adult. The childhood narratives are especially powerful. Wynn evokes a time and place few of us have experienced. The difficulty of raising a family during the Great Depression, the solidity of family life at a time of extreme economic fragility, add to the story nicely and give us some foundation for understanding the adults. And further, Wynn's narratives of John D. Lee's execution and of the Massacre itself are harrowing and convincing. Wynn has a sure voice in his handling of these accounts. But make no mistake -- this book is a melding of fact and fiction. Beginning on page xv, Wynn offers a Chronology, which he prefaces as follows: The cause and effect of the Mountain Meadows Massacre covers a period spanning fifteen decades. Out of consideration for the reader, set forth below is a chronology of major events, some of which actually happened. And then follows this Chronology, a big help when you consider the constant jumping from past to present without the aid of chapter headings. When reading the last part of the book, one can easily forget that this is about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It is hardly mentioned as Wynn explores the life-paths of the two men. But when one considers that this book is really an exploration of the emotional trajectories of the Massacre, the relationship is clearer. The Massacre re- emerges as a major issue at the end of the book, with a resolution that might not satisfy some readers. I'm going to spend a few minutes here with my biggest gripe about the book, and I don't know who to blame, the author or the publisher. If an editor even glanced at the book, it isn't obvious. Unbalanced quotation marks are rampant, and are sometimes completely absent, making it impossible to know when someone is speaking or when the narrator is commenting. It was frustratingly distracting. And the book contains hundreds of instances where a spell checker will have missed an error, but an editor would not. Some examples: Sobering details of the 1846 Donner party tragedy was [sic] deeply etched in Fancher's memory. (p. 6) "If I'm arrested and found guilty of involvement in the Meadows affair, Brigham and the Church leadership will come to my defense. They won't sacrificed [sic] me for the misdeeds of so many." (p. 17) "Git some cold water, Rebecca, and some old rags. Wipe his face and I'll clean his wounds." Pratt's face was ashen, a ghostly parlor [sic]." (p. 70) Ed paused again. His silence had a stirring affect [sic] on Jody. (p. 78) And it gets worse as the book proceeds. Mama Grace's passing would be a devastating blow to the children, particularly Jody. She doted on the boy. Mama Grace saw in him a potential that others overlooked. The boy was intelligence [sic], polite, soft-spoken and serious. The somber demeanor often camouflaged his comic tendencies. Mama Grace viewed Jody as a family trailblazer, the one to set a higher educational standard for future generations. She accepted the probably [sic] fate of her four daughters. (p. 168) Two blunders in one paragraph. This is not good. And here is the tragedy of the situation. "The Mormon and Mr. Sullivan" is one heck of a story. Wynn is a good storyteller. He develops his plots and characters and keeps the interest of the reader. He even catches the nuances of what Mel Brooks called "authentic frontier gibberish" without annoying the reader. And he moves his story along with a sure footing and a sense of direction. Why this book wasn't edited is a mystery to me. Should Wynn decide to re-issue the book at some point, this, along with chapter headings that include the years covered, must be done by a careful editor/reviser. One more note: Wynn does a good job of skewering Brigham Young and Parley P. Pratt. He joins a growing chorus of voices raising questions about involvement and responsibility. And yet his book is prefaced with a clear, accurate statement of how Mormon doctrine is established, an apologia of sorts that makes clear that the Church has established methods of determining belief. I don't know whether Wynn is Mormon or not, but he seems to know the culture fairly well. "The Mormon and Mr. Sullivan" is a pretty good book, marred greatly by the editing problems. Had this task been performed better, I would have enjoyed the book a great deal more. Despite this, the book suggests an interesting situation -- the encounter of descendants of historic enemies -- and explores nicely how the past projects into the future and affects peoples lives. - ------------------ Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 01:45:14 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] WOOLLEY, _Power of Deliverance_ (Deseret News) Deseret News Friday, November 1, 2002 Books: Leisure reading 'Power of Deliverance' By David G. Woolley Covenant, $24.95. "You will never read the Book of Mormon the same way again!" the publishers promise. Which is to say that a fictional work, interweaving fictional characters into the story of the Book of Mormon, actually improves the book. Sorry. I don't buy that. I have always found history to be interesting enough on its own that there is no need to "dress it up." But in this volume, part two of "The Promised Land," "Uriah is on trial for treason, having intercepted sensitive military letters from Captain Laban. If Laban and the Elders in the Jerusalem City Council have their way, Uriah, and the secrets that could prove to be Laban's undoing, will be forever silenced." What ensues is a series of invented characters, such as Jonathan the Blacksmith and Josiah the Potter who complement the actual characters, Lehi, Nephi, Zedekiah, Ishmael, Jeremiah, etc. It is chaos. This book gets the reader only through 2nd Nephi and it is more than 600 pages long. (The Book of Mormon itself numbers only 522 pages.) Mark Twain once satirized the Book of Mormon as "chloroform in print." But Woolley's book, with its wooden style, would perhaps have caused Twain to redirect his remark toward "Power of Deliverance." =97 Dennis Lythgoe Copyright 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.=20 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:25:27 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: [AML] Re: Johnny Lingo Thom Duncan wrote: Johnny Lingo is most assuredly NOT about loving a person for the way there are inside. It IS about how women need men to be complete. What should have happened (and does, in Eric's _The Way We're Wired_) is that Mahanna is just as ugly at the end of the film as she was at the beginning. As it is, while the movie is trying to say that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," it's really saying, "True love will make anyone phyisically beautiful." and I say an emphatic AMEN! When I can actually get past the completely=20 laughable presentation of the film _Johnny Lingo_ (my typical response is to= =20 poke great fun at it), this is what bothers me. Mahana was never ugly. she= =20 was just unkempt. anyone can look past the bad fake hair that is kind of=20 scraggly and recognize that the actress is not ugly. She may not be a=20 drop-dead beauty but she is attractive. The only difference is at the end= =20 of the movie she's been given a mirror and can see to comb her hair. I=20 agree fully with Thom. The message of the movie that I see has nothing to= =20 do with Johnny's love making Mahana's interior beauty visible. We're never= =20 even given evidence of internal beauty--no small acts of kindness, no=20 laughter or humor. Just a plain woman who becomes beautiful. for all i=20 know she could be a complete wench. And how does she become beautiful? =20 Because a man paid enough for her. There's another objection in my mind. I= =20 realize that everyone could jump on the cultural bandwagon here--in that=20 culture, men did pay for women with cows. Be that what it may. This=20 particular movie was made in a western culture where men do not pay for=20 women and it was made for a predominantly western audience. Which means, at= =20 least IMHO, the movie-makers found a cultural vehicle they could borrow to= =20 convey the message they wanted to convey, not that they were trying to=20 represent a different culture accurately (if so, why is it that Mahana is=20 still a skinny little thing at the end while all the other 5- and 6-cow=20 wives were the cultural norm? more western influence, maybe?). and while= =20 the intent may have been to show that everyone is beautiful and that their= =20 beauty is seen when it is valued, the 500 pound gorilla that will not leave= =20 the stage is that when a man places enough physical, real, economic value on= =20 a woman she becomes beautiful. It has nothing to do with her--with what she= =20 really is inside her mind and her soul. It has nothing to do with what she= =20 is or what she does. It has everything to do with what is done to her and= =20 done with her and I personally find that absolutely repugnant. If I were to point to a film that I think conveys a better message along=20 similar lines, I would point to _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_. There was a=20 woman who decided to do something for herself. And yes, her change may have= =20 been motivated by the fact that she recognized that she wasn't attractive to= =20 men. But she took the initiative. She found a form of being beautiful that= =20 felt comfortable to her (and do note, it was not the culturally preferred=20 form of beautiful). She made other changes in her life that had to do with= =20 her mind and how she spent her time. And while she did see the "hottie" she= =20 ended up falling in love with and marrying before her change, he was in no= =20 way connected directly to her change. And all the characters are so utterly= =20 real. she doesn't seek some glamorous new profession and find it. She=20 becomes a travel agent for heavens sake. But she found happiness for=20 herself first. And *then* that happiness was enlarged by finding love with= =20 a man who loved her and valued her for herself. And we actually get to see= =20 some of the things about her that make him fall in love with her. I hate johnny lingo. I've always found it laughable. But as I've gotten=20 older and been forced to deal with my own position with regards to men and= =20 dating and relationships, I've discovered how very much I've had to deal=20 with the fact that my value has been determined by whether or not I'm=20 married. I know that's not true and I know I didn't say it exactly right. = =20 Let me try again. It has been so thoroughly etched into my concept of how= =20 things are supposed to be that women are to be wives and mothers, and so few= =20 other accomplishments are celebrated for women in the Mormon church, that=20 for years I have had to struggle with feelings of worthlessness. Here I=20 was, relatively attractive, fun, intelligent. and unmarried and without=20 dates. a failure. I'm fortunate because I have been able to pick this=20 apart to find the fallacies. I know the Gospel (the real one, not the=20 cultural hedge that we build around it) well enough to know that the only=20 descriptive word appropriate for what I was struggling with was BS. I want= =20 our culture and our teachings to stop emphasizing marriage so much. I know= =20 it's important. But there are other things that are vastly more important.= =20 Like charity and love and faith and hope and knowledge. Like making=20 something of ourselves rather than sitting around trying to look pretty=20 enough to attract a man so that hopefully someday we can get married (and=20 the horribly weak comfort that if we don't get married here, maybe in the=20 hereafter it will happen. give me a break. this kind of reasoning is how= =20 Marx came up with his very astute observation that religion is the opiate of= =20 the masses). I know that sounds drastic, but that's how a lot of 18 year=20 old girls feel when they come out of young women's. Lets get rid of the=20 destructive and wrong movies and stories that reinforce those beliefs and=20 start helping our girls, and our boys, understand that the important thing= =20 in life is making ourselves more like God, not getting married so we can go= =20 to the celestial kingdom. Trust me, when we do the first, the second is=20 much more likely to occur. As far as I'm concerned, every extent copy of Johnny Lingo can be thrown=20 away and, for once, I wouldn't object on the basis of not destroying of art.= =20 it's no more art than hitler's propaganda was. it's just a little more=20 gilded. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Get faster connections=A0-- switch to=A0MSN Internet Access!=20 http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #883 ******************************