From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #956 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, January 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 956 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:11:40 -0600 From: pdhunter@wt.net Subject: [AML] Sacramento Area LDS Film Festival Event LDSFilm.com is forwarding the following press release: If you live in the Sacramento area, the next four weeks are movie madness. Read on for THREE very cool movie events coming up, two sponsored by ArtLight: LDS Arts Adding Light to the World! ONE) "Charly," the movie, based on Jack Weyland's best-selling novel opens this Friday at Roseville's Olympus Point Theatres and Sacramento's Laguna Theatres. "Charly" is a great love story with lots of laughs AND tears. (They passed out Kleenex at the sneak preview earlier this month, and even though some people smiled at the little white packages, most us of needed them!) Heather Beers stars as the PERFECTLY cast Charly: charming, fun, artistic, spiritually insightful, and gorgeous. If you plan on seeing it, do it this weekend, as the opening weekend box office will very much determine how long "Charly" stays in the theatres. A MUST see LDS film! TWO) FEBRUARY 1, Saturday at ArtLight presents the Best of LDS Film Festivals at Mesa Verde Performing Arts Center. Film shorts run from 3:30-6:30. (Too many to list here, but hit reply and we will send you the entire schedule.) OR join us in the evening, 7:00pm, for the Northern California Premiere of "Out of Step" the Ryan Little film about an LDS dance student from Utah who pursues her dream at NYU and faces hard choices about her beliefs, men and ultimately, her dancing. Tight script with great acting. (Jeremy Elliott from "Charly" stars and soundtrack includes Jericho Road) THREE) FEBRUARY 21, Friday 7:00pm, Mesa Verde ArtLight presents Voice From the Dust: Journey to the Promised Land, Director Peter Johnson and producer Steve DeVore will present their footage and commentary on the soon-to-be-completed documentary chronicling their seasoned filmmaking of "Voice From the Dust: Journey to the Promised Land. "Voice From the Dust" a joint venture with F.A.R.M.S., is slated to be an epic filming of Lehi's journey. See the latest archeological evidences, and hear of their filming experiences during 9/11 in Yemen. An amazing evening! ****** For movie info call Dana Sanders (530) 367-3450 or e-mail at danasongs@earthlink.net For ticket info call Robin Kraus at (916) 989-5748 or e-mail at rkraus81@attbi.com or stop by Cover to Cover books at (916) 773-5839 Roseville or Elk Grove (916) 714-3601 Advance seats: $12.00 Reserved, $10.00 General Advance Family pass (family of six) : $55.00 Reserved, $45.00 General At the Door seats: $15.00 Reserved, $12.00 General (Film Festival tickets may be purchased as two separate events, 1) the Film Shorts or 2) the Out of Step viewing, or as a one day ticket to all showings. All Day: $12.00 advance res. $10.00 advance general Out of Step or Film Shorts only: $6.00 advance reserved, $4.00 advance general *Directions to Mesa Verde Performing Arts Center Take I-80 to the Antelope Exit. If going east on I-80 towards Reno, turn right. If going west, on I-80 towards San Fransisco, turn left. Look for Lauppe Lane and turn right. Follow it around to the left as it becomes Carriage Dr. Pass Carriage Elementary and then immediately turn into the parking lot of Mesa Verde High School on your right. Park, and then walk down the main corridor of the campus, (following the path to the right) to the Performing Arts Center. See you there! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:45:39 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: RE: [AML] R-Rated Movies Regarding the observation that some people tend to see true stories as "legal" R-rated movies: I don't think it's just the idea that it's "real" that makes it okay for them. Rather, it's understanding why a movie has gotten that rating and accepting the reason. Most members I know who shun the R-rating do it to avoid the language, nudity, immorality, violence, etc. which obviously R-rated movies don't have a monopoly on, but tend to have a lot more of. Since those elements often get an R, it's understandable that Schindler's List (to use an example from the "real story" people) got that rating. But the purpose of the nudity in the film--showing lines of Jews being dehumanized in concentration camps--is very different than in "steamy" R-rated movies. Same with the violence. It's very different being horrified at the terrible things nazis do than cheering on Arnold as the Terminator as he blasts away nameless enemies and cracks witty one-liners about their deaths. So I think it's healthy for these exceptions to be sneaking in. It shows that some members really are thinking about content beyond ratings. It also seems like recently films with heavy themes not for kids (but don't have the language, nudity or whatever) are getting PG-13 ratings. Or is it my imagination? Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:37:11 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward A few questions for the List: 1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? Maybe. I hope not. Because of what it would say about the artistic sensitivities of the Mormon people. 2. Did SW succeed because of the characters, story line, warm fuzzy feeling, or technical merit? I think it succeeded for the same reason that the original SW (Saturday's Warrior) did, which was also seriously lacking in the artistic area. It spoke to the lowest common denominator of the Mormon audience which, sadly, is not much different than the lowest common demoninator embraced by the General Public, despite how we may think we have an enlightened view of reality. 3. Did it sell so many tickets because Mormon singles in Happy Valley love to laugh at themselves? It didn't require any thinking and spoke quite clearly to its core audience, LDS singles under 30. As with other Generation Xers, this is the age group that made Adam Sanler a star, so what does that tell you? 4. Was it "officially approved" by all the cameos and therefore liked? Cameos have always been a cheap way to give films prestige. You can get someone well know for next to nothing if their part is only going to take five minutes to film. It's a way of adding false cachet to a film. You end up going to see Steve Young or Gordon Jump and can bask in the reflected glow off their successes. 5. If Eric Samuelson, Richard Dutcher, and Eric Snider actually liked SW, what would that say about the state of Mormon arts? If those three had actually liked it, you could pretty much bet that the end of the world was around the corner. 6. Is it true that cattle will eat anything that is put in their stalls? That's what I've heard. 7. Did Dutcher, after seeing SW, really want to hang himself? As the opener of what's turning out to be a Pandora's Box of schlock, then maybe he did. 8. Why can't we all just get along? Oh, we can get alon. That doesn't mean we have to like each other's films. 9. Can't we hardly we wait until the sequel "The RM" comes out so we can hate it too? I worry about a film where even the trailer isn't funny. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:01:54 EST From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward In a message dated 1/23/03 5:25:51 PM Mountain Standard Time, alan@trilobyte.net writes: << 7. Did Dutcher, after seeing SW, really want to hang himself? >> I guess only I can answer this one. It's true. I have witnesses: my able former assistant, Emily, and my talented storyboard artist, Brian. They experienced the movie with me. These kind souls were with me in my hour of distress. They restrained me, and prevented me from doing harm to myself. I will be eternally grateful. God bless their beautiful souls. Richard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:05:13 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Lee Subject: RE: [AML] Why Not PG? Thank you to those of you who have responded to my questions. I'd like to respond back and clarify a few things.=20 First to Jacob Proffit. I did not say the Holy Ghost would completely with draw His entire influence from a person while he or she is watching an rated R movie.=20 On the contrary I believe the Holy Ghost can communicate with man in many diverse conditions. What I said was that I do not believe anyone is able to maintain a level of spiritually equal to the demands of the day while viewing things, for the sake of entertainment, that normally merit an R rating. I said that doing so is in contradiction to the principles by which the Holy Ghost operates and communicates with man. I believe the Holy Ghost operates within bounds and limits that are eternal and unchangeable. I do not assume know what all those limits are. There can come a point in time when the Spirit ceases to strive with man because of the choices the man has made. I don't believe it is always as clear as an on off switch but like most relationships that end, a gradual separation. Second it seems that what has been focused on in the R rated thread are the moral and artistic merits of some R rated movies. What has not been discussed (If so I missed it) is the negative impact the vast majority of these movies have on many, many people. I'm not talking about being offended by the content but actually hurt by it. I've seen the impact these paths can take. It can often be a road sign at the beginning of a very destructive path. Yet for others it seems to be merely part of their collection of favored sins. It never really bosoms into anything but at the same time it holds them back from growth that could have been (I bet that's going to make people mad). Is that a judgmental thing to say? Sure it is. I've made judgments based on my experiences and what I have seen around me. We all have. Judgment is a great thing. It's very in style to say 'oh don't judge' but I think what is meant by that is really, 'don't condemn someone else or place your self above him or her because they live differently than you do'. I believe that without reservation.=20 And that brings me to my third and final point. Even though I'm aware that life is different (and difficult for some) in Utah, because of the cultural extensions that can blur the lines between religion, folklore, and tradition, I still find it surprising to see people who seem to view the Church as an antagonist. That=92s the culture they should be bucking heads with not the gospel. If the demarcation point between the two is gray for someone, if they do not have clear a vision of the difference, both mentally and emotionally, then I can see how my comments can be agitating.=20 I've been exposed to enough darkness in the world, enough uncomfortable-ness that I don't feel a need to supplement my media diet with more. It=92s unavoidable that I will see more in my life without having to seek it out.=20 So this is a reply to the seven messages I=92ve received so far. Thank you to Laurel Brady for your kind and supportive words.=20 Below are some quotes that I think apply. Matthew R. Lee "It is very unreasonable to suppose that exposure to profanity, nudity, sex, and violence has no negative effects on us. We can=92t roll around in the mud without getting dirty. "It is a concern that some of our young Latter-day Saints, as well as their parents, regularly watch R-rated and other inappropriate movies and videos. One more reason why the =93devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice=94 (3 Nephi 9:2) "Just a few months ago the Lord=92s prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, shared with the youth, and with all of us, this clear and unmistakable counsel: =93Be clean. I cannot emphasize that enough. Be clean. It is so very, very important, and you at your age are in such temptation all the time. It is thrown at you on television. It is thrown at you in books and magazines and videos. You do not have to rent them. Don=92t do it. Just don=92t do it. Don=92t look at them. If somebody proposes that you sit around all night watching some of that sleazy stuff, you say, =91It=92s not for me.=92 Stay away from it=94 (Denver, Colorado, youth meeting, 14 Apr. 1996). (Joe J. Christensen, =93The Savior Is Counting on You,=94 Ensign, Nov. 1996, 39) "With a few exceptions, R-rated films have proved to be unacceptable to the tastes and moral conscience of most Latter-day Saints. These films generally manifest little or no restraint by those who have made them-and to whose ideas and moral values we willfully subject our hearts, our minds, and our spirits for two hours in the dark." (Kieth W. Merrill, =93I Have a Question,=94 Ensign, Apr. 1981, 24) =93We counsel you =85 not to pollute your minds with =85 degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don=92t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don=92t listen to music that is degrading=94 (President Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1986, 45). =93For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; =93Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven; =93And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.=94 (D&C 1:31-33). "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. =20 "But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not. (Mosiah 4:29,30) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:41:12 -0500 From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Oh, a survey! I know all about surveys. I didn't see the manditory question about how I eat my Oreos; where is it? > >A few questions for the List: > >1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? Nobody asked me how many times I watched it, so it must be a faulty statistic. As my contribution to Mormon Art, I paid more to see God's Army ($3.50) than I did Single's Ward (zip). Some girls I know, however, have spent Titanic ammounts on it. ("I went to see it four times in the threatre, and then I bought the DVD even though I don't have a DVD player, so I bought the video, too.") >2. Did SW succeed because of the characters, story line, warm fuzzy >feeling, >or technical merit? If by "warm fuzzy" you mean "really irritating" than that would be it. OK, to be completely honest, I thought some parts were very funny, but I hated Cami by the end, so I could not find any happiness in her finding happiness. Horridly unchristian of me. People with sticks up their rear and no sense of humour deserve to be happy, I'm sure. >3. Did it sell so many tickets because Mormon singles in Happy Valley love >to laugh at themselves? Yes. (This is not an open ended question. A email survey no-no. Tsk.) >4. Was it "officially approved" by all the cameos and therefore liked? I think the appearance of Richard Dutched in particular validated it in some people's eyes. I was wondering after I saw it why he did it. My question to Richard Dutcher: didn't you read the script? >5. If Eric Samuelson, Richard Dutcher, and Eric Snider actually liked SW, >what would that say about the state of Mormon arts? If Eric Samuelson, Richard Dutcher, and Eric Snider liked it, wouldn't it have been a better movie? >6. Is it true that cattle will eat anything that is put in their stalls? Mooooo. >7. Did Dutcher, after seeing SW, really want to hang himself? Hey, isn't this survey about me? >8. Why can't we all just get along? Mooooo. >9. Can't we hardly we wait until the sequel "The RM" comes out so we can >hate it too? Oo! I just love hating movies! >10. Was it proper for Dutcher to label the girl as "the otherwise flat >female lead?" (Of course, I noticed that right off but it is polite not to >mention such things.) Gasp! Did Rishard Dutcher make a sexist comment? I'm afraid I won't pay $3.50 to see The Prophet now. >11. Didn't Fiddler on the Roof come out in the 1960s? Or was there another >Fiddler I don't know about? I thought that was the point. It came out thirty years late. >12. Wasn't the moral of the play to commit genocide against all comedians? I thought the moral was that Jell-o is true. > ~Jamie Laulusa PS: I think I fixed whatever it was that was making screwing up my messages. To the Moderator Dude: if I didn't fix it, don't post it. I can only take so much humiliation and frustration in my life. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:50:01 -0500 From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: RE: [AML] Singles Ward and The Way We're Wired And for those of you who don't live anywhere near whatever theater, it's a good book, too. The title's changed to "Singled Out". You can take my word. I'm not getting paid to say this. >Anybody who agrees with Richard and wants to see the plight of the >Single LDS treated with affection and in a way that will shed light on >human experience, don't forget to come see Eric Samuelsens's comedy "The >Way We're Wired" at the Center Street Theatre. Eric's written a >charming play, he's cast and directed it well, and Davison Cheney's set >is just flat out brilliant, both in concept and artistic execution. > >But don't take my word for it. I'm only the producer. I have to like >it, don't I? > >Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:00:10 -0600 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: R-Rated Movies Susan Malmrose: I'd like to meet some Mormons who don't watch rated R movies. AFAIK, I'm the only one I know. (And my husband.) _______________ Hello, Susan. Nice to meet you. My wife, who is not a member of this list, has never seen an R rated film, and has little desire to see many PG-13 rated films. Nearly 20 years ago, I saw two R rated films. For me, both viewings were mistakes. I went to each of them based on the recommendation of good friends who assured me they knew my standards and whom I trusted. Both are still my friends, but their judgement has been compromised in matters related to recommending films. When I pointed out some of the poor and unnecessary language in the film which had been described to me as one "with just a few bad words," my friend was shocked, and admitted that if he had remembered the language was that bad, he would not have suggested I see the film. He apologized and told me he had truly not remembered that the language was that bad. "I guess I have just gotten too used to it," he said. The other film contained a scene of "brief nudity" which I have since had trouble forgetting. The last time it popped up in my mind, unexpected and uninvited, I was giving a priesthood blessing. I stopped dead in the middle of a sentence. I was able to regain my composure and finish the blessing. Those who were there probably thought I was receiving revelation. I was simply wishing once again I had never seen the film, and thanking the Lord for his goodness in helping me remember what I had already said, finish the blessing appropriately, and get through the embarrassing situation. I do not draw the line at the R rating. I am also very selective of the PG-13 rated films and all others I see. I have read all of the posts in this thread. Some have contained persuasive arguments supporting the viewing of films with content I do not wish to see. Some of the films mentioned are ones that even I have thought might merit an exception and that I might wish to see. These posts though, even the most persuasive ones, have also usually contained the very reasons why I chose not to attend the films mentioned. Some have inadvertantly included those reasons. Others have directly stated them, thinking that the value of the film outweighed the objection to seeing the film. I disagree. Except for my children, I do not usually care what films others attend. I do care which ones I see, whether or not they carry an R rating. Larry Jackson lajackson@juno.com ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:18:59 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Novels (Part 1) I look forward to the remainder of your review -- thanks so much for it! - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:18:32 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Novels (Part 1) Thanks, Andrew, for this amazingly thorough review. Just a couple of additions to your list of Young Adult novels published in 2002: Hatch, Thelma Wyss. _Ten Miles from Winnemucca_ (HarperCollins, March 2002). Wright, Randall. _A Hundred Days From Home_ (Henry Holt, 2002). Also, _Mississippi Trial, 1955_ is not Chris Crowe's first novel. He has also published _Two Roads_ (Bookcraft, 1994), and _From the Outside Looking In_ (actually a collection of short stories, Bookcraft, 1998), as well as a number of nonfiction works. Thanks, Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:19:21 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: [AML] Two Literary Novels (was: 2002 Year in Review: Novels) Andrew Hall wrote: "Two literary novels which look at Utah/Mormon society through the eyes of non-Mormons trying to fit in, as well as dysfunctional family dynamics, are John Fulton's More Than Enough and Nicole Stansbury's Places to Look for a Mother. Both received strong reviews, and Salt Lake Tribune reviewer Martin Naparastack listed them among his "2002 Best of the West."" I really appreciated Andrew's compilation of writings about/by Mormons. It will make it that much easier for someone like me to seek out quality LDS literature, and to stay abreast of what's happening in Mormon letters. I just finished reading the two books Andrew mentioned above, and thought I'd offer a note of caution to LDS readers who are sensitive to material that would be R-rated were it in a film. Both of the books are very well written. I have no idea if either author is LDS, but I doubt it, or at least their insights say to me they have had very limited participation in the inner workings of LDS communities in their lives, which makes the truthfulness and pain of both these stories very real. They are definitely about "outsiders" (non-LDS people) trying to figure out and fit in with LDS communities. However in both cases, the dysfunction and pain of each family unit overrides any real spiritual seeking. They are more studies of survival. In both books, the thing that struck me, was how at the mercy of dysfunctional adults in their lives children were. The POV of both books is mostly from a child/teen trying to figure out how the world works when all that is modeled for them is anger, betrayal, lack of respect, lack of communication, running away and hiding from consequences, and in a major way DENIAL that any of those things are happening until the ultimate crises hits--and in some characters, not even then. In MORE THAN ENOUGH, I was pained by the portrayal of a gang mentality among Mormon teenage boys that beat up the new kids because they weren't Mormon. I doubt that is something that happens often in Utah, but I also don't doubt it's a possibility. Early on in the book is an observation by the teen narrator that sets the underlying theme of the book: "Like many neighborhoods in Salt Lake, the Downs was built over the foothills in a town where money and class were easy to see: those who had them lived up high against the mountains closer to their God, and those who didn't lived down low, farther away from someone else's God." This is a story about class/money boundaries, the haves and the have-nots, and the responsibility for stability and success in a family as seen through the eyes of a fifteen year old boy. There are some gritty, realistically painful scenes where the family vents at one another. All the tools of rage and frustration are used--foul language, violent behavior, pouting, silence. It wasn't a book that was easy to read, yet in the end I found it uplifting. It made me think about all the ways people sabotage themselves. In the end, though you couldn't say it was neatly tied up and redeemed, I had a sense of hope that things could improve in Steven's (the narrator's) life. In opposition to that, PLACES TO LOOK FOR A MOTHER left me feeling depressed. There was no sense of hope at the end, only relief that you had endured. It is a unremitting look at the power of a mother in the lives of her children. And this mother is a case, let me tell you. An unhappy person who is searching, searching and never finding whatever it is that will fill the empty place inside her. This mother, who changes her name and identity as fits her whims of the moment, leaves a wake of devastation in her path. Her children cannot know and trust her, because she does not know herself. There is escalating behavior of parents putting inappropriately large adult burdens on their kids--secrets shared and promises extract to keep those secrets. That was hard painful to read. The reader is dragged along with the mother as she whines, manipulates, pouts, lies, cheats, obsesses, swears, and abandons. She eventually participates in casual, usury and inappropriate sexual behaviors in front of her daughters. She's a disaster, but the only mother the two girls have, and the poignancy of the book is how willing the girls are to "look for a mother" in any way they can, despite her behavior. The father in the book has his own issues, a controlling, jealous nature that limits his wife and exacerbates her problems. It is not an easy read, emotionally, and when I was done, I felt ambivalent if I could recommend the book to anyone else. There is graphic violent and foul language and sexual content. Both of those elements were present in another novel I've read that was one of the most painful, yet ultimately uplifting things I've ever experienced: WHAT LOOKS LIKE CRAZY ON AN ORDINARY DAY. But in the end of CRAZY, there was a clear message that love can redeem and heal the most broken of lives. In the then of PLACES I just felt tired. The message I got was "some people have rotten families. You will eventually grow up and beyond your parents' ability to control your life. In the meantime, it's to be endured." For me, the redemption of the characters in the end of PLACES TO LOOK FOR A MOTHER wasn't enough to be worth the journey of pain I was taken on, and I was left wonder what cycle of pain the daughter would enact as she moved further into her own adult life. The jacket blurb tells us the author, Nicole Stansbury, lives in SLC. The Mormon influence in the pages of the book is minimal. The family keeps relocating to the Salt Lake area on their nomadic life journey, but Mormons are only briefly mentioned in the book, and their influence isn't a healing one, but cause more pain instead. Peripheral mention is made of the stability of the home lives of the LDS people in the community around them as opposed to their own, but it isn't explored, it's just vaguely wondered about. In an interesting twist, the most healing love offered to the daughters came through a lesbian character that fell in love with their mother. She was the most stable, normal adult in the book, although she wore leathers, studded dog collars, drove a Harley and in many other subtle ways was described as butch. That fact is just left lying there, not really explored. The character is only involved for about one chapter of the book. And of course, ever after, the mother denies she ever knew such a person or had any lesbian relationship. One thing kept running around my mind while I was reading these books, though--and some might read this part and snort, thinking I have a simplistic Mormon mindset--I kept thinking how much these people needed the healing grace of the atonement, how much a belief in the love of Jesus Christ could have helped to open these people to maybe getting help or figuring out a better way of relating. At the least, most of the people in both books needed Dr. Phil to give them a wake up call--"if they're big enough to do it, they're big enough to own it". Both of these novels explore the lives of people who can't or won't own the consequences of their choices and behaviors. They seem doomed to be victims, pushed around by the world and each other. I was sad for the kids in these families. So can I recommend these books to other readers? With a note of strong caution. I think the experience may make me a better person, because I'm more aware of making choices and seeing consequences of bad choices, they way it affects innocent lives. But reader beware: you'd better be strong enough to withstand the pain of the journey if you read these books. It's not pretty and it surely ain't Chicken Soup Uplifting Moments. But the books will stay with you, affect you, make you think. It was probably the goal of the authors in the first place. If one sane, stable adult in the world reaches out to a kid surviving pain and chaos at home, draws them in, and helps create a softer place for them to rest for awhile, then there is good reason for these books to be. That kind of charity is the definition of a true Mormon, isn't it? If, on the other hand, a Mormon reader puts it down, thinks "there but for the grace of God go I" and continues to insulate themselves and their children from the "wrong sorts of people", then the salt has truly lost it's savor. Kim Madsen Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:30:09 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Sacred in Writing (was: Latest on My Memoir) "why can't Chris talk about what it means to him?" That's exactly my point. He *should* talk about what it means to him. But the outline suggested that instead of doing that, he would "divulge" as much as he could about went on in the temple--to me, a very different thing, and not in keeping with the purpose of the memoir. Filling your writing with irrelevent bits just to keep the reader's interest is just bad writing. To me, sacredness isn't the point this time, which is why I was reluctant to even use the new thread name. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:27:52 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Novels (Part 2) Lyon, Annette. Lost without You. Covenant, July. Romance/ thriller, about a woman ending her marriage to a dangerous man. Her first novel. On the Deseret Book best seller list in the Fall. Umm, no it's not. My main character is single (and never married) until the last scene of the book, and her dangerous ex-*boyfriend* is a subplot. The book is about a widower still grieving for his wife and my protagonist dealing with maybe being #2 in the next life. It's exciting to see my name on a list like this. I would just like it to be accurate. :) Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:56:50 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Alan Mitchell asked some provocative questions: >1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? Probably. Our invaluable friend Preston Hunter would be able to clarify = that for us. >2. Did SW succeed because of the characters, story line, warm fuzzy = >feeling, >or technical merit? Audiences don't care about technical merit. Never have, never will. SW = succeeded because it was funny, laugh out loud funny. I didn't laugh = while watching it, and neither did Richard and neither did Eric Snider. = But most of the folks at my screening did laugh, loudly and long. Plus, = the story involved an inactive guy who makes it back to the Church because = of the love of a good woman. That's an appealing storyline for a lot of = Mormons. =20 >3. Did it sell so many tickets because Mormon singles in Happy Valley = love >to laugh at themselves? Well, I personally thought the film was campy, and not satirical. I don't = think it succeeded in poking fun at LDS singles; I think it created = ludicrous extremes and that was the source of its humor. But maybe, sure. >4. Was it "officially approved" by all the cameos and therefore liked ? Interesting thought. Maybe, sure. >5. If Eric Samuelson, Richard Dutcher, and Eric Snider actually liked SW, >what would that say about the state of Mormon arts? We would have liked it if we'd thought it was good. Since it wasn't any = good, we didn't like it. I can't speak for Richard or Eric, but I hated = it specifically because the film specifically endorsed attitudes I find = repugnant. The scene with the girl, where she goes off on the guy's = standup act, is just a loathesome scene, and a weirdly loathesome scene. = I mean, I'm not the only person to point this out; she says it's immoral = to poke fun at Mormon culture, that attacking the culture is attacking the = Church. Hello, like the whole rest of the movie does? =20 I would have liked the movie, though, if the guy had ended up with the = other girl. You know, the one who smoked and drank beer and wanted to = make out, and was 150 million times more moral than the film's holier-than-= thou heroine? =20 >6. Is it true that cattle will eat anything that is put in their stalls? Look, I'm sorry, but I've never said this. I have never compared the LDS = audience to cattle, and no, I don't think they will eat anything. I think = they're quite particular.=20 >7. Did Dutcher, after seeing SW, really want to hang himself? I can't speak for Richard, but I really did want to leave the Church. = It's been a long time since I've felt so alienated from my own culture. = Here I am, sitting in a theatre, with a crowd of people who were watching = and audibly enjoying a movie that apparently approves of everything I = detest, and I have never felt more lonely, more, okay pretentious word, = but this is a real experience, more desparing. I really did sit there and = think about updating my resume, because I couldn't leave the Church and = still teach at BYU. Understand this: this is not hyperbole. I left the = theatre in utter despair. I have never felt more depressed after watching = a film. My testimony is the center of my life, and yet I watched this = film and I knew that I could not in good conscience call myself a Mormon = anymore. I got over it. But it took three days of prayer. =20 =20 >8. Why can't we all just get along? We can. And hard hitting and honest criticism has to be part of getting = along, right? This is a list on which we discuss the intersection of = Mormonism and literature, broadly construed. Getting along includes = disagreeing. >9. Can't we hardly we wait until the sequel "The RM" comes out so we >can >hate it too? I will see RM, and I will strive to be objective. If it's good, I'll say = so. I take no pleasure in hating works of art. I wish I could have liked = Singles Ward. >10. Was it proper for Dutcher to label the girl as "the otherwise flat >female lead?" (Of course, I noticed that right off but it is polite not = to >mention such things.) Actually, I thought she was quite an attractive young woman. Just = couldn't act. >12. Wasn't the moral of the play to commit genocide against all >comedians= ? Quite possibly. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:25:59 -0600 From: pdhunter@wt.net Subject: [AML] Osmonds Featured in Super Bowl Ad http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/23/1042911477706.h tml Two of TV's most notorious families become one in a new Pepsi advertisement as the Osbournes turn into the Osmonds. Rocker Ozzy's offspring Kelly and Jack are seen peeling off their faces to reveal their true identities - as the clean-living Donny and Marie Osmond. The advert is being screened during the Superbowl in the United States this weekend, which usually commands massive TV audiences. Ozzy Osbourne and his clan became international stars after starring in their warts and all MTV show. Now Pepsi has faith in the former Black Sabbath frontman to plug its lemon drink, Pepsi Twist. In the commercial, the heavy metal god dreams that his out of control children transform into the sugary Mormon hit-makers. As he lets out his trademark cry, shouting for his wife Sharon, Ozzy finds himself part of yet another legendary TV family. He turns over in bed to discover Sharon is actually Carol Brady from hit 1970s' show The Brady Bunch. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #956 ******************************