From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #979 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 Thursday, February 20 2003 Volume 01 : Number 979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:15:21 -0700 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward Kudos! No man is a prophet in his own country. Alan Mitchell - ----- Original Message ----- From: > << 1. Isn't Singles Ward (SW) the most watched LDS movie to date? >> > > Actually, believe it or not, the most watched LDS movie to date is none other > than my own little guy, "Brigham City." > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:42:45 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Offer to Purchase AML Annuals A man named John Heinerman would like to offer to purchase the 1995-2000 issues of the AML Annual for $25 apiece, or $150 for all 6. They would need to be originals in good shape, and he furthermore offers to make the seller a photocopy of the volume(s) at no extra charge. Contact him at PO Box 11471 SLC, UT 84147 801-521-8824 (before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m.) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:11:06 -0800 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] NICHOLES, _Angels Round About_ (Review) I really appreciate this, and look forward to the next installment. I hadn't caught on, and it was never made plain, that the character Hilde was a blood relative of the author's. Nice thing to know! Thanks so much for sending this. 2/12/2003 11:29:47 PM, Tom Johnson wrote: >Jeff, > >I've never actually read the Nicholes book you reviewed (other than a dozen >sample pages), but about 5 years ago when I was at BYU working in the alumni >house her name came up in the who-has-done-what profile section, so I >interviewed her. The profile was supposed to appear on the alumni webpage >but never did. I just dug it out of my archive files, and thought I would >post it here. > > - ------------------ Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com "I have a personal philosophy of deeply confused ambivalence." (Jasmine Cresswell, "The Conspiracy") - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:20:37 -0700 From: "Sam Payn e" Subject: Re: [AML] Gospel Allusions in Films This is perhaps the one scriptural idea that I am most convinced that we can take most literally. All things (not just all good things) testify of Christ. Worth it to "find him in it" (bad art)? The only thing, perhaps, that can be said for sure is that it's worth it to find him. - -Sam Payne - ---------- >From: "Jamie Laulusa" >To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com >Subject: Re: [AML] Gospel Allusions in Films >Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2003, 11:05 AM > > In all things? Or in all *good* things? Is He in a book or movie that's > just plain bad (as in, badly written/concieved/intended/ect.)? And is it > worth it to find him in it? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:22:48 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Programming as Art - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > Jacob Proffitt wrote: >=20 > > I don't denigrate your art, I'd appreciate if you don't denigrate=20 > > mine. Software is a bit like architecture. Sure, you use it to do=20 > > stuff, but it most definitely is *not* a matter of applying=20 > a formula=20 > > to derive some hypothetical optimal solution. Programming=20 > involves a=20 > > huge number of options and variables and situations and=20 > trade-offs. =20 > > Just because it is easier to copy and a medium you are=20 > unfamiliar with=20 > > doesn't mean it isn't important or comparable to other art. >=20 > Unfamiliar? As a hobbyist programmer for thirty years and a=20 > professional=20 > one for a couple of years until I decided I didn't like programming=20 > professionally? I've been programming since high school. So I=20 > think I know whereof I speak. >=20 > Programming is not art. There are similarities in the=20 > intuitive approach=20 > to design between art and programming. Programming can be=20 > artistic, but=20 > that doesn't make it art. The two have radically different purposes. Again, programming is a lot like architecture. While programming = activities may be driven by exterior goals, the fulfilling of those goals can be = quite artistic. Just because you didn't find artistic expression there = doesn't mean it isn't artistic. I expect that some architecture projects aren't terribly artistic because those pursuing them don't take the thought to = make them so. I'm not surprised that some programmers don't feel artistic = any more than I'm surprised that some builders don't feel artistic. > > Which is kind of what I find so silly about the Open Source=20 > > folks--this assumption that a) there is some utilitarian ideal that=20 > > programmers automatically know better than any others and=20 > b) their way=20 > > of creating software is automatically superior because it is=20 > > disconnected from traditional feedback mechanisms. It's=20 > kind of like=20 > > those artists who isolate themselves and brag about how=20 > pure their art=20 > > is because they don't listen to anybody but other artists. >=20 > Don't have a clue what you're talking about here. How you equate open=20 > source principles with programmer arrogance is beyond me. I kind of=20 > thought open source was the opposite of arrogance: that the=20 > programmer=20 > doesn't know best, so everyone should have a crack at=20 > improving it for=20 > the good of all. LOL. Everyone can have a crack at improving it for all. . . well, = everyone who is also a PROGRAMMER. That's arrogant. They put together those programs and features they want/like with the assumption that if = programmers want them, everyone will. They don't bother finding out what might = actually be useful or needed, they just gather in their little enclaves, = establish pecking-order and acceptable dogma, and then bang out the code. Once = the features they want are implemented, it's amazing how quickly enthusiasm drops off. And it's a lie that everyone can improve it for all--even if everyone is limited to programmers. The reality is that Open Source projects have = very strict, if undocumented, requirements for entry and orthodoxy that = prevent all but a very few from contributing. Open Source projects maintain a fiction of openness, but the reality includes heavy oversight and a lot = of political by-play that is generally down-played or outright denied. And don't get me started on the Open Source "copyleft". They're simultaneously proud of "viral licensing" and yet mock large companies = who refuse to allow their programmers to contribute--well DUH, read the license--it's not hard to figure out why... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:11:25 -0700 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Singles Ward The thing I found so repugnant about the character Sammie was that she was so typical. I've experienced for years the reaction Eric has described as self-righteous. It may be self-righteous. I don't know. I think it maybe something else. I used to be a helpful person. When I found a situation where I could help I jumped in--because it made me feel good. Whether it was carrying groceries, shoveling snow, helping with physical disabilities or helping a blind lady cross a busy street. When people, usually people like Sammie, saw that I wanted to help they thought very well of me and a few of them were attracted to me. But then always came the "Sammie Reaction." But she had enough respect to explain why she was rejecting the guy. Even if her reason asinine, I kind of had to respect her for being up front about it. I never got explanations. (I assume people got to notice I wasn't quite right in the head.) Sometimes people did their damnedest to avoid me and make spectacles of themselves doing it. It always hurt some. After awhile you start to wonder about yourself. After that you start to lose respect for people. And after that you just give up on people. The thing that was so repulsive about Singles Ward was to see the Cammie Reaction on the big screen. And the film treated the Cammie Reaction like it was the right thing to do. Made me so sad. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:42:40 -0800 From: "Christine Atkinson" Subject: [AML] _Blind Date_ Moment This is embarrassing to admit, but I was watching the TV show _Blind Date_ the other day. (I won't defend myself - it's mindless and amusing and I watched.) Anyway, there was a Mormon contestant on it! He was attractive and sweet and admitted on national television that he'd never had sex, a drink, or a smoke. He wasn't too dorky, wasn't super uptight and on a show that looks for the opportunity, only opened himself up for gentle fun-poking. I'd date him! - -Christine Atkinson (Sister-in-law of the talented Mike South and huge fan of the now-defunct Stretch Armstrong.) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:45:21 -0700 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory (was: Movie Editing at BYU) Kari Heber said: "It probably says something about my state of life if we were shouting out cuss words when there weren't any there. But I could swear, pun intended, that there were gaps in this movie we were filling in." Me: The swearing in A CHRISTMAS STORY is handled like that of the dog Muttley in an old cartoon I used to watch as a kid. I distinctly remember the dog saying something like "sassifrassinrickenracken" and then laughing this strange asthmatic wheezing noise while his shoulders heaved up and down...no neck you know. He was in a cartoon with Dick Dastardly and their Amazing Flying Machines. They were always trying to find pigeons. Is anyone else old enough to remember Muttley? When I saw Christmas Story I laughed, because the Dad's swearing spree as he tries to fix the heater in the basement is reminiscent of Muttley--just nonsense sounds, but in a tone of voice that leaves no doubt that they are the worst cuss words imaginable. I can see why you and your friends would fill in the missing syllables back in the days of your rash youth... Kari asks: "From a literary standpoint, what do all of you writers feel about writing based on memory? Particularly, as a reader (and definitely a non-writer) how much should I believe when I read any form of literature that is primarily based on someone's memory of events? Or should it even matter since what they are relating is their perception, whether factually acurate or not?" Me: I think you hit the nail on the head with your last comment, Kari--wherein lies the danger for historians. All research and objectivity are ultimately filtered through somebody's perceptions, which makes it inherently subjective. All a really good historian can do is try to present all sides of the equation. In literature (fiction) on the other hand, part of the reason I want to read something is to see through the author's worldview. In that case it works in the author's favor. I recall sitting in a workshop being led by Judith Freeman (THE CHINCHILLA FARM, recently RED WATERS). She expressed mild disdain and confusion at why people would ask her what parts of her book (CHINCHILLA FARM) were "true" and which parts were fictionalized. Since the entire story is published as fiction, it should be taken as such, enriched perhaps by the author's experiences in life. This whole thing about taking bits of life and infusing them into your writing is always a tough one for writers and might lose them as many friends and family members as it gains them fans. It's part of what makes writing good though. To me, that would be worth the risk of offending someone. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:24:22 -0700 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] Slate Commentary on CleanFlicks Lawsuit >---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale >> > Put an other way, do you think MST3K was evil and wrong for making >> > jokes over a film? >> >> MST3K procured the rights to do it for each film. > Jacob Proffitt: >Which is why the show stopped (did it start up again, or is that re-runs I >hear about occasionally?). The success of MST3K lead to the rights-holders >asking for more money which raised the cost of the show beyond their ability >to continue it. Not true, strictly speaking. Rights were obtained for specific lengths of time, and were then renewed for rerun purposes -- except where the rights-holders wanted too much, in which case those episodes became un-rerunable after the initial time ran out. MST3K was canceled due to low ratings, first on Comedy Central and then on Sci-Fi Channel. In each case, network executives who appreciated the show left and were replaced by people who didn't have the same enthusiasm, or who flat-out didn't "get" the show. Sci-Fi continues to show reruns, but only of shows produced for that network (no old Comedy Central-era shows), and only of shows whose movie rights are still paid up. There are only about 26 episodes that fit that category, which means Sci-Fi probably will stop running them altogether in a year or so. Straining at gnats, Eric D. Snider P.S. All this information is contained at the wonderful fan site www.mst3kinfo.com . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:40:55 -0800 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Gospel in Art On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:54:28 -0500 Justin Halverson writes, replying to Richard Dutcher's claim that Laraine Wilkins' positive reaction to Singles Ward was a result of her own intelligence, not something inherent in the movie, > If you're going to tell Laraine that she brought *everything* she > got out of "Singles Ward" to the theater with her > then it seems to me you have to be willing to make the same > argument for your own films, unless you can illuminate exactly > what about your films (or any film, for that matter) makes them > more essentially--and thus more universally--meaningful than > another. Are you saying it's not possible to talk about what makes one work of art more essentially meaningful than another? That a 2500 year body of literary criticism and theory aimed at just that is to be shrugged off? I'm not asking those as rhetorical questions. It's quite possible to answer them by saying that most of the body of litcrit looking to arrange and value art hierarchically fot the past 2 and a half millennia is based in cultural assumptions that should repel liberal democrats like those e-mailing ideas around the world in the early 21st century. (Oh, oh, serious breach of etiquette applying both the l-word and the d-word to AML-List members. Forgive me, I was thinking of democracy and of the way Seamus, Jeshua's brother, uses the l-word to describe how God gives (though I hear there is a group that renders the quotation in question as "Let him ask of God, who giveth to all men with compassionate conservatism and upbraideth a lot, for if he giveth a man a fish the man eats for a day, but if he teacheth that man to fish he eats for a lifetime"), freely to those who ask.) One of the more interesting, even poignant, statements of the problem liberal democrats are likely to have with much litcrit is in the fifth chapter of Terry Eagleton's _Criticism and Ideology_ where he is trying to formulate a marxist theory of value. He says that it seems odd for people who are dedicated to equality to be going around putting works of art into hierarchies, but surely marxism has something to say about why one work of art moves with great passion and energy and another is flaccid. I'm working with the same dilemma in my AML paper. People like Eric Samuelsen and Scott Parkin and Barbara Hume and Annette Lyon have spoken eloquently about the equality of genres and the inspiration of all art. Not all four have argued for both, but If I take their ideas seriously I can restate Eagleton's problem this way: All art is inspired because God's grace blesses all creative effort since all creative effort is an attempt to be like God. We ought to think about that when we consider art, and honor people for their creativity, even if we don't like it, or it is not well-wrought. The Savior's injunction 'Judge not' applies to art as well to the people who create it. However, the Savior also tells us "to seek diligently wisdom out of the best of books," which implies that some works of art (i.e., anything wrought) are not as valuable as others. Eagleton's answer is that a novel achieves its value by how energetically it works within its culture, by how deeply its energy delineates the power structures and assumptions of the culture. My answer is different. It involves Moses' concept of cities of refuge, those places an accidental manslaughterer can go to escape the vengeance of the slain person's family. I suggest that all art is a refuge to someone, that art may be the artist's expression of / quest for refuge, and that it might behoove us to create mental cities of refuge for artists who offend us, since the artist's allow us to seek refuge from their art (art by its very nature allows audience to flee to refuge if they choose). That's probably too abstract, but the last part of the paper is a look at a horribly didactic coercive parable going around the net like a plague or mystery flu just now, how I first sought refuge from it, then found that it had inspired me to counter-creativity, which enabled me to send it off to a city of refuge from my wrath. That's still too abstract. I hope to send around a preview before the meeting. > Here's a thought (but not thought through): wouldn't a work > of art that possessed such an essence in and of itself (that > shared the essential universality at the core of the Atonement) be > equal in power to the Atonement--a sort of philosopher's stone, a > holy grail? Ah, a less abstract statement of what I was just saying. Of course art wants to share in the Atonement. Harlow S. Clark ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:15:30 -0500 From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Gospel Allusions in Films I said: >(as in, badly written/concieved/intended/ect.)? And is it worth it to find >him in it? > And I didn't mean it! What I meant to say was, as in badly intended, NOT badly written/concieved. I know better than that, really. Many sighs. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:17:59 -0800 From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Henry B. EYRING, _Because He First Loved Us_ (Review) > Because He First Loved Us > A Collection of Discourses by Henry B. Eyring > 2002, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City > 223 pp. Hardcover. $19.95 retail.=20 > > Reviewed by Alan Rex Mitchell. I understand he only gave one = > talk with a few variations, much like his contemporary LeGrande = > Richards. > > I know little about Henry Eyring other than that I am old enough to remember him coming to our Stake Conferences in Idaho a couple of times, but you certainly underestimate LeGrande Richards. In my long lost youth I once worked with a friend on a rhetorical analysis of LeGrand Richards talks and he had an amazing variety of rhetorical tropes, great facility with language and a logic train that was awesome. He did have a resistance to written oratory which led to extemporaneous delivery (not impromptu, extemporaneous) which, in turn, led to a tendency to speaking over-time in General Conference (a lot of his speeches have, "Oh there's that light again, I'd better sum up before they begin to tug my coat tails" or something like that before the last two or three paragraphs. I still own about a dozen or two tapes of his sermons and I guarantee that they are not all the same talk with variations. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:52:59 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Diversity of Mormonism (was: Singles Ward) On Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003, at 07:02 America/Phoenix, Thom Duncan wrote: >> McDonald's) and not Mormonisms. The Singles Ward portrayed a >> certain Mormonism; God's Army portrayed another Mormonism. > > > My problem with movies like Singles Ward and musical like Saturday's > Warrior has more to do with their near-crazed popularity among Mormons. > To me, the church, its members, its doctrine, practices, and culture > are > way too important to be treated with anything less than the absolute > best efforts (not intentions) of the artists. I realize that Strugeon's > Law holds forth even among Mormon artists, but I've always secretly > wished it didn't. And it is depressing that such light fare as both > SWs > are so wildly popular. Let them exist, but also let them be moderately > successful. Because what does it say about the Mormon audience that SW > has become a "must-see" among Mormons? Are we, who believe we are > admonised to seek after the best of everything, not getting the > message? > Are we, like the unenlightened world which we regularly condemn in our > sermons, so shallow that we embrace the obvious over the asthetic? > > Thom Duncan > Just for the record I haven't seen either, and I don't own any Mormon pop cds either. I can't stand a certain Mormon songwriter who shall remain nameless, and I don't read much Mormon literature per se. I read books by Mormons, but literature directed only towards Mormons (and by this I mean the fiction) isn't very good as a rule, so I tend to avoid it. I agree whole-heartedly that the quality of the work should trump the background of the worker. My favorite classical composer is Tchaikovsky, who was a pederast. This does not change my enjoyment of his music. If somebody put him (alive) within my reach I would probably kill him and deny myself the chance to ever hear his music but still does not change the fact of what he produced. Any artist knows how seductive the idea of genius is, even those of us who are not geniuses. To be above the monkey rules of our inferiors, oh bliss! It still does not let anyone off from the rules God put into nature, however. That temptation remains, however, to ignore what the petite bourgeoisie think and dump the wife and run off to Switzerland with Mary Wollstonecraft. I admit to giving Mormon artists a bit more of a look than some others, but the quality must be there as well for me to buy the second book or recommend it to anyone. I don't want to have to apologize to anyone for the mediocre quality of Mormon expression. Excellence ought to be the goal in every endeavor. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:27:10 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Music Susan Malmrose wrote: > My first instinctive reaction when I read this was, no way! Music is way > more emotional for me. > > But then I thought about it--there are a few films that have moved me more > than most music does. But only a few. Whereas there is a whole ton of music > that is very emotional for me. > > But that's just me. :) Or maybe its the quality of the films. Obviously, a poor film will not have more power than great music. The quality of the two examples has to be comparable. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:30:34 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] _The R.M._ Well, I went and saw _The R.M._ on Saturday nite, and then I went home and tossed and turned over how absurd the Mormon culture is and how much I would prefer not to be part of it. That's really the effect the movie had on me. It didn't help that earlier that day I had attended cub scouts for the first time in my new calling, and now I'm even more sure than ever that I have absolutely no interest in trying to "entertrain" other people's wild little kids when I can barely find time and energy to entertrain my own. So depressing absurdity was already on my mind. When I woke up on Sunday morning, I was sufficiently recovered to attend church and teach elders quorum, but I still think the movie was really depressing. I did get a few laughs out of it, but mostly I thought: Yeah, the movie is pretty much right, Mormonism is often a silly, stupid, absurd culture, what with the food storage and the network marketing and the home teaching and the Sunday lessons, etc. I guess the movie almost did too good a job, on certain levels, of mocking the culture, both purposefully and inadvertently (mostly purposefully). As far as the actual filmmaking aspects, why does the acting have to be so hammy and exaggerated? And so many of the gags were too overdone and repetitive. As in Singles Ward, I experienced at least two cringes for every laugh. I thought the movie's last 15 minutes or so really fell apart, starting when they got arrested in the stolen car. Now I'm beginning to understand more how/why people like Richard D. and Eric Sam reacted so strongly against Singles Ward, which for some reason didn't have such a negative effect on me as R.M. did. While its surface is cheesy, obvious humor, I found _The R.M._ exceptionally dark and depressing, much worse for my Mormon state of mind than some of the Tanner and Godmaker books I've been perusing for another project. Not that I look to movies to affirm my faith, but this one seemed like all ineptitude and mockery with nothing worthwhile to counterbalance it. Somehow that combination of ineptitude and mockery is even more dispiriting than either one operating alone; mockery can be powerful when done intelligently, but when it doesn't come from a solid base it's just depressing. I hope we're not having the same net effect with The Sugar Beet. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #979 ******************************