From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #998 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, March 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:29:55 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Surprise Endings Spoiler space.... On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:25:16 -0700, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >It occurs to me that the "surprise ending" others in the discussion are=20 >talking about may not be the battle climax after all. That's the surpise= =20 >I meant all along. Perhaps others thought of the surprise as learning=20 >that the "simulation games" were real battles. That's a surprise that=20 >many could have guessed in advance. But there's no let-down on that one. Uh, YEAH. How on earth could the destruction of the planet be a = surprise? I'm talking about the revelation that the games are real. The climax of = the battle is dramatic irony, not a surprise; Mazer's comment about whether = or not the Little Doctor can be used against a planet is practically reverse psychology. I don't think that was ever intended to be a truly = surprising result. (When I'm feeling really cynical, I read the whole setup as the military using Ender as their scapegoat, their Xenocide, because none of them had the nerve to do it.) Melissa Proffitt - ----------------- If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible = warning. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 03:05:05 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Whisperings in the Culture - ---Original Message From: Eric R. Samuelsen >=20 > Okay, a few comments about Mormonism and politics and=20 > literature, which I hope can stay on-topic. Not very well. > My favorite daily reading is the letters to the editor page=20 > in the Deseret News. I really can't get enough of it. I=20 > think I like it precisely because it provides such an=20 > untrustworthy look at Utah Mormon culture. For example, a=20 > very large percentage of letters deal with guns, with the=20 > Utah concealed weapons permit law, and with other gun related=20 > issues. >From the DN, one would gather that an absolute=20 > monolith of opinion opposes all gun control legislation, that=20 > the 2nd Amendment is universally understood by Utahns to=20 > prohibit all attempts to regulate the private ownership of=20 > firearms. In fact, this isn't true; every poll on the issue=20 > suggests that most Utahns favor gun control. But you'd never=20 > get that from reading the letters section of the DN. =20 I'd like to see those polls. I'd particularly like to examine the methodology because it runs counter to every experience I've had here. Maybe polls in shopping malls or downtown Salt Lake... I dunno, it = seems implausible. This is like a comment made by a Utah journalist that = everyone he knows is against the war in Iraq. It seems to me that one of us is = in a different and segregated sub-grouping of Utah because our experience couldn't be more opposite. Not that I will defend the Deseret News. I despise both Utah newspapers = and can't read either without disgust. They're both goofy parochial publications with weird biases I can't stomach. I used to read the Trib = but only for Kirby. > The current session of the Utah legislature just concluded=20 > was very interesting. To name just a few issues, the=20 > legislature did not pass hate crimes legislation, did not=20 > restrict concealed weapons permit holders from bringing guns=20 > into schools and churches, did not raise education spending,=20 > or raise taxes so schools could be adequately funded. These=20 > were the hot issues of the day. Now here's what's=20 > interesting. An opinion poll inthe DN during the session=20 > asked Utah citizens what we thought on each of the above=20 > issues, and in each case, a large majority supported the=20 > measures the legislature opposed. For example, a Utah=20 > majority favored increasing spending for education, even if=20 > it required a tax hike. The polling numbers surprised me,=20 > because the letters to the DN all took the opposite position;=20 > all supported, in fact, the action taken by the legislature. =20 > So, a poll says increase ed spending. But you'll be hard=20 > pressed to find a letter to the editor that agreed. And the=20 > legislature voted with the letters. >=20 > Why? Because the Church also opposed increased education spending. =20 >=20 > What? The Church took an official stand on that issue? Of=20 > course not. When I say 'the Church opposed this measure,' I=20 > don't mean that official entity, the Church of Jesus Christ=20 > of Latter-day Saints. I mean my ward opposes it. I have no=20 > evidence that anyone in my ward favored increased education=20 > spending, because the only people who spoke up on the issue=20 > in Church (inappropriately, in my mind), opposed it. So,=20 > you're a legislator. You go to your ward. You listen. =20 > Everyone who mentions it says 'don't increase spending.' So=20 > the voice of the culture becomes the voice of that minority=20 > willing to speak up. And it speaks loudly enough to drown=20 > out opinion polls. =20 Well duh. You see, legislators don't represent Utah. They don't care = about Utah polls. They aren't elected by Utah. Legislators are elected by = their district--a good number of whom are probably in their ward. Further, they're elected by those few people who vote for them in their = district--a good number of whom are probably in their ward. That's the point of a representative democracy. All of Utah can oppose their action as long = as a significant enough group of their individual districts favor their = action. And even that's not entirely true. They only have to worry about it if their action will actually alienate significant portions of their constituents without attracting enough to offset the loss. All of which assumes an entirely mercenary legislature without any personal = philosophy to determine policy stance. And personally, I have an intense dislike for Utah politicians of all = breeds and was pleasantly surprised that they showed some sense in this recent round of legislature. > So, there's a war coming up soon. In my opinion, it's the=20 > very definition of an unjust war. The best argument that can=20 > be made for it seems to be something like this: President=20 > Bush is Governor Lachoneus. Saddam is Giddianhi. So we need=20 > to launch a pre-emptive strike against him, or else he's=20 > coming to attack us. Even at that level, it's unjust, and=20 > that's even without--as I do--seeing Bush as closer to=20 > Gadianton than Lachoneus. What do we hear about the war in=20 > my Mormon neighborhood? Not much. What we do hear is=20 > something like this: we should support our leaders. I don't=20 > even know what that means. =20 I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make straw-man arguments on list, = Eric. I resent the characterization and being painted into a corner in this way. = If you want to hear my best argument, ask. This is not it, it is a mischaracterization, and an irresponsible one. This issue is too = serious to dismiss so off-handedly. If you want to call it unjust, that's your prerogative, but if you're going to do so, you'd better define what you consider a just war and how this situation doesn't match up. I've found that too often those who oppose this war can't or won't articulate what = just war is. If you can't define it, I don't want to hear about how this = isn't a just war. > And then someone comes up to you, and whispers quietly, 'what=20 > do you think? I think it's awful." And quickly sidles off. =20 > After nursery last Sunday two guys cornered me in the lobby. =20 > All quiet, looking stealthily around. "Do you think . . . I=20 > don't believe what Bush is saying about . . . " Then the=20 > door to the bishop's office opened, and they left. And I dislike the connotation here as well. If you're against the war, = then it is your responsibility to articulate why in as reasoned a manner as = you can. This implication that there's some kind of underground majority = who are against the war is insupportable at best. > So Emma Lou Thayne wrote a short anti-war poem, which the DN=20 > letters page published. Great poem, and of course, I agreed=20 > with it. And a few respondents have attacked her for it too,=20 > which is their right. But is that it? Is the DN letters=20 > page the only forum in which we can talk about this war? =20 I'm willing. In any forum that doesn't have a strong structural bias. = If there's an intelligent reason not to go to war, I want to hear it. > The war has been raised in Priesthood, I understand, by one=20 > of our resident right wing kooks, who was very quickly=20 > shushed by the instructor. I wasn't there; I was helping my=20 > wife in the nursery. Certainly no dissenting opinion was=20 > heard, nor will it ever be. Not publically. But quietly, in=20 > whispers, a little. =20 And neither approach is appropriate. Politics don't belong in = priesthood, we probably all agree with that. But quiet anti-war whispers is a disservice to your fellow citizens as well and if it is happening, it's = time to knock off the adolescent he said/she said and get it out. If you = have thought of something that nobody else seems to have, then it is time to speak up. It isn't possible to physically suppress ideas in this age in this country, so don't act like that is what is happening. Our culture should be AT LEAST strong enough to handle honest discussion of weighty matters. That's what it is FOR. > And so it goes. We're heading to war, and it feels like a=20 > production of Endgame, cruelly absurd. The overwhelming=20 > conservative bias of the national media, the absolute=20 > impossibility of a liberal voice being heard, has led to the=20 > absurdity of celebrities protesting on talk shows, because=20 > they're the only liberals who can get booked on those shows. =20 > (The idea of a 'liberal bias' in the media is so=20 > preposterous, it barely deserves acknowledgement, and yet=20 > it's a surprisingly pervasive myth.)=20 What?!? It is so pervasive because a) it's true and b) liberals refuse = to acknowledge it by calling it preposterous and making unsubstantiated = counter accusations--as if those accusations automatically discredit the claim. Perhaps instead of calling it preposterous, you could give some basis = for your belief? I can document mine. Can you document yours? - -A 2001 survey by Princeton Survey Research Associates found that of 301 media professionals, "liberals" outnumbered conservatives by 4 to 1; and "moderates" outnumbered conservatives by 10 to 1; the survey found that members of the media were more than seven times more likely to identify themselves as "Democrat" than as "Republican:"=20 - -A national survey of the Washington-based media commissioned by the = Gannett media organization showed that in 1992, by 89-7 percent, they voted for = Bill Clinton over George Bush; that by 50-14 percent they see themselves as Democrats over Republicans; and that while 61 percent describe = themselves as liberal, only two percent dare call themselves "conservative". (seen significant changes or turnover in the Washington-based media in the = last 10 years? I haven't). - -Seen any pro-war rallies in the media? Makes you assume they aren't happening doesn't it. Fact is, they are, and they're bigger than the anti-war rallies, and they don't even have the experienced communist agitators helping to organize them. - -The pro-America rally in South Korea last week *dwarfed* the anti-war = one the previous week--which did you hear about on U.S. media? - -Don't believe me, how about Bernard Goldberg in 1996 "The old argument = that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so = blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around = in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. = We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters." - -The New York Times--enough said. > In the DN, the Sunday=20 > opinion page had five editorials about the war, all by=20 > conservatives, all favoring it. And yet, again, opinion=20 > surveys show a far more ambivalent body of opinion. Define ambivalent. The most recent ABC poll (Monday - http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq030310_poll.html) shows that = 59% of Americans support war with Iraq (35% opposed--a 5 to 3 ratio). Significantly, strong supporters outnumber strong opponents 2-1. = Further, the U.N. has plummeted in significance--61% of Americans don't believe = U.N. approval is necessary, that jumps to 71% if you add "if allies = participate". Most interestingly, "while support for war is highest among those who = expect a short, low-casualty war, supporters do outnumber opponents even among those who expect a long conflict or a high-casualty one." Now, with = that information, you have to assume that Americans LIKE death and = destruction and don't mind dying and killing for a dubious cause OR they actually believe we have good reason to go to war. This isn't jingoism or = following for the sake of following. It's not "all favoring it", but then, I'm not disputing that DN is a = lousy newspaper. And consider that the DN readership is largely conservative = so it isn't much of a surprise that the letters are conservative. And = since 86% of Republicans support a war, it'd wouldn't be outside the realm of = a random sampling if DN came up with all five of five turning out pro war. > So we have two realities. What people are really thinking=20 > and feeling, which we only find out in whispers. And the=20 > party line, the official line, which only feels official=20 > because it gets spoken with some force. It's Culture-Voice,=20 > which says rock music is evil, and so are R rated movies, and=20 > voting Democratic, and women working, and Not Supporting The=20 > President. And then, whispers, saying 'but what if that=20 > doesn't work for me?' I'm glad I don't live in your ward. My ward is much more realistic. We disagree with one another but we're honest about it and we have no hard feelings. Had an interesting experience last month, though. My largely inactive Home Teachers expressed surprise that I'm a conservative. They = had assumed that because I'm interested in intellectual pursuits that I must = be liberal. That's indicative of something, but I'm not sure what, yet. = Also interesting, a recent political candidate (Cory Rushton) lives in my = ward. And he's a DEMOCRAT (He lost but only barely)... > And every once in awhile, you get people alone, and people=20 > start talking. Quietly, where no one can see them. And what=20 > they say is: I'm troubled. I'm having a hard time sleeping=20 > right now. We're wrong to do this. If they stay quiet about their misgivings, then no wonder they're having trouble sleeping. If you feel it is wrong and don't speak up in = appropriate forums, then you are abrogating your responsibility. Whispering about = it to one another is wrong, IMO. But be ready to give an actual reason. I'm troubled is not going to cut it. > The France bashing quite amazes me; one restaurant in Provo=20 > now offers 'freedom fries,' instead of 'french fries.' =20 > Sickest of all is the humor: how many Frenchmen does it take=20 > to defend Paris? We don't know. It's never been tried. So=20 > that's where we are. Dishonoring close to two million French=20 > soldiers who died defending their capital in WWI and II. =20 > Dishonoring our oldest and dearest ally. And those jokes=20 > have an edge to them, an edge of desperation, as though=20 > people are making strongly partisan arguments they don't=20 > really believe in. FRANCE is our oldest and dearest ally? I'll concede oldest, but how did = you come up with dearest? France has actively opposed us for the last = decade in everything we've done (militarily, economically, and politically). = France has made public statements that their purpose for the E.U. is to oppose = the United States. That's the *purpose*. It'd be one thing if they = happened to disagree with us on some issues (even most), but the actual purpose is = to disagree with us on ALL issues. Particularly where military action is concerned. They are not an ally at all and it's time we realized that simple fact. The edge you hear isn't that we don't believe our = arguments. It's the shock of betrayal as we learn more of France's true = international policy and vision for itself. I've been surprised at the depth of my loathing for the French government. As more and more detail seeps out = about French support for Saddam Hussein, I'm sickened that we pay them any attention at all. Here's a poser--the only nations who oppose our war in Iraq have = specific, vested interest in the current regime. France, Germany, and Russia = (China is a perennial enigma) all have significant oil or trade agreements with Iraq. All three have wanted to lift the embargo for years. France and Germany have both been caught IN THE LAST MONTH breaking the trade = embargo with militarily significant parts and supplies. The more I learn of = these ties, the more their claim of the moral high-ground looks cynically self-serving. They're willing to support the continued freedom of a = viper because he's facing US and not THEM and they kinda like snake eggs. > I think all this has larger implications in our culture. A=20 > friend told me about a high council speaker in her ward who=20 > made the following argument: thinking leads to questioning,=20 > questioning leads to murmuring, murmuring leads to apostacy. =20 > Why do you say that, if you're not afraid? Afraid of the=20 > thoughts, perhaps, you hear whispered in corners, perhaps=20 > even in corners of your own head. =20 If he's afraid of people thinking then he's a fool. And I'd like to see = a script of that talk. I'd be willing to bet it wasn't as clear-cut as = you present. And if it *is* true, then it needs to be elevated as a concern that someone over the pulpit just told all the impressionable youth (and not-so-youth) that thinking is bad. That is so counter to the gospel = that it deserves and needs challenge. And that's a predictable conservative response, I'll point out. Like when Trent Lott made racist comments--he = was dog-piled by his own party until he resigned his leadership position. Compare and contrast to Jim Moran's recent racist comments and reactions from his party... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:14:52 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Jongiorgi Enos Did you really mean a testimony of the "culture'? Personally, I question the strength of anyone's testimony that seems to be based either on the church, as in "this is the perfect church", or the culture. Tracie - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" > > I don't know why someone would find themselves truly interested in LDS > culture without having a testimony of it. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:58:50 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab #1--New Development D. Michael Martindale wrote: Our star guest will not be making his trip to Utah until April. So we'll be looking at doing a special lab then on the Saturday he's in town. - -- 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:43:59 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] 2002 Year in Review: Theater (pt 2) Andrew Hall wrote: > ----, Peculiarities. October, Villa. Mormonism and sexuality. > Young couples making bad decisions. Good review in the SL Tribune, > "a brave exploration of what often bubbles just underneath a > seemingly virtuous society." Mostly good AML-list reviews, except > for Parkin, who said he couldn't see the point. I was going to argue that I didn't say I didn't see the point, except that I suppose that's exactly what I said. Still, I want to clarify. Rather than saying I didn't see the *point,* what I meant to communicate was that *I* didn't see the point. I don't doubt for an instant that the point was in there and that it was very powerful; I just came away feeling ambivalent because it didn't raise the kind of strong reaction in me that others seemed to be having, and that I myself had felt with Eric's other plays. I don't know why I felt a need to clarify that, and heaven knows I've ended up sounding far more critical of Eric's play than I ever meant to sound. Still, like anyone, I want to be understood for what I meant--even if it's not quite what I said. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:30:53 -0700 From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature On Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003, at 02:19 America/Phoenix, Harlow S Clark wrote: > On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:45:15 -0700 Margaret Young > writes: >> Now a non-AML related question--unless someone can come=20 >> up with a literary tie, in which case, I'd love to see it on list. > > Oddly enough, I was just thinking about the legislative session in > relation to AML today. The connection I see is cultural, and the way > culture effects law and law affects and reflects culture. There is > also a > literary connection because the two best statements I know about love > overcoming hate are from sermons, which are a literary form. > >> The "Hate Crimes" bill got pulled from the Utah State senate.=20 >> I have very deep feelings about this and simply don't understand=20 >> WHY. I'm assuming it has to do with lobbyists afraid of gay=20 >> rights, but the implications of not having the bill pass are pretty=20 >> serious and extend far beyond the gay community. (And why=20 >> would anyone think we shouldn't have a bill which protects gays=20 >> from hate crimes?) If anyone out there has some insights into why=20 >> it was pulled (I believe the Church even supported the bill),=20 I believe hate crimes laws have an enormous impact on literature and art in general. Essentially they punish thought. The fact that somebody murders somebody requires life in prison or the death penalty. But the fact that they shouted some racial or bigoted epithet while doing so means what--tack on 12 years to that life sentence? Turn the electric chair on just long enough to give em a shock then hit them with the full charge to kill em? Shoot em in the knees before execution by firing squad? Thought crime laws are really a horrible idea because of the very effect they'll have on literature. It is a limitation on not just free speech but free thought. Some of the hate crimes laws in other states don't even require overt spoken hatred--they can prove it via literature owned, and sometimes even (otherwise excluded) hearsay. I own a copy of _Mein Kampf_ and though disagree with it entirely, it could still be used to prove I was a racist in some states. This is of a piece with Mark Twain being banned despite the intention of his work. He was anti-slave and anti-racist, but used racist terms in his books. So we ban his books. How much farther can we go before we have to create the Thought Police _1984_ style or (my favorite) the Mental Hygiene Police? The tendency of these nifty new laws is to make it a crime if the person on the receiving end perceives it as racist or whatever. There have been several recent controversies about "niggardly," which has people resigning from their jobs because somebody misunderstood. Examples abound and those who write above all others must be vigilant against encroachments on free thought. Fear that somebody will call you a racist for opposing a thought crime law will only get you into a concentration camp that much faster. Next thing somebody will get thrown into prison because they played a racist on TV. John Wayne is routinely called a racist because he played on in the movies a few times. I checked into it when I heard this lie about 10 years ago. Pure hogwash. It doesn't matter, though, in a few years it'll be in textbooks. While I disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of "free expression" I don't want limits on freedom of press and speech above all other things. These days while protecting kiddie-porn they're denying political speech in several ways. The impact of this on literature could be disastrous. It is a multi-front attack, too. Extending the copyright to 100 years (which was thankfully defeated), campaign finance "reform," hate-crimes, and hate-speech rules at universities are all intolerable encroachments on freedom of the press. The "fair speech" doctrine that has been attempted twice in the last decade is another such, and one thing EVERYONE should agree on is that we really really really don't want to have a lawyer edit a novel (or political essay) for potentially actionable speech before it gets published. Making tolerance the only virtue makes criticism that much harder, which weakens the social stigma and public disapproval that used to curb and marginalize the more vile kinds of literature. With protections extended to the worst while curbing everything else what we'll end up with is just the worst. The First Amendment isn't an unalienable right, it is a shield that protects the rights of critics from the powerful criticized. Hate-crime laws are a direct affront to the rights protected by that shield. It'll only be a crack, but a cracked shield is not battle-worthy, and can be broken that much the easier. I don't know how anybody could think that this political issue is not related to literature, and particularly Mormon literature. In case somebody has forgotten Mormons are one of those formerly persecuted presently tolerated minorities. No other group, not even Lakotas or Manchurians, were legally ordered to be exterminated in this country. Fortunately it was a weak-kneed Democrat in the presidency then--a tough one would've cheered Boggs on, maybe extended the order to Illinois. Despite the destruction of the press of the _Nauvoo Expositor_ Mormons have always been friendly to the freedom of speech and press. After all, it's still illegal to proselyte in all Islamic nations (and Israel as well). Free speech is kinda important, hmmm? Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:49:43 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] AML-List Moderator Practices [MOD: I'll reply in a separate post.] - --- Tony Markham wrote: [snip] > >From now on, I think I'll sign all my posts "Eric Samuelson," whose > distant cousin I am proud to be, so that I can write without being > slapped down for no reason. > I, too have sent in a couple of posts about the war, only to have them be rejected. I think there is a certain amount of "Michael Jordan Rules" with AML-List. That is: the superstars of the list (like Eric Samuelsen) get away with saying stuff that we lesser players get "slapped down" for. I have yet to be excerpted at all in the "AML-List Highlights" that appear in "Irreantum." In the latest issue I noticed that there are lengthy excerpts from the recent "Choose The Rock" thread, and even an inclusion of the web address where the original "SL Weekly" article can be found. But no mention of the guy who found that article and posted it on the List. Sour grapes, I know. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:44:23 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Moderator Practices R. W. Rasband wrote: >I, too have sent in a couple of posts about the war, only to have them be >rejected. I think there is a certain amount of "Michael Jordan Rules" >with AML-List. That is: the superstars of the list (like Eric Samuelsen) >get away with saying stuff that we lesser players get "slapped down" for. That's certainly a fair comment to make, if that's your perception. And I've never claimed that my judgments as moderator are infallible. Still, that said... As moderator, I have noticed that I allow more political content through from some list members than others. Typically, that's because those list members are highly adept at integrating political comments with observations about Mormon culture, communication, and literary issues. To put it another way: there's political content there, but it's so tightly woven with stuff that I think is valuable to AML-List discussions that I can't bring myself not to let it through. Not a matter of "does this cross the line?" so much as "Does the overall effect of this post offer the promise of a good discussion that's relevant to AML-List topics?" It's a balance, in which the value of the post--as I see it--is weighed against its potential for pulling us off-topic. I also try to take into account the current feelings of the list and the condition of the conversation. If a post that I thought was innocuous enough to let through quickly starts provoking posts that prove me wrong, I'm likely to shut down the conversation, or come down fairly hard on the part of the thread that seems to me to be causing the problem. I'd rather not be unfair to anyone; but frankly, once things start escalating in that way (e.g., when personal feelings are clearly becoming involved, or when the literary element starts vanishing entirely), fairness is no longer my prime consideration. Preserving the conversation forum is. In the case of Eric and Harlow's recent post, several excellent responses providing differing viewpoints have in fact gone through the list, which did a good job of presenting those viewpoints while at the same time preserving the discussion of communication and culture and perspectives among Mormons that was my reason for allowing those posts through to begin with. Perhaps allowing them through initially was a mistake--I find that I can't decide one way or the other at this point. On the other hand, it has led to some excellent conversation that *is* on-topic for AML-List, without--so far as I can tell--offending anyone enough to want to quit the list. So, in terms of results, I would have to say that this was a largely successful experiment--due in great part to the quality of responses I received from many of you. I would also point out that the only moderator edits most AML-List members see are the ones directed toward themselves. What you don't see are the messages sent to others. Without naming names, I can say that many of the most prolific posters on AML-List have encountered my "moderating" influence from time to time. I have close personal friends and highly respected colleagues on this list; I think that I have sent back comments to almost all of them from time to time regarding something they posted that needed to be changed. When Ben was moderator, I received messages of the same sort from him. (FYI, there does exist a moderator board who are copied on many of my moderator messages. They assist me at times in making difficult decisions and are in training to assume some of the moderator duties so that I can spread the wealth around in terms of volunteering. If this is something anyone is interested in helping with, please let me know.) Finally, I'm concerned about the perception of AML-List "superstars," because it has the potential to feed into the feeling that AML-List is meant somehow to be an official voice of AML, or that certain people own this forum in a way that others don't. That's certainly not my intent--and I don't think it's the reality either, except to the degree that some people post more often or at greater length and therefore are heard more thoroughly. Ironically, my own voice as a contributor has been largely stilled since I became moderator--something I regret, if no one else does. So in a sense I feel that I "own" the list less than I used to before becoming moderator... I'd like to close with the observation that more than once in the time I've been moderator, I've received private messages from both sides of a heated discussion, each expressing the feeling that he or she was in the minority and felt that his or her view was not welcome, or that I was being unfair in my treatment of his or her side. What I have taken from this experience is the observation that each of us seems more attuned to the voices criticizing us than to the voices in agreement; that we see more clearly how our own views are sometimes denigrated by others than the ways that what we say may hold a note of scorn. And mistakes happen, and miscommunication takes place. Well, that's probably more than either Tony or R. W. wanted in reply to their comments. But I felt that as moderator, it was my responsibility, since a question had been publicly raised about my moderating practices, to explain them as fully as I could. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:58:15 -0800 From: Robert Slaven Subject: [AML] Ron CARTER, _The World Turned Upside Down_ (Review) Title: The World Turned Upside Down (Prelude to Glory, Volume 6) Author: Ron Carter Publisher: Bookcraft Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 513 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-57008-841-1 Price: $25.95 Reviewed by Robert Slaven I'd forgotten that I enjoyed reading historical fiction. I haven't read such a novel for many years, so _The World Turned Upside Down_ was a pleasant revelation for me. Now, I suspect I'm not one of Ron Carter's intended audience. After all, this book is the sixth in his 'Prelude to Glory' series, and I haven't read any of the five previous novels. As well, as a Canadian, I have a slightly different take on the American Revolution than would a reader south of the 49th. These caveats aside, I remembered that I do enjoy reading about historical events fleshed out with personalities and comprehensive descriptions of the settings of those events. I find, as I'm sure do many others, that the events stick with me much better than by simply reading about the names, dates, and places in a boring history textbook. Carter's copious notes tell us that he's certainly done his homework. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of the events that he's described in the windup of the Revolution, from mid-1778 to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in October 1781. The song famously played by the British band at the surrender provides the author with the perfect title. His detailed descriptions of the battles and their geography really do bring the Revolution to life, especially when interspersed with very realistic portrayals of historical figures including Washington, Arnold, Lafayette, Cornwallis, and so many others. Especially touching is the manner in which Carter demonstrates the faith in God that drove Washington and so many others to endure the revolutionary struggle and succeed against all expectations. The editing is wonderful; the worst of the very few clunkers I found was a reference to someone's "powered wig", which led to some very un-18th-century mental images. But it's a masterful job for such a work. Now, don't mistake all this praise and think that I'm calling this a perfect book. If you're a fan of historical fiction, if you love the story of the American Revolution and those who lived in that epic time, and if you're not that picky, you may very well call it perfect. Reviewing a novel, however, seems to me a job that demands pickiness, so I will now describe why the book isn't perfect. First, let me confess that I'm not personally a big fan of adjectives. I like a quick description of the background, and then let's dive into the story. So Carter's florid and dense settings, which remind me so much of 19th-century authors like Thomas Hardy, is probably the cat's meow for many readers, so this is merely a matter of taste. However, I do wish he was more consistent. The first half or so of the book is replete with chapters that begin with paragraph after paragraph of descriptive prose. But the farther along we get, the quicker the chapters move into the action. While I appreciated the change myself, I still prefer it when a writer picks one way of doing things and then generally sticks with it. The biggest flaw I found in the work, ironically, stems from Carter's determination to ensure that the reader knows that the author has done his homework. The chronology at the beginning is fine; the extensive bibliography at the end is wonderful. But every single chapter contains a small 'Notes' section at the end. Now, most of the notes were very useful and educational. Some of the notes, however, seemed to exist for the mere sake of existing. Chapters describing events that existed only in the history of Carter's fictional characters do not need notes saying "Sergeant Alvin Turlock, Billy Weems, and Matthew Dunson are fictional characters, as are other members of the Dunson and Weems families as herein portrayed." (p.229) Surely there is no need for such a trivial explanation. Worse, though, is the way in which the notes seem to interfere with the story. As I mentioned earlier, the joy of historical fiction is that you 'get into' the lives of the characters, that the history comes alive, and that it is *not* a boring history textbook. But with this book, you've just finished a chapter which has caught you up into the story, only to be brought down to earth with a bump by a set of 'notes' that merely recap the action in the chapter, confirming that yes, everything did indeed happen that way. If the notes had all been collected at the end, with the bibliography, it might have been different. Perhaps Carter would have seen the wisdom of leaving out the superfluous notes regarding the fictional characters. And perhaps he would have restricted the notes to merely refer to the sources for the factual details of his renditions. Unfortunately, most of the notes have a "Look at me!" quality, where the author seems determined to show us exactly what he got right. The avid reader of historical fiction will take it for granted that the author has done his or her homework. The same reader will also take it for granted that licence is necessary in creating fictional characters, condensing events, inventing dialogue, and so on. Once those givens are established, the reader is then free to enjoy the story. But Carter's end-of-chapter notes put a serious wrench into the flow of the story. I know it's a little late in the series, but if I were to give one piece of advice to the author for future works, it would be to tuck all of the notes into an appendix, and let the reader enjoy the novel as a novel. To return to my opening praises, if you enjoy historical fiction, if you're interested in the American Revolution, if you like adjectives, and if you can convince your eyes to jump over those annoying notes, this book is well worth the price. But if the kinds of picky things I've noted throw you off your reading, you may choose to spend your reading time elsewhere. Robert - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too I'm vulgar, I'm insensitive, and I fit in with my environment. - George Orwell, Coming Up for Air - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2003/02/25 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #998 ******************************