From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #21 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, April 14 2003 Volume 02 : Number 021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:38:01 -0700 From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Changing Our Minds On Thursday, Apr 10, 2003, at 14:02 America/Phoenix, Sharlee Glenn wrote: > Ivan Wolfe asked: > > " But I was thinking of the aml-list and began to wonder do any of us > change > our opinions that often due to the discussion here - or at the least, > truly > respect those with diametrically oppossed opinions? This is not > rhetorical, > I really want to know." You may be surprised to hear that my opinions are in fact pruned and digged and grafted quite a bit from some of the discussions here. I'd rather have arguments, of course, but since so much of the world hates arguing these days I only get to do it rarely. Argument was the original scientific method, by means of which Aristotle proved that there are no atoms, but besides the fun it does sharpen and focus and trim opinions. None of my core beliefs have been much moved, and the few absolute certainties haven't budged at all. Of course nobody on AML ever argued that God doesn't exist so there are many regions that never come up. As far as respecting those with opposing opinions, that depends. I have several friends who are Trotskyite lefties, dumb as posts politically but kinda fun, and of course anybody who can argue without crying is bound to get my respect. Those I don't respect are those who hold no opinions, or who say "it's only an opinion," as if all opinions are true. I don't hold any opinions I think are untrue...therefore if yours opposes mine one of us is wrong. Perhaps both, but naturally I won't think so unless convinced. People who just shrug and say "it's only an opinion" therefore will never convince me, and so the opinion remains unchallenged. Which is a bad thing. There are some on this list with whom I hotly disagree, most of them liberal, but those who will fight I certainly respect. I notice that plenty (not so much on AML, but in general) are very thin-skinned, and get all upset at descriptive words, but why that should be I don't know. After all democrat kids called me a Nazi when I was only six, and I've had so many nasty epithets hurled at me that I would think that the left ought to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I don't mind being called a Nazi or a bigot, because in the first place I know that neither is true, and in the second place it means I'm winning the argument. So if anybody thinks I'm being too harsh don't worry about it. It doesn't faze me and I don't see why it should faze anybody else. It don't sting if it ain't true. So you might say that AML alters my opinions the way a whetting stone alters a sword--hones the edges and sharpens the point, and a little spitting will help, not hurt. Jim Wilson aka the Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 01:50:00 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? - ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > ___ Jacob ___ > | Take Shakespeare's Henry V big pre-battle speech. A > | conservative analysis would be interested in the calls=20 > | to honor and brotherhood and might explore the=20 > | insinuation of fame and obliquely implied shame. > ___ >=20 > The problem is that if ever there was a text open to post-modern > analysis it is Shakespeare. After all we are talking of texts that, > even before the rise of postmodernism, were used for contradictory > purposes. _Henry V_ has been performed as a strong anti-war play as > well as a play rallying the troops. The mere fact that strong liberal > and conservative readings are open from the play demands an=20 > explanation > for how this is possible. Except that all of those things are not interesting to the real point here--creating a conservative criticism. I mean, I see your point kind = of, but your point doesn't really relate to building a conservative = criticism. What better way to explore a conservative criticism than by exploring = it's relation to the mother of all postmodern texts? What better way to = contrast the techniques and insights? > ___ Jacob ___ > | i.e. preempt the post-modernist deconstruction of those=20 > | themes by examining how the themes persist even if they are=20 > | flawed in their various applications. > ___ >=20 > I guess I'm confused at how you think this is not post-modernist. A > post-modernist of the mold we're discusses is intrinsically interested > in how repressed themes persist in what is promoted. So if=20 > we criticize > a theme due to some "contradiction" due to flaws, it is very=20 > post-modern > to show how the theme undermines this very undermining. =20 > Derrida has, in > fact, written several texts along those lines. Well, you're going to have to define what you're calling post-modernism. = I think you underestimate the influence that Jim Faulconer has had on your interpretation of post-modernism. Throughout this post you keep saying things that absolutely contradict what I have learned as post-modernism. = I finally understood when you finally linked to Jim's essay. I'm = uninterested in Faulconer's spin on post-modernism. I'm even less interested in post-modernizing post-modernism. I don't want to *emphasize* the contradictions, I want to de-emphasize them. The *emphasis* of = break-downs is the post-modernist realm. Post-modernism has nothing to do with any = kind of universal unless you accept Jim Faulconer's heresies (he *is* a post-modernist heretic and his essay is at least partially an attempt to justify himself as such). My point is that we create the anti-postmodernism--not by applying post-modernism to itself. That = would be a kind of condensed, distilled, or hyper-postmodernism. No thanks. I'd prefer to undermine post-modernism by showing that it's deconstruction = is inapplicable--that it doesn't describe reality any better than the rationalism it supplanted. > ___ Jacob ___ > | "Natural law" has all the weaknesses of capital 'T' Truth and=20 > | none of the ameliorating strengths. > ___ >=20 > Natural law though has the obvious parallel to law of nature - i.e. > physics. And, in a real sense, the various forms of structuralism are > an attempt to find this natural law as it applies to language acts in > general.=20 Yeah, but who cares? By which I really mean "why should this have = anything to do with conservative criticism?" I don't care about structuralism = and all the esoterica that has little application or appeal to = non-dedicates. I know that's harsh and dismissive. I don't really mean it as a personal = or even a theoretical attack. It's just a tangent to conservative theory = and thus not something I want to tie to it. So when "natural law" is = brought up as some kind of foundation of conservatism I have to say that it isn't. = It might be an underlying *assumption* of a certain kind of conservatism, = but not an actual aspect of conservatism as such. To see what I mean, read = all the conservative essays you can get your hands on and count how many of = them actually mention, let alone discuss, natural law. If some other = discipline wants to tackle natural law, physics, and grammatical determinism, = that's fine. But I don't expect it to turn up much as I don't think those particular disciplines really have much practical or interesting = application to literary criticism. And certainly not application as specifically conservative. > And, getting back to post-modernism, I don't think they deny this. > Indeed, were I to quote a text on this it would be that the > postmodernists would say, "think not that [we] have come to=20 > destroy the > law, or the [classics]: [we have] not come to destroy but to fulfill." > (Matt 5:17) >=20 > Truth can not and should not be somehow eliminated from=20 > discourse. And > if anyone is interested in truth it is postmodernists.=20 Maybe in your particular flavor of post-modernism. That is *not* the = view or intent of the majority of post-modernism, however. Post-modernism = began as a revolt from scientific rationalism and it moved from there to a = disdain for all rationalism. It isn't intended to fulfill anything. It is = intended to deconstruct, to tear down and expose the more or less obvious (to us = now anyway) flaws of rationalist assumptions. It doesn't actually propose *anything* to take the place of (i.e. fulfill) rationalism. Well, not = in the more common application at any rate. > ___ Jacob ___ > | In other words, I want to skip the knotty question of=20 > | the "origin" of universal traits and move instead into=20 > | how those universals help us, tie us together, and are=20 > | expressed. > ___ >=20 > How can we discuss the "how" of universals without simultaneously > discussing the "what" of universals? Is such a divorce between > substance and function really possible? And how can we even speak of > universals without first having some criteria determining what is or > isn't a universal. Wouldn't any such criteria simultaneously=20 > bring with > it a discussion of what universals are? It's simple, really. Conservatism doesn't have to discuss the origins = of universals/morals/core beliefs because the origins don't matter. At = least, that's the case for neo-conservatives. That's also why you see = conservatism taking on strength recently--we've finally grown out of our need to = bicker endlessly amongst ourselves about all that origin stuff that kept = bogging us down. Who cares if your support for families is secular humanism, rationalist, deist, or given you by aliens in your own personal = shipboard tete-a-tete? Doesn't matter to me any when I'm discussing it with = others or pushing for political causes. If I'm talking about individual self-determination and responsibility, for example, it doesn't matter to = me if you get the idea from tradition, God, French prostitutes, or your miniature giant space hamster. What matters is the application and recognition of that core value, it's application in the text, and how = that core value ties us together, builds important bridges and ennobles the condition of man. I care about the results of core values, the effects, = and the implementation and protection of them. The different origins are = kind of interesting, but not really relevant to the core concept of = developing "conservative criticism". And yeah, there's room to define what values we really find universal, = but you know what? Even *that* doesn't really matter to conservative = criticism. We can have two "conservatives" with entirely different lists of "universals" and still find them valuable because a) they're talking = about universals at *all* and that's something distressingly rare in academic discourse today and b) they're showing the binding application of those universals through text and art and the human condition. Who knows, we = just might find some interesting things when we get together with others and discover what they consider universal and, more importantly, where they = find those universals evident in the human condition. Even better if it's = backed up by art and critique giving examples and reasons and complex, chaotic explorations of those principles. > ___ Jacob ___ > | People have had a ball deconstructing Shakespeare, it's time > | to put him back together again--explore how he *still*=20 > | resonates so strongly and "universally". > ___ >=20 > That seems to assume that *how* he resonates *universally* is somehow > unrelated to Deconstruction. =20 >=20 > That does not seem at all obvious to me for the reasons sketched out > above. Indeed from a religious point of view it seems impossible to > discuss any universal without discussing very significant aspects of > Mormon doctrine. And it is within that discussion that we=20 > intrinsically > discuss the "Light of Truth." Intrinsically the discussion Joseph > started with D&C 93 which is the heart of postmodernism comes=20 > into play. Again, you have a different definition of post-modernism than I think is universal. Want to relabel it neo-postmodernism? And as I tried to express, you *can* discuss the universals without bothering to define = why you believe they are universal. If we'll stop getting so caught up in justifying ourselves and start exploring the *how* of our ideas, we = might get a little further along and maybe understand each other a little = better. Does honesty and forgiveness bless the lives of others because God wills = it or because of karmic watch-dogs or because of natural law? Don't care = as long as we can share. And if we don't care, then I am free to attribute = it to God while leaving another conservative free to attribute it to Allah (well, same thing kind of) while another can attribute it to a = conspiracy of little green men. In the words of Harry S. Truman "It is amazing what = you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." *I* will honor God in all that I do and I freely give Him the credit for = the power of the gospel in my life and the accomplishments I have due to his gifts, his forgiveness and the power of the Spirit. But I'd prefer to = get the message out *at* *all* than to insist that someone believes exactly = as I do before being willing to share the valuable lessons we have learned. = If someone doesn't want to give all honor to God, then at least maybe we = can discuss honesty, and family, and freedom, and rule of law, and ... and = ... and ... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:36:21 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Changing Our Minds I am educated on an ongoing basis by this, and other, lists. Many of the people I admire most are here, and their opinions are very important to me. - ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 07:54:55 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa "...I've decided to make a moral stand. I just cut the tags off the mattrasses. AND I have edited that great expressions of art *God's Army* by running the movie half way thru and splicing about two feet at random. > AND I showed it to a friend last night and charged him one dollar. AND for fun I am drawing a moustache on a downloaded picture of the Mona Lisa (thanks Richard for the idea). I'm turning myself in to you good moral people of AML. Go ahead. Call the FBI. Getting arrested will probably cost me my job, but all moral stands take some sacrifice. Mattress police! > Alan Giorgi Mitchell PRESS RELEASE: from Twelfth Circuit Court Judge of Desperate Appeals: "Self-described mattress and movie de-fouler Alan Rex Mitchell was convicted today on the strength of his own confession, with extra time being added on to his sentence for the rudeness of his sticking out his tongue at official representatives of the Horizontal Law Enforcement Brigade. Strapped into a straight-jacket and being pummeled and pushed into the sulfur-reeking prison train car that was to have escorted him speedily down to hell, a last-second phone call from the Governor suddenly changed everything. It seems that Mitchell, in his final act of defiance before the court, actually spelled the word "Giorgi" correctly, and therefore, it seems, all was forgiven. Officials scratched their heads and muttered to themselves, but had to let the miscreant go, much to their confusion. God Bless America. -- 30 --" Jon Giorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:54:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] AML-List Guidelines Folks, Time to send out those guidelines again... Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator AML-List An Internet mailing list devoted to the discussion of Mormon letters Guidelines version 5.3, 14 April 2003 By Mormon Letters We Mean . . . . . . literature by, for, and about Mormons and criticism of same. We mean essay, family history, autobiography, children's literature, sermon, and the literary dimensions of scripture. Or join the conversation and come up with your own definition. AML-List boasts more than 250 subscribers, including readers and writers, scholars and teachers, journalists and librarians, editors for local and national publishers, and practitioners of related LDS arts, from the majority of U.S. states and several countries. AML-List is sponsored by the Association for Mormon Letters. List moderator: Jonathan Langford List administrator: Terry L Jeffress List Mechanics AML-List is moderated and comes in three flavors: AML-List, AML-List-Digest, and AML-Mag. AML-List offers open discussion of Mormon literature, limited to 30 posts a day (10-12 posts maximum on Saturday; no posts on Sunday). AML-List-Digest is a compilation of all AML-List posts, sent out every 24 hours or whenever the compilation reaches 40k. (Digest mailings have been averaging one or two a day.) AML-Mag(AML-List Magazine) features columns, reviews, newspaper items, and AML-List highlights, and is limited to 10 posts a day. Note that AML-Mag goes automatically to all AML-List subscribers. If you subscribe to both AML-Mag and AML-List, you will get two copies of all AML- Mag posts. To subscribe to AML-List, send an e-mail message to that reads: subscribe aml-list You can subscribe an address other than the one you are sending the request from using this format: subscribe aml-list In either case a confirmation request will be sent to the address subscribed. Follow the directions to complete your subscription. To unsubscribe, send a message to as follows: unsubscribe aml-list Again, if your request comes from a second address, include the address you want to unsubscribe. To subscribe to AML-List-Digest or AML-Mag, follow the directions above, but replace "aml-list" with "aml-list-digest" or "aml-mag." To post to any version of the list, send your messages to . All messages are forwarded to the moderator for review. Monthly files exist from May 1995 to the present. Follow the link on the AML-List web page: http://www.aml-online.org/list/index.html. House Rules 1. BEHAVE Avoid flaming or name-calling. Reply to posts, not people. The motives of other subscribers are off-topic. Respect the integrity, opinions, and beliefs of others. 2. THE TOPIC IS LITERATURE It is not politics, pet peeves, the general authorities, or the doctrines or policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (except as they affect how Latter-day Saints read and write). State your opinions frankly, but stick to literary judgments. 3. ALL ARE WELCOME . . . writers and readers, scholars and fans, teachers and students, highbrows and lowbrows, conservatives and liberals, members and non-members of the Church and the AML, at home and abroad. No one approach is preferred. Other Guidelines 1. PUT THE AUTHOR AND TITLE IN THE SUBJECT LINE When referring to literary works, please put the writer's last name in all capitals in the subject line, followed by the title, like this: HUGHES, _Children of the Promise_ 2. SIGN YOUR POSTS Posts should be signed with first and last names (except when the post is relatively short and the name is given in the return email address). Use given names rather than surnames with titles. Screen names are inappropriate on AML-List. Anonymous posts are not allowed, except by special arrangement with the moderator. 3. INTRODUCE YOURSELF After you've been on the list awhile, if you feel inclined, you are invited to introduce yourself. Respond in paragraph form, and include any or all of the following: name, age, whether you're male or female, family status, home town, occupation, and connection to Mormon Literature (reader, writer, teacher, critic, other). See the AML-List web page subscriber introductions. 4. AML-LIST IS MODERATED FOR TONE AND VOLUME Not every post submitted makes it to the list. A post may be bumped: If it's *off-topic.* We define literature broadly and frequently run items on other LDS arts or on LDS culture or language issues. Beyond that, inclusion is at the discretion of the moderator. If it's *creative writing.* AML-List is a forum for discussion of literature, not publication of literature. From time to time, individual creative pieces may be posted to AML-List by special arrangement with the moderator as an adjunct to critical discussion. However, AML-List is not intended to function as a writer's critique group. If it includes *bad language.* We have noticed that whenever someone uses a curse, no matter how mild, someone follows it up with one worse. For this reason, the moderator sometimes returns posts with fairly innocuous language. If it includes *explicit sexual references* or *references to the temple.* People have different levels of tolerance, but these items, together with bad language, tend to make many Latter-day Saints (and others) uncomfortable and to put a damper on discussion. AML-List conforms to accepted journalistic standards. You can quote more than you can say, but in general, if you can't use a word in the Deseret News, you can't use it here. If it goes too far in *substituting moral terms for critical ones.* People frequently use words like "immoral" or "dishonest" when they mean things like "politically incorrect" or "facile." Because the convention is widespread, AML-List tolerates this as long as it's clear a personal attack on the author is not intended. Even then we discourage it because of the inference that those who like the work are complicit in something unethical. If its *hyperbole* gets out of hand. This is another gray area. Critical conventions allow for insult and invective, which no one is supposed to take too seriously. However, we've noticed when people use too much, particularly early in a thread, some with opposing views take it personally and opt out and we only get one side. If it uses *sarcasm or unfair characterization* of the positions or beliefs of others. These often do not translate well in an electronic medium and tend to come across as less respectful than forthright disagreement. While it's acceptable to point out what you see as the implications of other list members' statements, every effort should be made to respect their right to define their own position. If it *veers too far into Church doctrine, policy, or the opinions of the General Authorities.* It may be appropriate to discuss these in relation to specific literary works, market conditions, etc., but when the conversation turns to establishing just what those doctrines and opinions are, or whether you think they're justified, that discussion belongs on another list. It is never appropriate to attack or belittle the religious beliefs of another, or to use religious beliefs to condemn or suppress the opinions of another. If it's *redundant.* The moderator may cut off a discussion that has gone on too long. Depending on how many people are involved, this may take place behind the scenes or publicly (in the latter case usually after a day's notice). If the list is *too busy.* In order to keep things manageable both for the moderator and subscribers, AML-List is limited to 30 posts a day. On busy days, posts that are acceptable by all the other criteria may still end up in the overflow folder, perhaps forever, perhaps to reappear when traffic subsides. If you don't see your post and still feel strongly, contact the moderator at or post again. 5. AML-LIST IS COPYRIGHTED All posts belong to their authors. Just as with any published writing, messages that appear on AML-List should not be quoted without proper attribution, nor reprinted on another Internet list or in any other form without the author's permission. By submitting to AML-List, you give permission to the AML to distribute your posts with the archives. - END - - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:03:57 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: _Irreantum_ (was: Books on the Bedside Table) [MOD: Apologies for not changing the thread title for some messages that I think already got through.] Sharlee Glenn asks: "Just curious--does *anybody* read _Irreantum_?" As part of the process of helping out with the copy-editing task for the latest issue, I read my first Irreantum cover-to-cover. I was (and this statement is going to acknowledge a condition of prejudice on my part) continuously astonished at how much good writing was in it. I was so impressed, that I've ordered a complete catalogue of back-issues to read to see if it was a fluke or not... But (to admit to the dying of a prejudice) I suspect it was not. D. Michael Martindale noted in a post ages ago that as far as an outlet for certain voices in LDS lit, Irreantum is "just a blip on the radar screen." And that's too bad. There was some really good stuff in there, enough to make me have to rethink the entire negative impression I've had for many years about LDS writers. But then, it should come as no surprise that such strengths were exhibited in an issue dedicated to the theme of YA fiction. Juvenile literature has always been strong, or at least, I've always been a fan of the genre, and I think that some of our best writers get overlooked there. When adult fiction is consistently up to par with YA genre stuff, we will all be well served. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:39:11 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction >frustrated sexual arousal by masturbating. They claimed that >women do not masturbate very much, contrary to popular belief, >and found it hard to believe that Sheila would. This is one of the problems that we should work hard to overcome when judging characters in fiction, judging the characters after what WE think they would or would not do. The real point is, did the writer make it believable that the character he/she wrote would do a certain act. Or, if you happen to be Brian Evenson or Neil LaBute, did you sufficiently hide the motivation to shock us and make us wonder if people CAN do those things. I received a letter from an audience member of my 1999 production of _Prophet_. The woman was concerned that, every time Joseph and Emma were on stage, they were kissing, passionately so, as it turned out (not explicitly in the script). Her contention was that an "elect lady" would not be that affectionate. As if, for some reason, great spirituality doesn't equate with great sexuality. Instead of trying to understand why the director made them so affectionate, and what in the script led the director to see that physical relationship, and perhaps asking herself what can she learn from such a portrayal, she decided to slap her own judgment on how spiritual people should behave and leave it at that. I've heard similar comments from people who were bothered by the Sacrament scene in Brigham City, in that, rather than asking themselves what the director was trying to tell them, they immediately reacted to what seemed to them the inappropriateness of portraying a sacrament meeting on the screen. Scott Bronson and others on this list I know have had similar reader/audience reactions. It is the common fate of writers who write with passion, that somewhere along the line, someone is going to interpret a writer's work within their own worldview, rather than the worldview of the author. It is hard for some people to leave their own world to explore the world of another person. A woman who doesn't masturbate may feel uncomfortable reading about another women who does. A woman who isn't particularly affectionate in her own marriage may unconsciously transfer her feelings onto two characters in a play. People who are perhaps uncomfortable with their own spirituality are somehow embarrassed by seeing their own rites presented on screen. >I know what all my characters will do under any circumstances. >But I don't know it all at once. For one thing, I don't have >time to figure out every possible circumstance and what they would do. Even a cursory study of human nature will teach you that people will do, well, anything, and ofttimes, for no reason we can understand at all, or for reasons we don't understand. How many people, for instance, can't understand why an abused spouse stays for years in a marriage, when WE think they could easily have left? When we then understand the psychological and emotional motivations of such people, we begin to understand why they do what they do. > >The way in which I know what my characters will do is to "ask" >them. When a question comes up, I interrogate them. Not >literally, but I meditate on them and what I already know >about their character. Sooner or later it becomes clear to me >what they would do. I always "know" by this method everything >about my characters--everything as a need arises. You should be congratulated for this approach. You are not imposing your own values on the characters. ("The Church says masturbation is wrong, so I can't have this character masturbating.") You let the character dictate to you, which is the way it should be. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:26:30 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Margaret Young wrote: > > I think it's time we just fess up. Okay, it's true. Marilyn Brown and > I are the same person. > I will not describe my/our real appearance, for > fear of losing an audience. Put it this way: I am not who you think I > am. Or should I say, we are not who you think we are. I should point > out that I do not have a multiple personality order. > The other part of us, Thom Duncan, only comes out every now and again, but > he's doing pretty well. We try to keep him subdued. How are we doing? Since I've met Margaret/Marilyn/Thom personally, I'm going to spill the beans. The person behind all these fictitious personas is Steve Martin after his LDS baptism. - -- 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: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:54:25 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience My "twin" outdoes me! EMINEM YOUNG BROWN fesses up: we know the name BROWN is NOT racially neutral, there are NO promises, (just premises!) and Margaret is definitely an UPPER! Cheers! (Grins aplenty) EMINEM Y.B. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Margaret Young > I think it's time we just fess up. Okay, it's true. Marilyn Brown and > I are the same person. I chose the Marilyn Brown name because it is > racially neutral and so pretty. [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:02:12 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives > jltyner@pacbell.net writes: > > > That said, a quibble with Richard's semantics. > > Mismatching one's socks is a mistake. Misplacing your keys likewise. Taking a wrong turn with your battalion and running into a firefight is a very, very, bad mistake. > > > > Taking nude photos of a 13 year old girl and then giving her part of a qualuude downed with champange before you first raped her vaginally and then sodomized her because you're afraid of getting her pregnant-that's a deliberate, monstrous choice. > > > > It's not that Roman Polanski's work didn't merit an oscar, it's that if he made it, it should've been after he paid his debt to society which he has saucily evaded for many years while enjoying a quality of life I doubt his victims enjoys. >>Kathy To which Richard replies > Maybe he has repented. Maybe his mental anguish has been sufficiently torturous. Maybe he was insane when he did it. Maybe he was possessed by 1800 evil spirits. The point is: I don't know. I was neither there to witness the > event, nor was I inside Polanski's brain when he did it. > > All I know is..."The Pianist" is a great film. It has served every honor it has recieved. I want all my children, and everyone I know, to see it. I'll leave decisions regardnig the degree of Polanski's guilt and his punishment to God and to the Los Angeles County Prosecuting Attorney. > > However...I will also never ask Mr. Polanski to babysit my children. > Richard Dutcher To which Bill willson adds I feel lifestyle or actions aren't a valid criteria for the judgment of an artists work. As I said before, if we judged the worth of art on the merits of the artists lifestyle or their interactions with society, then we would have to throw out much of the classical art, music, and literature, which brings so much enrichment to our lives today. I do not condone immorality or debauchery, but I recognize the free agency of others to choose for themselves. Along with these choices also comes the right of the individual to break the law, and violate any or all of God's laws and commandments. In other words no one has to do anything, or refrain from doing anything. The only thing we absolutely have to do is pay the consequences for our poor choices. Unfortunately sometimes the consequences are anathematizing or shunning by society and friends. If we choose not to read the writing of authors who break God's commandments, then we will have to do without the works of Hemingway, London, Plath, and Woolf, to name a few. As you may recall these literary greats all commited suicide. That is a definite NO! No! from God. Anyway I agree with Richard, let's leave the life judging to God and stick to the criticism of the artists work based solely on its artistic merit, and our own taste. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:09:32 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Value of _Chicago_ Thanks for explaining why you liked Chicago, Kim. I can see your viewpoint. But I'm going to have to stick with my original opinion. :) I think if it'd been handled a little differently I could've really enjoyed it--like made it more of a black comedy (but maybe not). I happen to love black comedies. I just didn't see anything funny in this movie. I think I'm seriously ready to just give up on movies. At least, most mainstream movies. I don't seem to enjoy hardly anything I see anymore. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:15:01 GMT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: Video Rights & The Mona Lisa Alan Rex Mitchell: So I've decided to make a moral stand. I just cut the tags off the mattrasses. AND I have edited that great expressions of art *God's Army* by running the movie half way thru and splicing about two feet at random. AND I showed it to a friend last night and charged him one dollar. AND for fun I am drawing a moustache on a downloaded picture of the Mona Lisa (thanks Richard for the idea). Mattress police! _______________ Sorry to disappoint you, but cutting the tag off the mattress is perfectly legal if you are the retail owner. And, while cutting the tape or drawing the moustache may be considered by some to be the destruction of fine art, if you own the tape or the painting, your actions are still legal. The downloading of the art may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances, but probably was ok, based on your use of the material. Now, about that dollar you charged your friend -- when the slammer patrol knocks on your door, I would suggest you explain that the dollar was reimbursement for the popcorn, not an admission fee for viewing the film. And have your retail resale vendor's license handy, showing that you bought sufficient amounts of popcorn to cover your concession profits. What? You didn't have popcorn? Now *that's* criminal. Larry Jackson _______________ The reader is cautioned that the contents of this post are intended in fun and not as legal counsel. Readers should spend their own good money on lawyers they can sue before using any of this advice for legal purposes. The term Sunday refers to an event on the time continuum. No meteorological prediction is intended nor implied in the use of this descriptive moment. _______________ . ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:15:42 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > I suspect that it is only > by understanding the day-to-day life of that person can we evaluate his > goodness, level of repentance, or value of "his fruits." > > Because to do otherwise might make us expound, even unconsciously, the false > belief that you have to be good to create great works of art, which Mormons > so desperately want to believe, but which history has shown us again and > again, just isn't true. Can a wicked man (or at least a morally inconsistent > man) create great art? Of course. And I can guarantee you that will not be > the "fruit" by which he is judged of God. [MOD: Preemptive clarification: I am not opening this up for a discussion of individual presidents and their pros and cons politically, except as those can be related--as Eugene relates them here--to a discussion of their linguistic competence. A view of the politician as artist which, I must admit, I had never considered until reading this post...] Consider politicians. Kennedy (I believe) was a mediocre, overhyped president with a dishonest and immoral personal life, but boy did he make some inspiring speeches! FDR, I will (grudgingly) admit, was a great president, but also a political opportunist with a personal life as sullied as Kennedy's. Nixon, by all reports, was remarkably moral in his personal life, but as a politician became a monster, and then (mostly) redeemed himself. And he opened China (like Kennedy's statements about the space program, some things go a long way). Johnson was a monster in his personal life, yet was just the man to fulfill Kennedy's lofty ideals about civil rights (that Kennedy never could have). And how to begin to discuss that most consummate of politicians, Bill Clinton? Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #21 *****************************