From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #23 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 Tuesday, April 15 2003 Volume 02 : Number 023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:46:46 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives In response to the Tim Slover question: Absolutely, knowing that Miramax ripped off March Tale to make Shakespeare = in Love affected my viewing of the film. Tim Slover is one of my closest = friends. I acted in the original production of March Tale. I did see = Shakespeare in Love and loathed it. I went specifically because Tim asked = me to. I went hoping to hate it, expecting to, looking for every possible = reason to hate it. I was well rewarded. It may be a charming and = pleasant entertainment. (It's certainly stolen from one.) I don't care. = I know that Tim sent the script to David Parfitt. Parfitt works for = Harvey Weinstein. I think that Weinstein is a crook, and so is Parfitt, = and that Weinstein hired another crook, Marc Norman to write a screenplay = based on Tim's source (plus a couple of others), and that Norman also got = a producers credit for doing so. =20 What I hate most about it is the way it treats the question of Shakespeare'= s marriage. March Tale specifically shows Ann in a positive light, and = shows the Shakespeare marriage as troubled and difficult, but also deeply = loving and close. He was gone, chasing difficult professional dreams that = required him to be in London, while she ran the estate back home in = Stratford. Those scenes between Will and Ann are the most poignant and = truthful scenes in a lovely play. But Marc Norman, in stealing Tim's = idea, jettisoned the possibility of showing an actual marriage for = Shakespeare. Instead, he chose to turn the thing into this rose-colored = pro-adultery romance. Makes sense; someone with no professional integrity = can't be expected to understand the possibility of marital integrity. I threw a shoe at my TV when it won the Oscar. I missed the TV--bad = aim--but I did hit the TV stand. =20 That seems to me to be different from a situation like The Piano. I have = no idea if Marc Norman has ever committed armed robbery, say. It doesn't = matter. His Oscar for Best Screenplay is utterly bogus. He was rewarded = for work he did not do. He's a plagiarist. Tom Stoppard, I understand, = was brought in to do a week's worth of doctoring, I think in part because = he's Tom Stoppard, for heaven's sake, and they thought his presence and = prestige might help to take the stench off a project that was widely = rumored to be crooked. I think Stoppard was an innocent in this crime, = and so my ill feelings towards Norman and Miramax generally don't rub off = on him. I submit that there's a difference between an artist who does things in = his personal life that are reprehensible (even criminal) and an artist who = acts criminally professionally. I can say that the Pianist is a great = film, despite Polanski's conviction for sex crimes. I can't cut Shakespear= e in Love the same slack. =20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:59:14 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives ___ Marianne ___ | The fact is that an artist's personal life/views/politics=20 | *are* a part of the decision-making and I do think it is=20 | not right that people who do such horrible things (and=20 | seek only to save their own skins rather than make=20 | reparations) are not shunned by their peers. ___ This is an excellent point. The fact is that the Oscars are primarily a political award. Yes the quality of ones art is part of the award. But to seriously suggest that it is even the prime part seems terribly na=EFve. Just look, for instance, at most critics "best of the 80's" lists. Then look at how few won Academy Awards. How long was it before Spielberg one. And consider Scorsese. He's considered one of the best directors of all time but has never won an award. Further his _Gangs of New York_ was nominated even though it was *far* below most of his other works in terms of quality. There are many other examples of this. Consider Hitchcock, arguably one of the greatest directors of the 20th century. Yet look at how the academy treated him. . . Thus one *can't* help but consider the Academy's decision as, in part, a comment by that artistic community on Polanski the person. That Polanski's sexual antics were so widely discussed during the voting period suggests that his winning was also a "vote" on the rape events. Whether one considers Polanski a great director or not, one can't help but feeling that this does establish a certain cultural disconnect between Hollywood actors and the population at large. (As if there weren't already many examples of that this year) ___ Margaret ___ | Of course, if we're going to ban Polanski, we also must ban=20 | Edgar Allan Poe for marrying his underaged cousin.=20 ___ That's not entirely a fair comparison. For one Poe lived in an era with *very* different views of marriage and sexuality. It would be akin to discounting an artist from the mid 19th century because of their views on African-Americans. Most of us consider that our culture has progressed since the 19th century. Further I think many of us would argue that one ought to be judged within the framework of ones culture and understanding. By that criteria there really is no comparison. If you want a better comparison, perhaps Jerry Lee Lewis or Elvis Presley are more appropriate examples. However even in those cases it seems hard to see the parallels as that pronounced. Perhaps Polanski's later relationship with Nastassja Kinski would be appropriate. After all that clearly *was* a lengthy relationship that was consensual with an extremely young woman. =20 Of course one must point out that given Polanski's relationships he clearly does have a very unhealthy view of young women. He has been in many relationships with underaged women. While perhaps that wasn't *that* uncommon in the 1950's in both the US and France, it became more and more unacceptable as time went on. That Polanski kept up these activities into the 1980's even *after* the events in California ought to count as something. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe we ought to judge a thinker or artist's works in terms of their personal lives. One can, for example, look at Heidegger's relationship with Nazism. An even better example might be Leni Riefenstahl and her masterful film _Triumph of the Will_. We can acknowledge her talent as a film makers. But I must admit that while admiring the talent and thought of the above people, I *can't* separate their Nazism from their work. I simply can't. =20 [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:54:33 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? ___ Jim ___ | I have met only a very few honest liberals (by which I mean | possessed of only the usual levels of hypocrisy, nothing | exceptional), and fewer still that would actually engage an | idea intellectually. ___ No offense Jim, but you need to get out more then. I'm conservative, but I've met many intellectual liberals. Either you are only engaging intellectually with those you agree with or else (more likely) you are confusing disagreements of how to interpret events with dishonesty. The fact is that for any event your presuppositions will dramatically color how you view events. It has been my experience that many people are unable to see that. They take certain interpretations as "self-evident" when they are anything but. I'll avoid going further into this problem of hermeneutics except to re-emphasize how significant this problem is. I would, however, question the diplomacy of saying "I have met only a very few honest liberals." Whether this is true or not, it tends to communicate not just your limited experience but rather your opinion of the group as a whole. Consider, for example, were you to say, "I have met only a very few honest Jews. . ." I think you'd see the problem were you to say something like that. Yet somehow while we are sensitive to unfair or overgeneralizations of races, we treat ideas as being somehow different. ___ Jim ___ | As far as sides go, however, I'm on the Stoic side, and | that is the prism that I use to criticize literature. | The platonic side was worth reading and learning, but I | don't much care for mysticism. ___ OK, you get some brownie points for being familiar with the Stoics (a very neglected group). I'd add that one can be a Platonist without being a mystic. The mystic element tended to be more due to Pythagorean influences. Further I'd point out that much of Stoic thought came about via a significant grappling with fundamental Platonic texts such as the Timaeus and the Phaedrus. So there isn't necessarily quite as big a gap between Plato and the Stoics as you suggest. I'd also suggest that "mysticism" can be found within Stoicism. After all their view of the Logos is heavily influenced by Heraclitus - right up to the final conflagration of all elements. While it is true that the Stoics approach wasn't quite the same as say neoPlatonic mystics, there was a strong holism to the Stoic worldview that is in keeping with mysticism. ___ Jim ___ | Universals are those things that appear in everything. I | am not speaking of Chomsky's silly theory that there's a | nifty English grammar underlying all other languages, but | of those things that are true. Literature, even fiction, | is part of the search for truth. By denying the existence | of truth (which both marxist and post-modernist criticism | do openly, and feminist & environmentalist do by their | fantastic rejection of reality) one precludes the finding | of it. ___ Just a clarification. Chomskey doesn't suggest that there is an *English* grammar underlying all other languages. Indeed he says quite the contrary. (After all Japanese and Chinese adopt a very different grammar) He, and many others, argue that grammar of all forms are a manifestation of an underlying brain structure. There is abundant evidence for this. Probably Pinker's _The Language Instinct_ is one of the better recent popularizations of this notion. Many people feel that many structures, including those in literature, are also a manifestation of underlying brain structure. Even the popularizers of mythic critical analysis, such as Eliadi or Campbell, have stated that they feel common mythic structures arise from a common psychology. Thus, for instance, our common "hero" story-line arises because of the way the brain evolved. We expect it and many other literary structures because of the way we evolved. How much people buy this will vary according to the individual. I think that there is a strong element of biological structure is undeniable. I think that can be pushed too far though. I'd also once again point out that most postmodernists *do not* deny the existence of truth. I've written on that a lot in these threads though. Feel that way if you wish, but to continue to claim that in the absence of evidence suggests that you aren't engaging those you disagree with. Which is probably why you were able to make your initial comments regarding hypocrisy. ___ Jim ___ | Perhaps the reason why Sophocles' plays aren't ultra popular | today is because many people have no clue that there is such | a thing as universals. ___ Whether there "is such a thing as universals" is very debatable. Most modern philosophies are definitely nominalistic towards universals. Even those that move towards realism, often do so in careful ways. (i.e. Armstrong and his views of universals) http://www.simons-rock.edu/~sara/index.php3?topic=philosophy/universals It is rather odd to me that you reject Platonism yet also are so emphatic about universals. As I'm sure you are aware, realism towards universals is typical of Platonism and not Stoicism. Stoics consider universals to be derivative presentations and do not exist in a primary sense. Recall that for Stoics to exist is to be a body. While they do accept certain things that Platonists would consider forms, they tend to be bodies disposed in a certain way for the Stoics. Thus there are no universals apart from particulars. Here's a brief introduction to Stoicism: http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Stoic.htm http://www.dl.ket.org/latinlit/mores/religion/stoicism.htm So I must confess that your objections seem somewhat self-contradictory. But you are right, most people have a very depreciating view of universals. ___ Jim ___ | Feminist criticism ignores the value of that technology | in gaining equality. ___ I don't quite see how you can say that given the *extensive* writing of feminists with regard to contraceptives. Even with respect to various home appliances there has been extensive writing by feminists. What feminists point out though, is that technology for housework *hasn't* emancipated women as some suggest. For instance instead of washing machines and vacuum cleaners giving women free time, for a long period all that happened was that the requirements of cleanliness increased given women no additional free time. Technology alone wasn't enough. Perhaps it gave a greater *potential* for independence, but society tended to deny the actualization of that potential. My point is that feminists do discuss these things, but point out that things are more complex than they at first appear. Whether one agrees with them or not, one must acknowledge that some of their criticisms have a point. ___ Jim ___ | Stoicism and Platonicism are as different as liberal and | conservative. ___ A rather ironic comment given the way Stoicism evolved and its close connection to Platonism. ___ Jim ___ | Classical liberals are conservatives. ___ It might be more accurate to say that modern conservativism adopted certain trends within classic liberalism. Other trends it repressed. This isn't to say that studying the Renaissance isn't significant for understanding conservatism. However I find that many conservatives pick and choose what elements to discuss. (Further I find that traditional humanism's underlying theme of "man is the measure of all things" to be deeply problematic religiously) ___ Jim ___ | A conservative is anybody who says, "if we're going to | err, let's err on the side of tradition." ___ I don't think that a fair view of conservatism as a *movement*. (It fits the actual term conservative, of course) To bring this out, simple compare modern conservatism with the form of it from the first part of the 20th century - they are dramatically different movements. In many ways modern neo-cons are very revolutionary in their outlook - often with a large does of messianic zeal. In its way the conservative/liberal divide parallels the reformation and counter-reformation. In that I mean that "tradition" tends to be a loosely applied standard. *Some* traditions are discarded and even attacked. And this is especially true in conservative attacks on liberalism. (Which isn't to say that such attacks aren't justified, just that to say this is erring on the side of tradition is difficult to swallow) Now if you want a very good explanation for how this all happens as a literary movement, I think you'll find that the most powerful explanations come from the postmodern camp. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:52:18 -0400 From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Peter WARINNER, _Sumdar_ Hello, I thought people might be interested to hear about Peter, a colleague of mine from residency. He joined the church it seems like a year ago, around the time that his first fiction was published. I don't know if that would warrant inclusion in AML news, but I thought it might be of interest. It is science fiction; he's a fantastic neurologist now practicing in NY. Amazon link included because it's easy, not because I think you need to shop at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967783941/qid=1050291780/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3321522-0422450?v=glance&s=books - -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:14:40 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] ___ Michael ___ | This ultra-conservative approach to reverencing the temple | _will_ hamstring our literature, as Eugene has described. | Such a vital aspect of our religion and our lives forever | banned from our literature? That's paramount to making | LDS literature a lie, in the same sense as pretending | sex doesn't exist is a lie about the human condition. ___ I don't think that apt. First off the view of sex in art some people have *isn't* pretending that sex doesn't exist. Rather it is that sex ought to be treated as sacred. Further they tend to point out that graphic depictions of sex are often due to a lack of creativity than a necessity. Consider many Hollywood films from the height of censorship. I just watched _The Maltese Falcon_. It deals rather heavily with sex, but in a veiled way. Many film noir movies were able to deal with sex while remaining within the censorship of the time. Often, watching those films as compared with modern films, the effect is actually accentuated by that restraint. Agree or disagree with the imposition of these limitations. I tend to think they were overboard, but that's not really the point. The point is that often impositions of these sorts aid a work. It requires creativity and imagination. Often lacking those restrictions mean that artists follow the "simple way" - at their own peril. Free verse is so much harder to do well than those following more restrictive forms of poetry for that very reason. Often this lack of skill and imagination gets manifest by using "shock" to replace style. ___ Michael ___ | Some Mormons think _any_ statement about the internals of | the temple is sacreligious and breaking covenants. ___ I'm not sure that is bad. I'll fully admit that I was very uncomfortable with Orson Scott Card's quotations in the first Alvin Maker series. I think he could have had the same effect without doing what he did. (This was the scene where the preacher meets the devil figure in a church) ___ Michael ___ | I've just started working on another book that opens with a | scene in the temple. There's some detail about the interior | of the temple, but nothing you can't learn in a visitors | center. ___ I'd be very shocked if anyone were to be offended at that. Indeed I think one could turn to the Ensign for examples of this. Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:02:56 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Irreantion Fiction Editor Needed After about four years of volunteer service, Tory Anderson is stepping down as Irreantum fiction editor, so we need a new person in that position. The job entails: 1) Reading and responding to unsolicited submissions, of which there are surprisingly few. 2) Choosing and editing 2-5 fiction pieces for each issue (including working with authors to prepare copy). 3) Administering the annual Irreantum fiction contest, either by doing the judging yourself or recruiting some help. (And the new editor would need to hit the ground running on this one, since entries for this year's contest are due by May 1st and we hope to make awards by June 1. I don't know how many entries Tory has received--I'm hoping he'll get them to me ASAP.) 4) Making contact with selected authors to ask for stories, novel excerpts, etc. If you would be interested, please drop me a line directly with a note about why/how you'd be able to do a good job on this. Thanks, Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:20:01 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Book Project Update Well, I made it to the acquisition board of HarperSanFrancisco again with my new Mormon book proposal but didn't get an offer. My agent was upset because she said they didn't have a good reason. I would guess it's a combination of not quite liking my spin on Mormonism and not quite feeling confident enough in my writing skills. I think the editor whose been taking my work to these meetings, Renee Sedliar, is a younger editor without much clout or experience. She's acquired some books but not many yet. (She's profiled in a recent Writers Digest, but I don't have it in front of me.) To my surprise, my agent still wants to keep sending around the new proposal, so maybe she'll find someone else. I'll let her do it, but I'm feeling pretty apathetic about it. In fact, I'm supposed to be rereading my new proposal again to make any additional changes before she starts sending it around, but I haven't been able to stomach opening it. Lately I've been thinking that writing is a sucky line of work; even at my daytime copywriting job, I rarely seem to write anything the way others would like it to be, and I get sick of trying to read their minds. More and more often lately, I fantasize about working for the post office or some other job that has nothing to do with writing. Anyway, I just want to reiterate that Renee Sedliar at HSF would be a good editor for people to try with Mormon-related projects--maybe she'll be able to squeak one past eventually. And my agent Linda Roghaar is a good one to try; I'm not exactly sure why she's so open to Mormon work, but she is. Here is their contact info again: Renee Sedliar HarperSanFrancisco 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 500 San Francisco CA 94111 renee.sedliar@harpercollins.com Linda Roghaar Linda Roghaar Literary Agency, Inc. 133 High Point Dr. Amherst, MA 01002 lroghaar@aol.com Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #23 *****************************