From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #26 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Thursday, April 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number 026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:24:13 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: Addictions and Art Richard Dutcher said: >Here's a thought: taking into account prevailing theories of addiction, maybe >violent and/or sexual images are kind of like alcohol or drugs or reality >television. Maybe some of us are genetically pre-disposed to sensitivity and >addiction. Maybe some of us are far more affected than others by the images >we see. Or maybe I'm totally talking out of my bum. I don't know. I think you nailed a good point in the above (the addiction reference, not the bum reference). I was actually thinking along similar lines before you reached the point. If you feel that you are relatively immune to the negative influences of some films, then you have a gift. I'm jealous, because (and I do not say this with self-pity, believe me) I am an addict (well, a recovering one). A lot of people are just like me, and, for us, it is just too dangerous spiritually to allow nudity, harsh language, violence, etc., in our viewing diet. I winced when you wrote the following: >I seldom dream about the films I see, even the most recent version of "The Exorcist," which had >some of the most disturbing imagery I have ever seen (Thumbs up!). >As for sexual content, I don't dream (or daydream) about it. It doesn't flash >in my mind during inappropriate times such as in the temple or during the >sacrament or while making love to my wife. >As for language: when an actor and screenwriter let fly with one of the three >or four words that I find particularly ugly and violent, I cringe and wish >they hadn't "shared," but I don't find myself using the words either in life >or in my mind. I winced because I cannot say the same for myself, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. I could go on and confess to you some sins or name films that I'd give back in a second, but do you need to hear that? Of course not. I simply responded (and am glad I did because I appreciated the responses) to your statement about not having any respect for the R-rated film rule. It may have been semantics that got to me. I know some individuals, however, who, years ago, carefully selected the films that they viewed, and were pretty discriminating about which R-rated films they would watch. As time has passed, however, their standards have loosened a great deal, and it seems that they'll watch pretty much anything that a critic says is good or interesting or different (and then some), regardless of the subject matter or content. They have to be "in the know" about film today. If the craft is good, they're usually glad to have seen it. It's not my business, and who am I to judge, right? But, it breaks my heart, because I care about them, and I believe that, in some small way, it has been a step away from the church for them. Perhaps there's a little tinge of guilt or something, or maybe there's a sense that the society at church is beneath them. I don't know. Either way, part of me mourns it. As far as detaching yourself from film, it's something that we all need to do. And yet, isn't the ability to involve or engulf an audience a characteristic of great film? Here's a silly example in my life: I love scary movies, and when you mentioned The Exorcist, I had to share this. When I was about 13 or 14, I decided to watch that movie alone on a Saturday afternoon. I'd already seen it, and I just loved it (it is quite the crafty piece, I admit, and I'm terribly fond of Max von Sydow). I was also not religious at all, so I didn't take offense to blasphemous language or behavior the way I do now. I closed the blinds and turned out the lights so that I could get the full effect. (How's that for the behavior of an addict. One might suggest that it was akin to rolling up and smoking a hash joint and whiling away the afternoon eating gingersnaps and pizza. Anyway, I digress.) Then, about 30 minutes into the film, Regan tipped her head back and let out that voice. You KNOW that voice I'm talking about. I stopped the film, opened the blinds, turned on a lot of lights, and took a bathroom trip before watching more of the film. Oh, I'm still laughing at that. (I hope somebody else thinks that is funny and that it's not just crickets out there). Anyway, I was completely involved. Maybe I have too great a willing suspension of disbelief, or maybe some filmmakers are just too darned good at their jobs. Who knows. One more thing: My good friend Eric said the following in his response to me: >I read, on average, five books a week. Assuming that I'm able to keep >reading five books a week for the rest of my life, and assuming ye old >Biblical life span of threescore and ten, I will be able to read 5980 >books the rest of my life. >That's it. A little under 6K. >I watch, on average, about four movies a week. Making the same actuarial >assumptions, I should be able to see about 4784 movies the rest of my >life. >That's it. Under 5K. Well, first of all, happy belated birthday, Eric! I hope that you had an enjoyable evening (and that Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant delivered beyond your expectations). Though the above was not really the point you were making in your message, I just have to say that *you read too much and watch too many movies*!! Either you have way many more hours in a day than I do, or you read very quickly. If it is the latter, I'm jealous and I resent you for it. ;) But seriously, I did get your point, and I was happy for the response. Well, thanks for the exchange, the insight, and the patience and willingness to let me restart this thread. I'm new to the list and missed the first one. Though I'm unchanged in my view, I have greater empathy and appreciation for your views, folks. For that, I thank you. Yours, Dianna Graham "He never did tell me who the Fat Lady was, but I shined my shoes for the Fat Lady every time I ever went on the air again..." _Franny and Zooey_J.D. Salinger - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:43:22 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? ___ Jacob ___ | 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. ___ Unfortunately I no longer have the original post I was responding to. So I no longer remember the exact point of pointing out how open Shakespeare is to differing interpretations. I thought, however, that the issue was the follow assertions: Neo-Con literary criticism as postmodern criticism Neo-Con literary criticism as criticism via "authorative texts" Neo-Con literary criticism as "natural law" To me they seemed rather contradictory. I even seem to recall pleading for someone to explain what exactly "conservative criticism" is. ___ Jacob ___ | 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. ___ Actually most of my views on postmodernism have come through reading various books and not discussions with Jim. My discussions with Jim were primarily at initial understanding of Husserl, Derrida and Heidegger. However I can assure you that I have dozens of volumes of classic postmodern works in my library ranging from Paul deMan to Richard Rorty to Giles Deleuze and even criticisms of postmodernism such as Habermas' _The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_. I'd say that my views on postmodernism as a "whole" (if such a term is even vaguely appropriate) come from many discussions with literary critics and philosophers from various forums on the Internet. (I'm sure someone could spy on my exchanges and see all the places I put my foot in my mouth via Google were they so inclined) I'm very grateful to Jim Faulconer if only for pointing out the issue of transcendence and how it relates both to classic literary and philosophical texts. As such it has radically transformed *how* I see texts. But I must admit that on many matters Jim and I disagree relative to the problem of transcendence. ____ Jacob ___ | 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). ___ I'm not sure I agree. First off postmodernism in many guises parallels very closely many significant forms of neoPlatonism. As such it can be seen as a more careful analysis of the one and the many, or the universal and the particular. To say that postmodernism has nothing to do with any kind of universal really is to miss the point of a lot of postmodernism. A good book on this, relative to Heidegger, is Sikka's _Forms of Transcendence_. It is very interesting - especially to a Mormon audience. I'd not be so universal as to say that *all* postmodernism focuses in on this. But clearly postmodernism denies a *stable* universal. But that is not the same as denying the universal. This difference between the dynamic and the stable is certainly key to understanding postmodernism. Getting back to Jim, what exactly is a "post-modernist heretic"? Is that a heretic from postmodernism? Or a heretic from modernism who is a heretic because of his postmodernism? Some of Jim's views on Heidegger are somewhat controversial. (Sorry, I could name any off the top of my head) However I'm not sure that is the same as being a heretic. And Jim is hardly alone in them. ___ Jacob ___ | 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. ___ Lots of luck. After all "describing reality" entails the completeness of ones descriptions. But if modernism can not avoid the "aporias" that postmodernism points out then modernism as a narrative of reality is *less* complete than postmodernism. ___ Clark ___ | 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. | ___ Jacob ___ | Yeah, but who cares? By which I really mean "why should this have | anything to do with conservative criticism?" ___ Jim was discussing conservative criticism as an appeal to some "natural law" by which texts were criticized. I simply pointed out the problems inherent in the concept of natural law. (Natural law is simply the imposition of universals on particulars, btw) ___ Jacob ___ | 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. ___ There certainly is a strong conservative movement that depends upon various notions of natural law. I'd never claim *all* does, of course. But then perhaps this is the problem of *a* conservative criticism? As I said, I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by conservative criticism. Clearly it isn't just some collection of orthodox texts ala Bloom. Otherwise your point about *a* conservative reading of Shakespeare makes no sense. It apparently isn't a criticism in terms of a "natural law." So what is it? ___ Jacob ___ | Post-modernism began as a revolt from scientific rationalism | and it moved from there to a disdain for all rationalism. ___ I don't think that fair. Certainly that is the strawman set up by many *criticizing* postmodernism. However when we move to actual texts we find that things are much more complex. Either they focus on what is simply bad scholarship/editing (of which postmodernism is hardly uniquely susceptible) or a fundamental misunderstanding of the texts in question. ___ Jacob ___ | It doesn't actually propose *anything* to take the place of | (i.e. fulfill) rationalism. ___ So? Isn't claiming that there *can't* be anything higher - that certain goals of "modernity" are unobtainable enough? ___ Jacob ___ | Conservatism doesn't have to discuss the origins of universals/ | morals/core beliefs because the origins don't matter. ___ Then why pick one "core belief" above others. Isn't that irrational? Isn't conservativism (if what you say is true) only your strawman of postmodernism taken to even further extremes? It is irrationalism imposed by force of will or tradition rather than reason? It is the *denial* of reason as being relevant. It is just a kind of cultural relativism that puts on the cloak of there being no "cultural relativism." ___ Jacob ___ | 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. ___ Here you make an even *stronger* case for relativism. It doesn't matter *what* values/universals are. (Thus it doesn't matter if the universals are *actually* universal) They show the "binding application" of these not-universals through text and art and human condition. (i.e. *not* reason) It becomes a free wheeling textual interpretation where some external "meta-text" imposes upon other texts, art, and the very human condition. It is the project of Freudian interpretation taken to its next logical level - where Freud's lie of having found "universal categories" is rejected but the project retained. The idea that there is *a* set of universals is replaced with the idea that universals are not objective, but are subjective. It is categorization without appeal to the utility, objectivity or logic of the categories. Anything goes so as one can show a "binding application." But what do we mean by binding application? Is it that the universals were present *before* in these texts? If so, what does that suggest about the relationship of universal to text if *any* collection of universals will do? Doesn't that undermine the entire project? ___ Jacob ___ | 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. ___ But isn't this just the appeal that instead of focusing in on questions of truth we ought to focus on matters of style? Performance rather than content? Form rather than meaning? And if one asserts that it is through this inversion of the traditional goal of scholarship we can "understand each other a little better" what does that say of understanding? That understanding is contentless? Is that really understanding at all? It seems a return to an extreme nominalism that even the sophists might fear to take. Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 18:04:05 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Neil LaBute Interview Some of you might find this interview interesting, especially given recent discussions. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/entertainmentstorydisplay.cfm?st oryID=3401294&thesection=entertainment&thesubsection=arts&thesecondsubse ction=general The most interesting part is towards the end. It raises interesting issues for Mormon artists. - ---- He admits that his adherence to a faith which at least appears authoritarian, doctrinaire and conservative, is at odds with such artistic iconoclasticism. But his trio of plays about three violent and disturbed individuals changed all that. bash: latterday plays "was not about the church but about people who happened to be members of the church," LaBute says. "But I got into some trouble with the church and I continue to be in that [trouble]. It will probably come to some head which will not be excommunication but something close to it. Ultimately I will be asked to decide whether I want to continue in the church or continue to work the way I am. "Like all good writers I continue procrastinating for as long as I can, but I will at some point have to decide and a decision will be made. "I understand the dichotomy for some people, that the church and my work don't seem to go hand in hand. I've been able to reconcile it quite easily - but then I'm a great self-justifier." Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:02:53 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Video Rights & The Mona Lisa AML LIST EXCLUSIVE: Notes from Prison. I knew it would come to this. I always knew it would come to this. The first sentence of Kafka I read years ago taught me that you didn't have to block the entrance to a building, or burn a flag or a brassiere. No. They will eventually come and get you. Incarceration isn't bad if you don't have anything else to do. But I need nicotine--I've never smoked in my life and don't want to jeopardize my recommend, but there is something about prison that makes the memory wobbley so you need tobacco. The Horizontal Brigade was cruel, but comical. I could help but remembering how the Cubists excommunicated one of their own for painting diagonals. Was is Modrian? Was it Mona Lisa? I can't remember, but he must have been relieved that he found the middle ground. I suspect the judge must be related to Giorgi. Why else would he release a serial mis-speller like myself? How else would he know how to spell Giorgi? Maybe it's Dutcher himself. I vaguely recall there was some relationship like brother-in-law, or making out with each other's sisters. I don't understand what making out means to actors. I mean, I saw Scott Bronson making out with his real-life wife in the Nauvoo Society's production of the Samuelson play. What did it mean? Was he really making out with his wife, or just acting? I spent five hours on that question yesterday. And did she ever tell him she wasn't doing that scene tonight because she had a headache? Art is complex. So I refused the freedom they offered, although it was nice to be out of the strait jacket so I could pick my nose. I correctly surmized that freedom, in this context, would be like Samuelseon's (sp?) liberalism, the ability to believe in several contradictory spellings at the same time. I'm not intelligent enought to be a liberal--I want my Video Rights--I belong in jail. I screamed, I AM G-I-OR-G-I in real loud capital letters, and they put me in a different ward for GI's. Mitchell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:06:24 -0600 From: Jared Walters Subject: [AML] Re: Shakespeare in Love (was: Artists' Personal Lives) Eric, Thanks for that insight in SIL. I thought I was the only one who didn't understand how it was hyped up so much by fall season critics. You don't want to get me started on Weinstein. I swear the Academy must live in his pocket or something. I guess it helps when you have Disney as a silent parent company shelling out the dough to shove movies down critics throats for award consideration. IMO, that's really the only reason SIL won the Oscars it did. It's all about the media spin these days, Weinstein and Miramax have a great marketing staff that can hide any evidence of plagiarism and use reverse tactics on potential Oscar competitors. Most recently, the attempted sabotage of last years Oscar winner, "A Beautiful Mind" where stories were leaked out about racist allegations of the real-life protagonist. Weinstein later had to apologize to Universal head Stacy Snyder. Although, Weinstein did gain a little respect in my eyes with his public endorsement of Spielberg's under-appreciated work on "A.I" SIL is not a terrible movie, but it definitely wasn't worthy of the Oscar attention it got although my wife loves the movie which is strange since she's turned off by any movie justifying adultery, go figure. If I was wearing a shoe, I would've thrown one at the TV too when SIL won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan. One of the biggest travesties in recent memory for the Oscars. [Jared Walters] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:16:25 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] Interview with God This moved me, and I wanted to share it with those who might also = appreciate it. The site is a pop up presentation of some very beautiful landscapes shown in a PowerPoint like format with music and a written poem about a dream the author had in which he was allowed to interview God. I have enjoyed it and I have shared it with many of my family and friends. It may not load easily on all browsers or a slow modem speed. I have a cable modem and I use Explorer 6.0 http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:16:58 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division What this means is that Deseret is going to get into the business of distributing works they do not publish. This is what Publishers Distribution, Origin, and Evans Book used to do and it is still the principal business of Granite Publishing, and to a large extent CFI. Brigham Book Distributing (I think that's the name) up in Brigham City is trying to enter this market. They will probably be edged out by Deseret now. This is a smart move if done correctly. It could allow Deseret to essentially take over the distribution end of the LDS market, leaving the small publishers to do nothing but publish, then pass their products over to Deseret to distribute. It is not a terribly profitable venture unless it's done on a large scale, and I think Deseret has the best shot in the LDS market to achieve that scale. (In the trade market, Ingram and Baker & Taylor are the big national distributors.) This will essentially consolidate the LDS market in the hands of Deseret, but that may not be a bad thing, depending on how open they are to different kinds of product. It may take some big internal changes, though. Deseret's wholesale arm has been notorious for creating ill-will amongst their (non-Deseret) customers. Perhaps Sherri Dew will correct that problem and with her correction add this powerful new twist. Verrrry interesting. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:27:52 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives [MOD: I'm going to impose a prior restraint ruling on this part of this thread. That is, debate Thom's interpretation of these scriptural/historical readings if you wish, but only if you also engage with the larger point he's making about the relationship of the life of the artist/spiritual leader and the message.] >-----Original Message----- >If you do >not like the work of an artist, simply refrain from >patronizing it, but I feel sorry for anyone who refuses to >give eye or ear to the work of an artist just because they >don't like their personal lifestyle. and they think the artist >is despicable. If the art is despicable, that is one thing, >but ... well let's just leave it at that. Not to mention the fact that the founders of own religion also exhibted human traits on occasion, and errer, or made mistakes, or acted in an egotistical manner. Do we throw out the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith was less than a perfected human being? Or do we, instead, read the book and let IT speak to us, not Joseph. Noah cavorted naked in a tent. Moses sinned so badly he couldn't get in the promised land. Jonah was a failed missionary. Peter and Paul argued on occasion. It is fairly well known what Brigham Young and Orson Pratt thought of each other. All men exhibiting very human characteristics. The message is not, and never has been, the man. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:33:42 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction We have agreed on other points, but maybe you don't remember. I seem to recall we share a mutual love and admiration for the late Max Golightly. Thom >-----Original Message----- >In being a member of this list for lo these many >years, I have finally read a post from Thom with which I agree >and say amen to every point. I am now going out into the >garden to watch the sky in case the second coming is about to >begin. > >Richard B. Johnson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:25:29 -0600 From: Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit I assume you mean that the boy was a jerk, not the bishop? ;-) I've read the book also. I thought Plummer did a good job of showing that the boy was a complete jerk, yet also convincingly showing what Hannah saw (or thought she saw) in him. Not easy to do. - --Katie Parker Quoting Tracie Laulusa : > Just to quibble, I think Dances for Three was overtly Mormon. One of > the characters is Hannah's Bishop. > > And, he didn't turn into a jerk, he always was one. At least one > underlying issue in the book is who we as a culture look at as being > *good*. He looked good to her, and she ignored signs that maybe he > was not all she was looking for--with all the emotionally issues with > her family thrown in for good measure. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:38:21 -1000 From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives I most heartily agree. How can we compare the work of butchers to that of artists. The butcher's work is so much more important. IMHO. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net - -----Original Message----- First, how can we possibly compare butchers, bakers, and artists? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:31:20 -0400 From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog At 7:50 PM -0700 4/10/03, you wrote: >Well, my new Deseret Book catalog arrived today. What a shocker! > >Herein my comments: > >1. It's a somewhat larger catalog than before. No wonder -- they've >stuffed it with junk and golden oldies, things you never thought would see >the light of day again. I didn't know why they were listing Duane >Crowther's "Life Everlasting." Gosh, how old is THAT book? And, tell the >truth, I can't remember them ever featuring this book in a catalog before. Does anyone know if they are charging the publishers for listings, like the "books and things" catalog? > >2. Many books had little snips of reviews attached. Naturally, I searched >for any that originated with AML. Total number of AML-related reviews -- >zero. Total number written by Deseret Book employees -- I stopped counting. >Most were fairly anonymous -- first name and city and state. And it isn't >as if AML members haven't favorably reviewed some of these titles. I wonder >why Deseret Book essentially gave AML the cold shoulder? Very curious. > They want 'customer' reviews, so I'll bet those in the catalog either came from their website or from in-store review forms or something. I don't think the idea of any serious reviews ever entered into their minds. Notice they don't have any review from local newspapers either - - no Deseret News, no Provo Daily Herald, nothing. Not that these do many reviews, but they have done a few. >4. And, the introduction of a slogan at the upper-right portion of the >cover page: "What matters to you matters to us." > In my case I can't see how that could possibly be true! Kent - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:56:04 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] Ask the Librarian A big "hoop" to you! Power to the people!!!! Next stop -- Deseret Book. Inasmuch as their current catalog contains reviews, and not a ONE from AML, I think an invasion plan is justified. We can call it "Operation DB Catalog." I don't think we'll get Congressional funding, though... - ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:36:41 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: RE: [AML] New Deseret Book Catalog It's rather odd that Deseret Book didn't mention that this is an enlarged edition. When did he add the material? I now wonder which edition I actually have on my shelves. Reaction to Crowther's work is mixed. I reviewed a book published by him (something about a fellow dying, visiting heaven, and returning). It was a slim book and, frankly, I thought it was a bit silly. If the story actually happened as described, I would be surprised. I do not for a minute question the reality of the hereafter, or of God being able to work things out as He chooses, but when heaven looks as much like Salt Lake City as this fellow related, my skepticism rises to the top. As to the book that you have published, I've read very little about it (I haven't read the book itself), mostly here, and it hasn't been very positive. Have the comments been passed along to the author, in an effort, perhaps, to make the second volume better? Thanks for your thoughts. - ---------------- Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com > -----Original Message----- > Why is Deseret Book listing Duane Crowther's "old book" Life > Everlasting in > their New Catalog? Maybe because it has 150 pages of new > material in it. I > actually never read the old one. Somehow I missed in the first > time around. > And having just read it, along with 6 others published by his Horizon > Publishing on the same topic, I'm sorry I did not read it years ago. > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:58:55 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Book Project Update - ----- Original Message ----- . Chris wrote: 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. I had to laugh, Chris. And I LOVE the word sucky here! EXACTLY, you have hit it on the head. How MANY times have I wanted to be a WAITRESS! Well, I finally got into the theatre, and though it's connected in an artistic way, it doesn't devour me in the same manner! The only problem is that the pay is zero. (Actually, as Thom and Scott will affirm, the theatre bleeds.) And over all these years my writing has brought in about two cents an hour (at least enough to help me establish the Marilyn Brown Novel Award, and I'll be darned if I'm going to collapse when someone criticizes me for naming at after myself--I tried to call it MBNA at first, but I was stepping on the toes of some bank). My husband keeps reminding me that he's supporting me. But I did write computer programs for WICAT for several years, and performed other editorial jobs, etc., so I'm DUE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SOON! I am willing to live as a pauper to write. Or buy some income property and let other people's money pay for it! And after all this time has passed, I'm the age of Tolkein! But YOU WILL NEVER STOP WRITING because it's in your blood! How I agree that a post office or waitress job looks inviting sometimes! Thanks for giving us your editor and your agent! (Although I'm not sure they want a bunch of Mormons converging upon them all at once!) I KNOW you're going to make it one of these times! And you will look back, and the behind (is this a freudian slip?) will make the foreground come up roses! So cheers! (Which reminds me, I should be WRITING at this moment! But I'm on page 162, so I'm allowing myself to indulge in some of these conversations I can't resist. The outline is DONE, and I (the illusive Margaret/Marilyn/Thom/Steve Martin?) am on the movie script now---even though I have to admit that Dutcher's dialogue seems to jerk my whole work up a notch and I'm completely aware I am struggling to be in synch with a genius! C'est la vie. But even peon novelists need to hone their skills as penpals once in a while. I must admit it feels good to be back talking to the astute crowd!) Hi EMINEM [Marilyn Brown] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:17:42 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Peter WARINNER, _Sumdar_ Welcome, Peter! This is wonderful. Please, Sam, get him to come on and tell us about his work! And now to Chris, in reference to his sucky career: Maybe we should all become neurologists! (Again. No wonder I try to stay off the list, I can't keep still.) Marilyn Brown (Sorry, Jonathan!) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:18:21 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ > Susan, surely CHICAGO is not one of the worst movies you have ever seen. Not > unless you don't see many films. Maybe by "worst" you mean "most offensive." > I'd buy that, although I was not personally offended by it. No, I mean worst. I rarely attend movies in the theater, and when I'm at home watching a stinker, I turn it off. Or leave the room. And you're right, I don't watch many movies anymore. > > Every character was despicable. > > Even Roxy's husband? The innocent Russian prisoner? The reporter? The short, > balding extra in the crowd scene? Yes, even the husband. The reporter, yes. The innocent Russian prisoner, I don't know. I'm sure there was something to despise about her, too. :) > How could you and your fellow viewers possibly have missed the satire? I don't know how we missed the satire, but we did. I usually find satire funny. This I found appalling. Nothing funny about it anywhere. I think it's like you said--the movie held up all this horrible stuff like it was something to celebrate. I just can't get into that. I have a thing about movies that potray murderers like they're something wonderful. It's a pet peeve of mine. I'm serious when I say I'm about to give up on mainstream Hollywood movies. I don't seem to like hardly anything I see anymore. I'm not even interested in seeing the Matrix sequel that's coming out. I did see and enjoy Willard, but I love Crispin Glover--and it's not something I'd necessarily call mainstream Hollywood. I'm interested in seeing Holes, so maybe there's some slight hope for me yet. Anyway, I have different taste than just about everyone I know in movies. So feel free to ignore my opinion. :) Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:35:57 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Thom Duncan wrote: > >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. Thanks for the praise, but I don't feel it's warranted. It's like praising a painter for using paint. If an author doesn't understand that truth and honesty are his artistic medium, then he's likely a lousy author (or an LDS author). This is why I never feel bad about what I write, no matter how "inappropriate" someone else may think it is. I write what I believe is the truth. I was born to Mormon parents, and from my first primary lesson until today, I was taught that telling the truth is a virtue, not a sin. Therefore when in my stories someone has sex or masturbates or is nude, someone commits horrible sins while thinking he is doing the Lord's work, someone has negative reactions to her first time in the temple, someone uses language that ought not to be heard in sacrament meeting, someone uses drugs, etc. etc., I don't feel the slightest guilt. I never include these things gratuitously or for shock effect. I never celebrate evil or whitewash its consequences. But I do include them when relevant to the story because these things are true--they happen to real people in real life, including real Mormons. I'm just telling the truth. Hopefully writing or reading the truth will set me and my readers free a tiny bit more than we currently are. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #26 *****************************