From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #33 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 22 2003 Volume 02 : Number 033 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:15:06 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] JONES, _Messengers of Truth_ I think this is the same film shown at Sunstone in Pasadena last year or so. I watched most of it -- way too long, way too repetitive. And yes, off color at some points. Very amateur job, if this is the same film. The man who made the film introduced it in person, and admitted it wasn't a polished work. And, sadly, it wasn't a gentle spoof. Folks ought to be able to laugh at themselves; this film was just a mockery. I left before it was over. Later, at dinner, I spoke with Mike Quinn, who was also at the viewing. He agreed with this assessment. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:26:27 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives At 10:50 AM 4/19/03 -0600, you wrote: >The problem is that for too many "artists," the grass is always >browner on the other side of the fence. I love this twist on an old cliche! LOL! Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:42:43 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Hip-Hop I liked Mary Jane Jones' article on hip-hop, and I have to throw in my agreement. I don't remember who it is on this list who is frequently saying that 90% of everything is crap in any genre, but he is probably right. The flip side being that in the 10% of anything that isn't crap, some of it might even be very good, within the confines of its medium of expression. Few things are more personal than musical tastes. But like many earthly experiences, taste for some things has to be cultivated. Music has always had a powerful effect on me, so much so, that I have used music for years as an integral aspect of both my acting and my writing, constantly seeking out sounds that will create a desired feeling in me to reach a certain performance or create a thematic mood within which to create. In that journey, I have often forced myself to take second, third and fourth looks at musical forms that were initially alienating. No two forms of musical expression have been more initially alienating to my pleasure than Country/Western and Rap/Hip-Hop. That's ironic, considering that half of my lineage, the American half, are all pure-blood Texans. My father didn't know there was any other KIND of music besides Country until he was 12. And when it comes to Hip-Hop, through some strange twist of fate, friends of friends, I wound up being closely associated with several people in the LA Rap world, developing movie scripts for them (most of these guys what to get on the screen so bad they'll sell body parts to do it). And so I found myself immersed inside worlds I would not have otherwise sought out. And the experienced produced appreciation, in both cases. Reserved appreciation; qualified appreciation; intermittent appreciation: sure. But I found, as MJJ espouses, some works of art in the mix -- or at least, expressions that moved me. And isn't that one definition of art (framed or not!)? To double the irony, I actually ended up writing a number of rap songs in connection to several (as yet unproduced) projects. And I had a lot of fun doing it. I felt a freedom in the form of poetry the genre demands that I hadn't found in any other outlet. And, quite frankly, to pat myself on the back: I like my rap songs! The buyers didn't bite, and I thought that excursion of my life was over... But them, last year some time, instead of having each ward produce a Roadshow, the stake decided that they were going to have everyone do a video. We had to help the kids write, produce, shoot and edit a 90-second spot (a la "Mormonads") on a certain theme. Well, since I had just recently been involved with the world of rap, and since the idea of doing a "video" screamed to me "music video" (yes, I was a teenager on the very first night MTV broadcast its nonsense into the world, and yes, I did stay up all night to watch it). So I proposed to the kids that we produce our own rap music video. Of course, they loved the idea. They were kids, after all. So I helped them write a rap song along the theme of choice, agency and consequences of our actions. We came up with 90-seconds of blistering rap. A local musician and recording artist helped us lay the tracks. Once the song was on CD, one of the gals choreographed the dancing, everybody gathered costumes and we shot miles of footage. Then we hunkered down into the editing bay and after about 12 hours, came up with a 90-second MMTV spot (Mormon Music Television!) that we could call our own. We were very worried about how the song would be received by the local authorities. Rap not being considered a standard medium in most LDS youth activities! Our real worry was about our lyrics. I mean, one of our verses included such dicey subject matter as: Hey, babe, you know that I'm free! I'm the master of me! But when my choice involves you -- one and one make three! Yes it feels good! You knew that it would! But one thing you didn't ask was is it right that you should! Amazingly, our bishop approved it (he actually appeared in the video), and then our stake leaders passed off on it, so we did it. The whole project was a romp. Kids who where never involved in activities participated and had a good time, and in the end the clip won an award for Best Music of the whole festival. My pleasure was that the local leadership were open-minded enough to let us try something out that the kids could relate to, and when it was done, the adults had a good time, too. And so we fused rap music video and traditional Mormon roadshow to come up with a whole new form. C.T.R. Baby! Jongiorgi ("Ice") Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:49:19 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art Richard Dutcher says, "I wish I could take the entire AML group to New York and share the CHICAGO experience. I'd like to see if anyone else gets the jolt I got. Do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to foot the bill?" My question is: do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to finance R.D.'s next three films? Jon (out of work actor) Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:49:57 -0400 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors D. Michael Martindale wrote: >What good does it do me to >write some of the most profound, inspiring, soul-magnifying prose >imagined by mortal man if it's too hard for people to read? Why >shouldn't Gene Wolfe or anyone else write in a style that maximizes the >audience who can appreciate him, if there's so much of value in what he >writes? > >Why is clarity not considered one of the most essential virtues for a >writer? > >To me, the message is the important thing. The medium is there only to >convey the message. If the medium gets in the way, that's a bad thing. >(This is no doubt why I detest poetry. By definition, the medium IS the >art in poetry.) You answer your own question. Some writers--even of novels--see language (what you call the medium) as equal to any "message" that their writing might convey. Poetry (ie, short lines surrounded by lots of white space) is not the only mode of literary expression in which language matters, and not all novelists see their task as the conveying of a specific and easily interpretable message. Clarity isn't always considered one of the most essential virtues for a writer because literature didn't start with Hemingway. Some would even argue that placing more emphasis on the poetry of the writing, and less on the specific message, would maximize one's audience more effectively. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:08:17 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit Jessie Christensen point out that: "Everybody's doing it" will always be a terrible excuse, but telling kids that drinking and sleeping around will ruin their future doesn't cut it anymore either." One of my favorite people in the world is a guy named Mel. This guy lived an intensely wild life before he joined the church. And like many men of an indomitable constitution, he got away with most of it, repented, and is a pretty happy temple-endowed guy now-a-days. One of the things he does from time to time is to present an amazing fireside for youth. He spends about an hour regaling the crowd with a plethora of mostly hilarious stories of experiences he had while stoned, drunk or worse. The effect of the laughter is dangerous and liberating to the crowd of kids. They've never been talked to like this before, at least not a church-going adult. Mel tells them up front, "Hey, I'm not going to tell you that drinking and sleeping around will ruin your future. I had a great time." The kids don't know how to take it. They are howling with laughter, but they know that they are being told "bad boy" stories and they keep looking around uncomfortably between the snickers. Then, of course, Mel drops a bomb on them, turns the tables and tells of the shattering experience he had when his autistic daughter drowned in the tub while he was supposed to be watching her. When he brings it all to a head with his return to the church, the clarity the gospel gave him, and his being sealed to his kid in the temple, etc., the emotional effect is thunderous. He sets up an honest comparison. There is this (the party life) and there is that (the spiritual life). The one can be good or bad, but will ultimately let you down. The other can be good or bad, but will ultimately bring you up. Choose for yourself, he says. Kids get it. They know he's not being condescending to them, and they listen. Its a powerful presentation, and I got as much out of it as an adult as my group of kids did. Now... to translate that kind of evening into an easily transmittable art form such as film or novel... Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:17:10 +1000 From: "Jason Covell" Subject: [AML] Mormon History Narratives from a Non-US Perspective Folks, There have been some comments suggesting an undercurrent of interest in this topic - writings and stories from non-US Mormons - and with my usual alacrity (esprit de l'escalier, anyone?) I thought I'd throw a few musings into the pot. And then give it a little stir. OK then. You know, I'm a history buff, and when I think about the history of the Church in the 19th century, I'm struck by the sheer numbers of European (largely English) Saints making up the total membership of the Church. I don't have any of the sources right on me, but I know the membership was heavily tilted towards Britain for a certain number of years. Out of all the implications of this, I can't help wonder about the numbers of stories about the English Saints that still have not been told widely - or at least, which are not known by me. And I have to say, most of the stories of these people, when they _are_ told, are done so from a decidedly American perspective. Please don't misunderstand me. This is not a rip on Americans or US Mormons generally. It's just that the way stories (especially national narratives) are told differ _very_ significantly between the Anglo-Saxon nations. Speaking from an Australian perspective (which also brings some cultural proximity to English traditions), I am acutely aware of these differences. Particularly in comparison to Australian and English narratives, there many American narratives which bring out a unique whiff of... triumphalism? manifest destiny? an allegiance to underlying American myths and types? I'm searching for the right phrase or shade of meaning without wanting to demean or disparage. I particularly don't want to engage in debate with anyone who feels I am attacking the United States. I'm not. I'm just trying to talk about differences, not better or worse. Let me get to the point: I want to read and watch Mormon history told from an English perspective (yes, Australian too, but I'll come to that). I want to see Ken Loach, or his Mormon equivalent, do an historical drama about the working class and middle class converts in 19th century Britain. I want to see this done from an _English_ perspective. Everyone knows how well the English do period drama - and that's everything from the tasteful Jane Austen pieces to the sordid, harrowing recreations of life in the coal mines or dark satanic mills of the industrial revolution. I want to see that. Whether sentimental or not (there's plenty of room for both), I want to see how it was for the converts themselves. Because what happened to them is a window into a major, major part of English history. I mean, a handful of these Mormon "apostles" and wild-eyed preachers came over to Lancashire and other parts and converted whole parishes, had thousands of people under their spell, hoodwinked them into buying a patch of blue sky in the unknown American West and abandoning everything they had to do so? What a story! There's class warfare, religious fanatics, sex, the scent of revolution... what's not to like? I'm tantalised by the snippets from Dickens, Ruskin, Disraeli and all the other commentators on the English scene who observed this phenomenon and had their say. This was Dickens' "pick and flour of England". Yet most failed to comprehend what was really taking place. And with all the best will in the world, I don't think American story-tellers can quite do the tale justice, either. Americans, born into American soil, nourished with American heroism and history, have never quite been able to tell the stories of the English the way the English themselves can. I could go on a lot longer, pulling out ideas that promise to unravel marvellously... but I'd love to hear what others think. Oh yes. A side note. When I talk about America, and American myths, I'm talking about this from a personal perspective as well, as an outsider. I've only been to the States once in my life, stayed for a month, 3 weeks in Utah and one in LA. Out of all that I saw and felt, I came away with one very powerful impression, which I partly communicated to my hosts at the time. How I felt was like a citizen of the Roman Empire from a far-flung province of that sprawling imperium, seeing Rome for the very first time. Everywhere I went, it was in the air. Empire. Power. This, kiddo, is the centre of it all. It was in the water, the soil, in the faces of ordinary people, in the sound of their voices. In all my years of consuming and being nearly submerged in American popular culture, I had never before felt anything like it, and never would have, unless I had come myself. So, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you folks drink in a pretty intoxicating brew on a regular basis. And another side note. I can't let myself pontificate on Americans without allowing myself a little navel-gazing as well. I really want to tell Australian stories, especially about the early days of the Church, although for now I'm mostly wanting detail or substance to make a real go at it. I made an effort to bolster (or gauge) interest in Australian Mormon history when I produced the ward newsletter a while back and wrote a series of little articles covering the Church in Australia between 1840 and 1900. From the comments I got, precisely noone in the ward even read them. So that didn't bode especially well. More generally, though, I've often tried to explain what I see as the essential differences between the US and Australia. A few Americans I've spoken to assume that we're a lot like them because, well, we're both vast countries with big sweeping plains settled by English-speaking pioneers (who both did fairly brutal things to the local inhabitants, too). But that's where the similarities end. I like to generalise (vice that it is) and enjoy making the point that, America was settled by Puritans while Australia was settled by people getting _away_ from Puritans. Hence the widespread irreligiosity of Australians and irreverence towards authority. Well, that's the generalisation, for all it's worth. But there is in the Australian character a love for a certain kind of myth which differs greatly from the American versions: the comedian and satirist Barry Humphries (better known as Dame Edna Everidge) once made the little barb that the only true rhyme for "Australia" is "failure". And it is quite true that a love of stories about failure is a part of the national psyche. We eat up tales about explorers who never made it, who died, who went mad. Settlers who were conquered by the bush, not the other way around. Battles lost, hopes dashed. Tall men brought low. I had one telling experience when I stayed in Utah, with a bishop's family who had a number of kids in their teens and early twenties. We talked about the Peter Weir film _Gallipoli_, which is an amazing film - certainly a landmark in Australian film-making. The two older daughters of the family had seen it and really liked it. Or really liked Mel Gibson in it. Anyway. The one thing they just hated was the ending - after spending the whole film getting to know these lovable Australian lads who get thrown into World War I, the final scene throws it all away by having them mowed down by Turkish machine gun fire. As an Australian, the ending made perfect sense; not just because the Gallipoli story is still the most potent national myth, but because it is consonant with all the others. But to an American, you just don't do that. The hero has to be triumphant. That's the only way it can go, right? Anyway, I'd love to hear what others think. And to the Mormon Ken Loach (or whoever else you are), get to work! Jason Covell A/Ministerial Liaison Officer Sydney Catchment Authority Ph: 4725 2174 E-mail: jason.covell@sca.nsw.gov.au ******************************************************************************************************* This e-mail, and any files transmitted, is intended for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and must not be resent by the recipient unless the permission of the originator is first obtained. It may contain confidential or privileged information and, if you are not the intended recipient, you must immediately destroy the original transmission and its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this e-mail do not represent the views of the Sydney Catchment Authority unless otherwise stated. ******************************************************************************************************* - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 22:27:46 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] NAIFEH, _Mormon Murders_ Review Available? From: Rich Hammett > Does anybody know of a good, critical review of "The Mormon > Murders..." by Naifeh? I mean one that examines factual > problems, etc? It's being recommended to some friends of > mine for its accurate portrayal of mormonism. OK. I was very interested in the whole Hofmann case, happening as it did so soon after I joined the church. So over the next few years, I bought all four books* that covered the case: _Salamander,. Linda Sillitoe _Victims_, Richard E. Turley _A Gathering Of Saints_, Robert Lindsey _The Mormon Murders_, Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith First, a confession. The first two books are certainly the most sympathetic to the Church. But I never finished them. They were terribly dry and fairly boring to read. _Victims_ is a great, detailed chronicle of what happened when; footnotes (or was it endnotes?) out the wazoo. _Salamander_ is less footnotey, but I recall it as being almost equally dry. I should really give each of them another shot, as they are the only ones written by Church members (Sillitoe is/was a reporter for Deseret News, and Turley is/was Managing Director for the Church's Family History Department or some such). _A Gathering Of Saints_ was my favourite of the four. Reasonably well-written, well-paced, and a very good (IMHO) attempt at being objective and fair to all parties concerned. The three GA principals in the story --President Hinckley, Elder Oaks, and the late Elder Hugh Pinnock -- come off as basically-honest people who were, at worst, too naive to see through Hofmann's evil. There are a few times where what appeared to me to be cautious media handling on the part of Hinckley and Oaks was interpreted in the book more as cautious dissembling, but you can't really blame the non-member author for crossing that line just a tad. Notwithstanding, this book would be my first recommendation to anyone wanting to read about the story. However, _The Mormon Murders_ was entirely a different kettle of fish. While also written by non-members, it's obvious that the authors have absolutely no sympathy for the Church whatsoever. The GA's are made to look as stupid and idiotic as possible, in a way that clangs harshly with what most of us members think of them.** The entire tone of the book was sneering, cynical, and negative. While it may be purported as 'objective', there's no way I can agree given the obvious bias of the authors (which may be genuine, or which may have merely been 'fabricated' to provide more controversy and better sales). It would be last on my list. Anyhow, I close with two things. (1) Your friends wouldn't be the same kind of 'friends' that pass on pamphlets from "Ex-Mormons for Jesus," going on about horses in the Book of Mormon and the like, would they? And (2), please read *at*least* one of the others before reading _The Mormon Murders_. If any of y'all are interested in full-tilt-bozo reviews of the four, let me know and then give me a month to re-read them (and, in the case of _Salamander_ and _Victims_, to actually finish the darn things). ObFootnotes: * I think these are the only four. No, wait, a bit of googling finds Simon Worrall's _The Poet and the Murderer_, written recently after another Hofmann forgery was discovered a few years ago (an Emily Dickinson poem). But that came out in 1998 or so, whereas all these others were out by 1990 or so, while interest in the case was still at least lukewarm. ** I must confess, though, after reading these books, I would *never* have allowed Elder Pinnock near my money. His actions as a director of First Interstate Bank in approving a loan for Hofmann were at best, terribly misguided. I've seen him at a stake conference, and I had a solid testimony of him as a leader of Christ's church. But I didn't have the same testimony of him as a banker. (Sorta like Joseph Smith, I guess...or like how I have a solid testimony that President Benson was a prophet of God, but I wouldn't touch his politics with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole.) Robert - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too Hockey fathers are frequently depraved, or worse. - Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, 2002-01-11 - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 2003/04/10 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:20:32 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:26:24 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Now this is something I truly don't get. In the past, some people on >this list have seemed to argue in favor of prose that's difficult to get >into. It was in conjunction with the thread about beginnings. > >Gene Wolf looks like a different manifestation of that discussion. My >question is, why on earth make your writing hard to read? > >Is it necessary for Gene Wolf to write dense detail, confusing plots, >vocabulary no one's ever heard of, digress into philosophy, or have a >generally tedious writing style, for his stories to offer the good >things that Jonathan listed? Please, someone, explain it to me! I don't know that I have any universal answers on this topic. In fact, I don't think there's any kind of absolute when it comes to what kind of literature people ought to read, or that there's some kind of reading hierarchy that one ascends through life. What I *do* believe is that all the different varieties of literature, = all the many styles and genres (sorry, Kathleen, *marketing categories*) of books, exist because no two readers gain knowledge in exactly the same = ways. And we ought to take joy in that fact! Gene Wolfe's complexity is just = one of the many ways that literature can be beautiful. So is simple = literature. One of the books I'm anxiously awaiting right now is the eighth Sammy = Keyes mystery--a juvenile mystery series that is told beautifully in a twelve-year-old girl's voice. It's beyond easy to read, and I feel so refreshed when I'm done with one. And I don't feel as though this makes = me less of an intellectual just because it's "easy." (The last person who tried that line of reasoning on me...let's just say they're still looking for his left shoe. In Duluth.) Gene Wolfe is a different matter. There, it feels like my brain is being put through a meat grinder. In a good way. I like the complexity of his language because in a sense it extends the plot outside the book. I'm = not an observer, I'm a participant, and I love the feeling. Yes, it's obtuse and complicated and sometimes very frustrating, but frustrating like building a puzzle; if I can't find the piece I'm looking for, I have absolute faith that Wolfe did put it into the box somewhere. The point of all of this is that just because Wolfe does this and creates good writing, it doesn't mean that his is the ONLY kind of good writing. It's just different. And it's written for a different audience. Calling= it "self-indulgent" only makes it sound like you want to throw up a = different barrier: the one that legitimizes only the kind of fiction *you* like. = Read (and write) what makes you happy; stick to the kinds of books that you admire most. Just keep in mind that others' tastes must needs be met as well, and their preferences for something else aren't a denigration of yours. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:26:20 -0700 From: Robert Slaven Subject: Re: [AML] Passion in Art From: RichardDutcher@aol.com [sni] > > I am growing tired of timid art. On the one hand, Richard, bravo! Too much art in the world -- and *far* too much art produced by Latter-day Saints, IMHO -- is far too timid. Especially with Mormons*, it's "Will this offend anyone?" or "Does this go too far?" or "Will Deseret Book carry it?" Much Mormon art has passion, but the talent is wobbly. And many talented Mormons choose the easy road, rather than challenging themselves and their audience. I'm glad to see that you're not falling into either of those ruts. BUT... > First of all, let's put aside the "morality" of the show. I could easily > argue that it is one of the most immoral works of theatrical art. I could > just as easily turn around and argue that it is one of the most moral. But it > is an argument that doesn't interest me. But Richard, consider: If there were an incredibly well-made porno movie out there that demonstrated an amazing amount of talent and passion, would you watch it? Would you applaud its making? If you haven't, I encourage you to get a volume of essays by George Orwell and read 'Benefit of Clergy: Some Notes on Salvador Dali'. I think it's mandatory reading material for anyone who wants to produce art that isn't just cotton candy. I have no idea what Chicago's moral stance is (other than that many Hollywood types were cheesed that it was filmed in my birthplace, Toronto ON [pronounced 'Tronna' if you don't work for the CBC]), but is talent and passion enough for me to watch it? I used to think so. As a youth, I watched films and tried to appreciate them critically, not just equating Good with Funny as so many of my 'less-sophisticated' peers would. Once I joined the church, I tried to keep that up, despite warnings and finger-wagging from other Mormons. But now I'm (more of) an adult, and I realise that I *can* be susceptible to what is portrayed in this or that piece of art. I have some weak spots w.r.t. certain forms of temptation that mean I can't watch many network dramas (or comedies, for that matter) any more without one of my 'triggers' being set off. I find that my spiritual well-being is precarious enough that I must avoid certain works of art, even if they're well-crafted with all the talent and passion their creators could muster. I suspect you're in the position where you know you've got a solid testimony, you have no intentions of producing work that would 'lead people astray', and that therefore focussing on increasing your talent and passion is what is critical to your artistic development right now. And that's A Good Thing. But please don't put aside the issue of a work's morality.** From a strictly artistic perspective, yes, it can be (perhaps should be) safely ignored. But we're not just artistic beings; we're divine beings in embryo. And the morality of a work is critical to our development. And as Mormons, whether artists or merely 'consumers' of art, I think we ignore the issue of a work's morality at our peril. > > I wish I could take the entire AML group to New York and share the CHICAGO=20 > experience. I'd like to see if anyone else gets the jolt I got.=20 > > Do we have any lurking millionaires that would be willing to foot the bill?=20 > In my dreams.... Robert ObFootnotes: * Not to be confused with 'Especially for Mormons,' which I believe deserves an eye-level placing on the Bookshelf Of Hell. Between the insipid sayings, the useless tear-jerking stories, and the out-and-out false doctrine contained therein (ask me my opinion of 'The Bridge' sometime, or that story about the kid trying so hard to do a job on an old lady's lawn that's worth the maximum $5 she's offered him), I'd rather suffer bastinado followed by a 30-mile forced march than to have to read that, that, ... THING again. And woe betide anyone who delivers a sacrament meeting talk using that as their text in my presence.... ** Not to say that a work shouldn't display any immoral behaviour at all, a common mistake made by many of the Mormon sheeple. I refer you to Orson Scott Card's "The Problem of Evil in Fiction" (in _A Storyteller in Zion_) for more details. - -- Robert & Linn-Marie Slaven www.robertslaven.ca ...with Stuart, Rebecca, Mariann, Kristina, Elizabeth, and Robin too And now for something completely different. A man with three buttocks. - Monty Python's Flying Circus - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 2003/04/10 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:18:46 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Does Theory Matter? ___ R. W. ___ | Here is an article from "The New York Times" to keep in mind | when Thinking about the possibility of constructing a | "conservative literary theory." (Or indeed, the utility of any | literary theory.) ___ I'd be careful with that last comment. I think it denies utility in a certain sense - the idea that somehow literary criticism will open up a vista of the "true." The idea that literary criticism allows one to see something within literature that is transformative. The idea that we have within literature some structure that can be unpacked, the way a psycho-analyst thinks they can unlock and transform the human psyche. Recognizing this as a lost cause does *not* suggest there is not utility in literary criticism. However it does transform the value of literary criticism to be on the same basis as the literature they critique. Put an other way, literary criticism is an other form of literature. (And a form of literature I personally enjoy reading) To say that literary criticism has no "utility" is as big a mistake as saying a work of Shakespeare has no "utility." Perhaps the utility isn't quite the same as engineering. And as such all the "intellectuals" hoping to use literature as a form of social engineering are finding their hopes doomed. Being rather scared of social engineers though I don't see this as a bad thing. An other way to look at all this is the distinction between religion and doctrine. Traditional literary criticism was the attempt to find doctrines in literature. Yet, as I think most realize, focusing purely on doctrine misses out on a lot of what we consider religious. (It really can't deal with the notion of "faith" in a coherent way, for instance, beyond acknowledging that there is such a thing) In Pauline terms it is the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 07:22:57 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature clark wrote: > I think you are in the minority on that - unless the details > of personal hygiene really do interest you that much. > > The fact is that some stories are more appropriate than others. You > might be interested in the story of a person's intestinal track but > I don't think most are. If personal hygiene or a journey through an intestinal tract is relevant to the story, then yes, I'd go there. So far, I haven't thoght up a story where it's relevant. > Further that notion of "appropriateness" is key. You suggest > that you *don't* think anything goes and instead tie "what goes" > to some authenticity relative to a "story." Not authenticity, but relevance. If it's relevant, then I want it presented with authenticity, but authenticity isn't the primary motive for including it. > But that merely avoids the question by pushing it down a level. > What makes a story appropriate or inappropriate? When I'm writing it, my personal judgment, no more, no less. > Surely you'd agree that there are some well written, compelling stories > that are inappropriate? There are well written, compelling stories where the author makes different decisions than I do on the relevance of certain details. I disagree wih them, and I[m sure they disagree on my assessment. So what are we going to do? I explain my reasons for believing as I do, he explains his reasons for believing as he does, maybe one of us is influenced to change our judment, maybe not. What I don't do is expect everyone to agree with my judgment as if it came directly from God. > consider a book that give the *real* *full* look into a killer's mind. > Would you *really* be interested in a story that focused in on say > Sadaam's sons and their rape and torture in all its glorious Technicolor? "Glorious Technicolor" sounds to me like a lot of gratuitious, unnecessary detail. So you should be able to answer the question of my interest in that story yourself. > Perhaps you would. And that's fine to me if you are. But surely you'd > recognize and understand why most aren't and why they feel it > inappropriate. Can't respond to this because you "perhaps'd" the wrong answer. > The key difference is whether this "harmony to the story" is really a > sufficient ground so as to justify some writing. Clark, you appear to me to be doing the same thing that so many people do when I express my thought in this subject. I object to the extremes that many Mormons go to in defining "appropriate" in art, and you assume I mean the other extreme. Terms like "glorious technicolor" or examples like intestinal tracts tell me that you are attributing the other extreme to me. What do I have to say to discourage this interpretation? (Heavy sigh) I suppose, though, that for someone who thinks ever going behind a closed door _is_ inappropriate, I do seem to be at an extreme. A foothill can look pretty tall when you stand next to it at the bottom of the valley and it's hiding the towering peak behind it. - -- 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: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 07:28:02 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] The New List The new unruly Mormon arts list has had eight people express interest (including me), one away from the nine I established as the catalyst membership. Anyone else want to cast the infamous vote that will bring this list into existence? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:30:58 GMT From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Sharlee asked if anyone reads Irreantum. I read every word of every issue--I stretch it out and savor the experience. Right now I save the latest issue to read while I'm nursing this baby of mine. It's my reward for the agony of these first few weeks. Oh, by the way, I had a baby last week. Unexpectedly. In Salt Lake (NOT my hometown of Pocatello). After just fifteen minutes in the hospital. We are all well. This makes my fourth son. Speaking of babies, I wanted to ask Sharlee, Margaret, Marilyn, Linda and all the other mothers/writers on the list if you experienced a decreased interest in writing during the time you were pregnant and nursing. Is it just exhaustion, or is it true that our creative juices are flowing elsewhere (ewww, not such an appetizing metaphor) when we are producing babies? I can't bring myself to even want to write, and I'm worried the desire won't ever come back! ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #33 *****************************