From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #43 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, May 1 2003 Volume 02 : Number 043 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:58:44 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: [AML] Re: Copyright Law and Horizon >A book falls under Intellectual Property Law. It is not the same as if a >paper company received cases of paper towels which they may then resell, >and the paper towel maker can't say Boo about it. Paper towels are Real >Property. Intellectual Property (generally, works for which one is paid >royalties) is completely different. I'm confused by your situation, Linda. Maybe I'm missing something? My legal education was, admittedly, under a British system, but the principles are pretty much the same under any legal system: Books *are* like paper towels (or -- inasmuch as they're not consumable -- perhaps like television sets.) While Motorola owns the intellectual property on the design of my tv (and I am therefore prohibited from stealing their design and manufacturing an identical tv of my own), I am absolutely free to purchase and resell the television set itself. And the person who buys it from me is likewise free to resell it. And so on. The intellectual property law doesn't apply to selling physical goods; only to stealing their design (or contents) and passing it off as one's own. If Horizon had *reprinted* your book and sold it (which, from your account, I gather they didn't do), I would see a huge lawsuit. But if the book was published legally by another party, and Horizon then legally obtained the physical copies of that book, I'm not following how this violates copyright law. They sold the lot to you, so I'm observing it was theirs to sell, yes? Or perhaps I'm missing something altogether. Are you saying you were gypped out of royalty payments? But there would *be* no royalty payments due on books sold back to the author...or so *my* contracts say. - --lmg - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:53:08 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Copyright Law & Horizon Thank you, Glen, apology accepted and no hard feelings here. You are most gracious. FWIW, while I agree it is easier to mis-communicate with email than in speech and normally published writing (essays, books), because it seems to be a blend between the two, it would not be good to lose your voice and your opinion here. You would be missed. Please keep posting. It's an important learning process for all of us. Linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:44:52 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Kim Madsen wrote: > And that's what D. Michael has created with BROTHER BRIGHAM a > new genre--the Mormon horror story. I always enjoy praise, but I think Kim overstates things. If people were to come to "Bro Brig" expecting a horror story, I fear they will be disappointed. It's definitely a character study, with the character revealed through some rather unusual circumstances. - -- 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: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:03:02 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List We are going to be moving to a branch soon, and visited it a few weeks ago. Sunday School was great! It is a branch near a college, and gets a mix of professors, students, rural people, and city transplants. The discussion was great. Some times those blank looks are the fault of the teacher. Learn to ask a good question, and don't be afraid to wait for an answer. It seems like eternity standing there in silence, but you have to give the class some time to digest the question and formulate their response. After all, you studied in advance, and planned the question. This might be the same with comments as well. Maybe some of those blank looks are just people trying to assimilate a new idea. We can hope anyway. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- > I've been asked to substitute teach our Gospel Doctrine class next week. > The thought of facing all those blank looks at once feels me with dread > and a strange excitement that maybe I can get 'em discussing something > for once. Or maybe not. > > Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:19:22 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Temple in Literature >for sacred things. There's a warped notion in the LDS culture >these days that the only acceptable handling of sacred things >is silence. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to address this exact subject. I was in South Summit High School in Kamas as part of a team of theatre people adjudicating the drama entries in the KSL Sterling Scholar competition. During lunch, the subject of LDS theatre came up, as I was explaining to the people around me what the Center Street Theatre was. Eventually someone spoke of God's Army and how uncomfortable they felt that the sacred (in this case, the healing scene) was revealed in film and not hidden. I explained to them what I've heard Richard say about this scene, that it was purposely shot in two takes, that no one mouths the words of the prayer in its entirety, so as to avoid saying a complete and accurate LDS prayer. This seemed to satisfy the person that no sacred cows had been skewered in the making of this film. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:23:57 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Okay, so now I have to spill. Last weekend, I had the great honor of attending the annual Mormon Arts = Retreat. This is the latest iteration of the late, lamented Mormon Arts = Festival, which was a wonderful idea that Doug Stewart and Rob Paxton = worked like coal miners to create, which finally died, I think largely = because putting it on every year was so exhausting. So what happens = instead is that a bunch of artists from different disciplines get = together once a year in a snazzy hotel, and schooze, hear a couple of = speakers, and basically talk about Mormon artsy stuff, and, best of all, = have a Show and Tell thing where we get to see cool stuff like Brian = Kirshisnek's paintings and hear cool stuff like Sam Cardon playing jazz. = =20 Man is it fun. It's the highlight of my year. And I love getting to = know folks who I would never really come into contact with. And making = new friends is always good. That's why this year, I decided to show up = and do my darndest to rain on the parade. This year, the first speaker was Dean Hughes, who, in typical Dean = Hughes manner, said thoughtful and wise and intelligent things about the = challenges of writing Mormon characters into your fiction, and how one = avoids didacticism and morally polarized characters, and PR fiction, and = instead focuses on story and character and getting everything right. I = don't have my notes in front of me, but what I remember mostly from his = remarks wasn't so much what he said, but what he represents, the solid = professionalism and craftsmanship and gentle wit and sheer humanity of = his fiction. He's someone to emulate, certainly.=20 Okay, so then we had a nice dinner, and my table was particularly rowdy, = because Tracy Hickman and I were there razzing Richard Dutcher, and = pestering the waitress to bring us more rolls. Tracy, BTW, has a big = new fantasy series coming out which looks like the bomb. I mostly don't = read fantasy fiction, but I'm planning to give this series a read. =20 Then came the after-dinner speaker. A wonderful choreographer, Pat = Debenham, talked about ways in which our talents can become the means by = which Satan tempts us, lures us away from God. He urges us to think of = our artistic gifts in more mundane terms than we are used to, to = essentially repudiate the romantic notion of the Artist-Genius whose = connection with nature, or with the Super Sensuous as revealed in = nature, is so much richer than the connection ordinary people have to it = that He (the artist) leads us to God. (Pat didn't say all that; I'm = interpolating.) What Pat did say is that a lot of young LDS artists = leave the Church, and in part it's because we artists take ourselves too = seriously. Art is not a calling, it's a job, he argued. I don't mind = dumping the romantic conception of the Artist Genius, but sorry, Art is = a calling to me; if it weren't, I'd quit and do something else with my = life. As for young artists leaving the Church, well, it's hardly = surprising, when LDS culture (together with American culture) is in many = ways anti-art. =20 So Pat said something things that led to some hot, late-night debates, = which is all to the good. But then came Show and Tell. It was great, = let me tell you. Sam Cardon playing jazz, Sam on piano, with drums and bass. Fabulous = stuff. And this young musician Sam discovered, a nineteen year old kid = named Kalai, who is the next Cat Stevens, except that Kalai is fifty = times better on guitar than Cat Stevens. I love Cat Stevens, and loved = Kalai's music even more. And some wonderful hammered dulcimer music = from a husband/wife musical pair, the Schultzes. And we heard an = excerpt from Kristin Randle's new YA novel, and we heard a great = children's book from Rick Walton, and we saw lots and lots of paintings. = I'm not ordinarily a fan of landscapes, but I do love Robert Marshall's = work, because he focuses on mundane subjects, the log and not the = stream, the rock and not the panorama. I have a soft spot in my heart = for Mark England's collage work, especially his First Vision painting, = which includes a large scale nude, presumably Mother in Heaven. Jim = Christensen is doing something fun; he's invented a 'lost' Flemish = painter, and is doing a series of very funny paintings by this guy, a la = PDQ Bach. Loved those paintings. And we saw my personal favorite = painter in the group, Brian Kirshisnek. He's got these marvelous, off = beat, whimsical paintings, exploring social awkwardness, and the = knowledge we all have that, even in our coolest moments, our cats are = cooler than we are. =20 Now, some of the painters there are painters who represent an aesthetic = I don't personally connect to. One example is Greg Olson. I find his = paintings, for all their marvelous detail, somewhat sentimental. He's = got one painting I like a lot which we saw, which shows a guy, a teenage = runaway, sitting on a park bench, his backpack next to him. And sitting = with him on the bench is Jesus. It's a lovely painting, but I find the = execution of it a bit prettified for my taste. (I'd still buy it, if it = were for sale and if I could afford it, neither of which is true.) Liz = Swindle's another one; a technically accomplished painter, but a tich = goopy for me. =20 But see, here's the thing: I'm friends with Greg Olson now. I like the = guy. I know, and like, Liz Swindle. If their painting isn't my sort of = thing, that doesn't matter so much. They're good painters, whose work = genuinely connects emotionally with their audience. That's all to the = good. We've just got to get over this thing (to which I have, = unfortunately contributed) where we point fingers at artists we don't = like and accuse them of some sort of moral shortcoming. I say this, because I kind of wrecked the whole event, frankly. I = brought in a new play I'd written, a very short one, and that was my = contribution to Show and Tell. Kiss is a play I wrote about a husband and wife, driving down a Nevada = highway. He's driving her to work, her first day on her new job. About = half way through the play you realize that her job is as a prostitute. = She's LDS, and active, and she's going to work at the Mustang Ranch. I wrote the play for lots of reasons, one of which is that it's true. A = good percentage of the women who work in the Nevada brothel industry are = LDS, some of them reasonably active, a few even temple recommend = holding. (One presumes that they've been less than forthcoming in that = interview). That's an amazing fact, an astounding and shocking fact, = but it's true; I've read the research.=20 More than that, I think Mormon art can and should go to the darkest = places we can imagine. I don't think it has to do that, but it can; = it's okay to. I think the play talks about rationalization, and the way = we can rationalize almost anything. I think the play talks about two = people, a husband and wife, who really desperately need the atonement in = their lives. And I think that Mormon art is a really big tent, and that = at a retreat like this, it's valuable to push the boundaries a little. =20 Well, maybe so, but there were folks who walked out, and I think the = overall reaction wasn't particularly positive. We'd seen a lot of = overtly religious art, and I think there was a strong feeling among many = that my piece was inappropriate, and even damaging to a good spirit that = had attended the event. I regret that very much. =20 Still, it was a wonderful event, and I hope to go again next year, and = if I do, I'll write something, well, nicer. Meanwhile, Richard Dutcher = and Brian and Suzanne Kirshisnik and Scott and Lynn Bronson and I all = stayed up way past our bedtimes, chatting and solving the problems of = the world. I'd be happy to share with y'all what we came up with, just = as soon as I can remember where I put my head. So a good time was had = by all. Right up until they did my piece. And look, y'all, let's not = get too down on Mormon art. There's some great stuff happening. Eric Samuelsen =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:05:40 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity A case in point is Shakespeare, who became "respectable" to the literary community exactly when his language became obscure. But not because Shakespeare himself used obscure language. Quite to the contrary, he wrote in the vernacular to the time. Shakespeare became obscure because of the inevitable evolution of the language. This explains why Shakespeare is often more "difficult" than the more formal language of the KJV--vernacular evolves much faster. In other words, Shakespeare didn't sound like "Shakespeare" to Shakespeare. Or to his audience. He had to fill the cheap seats, after all. He did, of course, layer his plays with rich structural complexities, with metaphor and allusion that would appeal as well to his upper-class patrons, for whom he could embed messages that for political purposes were more safely hidden behind simile. Ironically, part of Shakespeare's current respectability is because the obscurity of the language has hidden much of the bawdy humor and outright vulgarities from modern eyes. Few people would understand why the Reverend Bowdler felt Shakespeare had to be expurgated in the first place. (So BYU professors should not even show illustrative clips from R-rated movies in their classes, but Shakespeare is all but worshiped. Delicious, that.) To switch to a second case in point, I can distinctly remember when, on my mission, I picked up a Japanese/English New Testament (a "taiyaku," or side-by-side translation). For the first time I read a "modern" translation (the NRSV, it turned out) of Paul's letters, and discovered, to my enormous surprise, that Paul had in fact written concise, well-reasoned examinations of the theological justifications of the new Christian religion. Paul didn't need to be decoded, Paul only needed to be read. Christ as well spoke not in the four-hundred year old language of the English court, but in the common Aramaic of the time, language that everybody who heard him could understand, or at least understand well enough to get very upset with him.. A third case: When the Book of Mormon was first translated into Japanese in the early 1900s, they kept very close to classical diction of the "original" KJV-type language. The result was a narrative that, a century later, even educated Japanese struggled with. When a revised translation was brought out in the mid-1990s, they used standard, modern Japanese. Once consequence is that a good way to start an argument among a group of Mormon English/Japanese translators is to discuss the translation choices the 1995 translation made, because when you choose to be clear, you are also forced to be precise, and you may end up, to some eyes, being precisely wrong. Obscure, complex language can be easily deployed like a bad singer using excessive vibrato to cover up the fact she can't quite hit the right note. But, then, the delicate question arises: how can we speak of "eternal truths" if we're not sufficiently sure of them to articulate them in "plain and precious" terms? Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:20:42 -0600 From: "" Subject: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Stansfield, Anita. _The Gable Faces East_. Covenant, 1999, 499 pp, $14.9= 5. Reviewed by Katie Parker This particular book, Anita Stansfield=92s first published historical rom= ance, is=20 no longer available on the shelves of Deseret Book or on their website. = Having=20 read the book for the first time with this in mind, it almost became a ga= me for=20 me to look for things that might have gotten this book =93banned.=94 Kee= p in mind=20 that this story takes place in the late 1880=92s in Australia, and the ch= aracters=20 are not Latter-day Saints. They=92re all decent people, and they even pr= ay=20 occasionally, but religion does not play a role in this story. And these= =20 characters are under no obligation to live up to Latter-day Saint standar= ds. =20 What most readily comes to mind, as far as inappropriate behavior in this= book,=20 is the physical affection expressed by the hero and heroine. While they = do not=20 have sex outside of marriage, they do get pretty affectionate. They don=92= t just=20 stop at little goodnight pecks, they slide lips over throats and nibble a= t=20 earlobes and get their pulses racing. The hero repeatedly invites the he= roine=20 to sleep with him (usually when they=92re already consumed by passion), a= lthough=20 she always refuses because she doesn=92t want to bear any children out of= =20 wedlock. (Turns out our hero is a first-timer himself, but that doesn=92= t come=20 up until later.) But there are several times when they chastely spend th= e=20 night together. One of these times happens when they=92re trapped outsid= e in a=20 storm and they have no choice. Another time or two happen when one of th= em is=20 upset and they turn to the other for comfort, and end up falling asleep i= n each=20 other=92s arms. Yet another time occurs when the hero wants to prove tha= t he=20 won=92t try anything, and the heroine decides to show that she trusts him= , so=20 they deliberately spend the night together in his bed and let the other w= orkers=20 on the ranch think that something is up. Nothing happens, of course, but= all=20 this boundary pushing could rub some readers the wrong way. There=92s also the fact that the hero=92s livelihood is based on gambling= . Jess=20 Davies, the hero, owns quite a bit of property, or at least he will once = his=20 mortgage is paid off. He inherited the property from his parents, who bo= th=20 died in the recent past. They raise sheep and sell wool, but what usuall= y pays=20 his mortgage are his winnings from racing his horses. Alexa Byrnehouse, = the=20 heroine, enters the story when she applies for a job as his horse trainer= . The=20 Byrnehouses and the Davies have been feuding for as long as either of the= m can=20 remember; both families are prominent landholders and horseracers. But A= lexa=92s=20 been disowned, and she has nowhere else to turn for a job besides her riv= al. =20 And thus the story begins. Although the gambling is not a constant focus= , it=20 does bail them out of a few situations and they are never struck by light= ning=20 for it. So this might be a source of concern for some readers, although = it=92s=20 not mentioned on any of the reviews on the Deseret Book website. Then again, there are also the circumstances of their births, which they=20 gradually learn through the course of the book. Suffice it to say that=20 extramarital affairs and heinous acts occurred, and the whole thing is pr= etty=20 convoluted. These are some interesting details that spice up the story, = but=20 they aren=92t exactly up to Latter-day Saint standards either. =20 I won=92t pretend to know why Deseret Book won=92t carry this book. It m= ay be due=20 to any or all of the reasons listed above. Or it may be due to none of t= hem. =20 The book was available on the Deseret Book website until very recently, s= o my=20 knowledge of the reader reviews posted there is unfortunately strictly fr= om=20 memory. There were seventeen reviews posted, which is quite a large numb= er for=20 this website. A few of the reviews complained about the graphic affection= =20 displayed, and one even called it =93dirty.=94 While there are many book= s in the=20 world that are much =93dirtier,=94 this is one a bit graphic and border-p= ushing for=20 sensitive readers=97those who patronize Deseret Book. So I can understan= d it if=20 Deseret Book wanted to stop carrying it because of these things. But mos= t of=20 the reviewers loved the book. And no one addressed what I felt was its l= argest=20 moral problem. The first half of the book moves pretty slowly, with the characters prepa= ring=20 the horses to race, getting to know other characters, racing the horses,=20 winning the race, and occasionally looking at each other and having their= =20 hearts pound. Then their physical affection starts, and then it grows mo= re=20 intense, and they declare their everlasting love for each other and make = plans=20 to be married. (That right there probably should alarm some readers. Si= nce=20 when does physical affection equal eternal love?) But Jess has some secrets haunting him from his past that he realizes he = needs=20 to work through for Alexa=92s sake, and he pulls away from her. He doesn= =92t=20 cancel their engagement, but he suddenly seems a lot less interested. He= had=20 been anxiously awaiting the time when they could wed, but now he refuses = to set=20 a date. And his kisses are a lot less passionate. This is all unfortuna= tely=20 developed pretty hastily, in terms of the writing itself, which makes wha= t=20 happens next seem that much more sudden. Richard has been Jess=92s best friend for years, and is one of his employ= ees on=20 the ranch. His face was disfigured in a fire years ago, but his heart an= d his=20 integrity are strong. He and Alexa have developed a friendship, which he= had=20 hoped might become more until she began her relationship with Jess. So n= ow he=20 loves her from afar, and does his best to look out for her well-being. H= e=20 confesses his true feelings to her once or twice, and kisses her passiona= tely=20 at these times as well, leaving Alexa thoroughly confused. Alexa feels=20 strongly for him, but wants to keep him as a good friend. Her feelings f= or=20 Jess are simply different. But all this changes when Jess pulls away. Alexa tries unsuccessfully (f= or a=20 few pages) to help him work through whatever is troubling him. Meanwhile= , she=20 pours out her heart to Richard, who suggests that he might be the one who= can=20 give her the love and commitment that she=92s looking for. (And he kisse= s her=20 again.) Alexa tries one more time with Jess, finally giving him an ultim= atum=20 to shape up or the engagement=92s off. Again he does nothing except to s= ay that=20 he needs more time. Alexa breaks off the engagement, and makes arrangeme= nts=20 with Richard to meet in Brisbane and be married. Meanwhile, Jess still=20 believes that she=92ll be there for him when he=92s ready. He has quite = a surprise=20 in store for him when Alexa and Richard arrive home, married to each othe= r, a=20 week or two later. It=92s not the graphic suggestiveness of the whole piece that made my sto= mach=20 churn. It was the fact that Alexa turns so quickly from Jess to Richard = in=20 only a matter of days. Hours, even. And the dialogue makes it clear tha= t this=20 was the right thing for them to do. The reason for this is that if they = hadn=92t=20 gotten married, Jess never would have come to terms with his past and=20 everything else. Call it what you will, but the unexplored fact remains:= if=20 Alexa were really committed to Jess, she would have stayed with him no ma= tter=20 how long it took him to be ready. Instead, she had a =93Plan B=94 in pla= ce before=20 she even broke their engagement. One might even guess that she would hav= e been=20 more patient with Jess if she didn=92t have Richard. =20 It seems to me that she had no business running to Richard about her brok= en=20 heart in the first place. Certainly physical affection between them was=20 inappropriate, at least until her engagement with Jess was broken off. B= ut=20 only once is it called wrong: =93By returning Richard=92s affection, she= had=20 already stepped into a circle of betrayal. Whichever road she chose, one= of=20 these men would end up hurt=94(251). =20 Somehow we are supposed to believe that Richard and Alexa are right in th= eir=20 sudden marriage and that Jess is wrong in his bitterness over it. True, i= t=92s=20 done and we can hope that Jess will be able to deal with it. And yes, Je= ss=20 really should have tried to be honest with Alexa from the first. But isn=92= t it=20 callous of them to do this to him and expect him to simply =93deal with i= t?=94 =20 Shouldn=92t marriage be more than a =93Plan A=94 and a =93Plan B?=94 Wha= t about=20 commitment to the person you love? Marriage should be forever. How can = it=20 ever be right to enter into such a serious covenant on a whim, out of spi= te, or=20 as a backup plan? Richard is an attentive husband, and he understands that Alexa=92s feelin= gs for=20 him will never be the same as her feelings for Jess, which still exist. = (This=20 is supposed to be fine, too. She occasionally worries about it, but feel= s=20 secure in her love for Richard, his love for her, and his support of=20 everything.) Alexa is happy with her decision and is sure that she made = the=20 right choice. Both hope that Jess will come to terms with it all. Jess = turns=20 to alcohol to drown his bitterness, and makes a couple of clandestine vis= its to=20 Alexa where he tries to recapture their passion. Alexa, ever faithful to= =20 Richard, protests, but still finds herself longing for Jess. Eventually = Jess=20 does come to terms with everything, and he ends up taking the role in Ale= xa=92s=20 life that Richard once filled=97that of her guardian from afar. Richard=20 understands her need for Jess in her life, and feels blessed just to be t= he one=20 married to her. This, too, bothers me; since when is it good to have fee= lings=20 for another person outside your marriage? But not long after that, Richa= rd is=20 killed by a bullet meant for Jess, and soon Alexa and Jess are planning t= heir=20 own wedding again. This, too, they attribute to destiny. Not that it doesn=92t make for an intriguing story. There=92s lots more = in here,=20 besides, such as the ongoing feud between Jess and Alexa=92s brother. Th= ere are=20 also some nice themes of forgiveness and submission. But isn=92t it inte= resting=20 that anything can be made =93right=94 by explaining it as =93God=92s will= =94=20 or =93destiny?=94 =20 Also interesting is the fact that many readers would likely evaluate this= book=20 differently if it had been a national-market book by a non-LDS author. I= =20 myself would likely have been more impressed with the self-restraint exer= cised=20 by the couple, rather than feeling so much that their affection was pushi= ng the=20 borders. I probably would have seen Alexa=92s marriage to Richard as a s= trange=20 but interesting plot twist, rather than feeling so offended by it. But k= nowing=20 how many LDS readers feel about the LDS books that they read, Alexa=92s d= uplicity=20 really bothered me. There=92s a kind of unspoken rule among many readers of LDS fiction, whet= her they=20 consciously realize it or not: Any book published by a faithful LDS publ= isher=20 is safe, faith-promoting, and provides good models for life. Even many r= eaders=20 (myself included) who don=92t truly subscribe to this notion still seem t= o expect=20 more standard-wise from a faithful LDS book. But this unspoken rule seem= s to=20 have two corollaries. Corollary one: If, perchance, a reader finds some= thing=20 that isn=92t as faith-promoting as he or she would like, it is the obliga= tion of=20 the said reader to immediately complain to Deseret Book for allowing it o= n=20 their shelves. Corollary two: Otherwise, the reader may consider any fa= ithful=20 LDS book as scripture and take its lessons as gospel. I don=92t know which is more terrifying. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:34:58 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] RE: Good Readin', Conservatism, & Miracles Sat, 26 Apr 2003 09:17:56 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: Good Readin', Conservatism, & Miracles >Miracles? They showed the face of David Mitchell on America's Most >Wanted. Soon after that, half a dozen people seem him walking the >streets. Standard by the book police work. >I get real antsy when people start suggesting that miracles are involved >in these kinds of things. Because the implication is that somehow God >listens more to Elizabeth's parents than he does to another family. And >I don't like the other answer I usually receive: well, God doesn't >answer everybody's prayers the same way. Then on what basis does he >choose to intervene in Elizabth's life but no one else's? Thom, you've heard my views on miracles and the return of Elizabeth Smart. See aml-list-digest #1012, sent out on 3/24/03. But, why should we get antsy about citing the Elizabeth Smart return and some of the events surrounding it as miraculous? While it would be easy to argue that most of the events were really just a playing out of cause and effect (and that's my opinion about most of the events), why is the word "miracle" bad if it's used to show gratitude? I don't think for one second that Ed Smart or anyone else implied that God listened to them more than to all of the parents whose children were killed by their abductors. Rather, they were trying to show gratitude to God for a sweet blessing of the return of their child. Blessings may not always come through miracles (well, they usually don't), but "miracle" isn't such a naughty word if it's a way showing reverence to God. Few people get ticked at the phrase "the miracle of childbirth." It's just science to most, but isn't it just the greatest miracle ever? >I believe in miracles, but not this kind. I believe in the miracle of a >family's love that can stay strong throughout such a horrible ordeal. I >believe in the miracle of how humans kind find a way to go on through >dark tragedy, even if their loved ones never come back? I believe in >the miracle of how love can transcend death. If you can call the divine power of the human soul, which enables so many to grow from tragic experiences, a "miracle", then the Smarts can call the safe return of their child nine months after her abduction a "miracle." Using the word loosely, I think neither is incorrect. Somewhere God has intervened. No one is left out, and truthfully, it's kind of debatable which form of intervention is easier on the receiver. I don't mean to keep bringing this up like it's a trophy or anything, but when I was 14 and got out of an adolescent rehab group and started attending 12 Step meetings, I never stopped hearing about "what a miracle" it was that I was in recovery so soon. I just thought I had stinky friends who worried too much and ratted on me to my mom and the guidance counselor. I remember an extremely well made, though partially scripted, documentary they showed us in rehab called Streetwise. (This one's really amazing and sobering). It just blew me away. They showed it a few times, and one of the times, we were free to do other things like play pool, etc. I just sat and watched it. If you can ever find it, I don't doubt you'd be impressed. If you can't find it, you might find the book on it. Anyway, it featured runaways/homeless in Seattle in the early 80's. After awhile in meetings and getting to step 2 ("We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity"), it occurred to me that it was amazing how low I *didn't* end up hitting. My low was stories higher than so many of my comrades in NA. I never blacked out, never got raped, never did any of the big drugs (some of which can fry you on your first try). I could go on, but when I put two and two together, I couldn't *not* believe that a Higher Power hadn't been looking out for me. It's crazy. So, why did I get rescued so early and a great guy I knew ended up in prison for half of his life? Can't say. Doesn't mean we should take God out of the equation though, right? I asked, "Do we ever tell ourselves the lie 'Out there is the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it'?" Your response: >That is not a lie to my mind. I seek out the grit as you call it because well, it speaks to me. >I've never been moved by fluff in my reading or viewing. Until very very recently, the world's >literature and film has been far superior in content and depth to what we Mormons had provided. I'm not well-read on Mormon lit, so I can't comment on the quality thereof. I'm a slow reader and have tons of other artists to go through as well. Maybe that makes me unqualified for this list. Hmmm... Avoiding the material I called "grit" does not mean depending on a "recommended works list" from Deseret Book. I think you know what I mean when I say "grit," "dirt," or "dregs." Millennium Approaches from Angels in America was dirt to me for a few reasons. Well crafted dirt, but still dirt in my eyes. Cabaret (the film) is pure, unadulterated, moral, brilliant, flawless genius to me. I really hope someone makes a film of Sweeney Todd, and I pray that they can pull off and keep it PG-13. Sexual, profane, or violent content offends me so much more than harsh subject matter. I dream of writing a screenplay someday about some of the children I worked with back in 1999-2000 who had Reactive Attachment Disorder. Some of these kids were ritually abused as well as sexually,etc. I doubt that, were it ever produced, it would be less than PG-13 for subject matter alone (hopefully not for yucky content). I'm not saying this to try to impress anyone (what could possibly impress?). I'm amazed and appalled when individuals can actually be moved by fluff, because I'd be too busy staring at the fluff to see a good story, etc. (Though some cheap Mormon movies sure did hit the spot when I was in a third world country on my mission. Call it insanity. Or maybe, I was in a better state spiritually? Don't know, but that's a little scary). Hear my heart. There is so much to be learned from conflict and some grit. We're not idiots, though, and we may have a general sense when the grit suddenly takes over the film or book. Suddenly, we're not reading about or watching people who sin, rather we're just watching sin. I've got plenty of my own to deal with. I'm not that hungry for more sin. Barta Heiner was talking once about a play that was produced at the Denver Center, and the play contained some nudity. She commented that from where she was sitting she could see that the audience members had stopped watching the play and just started watching the naked bodies. It really made me think. (Now, for Barta's complete views on nudity, etc., ask Barta). That does bring along another subject of the audience. Maybe the writer or director feels something is appropriate, but does the piece go from compelling to titillating or offensive? How much stake should the audience have on this issue? So many questions. And you're going to kill me for saying this. Should I be worried if it takes a grossly violent or sexual film about serial killers to teach me that I don't want to become one? Duh. Ask my grandma about mafia men, and see how deeply she loathes the mafia. That's all I need to prove that it isn't a good thing. I digress... I asked, "Do we ever make it a little mission of ours to find the outer limits of liberality in Mormonism/Latter-Day Saintism and hang out at those outer limits?" Your response: >I do and I do it on purpose because I feel cloistered hanging out in Mormon conservativeness. I >tend to feel some kinship with all the great people in Mormon history to tell you the truth. >Joseph Smith himself was, in comparison to the religions of his day, a flaming liberal. He >wasn't content with the religion the world had given him. He sought for me meaning. He was the >last guy in the world to accept a status quo. As we can see from his brief but amazing life, he >was enhancing the doctrine and practices of the Church up to this dying day. The great >revelation about the nature of God was given a month before he was killed. >Another of my mentors is Parley P. Pratt. He and his brother Orson are almost entirely >responsible for codifying Joseph's revelations into a coherent theology. So was B.H. Roberts. >I don't consider Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie in the same league. Instead of trying to >stretch the doctrine to embrace more or eternity, they were trying to pull the reigns in. >Joseph Smith said that Mormonism didn't have a creed because our beliefs changed based on the >revelation we will always keep getting. But if you ask people what Mormons believe, a lot of >folk cite Mormon Doctrine, a book of Mormon creeds, if there ever was one. I hear you on this, and I totally agree about the book Mormon Doctrine. It was recommended to me years ago, and for awhile, I used it regularly as a reference for questions, talks, etc. Yuck!! I must also point out that it was around the time when I was preparing to go to BYU, and I gave away all of my Pink Floyd cassettes. What was I thinking?????!!!!!! I still mourn that decision. I had Piper at the Gates of Dawn on the same cassette with The Final Cut. Oh, I was an idiot... Liberal and conservative are such tricky words. I hate the idea of being considered a conservative, because it sounds to me like I don't think at all. Maybe liberal wasn't the word I wanted, but I still can't think of a better one. How about the some of the questions that Elder Holland raised in his talk during this last General Conference? Yet, I have to respond on the comment about the early founders of the church. I see your logic about Joseph Smith being a liberal and the church was constantly changing and all, and here's where my post doesn't get posted because it has little to do with Mormon Lit, but... The gospel was only just being restored. I'm not saying for one second that we have all the truth now, let's close the book and start behaving like some of the people I met on my mission who had all the scripture they needed "thank you very much", etc. I would guess, however, that the new revelations and changes to the church in the last days will be less frequent, because we have a lot of stuff to learn and focus on as it is. Besides, discussions on blood sacrifice for adultery, etc., haven't really done a lot to keep people strong in their faith and really drinking in the Atonement of Christ. >Everyone, including the well-rounded LDS, are essentially dregs, in that none of us without sin. >Our sins perhaps are not as evident as someone taking drugs, or viewing porn. Personally, I >learn nothing from LDS who preach from a position of having always been seemingly without sin. >But give me a GA who isn't afraid to talk about his wild youth than later repentence and I'm >there. Me too. Sorry this was so long, by the way. Love ya! Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #43 *****************************