From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #44 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 Friday, May 2 2003 Volume 02 : Number 044 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:22:51 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantion Fiction Editor Needed Send Irreantum fiction contest entries to: Irreantum Fiction Contest c/o AML PO Box 51364 Provo, UT 84605 The deadline is May 1, but the grace period will last until Tory gets me all the entries that were mailed directly to him. Then I'll send all the contest entries to Irreantum's new fiction editor, Quinn Warnick. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 01:00:17 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Anglophilia - ---Original Message From: Justin Halverson >=20 > >I think there is a > >strain of Anglophilia in popular LDS culture that could be=20 > the result=20 > >of heritage similar to mine. C.S. Lewis is of course the=20 > most famous=20 > >honorary Mormon. I know Neal Maxwell loves to quote Churchill and=20 > >other Brit luminaries when he gets the chance. >=20 > I wonder if it's also because we share a language and, broadly, a=20 > philosophical heritage. No matter how internationally-read we=20 > are, it's=20 > likely that all of us who grew up with "English" (scare=20 > quotes to mollify=20 > the Brits ;->) as our first language are better-versed in British=20 > literature than in any other national/linguistic tradition. >=20 > As far as a specifically (U.S.) LDS Anglophilia, one factor=20 > might be our=20 > use of the King James Bible, and the way it colors the=20 > translation into=20 > "American" of much LDS scripture. There's another factor. I know a lot of Mormons who *love* Brit humor. KUED in Utah exploits Brit humor extensively, probably because they get substantial donations to do so. The only place I've seen to rival it is Seattle where a substantial geek population exists. I think there's a reason that Mormons appreciate brit cultural artifacts more than typical = for Americans. One geek blog I was reading (wish I could remember which) mentioned that Brit humor is largely based on shame. I think that's true. Think of = all those Brit humor shows you've ever seen. Monty Python for example was excellent at twisting normal situations by introducing something truly bizarre that nobody else wanted to point out--a burly-men transvestite lumberjack song, a man walking strangely down the street with nobody = seeming to notice, or a dinner party interrupted by the Spanish Inquisition. = The blog point was that Americans have no shame and situations where a Brit would stammer, pull a long pause, or other indicator of shame and the = cover of same leave your typical American wondering eh? An American would = brazen it out, or even exaggerate to draw further attention and thus ameliorate = the situation. An example to compare and contrast: a dinner party is crashed by the = Spanish Inquisition. British: The host would quietly try to convince them to leave. When = that fails, an Inquisition starts and much mayhem ensues and is funny only because of how inept the inquisitors are. American: Guests wonder who the new guys are. One way or another, = they're going to be part of the entertainment--either by joining in the revelry (dude cool outfit), or by providing an opportunity to reinforce group = values when it comes time to explain the errors of their ways (dude, you're harshing my vibe, we'll put a stop to that by ). There's no *way* an American dinner party would actually = *enter* an Inquisition. When the rack is brought out, even a dish-drying rack, the American reaction is going to be insurrection and general mayhem to = eject the foreign element openly and by force if necessary. And it just = wouldn't be funny. Mormons, unlike most other Americans, have a relatively deep = appreciation of shame and that cultural desire to cover faux pas moments and glaze over emergent gaffs resonates better with us than our cultural American kin. = If these generalizations are true, then Mormons would tend towards = Anglophilia because we're just a touch closer to the Brits than typical Americans. Yeah, there's a shared historical context, but America made a = significant cultural break as well--a break ameliorated a bit by LDS cultural values = of shame and denial. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 01:33:27 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Copyright Law and Horizon - ---Original Message From: LauraMaery (Gold) Post >=20 > I'm confused by your situation, Linda. Maybe I'm missing something?=20 >=20 > My legal education was, admittedly, under a British system,=20 > but the principles are pretty much the same under any legal=20 > system: Books *are* like paper towels (or -- inasmuch as=20 > they're not consumable -- perhaps like television sets.)=20 >=20 > While Motorola owns the intellectual property on the design=20 > of my tv (and I am therefore prohibited from stealing their=20 > design and manufacturing an identical tv of my own), I am=20 > absolutely free to purchase and resell the television set=20 > itself. And the person who buys it from me is likewise free=20 > to resell it. And so on. The intellectual property law=20 > doesn't apply to selling physical goods; only to stealing=20 > their design (or contents) and passing it off as one's own. >=20 > If Horizon had *reprinted* your book and sold it (which, from=20 > your account, I gather they didn't do), I would see a huge=20 > lawsuit. But if the book was published legally by another=20 > party, and Horizon then legally obtained the physical copies=20 > of that book, I'm not following how this violates copyright=20 > law. They sold the lot to you, so I'm observing it was theirs=20 > to sell, yes? >=20 > Or perhaps I'm missing something altogether. Are you saying=20 > you were gypped out of royalty payments? But there would *be*=20 > no royalty payments due on books sold back to the author...or=20 > so *my* contracts say. You're partially right, but looking at it in the wrong way. For = consumers, books *are* like any other consumer product--something you're able to = buy and sell and loan to others as much as you wish. The part you're = missing is the obligation the publisher has to the author. Due to the copyright agreement between publisher and author, the publisher cannot just give = the books away to just anyone for any reason they choose. The publisher has = the right to release/distribute books only according to the contract that = was signed with the author. It's a bit like patent law, really. If Filo Farnsworth patents TV technology, then nobody else can produce or distribute TVs without = clearing it first with Filo. Same thing. If Linda contracts with Cornerstone to publish and distribute her books, then Cornerstone has to abide by that contract. If the contract isn't specifically transferable, then it = ceases to exist when Cornerstone ceases to exist and the copies of the book currently printed cannot be distributed without the author's permission (publishing constitutes both printing *and* distributing and both are covered by copyright). The physical copies currently printed but not distributed are a bit of a problem because Linda didn't pay for the printing. As such, she can't just take them and that's why she had to = buy them from Horizon. She could have refused and they would have had to do something else with those copies (probably destroy them, but not necessarily). They can't *sell* them, but they don't have to give them = to her unless she pays for them. Yeah, that's confusing, but there you go. Unless all authors want to = front the entire costs of their books (printing, advertising, distribution, = etc.) you have to divide up all the labor somehow. Publishers are essentially taking a gamble, and the author and publisher have to hammer out how = they're going to apportion the costs. Most authors don't want to deal with the mechanics of printing, so they're happy to give some rights to = publishers. Publishers want to entice good authors to lend them their property so = they negotiate a kind of rent/lease on those ideas for a determined period at = a determined reward. In the end, it's a pretty good system, though hardly perfect. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 05:59:37 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Eric, I loved your report and am so jealous. Especially the play about the LDS prostitute. And by the way, who does one have to sleep with to get an invite? Alan Mitchell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 23:06:47 +1000 From: "Clifford Dubery" Subject: RE: [AML] International Mormon Lit? Here is one International Mormon, British Subject living in Victoria, Australia who would like to make a few observations and comments. Yes, Mormon Literature is not authored overseas (there probably are exceptions), but awareness of Mormon Literature has expanded because of the increase in Mormon Bookshops that followed the Temples. Now, I tend to buy Nibley, or D.C. Peterson etc. whereas my sister buys Lund and I expect will experiment with that form of Historical Fiction. Then you've got people like myself, who are writing, and hoping one day to get published, novels, histories, short stories, essays. In fact this group has given me an idea for a Historical Novel which requires reading a History of the Church in Australia, written by the wife of a Bishop I knew, Marjorie Kneale. I have a lot of work, some serious tragedies in that experience. Those that call themselves Liberal Mormons, although I wouldn't include myself in that category (but am sure others would), do consider myself to be a contrarian at the best of times, so keep writing, it's all part of the rich tapestry that makes our culture, whether you live on the Wasatch Front or Port Phillip Bay. Clifford M Dubery - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:52:49 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Thom Duncan Wrote: > 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. I know what you mean, Thom, but I think you're being too harsh. Einstein said something that relates to this thread. He said (paraphrase), Either everything's a miracle, or nothing is. (end of paraquote, or would that be quasiquote) It's ok if some people see a miracle in everything. And it's ok if some people don't see a miracle anywhere. How people respond to events goes beyond religeon (meta-religeon?) That is the real truth in the universe. I guess you have to define a "miracle." To me a miracle is something for which I am so profoundly greatful and has a significant impact on my world view and has an element of the mysterious in it. Your theatre fit this catagory. The plays I've seen there. Elizabeth Smart's return to her family certainly does. My wife and boy do. And of course, the making of brownies. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 08:27:47 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction There is, however, a "horror" element to it -- but it's an introspective horror, the kind that asks, "Am I really capable of acting like such a fool?" "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > 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 > - -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:42:19 -0600 From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Eric Samuelsen said: "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." Eric, I was impressed with your forthrightness in talking of your feelings about the event and art presented. And OK, I'll admit it, I am jealous too, feeling left out of something pretty amazing (so I'm wondering if in the future there can be a nose-pressing section where us non-producing types can stand and watch), but mostly I you have really piqued my curiosity. To what "research" can you be referring? Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 20:45:29 GMT From: daryoung@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Well, my new career goal is to someday be enough of a writer to be invited to this Mormon Arts Retreat. It sounds like THE place to be. Those late night chats sound so fun. I'm glad you shared your retreat experience, Eric, and I'm glad you write what you do. I love how you "push the boundaries," as you say, of Mormon art. I'm not familiar with the play you read for these guys but the others of yours that I've seen and read give me hope for the future of Mormon literature. - -Darlene Young ________________________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:24:51 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Physics and AML-List - ----- Original Message ----- > Tipler's Omega point theory is certainly interesting. People should be > aware that it is *very* controversial and runs into various problems in > terms of physics. I'd also point out that for Tipler this Omega point > ends up being God. So it really isn't that compatible with a Mormon > view of diety and resurrected beings interacting with mortal beings. > > Clark Goble All of the theories of man are controversial, that is why they are merely theory. The only point I was trying to make in my post, is that here is a scientist trying to prove mathmatically that there is a God, and I think not only that this is a step in the right direction, but that it would be an interesting topic to explore and expand upon in some of our "Mormon Letters." Surely there is someone out there in AML land who has the imagination and scientific background to write a novel about an offbeat whacko scientist that postulates the mathmatical proof of a real God, and in the mathamatical, scientific world's rush to disprove it a brilliant student of science and math actually finds a testimony that God does exist, and then goes the second mile by actually converting his "Whacko" teacher to the gospel, and baptizes him. I don't know, I guess it was just a whacko thought, you know - sort of a cereberal infarction. 8-) Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com And here's another new website where you can sell your goods or services, and its FREE! Check it out at: http://www.minutemall.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 12:21:20 -0600 From: Kim Madsen Subject: RE: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction D. Michael Martindale wrote: "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." Ah, but Michael, the denoument is "horrifying" and employs supernatural beings trying to manipulate humans to behave in ways they wouldn't normally behave. You've used classic elements of horror stories. Scary stuff--and even scarier to me in BROTHER BRIGHAM because it's so plausible given the belief structure I hold as a Mormon. I totally agree that it's a character study--in fact, I'd put it in the same category as Hitchcock's stuff. I think he wrote some dang fine horror stories. You use the same slowly building tension of circumstance and character behavior. Yup, it's a Mormon horror story alright. And I don't know about anyone else, but it's the first of it's kind I've run across, which is why I said you've started a new genre. Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? (I'm not counting such retellings as the Hoffman murders and the Texas Missionary murders in the 1970's--those are horrifying, but factual. True crime.) Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 13:53:29 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Introductions: Dianna Graham Fred C Pinnegar wrote: > I can think of worse places to wash ashore; for example, anyplace east of the > Rockies. Better inform all the celestial powers to move their HQs from Adam-Ondi-Ahman and Jerusalem to someplace more acceptable. I hear there's land near Tooele. Tony Markham, who lives in lovely Upstate New York, well east of the Rockies - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:16:05 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Curtis Taylor Veda Hale asked if anyone knows the whereabouts of LDS author and = filmmaker, Curtis Taylor. Curtis lives in my neck of the woods. If Veda will contact me directly = with her e-mail or other contact information, I can e-mail Curtis at let = him know that you would like to reconnect your friendship. My direct e-mail is jongiorgi@sunset.net. Just shoot me a private line with your info, and I'll forward it on to = Curtis. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:12:30 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Anglophilia Justin Halverson wrote: > As far as a specifically (U.S.) LDS Anglophilia, one factor might be our > use of the King James Bible, and the way it colors the translation into > "American" of much LDS scripture. Or it might be that a good seventy percent of my heritage is British, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh. - -- 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: Thu, 1 May 2003 10:04:37 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 1 First, a story.=20 I had an experience with one of my daughters the other night.=20 Frequently, since my experience with parenthood began, I have been = struck by life-lessons which have come to me -- and from time to time = they have come with the force of a two-by-four between the eyeballs -- = where I suddenly felt as if I was having an out-of-body-experience. = There I am, minding my own business, yelling at my kids or something = innocent like that, and from out of nowhere, it is as if I have been = transported out of myself and I am looking down on me. (Hey, is that a = bald spot up there on top?!)=20 I am looking down, observing myself, and suddenly I am struck (and = here's where the two-by-four bit comes in; the out-of-body thing is not = all that surprising by itself) by how much my relationship with my kids = is like this type-and-shadow of my relationship with God, or rather, His = relationship with me. I suddenly get hip to the fact that: Oh! This is = like a miniature version of how He feels when He deals with me! It's the irony that's the actual two-by-four.=20 I mean, there I float, and I hear myself saying things which -- more = metaphorically, perhaps, and in a nicer tone of voice -- have been said = to me, directly or indirectly, by God. And this whole = we-are-children-of-God thing is impressed on me once again as not only = literal, but exactly why we have been given bodies which inherently = crave sex and wind up forcing us into relationships and rearing = children: just so we can be hit on the head with the occasional ironic = two-by-four. There are times when I'm telling my kids to be good, = telling them why they should be good, telling them I love them, but = there are rules for their own good -- and I can just hear God telling me = the same thing in an embarrassing reversal. Well, take this thing with my daughter the other night. It wasn't = exactly like that, but it sort of was. Typically, our nighttime routine with the kids goes something like this: = round about "bedtime" we start the process with the "PTJ" scenario. PTJ = stands for "Pee, Teeth & Jammies". And the kids are pretty well trained = to this. I figure three or four yellings of "Quit screwing around and = BRUSH YOUR TEETH!" called out from the living room is standard, and goes = hardly noticed. Other than that, they are pretty self-sufficient. After = PTJ comes Reading Time.=20 Reading Time is usually divided into two parts: Daddy Reading and Quiet = Reading. Daddy Reading consists of me wrestling and tumbling with the = kids for a time and then animatedly, with multiple character voices and = sound effects, reading a chapter of whatever book we are making our way = through at the time. Daddy Reading, after some scientific study, proved = to be too exciting to lead directly in to Prayers and Lights-Out (as it = used to do). It got them too riled up and wide awake to lead to restful = sleep. My kids lean towards insomnia anyway (as do I), so this wasn't = working. So my wise wife introduced Quiet Reading, a ten- to 20-minute = period when the kids read books of their choosing silently to = themselves. This has the desired soporiphic effect, and by the time = Prayers and Lights-Out comes around, sleep is actually more easily = fallen into.=20 (I think Santia's choice of the word "QUIET" rather than "personal" or = "private" or "free" or "unsupervised" or any other of a host of = alternate and perfectly descriptive and acceptable words to describe = this period of reading, was a conscious dig at me, attempting to suggest = a contrast to "Daddy Reading" rather than a simple distinction from it. = I am being subtly mocked, I believe, and I'm still trying to decide = whether or not to be offended and may yet take this issue up with the = Court of Familial Appeals. But that's another story.) Getting all of these phases actually accomplished requires some careful = planning. If Lights-Out is supposed to be at 8 p.m., say, that means = that certain aspects of the whole process have to begin at 7, which = means that dinner has to be done by a certain time, and that homework = has to be done by a certain time, and any number of intruding factors, = such as dance lessons, YM Achievement activities, special FHE events, = etc., often throw the schedule off. What cannot be thrown off, however, = is the actual Lights-Out time, which, for reasons of health and sanity, = must be kept sacrosanct. So when intrusions come up, we are forced into = a process cheerfully known as Bartering. Now some folks will tell you that kids need hard-and-fast rules and = schedules with no flexibility. But I'm too much of a softy (that = flashing light you see is the "Laughter" sign coming on). Okay, all = right. I'm too much of a closet lawyer to not want to teach my kids that = just about everything is negotiable. (Even GOD indulges us in a = negotiation from time to time, as anyone who's been around for long = enough knows; but that's another story, too.) So the Bartering begins.=20 "Dad, if we loose our Quiet Reading time, can we do this?"=20 Or: "Mom, can we finish watching this movie?"=20 "It will cut into your reading time with Dad," Santia warns. To which = the reaction is always a hearty (and to my mind, overly-quick): "Okay!" (The more that I think about this, the ease at which my children will = barter away their nightly Daddy Reading time is suspect; there may be a = calculated conspiracy to mock me which has infected not just my wife but = my entire family! I now begin to be paranoid that I would get ANY kind = of justice even if I DID appeal to the Familial Court! Hmmm...) At any rate, such was the case on the night in question. The kids were = watching "Bug's Life" or some such Disney mayhem. (Fancy them picking = THAT over DADDY READING TIME! But what do kids know...) Tadja proposed = the deal: "If we don't do reading time, can we finish the movie?" We = agreed. "Okay, but if you finish this movie, there won't be any reading = time, okay? Not even Quiet Time. You'll have to do Pee, Teeth & Jammies = right now, then you can finish the movie, but then it's straight to bed = and Lights-Out, okay?" Again, without hesitation, the kids agreed. After = all, it was the deal they themselves had proposed: no reading, straight = to bed. Sign on the dotted line. Finito. The movie ended. Kids went to their room.=20 After a while, however, it became apparent from the general level of = ambient sound coming from that direction in the house, that although = going-to-the-bedroom had happened, going-to-BED had not. Neither had = Lights-Out. I went to investigate. Now, just as the Laughter sign started flashing when I described myself = as a softy, so would it embarrassingly deem to flash if I ever used the = personal adjective, "patient". I'm working on it, believe me. I want to = be patient so darn bad, and I want it RIGHT NOW, too. I also have this = tone in my voice (Santia calls it THE tone) -- and it's not very nice. = It's kind of this hard, rising-in-inflection, eyebrow-punctuated vocal = stiletto. And half the time I don't even know when I've whipped the = thing out to stab people with. If Santia ever leaves me, it won't be = because of apathetic sex or not taking the garbage out: it will be = because of THE TONE. Now, one thing you have to know about my six-year-old. (I keep saying = that, but she's closer to seven -- a fact that I'm not ready to face.) = She's the "sensitive one". Heaven help us when she's a teenager. Tadja = is the one with her heart on her sleeve; she's the one who will burst = into tears for a look; she's the one who learned the expression "you = hurt my feelings" when she was two, and has been using it ever since. = She says something funny, we burst out laughing, she bursts into tears = because we are "laughing at her". You get the picture. She's also incredibly stubborn. That seems to be an Enos trait; the = Dutch-German Hershey line that my wife brings to the genetic soup-bowl = have been known to have exaggerated skull-thickness measurements, too. = Tadja was the one we had to beat the most when she was little (I'm = kidding, but not by much), because she was just too bull-headed to give = up, even when she knew she was wrong. So her emotional nature is not = evidence of her being a shrinking violet. It is just a manifestation of = her paradoxical contrasts. She's a pit bull with a soft heart; a rock, = that's wide open to the wind and the rain. I storm into the room with my usual delicacy: "WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!" = That gets their attention. They are always telling me, "Dad, you = startled us!" when I burst in on them. Very stern voice: "Didn't I tell = you to go to bed, Prayers and Lights-Out?" Tadja looks up at me. She's very sincere, not one ounce of guile in her. = And she has these amazing eyes: greenish, hazely-brown, gold-flecked = wells; big, too; and you can see the whites all the way around the rim = of the iris.=20 She looks up at me: "But Dad," she says, "What about Reading Time?" Out comes... The Tone. "WHAT?!" Silence descends upon the room. There is that certain type of knowledgeable silence that kids get when = everything becomes very clear to them. They know with every fiber of = their youthful wisdom that they just stepped in it now, folks. And it = makes them quiet. They can't do anything about it. They're little. They = want to retract the last few seconds so badly. They know they can make = it all better if they could just snip out those last few pesky moments = of time. But they know they can't. And they know there is no mercy in = store for them from the adult world, which they understand remarkable = well. They know that there are rules, and that the rules shift. They = know that they can test the boundaries, push the limits, and they know = that they can get away with stuff. But they also know right when = everything snaps and they are in for it, and there is nothing they can = do but hunker down and weather the storm. They are truly amazing and = resilient creatures, children, and we adults are, as a general rule, so = completely clueless about them. But they know us very well, in their = special brand of knowing silence, when they quietly prepare to take it = from one of us. "WHAT?!" I said.=20 (Oooooo, and I was reveling in the irony of it through my anger, an = irony I was now going to throw back into their tiny little faces...)=20 "READING TIME?!" I said, "Okay, WHO was it who begged to finish the = movie? WHO was it who said that they didn't want any reading time so = that they could finish the movie?! WHO was it who suggested, of their = OWN free will that they give up Reading Time to watch a movie and then = go straight to bed?! WHAT was the deal we all agreed to and which YOU = made about Reading Time?!"=20 To say that I ranted is to be diplomatic. Tadja, sitting atop the top bunk, instantly recalled the deal that she = had suggested; instantly remembered the covenant that she had entered; = instantly understood what she had only momentarily forgotten; instantly = GOT what I was now going on and on and on about trying to beat, beat, = beat with my words down into her innocent, comprehending head. When I = said "What?!" and whipped out The Tone, she remembered. And she got it, = in one split second. She comprehended it as fully as any adult, with all = its ironic iterations. She knew she'd blown it. She hadn't been trying = to get away with something this time, she genuinely, in her innocent = playfulness of getting ready for bed, falling into the routine, had = forgotten about the deal. They had finished a movie, brushed teeth, = peed, put on jimmies, and were now bouncing on their beds waiting for = Daddy to come in and read to them. Just part of the nightly routine. The = instant I said "What?!" she understood. And she understood that I was in = the right. She had screwed up, I was right. I was the parent, she the = child. I was bigger than her, with a much louder voice... and that tone. = What could she do? What could she say? She had to just sit there and = take it while I beat and beat and beat her with my damnable tone of = voice. Somewhere in the midst of that vocal beating, my soul left my body. I got a chance to look at myself. It wasn't a pretty sight. There was my daughter. The moment I said, "What?!" and she got it, tears = welled in her eyes. Huge, angelic beads of crystalline circumference = filled her eyes, but did not run down her soft, ruddy cheeks. Because = you see, she was not crying. She was "taking it". But soft, soft that = she is, the emotions were too strong. The emotions filled her, and they = were deep emotions, complex and conflicting. She knew, for example, that = she had just made a mistake. She felt a sudden stab of remorse. She felt = shame, regret. She felt stupid, in a way, because she KNEW that she had = made that deal with dad, but she'd just forgotten it. So, she felt = foolish, and yet, what was this verbal beating I was giving her? And so = she felt hurt and scared. She felt in danger, too. A large, bear of a = man was yelling at her in close proximity, flinging her own faults, = which she had accepted, back at her with some degree of violence, = compounding the sense of shame. Rubbing her nose in it. Which she knew = somehow was wrong. So she also felt pride. She would not let herself = really cry, she who always cried, she who wanted to cry so very badly, = she could not let herself do it! So she felt determination, and fierce = anxiety at a personal performance, and pride and yearning and hope and = fear and sadness and remorse and anger and all of it trying to come out = of the wells of her eyes, betraying her, but she would not let it. And = all she could do was shake her head, shake her head, shake her head, in = big, exaggerated arcs, up and down, up and down, saying with the shake, = that movement, that language of the body, saying yes, yes, yes, I know, = I know what you are saying to me, I know what you are saying to me is = right, I know what you are saying to me is what happened and I am sorry = about it that I forgot, and I know, and daddy, why are you yelling at me = so much about this thing that I know that I am trying to be strong and = accept and not cry about, and then the shaking of the head, that only = thing which she could do, the up and down of it, not anything else, = pushed, knocked one of those crystal spheres off the lid of her eye and = it suddenly ran down the side of her face against her will because she = was nodding, nodding at me that she understood. I froze, suddenly, in my action, voice clogged against the underside of = my heaving throat. I stood outside myself and saw it all, suddenly, = about 60 seconds too late, about 100 times slower than my own children = saw it. I shut my mouth. I went to my daughter and hugged her and = started kissing her, kissing her tears and telling her that I loved her = and she was shaking her head and holding me and I had salt on my lips = and an icy clutch around the grip of my throbbing heart. How could I have been right and yet so wrong? I was in the right. I was the parent, the enforcer. A deal had been = broken. A deal proposed, ironically, by my own kids. A deal they has = spaced on. It was almost 8:30 at night, way past their bed time. They'd = had nothing but treats and favors and exceptions to the rules all night. = They were spoiled, well-fed, well-entertained, healthy, lucky kids. = They'd pushed my buttons. They'd asked for reading when they themselves = had asked to give up their reading to watch a movie. OH! I was SO mush = in the RIGHT! There is no doubt but that I was RIGHT! I was enforcing = JUSTICE. I was enforcing TRUTH. I was enforcing BOUNDARIES. That's my = JOB. I'm the parent. I WAS RIGHT. Uh-huh. So why did I feel like a warm paper bag of dog vomit? It took me a long time to get over it. A lot of kissing and hugging and = apologizing, and then, still, a lingering sense of disease that snaked = around in my bowels for several hours after they had gone to sleep.=20 Days later, my children don't even remember this scene. But I have this = after-image burned onto the back of my retina, of Tadja nodding and = nodding at me with those huge eyes and that expression, and Sanyu, her = sister, silent, still as a statue, standing there watching, thinking, = maybe, if I don't move, he'll eat her and be satisfied, and I'll escape, = alive. The experience took less than five minutes. Nothing earth-shattering was = changed. It was a blip on the radar screen of experience. The barest = whisper in a long, eternal arc. But the profundity of the impact this = had on me cannot be adequately conveyed. I was right. I was enforcing a correct system of mutually agreed upon = justice, and yet, I had to keep brushing my teeth to try and wash the = metallic taste off of my tongue. That old sock, cigary kind of taste = that comes from the mineral leavings of bile. You can be right and be an asshole. Sorry about that, but its better = than some words that come to mind. My manner of enforcing what was right = is what was wrong, of course. My tone, my incessant harping, my beating = of the obvious horse long after its painful death. This was all wrong. = The nature, sensitivity, age, background, knowledge, education, = experience, preparedness, maturity, level of self-defense-ability, etc., = of my audience, of the individual or group to whom I was talking, = demanded a certain tempering of my presentation, an editing, a = moderating element, a degree of wisdom in interaction to achieve = positive results, which I did not apply. Therein was my failure. And it = was extreme, given the relative contrast between who I was talking to = and how I was talking. There are principles, and there is presentation. There are truths, and = there is how they are fed to the receivers. There are teaching moments = and there are wars. Some wars can be avoided, some cannot. There are = principles that some people are ready to hear that others are not. There = are principles that apply to some people, but not to others. There are = ways of talking that are right and ways that are wrong, regardless of = the relative rightness or wrongness of the message. It is possible to be = right and to be an asshole. God is not an asshole. People are. Often. Even people of God are. = Sometimes. And the only reason I make this somewhat shockingly-phrased = observation about Our Father, is because -- to return to my = type-and-shadow allusion at the beginning of this essay -- are we not = little fledgling deities over our tiny spheres of influence? Are we not = also, on life-journeys that demand of us a constant progression towards = goals which are, as of yet, beyond our reach? Can we compare ourselves = to God, despite the infinite gulf between us, and learn something = positive? This is the second of three long essays which are somewhat thematically = interrelated, over which I've been tinkering for some time, and all of = which were inspired by discussions on our fair forum, the AML-List.=20 The first essay was titled "In Defense of Obscurity". It was the first = of the three to be completed, although its subject matter was the very = last I started to write. This one is called "In Defense of Moderate Judgment". Not a great title, = but it keeps the "In Defense of" thing going. It was the second to be = completed, and also the second area of discussion to come up. My plan of = attack as to how to approach this particular meditation daunted me at = the outset, and I have been dragging my heals about writing this. It has = probably been the most difficult of the three to write. But then, number = three's not finished yet and I've been tinkering with it the longest. The third essay is probably going to be called something like, "In = Defense of the Church/Art Paradox". That's an unwieldy title, so we'll = see if it sticks or not in the final draft. It probably will, because I = can get lazy with titles. It was the first one of the three that I = started to write, but will, of course, be the last one to be completed.=20 Writing these three essays backwards, as it were, has actually worked = out well, because it has allowed me to approach my various conclusions = slowly, and has created a serendipitous working environment in my mind, = allowing events, examples and thoughts to present themselves and = coalesce at their own pace. For me, the act of writing essays is an expiation. Essays are exercises = in writing and thought, wonderful workouts. But they are not the = end-all-be-all. To me, essays are frozen in time; they are slices of a = life and a mind which are timely. I may have very different feelings a = year from now, ten years from now. But for now, these are a journal of a = certain aspect of intellectual life.=20 Essays published on the List are often couched in the pretense of being = there to convince others, or arguing a point, or making a case or in = direct response or reply to another's argument or case. But to me, that = is not what an essay is really for in its purest sense. An essay is a = record of how one has argued a point within oneself, a measure of how an = individual has come to think or feel or believe a certain thing, and = that thing can change. They are personal (although I hope that others = enjoy them). Having said that, however, I need to acknowledge that each of these = three interrelated essays, while personal, while independent, does = respond to someone else's argument and were inspired by the rhetorical = questions and challenging arguments of two individuals, other prolific = essayists and great thinkers whom I admire, but have never met. They are = D. Michael Martindale and Jacob Proffitt. As I say, I've never met either one. And while I admire them, both as = writers and as thinkers, it is the fact that we have disagreed, or that = our differing viewpoints have engendered discussion, that have given = genesis to this three-part exercise in essay form, and many others on = the list. I suppose, then, I must see disagreement, in this case, as a = positive thing. Which is ironic. And what is most ironic is that, while I have disagreed with both, I = have also seen myself reflected in their words and tones and manner, = from time to time. As if a mirror of myself in some different time and = place, a former self, or an aspect of myself, was evident to me as I = read these guy's posts; which is perhaps why I have typically responded = more emotionally to them than to others. I find that fact ironic and = telling. But that's a topic for its own essay. So: "In Defense of Obscurity" was in direct response to one of D. = Michael's outcries, although it stands alone and needs no response, = although it has engendered an exchange already. This essay is, or will = be by the end, in direct response to one of Jacob's responses to one of = my earlier posts on the list and will probably engender more discussion. = The last of these three essays returns to some of D. Michael's = observations in response to a dialogue we had some time ago and may or = may not stand alone, as I have yet to see. But even it is dated, even = before its publication, because much of what I will address in the third = essay has been addressed by Michael's brilliant "Apple Biters" essay = which, I feel, modified and sensitized much of what he may have said in = the post my third essay responds to a few months ago. At any rate, these three are interrelated. Michael and Jacob curiously = touched off categories of thought I have been working out within myself = for many years, and all three discussions, ultimately, come back to the = problem of struggling with art and becoming an artist, and struggling = with faith and becoming a better Christian, and a the issues of = congruence which sometimes seem to conflict between those two goals as a = member of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. But I'll come = back to this meta-conclusion in the end of essay three.=20 For now, however, I see that I have used up so much space with my = introduction, that I will have to split this essay up into two parts. I'll submit part 2 of "In Defense of Moderate Judgment" tomorrow, and = try to explain why I told the story I did, and come back to a response = to Jacob's April 17 post about "Artist's Personal Lives" then. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #44 *****************************