From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #47 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 Monday, May 5 2003 Volume 02 : Number 047 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:21:54 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 2 This is the second half of an essay, the first half of which was = submitted yesterday under the same title. Together, parts one and two of = "In Defense of Moderate Judgment" form the second in a series of three = interrelated essays.=20 In Jacob's post sent out on April 17 under the title "Artist's Personal = Lives" he asks an important question: "What role, if any, does objective = reality play in our art and what role do universal truths play in our = philosophy?" And it is that question which interests me particularly, = not the specifics of the discussion we were having at the time; however, = I will return to and use those specifics to launch examples of the more = general concerns I'm trying to explore within myself. And to repeat what = I suggested before, I am really trying to work these things out within = myself, and not (even though it will seem so) really trying to reply to = Jacob or to convince him personally, but to respond to his questions = within myself to my own satisfaction. With respect to universals, I have a philosophical problem with most of = them (or how they are handled, I should say, or the implications we let = them allow), and especially as they relate to interpersonal = relationships between each other, between fictional characters, between = Church members and non-members, etc., and with respect to conversations = about the arts. In the initial conversation which prompted Jacob's question about = objective reality and universal truth, we were talking about perspective = and perception. I made the point that in the early days of our Church, = when some of our faithful were practicing the marital concept of = polygamy, men with multiple wives, the vast majority of the rest of the = country considered such arrangements perverse, immoral, wrong, based on = what they perceived to be universal truths. Even many of us, today, = faithful Mormons, cringe when this topic comes up, and have to admit = within ourselves that we find such practices creepy ourselves. In the = light of the press revealing that Elizabeth Smart was abducted to become = the multiple wife of a madman, it becomes an even more uncomfortable = topic. What we demand of the world, when we can get it (to preserve the peace = and open up at least the possibility of dialogue), and from within = ourselves, when we can achieve it (to preserve our sanity and our = faith), is an environment of openness, a temperance in thought, a = willingness to see things from all sides, an exploration of context, an = admission of the possibility of fallibility on both sides, etc. In = short: respect. If a reporter, say, talks to what's-his-name, the head = of PR for the Church who fielded such questions so well during the SLC = Olympic Games, and that reporter is willing to listen with respect, = he/she will come away enlightened and edified. Might not agree with us, = but will understand our history and our perception of it. If we demand respect of others, even in the consideration of = perspectives radically different from their own, then we MUST expect = such respect for others from ourselves. And this means even if we are = listening to them describe perspectives which we consider radically = different from our own, even if we consider our own perspective to be = coming from a principle of universal truth. Such respect, when achieved, = changes our tone substantially. It changes how we speak, how we respond = in debate. It changes how we write essays, it changes how we write = fiction. It changes the characters we can write, those we can play as = actors. It changes how we criticize both fiction and non-fiction. It = changes how we think about ourselves and others. It is possible to be right, and to present things wrong-headedly. It is = possible to use correct facts to make a point which completely misses a = larger point. It is possible to expound "empirical truth" in a manner = which creates an environment of, if not falsehood, then at least, a lack = of respect and insight. It is possible to be informed and unwise, = knowledgeable and small of mind. Such paradoxes should be avoided = obviously, and each of us will argue where the line crossing into one = state or the other actually is.=20 Where Jacob and I disagree is that he is much more confident in the use = of statistical, empirical truth to define his world view than I am. He = is much more quick to apply a universal truth and to dismiss the = subjective in the perception of reality than I am (if I interpret him = correctly), and in this, there is no right or wrong, only differing = personalities. Essentially, we do not argue about facts, we argue about = their importance, we differ in our interpretation of what these facts = may mean, especially in the light of context. My contention is that as = we alter our personalities to one side or another, this will also alter = our artistic sensibilities. The specific argument being debated at the time, which has ultimately = prompted this response, was about gun violence versus non-gun violence = in Europe and America, and how the two regions perceive each other with = respect to their relative levels of cultural violence. I made the point = that there are more gun-related deaths in America than in Europe. I made = the further point that Europeans know this empirical fact, and that they = interpret it in a certain way. They believe our level of gun-violence = makes us a more violent culture generally. I made a final point that = European perceptions of us also include different mores with respect to = sexuality: they see us as prudish sexually and often combining violence = and sexuality in our entertainment. Jacob countered by changing the subject (which he admits cheerfully to = doing), and then adding to it. Jacob points out a page and a half of = statistics, empirical truths, which show that even though there is less = gun-related violence in Europe, there is still an alarmingly high level = of non-gun related violence. You may not be raped or burgled at = gun-point across the pond, but you will still get raped and burgled; you = may not get shot so much, but you will still get beaten and stabbed. All = of this is very interesting, especially if you are writing a police = procedural, as Jacob suggests at one point; in writing a crime drama, = you'd have to know the statistics he presents to write accurately. Hard = to argue, but hardly my point. Jacob argues that these empirical facts are essential, my argument is = that those empirical facts change nothing. Europeans still see us, by = and large, as gun-blazing cowboys. Right or wrong, that's how they see = us. Which is ironic and interesting. Which was my point. Jacob then, to increase the irony, describes an experience where he and = his wife, visiting Germany, encountered a German who, on a bus driving = through a graffiti-riddled neighborhood, talked about this very thing, = how he would be scared to live in America because of the violence, = something which many of us find laughable. Each of us living on our = respective sides of the water, living in our little worlds of naivet=E9, = just like Tayva's New York FBI agent and Richard's Utah Sheriff in = "Brigham City". But my point is that one is not more naive than the other in respect to = the relative experience of the character, and that the bandying-about of = empirically provable statistics changes neither side's perceptions = particularly when applied to a specific experience. The difference = between universal generalities and subjective realities is massive, = particularly when addressing an individual character, which ultimately = all our stories must be about. In fact, as authors and especially = actors, we are infinitely more concerned with specific individuals. We = let the character tell the story. And each character is unique. We may = still have some universal theme, which the individual experience of any = given character may contradict or counterpoint, but we tell that theme = through the unique and uniquely relative experience of each individual = character.=20 To a woman who has been raped in the countryside, an empty field of = grain may always seem ominous. To a kid from the projects who has never = been molested, the graffiti-dressed gray brick wall may engender a = feeling of calm and coming home. But these are counterpoints to the = stereotype. Regardless of the individual variation, and regardless of = empirical rightness or wrongness, stereotypes are also a huge part of = life, and a huge part of our writing. We generally believe the country = to be more safe than the city; the relative truth may be otherwise. = Europeans generally believe themselves more safe than Americans; the = relative truth may be otherwise. We generally believe the French to be = arrogant; the relative truth may be otherwise. The French generally = believe that Americans are arrogant; the relative truth may be = otherwise. We may generally believe that women don't masturbate all that = much; the relative truth may be otherwise. To insist on one side of the coin as being "right" (and therefore, by = implication, the other side is "wrong") is to force oneself into a = position of limiting our ability to truly understand someone else. And I = think we can know facts (not, that is, live in a fantasy world) and yet = still understand and truly sympathize with others who come from a = different perspectives. The trick is in the presentation: how we present = facts to others, but much more importantly, how facts and perceptions = are organized in our own minds. Do we organize facts mentally in such a = construct as to make us incapable of appreciating and seeing through = other's eyes, or no? Do we organize facts mentally in such a way that = those facts disallow another view of reality, or are our facts stored in = such a way as to allow for wide perception? What is our true level of = respect for the values of others? Respect, in this case, meaning our = ability to sympathize, within the given context, for the values and = beliefs of others; not necessarily respect in the sense of "to agree = with." At one point in our discussion, I comment that one of Jacob's comments = "reveals a completely geocentric bias." Jacob retorted with a warning: = "Careful," he said, "You're close to some unfortunate assumptions here." = He then went on to relate some of his personal history, and how his own = personal experience was diverse, broadly varied, and he had many = geographic backgrounds to pull experience from. In fact, he explained = how he had encountered personal experience which seemed to break = geocentric stereotypes with respect to violence: he had experienced = violence in a rural setting where it would generally be unexpected; he = had lived peacefully in an urban setting where violence would more = generally be expected.=20 But none of this personal history, ironically, was assumed or denied by = my observation about perceive geocentric bias. To the contrary, I was = not making a comment or an assumption about Jacob's personal history. I = was not commenting about HIM, I was commenting on his COMMENT. The = comment (in this case about graffiti in a neighborhood) implied that the = presence of such graffiti suggested a violent neighborhood. I was = careful not to say such a comment suggested that Jacob had a geocentric = bias, but that the "comment reveals a geocentric bias." The distinction is important, and not just because I want to avoid = personal attacks, which I do, but for a much more interesting reason. = Often times, we say things we do not mean, but when we do (especially = when you write a line for a character to say), we must ask ourselves, = yes but why, then, did I say it that way? If you have a character say "I = love you" when they, in fact, do not, there must be a reason, that the = author at least has some inkling of, even if he doesn't yet fully know = the reason. If a character says, "I don't love you," but in fact does, = that is of interest, too. If a character says, in act one, "Some = blankety-blank nigger stole my truck," but then in act three becomes a = civil rights activist such distinctions must be addressed, either in = subtext or in overt text. If a character, who we know from exposition, = has been beaten by a spouse, tells another character who has been = beaten, without much sympathy, "Oh, boys will be boys", this statement = will have a much different resonance than if the same line is delivered = by an innocent young thing with no real experience with men. And so, I found it both ironic and mildly inexplicable (though I believe = I know the explanation) how Jacob, who has a diverse and varied cultural = experience with American and conditions of cultural violence in = differing geographic areas of our country, could still make an = unqualified statement that revealed a geocentric bias which suggested a = solitary viewpoint, when from his own experience and admission, he knows = that there are many varied and relative viewpoints with respect to this = one topic of cultural violence. He states, "We're kind of unlikely to = carry unfortunate geocentric biases. Not that we don't carry some, I'm = sure, but we're usually aware of them and unlikely to bow to any = Urban-centric analysis of U.S. make-up and/or attitudes... And we know = that an overly urban vision of the U.S. is at least as inaccurate as an = overly rural one." And yet, these statements (and their truth, which I = do not doubt) notwithstanding, Jacob was still able to make comments in = his first essay on the topic which suggested just such a bias, a bias = which, on further inspection, he realizes he does not have, and is quick = to correct if others perceive he does. And yet, why the initial statements?=20 I believe Jacob was able to write an essay forcefully arguing that I was = wrong (and all Europeans are wrong) to believe that their culture is = less violent than ours (not a point I was making, of course), and that = such a perception is utterly misguided and disprovable by the statement = of empirical facts and statistical studies, and to include in said essay = unqualified comments which suggested a geocentric bias (when he does not = in fact, have one, upon further reflection), because his forceful = conviction of "rightness" and righteous sensation of "truth-bearing" and = vigorous instruction of others as to the incorrectness of their own = cultural biases and perceptions, blinded him, temporarily, to both the = validity of the relative bias of an individual in a given cultural = experience, and his own multifaceted experience here in the U.S. which = would have, upon deeper introspection, naturally tempered his tone and = cautioned his delivery. One of Jacob's comments is telling, and herein lies our general = philosophical disagreement (which we shall agree to disagree upon, = because I have no desire to "change" him and would certainly fail to do = so if I had such a desire). Jacob says, "It is too easy to simply say = that one person has a bias and another has another and that is that. = Because that isn't that. Some biases are invalid. Others are valid. = Others are justifiable paradox and relatively even. Some are benign, = others not so much. If you insist on treating every bias as equal, = you're going to have trouble with an LDS audience that "knows" that not = all biases are equal." Because, I will conclude and take from this comment, that LDS audiences = know they are right, and others are wrong. And therein lies the danger, = as I see it. If we demand a respect from others, we must give it. And even if we = believe in our heart of hearts that "we are right" we must be = exceptionally cautious about both, 1) stating that belief and 2) = allowing that belief to prematurely color our judgment of others. Now, Jacob includes a disclaimer at the end of his post that states, = "Oh, I don't want to make a claim to all truth and I don't want people = to think that we're always right and all that. That'd be icky.' Yes, it would be icky. But unfortunately, in my opinion, that's exactly = how some passages in many of Jacob's arguments for and on behalf of an = empirical universal truth (in the post directed at me and in several = others over the last several months, including the Kadosh Review thread) = come across. That is how they read. Just as the comment which I read as = revealing a geocentric bias when Jacob states he does not have one, = sometimes the things we say, and the way we say them, reveals some inner = belief we carry which we would be embarrassed to admit outright. And so = we say things in such a way that our readers feel that bias (which we = would deny) and react to it just as Jacob suggests: "That's icky." But = what has been said has been said. The tone comes across. Our truth is = tainted by tone and a lack of consideration of the other's nature, = sensitivity, age, background, knowledge, education, experience, = preparedness, maturity, level of self-defense-ability, etc. To add a = fine-print disclaimer at the bottom of the page that we do NOT mean what = we have just suggested that we DO mean (in spite of ourselves), does not = get rid of the perception of the audience any more than a judge telling = a jury to "strike that" actually makes them forget what the attorney = just said or implied. To some of the world, Mormons come across as assholes, and that is = unfortunate, seeing as our theology is so wise and impartial and = unbiased all-loving and encourages so much tender acceptance and, in = fact, demands so much respect from others, and insists that we give it = back. But my reading of our theology as stated in the previous sentence = is not accepted by many of our members, or understood by many more, or = actually practiced (once understood) by further others.=20 Ironically, for a religion that touts itself as being the "one true = church" we should in truth be, as my annual reading of the Doctrine and = Covenants continues to impress on me, the most moderately judgmental = people on the earth. But in fact, we are not. Our very certitude should = make us deeply understanding of others because of our confidence, we = have no insecurities to feel the need to defend or argue our points in = any concerted or violent way. In my experience it is the character who = is the most insecure about any given point, who will react with the = greatest amplitude when that subject is triggered.=20 Hence the Evangelical Christians who rail the loudest in battle against = the theology of others, are, I believe, the most insecure people in = their own beliefs. We need not be like them. If we are certain that all = will come out explained in the end, why make enemies along the way? Our = confidence gives us a sense of security which should make us the = opposite of blocked and dogmatically judgmental. If gun control is a = hot-button issue for someone, they will respond differently in = conversation about the topic than someone for whom the issue is benign = EVEN IF THE OPINIONS HELD BY THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE THE SAME.=20 I suggest that any thing we feel particularly "hot" about should be = examined by us very carefully. Why am I reacting the way I am, and does = this say something about me, which has nothing to do with the empirical = or universal rightness or wrongness of my opinion, by my desire that = others share it, and my belief that they are damned or damn wrong if = they do not. To connect this essay somewhat to its predecessor-in-crime, "In Defense = of Obscurity," I outlined therein an allegory about me and my dog. I = suggested that some universal knowledge is dangerous to my dog, because = if we believe that knowledge conveys responsibility (unto whom much is = given much is required) then to withhold certain knowledge from him for = a certain time, might actually protect him from his inability to live up = to the responsibility conveyed in the knowledge, until he is ready for = it. If we hold that such a construct is true, what does this say about = our own empirical and universal truths? What does this say about the = opinion that "some biases are wrong"? If a human being will be judged differently based on what they know, how = can you say that you are right and you are wrong? The very definition of our universal truth, then, of Mormon theology as = to how individuals will be judged, strips away our ability to use that = truth to judge others in their present state of comprehension thereof. God is the judge, we are not. How are we to interpret that parable where = men are engaged to work in the field?. All day long the master goes out = and recruits men to work. Some men work 8 hours, some 7, 6, 5 and on. = Some only work one hour. At the end of the day, every one of them are = paid the same amount of wages. Whoa! Says the guy who worked 8 hours. = That's not fair! That guy was only out there for one hour and he got the = same salvation as me?! What does the Master say to that? Basically: Cool it, bucko! That's the = way it is! And that is the way it is. That is a truth we accept as absolute. The = fact that the guy you are judging today, the one that you condemn out of = hand because he's got it wrong and we've got it right, has every = possibility of "getting it" in the final hour, and getting exactly the = same wages as you get, i.e., everything. Salvation. Exaltation. And God = looks at this persons perspective, background, experience, current = knowledge and individual, specific, relative sphere of understanding, = and judges him DIFFERENTLY than he judges you or I. So, even in an universe of universal truths, subjective reality exists = absolutely. That's my philosophy with respect to loving and understanding my fellow = man. What about getting this essay back to literature? It is the same, = only more so. With respect to writing characters, empirical truths don't matter a hill = of beans (to the characters). Subjective reality is all that matters to = the individuals we create. We must create a realistic world around them = (or, in the case of fantasy, etc., an internally consistent world), yes. = And to do such, authors do research, and are indeed interested in facts = and statistics. But our characters are created one at a time, and we = must recognize that their own experience will produce in them opinions = which may or may not conform to any conclusions that could be made by an = outsider looking at the list of facts. The character can be told truths = which then alters their reality (if they allow it to - in the case of = insanity, things are different), if that is the author's meta-theme or = where the story needs to go. But that individual character must be = created from within an utterly specific context. And that context may = smash the usually-accepted stereotype, or it may conform to it. But it = is disrespectful and, in fact, pointless to attempt to argue otherwise = with respect to literature and our fictional creations therein. I propose that a spirit of moderate judgment will make us better = Christians, better humans, better writers, better artists. And it does = not weaken our beliefs in what is right and wrong. But it will alter who = we talk, how we argue, how we present ideas, how we accept ideas. We can = be right and still be jerks, but we don't need to. Listen, I don't know how the rest of you will do this. But for me, for = my own inner life, for my credo, I've hurt myself too many times by = being a self-righteous prig, to my family and others, to not take this = concept seriously and to consider how to correct it. And in my desire to = become a tremendously insightful artist (for I have no lesser goal; we = must set those standards high, however hard they are to achieve), to = become a writer who is deeply perceptive and companionate and moving and = who creates outstanding characters, etc., etc., I have found that it is = essential for me to cultivate a tremendously open and curiously questing = attitude towards others, that I might explore all the facets which = create actual individual lives, so that I might, some day, be better = able to create my fictional ones.=20 If ever I encounter a situation where I say to myself, "I can't = understand how so-and-so can think that, or do that" that is the moment = red flags go up and I start looking for the answer. How CAN they think = like that? It is essential for an author to know. And rest assured, = there IS an answer, and we can discern it, if we put ourselves in = someone else's shoes and truly perceive their experience. And this = exercise does not alter our own reality. It does not weaken our own = beliefs or make us wishy-washy, but it gives us crucial insights into = others. There is no such thing as a bias that is wrong, from a character's = standpoint. "Bias" by definition, is subjective. Broadening that = characters perceptions, introducing facts and experiences which in form = the characters differently than their original bias might change that = bias to something which we might perceive to be closer to reality, but = that is all that is happening. We are not making something right or = wrong. To the woman who was raped in the cornfield, no amount of = statistical evidence that 98.39% of all rapes happen inside homes will = in any way affect her visceral sense of panic every time she passes a = menacing, eight-foot tall tower of corn: listening, listening, silently, = to her screams of pain -- standing there, doing nothing. That is character building. But everyone must set goals for themselves. Others cannot do it for us. = Nor can we make others change their goals to conform to what we think = they should be. And God understands how long it takes each of us to = achieve these goals, and judges us according to our relative strengths = and weaknesses. He has given us time to work it out. And the guy who = gets in at the last hour is going to get the same value as the guy who = worked it out hours ago. You can't get more relative in judgment than = that. So these are my goals: I will be bold but kind; opinionated but open; unshakeable in testimony, = but hesitatingly absolutist when dealing with others; I will be an = artist, a human, a father, a friend; I will understand all sides without = losing my side; I will diminish no one, but not be lukewarm; I will be a = Christian but love all religions, a Mormon, but love all Christians; I = will understand the individual experience, but also obtain the general = overview of both history and conditions; I will never allow my knowledge = and convictions to make me un-teachable, unable to observe and = appreciate the subjective truths or individual feelings and beliefs of = others; my own unshakeable absolute will be that God knows everything = and that I do not (nor does any man); I will try to write something = every day, to read something every day (including scripture); I will = pray for more faith, more patience, more humility, more wisdom, more = understanding, line upon line; I will try to do all of the above to the = best of my ability, but never take myself too seriously. And if I fail in any of these lofty goals, well then... just shoot me. Err... well, only if I happen to be in America. If I'm in Europe... well, I guess you'll just have to beat me with a = stick. Jongiorgi Enos =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 22:47:55 -0600 From: Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Quoting Jeff Needle : > I appreciate your thoughtful review. What I may have missed is any LDS > content in the book. Could it be that Deseret Book just pulled the book > because there was no Mormon content? I suppose that would be as good a reason as any, except for the fact that DB does also carry non-LDS books. But you're correct; there isn't anything LDS about this book except that it was written by a popular LDS author and published by an LDS publisher. Also, these characters are the ancestors of Michael Hamilton, who is a hero of several of Stansfield's novels. But that's it. - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 23:45:04 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Moderate Judgment, Part 1 [MOD: Just to clarify, this post came in before Part 2 of Jongiorgi's message was posted, in which he disagrees somewhat more directly with Jacob's positions.] I snipped all of Jongiorgi's post because I think he's largely right in = his point. Which is interesting because at the end he says it is a response = (as in refutation) of stuff I've said. And that's more or less a pattern = with me for interesting reasons--i.e. people who disagree with me will say = stuff in their disagreement I almost entirely agree with. The reason is that there are two fundamentally different ways to discuss behaviors and actions. I tend to come at these discussions from a = highly philosophical stand-point. I like to talk in terms of principles and = ideas. When we discuss principles and ideas, we (of necessity) have to simplify complex and chaotic reality in order to discuss it at all. And I tend = to do so in a particularly "strong" (simplified) manner. I think that = principles are incredibly important because they help us understand the world and = our actions in it. But principles don't exist in a vacuum. Principles exist alongside = other principles and things get really messy when principles interact. In the humble-jumble of life, principles will interact in weird ways that are unpredictable. With dozens of important ideas to choose from, the interactions are mathematically unmanageable, let alone realistically so (particularly given unlimited mixing). Which brings me to the second = way to discuss behaviors and actions--the messy, complex, human way. Often = when discussing principles, an example will be given that shows another = principle that trumps the original one. Every principle (save one) is trumped by every other at some point and in certain circumstances. Teaching a = child obedience must bow to comforting displays of love and openness under = certain circumstances. These exceptions are important because we need to = remember that principles have no force until they're set into the real world with = all the chaotic interactions inherent there. And the wider point of being moderate in judgment is also important. = It's vital that we remain humble, teachable, and introspective. When dealing with people, it is important to recognize that *all* principles take a = back seat to an honest knowledge of Christ's love for that person and our fundamental inability to fully gauge all factors in that individual's = life (even when they are our children). Now, I'm a naturally confident guy, = and I'm pretty strict with the kids. But I've also had the experience of looking into my child's eyes (one sensitive in a way similar to = Jongiorgi's child) and seeing unreasoning fear there--a fear that short circuits everything else I may be doing or trying to accomplish. I hope that = anybody in such a situation will re-evaluate their actions and make some = important and needed change. And I desperately hope that Christ's atonement is = enough to repair the damage of such moments and make it possible to have a = loving and nurturing relationship. In short, I don't find it at all inconsistent to agree in the main with Jongiorgi even as I maintain that it is vitally important for us to = teach strong principles to our children and obedience to rules and our = covenants and agreements. Obviously, the example given is one where the situation required a different lesson be learned (by both parent and child). And similar events and examples can show other exceptions to a parent's requirement to teach with discipline. And I really want to hear those examples so that I can learn from the experiences of others. I just = don't see them as really disagreeing with my original point or the principle originally under discussion (which I believe was that we not be so open minded that our brains fall out, though Jongiorgi doesn't actually say). Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 01:50:00 EDT From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Radio Programming Travis, Some years ago I got a wild idea to sell Book of Mormons for $10 each or whatever those to wom I sent it to thought it was worth. I asked the head of the Salt Lake City Church Distribution Center if I could do that. He thought I was somewhat silly for asking but said I could sell it for any amont I wanted to. I sent a copy to a bunch of Sudburys nationwide with a letter to send what they thought it was worth or pass it one to someone else as well as an explination aas to what it is. I was delighted to get paid a while later for two copies, $10 each. The idea was to get people to give it a fair read. Often on my mission when we gave it away for nothing that is how much they gave to reading of it. As for your radio show idea. I would just go for it. You know the old saying,"It is eaier to repent afterwards than to get permission". You might ask God what he thinks about it. Or follow the example of early missionaries. My partner and I did a half hour radio show called the Keystone Project Discussion on the Orem station KSTARR for about 6 months. It was great fun. We did it mainly to mainly to "raise the bar of private thinking and public discourse and conversation mainly as it relates to the Book of Mormon and our book The Keystone - The Day Alma Died. It was quite costly and a half hour was too short. And we felt and there was not any time for call-ins which would have made it even more fun. We thought about doing a short book review each week from other authors to help pay for the time, or even other businesses and such. But we have put the whole radio show on hold until we generate some more funds to coninue writing and publishing. Good luck. Or rather God Bless your efforts to "raise the bar". Glen Sudbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 03:15:16 -0400 From: Justin Halverson Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > 1) That medium and message are radically separate. If they ever do touch > > each other, the interaction, like the interface between a tire's contact > > patches and the road, is extremely small. > >They are separate. An author's particular manifestation of a message >becomes intimately integrated with the medium the author chooses to >communicate in (unless he's a poor author), but the message could be >communicated in any number of media. Just take an idea and ask different >authors to write about it and see how radically different the stories >will be. It's this basic difference that's at the heart of our disagreement, I think. If you are right in the above statement, and the "message" of a work is the limit and end of literature, I don't see the point. At least, the reading experience (for me) is robbed of a great deal of its fun, its surprise, its pleasure, and ultimately its worth. At its best, literature is *not* solely about the message and how clearly it can be conveyed. Literary language (artful language) is not simply a medium; you're thus absolutely right when you say that it can't be profitably analogized as a car. Good literary writing is as much about the words themselves--how they sound, how they fit together and/or fly apart aurally and semantically--as it is about the message(s) they carry. You'd like to maintain a separation between the message and the medium. What if the message *is* the medium, or vice versa? You hint toward this yourself when you write that only a poor author fails to realize that there is something more than a message to good writing. I'm not saying, of course, that the message isn't important. But not more than the writing itself--be it simple or complex (or all these things combined). There are significant portions of our experience that cannot be adequately expressed in words. Maybe all our *thoughts* can, and if that's the realm of experience to which your writing is addressed, simple clarity is probably the best way. But I'd argue that you're then writing philosophy, not literature (though, yes, the two are not always inseparable). For those aspects of our experience that words can't quite reach, a different sort of approach is required. Though it's unfair of me to use this example without having read the entire work, the passage of your novel about Sheila's masturbation as you cited it on its own is a good example. You're absolutely right that there is no doubt *in my mind* as to what Sheila was doing. But the description, as clinically clear as it was, gave me no physical nor emotional sense of what she was feeling, of the corporal experience itself. The stuff that brings me back for a second read does so partly (oftener than not, even) because the writer's awareness of the fleshy, visceral meat of her words--in addition to or as a part of their cerebral appeal--helps me feel with Sheila, not just watch or contemplate her. Jongiorgi's example of the several ways of talking about the boy which you so summarily dismissed gets at this. If all you're concerned about is having the reader see the surface of what he did, but not involving me in the action--not in implicating me as the reader in the motivation behind it--the more elaborate sentence is worthless. But literature can be *so* much more than a description of action. Read Garcia Marquez's _One Hundred Years of Solitude_, Lezama Lima's _Paradiso_, Hesse's _Narcissus and Goldmund_, Saramago's _Blindness_, _The Song of Solomon_, or my sister's short stories. Even though these authors sometimes (my sister doesn't) take more than three sentences to describe a scene and I'm still not always sure *exactly* what's going on in a lot of empirical detail, I *feel* it. I like poetry, though, and you've stated categorically that you don't. You feel that your message is at the core of your literary experience, and I don't. We'll probably have to leave it at that. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 01:13:56 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 04:27 PM, Barbara Hume wrote: > At 12:21 PM 5/1/03 -0600, you wrote: >> Anyone else know of fictional Mormon horror? > > What about Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys? Yeah, and "Fascinating Womanhood?" Steve - -- skperry@mac.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #47 *****************************