From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #50 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 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number 050 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 05:06:37 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) katie@aros.net wrote: > But this is what scares me most about it: Suppose that this kind of behavior > really is wrong. But Anita Stansfield has clearly labeled it as "right," and > some readers have clearly labeled her books as "faith promoting." What, then, > will they think about this behavior? They'll probably think it's right, too. > Anita Stansfield (or any other "faith-promoting" author) could potentially put > all kinds of terrible behavior in her books, convincingly portray it as right, > have her characters feel the Spirit, and her audience would still come out > uplifted and thinking they've learned something good. (Though I do hope that > most readers have more sense.) > > Scary, isn't it? Are you saying that people shouldn't rely on the judgment of others, that people should think for themselves when it comes to making judgments about the validity of things in the art they consume, that it may actually be a negative thing to have a place that is considered "safe" to shop for art so that you leave your guard down and just accept everything that's presented there? Imagine that. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 14:31:53 GMT From: cwilson@emerytelcom.net Subject: [AML] TUROW, _Personal Injuries_ Just started reading this novel. In it a female undercover agent has being Mormon as part of her cover. She grew up Mormon though she isn't now. She says her dad was a member of the Church, capped C, so this guy must know a little about it. Anyone know his connection? Cathy Wilson - --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:00:11 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David >and Dianna Graham > At first I >wanted to say, as a good friend of mine commented, "the >Mormons were so two dimensional." The way they spoke of their >religion was evidence of what really seemed like a purely >cultural understanding of the faith. (Harper's line to Louis >on the phone about his drinking - "That's a sin." - I almost >laughed out loud). I couldn't help but sit there and compare >my understanding of the church to the little that was revealed >of theirs. Why did you feel so compelled? Are you not aware that there ARE cultural Mormons in the church, exactly like Harper? If not, I can introduce you to a few. >Louis sounded like he thought that Mormonism taught >that you were supposed to punish yourself for your >imperfections - that everyday you were supposed to be more and >more perfect, or you were definitely a bad person. This is exactly the way I used to interpret the Church. During my mission, I even created a calendar where I marked off each day that I had remained perfect, free from sin. That lasted about 21 days and then something happened and I blew it. And I felt depressed that I hadn't been able to be perfected. And I started all over again. You've got to understand that this was in the days of Miracle of Forgiveness which raised the bar of personal perfection to unattainable heights. MOF taught that any unrepentant sin, even the most minor, could literally undo any previous progression. Louis was me. Also, he >seemed to talk about dysfunctional families, addiction, etc., >as these skeletons the church says we're supposed to keep in >our closets or something, like they are deep darks secret in >the church. (Now, mind you, I know that these things really do >happen at times in Mormon culture, and these were just my >initial reactions). I didn't just cringe at the language and >very nicely worded stage directions describing the two men >having sex in the park. I cringed to think that audiences full >of individuals, many of which likely knew very little about >our religion and it's teachings, were going to sit and >sympathize with this poor suffering man who was feeling that >his religion was oppressing him. I suspect you are making a bigger deal out of this than the audience might. The play, after all, wasn't about Mormonism. And why shouldn't they sympathize with the character? Mormonism can be very oppressive for some people. Spend a couple minutes over on ex-mormon.org if you want your eyes opened. The church those people talk about seems an alien religion to most of it, but real to those folks. > All I could think was, "If >you're not building the kingdom in some way, you're tearing it >down." While I don't really think that's completely true, and >Tony Kushner could probably care less what I would think, I >can't fight believing that at least a little bit." Tony Kushner is not LDS and isn't under the mandate to build the kingdom in the first place. But you said the key words in this train of thought, "in some way." Build the kingdom in some way. How does one build the kingdom with literature? Did Eric's recent ten minute play Kiss fail to build the kingdom because someone walked out of it? How does learning that temple-endowed LDS women in Vegas make money as prostitutes build the kingdom? I know it does, at least in "some way." Knowledge is part of the kingdom after all. If all one gets from Eric's play is the knowledge that there exist in this church people so good at rationalization that they can live this dual life-style, then that's enough, isn't it? If we can learn from Kusner's play that all people are flawed, sometimes weak, sometimes hypocritical, but that we can all find love in some form or another, isn't that enough of the building of the kingdom of God? Down at the Center Street Theatre, we have received perhaps a half dozen scripts from folks who want us to produce their plays. Most of these plays represent the authors' sincere attempt to not so much tell a story but to convert the world in one fell swoop. It seems the Mormon artists natural tendency to, at first, try and tell our story in sweeping panorama, apparently choosing to interpret the mandate of building the kingdom to mean "converting the world and to cram our story down the audience's throat without regard to such things as good story telling, believable dialogue, and well drawn-out characters. > >Let's pretend this play were written by Eric. If he produced >it, I'd like to believe that it would done at Orem Center >Stage for a mostly Mormon audience. I would probably go, and >then I'd yell at Eric for the yucky content. But seriously, >looking at the story, I might love it, because I like Mormon >plays that confront Mormon audiences. We are forced to learn. >But we are Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our >beliefs are not on trial. Again, I ask, why not? You've just put the kybosh on anyone ever writing plays about any Mormons who are having crises of faith. > Our human foibles, our weaknesses, >our sins of commission and omission are on trial. A cleaner >version of Angels in America (I'm just >guessing) would probably disturb and offend and, hopefully, >teach. But this wasn't Eric, who I just worship a little too >much. This was a stranger to me, a man who probably thought >that my religion was a sham and a prison. So, there it was >ruined for me. Have you read interviews with Tony Kushner? He doesn't hold Mormonism in contempt at all. He just doesn't believe it, which is his right of course. >plain sensational, exhilarating, but not necessary. And I >don't think that it's ever necessary to simulate sex on stage >or in film (or describe it in books). I think it's fine to >refer to it, but please don't make me watch that (or imagine >it). Herein lies, imo, your problem with Angels. You're approaching the piece with your own preconceived notions of what constitutes the proper way to show sex on stage and the only right way to talk about the Church. Unless and until you feel comfortable enough in your own beliefs to where someone else's opinion about it doesn't affect you, you'll never appreciate the brilliance of a play like Angels in America. >So, that's it. The content was my biggest qualm with >it. Also, the characters were extremely difficult to >sympathize with at all, except for Prior, and his visions were >the part that made me most uncomfortable. E What upset me was that Kushner was the first to use our symbolism in his play. We Mormon artists have been so timid over the years, so afraid to break the bonds of what others around us think is appropriate that we avoid using our own symbolism to tell our own story. Now, should the Joseph Smith vision ever be portrayed on stage, knowledgeable theatre goers will say to themselves, "What a rip-off." We should have been the first to use the Moroni motif, not Kushner. But, no, heaven forbid that we share with the world such things. Let's hush up about them, call them sacred and don't share them. Most of are a bunch of cowards. Folks like Richard Dutcher and Eric Samuelsen, who have the courage to tell their stories without holding back are true pioneers. >I also understand that there's a part in Perestroika where >they discuss the garment. This comment really belongs on the >temple thread, but I really do believe in my heart that there >are some things that literature and film just don't deserve to >play around with. Then if you ever hear of my play "Angle of Mercy" in production, don't go see it. The final scene where the character wraps himself in a garment as if it is a blanket may offend you. Dianna, you rock and I hope you know I believe that. Your acting in Wired was marvelous. We disagree on some things but I don't want to misconstrue anything I've said above as meaning anything other than a disagreement on the virtues of Angels in America. Thom Duncan Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:23:29 EDT From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles In a message dated 5/5/03 10:12:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > I have > never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a > miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. > > I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. > They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they > meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. > Glen writes: Even Jesus with his many miracles was not usually desirous of having them independently verified. Why? Even though He did them "that the power of God might be made manifest" at least until the raising of his friend from the dead it was not time to prove in this manner that He was the Son of God, at least so openly and verifiably so. Are miracles meant to be independently verified? I'm not sure. Does this mean or could it mean the same thing as the phrase "consuming it upon our lusts?" A member of our Bishopric came over last night to ask my opinion about an article by our Bishop for the monthly ward news letter. He had been asked to review the article, and as the Bishop was out of town he wanted another opinion about the use of the word "unconditional" love of the Father used by the Bishop. He is the second person, friend, in a month that asked me about this. Both were a bit troubled and certainly confused by an article by Elder Nelson of the Twelve in the February 2003 Ensign, pg. 20 on Divine Love. In this article Elder Nelson seems to be very aware he is making a change in the way we ought to look at God's love and clearly says, "Divine love is conditional." I had previously to last night spent many hours reading, thinking, and writing about this article. I wonder what others experience is with the experience of unconditional love or not? I wonder also if it is not more harmful to teach the conditional nature of divine love as well as the more obvious conditional nature of higher blessings than to make what seems to be an unusual interpretation of scriptures as Elder Nelson does? This seems to be related, at its very core, to the discussion of miracles, what they are and can and should they be independently verifiable. It seems to me that miracles abound, in my life at least, the more I notice, write them down, validate God and angels for providing them, and am otherwise grateful for them as confirmations of divine love the more I experience the presence of the divine in my life and the resultant joy, even ecstasy. I have a brother who is a returned missionary, twice divorced, inactive in the Church, almost or altogether atheist, by his own admission or pride. He told me some time ago that he wants someone to use the power of the priesthood to make his sense of smell work again and prove the priesthood has power. One would not have to be much of a prophet to know his behavior has effected his faith and his lack of believe or faith will probably preclude him receiving a miracle in the manner he is demanding. But he is certainly receiving miracles. He is yet breathing. His body is making red blood cells, thinking, remembering, and thousands of other processes physical, mental, and spiritual I am certain he cannot explain and that are independently verifiable though not often called miracles. It would be a grand miracle, of the greatest kind, if he started doing the daily actions that would give him back the testimony today that he has lost. As the wise Hugh Nibley has said we as natural men do not want gifts very much. We want the glory of doing it ourselves. We have been invited to a veritable banquet, to live in joy on beach front property, yet we are satisfied, in the inner man, with play in mud puddles in the slums. I have seen miracles, independently verifiable and verified, for which I will be eternally grateful. This is not the time or the place to share them, but one alone was confirmation that I have a loving Father who wants me to "drink all of it!" This same Feb. 2003 Ensign pg. 14 has an article entitled Teaching Children Principles of Happiness. Seems to me most of us adults, as well as our children, could use some greater understanding and application of the principles of happiness. Appreciation of and noting well the miracles in our lives seems to be one of the vital principles our literature could teach to a world hungering for ecstasy. Glen Sudbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:53:36 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 03:03 PM, Paris Anderson wrote: > What > is NRSV? New Revised Standard Version. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:20:01 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Physics and AML-List Rather an opposite approach has been taken by the brilliant contemporary = British playwright, Tom Stoppard, who has repeatedly dealt with science = (and philosophy) vs. religion questions. My favorite of his plays, = Jumpers, deals with an elderly and somewhat addled philosopher who = proposes to prove the existence of God in a paper he's about to deliver. = The backdrop for his paper is a world where God is universally presumed = not to exist; it's a flaming, churning, horrendous, violent dystopia. =20 In another terrific play, Hapgood, Stoppard creates a world of spies, = who live in a quantum universe; their spying efforts (and consequently = the play's blocking) have the randomness of quantum theory. Ultimately, = Truth is found in the relationship between a mother and her child. It's = a Levinasian take on physics. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:31:59 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity ___ Eugene ___ | That's why vernacular evolves so quickly, and even the French | Academy can't stop it. For a new word to work well it must | largely bubble out of the "collective semantic unconscious," | so our typical reaction isn't "Huh?" but "Of course!" Like | the astronomer who makes his calculations and concludes that | there must be a new planet *here* and so points his telescope | there, the wordsmith invents the word that we all knew had to | be invented, but just didn't think of first. ___ I enjoyed your comments, especially about the changes in Japanese. It reminds me of a story a friend told me of his parents. Apparently they were Japanese, but grew up on an island of fishermen fairly far removed from the Japanese mainland. He learned Japanese from them after they immigrated. He then went to Japan, only to discover that their form of Japanese was a fairly archaic form that didn't have all the excessive politeness that had developed in Japanese culture. It ended up being that he was speaking like a drunken sailor, to borrow a phrase. While we all know of Shakespeare and how much English has changed from the 17th century (and even moreso from Chaucer's era), we often don't realize how much this happens in other languages. For instance one of the great works of French literature is "The Legend of Roland." However it, and much of the great French poetry of the medieval era, couldn't be read in modern French because French had become so simplified. This led to horrid translations of French into French in the 19th century which lost a lot of the character of the poetry and prose. (Imagine Shakespeare translated into a modern vernacular, for instance) Regarding rap, while most forms are, in my opinion, fairly simple poetry, some do impressive work. Typically *not* the forms of hip-hop or rap found in the popular music scene - as with Jazz it tends to be found in a more significant subculture and often includes crosspollinations. Afterall rap in many ways arose partially out of the "talking blues" as well as traditional DJ announcing. In many ways these subcultures among African Americans are the most inventive and active aspects of English. Steven Pinker, the noted MIT scientist has written a lot on their grammatical changes in light of suspected underlying mental structures. (See, for instance _The Language Instinct_) We often see their speech as poor English due to our odd way of mixing old French with old English to produce modern English. He points out a very inventive poetry that in many ways is a more natural reconciliation of the language towards a grammar that our brains wish to impose - and often a far more poetic form. (Which isn't to say it ought to be the public form of discourse. The fact that our own more Latinized form is dominant suggests it ought be followed. But it sure isn't a natural or easy language) [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 18:03:06 GMT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Re: STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) Katie Parker: Richard was without guile. He was a good man. But only destined to be a plot device. _______________ Some days I feel just like that -- only destined to be a plot device. I hope that I may be an effective one, or an interesting one, at least. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:49:38 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Thom Duncan Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [AML] Miracles > >I've noticed an interesting thing in connection with miracles I'm wondering if others have also noticed in life or in literature. >> > Miracles have no existence beyond that which we chose to give them by interpretation. We can chose to call an experience beyond our current understanding a miracle or a coincidence or, simply, an unexplained phenomenon. > > Miracles are completely subjective, or they wouldn't be miracles. If objective, then they have their explanation in reality as a mass delusion, or some other psychological phenomenon. > I have never witnessed, even in the LDS Church, a miracle of healing (or a miracle of anything) that could be independently verified. > > I don't want to be misunderstood as saying that miracles don't exist. > They certainly do to those people who experience them. But are they meant to be independently verified? To me, miracles just are. > > Thom You are so right Thom, miracles just are. But when they happen to you, it is best not to deny them, and perhaps even share them. I think there is one miracle we as LDS writers can certainly verify or attest to - The writing or transcribing of The Book of Mormon. Evan without actually independently verifying the length of time Joseph Smith jr. had the plates in his possession or if indeed, he in fact had any plates it is still a miraculous achievement for any mortal by themselves, educated or not, to produce this particular work in any amount of time. As far as personal miracles go this indeed is a subjective thing; however, the most haunting and memorable miracle I have experienced was in fact more of (I know this is an oxymoron) an objective experience, personally speaking. When my miracle took place: I know I wasn't dreaming; I know my father had just died the year before; I have come to know, years later, that the man who stood looking down at me, and who had just saved my 12 year old life, was in fact my father's spirit; AND I know that if he hadn't of intervened at that moment in time I would for certain have perished that day. I have gone over this particular experience time and time again. I have lain awake at night puzzling over it, I have looked at the old pictures of my father that I had never seen before the incident. My father left us when I was five and I never saw him alive again after that. I had no idea what he might look like, because I had all but forgotten him. When he died, his body was cremated, so I didn't even get to see his body. Despite all of this when I did see the old pictures almost 30 years later, there was the man who had saved me from certain death. I only looked into his eyes for a brief moment,but I can still see those eyes in my mind. One moment he was there before me looking down and saying, "Your life is a precious gift, be careful with it," and in the next moment, while I looked back at the spot where I would have, should have, been lying crushed to death, this being vanished into thin air. He was not there, and there was no where within a thousand feet that he could have hidden. To me this is a subjective/objective miracle, and it will be until the day I die. On that day I fully expect to have all the facts verified when I speak to my father once again. If you are interested in a more detailed account of this miracle you can find it on my website under non-fiction. The title of the work is "Snatched >From the Jaws of Death." It is a short creative non-fiction essay of about 2000 words. 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: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:21:25 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity The NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version, one of many ongoing attempts to render the Bible into modern English. It was the source for this particular Japanese translation. You can get it at any good bookstore, the BYU bookstore, for example (Amazon lists 107 entries under "NRSV"). To get an idea of all the different versions available see the list here: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/english.htm You can read and search and compare online editions of the more popular Bible translations here, and also across multiple languages (this is another one of those massively useful web sites): http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 12:26:26 -0600 From: "Mary Jane Jones" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity >What? the first great apostate made plain? Where can I get a copy? = What >is NRSV? NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version (whatever that means). It was = the version of choice at Seoul Foreign School (which I attended grades = 1-12). The school had been founded by Christian missionaries and still = maintained a very staunch protestant Christian personality--we had bible = classes regularly in every grade, and every assembly or event started with = a prayer. I read the NRSV at school and the KJV at home and church, and = actually vastly preferred the KJV. That may have been because of the = eighth article of faith, which caused my young and impressionable mind to = eye with suspicion any version of the bible with a pink cover and pronouns = like "you" instead of "thou." Also, I didn't always agree with the = conclusions drawn by my bible teachers at school, and so I learned to = associate that less formal language with their conclusions. =20 As to where you can get a copy--not at Deseret Book, I would imagine. Any = other bookstore or Christian bookstore would have ample copies to choose = from, in addition to all kinds of other versions. There's the NIV (New = International Version), the New KJV, the Modern KJV, the Literal Translatio= n of the Bible (LITV) and so many, many more.... Mary Jane (Jones) Ungrangsee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 15:39:22 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Update on My Book Proposal For anyone still following my bush-whacking in the nat'l book marketplace, here's the latest on my book proposal. My agent sent it out to four more publishers: Harcourt, Berkeley, Crossroad, and Beacon Press. She hasn't heard from the first two, and pasted below is a fairly interesting 90-percent-rejection from Crossroad, which is interesting in general as well as regarding my own project, and which may even provoke ideas or directions for your own projects. (If his comments prompt any insights or suggestions and interpretations from you, I'd love to hear. I don't really get everything he's saying or agree with it. He seems to be pretty darn opinionated about his own idea of a book formula.) However, the religion editor at Beacon is really interested and is showing it around the company and seeing if it hits any brick walls. (Beacon is a smaller, Boston-based, Unitarian-backed co. distributed by Houghton Mifflin, and they're really interested in my Boston connections, including my former writing instructor James Carroll at nearby Emerson, whom they know well and are going to speak with about me; hopefully he will remember how much he said he liked my story "Daughters of Hysteria," which ran in Irreantum a coupla years ago. And the editor said they wouldn't even consider it without having a Mormon governor in the State House a few yards away from their offices.) So I'm still getting some serious readings, and hopefully one of them will stick before my agent completely runs out of prospects. Intro note from the agent: Here's the letter I got from Roy Carlisle, who has his own imprint at Crossroad Publishing. The 'Steve' he refers to is one of my authors, Steve Kissing, whose unconventional spiritual coming of age memoir was just published by Crossroad...and edited by Roy. (I think you'd like Steve!) His website is www.runningfromthedevil.com. RE: As God Once Was: Reflections from a Mormon Imagination by Chris Bigelow Hi Linda, Here are some impressions from my reading of the Chris Bigelow proposal. As is, I would not be inclined to publish. Right now your letter and even some of his pitch in the proposal is aimed at the idea behind the book (interest in Mormonism) as a reason to publish but the pitch is not focused on what the book actually is. That former approach makes sense because there is not a clear book here yet. At least it is not coming across to me as a clear and singularly focused story. And when I actually read the material I see that he is covering a lot of different ground and in at least a few different voices. There is the personal voice (like with the cancer) and then there is the reporting voice (like the Australia mission experience) and then the theological explication voice (commentary on the play). They don't all rest easy with each other. But the bigger question is what story is he going to tell? And I am not even sure I know which one he should tell at this point? Maybe a conversation with him would help me figure that out? But right now I don't see a deeper feeling level consistently enough expressed in the proposal to help me believe that the book would capture other seeker's struggles and ambivalence about faith. In other words I don't think you can sell this book on the curiosity factor about Mormonism. A book like this, like Steve's did so well, must capture the deeper universal feeling of the religious seeker or the seeker's religious struggle. He hasn't built the book around that at all but around the Mormon themes [as requested by Harper San Fran--geez]. For an exclusive Mormon audience that might be fine. But not for a general trade house with a religious profile like Crossroad. And as you know I would never want an 11 chapter 90K word MS. I want 3-5 page mini-essays, maybe 30 or so, with about 50K to 60K words max. That was one of the big transformations in Steve's book and it made the whole story zip along as it should. His book is 70K words and that worked out well but I would usually want shorter not longer. So SK's "chapters" (I never use the word anymore if I can avoid it) are about 2250-3000 words each. So you can read for twenty minutes and feel great about "finishing" a whole episode. Perfect reading for a postmodern reader. I am sharing all of those details just to let Chris know that I would need a very different vision for this book in order to believe I could publish it successfully. Right now it really doesn't have a core story holding it together. In his case it might be a bit more arbitrary than it was in Steve's case but it does need a core story to organize the material around and to give us a pitch. Maybe a history of the marriages and family relationships? Which could be used to talk about Mormonism that relates directly to those aspects of life? But right now it is all over the place and as a consequence it doesn't quite feel like it is going anywhere specifically. After checking out the website (www.thesugarbeet.com) the proposal did make more sense. It has the rather random journalistic feel of the odd stories on the site and what holds that together is the satire. But I don't think that works in a book when he is seemingly trying to write a serious book. Hopefully I am right about that but there were long passages in the sample material that made me think that. By the way do tell Chris that the website really is hilarious. This response is not meant to preclude conversation or dialogue at all. In fact it is meant to initiate it. But if you want to sell the book as is, then I am not your man. I imagine you have others reviewing the proposal but let me know if you think it would be helpful to have further conversations. Clearly, Chris is someone, like Steve, who has an eccentric and humorous perspective on life that makes him into a very likable character. So now I need to go find out if my premortal self really did prepare for a life of running! Warmly, Roy Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:35:08 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Perhaps the concept of "seducing" the reader to consider otherwise unpalatable ideas can be better explained as an element of the willing suspension of disbelief. This suspension of disbelief comes about most profoundly when the reader willingly grants to an author's (made up) characters the moral weight of living, breathing human beings. There's something interesting here that relates to uniquely Mormon concepts of godhood, in this ability to create, albeit virtually, beings that independent of their creator take on qualities of conscience that we relate to on their own merits. The key to how the characters see and interpret their world through what they think and say. Dialogue (interior and spoken) is an integral part of "show don't tell" because it represents the mind of the invented character (and, yes, by extension the mind of the author; do the channels of our thoughts represent by extension the mind of God?); and because when done right we accept the dialogue--paradoxically, as I've noted--as an exchange between free agents. Being made privy to such an conversation can be very seductive (the allure of good gossip), all the more so when the author can sample for us the most interesting parts. Formal, structured argument fares poorly in comparison. As Shaw points out in the forward to Saint Joan, for all his brilliance Socrates didn't actually do much more than convince his jury that they were a bunch of idiots. Nicely formed rhetoric, really bad trial strategy. The choir has sung his praises for millennia, but when it counted he couldn't change minds of the people sitting right in front of him. The sense of being "trapped" into thinking about a subject in a certain way (even if it is the "right" way) infuriates more than it convinces or instructs. This is the inherent weakness of the Socratic method, which always implies a Ha! Gotcha! after the QED. True, when manipulation is the expectation starting out--that's why people ride roller coasters, after all--our reaction is to laugh off the manipulation, or at least roll our eyes. Though it is still a short step to the bread and circuses moment that occurs in the schlock horror flick when we stop worrying about who gets killed next, and rather how they will get killed. (The difference between the first and second Indiana Jones movies, the first a camp classic, the second dreck.) We are similarly much more likely to pay attention to personal criticism when it is exchanged between third parties--and we overhear it--than when it is directed at us personally ("Your problem is . . . "). A great example of this is in "Much Ado about Nothing" when Benedick and Beatrice, who spend acts 1 and 2 at dagger points, are induced to romance when they separately overhear (they assume, of course, entirely by accident) their friends speaking of how the one is really in love with the other. They lend more credence to "idle gossip" about themselves than to their own supposed convictions. [Eugene Woodbury] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 00:26:27 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity You wrote: >I just saw "8 Mile" and was pretty amazed at not only the "rap battles", but >the revelation (to me) that within that particular culture (if you want to >take the screenplay at face value), such a form of expression is so >ingrained that it might be spontaneously indulged in say by people standing >in a lunch line. That's pretty accurate. While I lived in the 'hood in DC for four years (up until about a month ago), this form of expression was spontaneously indulged-in by kids all over the place -- at least in the places I frequented. At bus stops and restaurants and laundromats and convenience stores and movie theaters. And especially in the hallway outside my apartment door... Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #50 *****************************