From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #51 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 051 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 13:28:03 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror > > The other approach is to boldly go where no Mormon artist has gone before. To ignore the orthodox audience and aim for the postulated audience that is hungry for meat over milk. Boldy, unapologetically, even obnoxiously. Plan on offending the hell out of Deseret Book's customers. Use that as the marketing strategy. Dismiss the reasoning behind the inevitable complaints with disdain. Stand there with a smirk on your face when someone calls you to repentance. Because you know that > every bit of your art is faithful to the gospel. > > The world is hungry for leaders, and that's what this approach would be. Lead on D, you are truly a brave man. I wish you well, and I think it will be an interesting phenomena to watch unfold. If you succeed I may try to follow, but . . . maybe not????? I too am not sure who my audience is yet. LDS readers would be good, but perhaps unconverted, soon-to-be LDS, readers would be more like it. Bill Willson http://www.latterdaybard.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 00:56:05 -0400 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ i=92d like to respond to both Scott and Dianna in this post (and to thom who= =20 posted while i was writing). i shouldn=92t be writing at all as i am= leaving=20 town tomorrow morning and i still haven=92t packed. but it=92s a wonderful= =20 discussion of one of my favorite works. how can i resist? i=92ll just=20 respond in order, since i don=92t have enough time to construct a coherent,= =20 well thought out response that could function as an essay. be forewarned:= =20 this is long. interesting i hope. first, dianna. i am entirely fine with dianna objecting to angels primarily because of=20 content. but i do want to respond to some of what she wrote. first to do with audience (an issue i=92ll approach from a slightly= different=20 angle in response to Scott): =93I didn't just cringe at the language [etc.]. I cringed to think that=20 audiences full of individuals, many of which likely knew very little about= =20 our religion and it's teachings, were going to sit and sympathize with this= =20 poor suffering man who was feeling that his religion was oppressing him.=94 = =20 [me: should they not sympathize with him for this reason? i do.] and: =93But seriously, looking at the story, I might love it, because I like= Mormon=20 plays that confront Mormon audiences. We are forced to learn. But we are=20 Mormons. We know our religion, hopefully. Our beliefs are not on trial. = =20 Our human foibles, our weaknesses, our sins of commission and omission are= =20 on trial.=94 i initially had a similar response. it bothered me immensely that people=20 would see the idea of mormonism that kushner presents. but it bothered me= =20 because there is truth in it. not the whole truth, but there is some there.= =20 My question in response to the reactions Dianna lists is: should Mormonism= =20 not be treated honestly for fear someone will get the wrong idea of it? now= =20 this is not a critique of dianna. she acknowledges that these statements=20 are merely a reaction and that they are not a valid critique of the work. = =20 but i believe this is a very important question. how can we insist that=20 mormon artists should present reality to mormon audiences but reality should= =20 not be presented to non-mormon audiences or by non-mormons for fear they=20 might get the wrong idea? i realize kushner didn=92t present reality in its= =20 entirety, but he did present some. as far as what is on trial in kushner=92s work: i do not believe our beliefs= =20 are on trial. in fact, the moral message of kushner=92s play actually=20 parallels some very important mormon doctrines. kushner actually reinforces= =20 some of our key beliefs (namely and simply the idea of progression). so i= =20 would disagree with the opinion implicit in what dianna says in the second= =20 passage i quoted above. i would argue that kushner does not put on trial=20 our beliefs but he does put on trial our =93foibles, our weaknesses, our= sins=20 of commission and omission.=94 in fact, i would argue this is the whole= point=20 of using mormonism as one of the three themes of the play is to foreground= =20 these very problems (foibles, weaknesses, and sins of commission and=20 omission). the problem as i see it is that it is difficult to read this play, as a=20 mormon, only once. i had to read it for a class. i had no choice. and my= =20 teacher had suggested (knowing that i am mormon) that perhaps it would be=20 interesting to me as a subject for our term paper. so i read it before the= =20 rest of the class did. and i finished the play and set it down reeling. =20 not because i didn=92t understand the moral message of the play. but= because=20 i felt like kushner associated mormonism with the antithesis of the moral=20 message of the play. i admit. i was very upset. but it didn=92t work for= me=20 to just stay upset. there was something that didn=92t fit. there was some= =20 reaction inside of me that said =93but wait. i agree with the moral message= =20 of this play, not with its antithesis. and i=92m mormon; a rather devout= one.=20 so what does that mean?=94 i read it again not because i could not= perceive=20 its moral message the first time through but because i could not reconcile = =20 kushner=92s treatment of mormonism and his mormon characters with kushner=92= s=20 moral message. i wanted to look again. and this brings me to the next passage from dianna: =93Now, I have to ask this question. You know and love this piece, and this= =20 is probably an unfair question. But how good can something be if you have= =20 to keep rereading it to really see the morality in it?=94 first, please remember i wrote not only a term paper but also a thesis about= =20 this work. i don=92t know how other people do it, but i always re-read the= =20 works i write about. and i re-read more than once. i didn=92t have to keep= =20 rereading it =93to really see the morality in it.=94 I saw that the first= time=20 through, in spite of my powerful aversion to the play=92s treatment of=20 mormons. kushner makes a case for the necessity of progressing, of=20 constructing a better world out of catastrophe. i would simply ask that you= =20 not interpret my may re-readings as evidence that it has to be sifted=20 through a sieve in order to find anything of value. to the contrary. but= =20 it does have to be sifted through a sieve, so to speak, if you=92re going to= =20 write extensively about it. as does any other piece of literature. now i did have to read and re-read in order to get my mind around the mormon= =20 characters in the play. they were so real and so fake at the same time. it= =20 bothered me. why, for instance, does kushner not recognize that mormonism= =20 is just as much a part of joe=92s internal make-up as his homosexuality? it= =20 took me two or three readings to begin to formulate my theory of a double=20 development for the mormon characters in the play; one on the surface and=20 one beneath. the text of the play actually supports the notion that joe is= =20 not entrapped in the prison of mormonism but rather trapped between two very= =20 real aspects of who he is without knowing how to negotiate them. when you= =20 read this play straight through or when you see it straight through, this is= =20 difficult to understand (i=92ll address this again below in response to=20 scott). it took me two or three readings to formulate this idea. and then= =20 it took me more readings to find all the nitty gritty details that support= =20 why i felt this way. maybe i=92m slow, but that=92s what it takes for me. one last response to dianna, quickly: =93I also understand that there's a part in Perestroika where they discuss= the=20 garment.=94 it=92s not so much discussed as used as a prop. the funny thing is that i= =20 believe kushner actually understands this somehow. joe tears off his=20 garment (after having, a few nights previously, explained it to Louis as a= =20 second skin) and declares himself free. louis, in his way, points out to=20 joe that a skin cannot be removed. this resonated with me. we can remove= =20 the object of the garment, but we cannot remove what it stands for. this is= =20 one of the elements of kushner=92s theory of progress. we cannot undo what= =20 has been done (in this instance, joe cannot undo the covenants he has made;= =20 he cannot undo the importance of mormonism in his life). we must instead=20 find a way to reconcile all of the parts of our life, everything that we are= =20 and everything that happens to us and then move forward in a constructive=20 fashion. this, at least in my opinion, actually reaffirms mormon beliefs=20 rather than mocking them. now whether garmeNts should be shown on stage=85i= =20 suppose no comment. as dianna says, it belongs on the temple thread. now for scott (sorry it took so long J): scott sites my reference to the difference between a reading and a viewing= =20 of a play and then remarks: =93but, here is the flippant remark to Amelia's comment: So what?=94 so i=92ll try to explain what. first please don=92t forget my= parenthetical:=20 =93(though watching the play will give you interesting perspective that=20 couldn't be gained by reading it).=94 i understand that a play is written= as=20 a thing to be watched. and that watching a play provides a different=20 experience from reading a play. and i realize that most of the audience=20 members will never read the play; they will only watch it. okay, caveat=20 over. to get to the meat of my =93so what=94, a couple more quotes from scott: =93for the audience, the distinction between a performance of a play and a= =20 careful reading of it does not exist.=94 [me: agreed] and =93playwright's responsibility to ensure that whatever "message" may be=20 contained in the play should be accessible to the artists who will interpret= =20 it for the audience.=94 i agree with scott. if a play cannot communicate through a performance its= =20 message, it probably has failed miserably. i believe kushner=92s play can= =20 very effectively communicate its message in performance while i agree with scott, i insist that a dramatic text is more than just=20 instructions to a director and some actors as to what a performance should= =20 include. it is also a TEXT. it is meant to be read. especially=20 contemporary dramatic literature. perhaps it will only be read by a=20 director. but even such a small audience is one that should give it a close= =20 reading. maybe the average student will not read it over and over, but i=20 would hope that a director intending to create, with the help of actors, a= =20 performance of the play would read it very closely indeed. try to=20 understand all the subtle nuances of the TEXT in order to create an accurate= =20 PERFORMANCE. and, when kushner=92s play is read this closely, it divulges= =20 much that is not easily accessible on a single reading or even a single=20 viewing, no matter how well the director and the actors present the text. back to Scott: =93If it is indeed impossible for ANY performance of a given play to=20 communicate the deepest meaning of the play, then the playwright has failed.= =20 . . . If the interpreters are masters of their craft, this understanding= =20 can occur on ONE viewing of the play; it will not require multiple in depth= =20 readings with additional supplementary research.=94 here, scott, i must humbly disagree with you. i=92ve seen many shakespeare= =20 plays. some of them i=92ve seen more than others. one of my favorites is= =20 hamlet. i=92ve seen everything from old movies to new movies; movies i like= =20 to ones i don=92t; my high school=92s product, a byu production, and a royal= =20 shakespeare production. they were all powerful. and i=92ve read it many=20 times. and every single time i left feeling like i had learned something=20 new from the play that i had not learned from other performances or readings= =20 of the play. this, in my opinion, is what makes it great. if a single=20 production created no understanding it would be a failure. but, to me, the= =20 greatness of shakespeare=92s play is its nuances. its subtleties. its=20 multifacetedness (is that a word?). if a play does not require me to=20 revisit it, i feel like it is fluff. if i can walk away from a single=20 viewing feeling like i get it, then i would object to calling the play=20 great. and if i walk away from seeing it a second time bored because i=20 already knew all that, then there=92s really a problem. and, what=92s even= more=20 incredible to my mind and the reason that i love theatre so much: i believe= =20 that a truly great performance has the same capacity. i can see a great=20 performance of the same play over and over and each time have a different=20 experience. for me, kushner=92s play achieved this. re-reading it was an adventure=20 because every time i picked up the text i found something new, something=20 fascinating, something that made me question myself and my beliefs in=20 important ways. that was my experience. it doesn=92t have to be anyone=20 else=92s. but for me, kushner=92s play is one of the great masterpieces of= the=20 last decade. and, i=92ll say it again. i wrote my THESIS on this play. understanding it= =20 didn=92t necessarily require research and outside sources, although i= believe=20 research can help. but writing an academically sound and trustworthy piece= =20 on the play does require such research. and now on to thom since he posted in the middle of my resposne (sorry--): i would agree with thom that kushner builds the kingdom. in very important= =20 ways. by foregrounding the importance of knowing one=92s self and trying to= =20 build a life accordingly. by insisting on the idea of progressing forwards= =20 out of catastrophe. by demanding love and tolerance. i believe kushner=20 reinforces much of what we believe. and i believe that by doing so he=20 =93builds the kingdom=94 whatever that means. thom says: =93What upset me was that Kushner was the first to use our symbolism in his= =20 play.=94 a friend told me that gene england made a similar comment to her regarding= =20 the play. i think thom is on to something here. we need to be unafraid to= =20 use the elements of our history and our beliefs. i won=92t write more; thom= =20 has done so beautifully. sorry for the length. this is why i generally constrain myself. i can=92t= =20 seem to stop once i get started about something i really love. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. =20 http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:46:31 -0700 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Does Intent Matter? On Sun, 4 May 2003 23:16:41 +0900 "Kari Heber" writes: > All of the discussion leads me to ask the following question (and I > apologize if this has been discussed before): Does intent of the > author/playwright/screenwriter/director/producer even matter when it > comes to interpreting the "message" of an artistic endeavor? > > It is my belief that it doesn't. What matters is the message and > interpretation the audience gives to the work. Perhaps, but that comes awfully close to saying that the author didn't intend anything. Kari gives some good examples of why intent doesn't matter, though the long quote from Swofford mostly reminds me of Peter Thorpe's jeremiad, _Why Literature is Bad for You_. Thorpe says that given the amount of time and effort it takes to portray war or any other situation, the only thing art can do is approve. He says this is particularly true of satire, for much the same reason Swofford says it's true of anti-war films (even Cacoyannis's _The Trojan Women_, I would suppose, could be pornography for soldiers who dream of the power expressed in bashing a baby's head against a wall). > If your audience is disaffected Christians and anti-religious > types, then maybe "Piss Christ" will be interpreted the way you > intend, but if your audience is active believing Christians (of any > faith) then with a crucifix in a bottle of urine or a picture of the > Madonna made out of dung your intended message is not > likely one that will find resonance. Or maybe it will. Remember the pronon _on_ is not part of the title. A list member told me a remarkable story at last year's AML gathering about giving a Sunny Schoodle lesson in a campus ward on what it means to be born in a stable with urine and dung all over the place. > Having never seen _Chicago_, I can't speak from experience, but > while Richard says we're supposed to be appalled by the behaviour > we see, it doesn't really matter that the playwright intended us to be > appalled, if this was really his intention. In our current American > Culture most people will see this and say, "That looks like it would > would have been a great time to live." How do you know that? > Just like the average 19 year old marine sees _Platoon_ and > sees his life and training glorified. In her review of _Godfather II_ Pauline Kael says, "Many people who saw _The Godfather_ developed a romantic identification with the Corleones; they longed for the feeling of protection that Don Vito conferred on his loving family. Now that the full story has been told, you'd have to have an insensitivity bordering on moral idiocy to think that the Corleones live a wonderful life, which you'd like to be part of." (Reeling, p. 398) I agree with Kael, but I suspect there are still a lot of people who would watch the wacky TV series Mad Magazine proposed: "Those Crazy Corleones." (Reminds me of a parody I made up to sing everytime a certain Barry Manilow song comes on: I strap on my Colt .45 And maybe a hitman can turn out a hit song Maybe "Don Vito" can be number 1) > It doesn't matter if Richard Paul Evans' intent was to tell a > beautiful love story, the message that some will get is that > adultery is OK and there are no real consequences to it. Yes, except that whatever adultery is in the novel is asexual. > It doesn't matter if the future Mel Gibson movie about the life of > Christ is intended to be uplifting and a testament to Him. What > will matter to many is how religious leaders of different faiths > interpret it, and how they give "their message" of it to their > followers. > > It doesn't matter if the teletubbies are intended to be good clean > fun for pre-school age children, some will interpret a purple > clad male with a purse, and named tinky-winky, as > promoting the "homosexual lifestyle." The point behind all these examples, though is not that intent doesn't matter, but that the author's intent doesn't control our reactions to something. We can use an idea, story, technology for things outside what the author intended. > So, with that I come back to my original question, does the intended > message of a work of art make one iota of difference after that art > has been released for public consumption? Let me suggest one way in which it does, and I'm partly contradicting myself about the author's intent not controlling our reaction. I'm just finishing my second reading of Luther's translation, "Evangelium des Matthaeus." Earlier today I read where the High Priests rip their clothes and say, "This man has blasphemed God, what need have we of further witnesses." (A deeply ironic passage, because even though they've advertised for false witnesses, and many have come to the trial, the High Priests can't find any who have anything to say.) There are people who believe that the man in question, who was subsequently tortured to death, was a blasphemer, and that given the laws of the time he deserved the torture. But I have never heard anyone argue that that is the message of "Evangelium des Matthaeus." Or of Markus, Lukas, oder Johannes. There are many, many different, even conflicting, interpretations of all four works, but I know of no one who has claimed that these four writers felt that the rabbi whose life and death they chronicled deserved such a vicious painful death. If the author's intent matters as little as Swofford says surely someone would be reading the Evangelists' work as a celebration of Roman political power, or to revel in the details of Roman torture. > As a consumer of art, should I be concerned with the intended > message, or is it more important for me to explore my > reaction to it? Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to both explore your reaction to a work and think about what the work is asking you to believe? > I believe the latter is ultimately more personally fulfilling. > Rather than asking how I was supposed to feel after > partaking, it is more interesting to discover what I felt > and why I felt that way, and to what capacity my > beliefs and/or actions will change (or not) afterwards. That phrase about what the work is asking you to believe comes from Reynolds Price's introductory essay to his book of Bible story translations, _A Palpable God_. He uses the phrase to argue that scriptural stories are accounts of real events that happened to real people. Discussing the story of Jacob's wrestle at Penuel in the introductory essay, "A Single Meaning: Notes on the Origins and Life of Narrative," Price says, "a modern reader, religious or not, faced with the final text, whatever its vicissitudes and earlier forms, is likely to ask the central question first--_What does this story ask me to believe?_ Either kind of reader would surely say _It asks me to believe precisely what it says_" (32). Of course, Price is using a rhetorical device. He's well aware that many modern readers don't ask what the story wants them to believe, that there are readers who accept the story as scripture but don't believe it records an actual event. He's also well aware that there are people who don't believe the story precisely because they recognize that it asks them to believe that what is says happened happened. Asking what a story wants you to believe allows Price to examine how Bible stories and held him (and millions more "over nearly four millennia" (33)) in "helpless belief." Which is dream of any storyteller, to give the readers the deep satisfaction and comfort of belief in truth. An interesting fictional treatment of this idea that scripture makes certain demands on us is in Robert A. Christmas's "Another Angel" (in Levi Peterson's anthology, _Greening Wheat_ also in Dialogue 14:2, 1981, and in Christmas's _The Fiction_). It's about a woman on her honeymoon, having married one of her grad school profs who is sort of running away from the Church, and after hearing a bit about the Bof M she decides to trace all the sources JS used to write it for her dissertation. Instead she begins responding to the book's message, very upsetting to her husband. I would also say that based on essays like Lionel Trilling's "On the Teaching of Modern Literature" (in _Beyond Culture_) and John S. Tanner's "Making a Mormon Out of Milton" (BYU Studies 24:2, 1984) that there are ethical and unethical readings of a work of art, and we ought to try to treat works of art ethically. I'll say more about this in another post. Harlow S. Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:34:48 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity I have observed that the BASIC saving principles of the gospel are never presented in obscure language. Only the sauces, the dressings and the condiments that makes the meat of the gospel appetizing, tantalizing and delectable. In my mind God would not be a just god if he obscured the saving principles. They need to be plain enough so that even the most feeble minded of his children can comprehend them. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 00:51:36 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity My daughter belonged to a bible study group and said that the Greek translation was very insightful. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 00:17:34 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Update on My Book Proposal Chris, I am finding your continuing saga fascinating and informative. Nice to have some concrete business development stuff on the list to learn from. It HAS altered how I have come to think about my endless morass of essays (i.e., unpublishable) and realize that there IS a way to mold them to intrigue certain quasi-mainstream buyers. What a revelation! Thanks for blazing the trail! And good luck, darn your hide! Keep us informed. Jongiorgi - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:00:43 EDT From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) In a message dated 5/5/03 9:15:38 PM, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << Well, let's bring back the Mormon Arts Festival again so everybody can come. Those blankety-blank artists, what elitist snobs! >> Maybe a word of explanation: There have been Mormon Arts Festivals of varying sizes occuring independent of each other for a long time, and will be, and should be. The particular festival Michael would like to bring back (which was great fun, and quite useful, and at which I met great people, many on this list) was sponsored by a group called the Mormon Arts Foundation. The festival, although requiring a fee to participate, was largely underwritten by a small circle of anonymous non-artist donors (in ten years, I haven't discovered who they are) whose dream was to see new "Mormon art" created and put before an ever larger audience. After the first four or five festivals, those donors imagined that maybe their very specific purpose would be served by underwriting the gathering of smaller groups of professional artists. The film group, for example, included only people who had made numerous widely distributed films. All the literature folks had been published by national houses. Some good things were lost in the transition from general festival to invited retreat. For many, dance was the most exciting element of the festival. At the retreat it isn't even represented (although a key address this year was delivered by a choreographer). Diversity, however, was not lost. The visual arts circle has included artists of such varying styles that, outside the church, you'd expect them to be at each other's throats. But here they were, earnestly trying to help one another succeed. The exclusivity is a thorny by-product of the donors' decision. I wasn't invited until the third year. I've attended for three years and refereed the theatre group this year and would love to continue, but I'm not at all certain that I'll be invited again. (I keep getting drawn into acting controversial play readings--just kidding, Eric). The composition of the group has changed from year to year, but being a professional artist seems to be an arbitrary pre-requisite. (Also, being at least known by the various inviters helps. The inviters change, and I know that plans to increase the number and rotation of invitees are in the works, as are plans to increase the donations that would facilitate it.) Regarding elitism, some of us admitted this year that there are probably (way probably) similar gatherings going on elsewhere that would look down on ours as kind of bush-league. Still, I don't think anybody at this year's retreat is eager to find some gathering more bush-league than ours to look down on. Hope this helps, Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold on every good gift..." (From the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 08:02:06 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: [AML] Biblical Language (was: In Defense of Obscurity) An interesting note about "you" and "thou". When the KJV was being translated "thou" and etc, were the intimate pronoun choices, rather than the archaic, formal forms they are today. (At least according the History of the English Language course I listened to. Have any of you supper smart listers heard to the contrary?) A more modern example of this usage than the KJV would be Louisa May Allcott's _Little Women_. The German professor, to show his great affection for Jo, asks to be allowed to use thee and thou, which, apparently, in his culture had a personal, intimate context. Thus, a modern translation of the scriptures could very well choose "you" over "thou" not as a way of disrespecting, or even modernizing, but choosing the pronoun use that makes God a personal and intimate being rather than a formal, distant one. I realize that at least on of our GAs has spoken of using the more formal language as being more reverent. Personally, I don't think using an archaic pronoun or a vernacular removed from our daily existence is an indication of reverence. Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 00:00:55 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Ronn Blankenship aks: "Which should be the primary goal of a writer: to tell the story s/he has to tell, perhaps _needs_ to tell, or to make a living out of one's writing? Granted, every writer wishes s/he can do both with everything s/he writes, but if that is not possible, which should take priority?" Uhhh, is this a trick question? To make a living. PERIOD. That is the FIRST priority. Any other response is just romantic pap touted by people who don't really want to be writers. Nobody "HAS" to tell any story. Again: romantic pap. We don't write because we HAVE to, we write because we CAN. Any writer who writes because they HAVE TO will eventually go insane. Check your history books. A lot of our best writers went nuts or were nuts to begin with. So the question "can I do both?" is really the wrong question. It's not a question of can I write the stories I "need" to tell AND make a living out of them. The real question is can I write the stories I "need" to write and not eventually go insane. If you are going to do both, i.e., write AND keep your sanity, you can do it ONLY DO IT ONE OF TWO WAYS: 1) You can decide that you are going to be a happy life-long armature. You will write, but not be a writer. You will be content and happy and sane writing the stories you want to write, working a day job which you enjoy and which does not drive you insane, and sharing your stories from time to time with friends, family, on-line discussion groups, etc. And be happy. (Did I say "happy" three times? Yes, because if this scenario makes you unhappy, you will go crazy.) Group 1 people never want to make a living out of their stories, ever. They don't care about that, that was NEVER their goal, so that trick question above does not apply to them. 2) You can decide that you want to write professionally. Not just to write, but to be a writer. Group 2 people only have one option. At the point when they decide they want to be pros (and remember, we are only talking about the SANE writers), you have to learn your craft AND your business. You write the best stories you can, you target them for a market, you do everything you can to sell them to that market, you DO sell them, and then you'll do it all over again, over and over for the rest of your life. It's your JOB. It not some romantic idea of "being a writer" it's your profession, your business, your J - O - B. The artists of this category are so good that they make us FORGET this fact, but that doesn't mean it isn't the truth and nothing but the truth. Being a writer is work, hard work, disciplined work. Day in, day out, nose to the grindstone WORK. Anywhere from one- to ten-thousand words a day. Output, product. The art is in making it LOOK like art. Any other option will eventually lead to insanity. If you can't sell what you write and you WANT to, you'll go crazy. If you don't care, great. You have no either/or dilemma. It does not apply. But if you DO want to be a professional and you DO want to remain sane, you HAVE TO SELL YOUR WORK. There are different ways to do that. But don't for one second tell me that there is a dichotomy between the stories you "HAVE TO TELL" and the stories you "HAVE TO SELL". They are the SAME. And if the stories you are writing DON'T sell (and you WANT them to) you have to do one of two things: 1) Change your stories. Or 2) Change the market you are trying to sell them to. Any other option leads to insanity. So, if Mormon Horror sells, and that's what you "have" to write: great. But if it doesn't sell, you have to either take out the "Mormon" or take out the "Horror". And if you CAN'T do one of those two things that, you'll go crazy. Or, you can change your mind and realize that you were really a category 1 person all along and you never did want to sell the stories you have to tell. So, again, there is no dichotomy, there is no priority, there is no either/or. You only want to write in a vacuum. For you, there is no dilemma. The question above doesn't count. For all the rest of us category 2 people, there is no discussion. The stories have to sell. End of story. This isn't romantic. It isn't hogwash. It's not artsy-fartsy-feel-good-self-motivational crap. It's real. You want to write: write. Everybody should (it's been proven to help arthritis). But if you want to be a WRITER, screw your head on straight, get the dream dust out of your eyes, wake up and smell the Postum, baby. This is life in the real world. And writing is a business. If I make cars, that's my product. If I paint houses, how well I perform my skilled profession is my product. If the customer is not happy, they don't pay. I have to redo the job better. I get more jobs because I get a reputation for being good at what I do. Painting houses. Building cars. If I write books, movies, plays, stories, songs, paint pictures, etc., that is my PRODUCT. It's not art, its a product. SELL IT. THEN... everyone will think you're an artist. Nuff said. Jaded Jongiorgi - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 00:56:58 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror Clark Goble states: "I think that there is an open field for Mormon horror. In a way our cosmology and mythology is much more ripe for such literature than even Catholicism. (And you'll note that Catholicism disproportionately is represented in horror) I'm sure that if someone was to visit the folk story collection at BYU they'd find that a disproportionate number of such folk tales are basically horror stories." Yes, but there is a difference between a ghost story and a horror story. Or even a story which acknowledges spirits and extra-normal events and a horror story. And OSC doesn't write Mormon Horror. He's a Mormon, and sometimes he writes something which might be called horror (although even Lost Boys is pretty tame compared to some of the horror I've read). It is a very good point to make that Mormon cosmology is ripe for explorations of the supernatural. This is perhaps why I have always been very comfortable in own explorations of the supernatural. I've had some pretty bizarre encounters, too. I've experienced some intense psychic phenomenon; I've been involved in exorcisms; I've had experiences that would creep out the average Mormon. Even though our cosmology is fully open to such things, and explains their existence and their limits and the uses and disguises to which the Opposition puts such phenomenon to a fair degree of depth, many still experience fear and confusion when confronted with stories about such things. My companion, who was with me when we were involved in the excommunication of a Satan-worshiping LDS witch, was so freaked out he was shaking in his boots and could hardly function for a couple of days, whereas I was not particularly phased. I am sure there are many others who would not be phased, but I am more certain that the vastly greater majority of Mormon audiences do not want exposure to such subject matter in a forum which they consider LDS literature. So when I write supernatural stuff (I guess angels are "supernatural" so I should use a different word) -- when I write horror or more darkly oriented para-normal experiences, my gut tendency is to package such tales for the mainstream market and diminish the LDS element out of respect for the frailer elements of Mormondom. And that's not a satirical or insulting label. We have to respect people's limits to some extent, even though, as artists, our gut impulse is always to push the limits and strain the bounds of our envelope. The fact is that classic Catholicism takes their role as soldiers of Christ in a war against the forces of evil very seriously, in a way which we tend to have forgotten or make light of. I have some Mormon "confrontation-with-the-forces-of-evil" stories which are true, but which I don't necessarily consider "horror", nor have I ever attempted to package or sell to any market; but it would certainly take a lot of coaxing for me to ever consider packaging it for specifically LDS readership. If I did so, I would greatly diminish the sense of dark loathing, and greatly emphasize the light of the priesthood in such confrontations, changing the tember of the story from a "horror" story to a "miracle" story: a different genre altogether. When I'm in the mood to be creeped out, I pick up authors who I know are good at that, but I don't go looking at DB. When someone picks up an OSC book (with a few exceptions) they are not picking up "Mormon literature" they are picking up a sci-fi book or a horror book or an alternate universe fantasy book. It's in the packaging, it's in how it is sold. My contention is that if I wrote a horrifying, scary and inconclusively resolved (i.e., truly "horror" and not "miracle") story about two LDS missionaries confronting satanic forces in a witch coven in Lyon (which I certainly COULD do, and I wouldn't be making all of it up, either), I might get a bite from one of the LDS magazines, and probably could sell it to Signature, but DB, Covenant, etc., would probably never buy it, and if they did, their consumers probably wouldn't. My other contention is that that's okay. I don't want to cram something down anybody's throat. I'd much rather turn the LDS missionaries into a Catholic priest and sell it to Random House nationwide than stick with haunted Elders and a get a 1000-copy print run for Signature on the Wasatch Front. Why limit yourself? If you've spent all your time to write something, and write it well, and making one or two changes can make it accessible to millions but refusing to make those changes keeps you at a print run of 1000, what's the point of that? To "force" Mormons to confront the fight against evil? To make a name for yourself as a bad boy? To smirk at your bishop and tell him it's all gospel-based? I don't get why those would be interesting goals. Broad-minded Mormons or LDS readers who like a varied staple, will find their fodder in all the usual places. I don't have to have my book on DB's shelves to reach them. But if a book IS on DB's shelves, why is it bad that it fits within a given range of categorization? Hey, I don't submit my serial killer screenplay to a YA or middle grade book packager and suggest that it be turned into a series for 12-year-olds. There are market-appropriate guidelines for submission of various genres to various publishers. Successful writers always target their manuscripts to specific buyers' needs. Yes, we try to transcend the genre, yes we always try to write well, but why waste your precious writing time polishing a manuscript for which there is no market? Especially when one or two changes suddenly opens up doors? Okay, I've been hitting this theme pretty hard today in a number of different posts, so I'll shut up. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #51 *****************************