From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #54 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, May 16 2003 Volume 02 : Number 054 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 17:05:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Brian Evenson in Dave Eggers' _The Believer_ Dave Eggers and the team from "McSweeney's" have a new literary magazine out called "The Believer." Its May 2003 issue has an article about Brian Evenson, by Ben Ehrenreich, titled "The Bad Mormon: Dead Stepfathers With Mouths Full of Bees Are Not Well-Regarded at Brigham Young University." Details can be found at http://www.believermag.com ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:05:31 +0900 From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] Biblical Language Tracie Stated: 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?) - --------------------- Yes, thee/thou were used as the more familiar forms of "you" in olden times. However, if you take a look the following links, you will find that the original use of thee, thou, thy, and thine were singular, and you/ye and your were plural forms of what is now, in english, "you." This was the most common use of these pronouns; to distinguish between singular and plural, just like "I" and "we" or "him/her" and "them." http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/Y0026600.html: The American Heritage Dictionary defination of y'all and has details on the singular/plural use of thee and you. States that "Thou and thee were quite rare in educated speech in the 16th century, and they disappeared completely from standard English in the 18th." http://www.hf.ntnu.no/engelsk/staff/johannesson/111sos/L11-O03.htm: A fascination page that describes how the use of thee versus you denoted social standing and power. http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html: A good overview of the singular/plural, and also states that the "familiar" use was common from 1450-1650. http://www.linguistlist.org/~ask-ling/archive-most-recent/msg01581.html: Another small page that describes how thee/thou and plural became used for formal situations and you became used in informal situations. http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~dchesney/theeand.htm: An interesting personal page on the plural/singular use of thee/thou and you in the Bible. Makes the arguement that this is one of the reasons the KJV is a "superior translation." Tracie further states: 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. - ------------------ Actually, if we were to change all the thees and thous and thines and thys to "you," there would be significant meaning lost. How would we know if Christ is speaking to all the crowd following him (plural "you") or if he is speaking specifically to another person individually (singular "thee")? Ever since I researched this meaning of thee/thy, I have actually enjoyed reading the KJV more than I used to. I find my understanding is enhanced by knowing the singular versus plural meaning of the pronouns used. However, in one point I agree with Tracie, I find the use of thee and thy to be archiac in prayers, and not necessarily an indication of reverance. I happen to speak in modern english. I don't tell my wife "I love thee," even though she is the person I am most familiar with. Why should I converse with God this way? Kari Heber Okinawa, Japan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 21:39:57 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Modernizing Shakespeare (was: In Defense of Obscurity) At 11:59 PM 5/7/03 -0600, you wrote: >A comparable situation exists with Shakespeare. It is impossible for us >to experience Shakespeare as the original audiences did, because the >instruments we use today (language) are different from then. Clark >suggests that translating Shakespeare into a modern vernacular would be >a dreaful thing, but I ask why? Why shouldn't we be able to experience >Shakespeare as the original audiences did? It would be important that >the translator knows what he's doing so he can preserve the essence of >Shakespeare in the modern vernacular, but to suggest that such a thing >would be aesthetically horrendous I can't accept. It's not like it would >rob us of the traditional Shakespearean experience we're used to: the >original versions would still be around. Trying to translate Shakespeare into current vernacular is a great way to discover how brilliant the original playwright was. He could make a statement, clearly and concisely, in two lines that requires a fat paragraph in modern English. Of course, we can't make it up as we go along the way he could, because the language was more fluid then. The thing is, too, that I'd rather hear Macbeth say, "Lay on Macduff!" than "F*** you, Macduff!" Maybe Jongiorno could do a good job of it. I really liked the iambic pentameter passage he gave us based on the Book of Mormon, so why couldn't he take it the other way? It would be interesting to choose a passage from Shakespeare and have various list members take a stab at rendering it into modern prose. Not only would it be a lot of fun and very enlightening, but I think it would increase our appreciation for the Bard. I'll bet the various interpretations would be quite different from each other. barbara hume [MOD: Okay, I'll formalize it...Anyone up to the challenge?] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:56:45 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Slowdown At 10:36 PM 5/9/03 -0500, Jonathan Langford wrote: >Folks, > >Over the next week, I have both a mort of grading Been looking through the OED again, have you? - -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam=85 God bless America! My home, sweet home. - -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:58:59 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror I thought the entirety of Treasure Box was incredibly boring. In fact, I can't remember much of anything of his later work that I really liked. I am now reading "Seventh Son" for the first time. I must say I'm enjoying it! "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > Interesting. For me, _Treasure Box_ is Card's worst work. The first half > is as good as anything he wrote, but the second half breaks down into > tedious cliches. The ending is lifted wholesale from one or more horror > movies. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 21:04:40 -0400 From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Horror D. Michael Martindale: >Interesting. For me, _Treasure Box_ is Card's worst work. The first half >is as good as anything he wrote, but the second half breaks down into >tedious cliches. The ending is lifted wholesale from one or more horror >movies. > I don't normally "do" horror. I picked up "Treasure Box" at the library because I saw OSC's name, and didn't think to check the catagory. I went into it expecting a regular sci-fi or fantas, so I was a tad confused in the beginning when it looked like it was taking place in the "real" world, but I got used to it, and then it took me completely by suprise when it blew up. I might even call it a traumatic experience, traipsing la-de-da through the daisy fields of whats-his-faces love life and POW! He's eating spiders and his wife doesn't leave footprints. Eeeeah. So that might have contributed to my reaction. I've only recently started watching horror films. Two, actually. "The Sixth Sense" and "The Mothman Prophecies". (The first one rocked and the seond one was a MAJOR disappointment.) So I wouldn't know horror cliches either. All new to me. ~Jamie Laulusa _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 18:09:05 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Agency and Mormon Lit (was: In Defense of Moderate Judgement, Part 2) Jacob Proffitt, in his response to part II of Jon's essay on moderate judgement, writes: "Doesn't that mean we should strive for the ability to disagree with someone--to *know* that they are wrong--and still be able to treat them with kindness, love and respect?" NOTE: The "that" refers back to idea that God knows when we are wrong, yet still loves us and lets us choose for ourselves. Here, I think, is an idea that could spark quality, exciting Mormon fiction. I understand that some of the literary baggage some (many?) of us are carrying from the literature of the 20th century is deeply suspicious of this idea. That we're supposed to all be writing about decay and hypocrisy in the suburbs and hollow men, about how modern life alienates us from nature, history and mystery. And I like to read some of that stuff. Heck, I've even taken to reading the fiction that the "The New Yorker" runs. But, I think that one of the central ideas that could help define Mormon fiction is that of free agency. How does the Mormon understanding of free agency affect how Mormons approach the messy details of life? How can one judge rightously and still treat others with love and respect? What happens when the person on the receiving end rejects, is indifferent to, or accepts that love and respect---especially when he or she knows the underlying judgement/standards of the person trying to offer it? What happens when a Mormon is able to judge but not to love? What are the repercussions for that character and what keeps him or her from being able to love? The variations seem endless. What's more, is that it's possible that the right writer would be able to deal with some of the difficult topics facing Mormon families (homosexuality, infidelity, addiction, affluence/non-affluence, mental illness, etc.) in a way that would speak to 'mainstream' ('Orthodox?' 'convervative?') Mormon readers. This is not to say that those of us interested in Mormon literature shouldn't support fringe/outsider/minority (I can't remember the term that Bruce Jorgensen uses in his excellent essay on the subject which can be found on the Mormon Literature Web site) -oriented fiction. But, in my opinion and (admittedly limited) experience, there haven't been many works of Mormon fiction that have dealt with this issue in a satisfying way. I know that we've talked around this idea before, but any thoughts on how the Mormon doctrine of free agency could specifically influence a particularly Mormon approach to fiction/art/criticism? ~~William Morris __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 23:34:18 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Goal of Writing (was: 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?" > To which Jongiorgi replies: >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. I disagree with this, and indeed with much (though not all) that Jongiorgi goes on to say in development of this idea. First, I'm not sure why we put this cachet on being a full-time, self-supporting writer--on making writing a job (to use Jongiorgi's phrase). A lot of the best writing in any time period has been done by people who weren't self-supporting writers. Chaucer. Shakespeare. (Yes, he supported himself with the theater, but my understanding is that he got most of his revenues from part-ownership of the company, and then some from acting, and only a little from the actual writing of plays.) Tolkien. Gene Wolfe. (I think he eventually quit his job as an editor of a technical journal, but he was still doing it when he wrote most of _Book of the New Sun_.) In many cases, superb writing has been done with little expectation that it would ever make money. Yes, most writers want their work to be read, but in many cases, they don't have much anticipation that it will do much more than (at best) earning back the printing costs. A lot of good writing would never have been done if the expectation of making a living had been a prerequisite. And the quality of that writing is high enough that to call it "amateur," while perhaps technically correct (if the definition of amateur is something done for love not money), does damage to the field of art itself if we interpret it as meaning that amateur work is somehow inferior. I'll agree that one mark of a good writer is to know one's audience and adjust one's writing to them. But there are limits to that. I don't think anyone becomes a creative writer simply to make money. Rather, it's to make money by creating particular types of stories, or poems, or whatever, that one cares about. If the message is, you can make a living as a writer if you write something you're completely uninterested in, then I think few if any writers worth their salt would bother with the racket. If someone is so in love with the idea of writing that he or she will do anything he/she has to, simply in order to write and have people read the results, then I think it's unlikely to result in worthwhile art. Now, having said that, I have to back up and admit that I probably come as close as anyone on this list to fitting this description. I have taken pay for doing many different types of writing, including writing that I had little interest in. Writing is quite possibly the only thing I do really well, and so I'm willing to do it, no matter what "it" may be. I like the process of putting thoughts into words, fitting whatever the needs of my client may be. I also don't believe that what I'm doing has any lasting worth as creative work (though at times it does get pretty creative...but never mind that for now). Nor do I think that the fact that I do whatever I have to in order to satisfy my client--my audience--means that my work or myself is any more deserving of serious consideration as a writer. The really good artists, from what I have observed, do not in fact analyze their audiences and write what their audiences will want. Rather, they decide within themselves what stories they want to tell. They may then conduct some audience analysis and market research to decide (a) which, of all the stories they want to tell, are most likely to be successful, and (b) ways they can tweak their stories to help them reach a wider audience. But the audience--the selling--does not ultimately drive the product. Not for most of the really good writers. (Shakespeare is one possible exception.) This is a reverse, for me. I spent time in graduate school working with rhetorical criticism, and I think there's a lot of value to thinking about the rhetorical situation of writing. But in comparing what I was theorizing with what actually happens with real writers, both currently and historically, I decided that there was something to the romantic notion of a writer's vision after all--that it's not all driven by audience and market considerations. So that's what I'd say, ultimately. Yes, it's important to develop discipline--otherwise our works will never get out there. Yes, it's important to market ourselves, and make a living at it, or we may not be able to pay for our habit. But in the end, how we write--our writing habits and motivations--has no clear correlation to the quality of our work. Are we driven to make a living at writing, with a primary goal of commercial success? Good writing has been accomplished that way. Do we think of ourselves as writing for ourselves alone, and only incidentally writing for a market? Good writing has been accomplished that way too. So let's not value one over the other, or create a hierarchy in which either the full-time professional or the amateur is valued more highly. Judge by the work itself, and leave it at that. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 00:29:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: RE: [AML] Miracles Thom said: > > 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. My sainted > grandmother, a Pentocostal, once claimed to have seen a man healed. > "His foot became three inches longer right there in front of my eyes," > she claimed. On further discussion, she hadn't actually seen his leg > get longer, she hadn't measured it before and after, she had simply > relied on the testimony of the person SAYING his leg was longer. 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 > > Reply: These are interesting assertions of personal opinion, but as far as I can tell they bear no relation to the generally accepted doctrines and practices of the LDS church. Indeed, the very concept of "verifiability" evokes an epistemology of scientific materialism which takes as its basic premise the non-existence of God. Some people are more prone to identify marvelous events as miraculous than others, and usually the more education one gets from our godless schools, the more inclied they are toward the kind of agnosticism which requires scientific verification of the divine hand in human experience. "Will you measure our God?," say the priests in the Bower in the Arsacides chapter of Moby-Dick. As I said, two things are required for miracles. First, something divinely marvelous happens which is beyond human understanding and capability. Second, that event is properly seen, understood, and interpreted through spiritual eyes as divine intervention. We should also be aware that not everyone present at the marvelous event sees or understand, or even cares. For example, not everyone at the transfiguration of Brigham Young or at the revelation on tithing that day at the St. George Tabernacle saw the marvelous event. For some, it was just another boring conference session. Fred Pinnegar > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 08:51:54 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] _Run Lola Run_ (was: In Defense of Obscurity) Let's see if I can divine the impression people have of me after this discussion. You think that I only like very simple, straightforward stuff with a minimum of artistic flourish. Better yet, a complete absence of it. That would not be entirely true. Evidence for that is the film _Run Lola Run_. This is a film from five years ago made in German by a German writer/director. It falls squarely under the category of avant gard. The story is about a girl named Lola with a boyfriend named Manni who works as a drug courier. He had just completed a job where he picked up 100,000 marks that h e was supposed to deliver to his boss. While riding the subway (without a ticket, as he usually does) inspectors boarded. He followed his natural reaction of getting off the train as soon as possible, only to realize he'd left the bag of money on the train. The movie starts with Manni calling Lola, telling her he has to come up with 100,000 marks in twenty minutes, or he's dead. In desperation, he's planning on robbing a nearby store. Lola tells him to wait--she'll try to find the money for him. The techniques of the storytelling are far from transparent. We get a surreal opening scene with crowds of people milling about, with the camera focusing on all the support characters who are the only ones with any significant color to them and the only ones who look directly into the camera, and the only ones standing still instead of milling. The narrator during this scene is also a support character and the last one we focus on as he waxes poetic about how life is like a soccer game, then kicks a soccer ball impossibly high into the air, which the camera follows as it points down to the grouns. As our point of view rises, all the milling people gather together to form letters that spell out the German version of the title: "Lola rennt." Normalcy takes over during the fateful, but energy-charged phone call, and ends with it. As Lola tries to figure out a way to get the money, the camera rotates around her dizzily using stop-motion animation to make things surreal again. Flashes of the people she's thinking about as possible sources of money zip by in a fraction of a second. When she decides on one, she runs out the door and down the stairs, passing a neighbor in her apartment building who has the door open, the TV on, and is talking on the phone. The camera leaves Lola and zooms around the neighbor, then focuses on the TV which is showing an animated cartoon of Lola running down the stairs and confronting a nasty boy with his growling dog. After that quick encounter we're back to live action as Lola runs through town. When she passes one of the supporting characters, we are treated to a "flash forward" of what will happen to that character for the rest of his/her life in about two seconds through a bunch of still photographs with the sound of a camera snapping pictures. Lola fails in her first attempt to get the money, Manni tries to rob the store, and in the process one of them is shot by the police. We suddenly switch to a flashback of the two in bed, quietly discussing their relationship. Thanks to that memory, Lola decides by sheer force of will that not even death is going to separate them, and transports herself back to the beginning so she can try again. With each iteration, Lola does something slightly different, and that influence impacts the lives of all the people she encounters. Through the quick flash forwards, we see how their lives have changed. Whenever a flashback occurs giving us the backstory of why the original phone call is taking place, the director shoots it in black and white. Whenver something is happening in the present, but away from Lola or Manni, it's shot in video. Anything current scene with Lola and Manni is shot in 35mm color film or animation. The flashbacks of Lola and Manni discussing their relationship in bed are flooded with red lighting. And of course the flash forwards are presented in still photography. The soundtrack is in an alternate rock style from the 90s, which I normally don't care for but which works beautifully for the film and therefore makes me like it. Twice the image on the screen is transitioned into by having the top half bang into the bottom half like a clapboard clapping, accompanied by a loud bang. Steadycam movement--more like flight--of the camera pervades the film. Many of the scenes are filmed using a crane shot that is consistently sixty meters high. And because the film is in German, on top of everything else, we have subtitles to read. The vehicle for telling this story is always intruding itself into our consciousness. There is nothing transparent about this film's style. We are always aware of it. Just the sort of thing I would be inclined to hate. Except that _Run Lola Run_ is one of my favorite movies. And there's one reason for it. The style, which constantly intrudes into my awareness, never intrudes into the story. On the contrary, every bit of avant gard technique contributes to the clarity of the storytelling. The style is perfect for this story. The plot and the acting are full of energy, and so is the style. The whole storyline is surreal, so many of the images are too. There is a specific style for presentiong each time period of the story, which helps us to keep track of what's going on in a film that could have easily lost us if shot by a less competent director. The music was perfect running music. _Run Lola Run_ is proof positive that I am fine with an unusual, challenging style, as long as that style contributes to telling the story, rather than detracting from it. The style is bold and exhibitionist, always crying out, "Look at me! Look at me!" But never does it create obscurity. Now you could have enjoyed this magnificent piece of film work and discussed it with other film enthusiasts just last Saturday, like four of us did, if you had only attended D. Michael's Film Lab for May--along with two other fine films that fit the theme "twisted timelines." But since you didn't, you'll just have to set your sites on June's film lab, where we view three films that explore different Christian religions: _Witness_ (Amish), _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ (Greek Orthodox), and Robert Duvall's labor of love _The Apostle_ (Pentecostal). - -- 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: Sun, 11 May 2003 18:39:47 EDT From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: Re: [AML] Bookbinding I found an excellent book, Hand Bookbinding, A Manual of Instruction, ALDREN A. WATSON (Dover Craft Books) at my local art supply store (LIttle Rock, AR). They also had all the supplies mentioned in the book, but everything used can be duplicated with things from your local crafts and fabric stores. (While shopping with my sister in Corna, CA I found that my local art supply store is a treasure trove of stuff that may not be typical everywhere.) The process seems to be pretty time comsuming but doable. I am working on a picture book for the children of my extended family about my husband's grandmother's immigration to America and I've chosen to bind it with a spirial ring binding. I'm laminating the covers and it's easy and not too expensive to punch it and attach the bindings at Kinko's (I can do it for free at work on my lunch hour so my only cost for binding is laminating and buying the ring thingys). They will look more like a cookbook, but I think they will hold together pretty well and look nice. Let you know how it turns out - it's Christmas for everyone on that side of the family. Cathryn Lane - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 06:29:57 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Signing Off for a While [MOD: Andrew will be greatly missed. And yes, please, someone volunteer to take up the slack with the newspapers! Good luck to Andrew with familial and professional endeavors. He's been a real help to me the last couple of years.] I'm sorry to say I have to sign off the list for a while. Taking care of two kids while trying to finish off my thesis means I never get a chance to go to school to check the messages. I hope to be back in the fall, when I should be done with the dissertation. For the last couple of years I have been going through the SL Tribune, Deseret News, and Daily Herald, and posting Mormon literature/film/theater-related articles to the list. I hope someone will take up this job while I am gone. Please volunteer yourself publically. Mostly just check the weekend papers. The DN and DH are the easiest, as they have "Arts and Entertainment" buttons on their website, which list all the articles in those sections for the last week or so. For the Tribune, you have to look at their Arts or Lifestyle section for each day separately. Jonathon, you might as well take me off the board for now, and no need to cc me on your messages. Chris, I can still do the Irreantum book blurb thingee. When is the next one due? I am sorry to miss all the fun. See you soon, Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 15:09:36 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] re: Goal of Writing [MOD: Bill's suggested thread title, "Real Writers," is probably better than the one I used--but since mine went out first, and I try to keep us with consistent thread titles as much as possible, I'm afraid that his superior one dies a death. Sigh.] Jon Enos recently said something that bothered me, but at the moment I = decided to ignore it, and pass it off as just controversial rhetoric, = that applied to his own weltanschauung, and not to mine. However after = mulling it over I have decided I need to respond, if I want my world to = remain peaceful and a safe haven for my psyche. What Jon said, and I must paraphrase, and try to recall the gist, as I = did not save the post, was -=20 "A person who says they write because they have to write, or that they = have a story that they have to tell, yet remain unpublished, are not = really writers at all but merely obsessed hobbyists [or something to = that effect]" He also said something to the effect that real writers: sell what they write, If it doesn't sell they change it to what will sell, and he implied that the only real motivation to write is money. Sorry Jon, that may be your reality, however there are other realities = in the world of writers that work equally as well. I agree writing is = hard work, and sometimes it pays very poorly. I believe only about 1 - = 2% of writers ever get rich from their efforts, these I think are also = called authors. That is why in my weltanschauung, and I'm sure other = writers will agree, I write because I just can't not write. I write = because I am a writer, it is something that comes with my genes, I can't = help it or turn away from it. When I have something to say, the only way = I can say it effectively is to write it. I feel that what I write is = important, and that it needs to be written. I want what I write to be = published, but that isn't why I write it. I feel that eventually what I = have written will be read and appreciated by the dying breed of lovers = of the written word. If what I write isn't published until after I leave = this world, so what? Money isn't the be all end all of the writing = world. Writers are born, not manufactured in the English departments of = academia. I don't mean to say that everything I write is publishable. I fill my = wastebaskets regularly with writing that should never see the light of = day. On the other hand many of my writing exercises are wonderful pieces = of wit and charm which make wonderful reading material, but that doesn't = mean they are publishable. Eventually some of it may find its way to the = published pages of my work. Jon, if the money and the market are the only motivator for real = writers, what about Anne Frank? Do you think she was dreaming of the = millions of dollars her work would bring in the world of book = publishing, as she sat in her dimly lit attic scribbling in her diary? What about "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair?" Do you think the = author should have rewritten it as "The Upkeep, Maintenance and Repair = of the Indian Motorcycle," and left out all the dialogue, and story = about the trip, and his relationships with his son and family or his own = personal weltanschauung?=20 What about Beatrix Potter, and her "Tales of Peter Rabbit?" Do you think = she should have given up and put her manuscripts in a trunk in her = attic, just because some money hungry publisher didn't see the vision of = millions of children being tucked in at night after listening to their = parents read one of her wonderful tales? And finally, what about J.K. Rawling? She was told by many prestigious = publishers that her work was unpublishable and would never sell. Did she = quit? Did she take up needle-point? Did she change her story, voice, or = style? No! She is now showing writers and authors the way. I say not all writers become authors, but the majority of good authors = were writers first. Writers are born to be writers. There is no way a = human being would subject themselves to the disappointment, frustration, = rejection, and criticism that writers experience, just for money. I made = most of my money surveying, mapping, and writing legal descriptions. = Now, because I love the written word, books, and the creative process = called writing, I plan to spend the rest of my life doing it. I will do = it because I love it, and because it is part of my genetic make up. I = was born a writer and that is how I will die. Bill Willson, writer bmdblu2@atbi.com http://www.laterdaybard.com=20 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #54 *****************************