From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #70 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, June 2 2003 Volume 02 : Number 070 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:37:08 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon Horror - ---Original Message From: Clark Goble > The idea that all evil spirits can be dealt with in a "brief, even=20 > perfunctory way" seems incorrect. At a minimum we have Matthew 17:21=20 > where Jesus say, "this kind goeth not out but by prayer and=20 > fasting." =20 > If the twelve apostles couldn't do it, I rather doubt I could do it=20 > were I the first priesthood holder to arrive. Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to base an = entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. Any new encounter is just = that, a new encounter with little or no continuity from previous events. LDS = myth and theology would have to be stretched a bit thin to create a spiritual antagonist that persists enough to create something we'd call Horror. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:07:06 -0600 From: Bruce Young Subject: [AML] _I Am Jane_ Performance Margaret (i.e., Margaret Blair Young) and I would like to invite all AML members--and anyone else you would like to tell--to attend the play I AM JANE. It will be performed Friday, June 6 at 7:00 p.m. and Saturday, June 7 at 2:00 p.m. in the Bountiful Regional Center (just off Interstate 15 at exit 318). There is no charge for admission and no ticket required. Seating will be open, with seats available on a first come, first seated basis. Many of you are acquainted with this play, written by Margaret and winner of the 2000 AML Award for drama. It tells the stories of Jane Manning James, Elijah Abel, and other early African-American members of the Church. In reality, the play is a collaboration, incorporating music (mainly Negro spirituals) and the actual words of Jane Manning James and others. Moving, illuminating, and at times humorous, it presents the faith, the pain, and the endurance of some of the great Latter-day Saints of the first decades of the Church. We hope you can come. Bruce and Margaret Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:13:33 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: [AML] Role of Artists (was: Artist's Personal Lives...) > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > >[mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Bill Willson > >prophets. ???? never-the-less, (imho) prophets are and should > >definitely be in a realm all by themselves. > > Which is why I used the term "similar" in describing their mantles. > They are not the same, they have different responsibilities, different > stewardships, if you will. > > Thom So Thom, to answer my original question- I'm curious, perhaps ignorantly so, as to why you make the distinction between *We* (authors/writers) and poets-- which you have pigeonholed with prophets? My point is, don't you consider poets to be writers too? Or are you attributing poets with some sort of higher plain of inspiration similar to revelation from God? I personally think poets and writers are in the same milieu or of the same ilk. No? We may be inspired it's true, but our inspiration comes from living and experiencing life. [Bill Willson] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 23:20:40 -0700 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of the Church/Art Paradox, Part 2 On Mon, 19 May 2003 22:16:13 Scott Parkin , replying to a question from Jongiorgi Enos's friend J.C. ("If the Church is true, why are there so many bozos in it?" Or: "If the church is so true, why is there so much mediocrity in=20 members of the church.") writes: =20 > Might I suggest Marden Clarke's fine essay "Liberating Form" as an=20 > interesting take on this question--or at least one that resonates=20 > strongly with it. I read it in his anthology of the same title; it was=20 > originally published in Dialogue, I believe, back in 1974 or so. Thanks for thinking of this, Scott. Someone at his memorial service, Bert Wilson I think, told about him getting a rejection slip for some poems, which mentioned that they were two strongly focused on his family. "Why can't I be the poet who writes about his family?" he asked. He wrote a lot about his family, and "Liberating Form" was about me. It starts by discussing a Fathers and Sons outing up Spanish Fork Canyon (probably the one where a little rock hit our windshield on the way up the canyon at just the right place and frequency to shatter it, though being safety glass it mostly stayed in the frame) and an exercise, a set of questions to talk about, which led to an interesting conversation. He says the questions were a form which gathered together and released energy in a way that wouldn't have happened if there had been no form, then talks about what forms do in literature to concentrate creative energy and release it, then talks about the Church as a liberating form.=20 He wrote it up as a Sacrament Meeting talk, then sent it off to Lavina Fielding Anderson at the Ensign, and she published a shortened version in June 1977, p. 43-45. A longer version was also printed in BYU Studies, Autumn 1974, p. 29=9640. Then he used it for the title essay of a 1992 collection. Drop me a note if you'd like to read it. He told me once that he was implicitly addressing the concerns of people who were uncomfortable with social or intellectual or other restrictions in the Church and thinking of leaving. It was his plea to them to stay and let the Church act as the form that concentrated then liberated their energies. Harlow S. Clark O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horseman thereof. II Kings 2:12, 13:14 Renounce war and proclaim peace - --Joseph Smith, Aug. 6 ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 30 May 2003 02:41:12 -0700 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] Cooperative Publishing (was: Does Intent Matter?) From: "Scott Parkin" D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Yes, few artists are perfect. Like few of any other profession. So does > that we mean we allow people who know nothing about a profession make > the decisions instead of the imperfect professional? But that's the way the business is run, isn't it? Publishers are not artists; they're business owners who want to make as much money with as little investment as possible. They're largely held in thrall by distributors who are even less concerned with art than publishers, but who do the ugly work of tracking shipments and payments and sales so that (eventually) the author gets paid. . . . *************************************************** Travis: Do authors really need to get paid? If so, how much? A strange question, I know. Why can't we just make books and never do accounting paperwork? I HATE PAPERWORK WITH A PASSION!! Recently I interned for a college press, Eastern Washington U. Press, and many of their authors don't make jack (granted, I don't have the numbers). But there's something to be said for an academic press, or other small publisher, going it alone, producing art for art's sake. Yes, to do it right, one has to be very, very organized (which most writers tend not to be). I recently read a few articles about self-publishing groups. The first, "Report on the Fiction Collective" (1980) by Gene Lyon was about a group of writers that got together to publish works they thought important (their own works, essentially). And I quote Mr. Lyons, quoting Ronald Sukenick, a founding member of the Fiction Collective: "The group's answer has been to establish 'not a publishing house, but a 'not-for profit' cooperative conduit for quality fiction, the first of its kind in this country, in which writers make all business decisions and do all editorial and copy work.' Since its founding in 1974, the Fiction Collective has published more than twenty titles, for each of which the author has put up $3,000 or more of his or her own money to cover production expenses. Books are accepted or rejected by a vote of the membership, consisting of previously published writers. Copyediting chores are shared." And again, Lyon: "We have more mediocre fiction writers, poets, and critics than we need. What we lack is readers. Most of the Fiction Collective's members would do themselves and the rest of us a favor by knocking off the boasting and the bitching for a while and getting back to the classroom to train some." The Fiction Collective failed because what they essentially did is subcontract out all the tasks of publishing, and, yes, they published twenty-some-odd books, but the books were just that: odd (from what I've read and heard). Another group, the Alice James Cooperative is still thriving (Alice, as in the brilliant sister of the famed Henry and William). In an article in _The Art of Literary Publishing_, a collection of essays on publishing, edited by Bill Henderson (of Pushcart founding fame), Marjorie Fletcher explains the need for alternative presses: "The alternative I find most interesting is cooperative publishing. In 1973, with two men and four women, all poets, I helped found the Alice James Poetry Cooperative. Certainly, the double burden of acting as both a writer and publisher is not desirable for an entire career; but, when a significant number of like-minded authors are faced with inhospitable publishers, one effective solution is to band together for the purpose of printing and distributing books that those writers judge meritorious. And now, when the businessmen who run our large houses display a frightening inability to distinguish literature from spaghetti, one way to insure that quality poetry and fiction will be issued in the future is to form publishing ventures that are owned and run by authors. "Publishing, however, is demanding. At Alice James all authors are required to attend regular meetings, to share office duties and work on production for approximately one year. Together we prepare mammoth mailings. We apply for grants. We fill orders. And mail books to distributors, debate current issues, trek to bookfairs, keep financial records, send out review copies, consult with the printer, dun bookstores for long overdue payments, draft press releases, pay bills. Somebody has to write the academics that, "no, we do not hand out free copies." Someone has to empty the wastebasket. Although Alice James now employs part-time help, for five years only the authors performed the tasks necessary for publishing. "Even though publishing demands time and energy, the member of a writers' cooperative gains several distinct benefits. An author who, in concert with other authors, operates the house which publishes his or her work effectively influences two crucial areas: the appearance of the volume and the marketing effort made after publication. Although the cooperative has final approval, at Alice James all authors select the art for their covers, design a format for their interiours, choose a typeface, consult with our printer. With the support and advice of experienced members, each assumes primary responsibility for the production of his or her volume. Then, once the books are printed, the author becomes involved in promotion. He or she draws up a list of reviewers who will receive copies, incluiding those who might be sympathetic--e.g. gay reviewers, traditionalists, feminists. Each author also compiles a list of individuals to who ordering information is mailed. And every author in the cooperative has the opportunity to effect the tenor of publicity by soliciting pre-publication comments, by writing blurbs and press releases. To an extent unknown in commercial houses, Alice James' authors can control both the physical aspects of their books and the sales efforts. Also, because all decisions are made by writers, the basic interests of an Alice James author seldom conflict with the publisher. For instance, not only will the cooperative never shred books, but it is our intent to keep every book issued in print; and, because we are thoroughly committed to each manuscript accepted, the cooperative promotes each book equally and does not favor one title over another." Whew!!! Food for thought. There are many subsequent issues to discuss, but for now, I got to get some sleep. It's nearly 3 a.m. Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:55:47 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: [AML] Richard Paul EVANS, _The Last Promise_ (Review) Richard Paul Evans _The Last Promise_ E. P. Dutton, 2002 Hardcover, 290 pages ISBN: 0525946969 List price: $22.95 Reviewed by Eugene Woodbury When Deseret Book CEO Sheri Dew announced the store's revised buying guidelines late last year--and specifically that Richard Paul Evan's latest novel, _The Last Promise_, hadn't made the cut--my immediate reaction was to snort in derision. A bunch of sanctimonious, neo-Victorian fussbudgets trying to micromanage our moral lives, under the guise of what Dew had the audacity to claim was a "business decision." Then I read the book. Deseret Book may indeed be run by a bunch of sanctimonious, neo-Victorian fussbudgets, whose recently-discovered principles in this case only gave a bad book much free publicity (I read the book, to start with). But they are right to insist that _The Last Promise_ does not deserve the imprimatur of any institution even peripherally related to the church. This isn't the primary reason, but the overwrought title is itself ultimately germane to nothing, as the "last promise" (indeed, not made until the last 40 pages of the book) is quickly broken, which I suppose should be read to mean: this is the last promise people like this should make to anybody. It is, in fact, a category romance of sub-par quality. I hasten to add that I have nothing against category romances--an unjustly slighted genre, I believe--just bad writing in general, and especially pretentious, bad writing. If nothing else, _The Last Promise_ will quickly exhaust any fondness you might have had for the epigram-as-chapter-heading style. Writing about a subject Evans knows something about might have also clarified what was worth promising in the first place. Eliana, our heroine, is ostensibly "a devout Catholic," though by all indications what the author knows about Catholics he picked up on the Vatican tour. He keeps her away from any actual worship, keeps her from breathing a word to any actual priest, because "the priest at the small church near the villa used copious amounts of incense in his worship," and the incense gives her son asthma. Alas, "She had tried other churches in the area and found them all to be the same" (p. 10). Convenient, that. The only discernable point to this bit of biographical background is to enable her to marry the scion of an Italian winery without turning the whole thing into a comedy. Straining credulity further, he has her growing up in Vernal, Utah. You would think that a Catholic growing up in Utah would have something to say about the plentitude of Mormons there, and the inevitable clash of small-town religious cultures. Nope. You would not know from reading this book that any Mormons live in Utah. Thus do the incongruities gush forth. It would not have been so insurmountable a problem had Evans played around more with the obvious subtext, analogizing the non-Mormon in Utah to the fish-out-of-water American in Italy, for example. Instead, he shies from the intriguing dramatic possibilities and resorts to hackneyed story devices that are old by category romance standards. To sum up: impossibly beautiful wife (Eliana) is trapped in a loveless marriage to philandering rogue of husband (Maurizio). One day a handsome American expatriate with a mysterious past (Ross) rents a flat in the family villa. But when you get right down to it, it's really no different than those silly French farces about the wife who discovers her husband is cheating on her and gets even by cheating on him back with the house guests. Except that Evans' version isn't even indecently humorous. Okay, Evans can't actually have them sleeping together. No, wait, they do sleep together, the loophole being that they only "sleep." Evans has claimed that the snogging going on when they're awake is "not adultery." Yes, and Bill Clinton did not have "sex" with "that woman," and "didn't inhale," either. If it is facile to assert (as I do) that any explicit description of sexual behavior is, *ipso facto*, immoral, then it is equally facile to argue that a narrative somehow garners a patina of respectability solely because of its *lack* of explicit content. At any rate, I wasn't aware that copulation alone defined adultery. Stranger still, given Evans' protestations, are his several references to the Vestal Virgins, who are remembered for the grisly fate that awaited them if they fell from "virginal grace." In a climactic scene (p. 221), Eliana interrupts Ross's tour group, and as the whole crowd stops to admire an exhibit of *The Vestals* asks in a loud voice if it was "worth it" to these women to break their vows, considering the punishment that awaited them. To which Ross answers, "I guess only the Vestals could say. But apparently eighteen of them though so." Now, exactly how are we supposed to read *that*? Evans rationalizes this morally muddy relationship with he-hit-me-first logic. Short version: if your husband is a jerk, it's okay to get emotionally involved with another man. Fifteen billion times we are reminded of what a louse Maurizio is. The narrative from his point-of-view exists only to damn his character with cheap shots and borderline ethnic slurs. Our first introduction to the Italian male (not Maurizio) consists of the following: "Just then a man, shirtless, maybe in his later fifties with a belly hanging over his swimsuit and a cigar clamped between his front teeth, stopped in front of her chair." Eliana later helpfully explains that "the Italian men regard a lone woman the same way they would a bill on the sidewalk." And Evans (in authorial voice) confirms that "It was true" (p. 4). True or not, it's not the point. I'm reminded of the Dilbert strip in which one of Dilbert's colleagues confides to Dogbert, "I criticize my coworkers to make myself look smart." To which Dogbert replies, "Apparently it isn't working . . . . Oh, remind me to add nuts to my grocery list." Evans thinks this is a workable strategy. So we are further reminded that none of the wives of Maurizio's friends "expected their husbands' help in domestic matters," either (p. 15). The marriage counselor Eliana drags her husband to sides with him and tells her that it's all her problem (p. 16). And the husband of Eliana's sister-in-law, Anna, "left her for a young Swiss woman she discovered he had been having an affair with for more than seven years" (p. 53). Ross, in contrast, is described by every Italian woman he encounters as *bello*, and a hotel receptionist he's known for about five minutes offers to sleep with him (p. 200). "We'd have fun," she tells him (p. 202). Oh, and Maurizio is also the World's Worst Father *Ever*. It's simply not enough that he be immature, irresponsible, or a workaholic. We are supposed to believe that the man is utterly indifferent to his son's existence, that he "never inquires about his son's health" (p. 13), has "no idea how to take care of his own son's basic needs" (p. 15), and uses him only as a pawn to keep his wife a kept woman. And we are supposed to believe as well that the son, in turn, should deny biology and the essential incalculables of human nature and be able to transfer all his affection, at the drop of the proverbial hat, to a complete stranger. By page 116 we find Eliana telling Ross, "[Alessio] was so upset that he missed you the last time. I had to promise him that he could stay up until you came." And by the end of the novel, Maurizio is confessing to Eliana, "He's not really my son . . . . He doesn't call me father . . . . He hates me" (p. 261). Of the six impossible things I'm willing to believe before breakfast, this isn't one of them. But, gee, doesn't it make divorce the easy next step to take. Still, Evans must reduce the Maurizio to wife-beating status to make the case compelling enough. The literary ends do not justify the means. While Maurizio is undoubtedly a jerk, the thesis, "My husband is a jerk," is a thin and unrewarding source of conflict. This is not to say that infidelity or bad parenting should be lightly excused, but it's not like he's smuggling drugs or harboring terrorists. The man has tact, if nothing else. He doesn't bring it home, like, *ahem*, his stupid wife. And why, your grandmother would ask, should he change his behavior when he can have his cake and get the milk for free? All Eliana has to say in her defense is that she married "too young." Too young--she was in college. So she went to the store one day to pick up a rich, handsome, Italian husband, and, darn, if she'd only waited a day or two she could have gotten a better model, and on sale, to boot. Were she a conservative John Paul II American Catholic, that would have made things interesting. But the obvious contention, "I can't divorce you because I'm Catholic," is never raised. Instead, she stays in the marriage, we are told, because she's afraid she would lose custody of her child, a child whose existence is exploited by Evans for all shoddy manner of story conveniences. (When in doubt, send the sick kid to the E.R.) It is a valid concern--the reasons sound fairly convincing, once you accept the Maurizio-as-monster caricature--but such a concern should lead to the weighing of freedom and happiness, and the making of deals with your own personal devils. Even as compromised a woman as Hillary Clinton reportedly whacked Bill with an ashtray on occasion, and then went out and made a life for herself. Sure, her not-yet-erstwhile husband being President of the United States sure helped. Call it metaphysical alimony. And Eliana is hardly a single mother struggling to survive on scant child support payments. In exchange for her husband's money, she lives a comfortable, almost royal (no kidding, Evans makes her by marriage a *de jure* countess), if dilatory existence. She does nothing to change the state of her life, a curious contrast with Birdman-of-Alcatraz Ross. That's the sinkhole the book crumbles into and never crawls out of: she's BORING. No wonder her husband never comes home, to a beautiful but dull woman who mopes and sighs and makes dinners he won't eat and dabbles at paintings no one will see, and spends an awful lot of time doing laundry for just three people (a glaring lapse: a man of Maurizio's stature and resources, if for no other reason than sheer vanity, would hire help for these menial tasks). Early on, in one of Evans' many head-hopping digressions, we are treated to Maurizio's thoughts on the subject. In a passage that feels like the author was responding to an editor's suggestion that he try to show the husband's side of things, the reader is rewarded with a several hundred words of the man's stream-of-consciousness, detailing his coping strategy with this dysfunctional relationship: "*American women are crazy*, [Maurizio] thought. *She works all day to make me a meal, then sulks through it* . . . . "Eliana would sulk for a while then she'd blow, inevitably launching into a tirade about how little time he spend at home or why he hadn't bothered to call her . . . . Either way, [she] didn't have the stomach for conflict that he had. She would go off for a while then come back and be civil--*be a good wife*. "*Always the same foolishness*, he thought. *If she wants me home so much, why does she make it so damn miserable to come home?*" (pp.31-32). Why, indeed? But having raised them, Evans never effectively counters these charges. He only tells us that Eliana "blamed herself for not seeing it coming," and then reverses himself a page later, asserting that she "felt the victim of a marital bait and switch" (p. 16). Victim turns out to be her primary occupation. Based on the themes of her General Conference addresses, I can believe that this is what raised Sheri Dew's hackles most of all. Evans is climbing on his best-seller soapbox to preach a medieval theme I've encountered in other Mormon romances, that of the Great Wheel of Fate. Climb aboard at the wrong instance and your life is doomed till it rolls around and rights itself. We are supposed to admire the protagonist merely for hanging on and letting go when the sunny side of life shows up like a stop on a Disneyland amusement ride. Had Evans eliminated the implied infidelity business from the start, he would then have had to address this problem with human agency. Were Eliana already divorced, for example, but in the interest of her sickly child living in her ex's villa and growing dependent on his largess, and he on the free child care and the warm house to come home to--and were it not strongly implied that, despite his travails, Ross still had bucks in the bank--this would force her to make a decision of her own volition, not wait for heaven to smile upon her, the ball to drop into the right slot at the roulette table. To write the story right, though, you would have to have some insights into why the Hillarys end up with the Bills in the first place. I'm not convinced that Evans has a clue. And we're not necessarily talking about deep psychology. As Slate's "Dear Prudence" advice columnist advised a reader in a similar quandary, the quandary that Eliana apparently blew through without a second thought: "My dear, when it comes to making a judgment about a man's character, what else is there besides his past? It is through one's history that you learn about judgments, morals, and choices." Judgements, morals, and hard choices are the last things on anybody's mind in _The Last Promise_. Which is why Evans can't begin the book without first rationalizing his choice of subject matter. Though here he does demonstrate some talent in composition. Evans introduces himself in a self-deprecating account of the Famous Author Nobody's Heard Of, bumbling around Italy with his family. One day he's relaxing poolside at a country club outside Florence and is told this story by a gorgeous, sunbathing woman he strikes up a conversation with. Unfortunately, this promising narrative voice is soon drowned out by the drone of a loquacious, self-important guy who's got you cornered on a five-hour bus trip and is convinced that you are dying to hear his profoundly superficial life story. But who only convinces you that this is the last time you're riding this particular bus anywhere, thank you very much. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:20:06 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Narrative Choices Thom, when did his lie (about the MS, I suppose) cost him an election? I watch the program all the time, and don't recall this. I remember the problem with the lie, but not the loss of an election. And I agree with your assessment of the show. It takes a pretty even hand. And with the departure of Aaron Sorkin this coming year, I wonder what direction the show will take. > The writers have not pulled punches, and have equally doled out > character flaws to members of both parties. The President was caught in > a lie to the people, for instance, which also cost him the election. > The season closer was him turning over the government to the Republican > Speaker of the House. > - -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:16:05 -0400 From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: [AML] RE: Memorial Day (was: 20th Century Mormon Women) You will also find plaques and statues proclaiming Carbondale, Illinois and Murphysboro, Illinois (about ten miles from each other proclaiming the same thing. (General Jonathon Logan is widely given credit for founding Memorial Day and he was from - and drew his Yankee regiment from - Southern Illinois) As for me and my house, all through my childhood in Idaho the day was called Decoration Day and was spent much as Lisa described her days, although our trips were generally to Lund, Idaho, for the same general purpose. I have never thought about it before, but there might have been some uniquely Mormon nature to our celebration of "Decoration Day" in Mormon Country. The research might lean to "non-Mormon" areas to see how celebration was done in the first half of the twentieth century in those areas. Richard Johnson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:28:54 -0400 From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ If you refer to LDS writing Joseph Fielding Smith wrote rather extensively about the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen as did several other authorities in that time period and earlier. Outside Mormon writing the only material with which I'm familiar came from Jews (came up in a panel at the World Festival of the Yiddish Spirit which was held in 1979 and roused some irritation from both Jewish and Gentile attendees _in this context, Mormons are included with the Gentiles, I certainly heard about it in Priesthood meeting, because I was one of the organizers of the festival) [Richard Johnson] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 19:33:32 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit _Peculiar People_was edited by Ron Schow, my friend Wayne Schow and Marybeth Raynes with a forward by Lowell L. Bennion. It was published in 1991 by Signature Books. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:40:33 +0900 From: "Kari Heber" Subject: RE: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit barbara states, regarding car rides with the opposite sex: I think this guideline is insulting to men. It implies that they are all closet rapists and must never be given an opportunity to take advantage of a woman. It is so Victorian. barbara hume - ----------------- I always thought the reasoning was to protect men from the sexually repressed women of the church who would jump on one of us given any opportunity. ;) Kari Heber Okinawa Japan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:21:27 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ ___ Marilyn ___ | Bruce McConkie's sister Margaret Pope is our Sunday School | teacher and happened to mention that very "common Mormon | belief" in our Sunday school class last Sunday. And sisters | Mary and Martha were also his wives! YES! ___ It's actually a fairly widespread belief even today. Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde frequently taught this a lot typically in his polygamy apologetics of the 1850's and 1860's. It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. (Orson Hyde, JD 4:259) So not only did they read Jesus' encounters with women in terms of marriage they even described the events at the marriage when water was turned to wine as Christ's own marriage. (Presumably why he was worried about running out of refreshments ) I'm not sure I buy the polygamy angle, (it was already fairly uncommon in the first century) but I actually do find the Mary angle fairly persuasive. As I mentioned yesterday there is a very early tradition they were married. Plus, according to LDS doctrine, a marriage would be necessary prior to the resurrection. As I mentioned, The Gospel of Philip alludes to this. There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. (59) The more interesting part is unfortunately fragmentary, but reads as follows. (ellipses in block quotes represent missing text) As for the Wisdom [Sophia - a gnostic demigod like figure] who is called "the barren" she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [...]. The rest of [the disciples...] They said to him, "Why do you lover her more than all of us?" (64-65) The text is important since it speaks of marriage so much, reflecting many teachings found is esoteric Judaism as well. While given a definite gnostic thrust, the basic form is interesting to Mormons. Adam and Eve were originally one. When they were separated death started. When they were reunited in the bridal chamber, death will be no more. A bridal chamber is not for the animals nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women, but it is for free men and virgins. Through the holy spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten through Christ in the two. (69) It goes on and I know many Mormon apologists, including Hugh Nibley have quoted this. But the context strongly suggests a sacred marriage for redemption in the Holy of Holies which is a bridal chamber. This is then tied to the resurrection. It strongly implies that Mary Magdalene is Jesus' wife and that this is the image of these patterns of how to overcome the fall of Adam. All in all not really church doctrine, but kind of an interesting literary aside. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 23:55:23 -0400 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] Sickbed Reading & Viewing You wrote: >So here's my query, what do you guys recommend? >Anything in particular that you think would make >for good reading/viewing for an invalid? >Remember, I love movies, like R Rated ones just >fine, and don't much care for sci/fantasy fiction. _Miller's Crossing_ and _Barton Fink_ have just been released for the first time on DVD: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008RH3L/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00008RH3J/ They'd both make my top 10 list of all-time favorite movies. And _Barton Fink_ is about a playwright in Hollywood, no less. Very loosely inspired by Clifford Odets... Those are both by the Coen Brothers. If you dig them at all, even slightly, I recommend also watching _Blood Simple_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005LC4P/ And after you watch it, watch it again with the DVD's commentary track. It's one of the funniest things I've ever heard, in any medium, at any time. If you can give a nod to a sort-of-SF film, watch _Donnie Darko_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005V3Z4/ It's only nominally a SF film, involving time travel -- but it's really almost more of a Gothic ghost story/'80s teen high school movie tribute, thrown into a blender with the SF. I watched this three times in a row a few weeks ago. My favorite film of 2002, _Spirited Away_, has just been released on DVD: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005JLEU/ I recently read a graphic novel that I can't get out of my head -- _Cages_, by Dave McKean: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561633194/ McKean has created the art for lots of Neil Gaiman-written projects, but this is another level. Almost 500 pages, every one of them breathtakingly gorgeous. And it has a compelling story, if you're into that sort of thing... And speaking of Neil Gaiman, his novel _American Gods_ was one of the best books I read last year: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380789035/ You could kinda call it fantasy, I suppose, but not in any conventional sense. Another one of the best novels I read last year was Lynda Barry's _Cruddy_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068483846X/ It's brilliant, but be warned -- it gets pretty harrowing at times. Barry is primarily a cartoonist, though, and _100 Demons_ is her best work in that medium: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570613370/ Very infectious -- I've read it probably a dozen times. I just finished reading _The Mind Game_ by Hector Macdonald, which I highly recommend (and which my dad recommended to me): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345440234/ This won't come out until September, so it doesn't really qualify for your request, but I think you'll probably be interested in James Bovard's _Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil_: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403963681/ Bovard is one of the foremost chroniclers of government abuse of power. This time it's all about Bush Jr. and his pals, and if his past work is an indication, it should be pretty exhaustive. Keep an eye out for it this fall. That's probably enough, eh? If you want more recommendations, lemme know. I've got a million of 'em. Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:10:10 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Temple in Literature D. Michael Martindale wrote: > But what are we talking about here? I'm all for an artist being > intelligent in his creativity, using and playing off of conventions and > expectations to achieve a new thing. But that's not what I thought we > were talking about. I thought we were talking about an external force > demanding that the artist work within certain limitations, so if he > wants to express things outside the limitations, he has to do so > sneakily, which we then label creative genius. You and I appear to be having completely different discussions. And I don't think I said what you seem to say I said. My argument about the "Hayes" approach is merely an attempt to recognize that there are, in fact, social and cultural limits in the marketplace (and I'm not limiting this discussion to the Mormon marketplace; there are limits in all marketplaces--the alleged "free market" is one of the biggest cultural myths we have). *Given the fact of those limits,* would-be artists *who feel limited or constrained* can either moan about the injustice of it all or they can get down to business and try to work around the perceived limits. You can either stretch the established conventions of your field, or ignore them and try to revolt against the establishment. (You can also work happily within those limits if you don't find them onerous, an option that some reject out of hand as an invalid artistic choice--which rejection I myself reject.) Is the fact of those limits fair? I never said it was. Is it good? I make no judgments about that at all; it doesn't matter whether it's good or not, it's just the way it is, imo. To me the question is how you're going to deal with that external limiting force, not whether the force should exist or not. That's it. Pure pragmastism, with the desire to publish *something* winning out over some concept of artistic purity for me. Nothing about what stories should or shouldn't be told; no judgments about who is worthy and who isn't. Simple recognition of market forces and their impact on one's ability to sell--aka, be heard. But...and I have included this big but in every single note I've written on the subject...it's up to the individual artist to do what seems right to them, to tell their story truly to the best of their ability--and by whatever means or convention seems most correct to them. Where's the arrogance in that? Do your own thing--that's somehow arrogant? Baloney. It's a great deal more liberal than saying that all art must be subversive or all art must be uncomfortable or all art *MUST* fit any other preconceived mold--liberal, conservative, or otherwise. To me arrogance is saying that only one set of criteria is valid and anyone who doesn't fit it is silly, pitiable, or otherwise unworthy of respect. I'll say it yet again--do what you think works for you. In the end it's your ideas and your private testimony and your integrity on the line and you have to be able to look yourself in the face and be happy with what you see. But not all paths lead to the same critical or popular or financial success. And because you choose one method does not make the rest of us artistically ignorant, incapable, arrogant, stupid, untalented, or any of the other long list of epithets that are commonly thrown at those with more conservative artistic tendencies. I don't believe that there is only one true and correct approach to art, so rather than demean and diminish those who choose a different path or work from a different set of assumptions I choose to cheerlead all the players and egg on every single person who aspires to express themselves to do their thing the best way they know how (while always striving to do better), with honesty and integrity and truth to their own vision. I want to see it all, not just a particular subset. And if it doesn't speak to me, I can ask for more without decrying anyone as incompetent, dishonest, or unworthy. Because the fact is that the incompetent are irrelevant to me, and I'm not qualified to make those other judgments. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #70 *****************************