From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #77 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 9 2003 Volume 02 : Number 077 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:39:37 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] RE: Sickbed Reading & Viewing > >From eew@eewoodbury.com Sat May 31 12:12:22 2003 > >I second My Neighbor Totoro, and recommend three more Hayao Miyazaki >titles (excellent dubs produced by Miramax/Disney) currently >available: > >Spirited Away - If you want to know where the spirit of Walt Disney >currently resides, it's at Studio Ghibli in Japan. This year's Academy >award winner for best animated feature film. (Watch for the dust >bunnies from Totoro.) > >Princess Mononoke - the most sophisticated "eco-drama" ever made, >IMHO. Set during Japan's medieval period. Miyazaki acknowledges that >preservation and progress can never be truly reconciled, and never >preaches. > >Kiki's Delivery Service - begins by positing that witches can fly, but >that's not what it's about. Takes place in that ideal European >Mediterranean city that we all know must exist somewhere. I will also second these and add another Miyazaki film: _Castle in the Sky_. All of his films are wonderful. Better than Disney by a long shot. Marny Parkin www.MormonSF.org - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:33:50 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] DreamMakers Writers Conference (Colorado) DreamMakers 2003 Writers Conference -- August 9, 2003 -- Elizabeth, Colorado Presenters include: Tom Colgan (editor, PenguinPutnam Books), Alane Ferguson (author), Suzanne Patrick Fonda (editor, National Geographic Children's Books), Stephen Fraser (executive editor, HarperCollins Children's Books), Donna Freedman (freelance writer), Sue Henry (author), Renon Klossner Hulet (senior consulting editor - GO EARLYSPORT Magazine), Edite Kroll (agent), Marcia Marshall (editor, Lerner Books), Gloria Skurzynski (author), Rick Walton (author), Carol Lynch Williams (author), and Mary Wood (actress/books on tape). For more information/schedule/registration, go to http://www.cardinalpride.com/dreammakers.htm Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:06:01 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone [MOD: Even though I'm the one who raised this issue to begin with (wearing my list-member hat), I'd really rather (wearing my moderator hat) that we didn't get into a discussion of whether this policy is justified or not. I realize that with this post, this is largely what we have. However, I'd rather that we focus more on the literary and cultural dimensions of this aspect of our culture. For example, how would it affect our literature for everyone to handle this as Thom suggests here?] >-----Original Message----- >spiritual prompting. I consider it a guideline and one that >is necessary due to the fallen world we live in. Only to the extent that one chooses to live in the fallen world wearing the armor of fear and mistrust. This is a policy that basically says, to both men and women, "We don't trust you to act like righteous adults on your own so we are going to impose yet another restriction on your already burdened life." > It'd be >better if we didn't need it, if everyone would behave with >honor and honesty at all times, but we don't live in such a >world and we should acknowledge that by being careful in our >conduct. We don't need it. Most people will behave with honor and honesty most of the time under any conditions. To impose this restriction is to restrict the freedom of choice of the righteous majority because of the actions of a minority. I can see expecting such "rules" with single teenagers perhaps but not at all with adults. The only principle involved at that point ought to be free agency. The adults have been taught the correct principles. Let them make the correct choices. If they don't, let them pay for their bad choices. >In this case, the extra steps to adhere to the >policy are worth the effort because the stakes can be so very >high (even if relatively rare). Yes, the stakes can be high. But at what point do we let adults stand up and take responsibility for their own actions instead of treating them like children? > It can take very little to >break a family apart, particularly when accompanied by the >additional stresses provided by church and work. A vicious >rumor that cannot be repudiated can have tragic consequences. The fact that someone else might misconstrue a man giving a sister in the ward a ride home as something other than Christian kindness is hardly a reason to curb one's actions. The gossip will always be among us. I can't imagine living my life according to what someone else might think than I can (here's the literary tie-in) editing one of my plays because I might offend someone who may see it. With relationships and writing, one should let one's own understanding of integrity and responsibility hold sway, not what someone else may chose to think. >And even if the effects aren't permanent, they can be very >damaging all the same. It is a slippery slope to direct one's actions based on what other's may misperceive. It is better in all cases, spiritual or literary, to follows one's own light and let the consequences follow if the myopic other cannot see correctly. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:41:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LABUTE, _The Shape of Things_ (Review) THE SHAPE OF THINGS, a film written and directed by Neil LaBute; starring Paul Rudd, Rachel Weisz, Gretchen Mol, and Fred Weller; rated R for adult language and themes. Reviewed by R.W. Rasband. George Orwell famously said: it is not too much to expect ordinary human decency even from artists. The great American crime-fiction writer James Ellroy said: the very worst thing Bill Clinton ever did as president was imposing on Monica Lewinsky a life sentence--from now on, wherever she goes, what ever she does, she will simply be the punchline of a thousand dirty jokes. Neil LaBute's new movie is his strongest yet. "The Shape of Things" is a bracing examination of the consequences of treating other people as objects; and a stunning anatomization of some vicious contemporary mindsets. At first it seems to be a fairly straightforward love story. Nerdy Adam (Paul Rudd) meets charismatic, renegade art student Evelyn (Rachel Weisz). She proceeds to remake him, urging him to lose weight, lose the eyeglasses, get a haircut, dress better, stop biting his fingernails, and get a nose job. All this is much to the consternation of Adam's more conventional friends, the sweet, demure Jenny (fetchingly played by Gretchen Mol) and Philip, the sexist pig (Fred Weller, in the Aaron Eckhart role. Eckhart makes a cameo appearance in this film the same way Alfred Hitchcock did in "Lifeboat", a similarly claustral film.) A massive shock takes place at the end that puts everything we've seen in a whole new light. (Even if you see it coming a mile away, it still packs a wallop when it arrives.) I'm not sure how much new insight I can add to the discussion of this film; it has already provoked an outpouring of intensely passionate, intelligent responses from critics, both positive and negative. Much of it can be found at http://www.rottentomatoes.com or http://www.mrqe.com Here are a few more random observations. There are traces of Brigham Young University to be found in this film. "Mercy College" is located in a conservative community: Philip remarks that Evelyn's preferred performance art will not find much of a response in "this kind of town. We're not Berkeley." Much is made by students of PDA (public displays of affection.) Jenny and Philip are very preoccupied with marriage, for young undergraduate students. Evelyn strenuously avoids caffeine in her drinks. The serene physical layout of Mercy College suggests BYU. Jenny is the very model of a BYU co-ed; she doesn't like swearing in her house. The plot is of course a parody of the story of Adam and Eve[lyn]. But I detect an LDS spin. Contrary to orthodox Christian thinking, this Adam is *not* a perfect man living in Paradise. He's a nice guy, but very much a doofus; ignorant as well as innocent. His fall is in some respects a fall upwards. As Evelyn eventually notes, Adam's capacity for action, both good and evil, increases as he progresses. The price is agonizing but Adam's eyes are indeed opened. He comes to know good and evil. I suppose what LaBute wants to know is: can the price be too high? Having already performed the play in London and America, the cast is expert. Paul Rudd is brilliant and moving as he moves from goofball to something else entirely. But this movie really belongs to Rachel Weisz. She gets a credit as producer, and no wonder. This is a part many actresses would kill for (or at least, "stick a knife in his f-----g neck", heh heh.) She certainly makes the most of it. She's irresistible and terrifying in her Mao button and her Che Guevara t-shirt. She's an actress I really never noticed before but will now not soon forget. This movie has gotten a decidedly more mixed reception from critics than LaBute's previous work. I'm afraid they're on to him:-) Evelyn may proudly proclaim that moralists have no place in the gallery of art, but her creator proves himself to be the toughest-minded moralist in American movies today. It looks like some people can't take it. J. Hoberman in the "Village Voice" calls LaBute a Puritan and yawns he's seen this all before. (I'm sure he has.) Andrew O'Heir in "Salon" sneers that this is the most cutting-edge movie of 1982. In other words, it's ideologically retrograde, stuck in the Reagan era. Haven't we all moved beyond the concern for personal morality? And isn't appearance *everything* in America? Hasn't it become clear to us, as it has to Evelyn, that all things are subjective--that if you feel it's true, then it is true, for you? I don't think these things are clear to LaBute, or for a lot of the rest of us. What is clear is that "The Shape of Things" is a bookend to "In the Company of Men" only this time the demonic figure is not a male corporate drone but an avant-garde woman artist. No one is "privileged"--absolved from the potential for evil. Some may find this discomfiting. I find it exhilarating. LaBute is on my list of artists that speak directly to my concerns, to me. Like Philip Roth, or Tom Wolfe, or in an LDS context, Eugene England or Ann Cannon. He's essential. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:06:25 -0500 From: Major Productions Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone > If it's insulting, I think it's insulting to both men and women. I'm not so > sure it's insulting, though. I *do* think that you misread the underlying > purpose of the policy. I don't think it is to protect women from rapists. > I think it is to protect both from misunderstandings. I think it is to > protect from developing a gradual partiality that could lead to emotional > attachment, falling in love and broken homes. And I think it is, in extreme > cases, to protect both from accusations (potentially false) of abuse and/or > infidelity. Reminds me of the verse in the 89th section of the Doctrine & Covenants. The Word of Wisdom was adapted for "the weakest of the weak", too. I think the Lord just doesn't want *ANYTHING* to be a stumbling block if there's a way to circumvent it. There are enough things in this world that are ready to trip us up. A few extra cautionary guidelines are not a bad thing, in my opinion. Thank you, Jacob, for your perspective. Robbin Major Missouri City, Texas - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:51:02 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] re: Mormon Horror Clark Quoted me as saying: ___ Paris ___ | Even if you don't consider it perfunctory, it isn't much to base | an entire story on. Once rebuked, spirits stay gone. ___ Then added his own: Where do they go? I don't think this is quite accurate. They may stop what they are=20 doing. But they don't simply "vanish." And I respond: I didn't say that. Jacob Profitt did. I actually agree = with you. They don't just disappear. Once gone from the person they go = hide behind the sofa. When chased from behind the sofa they hide in the = bushes outside. Christ said in the New Testament somewhere that = Spirits, when they go out, are going to come back with friends, and you = have to fill their space with something new or they're going to slip = back in. If the person's lifestyle or the physical area isn't conducive = to the "something new", you're going to have to go back in a week or two = and do the whole thing over. Things usually don't become permanent the first time around. If they = did people would become lazy. The way it's set up people have to be = sincere and keep working. Constant opposition is the best tool we have = for continuous progress (but it sure wear you out). Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:09:19 -0700 From: "Walt Curtis" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit From: "Ben Christensen" > I'm going to have to challenge you on this one, Margaret (and anyone else). > ... we really don't have a lot of literature about SSA in > Mormondom. I'd love for anyone to prove me wrong on this, if you have more > examples that haven't been mentioned. > With some necessary wading through polemic terminology, check out the Learning Center page on www.affirmation.org, the website for those who consider themselves GLBT and Mormon (active, former and/or cultural). There are several publications, pro and con, referenced, and some articles included. The Additional Selected Reading section is most germane to Ben's inquiry. Walt Curtis - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 09:56:59 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy and God? At 03:10 PM 6/4/03 -0600, you wrote: >You could analogize Luke losing his hand >to Oedipus losing his eyes, and etc., but at any rate, the way this >myth plays out, dad's got to die and the son's got to do it. I think Lucas used some visual shorthand here to show the connections--Darth has lost his hand, and Luke has lost his, when a Jedi gone bad wants to use him for his own evil purposes. Note that Darth already had a fake hand. Darth yielded when the dark side brought pressure to bear on him, but Luke did not. To me, this was a way of saying that Luke was a better, stronger man than his father. Somehow, patricide would probably not sit well with the audience as a cool thing for a hero to commit. I see all kinds of symbolism in this movie, some of which I may be making up. Notice how the villainous creatures, like the rancor monster, are all slobbery? Notice that when Luke is contemplating killing his father, he is drooling as well? barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:01:09 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ At 08:40 PM 6/4/03 -0600, you wrote: >It would have been an echo of Hosea where the Lord commands that prophet >to marry a prostitute. > >That's always a fun book to discuss in Gospel Doctrine class. Really does >upset people which in turn raises lots of interesting issues about how >people view the atonement. After all if we take the atonement seriously >what would be wrong with Jesus marrying a former prostitute? Despite all the Gospel teaches about forgiveness and non-judgmental attitudes, many people still think the Christian thing to do is to turn one's back on a sinner. I had people express surprise that I did not toss out my teenage daughter when she became pregnant. Of all things! barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:06:13 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Rex Goode wrote: > First, the theory doesn't say that SSA men are not part of the masculine world. > It says they don't feel part of the masculine world. It's one word, but it > changes the meaning a great deal. This kind of SSA man, according to the theory, > is the one who was always picked last for sports, couldn't ever get good at > basketball, liked doing the things that society tells him is not masculine. He > doesn't feel connected. Other males seem like a mystery to him. I can't see the attraction to sports fanaticism, which seems like a monumental waste of time to me. I never watch any sports, except soccer games my son is playing in, and then grudgingly. I don't know anything about cars or how to fix them, and I have no desire to learn. Vehicles bore me, except for their ability to get me somewhere. At least I don't think it's a waste of time to be passionate about fixing cars, since that's a useful thing to do, but I am not touched in the slightest by that passion. Ditto power tools. I am an outsider looking in when I watch Tim Allen grunt through his stand-up routine. Boxing is an abusive, idiotic sport and I would never watch it. Except in Rocky movies, but there I'm watching for the inspiring success story, not the boxing. You will never find me hunting or fishing, which are both boring and cruel pasttimes as far as I'm concerned. Even "catch and release" makes no sense to me. Jab a vicious, barbed hook through a poor innocent creature's mouth and call yourself humane because you don't also kill it? That logic is lost on me. Body building, cow tipping, aggression of any kind (except behind the wheel)--I don't see the attraction. In fact, I find precious little I have in common with the average male human being. Pair me up with one of those good ol' boys, and just watch my eyes glaze over as he talks about manly things. Yet I am decidedly not gay. So there must be something else going on besides the inability to relate to the masculine world. I've never related, and find myself increasingly apathetic about relating with each passing year. > So, yes, despite being attracted > to masculinity, gay men are going to be attracted to each other. They may be > attracted to straight men too, but the potential for it going anywhere isn't > there, so why waste time with it? Kind of like the frustration and sense of waste I feel when I come across an attractive lesbian. - -- 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: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:51:47 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone [MOD: This is an unusual situation in that Larry has explicitly asked for people's opinions, positive or negative, on a specific action of his. Under these circumstances, a certain relaxation of the rule against judgmentalism of other list members seems in order--but only a slight relaxation. Let us all keep in mind that this is an exercise in how this behavior, as described by Larry, strikes other people--an audience poll, as it were. The basic injunction against condemning the motives and righteousness of other AML-List members remains in effect.] Larry Jackson wrote: > It was on purpose, and I was sending a message. > > Which brings up some questions to be answered > in the next great literary LDS novel on friendship, > relationship, love, and marriage: Here are my PERSONAL feelings right now, so you don;t have to wait for the book... > Was it appropriate or was it improper? Improper. > Was this meddling into business that was > none of mine? Yes. > Was I being a "moral conscience" enforcer or > a friend? Enforcer. > Does it make a difference whether it was done > loudly and in public or quietly so no one else > could hear? It makes a difference, but only in degree. It was the lesser of two evils. > Does who they were or who I was make any > difference? If you have personal, reliable knowledge that these two may have some dangerouos predilections to succumb to certain temptations, then throw out everything I say. You _would_ be a good friend doing what you did. But _only_ under those circumstances. Otherwise it was meddling. > Are there other circumstances in the lives > of those involved that would make such a > comment either proper or improper? I suppose. Maybe rumors are already flying about the couple, whether true or not. There are always exceptions, but under normal circumstances, it's their business. > Besides telling more of the story, how should > I handle this scene when I write my book? That's your problem. If I gave you ideas, they would be how I'd handle it in my book, which may have nothing to do with how you'd handle it in your book. - -- 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: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:23:28 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] Structuralism (was: Buffy and God?) ___ Eric ___ | I would love it, as part of my own continuing education, if | Clark would expand on these tantalizing notions of structuralism. | As they appear in the last two Star Wars films, or elsewhere. ___ Uh-oh. I've been corralled into giving the five minute structuralism explanation... Realize that this will, of necessity be somewhat distorting because of its length. I've already rewritten it from scratch several times. While structuralism has earlier echoes before the 20th century, it pretty much originates with the linguistics of Saussure. Saussure's theory of language argues that a word (or any significant element) gains its meaning only in terms of its connection to a system of language (la langue for Saussure). Language is defined very broadly - more broadly than we typically use the term. Further this system of language doesn't define terms based upon an experience, unique idea, or object. (As was commonly the case before) Rather they defined structures in terms of oppositions. We don't have an idea of "black" and an idea of "white." Rather we recognize a difference between black and white. So black is defined as not white and white is defined as not black. We could then create further differences to define shades of grey, other colors, or things other than color. Thus to analyze a sentence you study the structure of the sentence and how that structure relates to the language. A word gain's its meaning by its role in the structure of the sentence and its role in other surrounding structures. The role of the author gets downplayed. The structures that the authors utterances find themselves in get focused on. Well this basic approach then gets brought into anthropology and psycho-analysis. The application for psycho-analysis should be obvious. When "reading" the words of a patient their meaning reflects the underlying *structures* of the mind. So a mind is very similar to a language. Likewise the famouse anthropologist Levi-Strauss applies this to understanding cultures in general - especially myths. Levi-Strauss looked for the "deep structures" in a culture. So he found a common structure behind Oedipus, the Grail myth, various Indian myths all tied to a basic structure of codes of kinship including codes of chastity, incest and so forth. When you start looking at common structures you are doing structuralism. So when you say analyze Oedipus and Hamlet in terms of analysis of incest, marriage, throne, reason or so forth you are doing structuralism. When you do psycho-analysis you can definitely see how you are doing this. In the border between pscyho-analysis and anthropology the discipline of studies of myth arose. We then got the structuralism of Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade, for instance. There we look for the deep structures common to humanity. These myths form what is called a meta-language (language about language and more fundamental that the language spoken about) The elements of this language, their equivalent of words, are these basic foundational myths and differences that underlay humanity. This is seen for the mystic as the structure of the Nous or world-mind and for more naturalistic scholars as the common structures of the human brain that evolution developed. The application to literature should be obvious. First off there were those who simply used these structures as "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" references to like minded literary elites. Literary critics began doing psychological other structural analysis of various works. I'm sure we've all had the Freudian discussion of Kafka's _The Metamorphisis_ in college, for instance. What comes out of this is that the work in a sense transcends the author. After all the "deep structures" are more fundamental than even the author's intent. Thus a new form of literary criticism arose in which structure was more important than author, plot, tone or the like. Authors starting using this and it became the basic approach of literary criticism of the 20th century. One clear examples of structuralism is Joyce's _Finnegan's Wake_. But it really was the dominant way of thinking in various guises for most of the 20th century. The opposition actually started rather soon. But it didn't become significant until the 60's and 70's. Some pointed out that any "meta-language" about language, such as these mythic-structures, was itself a language. Thus this meta-language was formed in terms of its own myths. This led to an endless regression from which no one could escape. In a sense by devaluing the author of a work this form of criticism prioritized the authorship of the reading or more importantly the literary critic. This lead to a kind of counter-reformation where the ideals of pre-structuralism were pushed. The other more devestating criticism came through what became known as deconstructionism. This took the basic approach of Heidegger's phenomenology and pointed out a kind stable fixed "truth" that structuralism depended upon but which structuralism also simultaneously denied. The two dominant figures in the US (but not Europe) for this were Derrida and DeMan. Explaining their positions are difficult since they adopt portions of structuralism and have similarities to what is called post-structuralism (that endless regress of meaning). However they much more say that there are not determinate structures - they are always unstable. Further that any writing depends upon determinate structures. Much of their writing is to show a kind of paradox where a text both requires and denies some element of its structure. Out of this arises a kind of "human freedom" which is the very process of writing itself. So in a sense it is a return to the earlier emphasis on author, but one in which the author contains their entire context within them. Many have noted the strong parallels of this form of deconstructionism with the neoPlatonism and even hermeticism of late antiquity or of the medieval mystic writers. It thus leads to a kind of literature as religion (or vice versa). Here are a few good links that may help if the above confused. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jfarrell/courses/myth/topics/ structuralism.html http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/1derrida.html http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/structuralism.htm http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/springer.html I'll answer the question about structuralism and Star Wars (as well as the Book of Mormon) in a subsequent post. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:47:29 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: [AML] re: Structuralism This post will of necessity be briefer than the last. However Eugene's post provided an excellent way of addressing the issue. ___ Eugene ___ | The only satisfactory way that Star Wars III could have | ended (for me) was either for Luke to kill his father | (Darth Vader) or (poor second choice) for Darth Vader | to take the Emperor down with him. Either fall | on his sword or willingly sacrifice himself. First, | on a moral level, were Darth Vader to grasp any sense | of the monster he had become--which we are supposed to | believe he did (literal deathbed repentance)--he and | Luke, if he were any kind of "Jedi," would have | recognized the necessity of such an "atonement." | | Second, the Greeks already established the necessary | archetypes, with Oedipus and Antigone. ___ Eugene's post illustrates one of the problems with structuralism. Typically the structures a text finds itself in and finds within itself are contradictory. Further moving a text from one context to an other leads to problems. Those of you who recall the old film _The Gods Must Be Crazy_ recognize this. There a woman asks an African tribesman if her guide was lying. He shakes his head. She says, "there that proves it." He yells, "that's how they say yes!" The whole genre of "fish out of water" stories play up this problem of context and how meaning takes place within a particular framework. For Eugene, his particular culture (Mormonism) rejects or at least downplays deathbed repentence. Thus the mythic-type of deathbed repentence is rejected. A structural analysis of Star Wars thus takes into consideration this lack of structure. Secondly Eugene critiques Star Wars for not staying close enough to the foundational myths of Oedipus or others. Finally he critiques it in terms of a particular mythic structure of Atonement - not the vicarious suffering kind - but the more traditional death of the cause. Oedipus clearly takes hold of that myth, which is why Oedipus must suffer as he does at the end. I suppose we can see this in many hero stories where the story is basically a plot of revenge based upon this Atonement myth we find in Oedipus and elsewhere. Peace can be *restored* only by the death of the one who brought the disharmony into the society (usually through an event at the beginning of the story) So the plot focuses in on the death of the villian which is, by extension, the death of evil or the cyclic rebirth of harmony. (Sometimes framed as the eternal battle where the waters of evil are held at bay) The problem is that there are other myths, especially in Christianity, of transformation. We have the myths of enlightenment, for instance in Buddhism. The villian or at least misguided is brought face to face with what they value and this leads to a transformation. The harmony is restored not by the death of the evil but by the transfiguration of the evil. It emphasizes a kind of Oneness even of evil and good as opposed to the Oedipus myth which emphasizes a kind of essential dualism. One could well say that the Jedi, with their clear connections to Toaism, Buddhism, Heraclitus, and mystic-Christianity (especially mystic Templars) would favor this transformative view. What we see though is that we are left with what might be termed an aporia. (A paradox) Which is *right*? We can't really say. Eugene says what would have been right for him. But if we are dealing with these myths as myths, should such a choice be possible? This kind of structuralism appears in the Book of Mormon as well. We have the common anti-Christ figures such as Korihor. Typically they are, following Eugene's pattern, killed or at least disfigured and turned into beggars. However with Alma the Younger at the point of potential death, he is transfigured. He is born again and goes around working to undo the evil he did as an anti-Christ. It is interesting that both structures exist in the Book of Mormon. What this suggests is a dualism that can only be resolve through the free will of the agent. The agent is the writer. In sense while the Book of Mormon adopts some clear structures, the structures are themselves more complex than they appear. Further the structures are typically able to be broken. And it is in this moving away from structuralism to the roots of the structure that the Book of Mormon is most interesting. Probably this can be best seen in 2 Nephi 2. There we have some very clear structural analysis of good and evil. It is as if Lehi was Saussuer. Then we have the comment of how there is a "compound in one." (2 Ne 2:11) What moves things from this essential unity to an essential dualism is a choice. Whose choice? Adam's as the foundational myth. But in saying this Lehi is fundamentally also saying that this sense of free choice is more fundamental than structure. Indeed it produces structure (in the context of the structures of this probation, but also in a more fundamental sense). Thus Lehi ends up playing what I'd term a deconstructive game against structuralism. And the Adam and Eve story is important since it is the way one deconstructively analyzes the structures around us to return to their common unity. This is the enlightenment where one sees things as they are and then can act as the free agent. Not necessarily in harmony with the structures but in harmony with ones place as an agent, which is to create structure and to prioritize one opposition above the other. Good over evil for instance. But to prioritize the good over the evil both the good and the evil must be created. To return to Star Wars, I'd simply ask which is a better structure to create and choose. The myth of Alma the Younger or the myth of Korihor? Both are the myth of the anti-Christ which "parallels" in some ways the myth of Darth Vader. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:25:15 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ For the record, I just picked up a copy of this book at the library. I'll give it a read. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:03:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Salt Lake Tribune: BYU Teacher's Attack on Belly Dancing Reveals Lack of Knowledge Salt Lake Tribune Article: Attack on Belly Dance Reveals Lack of Knowledge, Scholars Say by Mark Eddington Brigham Young University teacher Lloyd Miller's claim that belly dancing is a historical perversion of authentic Middle Eastern culture is going, well, belly up. Full story: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/jun/06062003/utah/63519.asp ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:39:00 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone Well, yeah. In my opinion (strictly) you were being nosey, interfering, and judgmental. Unless you had an ecclesiastical responsibility you should have just kept your mouth shut. Some of my best friends are men. They have been a great strength to me in many ways. And guess what. Sometimes I have to speak to myself rather sternly about emotions that go a little awry. And that's ok with me. I'd rather have to make minor adjustments to a relationship, just as I have to with every relationship that means anything to me, than give up having that relationship in the first place. Yes, I think it makes a difference who you are in relationship to them (I might counsel my daughter, but then again, maybe not.), and your relationship to them (I might bring it up gently with one of my best friends, or not), and whether it was in public or private. I'm sure you can guess my leanings. In my book, the guy who made the comments would be shown to be a bit of a well meaning jackass who realizes in the end that he was interfering in something that was none of his concern, and that he had enough of his own faults to address without worrying about the faults he perceives in others. How you write your story is entirely up to you. Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:42:40 -0500 From: "Kim Kimura" Subject: [AML] _Troy Through a Window_ (Review) [List editor: I am the distributor of this video. I would be happy to send review copies to AML or a designated reviewer if somebody other than me -- the person selling this film -- would like to review it.] "Troy Through a Window" A documentary directed by Brad Barber 57 minutes / color / stereo Debuted theatrically in 2002. Video distributed by LDS Video Store Review by Kim Kimura (I'm the distributor.) Text from video cover: For his last film at Brigham Young University, Brad Barber decided to go home to Tennessee for Christmas break to try to answer some questions. He wanted to come to terms with the event that forever changed his life and his devout Mormon family seven years earlier--when his idolized oldest brother announced he was gay. Since Troy came out, it seems as if a window now stands between him and the rest of the family--making two distinct places which each side may see but can't always share. For Brad, interviewing his own family raised new issues to be addressed--How far can each side go to reach through the window and show acceptance to each other? The result is a challenging, emotional, and redeeming look at the effects of this complex, seldom talked about issue in his family. My comments: I hope that people don't think of "Troy Through a Window" as simply a "gay Mormon" video made to push a specific agenda. This really is a film about asking questions, and trying to examine a situation within a single family. There are no statistics or factoids or attempts to comprehensively present the official perspective of any organization or group. Anybody who watches this film, however, will learn a lot. The film has great potential to dispel stereotypes about Latter-day Saints and their attitudes toward gays, just as it can dispel stereotypes about gay people. What makes this film so personal is that it is simply the story of Brad Barber's intensely powerful and honest exploration of what has happened in his own family. With his openness to asking questions and letting people present their own perspectives, it would be impossible to classify the film as "pro-LDS" or "pro-gay," or "anti-gay" or "anti-LDS." People from outside both cultures are most likely to feel the film presents, on balance, a positive picture of both Brad's brother Troy as well as his devout Latter-day Saint family. Through Brad's firsthand experiences when he visits Troy in San Francisco the film touches briefly upon some negative aspects of gay culture, such as hypocrisy and violence. But Troy himself is a pediatrician and, as Brad describes him, is simply "an all-around great guy." There is absolutely no attempt to describe GLBT culture as a whole or cast it in a negative light. It is true that filmmaker Brad Barber's older brother embraced a Gay (GLBT) lifestyle, a development which forever changed the dynamics of their devout Latter-day Saint family. Brad's father was a stake president. Troy had served a faithful mission for the Church. Brad recalls that when it happened, he felt that Troy's "coming out" was about the worst thing he could imagine. But this film is much more about families, and Brad's family specifically, than it is about homosexuality. If you step back and think about it, at least 75% of this film would be the same if it was about a member of any family embracing an outside culture, whether it is a member of a Catholic family becoming a Muslim, or a member of a ranching family embracing the philosophies of PETA. In different ways, the members of Brad Barber's family -- including Troy -- exhibit remarkable Christian charity, tolerance and reconciliation, despite great difficulties. There is also sufficient diversity among the attitudes that they express that everyone who watches the film will find something to criticize or disagree with, if they are inclined to do so. Some people have called this an "important" film. Some people have said it is "courageous" or "controversial." I don't think of it that way. I'm pleased to distribute "Troy Through a Window" primarily because it is a fascinating and well-made documentary. Whether you are a Latter-day Saint, GLBT, conservative, liberal, or all or none of these things, you will find in this film some challenging but very worthwhile ideas and topics. You will also find an inspiring and true story of loyalty to one's family and one's ideals, even when these loyalties seem to be in conflict. "Troy Through a Window" can be ordered online at: http://www.ldsvideostore.com/TroyThruWindow.htm - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #77 *****************************