From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #140 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 Wednesday, September 3 2003 Volume 02 : Number 140 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:51:41 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Street Painting in Italy Well Tom, some of the most poetic prose I've heard in a long time. And my congrats to Julie as well. Tracie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:19:30 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:00:21 -0600 Barbara Hume writes: > And they are not porn! ... For some reason, books about > people killing people are fine, but books about people > finding love are bad. Go figure. Yeah, Thom. Not all romances are "trash." I really enjoyed _Pride and Prejudice_. Best first line of any novel I've read. scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 22:59:56 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance Barbara Hume wrote: > At 09:03 AM 8/29/03 -0500, you wrote: > >> I'm hoping Barbara's article and the others will help >> to persuade me differently. But I have tried to read >> these novels and I can't more than a page in. They >> must be talking to someone other than me because I >> just don't get it. > > > Of course they're talking to someone other than you. Just as Clive > Cussler is talking to someone other than me. But I don't make rude > remarks about that type of literature just because it doesn't resonate > with me. The fact that 55% of the paperback market in the country is > romance tells you that there is a market. Let's see. Fifty-five percent read Romances. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce? Coincidence? I'm joking! I'm joking. Yes, there's a market but maybe the market says more about the readers needs than it does about the literature itself. > For some reason, books about people killing people are fine, but books > about people finding love are bad. Go figure. In either case, I want to see books about real people either killing or falling in love. I've not seen that in any romance I've ever read. Granted, I've yet to finish a romance and I would be bothered if someone were to give sf short shrift who had never read the stuff. Let's talk more after the Irreantum articles come out. Thom Duncan > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 01:03:44 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks At 06:18 PM 8/29/03 -0600, Kim Madsen wrote: >Nan said: >"Sorry to spoil your exercise in type-casting, but I hate the taste of >Diet Coke Strongly agree! Yuck! >preferring just regular Coke w/caffeine. I am also a >Republican, who craves challenging history and searches out >unconventional as well as conventional doctrine. I do my teaching >whenever I get around to it Sometimes I'm tempted to do that, but I've found that if I don't show up within the first fifteen minutes of the scheduled class time, my students tend to leave . . . >and always wear my hats at a jaunty angle." > >And not only are my hats at a jaunty angle--they are RED...while >sometimes the rest of me wears purple. I'm that age, you know. Would "that age" be: (1) Too young to know better? or (2) The same age I am? (Those here who have seen me in person can testify to my occasional blatant lack of normal taste.) or (3) Old enough that your eyesight has gone? >I hate >COKE in every form, but that's because I dislike the taste of colas. I >like root beer and Fresca is my fav. I vote all over the map which >causes my Democratic good friend to roll his eyes. We are humans first, >Mo's second. No one can categorize us. Oh, you're one of THOSE! - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 01:19:47 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) At 11:36 AM 8/29/03 -0600, Bill Willson wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Thom Duncan" > > > > > > > > Bill Willson wrote: > > > > > > > >If humans are not perfect, and GA's are humans, then it stands to reason > > >that Ga's are not perfect, but they are more perfect than any of the rest >of > > >us, > > > >Thom replied: > > > "More" perfect? Is that like "almost" pregnant. Someone is either > > perfect, or they are not. GAs are no more or less perfect than any > > other mortal who walks the earth. I do agree with you, though, in that > > there are problems if we hold them to the extreme of either spectrum. > > >So? I know I'm not perfect, but it doesn't take a huge stretch of >imagination to translate "more perfect" to "almost perfect," or "closer to >perfection." Anyone knows one can't be almost pregnant, that is ludicrous. >Surely you must be nit picking just a bit. I can't agree with, "Someone is >either perfect or they are not." As far as I know, Jesus was the only >perfect mortal to walk the earth. Nor do I agree with, "GAs are no more or >less perfect than any >other mortal who walks the earth." They certainly are "more perfect" than >you or I, and hopefully we are a little further along the way toward >perfection than say, the average dissident ranting and raving against the >church on Temple Square Plaza. How about compared to a mother who raised ten children by herself after her husband died and sent them all on missions? How about compared to the widow in the NT who gave the mite? There are a total of three positions available in the First Presidency, twelve in the Quorum of the Twelve, and a few dozen Seventies, and all of them are filled by men. Are there indeed no people among the rank and file members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have not progressed pretty far along the path in this mortal life? Then I suppose we could consider non-members such as Mother Teresa . . . - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:31:12 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) Bill Willson wrote: > If humans are not perfect, and GA's are humans, then it stands to reason > that Ga's are not perfect, but they are more perfect than any of the rest of > us I've no idea why I should believe that. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:11:27 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Box Office Report 22 Aug. 03 Eric Snider Wrote: Reviewers who have called them that have done so on the assumption > that all polygamists in America are Mormon fundamentalists. Which, I > guess, is probably true. But still, the movie doesn't say so. The only polygamist I've met, who told me he was polygamist, was Catholic. He had entered the seminary to become a priest, and turned his life over to God. And God ruined it for him. I guess some times you just can't win. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:52:36 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside Scott Parkin wrote: > So how *does* one sell Mormon stuff to Mormon audiences without breaching the > chapel doors? Can one sell to a Mormon audience from outside? Because I'm less > and less comfortable with merchandizing from inside. Perhaps Mormon culture and > Mormon religion are truly inseparable. It still feels like moneychangers on the > temple steps for me. > > Suggestions? Or am I just being too sensitive? You are not being too sensitive. This poster and fireside were utterly out of line. The way you market to Mormons is to market to them like any other product. You do not market to them with the apparent sanction of the church and with the intimation that consuming your product will produce righteousness and spirituality in the world. Well, you CAN market your product with that intimation, since certain animated scripture adaptations have been doing it for years, but when you make it look like the church endorses the claim (which at some level it must have, since someone in authority thought the poster and fireside were a good idea), that's where the line is crossed. - -- 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: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:21:47 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Members in Theater? Kim Madsen wrote: I wondered "how many people on this list are theater rats as well?" C'mon, 'fess up, by a a click of the mouse--how many of you have performed in plays/musicals in your lives. I played a donkey in a fourth grade production that included the number "Swing On A Star." Believe me, I'm on of the best jack-asses in the world. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:55:32 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Reference in SWAT Bill Willson wrote: > So, who said that writing designed to strengthen and uplift would not > include telling the truth about real people? I'm assuming that these > elements should be inherent in our writing. What I object to is writers who, > in an effort to show human fallibility, make their characters seem like > unthinking Cretan-like Neanderthals or a cross between Homer Simpson and > Archie Bunker. So do I, because such characters are just as dishonest as "perfect" Mormons. But are you saying that's the sort of character that was in the cute Mormons scenes of SWAT? - -- 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: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:37:34 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] Richard Dutcher Public Radio Interview KUER -- RadioWest here in the SLC area -- had a very interesting interview with Richard Dutcher recently. You can listen at the archives page which has the following blurbage: RadioWest Friday 28, Filmmakers who are Mormon Doug Fabrizio SALT LAKE CITY, UT (2003-08-29) Listen to the Show Richard Dutcher's God's Army was an immediate success and almost single-handedly launched a new genre; LDS filmmaking. Grossing millions of dollars, LDS films have arrived but have they crossed over to a non-Mormon audience? What does the new genre say about the Mormon faith and its portrayal in the media? And as a bonus, you can go to the archive on censorship onstage if you want a ringside seat at the discussion of the Neil Simon vs. The Grove Theater match. :-) Steve P. - -- skperry@mac.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:56:04 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside Eric D. Snider wrote: > This sort of thoughtlessness is stunning, absolutely stunning. Have > any of these people even SEEN the movie yet? For all they know, it's > the worst film ever made. But being based on the Book of Mormon, it's > automatically worth seeing and planning ward activities around? If > the film does suck -- and everything I've heard about it so far > suggests that it does -- I hope people will respond accordingly. But > I have this sick feeling that it's going to make money anyway. I think this movie's probability of financial success tells us something. Many Mormons are so desperate for their religion and beliefs to be taken seriously--to be treated not as a strawman to be dismantled but as a real and powerful force in their lives--that they're willing to watch poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly produced movies that provide this kind of validation. They so hungry, they'll accept whatever they get and consume it gratefully. It's the The Work and the Glory syndrome in film. No one has ever claimed it as a work of high artistic merit or strong literary complexity. But it takes the foundational history of the Church seriously and presents it simply as a fact. No debates about the psychological foundations of Joseph Smith's life-long delusions. No smirks about the reliability of a 14-year-old gold-digger's stories or why he was so interested in looking inside Moroni's robes. No deconstructions of the communal myth. He presents the simplified (and correlated) stories as simply true. Mormons want that. I grew up in the Chicago area. I made two pilgrimages to Zion as a young person--one for my uncle's wedding, and one to go to BYU as a student. My first response to the blatant expressions of Mormon religion nearly everywhere I went was a sort of giddy wonder--my religion was not only acceptable here, it was actively approved. Cool! It wasn't until later that I came to be embarrassed by some of our communal excesses and trivialities (it would take years before I learned to stop being embarrassed--or at least to be less embarrassed). But for a giddy few weeks, I found the overwhelming validation of my religious foundations to be a wonderful thing. I didn't really care how well rendered it was. To abuse Mark Twain, it wasn't that the bear danced well so much as that it danced at all. I disagree with pretty much everything about The Book of Mormon Movie. I don't like their marketing program or their FUBU/buy-it-because-it's-Mormon approach. I don't like the movie poster with Nephi grimacing like he's sitting on a pointed stick and the adoring hero-worship in the eyes of the character who's supposed to be his wife. I don't care for the trailer I saw on their Web site (the new and improved one) that reveals almost comically cheesy costume and set design. I'm one of those people who believes that a project to film the whole Book of Mormon is a colossally bad idea--pick a story, any story, and adapt that into a new and unique plot foundation; but attempting the whole thing is just too much to try, with too many pitfalls. Still, I can understand why people will see it. Not because it's art, or even because it's adequate film making. Not because it shows all signs of being not just cheese, but low-grade cheese. They'll see it because it takes their faith and the Book of Mormon as real, and the idea of seeing validation of their religion on a commercial movie screen is a very, very powerful draw for a community that still feels like it's never been accepted as a legitimate and worthwhile religion--even in Utah. It may only be the illusion of external validation, but it's a powerful illusion and the desire for acceptance is so very great. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:07:31 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside Eric D. Snider wrote: > This sort of thoughtlessness is stunning, absolutely stunning. Have > any of these people even SEEN the movie yet? For all they know, it's > the worst film ever made. But being based on the Book of Mormon, it's > automatically worth seeing and planning ward activities around? If > the film does suck -- and everything I've heard about it so far > suggests that it does -- I hope people will respond accordingly. But > I have this sick feeling that it's going to make money anyway. If you look at the discussion on The Book of Mormon Movie over on imdb.com, you'll see a rapid digression into the poles that discussion of this film will inevitably fall towards--the "it's a poorly made film that fails as art, therefore it's completely loathesome" group and the "who cares if it's cheesy; it's about the *Book of Mormon* and deserves respect on that basis alone; criticism of the film is the same thing as criticism of the book" camp. It's an interesting discussion. Being unmoderated, it's also somewhat less than polite. But it does cut pretty much straight to the chase and reveals the problem many Mormons have with separating religion from art in these kinds of discussions, as well as a ready defensiveness. Scroll to the bottom to access the thread titles. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0349159/ Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:56:17 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) Jonathan Langford wrote: > I think that the statement "Too often, Church members don't believe that > our leaders can be wrong" most often is shorthand for something like this. > What do the rest of you think? I mostly agree with you. Here is how the concept of infallible leaders impacts me personally... It requires us to have near-perfect leaders. It requires us to have near-perfect history. Since neither of these things are remotely true, and that fact is becoming more glaringly obvious with every passing year (every passing Sunstone Symposium?), the church officially and its members generally are placed in an impossible situation. The church looks more and more like an organization of buffoons. We deny the obvious, pretend what's real is not, pretend what's not real is, and are utterly incapable of owning up to our mistakes or the mistakes of our heritage. This is not a recipe for generating respect. The rank-and-file members are increasingly placed in an impossible situation. To me there seem to be only three possible approaches a member can take under these circumstances. First, the head-in-the-sand approach: ignore all the facts (which seems to be the approach the church wants us to take). Second, give up: leave the church as an angry, embittered apostate, because I can't take the intellectually dishonest approach of sticking my head in the sand. Both of these solutions succumb to the same myth: that church leaders and church history must be near-perfect, or the gospel isn't true. Acclaimed anti-Mormon crusaders Jerald and Sandra Tanner with their Lighthouse Ministry succumb to this myth as much as the most staunch orthodox Mormon: church leaders and church history are not near-perfect, therefore the Gospel can't be true. The third approach is to switch one's paradigm: to redefine what it means to be a prophet, what scripture is, and what it means to be the true church. This is the only solution that merges two apparently conflicting worldviews: the existing body of historical facts and the claim that the LDS church is of divine origin. In my opinion, it's the only realistic, intellectually honest approach a thinking, believing Mormon can take. And it's one that can get you tossed out of the church--figuratively or literally--if you're too public about it. Therein lies the dilemma. None of these three approaches are palatable. Head-in-the-sand cannot work for me. Denying the gospel cannot work for me. The third approach potentially puts me at odds with my leaders and my fellow Saints--with the religion of my life. It puts me in an impossible situation with my children, where I have to either teach them things that appear contrary to what they are taught in church, or quietly let others teach them things I am convinced are wrong. And it leaves the sword of Damocles hanging eternally over my head, as I wonder when the hair will break and the blade will fall and cut me from association with my fellow Saints. This is what the statement "Too often, Church members don't believe that our leaders can be wrong" means to me. - -- 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: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:33:36 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) Thom Duncan wrote: > "More" perfect? Is that like "almost" pregnant. Someone is either > perfect, or they are not. GAs are no more or less perfect than any > other mortal who walks the earth. I do agree with you, though, in that > there are problems if we hold them to the extreme of either spectrum. I disagree. If you accept "perfect" to mean "complete" as a great many commentators do, then the statement makes perfect sense. A GA can be more perfect--aka, more complete--in the integration of their faith than others. Not fully perfect or complete, but more so. It's something that happens to me fairly regularly. Some good friends of mine nurse very strong resentments against the Church for failing to embrace their particular cause or failure to acknowledge their particular struggles. I share many of the same core frustrations and experiences; I can't imagine every feeling fully accepted at church. But I've had a hard time condemning the Church as a whole. When I express that thought the most common response is "You've given yourself permission to forgive; I can't do that." I'm not claiming any great integration or completeness of faith, but I guess my perfection is greater than that of some of my friends in this one area. I see and understand how they feel, but have a different--and I think more integrated--viewpoint about how the pieces fit together. I still feel the betrayal and I understand (and appreciate) their condemnations; I just don't reach the same conclusion. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:09:23 -0500 From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Members in Theater? I'm a past tense theater performer: plays and musicals when I was a = teenager. I got to play Annie's little sister Nellie in the Cyprus High = production of ANNIE GET YOUR GUN when I was in the sixth grade because I = knew the director and it was, hands down, the most exciting event of my = young life (I think I had, like, four lines); I did Fiddler twice; = Cinderella--where kissing the prince in front of an auditorium full of = all my friends the first time I rehearsed it was one of the most = horrifying memories of my adolescence--; a production of Studs Terkel's = _Working_ put on by my brand-new-just-out-of-BYU drama teacher where I = played (surpise, surprise!) "Just a Housewife" (and the song still rings = through my head to this day). Once I became a "grown-up," though, I turned more to books and writing, = mainly because these are activities I can do in the family room while my = children are watching Cartoon Network. But when I think back to my ten = year old self, conscientiously highlighting all four of my lines in the = ANNIE GET YOUR GUN script, star-struck with awe at the handsome = seventeen year old guy who played Annie's fiance (I can't remember his = name!), I know there's a part of me that gave itself over to the theater = a long time ago, and I'm hoping I can use it again someday. =20 Angela Hallstrom =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:40:43 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Irreantum Film Issue Request for Submissions The winter issue of Irreantum Magazine will have a film theme: the state of LDS cinema so far. As guest editor of that issue, I'd like to invite anyone interest to submit articles on this theme for consideration. Deadline for submission is end of November, although earlier is better. - -- 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, 31 Aug 2003 11:13:05 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] AML-List Members in Theater? >--how many of you have performed in >plays/musicals in your lives. How many still do? I was a wanna-be theater rat. I guess I still am. It doesn't actually go away, does it? :-) I was an extra in _Rebel Without a Cause_ my freshman year of high school, and that's as far as I ever got. That was in part because I didn't *want* to do lights, sound, or sets, I wanted to be in the *cast.* Being a no-line extra was OK. Just: in the cast. I got a "C" in Drama the next year, which is the only "C" I ever landed (outside of P.E.) in my life. That was depressing. I didn't bother auditioning for the other productions the rest of high school, which were _The Pigman,_ _A Streetcar Named Desire,_ and something else equally dramatic (possibly Hedda Gabler or the like--I don't remember). While other schools were doing _Guys and Dolls_ or _Oklahoma,_ Mr. Allen did the heavy drama because he wanted to Win Prizes. (I think they did, too.) I never did figure out how to find auditions at BYU... since I wasn't a theater major, I thought I couldn't. Why major in something I'd been told I really stunk at? I didn't possess the confidence to take another drama class and repeat the humiliation. But I'll be satisfied to write, for the time being. I majored in English and aced every creative writing class I ever took: I gained confidence I could *do* that. I auditioned for a community theater role 4 years ago, and was told by phone I was "being considered" for a role--however, the actual call-back never came... and I didn't investigate why, then, because I became horrifically morning-sick with my 5th child at the same time. Being Mommy is VASTLY more important than the theater bug, hands-down, forever. (I've caught a film bug now too... durn things are contagious) And I am writing, and I've been published by a number of editors so far. Maybe someday I'll write a play someone wants to produce. THAT would be cool. It will probably be the closest I get to being a theater rat. Whether I possess latent talent or not--by the time my children are grown, I'll be well over 50--and there is no slew of roles for women over 40 anywhere. I have always wondered, though, if I really stink at acting that terribly, or if I was too naive and silly at 15 to be any good, or if it was just that one particular teacher that shot me down. That's the main reason I geared up and auditioned 15 years later: to find that out. It didn't go so bad as I feared. Then two more babies arrived.... and I'm still not at a point I could do the rehearsal schedule. I may gear up again when they're a bit older. Who knows? So.... there I go taking a long time to say "no, but I sure wish I had..." I do wish the bug wasn't permanent. Linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:10:14 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > To me there seem to be only three possible approaches a=20 > member can take under these circumstances. First, the=20 > head-in-the-sand=20 > approach: ignore all the facts (which seems to be the approach the=20 > church wants us to take). Second, give up: leave the church=20 > as an angry,=20 > embittered apostate, because I can't take the intellectually=20 > dishonest=20 > approach of sticking my head in the sand. >=20 > >=20 > The third approach is to switch one's paradigm: to redefine what it=20 > means to be a prophet, what scripture is, and what it means to be the=20 > true church. This is the only solution that merges two apparently=20 > conflicting worldviews: the existing body of historical=20 > facts and the=20 > claim that the LDS church is of divine origin. In my opinion,=20 > it's the=20 > only realistic, intellectually honest approach a thinking, believing=20 > Mormon can take. Or you can go with a fourth option. How about recognizing that the facts bandied about so easily by various organizations and/or individuals are inherently unstable. Even when the current batch of story-tellers aren't agendized, never, ever forget that contemporary accounts cannot be taken at face value. The gospel and the early church leaders are hard to be neutral about now *and* then. *All* accounts, even ones that seem neutral on their face, are biased and even triangulating accounts isn't going to be conclusive--if only because personal taste and preference will dictate which accounts are triangulated. There was a concerted effort to discredit the church in Joseph's day and lying accounts were coordinated in attempts to do so. In the end, you can't rely on anything so comfortable as "facts". Facts about the time exist, but we won't *ever* know them. You won't. I won't. Michael Quinn doesn't. I think the only realistic, intellectually honest approach to take is that there's a lot of interesting stuff there, and some of it is probably true, a lot of it is undoubtedly false, and any fact you think you know, might not actually be true. Basing your current actions on beliefs about the past is dangerous. It has always been. That's why we *have* modern prophets--because knowledge from/of the past is inherently unreliable. So I treat historical accounts as I treat any other stories. They're interesting to know, possibly truthful, potentially useful, and useless without interpretation and application. Just as you claim that each of us is responsible for how we take in fiction, we're equally responsible for how we take in history. Call that burying my head in the sand if you want, but you could be said to be dangling off a cliff on a rope of someone else's manufacture. There's a lot of things scattered about that don't seem to fit very well. As a result, there's a lot of stuff I have filed under "uncertain" to correlate against further information as it becomes available. Any conclusions based on those things are tentative and subject to change, doubt, and revision. Particularly those things that go counter to my testimony. Pile a mountain of supposed "facts" against an ounce of personal revelation and guess which one has more weight? Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:39:05 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing Bill Willson wrote: > By developing plots that lead our characters > from the depths of human despair to the heights of growth, redemption, and > faith in our Lord and Savior, we can instill in our readers a desire to do > the same. Personally I see nothing wrong in this goal for my writing. I think a story that does this can be a wonderful story. But these are not the only types of stories that can be wonderful. For me, my moral (religious) obligation is to be true to the principles of the gospel in my book. The world presented in my book is a world where the principles of the gospel are effective. But that doesn't mean everybody in the book chooses to observe those principles. As I like to say, "My book is faithful to the gospel, but not all the characters are." My obligation is to offer redemption to all the characters in the book. However, as in real life, not all characters will choose to accept redemption. Characters who reject redemption are just as important as characters who accept it, because such people exist in real life. If we refuse to show characters who reject redemption, then we are literally refusing a whole segment of our population to have a voice in our literature. Those who in real life are struggling with whether to accept redemption or not have nowhere to go in our literature to help them with that struggle. Those who have loved ones who reject redemption have nowhere to go in our literature to help them deal with this forlorn situation. The LDS teenager struggling to get off drugs will find no inspiration from a story which shows an LDS teenager successfully resisting the temptation to get involved in drugs. He or she will only find despair in that story--no upliftment whatsoever. The LDS gay individual trying to find a way to be himself and LDS will find no inspiration in a book that denounces homosexuality as unnatural and treats the gay individual as a subhuman. He will only find despair. The wayward sheep is just as important as the ninety-nine who do not stray. Jesus taught us that. Not all wayward sheep come back to the fold. Nor do all wayward sheep get their come-uppance in this life. Our literature, to be honest, and to be relevant to all members of the audience, needs to reflect all these realities. Otherwise we are literarily disenfrachising whole segments of our own population. - -- 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: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:26:46 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: [AML] Books by GAs; Misc Their books, by and large, sell because of their calling in the = kingdom. =20 This summer I bound a copy of the Gospel of St. Thomas, the Gospel of = Phillip and The gospel of Mary. I wanted to see how artificial sinew = would work in a Coptic binding. (By the way, it doesn't work. It's not = pliable enough. Interestingly, the Gospel of Mary originally had a = Coptic binding.) Anyway, in the Gospel of St. Thomas Christ is reported = to have said, "The Kingdom of my Father is inside of you and outside of = you." That's so beautiful to me. I'm not getting along very well with = the Church right now, and it's so happy for me to know that I may not be = part of the Kingdom, but the Kingdom is part of me. I may be wrong, but I think the Gospel of St. Thomas was one of the = books they took out of the Bible because it was trouble some. That = sound like something the Christ of the Gospel of St. Mark would say. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 17:12:56 -0500 From: "Walters, Isaac C" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] RE: AML-List Members in Theater? I was responding to the request to find out who on the AML List are theatre people. I am one of those people. In fact, trying to find a uniquely Mormon way of approaching theatre is my artistic goal in life. Isaac Walters - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:15:35 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Jeff PROFITT, _Blue Collar Actor_ (Movie Review) "Blue Collar Actor" Written, directed and produced by Jeff Profitt Production company: Liahona Films, New Jersey Distributed by: LDS Video Store (http://www.ldsvideostore.com) Released in 2003. Length: 56 minutes Review by Preston Hunter Plot Description: Actor/director Jeff Profitt stars as Kevin Anderson, a man who dreams of becoming an actor. However, right after high school he married his high school sweetheart and started a family. He decided that becoming an actor was only a dream and not a reality. Now, years later, after getting bored with his average blue-collar life, he decides that maybe he should give his dream a try. Kevin talks with his wife about chasing his dream. At first she doesn't think it's such a good idea, but after pondering the idea, Kevin's wife decides that he should give it a shot. So Kevin sets out to fulfill his dream. Let me briefly describe what Jeff Profitt's new film "Blue Collar Actor" is, and what it is not. This is a low-budget direct-to-video feature-length movie. It is short for a feature length film -- just about one hour long rather than stretched to around two hours as many are, but that's a good thing. It is the right length to fully develop the characters and straight forward story. If you like to see highly personal, low budget, independent films, you may well enjoy this. But be aware that when I say "low budget," I mean essentially "no budget." This is a movie made by one family. The director stars in it, and his real-life wife plays his wife, and his real-life kids play his kids. But do not make the mistake of thinking this is a "home movie." It is not. Serious thought and effort have obviously been put into this project. The writing, filming, and post-production were taken seriously by somebody who, although inexperienced, clearly knows about the whole filmmaking process. In terms of the budget and scope of the film, "Blue Collar" is very comparable to John Lyde's films "The Field is White" and "In the Service of God." But whereas Lyde's films were expressly about distinct Latter-day Saint themes, "Blue Collar Actor" is more universal in its content. The filmmaker and the film's characters are indeed Latter-day Saints, but the name of the Church is not mentioned specifically, and the themes are more about the family and the characters rather than specific religious themes. Their faith informs the story, but the main character's quest to become an actor (or simply to better his lot in life) is universally understandable. "Blue Collar Actor" is also interesting in its total independence from Utah as a setting or influence. Even movies which took place partially in New York City, such as "Out of Step" and "Charly," were actually filmed mostly in Utah, and were always about Utahns transplanted to an "alien" East Coast environment. "Blue Collar Actor" is something altogether different. It was made entirely in New Jersey and features New Jersey characters. These Saints and their story evoke a spirituality and sense of goodness similar to other LDS and good family films, yet this film offers a glimpse at something distinctly different. The blue collar vs. college-educated background, the urban projects setting, and even the never-mentioned but visually evident biracial makeup of the family all lend an authentic freshness to the production. More than any of these surface details, however, "Blue Collar Actor" is different because of the bleak, almost hopeless nature of the main character's lives. The smallest of expenses, such as gas money for driving to an audition, might mean not having enough money to put food on the table. Yet the characters summon an inspiring degree of faith and hopefulness in their struggle to achieve their dreams. The fact that the main character's plans for making it as an actor frequently seem ill-adviced and impossibly far-reaching. This makes his efforts no less impressive. My praise for the film's background and the distinctive nature of its setting and characters within this niche should be tempered with a clear understanding that this is the work of a very inexperienced filmmaker. Prior to making "Blue Collar Actor," Profitt had only made a couple of short films. "Blue Collar Actor" should not be thought of as an "art film." The musical score has some nice moments, but is mostly amateurish. Most people do not notice the editing in films, but if you do, you will notice that the cutting here is amateurish at best. "Blue Collar Actor" was shot on video, so it does not have the same look as a 35mm film. Yet for something shot on video, the sound, colors and lighting are surprisingly good - never noticably flawed or distracting. The acting is mostly quite good, and the kids are a joy to watch. But the woman who plays the wife is obviously not an experienced actor, and at times it is difficult to decide if her performance is amazingly natural and authentic, or is simply the result of a non-actor trying to deliver lines. Whatever the case, her performance IS refreshingly understated and she NEVER over-acts. Her character a very unique picture of an African-American woman. Gone are all pretense of spunkly, uber-woman, or histrionic stereotypes. She is simply a very honestly portrayed Christian woman trying to survive in a life that has largely beaten her down with bleak reality. Viewers with a particularly artistic bent may find that the film's biggest flaw is its rather happy ending. The ending will probably please most viewers, but may seem unearned or insufficiently grim to those who aspire to be writers. I recommend "Blue Collar Actor" to anybody who appreciates low-budget, highly personal filmmaking. I found it interesting and compelling despite its flaws. The story on screen (and no doubt the story behind the camera as well) is one of utterly ordinary people who hold on to hope and goodness despite seemingly overwhelming odds and stifling surroundings. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #140 ******************************