From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #146 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, September 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number 146 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:00:18 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing [MOD: This particular exchange between Scott and Michael raises a number of issues related to purposes of literature in a Mormon worldview that I think could be very fruitfully explored: everything from whether certain types of literature are escapist to whether exploration of pain is inherently more valid or real than exploration of other emotions (and whether we treat it that way in our discussions and evaluations of literature). I'd like to encourage all of us to take this as a chance, not to engage in some kind of binary debate from fixed positions, but to explore some of those questions and our thoughts and experiences in that connection.] Scott Parkin wrote: > Which sounds suspiciously like an agenda to me--fight the power; doubt > everything; don't give in to conformity. I thought agendas were bad. Two points. One, this sounds like an extremely liberal definition of agenda. It sounds liek one of those "everything is..." definitions: everything is art, all behavior is self-serving. By your definition, the author who wants to write as story that people will enjoy reading and sell lots and make him a comfortable living has an agenda. Second point, Being willing to examine one's unquestioned assumptions is hardly the same thing as figthing power or doubting everything. (I will admit it's not giving in to conformity, but that sounds like a good thing to me.) I'd call it being humble, being teachable. Someone who is not willing to subject what he believes to the test now and then--when there's reason to do so, not just willy-nilly to ostentatiously look open-minded--is someone stuck at the level of progress he's at. > I'm not convinced, however, that preference for one kind of literature over > another makes one intellectually or spiritually dishonest, or that story is the > only source of opposing viewpoints. We live in a world where people are > surrounded by a wide variety of media outlets that spout an equally wide variety > of (often contradictory) ideas. People are told by neighbors or coworkers or the > radio or television ads or films or their own children that their ideas are > silly or outdated or simply wrong. More so now than ever before, people face > arguments and challenges to their assumptions every day. Many choose their > fiction based on a desire to find peace rather than challenge. A desire to find > out that you're not the only one who feels a certain way proves almost nothing > in and of itself. That's why I didn't say avoid affirmation literature. But by the same token, people who are vulnerable to neighbors or coworkers or radio or television or films or their children telling them that their ideas are silly or outdated or wrong are the kind of person who _does_ avoid examining and trying their beliefs on occasion. Then the only recourse to saving their beliefs in the face of challenge is the head-in-the-sand routine. Stories aren't the only source of opposing viewpoints. But they're one of the safer ones. We've discussed this before. Stories are a safe way to boldly experiment with our beliefs without suffering lasting consequences in the real world, because stories are fiction. Stories aren't the only way to examine our lives, but they're a superior way. Affirmation stories don't do that. They serve a vital need, but they don't serve all needs. What on earth is wrong with encouraging someone to sample a different type of literature than what they're comfortable with? Especially if you know their perception of that type of literature is inaccurate? Have you never tried to correct someone's misperception of science fiction, then encourage them to try it and see if they like it? Don't you do this because you see a value in science fiction that you want to share with others because you think it will benefit them? Do you ever demand that they quit reading Cosmopolitan before becoming a science fiction fan? > I'm also not convinced that holding one's assumptions up to scrutiny requires > much in the way of personal change. Many people hold their ideas up to scrutiny > yet remain unmoved by the evidences they hear. Many test their faith over and > over again and find that it remains nearly whole or essentially unchanged. That's another issue entirely. I can't fix their whole lives. I can only suggest they try something I think will benefit them, then they're on their own. > The problem is that the only outward evidence of this kind of scrutiny or > consideration is substantial change in personal philosophy. If I read about the > origins of the doctrine of blood atonement (as I did this week; a doctoral > thesis on the Mormon Reformation of 1856-57) yet remain convinced that the > Church remains true despite it, then I'm liable to be criticized by many as > either an uncareful reader, a brainwashed dupe of the correlated establishment, > intellectually dishonest, or closed-minded. In other words, if I don't change my > assumptions based on the reading then I must not be thinking deeply enough. Only from people who think in as black-and-white terms as those who think you're unrighteous for reading that blood atonement stuff in the first place. Both sides could use a little re-examination of their unquestioned assumption: church leaders and history must be near-perfect, or the gospel is not true. > I can't argue about the depth of my thought, but I can say that I approached the > work with as open a mind as I know how to have. I didn't approach it looking for > evidence of anything in particular--I came to learn, and ended up accepting some > of the conclusions presented and rejecting others based on both my own > experience and the evidence of other sources that I trusted more. > But I don't accept that any of those things make the Church untrue. > In other words, I have to prove the points of my faith on my own terms. In my > case, I can accept that good and worthy people may come to different conclusions > on some points than me, yet still remain good and worthy. That's how my faith is > built. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You were willing to examine the facts and examine your beliefs in the light of new facts, and I dare say you came away with a faith that was stronger for the experience. No one can "get" your testimony on blood atonement anymore. You can speak in defense of your faith from an informed position of strength. What can the person do when confronted with the facts about blood atonement who's only ever read Jack Weyland his whole life? Stick his head in the sand or lose his testimony. > But that isn't good enough for some. If I come out of reading on blood atonement > with my faith unshaken, many will accuse me of provincialism and an > insufficiency of honest intellect. Who cares? Such people are as simplistic in their thought processes as they claim people of faith are. > If I come out of the reading with my faith > shaken, many will accuse me of poor spiritual foundations and an overabundance > of pride. Who cares? Such people are clueless about spiritual things. > So I don't worry too much about what they think and continue to seek > more and better understanding using the tools that are available to me. In the > end, the responsibility for my own testimony falls squarely on myself--and the > responsibility for others' testimonies lies with them. Absolutely. But is that the religious climate we find ourselves in today? What I see is a belief that the bishop is responsible for my testimony and the predominant folk doctrine of the culture is what I'm supposed to believe, and all I'm supposed to do is not rock the boat. > No one is a closed book, and none of us can know what other people have > experienced or how their experiences have affected them. So I have a hard time > condemning anyone for their choices in literature, even when my own choices are > very, very different. Finding the balance between serving our neighbors and being intrusive is a difficult one, and everyone ends up drawing the line in a different place. But I for one believe I am sufficiently wise to have a reasonable idea of what constitutes valuable literature, and if I see someone--not reading a Jack Weyland book--but feeding his mind with an exclusive diet of nothing but Weylanesque literature, I think I am justified in concluding that this person could use an infusion of more variety in his literary diet and doing whatever UNintrusive thing I can to suggest he expand his horizons. When school teachers do that, it's considered a good thing. Why not when I do it? > The problem is that humans are quick to judge. Some are looking for an excuse to > believe one thing or disbelieve another. And having judged and chosen, humans > tend to quickly identify those who chose otherwise and identify them as broken > or dishonest or otherwise wrong. This is true, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. Too many human beings live in fear of making a mistake, so they do nothing. This is the worst possible action to take. If humans are quick to judge, then we should go ahead and act anyway, and be on guard for the possibility of judging too quickly. > Line upon line doesn't require that new > learning supplant old learning or that newly acquired facts require the > rejection of old ones. Sometimes--often, even--careful exploration reveals that > what we knew before was even more right than we previously suspected. That > happens to me a lot. Certainly, but we must also be prepared for those times when we learn our assumptions or interpretations or ways in which we implement our knowledge was wrong, and be willing to accept that. > Again, though, the problem is proof. If I don't show constant radical change, > then some class of people will accuse me of laziness or stupidity. Who cares? They're idiots. > I'm just not > convinced that the inaccuracy of our assumptions requires that we cast away some > or all of our belief structure as we learn more. For heavens sake, who said it did? The value of exploration is two-fold. We may find beliefs that are erroneous, then we can correct them. But just as valuable is to verify that beliefs are right, thereby strengthening them. Neither can happen if exploration doesn't occur. > I understand what you're saying, but I don't accept your conclusion. Many read > affirmation literature as a balm against the challenges they face in other > aspects of their lives--not because they're not willing to have their beliefs > challenged, but because they've challenged their beliefs by other means and > choose to seek relief in literature. It's the balance to other experiences. Put this way, I would agree with you. But I don't think this is what's happening with many people who read exclusively affirmation literature. I think most of them are _unable_ to handle the challenges of life and therefore seek relief in affirmation literature the way an ostrich seeks relief from physical danger by sticking its head in the sand. They are unable to handle the challenges of life because they grew up in a religious environment that taught them never to explore, never to seek, never to question, never to rock the boat. So when the inevitable challenges of life come along, they're not up to the task and have to run and hide. I don't consider this a good thing. > There's an assumption that literature is the only way to expand one's horizons, > and I just don't accept that. It's not, but it's a superior one. You can drive a nail with a wrench, but I'd recommend a hammer. > Literature serves many purposes, not just one. > Each of those many--and often contradictory--purposes can be equally true and > valid. I read a wide variety of stories, essays, histories and articles. I don't > read poetry of any kind. I read very few plays. Have I missed out on some of the > power and beauty--and even the challenges to my basic assumptions--that drama > and poetry can offer? Yes. But I think I make up for it in the diversity of my > other readings and the fact that I'll talk about anything with anyone, pretty > much any time. That's great, but you're in the minority. > People who think we should only read affirmation literature may well believe > that we need more affirmative balance to the other challenges in our life, that > we should seek hope where we can find it because it's offered by precious few > other sources these days. Maybe it isn't about spiritual laziness at all, but a > (possibly accurate) belief that we should take every chance we can to fill our > cup against the future droughts that will inevitably come. I'm sure it's all true. Some do it for valid reasons, others do it from a fear-based motivation, still others from spiritual laziness--they want someone else to make the moral decisions for them. (Of course, that's also fear-based.) > I'm not convinced that exploring our own pain is a substantially better way of > discovering Truth than exploring our hopes is. Different methods; same goal. Not > exclusive at all, in my opinion. Why are we assuming that "exploring through literature" means only exploring pain? I never specified what to explore. I only said explore. I recommend exploring as many different things are you are humanly capable of. Pain, hope, fear, faith, anger, peace, hate, love, despair, joy, damnation, redemption, cruelty, kindness. Some of these things are dangerous to explore in real life--that's why literature is a superior form of exploration. It's a safe way to explore dangerous things. - -- 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, 5 Sep 2003 08:57:45 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: "Chantaclair" Subject: [AML] Re: _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance RE: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 09:11:56 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: "Chantaclair" Subject: [AML] Re: Uplifting Writing RE: "Affirmation literature does nothing of the kind. Affirmation literat= ure=0D makes us feel good about what we already know (which is not a bad thing=0D _from time to time_), but does nothing to help us expand our knowledge=0D and wisdom. People who think we should only read affirmation literature=0D are refusing to add any more lines and precepts upon the lines and=0D precepts they already have. I don't see how that can possibly be a good=0D thing." ~ D. Michael Martindale Well. . . yes. It does just that, and no, it isn't a bad thing from time= to time. . . I do disagree that it does 'nothing to help us expand out knowledge and wisdom' however. At least for me, I am a forgetful soul, a= nd ofttimes I 'remember' something I already knew and it is so fresh again t= hat it is almost new. That said, I'm not a fan of affirmation literature. I like to stretch, reach, and be challenged. HOWEVER, I do NOT like to stretch constantly, reach indefinitely or be challenged till my mind melt= s.=20 There is a thing such as balance that will make me pick up a book, look a= t a painting, watch a performance or choose something to perform myself again and again. It is about both, remembering and learning new. Can't that be done seamlessly? =0D =0D Marsha Steed=0D =0D http://Chantaclair.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:11:10 -0700 From: John Dewey Remy Subject: RE: [AML] Convictions of Otherness At 06:31 AM 9/2/03 -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: >Jacob Proffitt wrote: > >>(A carpenter? I've always wondered about that, actually. Just because >>Joseph was one--and likely better translated as mason at that. Doesn't >>seem very substantial evidence though it explains analogies using >>cornerstones, keystones, and building foundations). > >Wasn't it customary for the son to learn the father's trade back then? If >that's so, then we'd probably need definite evidence before concluding >that Jesus wasn't a carpenter, or mason, or whatever. I think that we have a tendency to adopt an image of Jesus very much like ourselves--many LDS in the United States see an Anglo Jesus with light brown hair and blue eyes and middle-class sensibilities. Perhaps when they think of Jesus as a carpenter, they think of a skilled, respected artisan. Mark uses the word "tekton" to describe Jesus, and in the language of the wealthy literati in the Greco-Roman world, "tekton" had negative connota tions--perhaps not unlike the way upper-class Americans might use terms like "migrant worker" or "trailer park." Matthew, who most likely had Mark's Gospel as a reference when writing his own, distances Jesus from the occupation by calling him "the son of a tekton." Luke and John, probably the latest Gospels to be written, simply call Jesus the son of Joseph. Recent excavations reveal that Nazareth was a poor, tiny village of perhaps several families early in the first century. The people there struggled to survive. A small percentage of people occupied the upper socio-economic strata, and most everyone else worked the land. Landless artisans in the countryside fell below even the peasant class in social terms. It is quite possible that Joseph's family fell into this impoverished class. Sepphoris, a Greco-Roman city perhaps about a 30-60 minute walk from Nazareth might have been one source of work opportunity for Joseph and Jesus, as well as other major Roman construction projects throughout Galilee. Granted, much of this is debateable (I get most of this stuff from scholars like J.D.Crossan, whose work is considered by many to be controversial). If we accept some of these sociological and economic conditions as historic reality, then a different picture of Jesus emerges. Perhaps his modern socio-economic counterpart would be more like a Dustbowl-era itinerant preacher in the Midwest, or perhaps an inner-city minister and the child of sharecropping or migrant worker parents, passing much of his time among crack-addicts and teenage prostitutes in gang-ridden barrios. Would the comfortable and complacent (but religiously devout) in well-to-do America be ready to listen to an inspired message from such a person? John Remy UC Irvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:47:58 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? > So is it me? Do I have the wrong concept of what roadshows are supposed to > be (i.e., fun and entertaining and not too serious)? Is this what the rest > of you are seeing in your stakes? Do you even have roadshows anymore? Is the > road show a dead art in Mormondom? I hear them mentioned a lot but have never attended a ward (or stake?) that put one on, that I can remember. (I've lived in various parts of Western Washington and Hawaii.) Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:21:56 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Death of the Road Show? I was absolutely stunned to read Lisa Tait's description of a recent = experience with a Road Show. I really did think the form was dead. = Certainly our stake hasn't done one for years, nor did my previous = stake, nor the stake we lived in before that. . . well, you get my = point. I want to go on record as saying that I love road shows. I've been = involved in several, have written and directed at least three that I can = remember. First time I ever kissed a girl was in a road show. She was = Rapunzel, I was the Prince, and she was also a year older than me, as = beautiful as a seventeen year old can be, and the sort of girl who would = never be interested in a geeky guy like me. Man, I will never forget = it. And she was never satisfied with the kissing scene, and thought it = needed lots of rehearsal. That experience taught me, as nothing else = could, the value of lots of rehearsal. Yes, road shows are supposed to be fun. My experience was that there = generally was a Theme, but that it was followed very loosely. And my = experience is that there was always that one ward that didn't get it, = and did something preachy, and that no one liked that one very much. =20 Road Shows died out, I suspect, in part because they're hard. It takes = a lot of time, it's a pain to get people to come to rehearsals, and if = you use kids for most of the parts (which I always did), it's a lot of = time away from classes for YW/YM. I always thought they were worth it, = and I cherish the memory of my experiences with them. It's great that = your stake is keeping the flame alive. One tiny question, though; is our culture getting preachier? I mean, = Lisa says most of the units in her stake went the heavy didactic route. = That did happen in my experience, but it wasn't the norm. Are we = getting more afraid of something that's mostly just fun? Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:34:31 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Heavenly Mothers Kathy Tyner wrote: >Thanks, indeed. I'd like to make note that when David McKay >asked Eliza R. Snow, "Did the Lord reveal that doctrine of motherhood >in heaven to you?", he seemed to imply that Lord would indeed reveal >such a deep doctrine to woman on her own, as if it were the most >natural thing in the world. This was at the end of a number of anecdotes that started with a conference talk by Wilford Woodruff, who said, "That hymn is a revelation, though it was given unto us by a woman--Sister Snow. There area great many sisters who have the spirit of revelation. There is no reason why they should not be inspired as well as men" ("Discourse by President Wilford Woodruff, October 8, 1893 (in Salt Lake)," _Millennial Star_ 56 [April 9, 1894]: 229; also in _The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff_, ed. G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969], 61-62). Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:11:23 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside The movie is already ruined for me ever since someone on here said that the guy who plays Nephi was on the show Queer as Folk. Now I just have these images in my head which is my own fault for watching the one episode I caught while channel surfing. Debbie Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:21:17 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Jeff PROFITT, _Blue Collar Actor_ (Movie Review) At 04:58 PM 9/3/03 -0600, Barbara Hume wrote: >At 04:15 PM 8/30/03 -0500, you wrote: >>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. > >Please! Not all of us who aspire to be (or are) writers think that a >depressing ending is necessary. Amen, Sister Barbara! - -- Ronn! :) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:38:41 -0700 From: Jeffrey Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks The tie-in to Mormon lit is very obvious, at least to me. How much of it is sugary stuff? How much leaves a bitter aftertaste? How much of it really quenches our thirst for good reading? And, most of all, how much Mormon literature does it take to produce a good, loud burp? On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:01:25 -0600, Barbara Hume wrote: > How does this tie in to Mormon lit? Um, Mormon lit is considered wimpy, > so we need to create a new Mormon lit that will appeal to macho types? - ------------------ Jeffrey Needle jeff.needle@general.com or jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:45:41 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: RE: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks At 06:27 PM 9/3/03 -0600, Kim Madsen wrote: >Me again: I'm still deciding if I'm really that old or just practicing. >Surely you've heard of the Red Hat Club of Ladies Who Lunch? >www.redhatsociety.org > >Kim Madsen No. But as many on this list can bear eyewitness=B9 testimony, I have worn= =20 purple=B2 for years. I don't think I have a red hat, though. _____ =B9Some of whom may have been struck blind as a result . . . =B2And even that is conservative compared to some things I have worn. - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:56:05 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing At 09:47 PM 9/3/03 -0600, Scott Parkin wrote: >D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > > To me it means re-examining our biases, our prejudices, our unquestioned > > assumptions, to see if they really hold up to scrutiny. > >Which sounds suspiciously like an agenda to me--fight the power; doubt >everything; don't give in to conformity. I thought agendas were bad. Just to be contrary (Who, me?), is not the idea that LDS writers should write nothing which is not "uplifting" (whatever that means) just as much of an agenda? - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@att.net who, as some here know, has submitted a number of pieces of writing this week that could be referred to as "uplifting" . . . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:14:13 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks [MOD: I'm allowing this reply of Kathy's, but given current list volume, we really need to move beyond the nonliterary aspects of this topic (that is, most or all of them, at this point).] Speaking of Cyclamates, I had a nutrition instructor who told our class that the cyclamate scare was a manufactured news story put out there by other artificial sweetner and sugar producers, it continued to be used as a sweetner in Europe for years afterwards. I love the idea of it being satirized in novels, thanks for the tip. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:21:57 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks I happen to know Lucky Vanous' brother. Who is not LDS, but can identify with us, as he has eight kids! Anyway, he told me Lucky realizes the Coke commercial put him on the map and led to his TV show, but is really kind of embarrassed about the whole thing. He knows he'll always be remembered for taking off his shirt before anything else he does and females will long remember him as a sex object. I just find that funny and ironic. ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ----- Original Message ----- > Actually, I used to like Tab, but it was considered a ladies' drink. So > Coke marketing created a new product and geared the advertising to men. > Well, that commercial with Lucky Vanouse showed a real man gulping it, but > the appeal there was certainly to those of us on the distaff side. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 23:32:13 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: Re: [AML] Jeff PROFITT, _Blue Collar Actor_ (Movie Review) I wrote: >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. barbara hume >Please! Not all of us who aspire to be (or are) writers think that a >depressing ending is necessary. Barbara, You obviously haven't seen "Blue Collar Actor." Believe me... you would think THIS ending is unearned or insufficiently grim. I never said, nor should you infer, anything about all writers or all endings. Fred Rogers on speed would consider this movie's ending insufficiently grim. Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:46:36 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? We do it the same way in my stake-One day to do it all. But we had the same mixed bag, a couple of the road shows, ours being one of them of course, were really good. The others, while having a couple of great one liners here and there, often really stretched at the theme and seemed more intent on delivering a "good" message than in being entertaining. It's possible to do both, ours did. One other thing that's unique to our stake-One of the counselors in the Stake Presidency is a lawyer and almost every production we have finds a way to poke fun at him and his profession inclucing having a character with his name showing up to defend in the Salem Witch trials. I had a great time in the road shows of my youth, but they required a lot of discipline and commitment. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:36:45 EDT From: Derek1966@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Convictions of Otherness In a message dated 9/5/03 09:27:31 PM, dmichael@wwno.com writes: << But we also have absolutely no record of his life between the ages of 12 and 30. That's a lot of time to build a lot of wooden things--six times longer than the three years of his recorded mission. What do you think he was doing all that time? >> Ah, you must not have read "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal," by Christopher Moore, so glowingly reviewed on this list last year by, I think, Eric Samuelsen. You'll find all those missing years covered in that book. :) John Perry Provo - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 21:41:19 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: "Chantaclair" Subject: [AML] Re: Death of the Road Show? RE: "=0D So is it me? Do I have the wrong concept of what roadshows are supposed t= o=0D be (i.e., fun and entertaining and not too serious)? Is this what the res= t=0D of you are seeing in your stakes? Do you even have roadshows anymore? Is = the=0D road show a dead art in Mormondom? ~ Lisa Tait " I have done tons. . . written, directed, choreographed, all of it. . .and yes. . . that is the experience. Some are didactic, some are fun, silly = and many are horrible. Our stake now does NOTHING that I can see that is in = any way cultural. My last stake did a bang-up job like you indicated, it was fun and something the kids looked forward to each year. We alternated wi= th one year dance festivals, one year roadshows, and the third year a major musical production (Of which I wrote and directed three) My experience h= as been that it is like any other calling in the church. We are a lay membership with lay talent. Sometimes the 'director' has oozing talent a= nd resources, and sometimes they simply are trying the best they can with wh= at the Bishop has tossed in their lap. Sometimes they have the support of t= he parents, and sometimes wards have to kick and scream to get an hour or tw= o of rehearsal time in at all. Anyone who has spent any time at all in production work will tell you that practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect My own favorite mantra. You simply can't put on a quality production without rehearsal time, and you can't get rehearsal ti= me without the support o both parents and leadership. I could write a book = on my experiences with productions on a 'ward' and stake level. Sometimes yo= u have three professional spotlights to work with, and other times you have= to use a slide projector with a slide that has a hole cut in it for your 'sp= ot' It is all in the game of it. You did what you were supposed to, and hopefully the experience was good for those who participated. I do know = one thing, my children remember those productions to the detail, but I highly doubt they can tell you about one talk or lesson or even YW activity. . .= in their past. Dead? Not everywhere, terminal? That, only time will tell = us. Marsha Steed - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 22:53:33 -0600 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside It seems to me that some people are assuming that this is a church-wide promotion or something. My understanding (from what I've read) is that the passing out of posters, etc., to media relations specialist happened in just one stake, and that it happened on the initiative of someone on that local level - and not at the urging of the church or of the filmmakers. All that I have seen of The Book of Mormon Movie's promotional plans - and I had some knowledge of them before the film was ever announced publicly - leads me to believe that this was not something that has been pushed by the film's promoters or the church, since it was acknowledged early on by the filmmakers that the church was not going to endorse any commercial projects (nor should it). Thomas - ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:02:20 -0600 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Anticipated Speaking of revisiting "Saturday's Warrior," that one's going to be coming to theaters soon too. Thomas - ---------------------------- "Of course, there should be a structure, an architecture to any score. It's not a piece here and a piece there. It has to be thought out. You can't approach each cue as a separate piece of music." - Jerry Goldsmith, composer Contact info: Thomas C. Baggaley Composer 9446 Fox Hunt Drive Sandy, Utah 84092 Tel: (801) 942-3580 E-mail: thomas@baggaleymusic.com Web page: http://www.baggaleymusic.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:26:58 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Members in Theater? Margaret Young: >Of course, we take that as an oral contract and anticipate that Julia Young will be featured in a starring >role in _The Prophet_. As she deserves to be. She's absolutely lovely! :) Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:00:08 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside Eric D. Snider writes: >>The latest rumor is that it's almost 2 1/2 hours >>long, which means on >>top of its other potential faults, it's also too >>long. But that's not >>verified yet. To which Thom replies: >I don't think the length would be a bother at all, if >the movie was good. Dances with wolves was that >length and nobody complained. Well *I* certainly complained! I remember quite distinctly standing up with my purse and jacket in hand at the end of _Dances with Wolves_, only to be shocked that, not only did the end credits not come up, but -- whaaaattt??? - -- the movie kept rolling! I sat back down. Huh? Clearly the movie was over, but Kevin and his Indian pals just walked, and walked, and walked...and...well, threw in a gratuitous sex scene. And then, finally, 25, 30 minutes after the end of the movie, the blessed thing finally stopped and the credits FINALLY rolled. It was the most clearly overlong movie I have EVER seen. (And that includes the vile _Tess_, which I walked out of when I finally ran out of popcorn to throw at the screen.) - --lmg - --------- OUR NEWEST WRITING PROJECT: Homeschooling Step by Step, Prima Publishing, Spring 2002. Everything you need to know about how to homeschool legally and effectively! How does your state rank? What's your child's learning style? What about college? Find teaching tips, teaching strategies, and more than 100 solutions to homeschooling's toughest problems! - --------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Web site: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #146 ******************************