From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #153 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, September 12 2003 Volume 02 : Number 153 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:08:18 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] SF versus SciFi (was: _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance) Thom Duncan: Romance readers read SciFi, not SF, a world of difference. _______________ You lost me here. I thought ... well, what *does* SF stand for, then? Thanks. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 23:13:59 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Anticipated I would probably also go the movie, knowing my husband would want to see it (heck, I just sat through _The Medallion_ with him when I wanted to see _Le Divorce_) but I doubt it will make it to the Cleveland Market. The closest _Johnny Lingo_ is getting to me is either Chicago or Indianapolis, and while I have grandbabies in both cities, it would be cheaper to wait for the video to come out. On an LDS musical note, Michael McLean was talked into coming to Kirtland at our Stake Center on the 16th and making a return engagement in December with _The Forgotten Carols_ which I have been wanting to see for eons. Debbie Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:17:38 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] AML-Review Archives Update As one of the reviewers, I would not accept a book in pdf format. Too hard on the eyes, too easily altered once the review is written. The impermanence of the medium bothers me. Others may feel differently. I've gotten books in many formats -- fully bound, manuscript form, loose pages, etc. -- but e-books of any kind don't have any attraction for me. In the meantime, why not introduce yourself and tell us a little about the book. Welcome to the list! At 03:51 PM 9/11/2003, you wrote: >I just joined the list, checked the archives, and discovered my book has >never been reviewed. Horrors! >Would anyone like a PDF copy? > >Beth (Elizabeth Petty Bentley: THE FLY ON THE ROSE) - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:22:55 -0600 From: "Eric Russell" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing Jeff Needle wrote: "So, my question: I'm sure many of you have not finished many of the books you've started. So long as you state up front how much of the book you've read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book based on what you've read?" In the case of non-fiction, which is the case here, it's completely fine. And as such, my following comment is completely irrelevant to the current issue. But, I just want to point out that when it comes to works of fiction, it's pretty hard to make an honest assessment based on a partial read. Sure, you can comment on the quality of the writing in its various aspects. But you really can't say anything significant about the work on a more fundamental basis. I don't know how many books and films I've read or seen whose scenes, characters or conversations seemed weak, frivolous or pointless until later stages, when you realize that not only were there purposes to all of it, but highly significant ones as well. I had to mention this because I have just recently had this experience with two films in a row. Christopher Nolan's "Following" and M. Night Shyamalan's "Wide Awake." Especially in the case of the former, I was thoroughly convinced I was simply watching a director's first attempt at film making - an attempt that I thought failed completely. Fortunately, I made it through without turning it off, which I was tempted to do, and after seeing it to the finish, I had to watch it again. I should have known better with these two guys. This becomes especially significant when it comes to matters of judgments about themes. For example, I have heard of cases where people walked out of the theater in "Contact" and in "Signs" - both on the grounds that the films were anti-God. Clearly, when it comes to fiction, you really can't say much until you've finished. Eric Russell _________________________________________________________________ Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95. https://broadband.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 23:20:11 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher at Orem Library Richard, I just wanted to tell you that this past Sunday night we watched your _Brigham City_ and once again the ending made me cry. We have very few Sunday worthy DVD's and so the only choices I gave my husband was your film, or Jonah and the Veggie Tales (our vcr is broken) And though he pointed out that we had already seen your film once, I pointed out that he has watched the _Matrix_ 8 times now. Your film won, though I was shooting for the Veggie Tales. Sorry. But hey, you did make me sniffle! I would like to mention I did notice the use of the color red for all the important scenes, the most important every victim having red hair. And the part where Peg is dressed as a bar waitress and you as the Bishop get embarassed is too funny. Is your wife a redhead? I will shut up now. Debbie Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:25:23 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Book Burning Justified? I think a case can be made that bad books sell well. DI is the perfect place to donate them. Someone will eventually buy it, read it, rave about it, and the donate it back. One eternal round. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:26:25 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing This is really interesting. I wonder what Amazon's criteria are for removing a review. Do you suppose anyone there would answer the question if asked? At 06:50 PM 9/11/2003, you wrote: >Here's a small footnote to the subject of reviewing Abanes' "One Nation >Under Gods." I wrote an admittedly harsh, one-star review of this >loathsome book for Amazon.com, entitled "There's a MORMON Under Your Bed >and He's Going To GET YOU!" It got a lot of "helpful" votes. But one day >it mysteriously disappeared from the review list. When I e-mailed Amazon >to find out why, it turned out that several customers (read >"anti-Mormons") had complained that my review was "offensive" so they >removed it. I had to laugh. If you regularly scan Amazon's reviews you >will find all kinds of vituperation, lies, and slander. But my little >sarcastic review was too much for the tender sensibilities of the Anti-'s. > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:32:29 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10:20 AM, cwilson@emerytelcom.net wrote: > We did a road show in our stake almost a year ago. Road Shows aren't dead. They've just moved to the silver screen. I saw one at a sneak preview last night. Steve (sigh) - -- skperry@mac.com Listen to "The Cricket & Seagull Fireside Chat" online at: http://www.wordofmouthmedia.net/cricket&seagull.html - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:29:19 -0600 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] _Beloved_ (was: Overlong Movies) Quoting Linda Adams : > I've read few books more deeply > sorrowful and disturbing, but also few books have developed my > understanding of what slavery was all about and how it affected the lives > of many of those who lived and suffered through it. IMO it is one of those > must-read works. Toni Morrison's use of language is well-developed and > breathtaking. > > The story is weird, though; its use of magic realism left me wondering what > Beloved actually was; back from the dead, or ghost, or imagination? > However, putting that aside, the pain of the characters was intense and > poignant, and very, very real to me. > > The Mormon Lit connection would be that since many LDS members do have > slavery as part of their family history, and too many other members have no > understanding or compassion for this terrible thing, that it's an important > topic to both read and write about. > Not to mention that we, as LDS writers, should want to leave such a lasting impression on the reader. We read the book in one of my classes at the University of Oklahoma, and Beloved's true nature was something we discussed. We never did come to an agreement. - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:41:07 GMT From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] BOKOVOY & TVEDTNES, _Testaments_ (Review) Review Title: Testaments - Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible Author: David E. Bokovoy and John A. Tvedtnes Publisher: Heritage Press Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 232 Binding: Quality Paperback ISBN: 0-9743421-0-6 Price: $16.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle (A word about Heritage Press. I have learned this is an enterprise begun by David E. Bokovoy, in an effort to provide quality Latter-day Saint publications that might not find a publisher elsewhere. This is the press's first book. They plan to release others books from a variety of authors. They can be reached at P.O. Box 214, Tooele, Utah 84074) My many years of reading Mormon apologetic literature has created a process of categorization that some may feel is a bit broad, but I believe helpful in developing a philosophy about such books. One of the criteria is the book's inherent honesty. Does it present its subject in a way that impresses the reader that the authors are correctly representing their subject? Do the authors make claims that are supportable, or do they make wild claims not supported by the evidence? Another criterion is one that is a natural consequence of the above: does the book encourage "use" or "abuse"? Can an honest seeker "use" the information to enable deeper study and, perhaps, foster belief? Or does the book encourage "abuse," an idea I'll develop later? "Testaments," happily, falls into the former category. The authors set the tone at the outset: We recognize ... that an acceptance of the Book of Mormon's claims for historicity is essentially a matter of faith. A testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can only come through the power of the Holy Ghost. We therefore present this study not so much to convict but rather to instruct. (p. 6) This, to me, sets the proper tone for the rest of the book. Had they claimed any more for the book than what they stated above, I would have been disappointed. Any stronger claim becomes an opportunity for "abuse" - -- "Hey, have you read this? How can you still say the Book of Mormon isn't true history?" "Instruction" doesn't end the discussion. It only adds to the store of knowledge, giving readers support and reason for their belief, should they find the evidence convincing. And, make no mistake, the authors advocate the orthodox belief stance of the Church. But their purpose here, as they state above, is not to "convict." They can only present evidence and leave it to the reader to make up his or her own mind. Any book that explores links between two works travels a dangerous path. When one considers how easy it is to fall into logical fallacies, serious scholars must be careful about how they connect the works. Biblical critics share this concern. Many of you will be familiar with the theoretical existence a "Q" document, from which the gospel writers supposedly drew in constructing their accounts. When considering parallels between, say, Matthew and Luke, does one want to say that Luke borrowed from Matthew, or that both Matthew and Luke borrowed from a third, albeit undiscovered, source? By finding "links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible," the authors can not, and do not, claim that this constitutes definitive evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. Instead, the authors take a helpful approach, one that claims that an understanding of the text can be enriched when one studies the text of one book in light of the other. And, also helpful, the authors draw upon other ancient sources, leaving open the possibility that there is a larger tradition from which both sources draw. Consequently, in my categorization program, "Testaments" is a "user" book! I'm sure the authors will be greatly relieved that I've so categorized it. . The book consists of 35 chapters, some rather brief. Each chapter can be read as a stand-alone essay. The authors take a thematic approach, allowing the reader to approach the book without having to read through the entire work sequentially. Every chapter has some helpful bit of information that will be appreciated by both teacher and student. Let's consider a few examples: Chapter 6 is titled "Rod as a Symbol of Power." In just two pages, the authors explain the role of the "rod" in ancient literature, including the Old Testament, the stela of Hammurabi, and depictions of the Egyptian Pharaohs, all of which point to the use of a "rod" as a symbol of power. They then examine a possible link between this imagery and the beating of Nephi and Sam, by their older brothers, with a "rod," as reported in 1 Nephi 3. As the thought is developed, the authors include cautionary language: "...it *seems* significant that Laman and Lemuel chose to beat both he [sic] and Sam with a rod" [emphasis mine] and then follows this with the statement of the angel that Nephi had been made a "ruler" over them. The juxtaposition of Nephi, the ruler, being beaten by a "rod," a symbol of power, is an irony I had not previously noted. Earth-shaking discovery? Of course not. Final, nail-in-the-box evidence that silences the critics? Nope. But, to the reader, it may "seem" to be indicative of a link between the idea of the "rod" in generally-acknowledged authentic writing, and the Book of Mormon, whose authenticity is not recognized within the scholarly world. Readers may wonder why the Book of Mormon chooses the word "rod" over some other word that would have suited the situation. Chapter 14 explores "The Personification of Death and Hell." The authors do a good job of showing how the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon share this literary technique with other ancient sources, and raise the interesting issue of the phrase "bands of death" in the Book of Mormon, not present in the King James Version of the Bible, but evident in the Hebrew text. Other chapter titles include "The Symbolic Value of Clothing," "The Law of Moses," "Cities and Lands in the Book of Mormon," etc. As helpful as this book is, it does lack indices, in my view a real flaw. In particular, a scripture index would not have been merely helpful, but, in my opinion, mandatory. Given the nature of the book -- linkages between Old Testament and Book of Mormon texts -- the student (or teacher, for that matter) looking for enrichment materials, will have a difficult time references to specific scriptures. A scripture index would facilitate its use. A glossary would also have been helpful. "Testaments" introduces new words and concepts to the average reader. It seems that everyone knows what "chiasmus" is -- who has not encountered a "chiasmus abuser"? -- but "merismus" is less well known. And although the authors are careful to define new terms within their appropriate chapters, a glossary at the end of the book would have been helpful. One aspect of the book deserves comment and commendation. While the authors do not underestimate their readers' ability to learn and assimilate information, they recognize and respect the fact that many readers will be "beginners" in their study. They achieve a nice balance, being neither condescending nor overly-technical. The authors reserve their personal belief statements for the conclusion of their book. There is little doubt that they are "true believers." We believe that the Book of Mormon is an authentic, ancient document. Though augmented through our studies, this conviction is the result of sincere prayer. (p. 230) The conclusion acts much like the editorial page in your newspaper. I did not object to this insertion of personal conviction, inasmuch as it was separated from the evidentiary body of the book. Having read this book, I don't think anyone will go away fully convinced of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon based solely on the evidences provided. Real belief in the Book of Mormon requires much more than "evidences." These may "augment" that belief, but they cannot compel belief. "Abusers" want to use evidences as a sledge-hammer. "Users," like the authors of this book, understand the process and respect the belief decisions of their readers. Both students and teachers of the Book of Mormon will find this volume of value. It gives the reader insights into the nature of ancient scripture, demonstrates interesting linkages with the Book of Mormon, and enriches the study of both. I recommend this book, and appreciate this new publishing venture by Mr. Bokovoy. I look forward to future releases, and believe the LDS community will be served well by his efforts. - ------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:10:02 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Anticipated - ---Original Message From: Thomas C. Baggaley > You MIGHT actually be cheating the theater owners too,=20 > because they very likely will have a different deal worked=20 > out for whatever film was actually paid for. For example, if=20 > you buy a ticket to see a film where the theater owner only=20 > gets a 10% cut of the ticket price and then go see a film=20 > where he would normally get a 30% portion of that same ticket=20 > price, he has lost money. The way it is *normally* structured is as follows: The distributor and studio split 100% of the first month's ticket sales. For the first month, the theater makes *nothing* from ticket sales. All of their revenue (not just profit) for that first month is from concessions (now you know why they charge so much for snacks). After the first month, it tends to change a bit but the theater still doesn't get a huge cut of the profit. So purchasing a ticket for a different movie than you see really is literally stealing from the people who made the film. Frankly, I don't think it's honorable at all, particularly as you'll be using the resources of the BofM movie while sending your money to someone else. I'm relatively sure that most of the authors on this list might be a bit disturbed if you paid money for a copy of Steinbeck but took home one of their books. And I'm even more sure that the theater people would hate it if you paid to see Hamlet and then snuck into their play instead. And I know that I'd be all kinds of upset if my clients sent their money to Microsoft while using the software I program. Jacob - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:38:36 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Beloved Dallas said: >I think "Beloved" is one of those great underrated films. Not too many films deal with the effects of slavery >in such an unflinching manner. >But I do see where people are coming from when they say they disliked it. I think many people had certain expectations of >Oprah, and that her "personality" would be an indication of the type of film she would make. Since "Beloved" is such a >different experience from what audiences expected, they didn't know how to place it in the Oprah empire. My own experience >was that people who normally watched Oprah, and like her, really disliked the movie. When I saw the movie with a friend, I >practically had to drag her, because she couldn't stand Oprah. After leaving the theater, she had a truly aesthetic life >experience that she still talks about what she learned from that movie today. I think if it wasn't Oprah's pet project, and >starred some other female lead, the film would have faired much better. >We can ask the question: how does expectations of a person's public persona color our experience of their art? This is a valid point, but I think it has only a little to do with how so many people reacted to the film. But first, I must respond to this vile suggestion that I may be one of those people who "normally watch Oprah." I've watched about 6 episodes of Oprah since I became a housewife (over a year and a half ago), and I was a senior in college when I saw "Beloved." I had little opinion of Oprah beyond being impressed with how accomplished she is and having liked her in "The Color Purple" (actually no longer a favorite of mine since I watched it last year, but I digress). I think most of us knew enough about Oprah to not have expected the film to be a nice, wholesome look at the effects of slavery. We knew it would be honest, even gritty. I admit that I didn't know it would also be a ghost story, but that was definitely interesting. There is a possibility that if I read the book I would like it. Here are two of my big qualms with that film, however, which, depending on how the book was written, might prove that I would hate the book as much as I hated the movie. My first is... you guessed it, content. I thought the story was actually quite wonderful, painful, and moving. At first I was a little weirded by the ghost story part, but then I was okay with it and it made amazing sense when I found out why there were disturbances. It was too much, though, to have to watch Beloved basically rape/seduce Paul. Seeing Thandie Newton constantly laying around naked for her last 30 minutes of screen time was just too intense. It wasn't glorified nudity, and I know the director wanted to make us terribly uncomfortable. Sethe (Oprah) was living through hell on earth. It was sickening to watch her forsake all else and joyfully embrace and spoil Beloved until Beloved became terrible and vengeful. In that sense, I think the director accomplished what he wanted. I would like to believe, however, that he could've weirded me out and disturbed me without showing me every inch of Thandie Newton's body. I'm also not sure that it was necessary for us to see Sethe urinating when she first met Beloved. I think simply knowing that she had to urinate from the shock and fear would have been enough, but to actually see the stream of urine... The rape scene close to the beginning with Sethe's master and his sons may have been tastefully done, but I think it could've been done better. Yet, it's clear that the director wanted us to feel totally icky, and I could see why. But, this leads me to my 2nd qualm with the film... We, the audience, were being tugged in way too many directions. It was story about a slave woman who had suffered such horrible atrocities that she saw killing her children as a preferable alternative to letting them grow up as slaves. The one child she actually killed came back to haunt her, first in spirit, and then in flesh; and in so doing, she enslaved the mother again. It was also about a mother and a living daughter who had only each other and yet had very little connection because of the mother's guilt from a past sin, etc. Furthermore, it was about lovers trying to build a life together but being torn apart by outside influences and scars (some literal) from their pasts. Finally, it was about a sort of prophetess, Baby Suggs, who was this angel who kept showing up in memories and visitations, and who repeatedly invited a spirit of hope into the film. The world of the living and the spirit world were constantly overlapping and acknowledging each other, and that was so interesting. It was just SO much story to tell, though, and they put so much focus into the ghost story surrounding Beloved that it was almost impossible to bounce back from that, or even to see the whole picture. Yet, the film was trying in some way to bounce back from the terror and tell a whole story. Beloved was cast away by this great expression of love and faith, and yet, every moment of that film was saturated with the horrors of that ghost story, and so that miraculous event brought no hope or relief whatsoever. Every word that came from Baby Suggs' mouth, though heartfelt, truthful, and potentially inspiring, seemed like lies because there was nothing approaching a balance between good and evil. What I felt when I watched it was that Good would have to tread very lightly lest Evil find out that Good actually exists and then proceed to kick Good's butt. I guess another thing (that I can't get out of my head though I've tried to avoid mentioning) is that I felt an absence of the Spirit. It was one of those viewing experiences I've had where I actually felt the Spirit withdraw (though I'd forgotten it was there) and not return until I could go home and say prayers and try to cast memories of the film from my mind. It was like watching "The Amityville Horror" or "The Exorcist", yet I know it was supposed to be so much more than just a horror film. So, those are my big problems with "Beloved". Maybe the film was everything the director wanted it to be. I don't know. I will definitely admit, however, that since it was so drastically different from what my expectations were, my disappointment was that much greater. I do believe, though, that the same film without the Oprah factor would not have had much more success than it did (and obviously less financial success). Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:36:06 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing - --- Original Message --- >I agree completely. The very idea of trying to "correct" someone's >perception implies that your perception is correct-- something I hope none of >us are so arrogant to think. Apparently, we have no problem doing this wrt to people's religions. I don't see we can't openly question their reading choices, unless, unlike religion, we are willing to say that ALL literature is of equal value. >Even so, I firmly believe the market could improve at a much faster rate if >writers banded together to help each other out, to give constructive >criticism instead of negativity bred from sour grapes or whatever. This is occuring primarily through the net. I'm a member of a list of published LDS writers who share ideas, talk about grammar, and gripe about publishers. I think plenty of that is going on. BUT, you no fellow writer good by suggesting that his/her work may be good, if it isn't. Maybe it's our overly polite LDS culture, but we don't seem to have the tools to tell one another that something stinks -- we don't want to hurt the other person's feelings. >That's not to say the members of the group simply give lots of strokes. Far >from it--I have gotten some intense criticism that's been tough to swallow. My point exactly. That's the only kind of criticism that makes sense. I remember when I brought a musical of mine to the Playwright's Circle. I thought it was finished. By the end of the evening, I had realized that it was the first draft and that there were a lot of things I could do to improve it. Thom - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:40:40 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? - --- Original Message --- >> I don't understand why it seems the cultural activities are seen as to >> time/resource absorbing, and yet the sports live on forever. > >Because cultural activities have the risk of introducing thought into >people's minds, and that can be a dangerous thing. My reasoning is even more simplistic than that. Sports exists because the majority of men in the Church like it. So do the majority of men in general. Guys like you and me who prefer theatre and literature to sweating in public, are in the minority. That's just the way it is. - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:17:10 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] Book Burning Justified? > Now there's a subject we might want to explore in Mormon literature. > With the stigma against book burning, what do you do when you are given = > or somehow acquire a book or books that are, in your spiritual heart of = > hearts just plain evil? Even back in the days of the Gadianton Robbers = > and their secret combinations, the work was preserved. I'm not sure why, = > but I think it was so the righteous would not forget about the wicked = > deeds of the abominable. > Bill Willson, writer Or - another scriptural example - in Acts, many new members burn their books of sorcery and black magic - this is treated as a commendable event in the narrative. S0 - to burn or not to burn? - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:16:17 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing My great aunt died, the rich one (and we were all so happy!), and she left a lot of money to my mother. And my mother bank-rolled the publication of a book for me. I took it around to a lot of bookstores in town. They weren't thrilled about. I took it to a newspaper to get a review. The review wasn't harsh, but it wasn't a happy thing to read either. My mother read it then said, "well, just spell my name right." The next day I started getting calls from bookstores asking where they could get them. One lady said she had had seven calls that morning asking for the book. Even though the review wasn't glowing it let people know what my book was about and that it was availible somewhere. People took it from there. I was lucky. I stumbled onto a topic that was hot. Several other books came out on the same topic in the next six months. So, it doesn't really matter if the review is good or bad. What matters is the publicity. Of course, a nice review is great, but an evil, wicked, mean and nasty review is pretty good too. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:21:38 -0600 From: "Jonathan Neville" Subject: [AML] The Value of Reading? [MOD: Let's talk about this. Is reading morally/socially valuable, and if so, how and why?] A column in the NYTimes today challenges the idea that reading improves character. Among other things, the author says: "I can't say I've seen much evidence to support the notion that reading is good for us. Some of the most voracious readers I know are also some of the most rigid thinkers. An individual can be remarkably insensitive to the feelings of others despite having studied stacks of great novels. As in the case of Emma Bovary, reading can even spoil your appetite for real life. There's not much indication, either, that reading substantially improves anyone's character -- in fact, it often seems to have the opposite influence. Nor does it sweeten the disposition. The imperious Harold Bloom could well serve as Exhibit A to that effect, which may be why I like his take on reading best. ''The pleasures of reading indeed are selfish rather than social,'' he writes in ''How to Read and Why.'' If great books enlarge us, we also find such ''augmentations'' enjoyable. Solitary pleasure is finally the only real reason for reading, which makes it sound more like a vice than a virtue." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/books/review/07MILLERT.html?pagewanted=all&position= - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:42:29 -0700 From: "Clay Whipkey" Subject: [AML] Re: Doctrine and Cultural Filters >I'm glad you asked. - As I have grown and matured in the church I have = >experienced a gradual metamorphoses in many areas of misunderstood = >doctrines in our church, and I can see that these things are important = >for us to explore and expose as we write from our own particular Mormon = >POV.=20 Bill, I appreciate the rest of your comments (which I've snipped for brevity) for their honesty and humility. I agree that there are many areas where church members misunderstand the gospel. Perhaps there is some laziness on our part, perhaps there is some genuine struggle to comprehend with our limited abilities. We are all on a journey of progression, and just as we a so ready to hold other church members up to the microscope and examine their flaws, and sometimes get annoyed with them; we also must not forget our own shortcomings. If we expect others to forgive our short tempers, or abrasive honesty, or insensitivity... we have to forgive their closed-mindedness and lack of appreciation for the things we appreciate. We all have flaws that are more than enough to damn us to hell, some just hide them better. But in the end, we all need the atonement in equal amounts. When it comes to storytelling, I totally agree that there are paradigms that we need to examine closely. Sometimes even re-examine. However, I think there is a fine line between stories that examine the things we take for granted and force us to really think about what we believe... and stories that unfairly depict generalizations about our people as a reflection of our own frustrations. Just because we may have known many LDS people in our lives that have been racist, or homophobic, or duplicitous; does not mean its noble to immortalize them as such in our art. Those realities exist, but they are also the flaws and the potholes in the paths of those individual people. I just get the impression sometimes when reading some of these discussions that there is an ulterior motive to the desire to "explore" the darker side of our religious culture. I don't want to suggest that we hide or bury the characters with real human flaws, but I think it is spiritually irresponsible to paint their portraits in a way that leaves the impression that those flaws mean that their religion has made them into bad people. I think that is the tightrope that we walk. I think if we believe the gospel is true, and the only earthly source of the gospel is the church (temple, preisthood, etc.), then we also have some obligation to invite others to that gospel. If we write stories that suggest that the racist mormon is typical, and he's racist because his church taught him to be, then you have to ready to be accountable when you learn that you've driven some people away from even having an interest in learning about the gospel. We complain about the stereotypes that are unfairly cast upon us, and complain even more about those among us who support those stereotypes, yet sometimes it seems the only solution we want to offer that problem is to immortalize those stereotypes in the name of intellectually honest art. I want to tell honest stories, too, but I feel very apprehensive creating characters that are projections of the judgments I may have cast on my fellow saints that might annoy me. I don't really know how they feel inside. I don't know if they go home and think about that remark they made that angered me, and beat themselves up over it. All I know is that I say stupid things, and I go home and beat myself up over them. Are my judgments of them the honest assessment of their characters? Well, somehow I don't think so. Maybe that's no what's going on. But just as much as we should be examining our doctrinal paradigms, we should be examining our own artistic motivations, too. cheers, Clay Whipkey p.s. First post. I've been lurking for a while. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0 -- download now! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_general - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:05:09 -0500 From: "Lisa Tait" Subject: Re: [AML] Recommendations for Translation? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gideon Burton" >What LDS Lit should be translated into French? Spanish? Off the top of my head: Dean Hughes' Children of the Promise series, for sure. Also Margaret Young's House without Walls. Chris Heimerdinger's Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites (at least the first two books; the others aren't as good). I'm afraid we'll have to make a case for The Work and the Glory, even though most of us on the List wouldn't recommend it. It has become so much a part of the mainstream church in America that it probably ought to be available to others--and I would like to know whether European audiences would accept it or reject it. In fact, I'm wondering is how well any American Mormon literature will "translate" into European language and culture. I bet we would be surprised by what is well received and what is not. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #153 ******************************