From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #156 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 Tuesday, September 16 2003 Volume 02 : Number 156 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:30:22 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Dutcher at Orem Library Bruce and I and my mother attended Richard's excellent presentation at the library. Thom Duncan was there too. Bruce wrote down every title Richard suggested. May I recommend that Richard post these titles on the list as well? ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:50:06 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance Mrs. Giggles http://www.mrsgiggles.com/ http://www.mrsgiggles.com/books/index.html Mrs. Giggles is a retired biochemist (Jenny Lim) living in Singapore, who has turned a hobby of reading romance novels into an often hilarious personal web site. With books she doesn't like, her pithy reviews can be vicious and merciless. But she does also recommend authors and titles she feels are deserving of her praise. If you'd like a snapshot of the romance novel world without actually having to read any romance novels, this site is a good place to start. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:09:18 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Anticipated Margaret Young: >So what do you think of my mother's idea that Mormons need to support >Mormon films? She was reacting to my refusal to see _Charly_ or _The >RM_. Her idea is that if our filmmakers can get enough money, they'll >be able to break into the big time, and we all have some sort of moral >obligation to help. That's ridiculous, of course. Unless the filmmakers are capable of telling good stories, they have no business making it to the big time at all, no matter how Mormon they are. Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:18:38 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: "Chantaclair" Subject: [AML] Re: _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance re: =0D We shouldn't be blaming romance writers or readers. We should be blaming=0D all the males who don't read. If they'd just read, romance novels=0D wouldn't dominate the market. - -D. Michael Martindale=0D =0D I have another slant. . . if men would just be more romantic. . . woman wouldn't have to search for it in books.=0D =0D Marsha Steed=0D http://Chantaclair.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:48:03 -0400 From: "S. Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] The Value of Reading? >[MOD: Let's talk about this. Is reading morally/socially valuable, and if >so, how and why?] Well the obvious answer to this revolves around the scriptures. :) Of course it's all in how you approach the scriptures, whether or not they will be of moral value to you. I'd say the same goes for any other literature. I've learned a lot about myself from reading books. And not even necessarily good books. I can't think now what book I was reading, probably some best selling paperback I picked up at the grocery store. In it there was a woman who was very cold, controlling, and unfeeling. I kept waiting for a hint from the author that this character was a lesbian. When I finally realized that the character was not going to be gay, it struck me that I was subconsciously relating her to a former boss I had, who was cold, controlling, and unfeeling--and just happened to be a lesbian. And I realized I'd been carrying a lot of surpressed anger around for my former boss. So I think it has to do with one's attitude more than anything. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:50:40 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance [MOD: I'm combining three responses of Barbara's on this thread into this one post. BTW, thanks, Barbara, for representing a point of view that can all too easily get lost in these discussions.] At 08:59 AM 9/11/03 -0500, you wrote: >Not true. Romance readers read SciFi, not SF, a world >of difference. On what basis do you make that contention? How can you possibly be qualified to make pronouncements on the reading habits of people you know nothing about? Have you done a survey of several thousand romance readers to find out what they read? Favorite writers of romance authors I know include Orson Scott Card, Piers Anthony, Patricia McKillop, Larry Niven, Frederick Pohl, and Lois McMaster Bujold. barbara hume At 12:20 PM 9/12/03 -0600, you wrote: >Sorry, I can see how my subtle condemnation of the romance genre would >be offensive. I will admit that I have simply never been able to get >through a modern romance novel. I don't care for contemporary romances, either. I don't like Danielle Steele, either. Allow me to mention three writers of historical romances you would probably like if you read them: Mary Jo Putney, Mary Balogh, and Carla Kelly. If you like a literary style, Elisabeth Fairchild comes to mind. I don't care much for most LDS "romances," although some Rachel Nunes books are enjoyable. barbara hume At 08:45 AM 9/11/03 -0500, you wrote: >If >one is trying to produce good quality literature, for >instance, surely one must feel frustrated to learn >that fifty percent of the popular market is filled >with romances. It's not that romances are bad as far >as literature goes, it's what they say about the >reading public that bothers me. For heaven's sake, Thom, all it says is that a lot of people enjoy a type of story that you don't like. It doesn't say that these people are cretins for not preferring what you prefer. Please get off it. barbara - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:43:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] SL Tribune: A Bash From LaBute By Celia R. Baker=20 The Salt Lake Tribune=20 Plan-B Theatre has a track record of=20 producing plays that jolt Utah sensibilities.=20 The company's 2001 production of "The=20 Laramie Project" questioned attitudes toward=20 homosexuality and hate crimes. "Hedwig and the=20 Angry Inch" was a rock anthem to tolerance sung=20 by a flamboyant transsexual.=20 Plan-B is pushing envelopes again, and=20 producing director Jerry Rapier says his=20 company's latest project could be its most=20 daring yet:=20 "Bash: Latter-day Plays," by onetime Utahn=20 Neil LaBute, is about "good Mormons" who do=20 horrifically bad things. The play opens Friday=20 at the Studio Theatre in the Rose Wagner=20 Performing Arts Center.=20 In 1994, before fame found him, LaBute was a=20 graduate student in the theater department of=20 Brigham Young University. He began the script=20 that became "Bash" as a one-act play called "A=20 Gaggle of Saints." The short script was=20 brilliant, but violent and disturbing. It was=20 turned down for production at BYU and first saw=20 daylight in a reading at Salt Lake City's=20 Sunstone Symposium in 1995. LaBute was among the=20 readers.=20 Two years later, LaBute walked away with the=20 Filmmakers Trophy at the Sundance Film Festival=20 for his first feature film, "In the Company of=20 Men," and a host of other major awards followed.=20 LaBute's movie "Your Friends and Neighbors" came=20 out in 1998, sealing his reputation as a major=20 new talent, but also bringing renewed criticism=20 for the brutality and perceived misogyny of his=20 work.=20 LaBute's dark comedy "Nurse Betty" (from a=20 screenplay by John C. Richards) became a=20 movieland success story in 2000. The same year,=20 "Bash: Latter-day Plays" ran Off-Broadway in a=20 production that starred Calista Flockhart, Paul=20 Rudd and Ron Eldard. By then the script had=20 become a set of three one-act plays, each=20 revealing a grisly murder. Captured on film, the=20 play was broadcast nationally on the Showtime=20 cable television network, again attracting=20 praise and censure for LaBute.=20 Rapier describes the three episodes that=20 make up "Bash" as being about people who are=20 considered upstanding individuals, but who make=20 terrible choices when placed in tough=20 situations.=20 "These are hot-button issues," Rapier said.=20 "One involves the death of a child, one a=20 teenage pregnancy, one a gay-bashing."=20 All end in murder. And each pulls inexorably=20 to its conclusion in the manner of Greek=20 tragedy. No accident, considering the subtitles.=20 The companion pieces to "A Gaggle of Saints" are=20 "Medea Redux" and "Iphigenia in Orem." The three=20 short plays force audiences to consider issues=20 that are acceptable in Greek tragedy, but are=20 harder to confront when contemporaized and=20 brought close to home, Rapier said.=20 "All one needs to do is look at the=20 headlines on any given day to see that these=20 stories aren't that unique," said Rapier. "The=20 front pages of The [Salt Lake] Tribune today=20 attest to ordinary people being found in=20 extraordinary circumstances, and having to make=20 decisions that put them at odds with religious=20 beliefs."=20 Until now, "Bash" has never had a live=20 production in Salt Lake City. Jerry Ingman, who=20 is directing the play, said that when he=20 suggested doing "Bash," there was a "breath of=20 hesitancy" from Rapier and Cheryl Ann Cluff,=20 Plan-B's managing director. A play about casual=20 murderers who are faithful Mormons could be a=20 touchy in Salt Lake City, after all. But=20 religion is not the central issue of the play,=20 said Ingman.=20 "Though the condition of [the characters']=20 religion may have supported their viewpoints on=20 their acts, it is not their religion that=20 defines the acts," Ingman said. "It's not=20 because I'm doing this play in a strongly LDS=20 community that I'm trying to back off from it.=20 These people just happen to be LDS, as far as I=20 see it. You could argue that in any religion=20 people will use that religious community or=20 condition to foster unhealthy behavior.=20 Oftentimes it has little to do with the=20 foundations or the belief system of that=20 religion."=20 Judging by the play's London production,=20 even LaBute does not consider the specific=20 religion of the characters a crucial point,=20 Rapier said. Because audiences in New York were=20 confused by dialogue about Mormon culture and=20 beliefs, LaBute removed LDS references from the=20 script for "Bash's" London run.=20 "Bash" is Ingman's first project with Plan-B=20 Theatre Company. A Utah native, he completed=20 graduate studies in the theater department at=20 Rutgers University and has directed more than 35=20 productions. He is fascinated with the=20 "confessions" that erupt from the characters in=20 "Bash."=20 "I don't think anyone in the audience would=20 ever commit such heinous crimes. But take away=20 the crime, and you are left with the psychology=20 of a lot of people," Ingman said. "The pressure=20 of a job; the pressure of living what appears to=20 be perfect lives, of having to lie all your life=20 about who you really are. I don't think anybody=20 will walk out of [the play] going 'Oh, they did=20 the right thing.' But it brings up the=20 possibility that you might be supporting a=20 skewed point of view without even knowing it."=20 The world-view of the characters in "Bash"=20 is skewed, said Ingman, and his directorial=20 choices for the play grow out of that fact.=20 Instead of the typical proscenium setup, his=20 players will perform on a stage that slices=20 forward into the seating area, invading and=20 discomfiting the audience.=20 "I'm setting up conditions of a world where=20 everything is tilted," Ingman said. "Nothing on=20 the set is at an even angle. . . . Nothing will=20 feel stable. . . . 'Tilting' seems to be the=20 word of the day. It's as if the characters have=20 taken their religious belief and tilted it. When=20 you tilt something like that, it's easy to=20 justify your actions."=20 At Rose Wagner=20 "Bash: Latter-day Plays" opens Friday at the=20 Studio Theatre at Rose Wagner Performing Arts=20 Center, 138 W. 300 South in Salt Lake City, and=20 runs through Sept. 28. Performances are=20 Thursdays through Saturdays at 8 p.m. and=20 Sundays at 2 and 7 p.m.=20 Tickets are $15. Call 801-355-ARTS or visit=20 http://www.planbtheatrecompany.org/.=20 =A9 Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune.=20 All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted=20 The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news=20 services. No material may be reproduced or=20 reused without explicit permission from The Salt=20 Lake Tribune. R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com - --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:36:45 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] n) by mail.relia.net with smtp (Exim 4.20) id 19yMFE-00070l-Qx for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:04:09 -0600 Message-ID: <00ff01c37a64$31bc5410$6adeadcf@LibraryMain> From: "Jongiorgi Enos" To: References: <00a001c378b8$d542db70$8841bb3f@STUDIO1> Subject: [AML] Naivete and Artistic Production (was: BofM Movie Anticipated) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:35:23 -0600 Organization: Enos Entertainment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" snip > Why is everyone convinced that The Book of Mormon Movie is even going to > make money anyway? It might. It might not. In my opinion, it's an > enormous risk - and a gutsy one at that - and I very much respect Gary > Rogers for being courageous enough or na=EFve enough - whichever the case > may be - to take this project on in the first place. Thomas knows I love him, and I know he has made himself the self-appointed Mr. Nice Guy of this group (that's because he really IS a very nice guy), but I have to respond to the above, just generally speaking, because I also have to see things as a producer as well as all of the other hats I try to wear. "Guts", "Courage" and "Naivete" (all in one sentence, no less) may be laudable. I would say in THIS case it might even be laudible if Rogers risked and spent only his own money. But I doubt that's the case. And that changes things. Anyway, I don't really want to talk about what Rogers did specifically, but to respond generally. Generally speaking, nievete is not the same thing as courage. I know Thomas does not equate the two in his sentence, he puts that "or" there to show that they are different things; but then, he decides to react the same way (with respect) regardless of whether Rogers was corageous OR naive. And that is where I must react a different way. Courage and naivete are not the same thing, and I do not respond to them the same way. If some one turns out to have been courageous, that is deserving of my respect; but if they turned out to be naive, then I must, depending on the circumstances, react differently. If other people might get hurt, taking a leap off the cliff without the proper hanglider cannot be laudible as courageous. If it is just your own neck, perhaps, but if other people's lives, feelings, money, time, etc., are at risk because of your lack of preparation, that "laudibly naive" palor becomes "dangerous foolhardyness". I'm just speaking generally here, not talking specifically about Rogers, Davis, Dutcher, or any other who have taken great leaps in LDS Cinema. I'm just saying that as a general construct, as a philosophy, as a kind of universal reaction, I don't know that I can respect someone JUST because they did something outrageous in the first place. I think it depends on who or what gets hurt if they fail or succeed. Bungee jumping and filmmaking have a lot in common... but they are dissimilar, too. Naivite is naivite. If someone is unprepared, unexperienced, ignorant, or lacks talent or ability and KNOWS that about themselves, that is not naive. That is self-aware. That person can take steps, has the tool of self-awareness to make corrections, find solutions. A naive person has no clue that they should not be doing what they are doing. They have no clue that they are even doing something wrong or badly. They have no self-awareness. They have no other-awareness, no idea what impact their actions may or may not have. They are naive. I cannot applaud that. I cannot (as a Christian) MOCK that, either. But I cannot applaud it. I'm not saying Rogers is or is not ANY of the above things. I'm not talking about him, or anyone. But I do not believe that I can apply an either/or condition between courageous action and naieve abandon and react the same way regardless of the determination. That's just me. And I don't mean to beat a dead horse or choke on a dust mote here. But I think that we will never be truly efficacious critics, truly honest and insightful observers or consumers of art (or even entertainment product) unless we are more secure with our balance of judgment. We are observers, consumers and critics of the literature (and film) we consume. Our vocabulary is all we have to communicate with each other. The conditions of something's creation, the factors of the artists courage or whatever may not even enter into the discussion of our reaction to the work at all (we've talked about that here before, too), but if they do enter in, we must know, in ourselves, HOW it enters in, and know what our reactionary limits and boundaries are. In Thomas's case, I certain these were just figures of speech, semantics, and at heart, we agree with each other. But that sentence just jumped out at me, and it tied into what I was just thinking about in my last post about critical obligations so I had to say something. No hard feelings, I hope. I'm just talking out of my ear. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 05:04:27 EDT From: Vholladay5254@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty/Subjectivity in Reviewing [MOD: We need to be very careful here in talking about honesty and how it relates to the views of others who may disagree with us. However, I think Valerie raises an important point. I'd like to suggest that we keep discussing this topic of what makes an "honest" review while at the same time being very careful not to call each other dishonest in the process.] I'm always about a week behind reading the AML list so I just read Jeff=20 Needle, who wrote: I obtained a copy, made it through perhaps 25 pages, and set it aside. That= =20 much reading alone convinced me I didn't want to finish the book. It was=20 simply bad ...So long as you state up front how much of the book you've read, is there= =20 anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book based on what you'v= e=20 read? and Michael Martindale. who wrote: For an LDS example, I submit Jeff Call's _Mormonville_. I did not finish it,= =20 I could not finish it, I won't waste precious time trying to finish it. =20 As many of you know, I was in a position where my job for many years require= d=20 that I read LDS books and finish them whether I wanted to or not, and over a= =20 period of time I learned to do that, and recently I even wrote an article "I= n=20 Defense of Romance" something I never imagined I would do, which you may rea= d=20 in the upcoming Irreantum, or not, as you choose. We all know that there are many kinds of writers in the world, and many=20 genres, but sometimes it sounds like for Mormon writers there is just one ki= nd=E2=80=93good=20 writing--and we are the ones who define what it is and what it isn't. For=20 example, romance isn't, most mainstream LDS isn't, and poor Jeff Call's=20 *Mormonville* isn't. Michael Martindale's "As-God-as-my-witness-" words concerning Jeff Call's =20 novel in the name of honesty disturbed me because calling a book "bad" isn't= =20 just about honest. Sure, be honest and say you didn't read the book and say=20= you=20 didn't like it, say it drove you crazy. But to say it's bad and call that=20 honest - I don't think so. My Freshman English students used to write about= Hugh=20 Nibley and call him stupid and old fashioned. That's not honesty. That's cal= led=20 having an opinion -- and an uninformed one at that. If they had told me they= =20 didn't understand what they had read or didn't know who he was, they would=20 have been honest. But as it was, they were just being subjective.=20 As for me, I didn't find Jeff's book "bad" at all. I found it refreshing and= =20 funny and absorbing and not at all painful to read. In fact, although Jeff=20 ultimately decided to publish with CFI, his book was very nearly published=20= by=20 another publisher, but I can't say more about that. And many evaluators alon= g=20 the way liked what they read very much. And I will say=E2=80=93and perhaps t= his may make=20 a few of you want to read this book-- a few were very much offended, which=20 absolutely astounded me. But since Michael didn't like it enough to give it=20= a=20 more complete review it, I was pleased to see that Kim Madsen was able to=20 finish reading the book and able to give the book a positive and thorough re= view on=20 the AML homepage. So go there and read her review and see what you think.=20 Jeff is a terrific guy, this is his first book, and while not perfect -- has= =20 anybody read a perfect book lately, especially a perfect first book? (Okay,=20= Brady=20 Udall's first novel comes close, but well, it's not actually is first book.=20 But then again, someone ought there probably hates his book - again, it's=20 subjective.) We all have different ideas of what makes good writing. I've tried reading a= =20 few books friends have recommended and I just can't make it past the first=20 page, but I don't blame the writer and I don't condemn my friends for having= =20 horrible taste. I just chalk it up to different tastes. *Mormonville* isn't=20= for=20 everyone. Likewise, romances--LDS and otherwise--aren't for everyone. Not=20 everyone enjoys science fiction or the classics. We don't give people a hard= time=20 about that, do we? Or as another example, maybe you know someone that likes=20= Ian=20 Fleming novels or Louis L'Amour? Do you tease them? Mock them or their taste= =20 (or lack of it?) So why is it always open season on romance? Why is that the= =20 genre that seems to beg for the potshots? Obviously I digress. *Mormonville* isn't a romance, or as Kim Madsen said, maybe it's a romance=20 from a guy's point of view. Obviously I'm still in the romance mode from my= =20 essay, which is funny since I'm not a romance reader myself. I've just edite= d=20 them for years and I like the writers who write them. What's that old saying= ? I=20 may not agree with them (or read them), but I'll defend to the death people'= s=20 right to read (and write them) without anyone calling them stupid. There's a saying about the need to pick our battles. As writers there are a=20 lot more productive things to do with our time and talents than rip on books= =20 that may be out of print in a few months. We need to be writing books,=20 screenplays, plays, whatever, that will move us forward, individually and as= a group.=20 We could even come up with some fundraising ideas to get Richard Dutcher's=20 movie on Joseph Smith going - he gave a really fine presentation at the Orem= =20 library Friday night (apologies to those outside of Utah Valley - one of the= perks=20 of living in Zion :-) Valerie Holladay - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:56:04 -0400 From: "b5dorsai" Subject: [AML] OT LDS History List I have been trying to locate the list page for the LDS History mail list so that I can subscribe but all of the links that I have found seem to be dead. Is anyone on this list familiar with the History one? Please reposnd to me off-line if you have any information Rick Thomas ************************************************************** This message was scanned by the Avast Anti-Virus Gateway ************************************************************** - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:00:44 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Book Burning Justified? (comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From jltyner@pacbell.net Fri Sep 12 22:01:24 2003 Booking burning is anethma to me. Even one I don't like or think is evil. If I don't like it, but think someone else will, it goes in the Friends of The Library bin at my local branch. If I thought it's content was harmful, I might put it in my recycling can so it may find a new and more useful life. I guess if thought it was evil, foul, and was worried someone might fish it out out of the bin, then there's always my shredder. (And then in the recycling bin)! But I honestly can't think on any book I've found that offensive that came into my possession. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ------------------------------------ >From jongiorgi@sunset.net Sat Sep 13 20:04:12 2003 From: "Bill Willson" ...a really bad book. As far as sending them to the D.I. I'm not too = > sure about that; isn't that kind of like giving them a box of Play Boy = > magazines that you found in the basement of the house you just bought?=20 > > 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. Not really, actually. I don't believe that. The specifics of the rites of the combinations were hidden from the general population. Only a very few had access, and frankly, none of those details made it into records that survive the 21st century. So, in effect, they were suppressed. The idea of them was not, but the specifics were burned up in the furnace of time and do not come down to us. I think we have seen that kind of thing happen over and over again, even in just the last 180 years of our brief history. Historians are leaving the Church because of this tendency all of the time. We think we have this "Preserve-All-Records" kind of mentality in Mormonism. But I find the very opposite to be true. When push comes to shove, our culture has always been more comfortable with hiding the dust under the rug and nailing the closet door with the skeleton in it shut, rather than the opposite. This is at the heart of our struggle in Mormon letters to publish explorations which get "uncomfortable". I propose that we have NEVER been a "record it all" people. We have always been "Abridgers"... just like our namesake: Mormon. As a culture, we always snip out the bad parts. (Long before CleanFlicks was around.) So... burn the book. You won't be doing anything your forbearers haven't done. Unless, of course, we are talking about CHANGING that cultural pattern amongst ourselves. Hmmmm. There's a thought. Jongiorgi Enos - --------------------------------------- >From coglethorpe@yahoo.com Mon Sep 15 07:39:59 2003 Received: from [216.136.226.199] (helo=web20810.mail.yahoo.com) by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 19ytaA-0004bE-00 for aml-list@lists.xmission.com; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:39:58 -0600 Message-ID: <20030915133957.61282.qmail@web20810.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [167.121.2.1] by web20810.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:39:57 PDT Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 06:39:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Chirs O Subject: Re: [AML] Book Burning Justified? To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com In-Reply-To: <01L0KJNPYSW290UZR9@EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii - --- Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > > 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? It may be hard to believe, but I just had this lesson in Gospel Doctrine. :-) Seriously, what set this apart from other book burnings is that the owners of the book voluntarily set their books ablaze. The cost of the books was considerable, and the burning was made so others could see the change of heart that the "vagabond Jews" had. This is contrasted against other kinds of book burnings, where an oppressive regime seizes books that may stand against its ideology, and burns them to make an example of its power over the people. The regime doesn’t want the people to have more than one side of the story. In Acts, the book burners had two sides of the story, and chose the better part. In our own lives, we may have given or thrown away materials or substances when prompted by the Spirit. Isn't that essentially the same as the book burning in Acts? What sets Acts apart is the public display and the method* used to burn the materials. I think it is the extreme method used that made it worthy of recording as scripture. Chris [Oglethorpe] * Check local ordinances before lighting massive bonfires. - ------------------------------------ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:00:52 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Introduction: Tequitia Andrews (comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From jeff.needle@general.com Fri Sep 12 22:42:24 2003 We're really glad you're here, and look forward to hearing from you often! - ---------------- Jeff Needle - ------------------------------------- >From jongiorgi@sunset.net Sat Sep 13 20:47:05 2003 Tequitia! Welcome! I have to quote you, and then yell at you (grin!): > I've struggled with writing LDS fiction or mainstream. Mainly because I'm a > convert to the church and my experiences in life haven't been sugary sweet. > I'm afraid what I may write. I recently saw God's Army (we rarely get any LDS > films out here) and realized that there is an entire aspect of being LDS that I > have no clue about. I don't know how it feels to live in a LDS community, to > go on a mission, attending a single's ward, attending a ward where more than > 50% are active. Also, I'm African-American and that's an entirely different > perspective in itself. Therefore, I feel unqualified in writing LDS fiction. > Although, I would very much like to. Tequitia! Why wouldn't you be qualified to write LDS fiction? From what you have just described you are EXACTLY who needs to be writing LDS fiction (or any other genre you choose, of course)! But with respect to YOUR "Mormon experience" what is it about it that makes it any less valuable or insightful than say, a 12th generation Utahan? In fact, the demographic you have described (Af-Am, out East, convert, living in a struggling ward, worshiping an "outsider" religion in an "outsider" world), is EXACTLY the description of what is, quite frankly, becomeing the MAJORITY of church members world wide. Now, in truth, your demographic is not the majority of those who BUY LDS fiction, and so, yes, there is a tendency to see a skew of our literature towards the white, European pioneer immigrant Utah experience. It just makes sense. That's the oldest well of stories, and still the majority of those buying the stories. But the non-European-American (or even American at all), non-White, non-"Born-In-The-Covenant" demographic is fast becoming the majority of church membership, and I do not believe that our literary tradition will truly flourish until THAT vast wellspring of voices are cultivated and HEARD. It's just my opinion. I may be a white Euro-blooded male, but I am only first generation Mormon, and my heritage has never connected directly with the Utah pioneer experience. Actually, it was through writing fiction about that Utah pioneer experience that I first came to love those people and those stories. Previous to that, I was always a little put off by all the emphasis on the Utah pioneers. I was half TEXAN pioneer and half first-generation French-Italian immigrant (my mother was became a US citizen only after I was born), so I always felt a much closer connection to my deeply convoluted and racially/politically screwed up Texas heritage on my father's side and my mother's old world Europe that had a hold on me the early Mormon settlers just couldn't have. I've now grown to love my "adoption" into that Utah pioneer heritage, but I still feel like my true voice, the voice of my own blood and my own people, comes from a different place. How much MORE so with you. And the richness and complexity of that past, the weight of history, racial and religious confusion, different cultures, all of it thrown into the melting pot of true Christianity (where none of that MATTERS... and yet, doesn't it still?), is a heady gumbo to draw from, as a literary resource. We MUST have voices like yours, not cut from the same cloth, the same, frankly moth tattered and overly familiar cloth that so often produced mediocrity rather than a quest to plunge us into this nascent 21st century and the reality of the colorful insanity of the world that we truly live in. Anyway, I wish you all the best of luck and support in your efforts to return to writing, and I hope that you will consider contributing YOUR brand of "LDS" stories into the mix. I'm sure we will all be richer for it. Jongiorgi Enos - --------------------------------------- >From dmichael@wwno.com Sun Sep 14 17:18:38 2003 Terashan@aol.com wrote: > I've struggled with writing LDS fiction or mainstream. Mainly because I'm a > convert to the church and my experiences in life haven't been sugary sweet. [snip] My gosh, you have a goldmine there! You have a perspective that is so unique, you MUST write from it! What makes you think we need yet another vanilla white, Utah Mormon, born-in-the-church, descended-from-forty-thousand-polygamous-pioneers perspective? Please, write! D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - -------------------------------------------- >From eric@termlimits.org Sun Sep 14 17:28:33 2003 It's that different perspective that LDS fiction needs most of all. I want to see how Mormonism intersects with lives and viewpoints that I have little or no experience with. Please, keep at it. I live in VA too, incidentally -- Alexandria. Welcome to the list, neighbor! Eric D. Dixon - -------------------------------------------- >From Jacob@proffitt.com Sun Sep 14 20:10:57 2003 Welcome, Tequitia! [snip of original post] You're going to get a lot of response on this one, but I have to chime in. I'm not sure what you mean about writing LDS fiction. If you can write and feel like you want to write stories of faith, please, please, please do so. Or even simply honest stories of people, faithful or not. Your experience in the Church is as important as mine--a born-in-the-church white boy--and could very well reach people who need to feel connected but don't (for whatever reason). And now is a good time to do it. The LDS audience is expanding right now and ready for new voices. It's a good time for building a readership in unique and important ways. I say go for it. Jacob Proffitt - ---------------------------------------- >From jremy@uci.edu Mon Sep 15 12:52:33 2003 Welcome, Tequitia! Your experiences more than qualify you to write LDS fiction! I believe that the tales most worth telling are the ones which only you can tell, in the manner that you alone can tell it. I think that your hardship and conversion and life as an African-American member of the Church are a treasure-house of experience. I believe that if you can draw on those experiences as you write, you can produce works which would only add breadth and depth to the current range of Mormon-lit. Please, tell/write your stories! John Remy UC Irvine - -------------------------------------------- >From skperry@mac.com Mon Sep 15 20:17:29 2003 Welcome, Tequitia, You do know how it feels to be you, and we don't. Write and tell us through your work. :-) Steve Perry - ------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:35:23 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Naivete and Artistic Production (resend) (was: BofM Movie= Anticipated) From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" snip > Why is everyone convinced that The Book of Mormon Movie is even going to > make money anyway? It might. It might not. In my opinion, it's an > enormous risk - and a gutsy one at that - and I very much respect Gary > Rogers for being courageous enough or na=EFve enough - whichever the case > may be - to take this project on in the first place. Thomas knows I love him, and I know he has made himself the self-appointed Mr. Nice Guy of this group (that's because he really IS a very nice guy), but I have to respond to the above, just generally speaking, because I also have to see things as a producer as well as all of the other hats I try to wear. "Guts", "Courage" and "Naivete" (all in one sentence, no less) may be laudable. I would say in THIS case it might even be laudible if Rogers risked and spent only his own money. But I doubt that's the case. And that changes things. Anyway, I don't really want to talk about what Rogers did specifically, but to respond generally. Generally speaking, nievete is not the same thing as courage. I know Thomas does not equate the two in his sentence, he puts that "or" there to show that they are different things; but then, he decides to react the same way (with respect) regardless of whether Rogers was corageous OR naive. And that is where I must react a different way. Courage and naivete are not the same thing, and I do not respond to them the same way. If some one turns out to have been courageous, that is deserving of my respect; but if they turned out to be naive, then I must, depending on the circumstances, react differently. If other people might get hurt, taking a leap off the cliff without the proper hanglider cannot be laudible as courageous. If it is just your own neck, perhaps, but if other people's lives, feelings, money, time, etc., are at risk because of your lack of preparation, that "laudibly naive" palor becomes "dangerous foolhardyness". I'm just speaking generally here, not talking specifically about Rogers, Davis, Dutcher, or any other who have taken great leaps in LDS Cinema. I'm just saying that as a general construct, as a philosophy, as a kind of universal reaction, I don't know that I can respect someone JUST because they did something outrageous in the first place. I think it depends on who or what gets hurt if they fail or succeed. Bungee jumping and filmmaking have a lot in common... but they are dissimilar, too. Naivite is naivite. If someone is unprepared, unexperienced, ignorant, or lacks talent or ability and KNOWS that about themselves, that is not naive. That is self-aware. That person can take steps, has the tool of self-awareness to make corrections, find solutions. A naive person has no clue that they should not be doing what they are doing. They have no clue that they are even doing something wrong or badly. They have no self-awareness. They have no other-awareness, no idea what impact their actions may or may not have. They are naive. I cannot applaud that. I cannot (as a Christian) MOCK that, either. But I cannot applaud it. I'm not saying Rogers is or is not ANY of the above things. I'm not talking about him, or anyone. But I do not believe that I can apply an either/or condition between courageous action and naieve abandon and react the same way regardless of the determination. That's just me. And I don't mean to beat a dead horse or choke on a dust mote here. But I think that we will never be truly efficacious critics, truly honest and insightful observers or consumers of art (or even entertainment product) unless we are more secure with our balance of judgment. We are observers, consumers and critics of the literature (and film) we consume. Our vocabulary is all we have to communicate with each other. The conditions of something's creation, the factors of the artists courage or whatever may not even enter into the discussion of our reaction to the work at all (we've talked about that here before, too), but if they do enter in, we must know, in ourselves, HOW it enters in, and know what our reactionary limits and boundaries are. In Thomas's case, I certain these were just figures of speech, semantics, and at heart, we agree with each other. But that sentence just jumped out at me, and it tied into what I was just thinking about in my last post about critical obligations so I had to say something. No hard feelings, I hope. I'm just talking out of my ear. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #156 ******************************