From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #161 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 Thursday, September 18 2003 Volume 02 : Number 161 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:12:51 EDT From: Vholladay5254@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty/Subjectivity in Reviewing My apologies to the moderator and others if my post sounded like I was accusing people being dishonest in their opinions or reviews. That was not my intent. I don't believe anyone here is in danger of being dishonest. In fact, I'm pretty sure we can count on this group to *tell the truth even if it hurts* :-) My point is just that I don't see honesty as the most significant value in a review of an artistic endeavor. Jon Krakauer's latest book is honest. So what? Honesty can be a problem in some cases but I don't see honesty as his problem or even ours in this case. I'm just thinking that it isn't enough. My second concern is this: since honesty isn't enough, what else does a review need? Jeff Needle has a great example of what is in the upcoming Irreantum. The novel is a futuristic one written by a father/daughter writing team (whose name I can't remember), and the review, like most of his reviews, is both honest and helpful in a way that could make a positive difference in Mormon writing. He points out clearly and honestly the flaws that exist while offering sincere good wishes for improvement for the writers. I thought it was an amazing review (The authors might considering send him a check or money order.) Jeff has obviously taken a great deal of time and effort to offer this critique to the writers, which I hope they accept. Other reviewers may defend their more limited reviews as being directed to readers, not to the writer, and I can't argue with their choice. And that goes back to honesty. Because of the passion we feel about books and movies, we're pretty honest when we tell others what we felt about a book we read or a movie we saw. But when we review something based on our honest opinion, that is, after all, all it is. Valerie Holladay - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:08:30 -0500 From: Major Productions Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? Our stake did a "Play in a Day" road show event 7 or 8 years ago. It was a great success--so, of course, it hasn't been done again since. However, last year I got a call from a member of the high council asking if I'd be interested in directing a stake play. He was thinking along the lines of BLITHE SPIRIT, or one of those old chestnuts. I suggested a melodrama instead and the suggestion was met with enthusiasm all around. The bad thing was that it was in early fall, so it was VERY hard to schedule rehearsals. I think our dress rehearsal was the first rehearsal where we had everybody there at the same time. (Tangent: Why is it that so many Church people think it's okay to miss rehearsals? I NEVER had that problem in community theater!) The production was very well-received. There were a lot of people clamoring afterwards to know when the next stake play would be. I urged the stake to calendar it this year for summer instead of during the school year, which they did, but a whole different concept was decided on for this year's production. I was not very gung-ho about it, but it turned out to be a wonderful experience. The director this summer opted to do a stake Broadway musical review with the youth of the stake. (I'm not a youth OR a musical theater person, so I felt left out! :) I was invited to help, and it gave me a great opportunity to see close up what kind of impact the production was having on the youth of our stake. We're a very VERY diverse stake. It was an overwhelmingly emotional experience to see all these kids who were, on the surface, so different, bond in ways that only a shared theater experience could produce. As an assistant to the director and choreographer, I had a great view of amazing things as they happened. One of the most amazing things to see, though, came from my perspective as a parent. My son, who is twelve, turned into this dancing, singing self-confident musical theater guy with awesome comic-timing. He never missed a cue. He never missed a note. He never missed a costume change. The director and choreographer kept giving him extra bits because he did everything with such stage presence and sparkle. I walked around all summer with my mouth agape. This was the kid who felt like he was a loser no matter where he went or what he did, who felt so self-conscious in his 5th grade choir program at school that he almost threw up before the performance. And the best part of it all was that he felt what it was like to hang with good kids who had high standards--and he liked how it felt--and when he sees kids from the play at stake events (like youth standards night and stake priesthood meetings) he lights up. He's part of the community of the Church in ways that he never was before. (This is a real issue around here, too, because in our ward alone, the older kids go to five different area high schools. There's not a lot of opportunity at school to draw strength from one another.) We had a few real "theater people" involved, but we also had self-proclaimed band geeks, a lot of socially awkward kids, athletes, kids who never came to Church, new converts... I did a lot of theater in the first half of my lifetime. This turned out to be one of the best projects I've ever been involved with. (Maybe because I saw what it did for my son? Maybe because I was equal parts AD and grateful mom?) The stake presidency wanted it to be more blatantly spiritual. We struggled with that. The director finally decided to have the kids sing the third verse of "I Am A Child of God" a capella after the curtain call (even though she'd chosen "He Lives In You" from Broadway's LION KING as the final number specifically because it has such a similar message). I was very against the "I Am a Child of God" thing; I felt like it was switching gears (and, as a side note, I have a hard time with the first verse anyway--not all kids are sent to homes where the parents are "kind and dear". In fact, there were kids in our ensemble who couldn't sing that verse with sincerity--which is why the director chose the 3rd verse instead.) It worked out, though. It was actually a very nice moment--probably because "He Lives in You" was so powerful that it made the jump more graceful instead of the lurch I was fearing. This is a long and winding way of saying that I think theater has an important role in the building up of the kingdom of God. If the Church doesn't support stake plays and road shows and music festivals and such, then a very powerful tool for good is being overlooked. On the flip side, though, kids are busier now (at least around here) than they have ever been in the history of the world! It's really hard for them to carve out a time for these things that are of good report and virtuous and praise-worthy. I don't know what the answers are. But I know I'm campaigning with the stake presidency for another summer production in 2004! Robbin Major Missouri City, TX - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:53:59 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] SF versus SciFi > SF stands for *real* science ficition, the kind real > science fiction writers write. Scifi is the kind of > pseudo science fiction that is currently at play on > the TV star trek shows. I found this distinction a bit confusing, too. I've always thought the best way to distinguish between the two is Science Fiction (by whatever acronym) and Space Opera. Of course, not all "Scifi" is Space Opera, which points to the need for more taxonomic work in that department, for example "Light Fantasy" vs. "Hard Fantasy." Like grand opera, Space Opera operates in a context and setting that is largely factitious. I love Puccini, but as anthropological or cultural documents Butterfly and Turandot are just plain silly. And if you met the characters from La Boheme in real life you'd want to give them all a couple of dope slaps and tell them to quit moping around and get real jobs (and see a doctor about that cough, BTW). But that doesn't ruin the fact that these stories are told in some of the most beautiful music ever composed. And once you stop rolling your eyes, the dramatic conflict at the heart of the stories is compelling (if a little strained at times). There can be good and bad opera, opera you have to admire for its sheer reach and audaciousness, even if you can't stand the final results (i.e., Wagner). George Lucas has managed to produce some very good space opera (Star Wars I/II) and very bad space opera (everything else). Star Trek was sold as "Wagon Train to the Stars," or "Horatio Hornblower in Outer Space," which is exactly the point. It's not really about the "science." What's a "warp" for example? What warps? How? Where? It sure looks like they're just pressing down on the gas pedal. Even back in the 1960s, the show's producers could satirize themselves by picturing Scotty shoveling coal into the engines. Although fans have gone to great lengths to explicate the show's "science," it's mostly post hoc analysis. Too many "science fiction" aspects are not science fiction but the science of special effects (blinking lights and some version of a Jacob's Ladder for a gee-whiz effect). Granted, latter series have tried harder to the get at least the elemental facts correct. And they've made a few honest-to-goodness achievements, like the Borg. And a fair number of individual episodes have crossed over into "legit" science fiction thanks to the work of a particular writer. The basic premise, however, remains space opera. And there's nothing wrong with that. Really. Genre labels should not be taken as judgements. Though I do believe that more attention to the concrete science in the fiction would greatly improve many aspects of the show--lend to richer conflict and better stories--just as contemporary directors of Butterfly are usually smart enough to not have Butterfly commit suicide by hara-kiri, which women never did, and not make her kid blue-eyed and blond. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:05:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LYON, PETERSEN (Reviews) Two Teachers in Zion: Reviews of T.EDGAR LYON: A TEACHER IN ZION by T. Edgar Lyon, Jr.; Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT, 2002; 346 pages, $18.95; ISBN: 0-8425-2499-1 HUGH NIBLEY: A CONSECRATED LIFE by Boyd J. Petersen; Greg Kofford Books, Salt Lake City, UT, 2002; 446 pages, $32.95; ISBN: 1-58958-020-6 Two remarkable biographies have recently been published about much-loved LDS professors, both written by close family members with special access to documents and people. Together they present a fascinating picture of the LDS church at its intellectual epicenter on the Wasatch Front during the 1940's to 1980's. Those were great times of growth and new challenges. Both men became sort of Forrest Gump figures who came to be involved in some of the most famous occurrences of those times. "T. Edgar Lyon: A Teacher in Zion" was written by its subject's son Ted Lyon, a professor of Latin American literature at Brigham Young University. The elder Lyon, along with the legendary Lowell L. Bennion, directed the Salt Lake Institute of Religion near the University of Utah from the late 30's to the early 60's. Lyon was a remarkable man. Shy and reticent, he nevertheless did graduate work in theology at the University of Chicago with some of the most famous religious scholars of the era. He was a walking encyclopedia of LDS history. His students used to play a game; they would select a date at random (say, January 6, 1842) and Lyon could give a detailed exposition on what happened in the church on that day. He was one of the most captivating and beloved teachers in Mormondom. He was devoted to the church; he was a mission president in Holland at 31. He was one of those hard-working mid century academics from Utah like Bennion, Sterling McMurrin, and Brigham Madsen who had also been ranchers, farmers, and builders and loved hard physical labor. Together he and Bennion mentored thousands of young latter-day saints into full activity. I admit I was surprised by the candor in this book, given that it was published by BYU. That institution is to be commended for not ducking in this account the controversies that marked Lyon's later career. The same stories are also told in Mary Lythgoe Bradford's biography of Bennion, but here we get Lyon's perspective. The two institute teachers fell afoul of their administrative superiors possibly because they expressed private skepticism about the priesthood ban on blacks and Elder Joseph Fielding Smith's rigid opposition to the theory of evolution. (Interestingly, Lyon also wrote in a private letter to his wife that he had a hard time accepting the doctrine of plural marriage as it was practiced early in church history.) Then Lyon was asked to review a book that was a published version of a graduate thesis written by a protege of several politically ultraconservative church leaders. Lyon published an unexpectedly negative but fair review (allegations of plagiarism later dogged the same book.) Apparently some church leaders were offended and questioned Lyon's loyalty. His immediate boss ordered him to write a letter of apology to church president David O. McKay, even though there is no record that Pres. McKay ever required such a letter. These controversies eventually led to Lyon and Bennion's removal from the Institute in 1962. Bennion took his act "across the street" to the University of Utah where he continued a fruitful humanitarian career. Lyon didn't have that option. These episodes look like an ugly little turf war and the administrators, led by Ernest L. Wilkinson, don't come off very well. My own opinion is that Lyon and Bennion were in the way of the new correlation movement in the church. They wanted to continue to exercise a degree of independence over what they taught. Lyon later wrote a lesson manual for the church that was rejected by correlation. He wrote: "I'm positive this will never get by the Correlation Committee. I should have done it two years ago before they came into power...There are too many unorthodox views and interpretations which are not of the 'faith-promoting' style that is now so essential..So it is too shocking." A degree of vindication came to Lyon when he was later ordained a stake patriarch by Elder Boyd K. Packer, and he became the chief historian to the church's effort to restore Nauvoo, Illinois. His vast lore of knowledge became essential. I'm sure he remembered during his time of trouble that "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth." This is a fine book that reminds us that, in the phrase of Leonard Arrington, in this church we are all saints without halos. "Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life" has already been much discussed on the list, and I can only add my voice to the chorus of praise. This is one of the most satisfying biographies I have read in a long time. Especially useful are the chapters which are essays on the different facets of Nibley's varied career. I wondered why this book wasn't published by FARMS, but its thoroughness and intriguing blend of detachment and sympathy set it apart from the polemical style largely favored there. This is a book that is not afraid to tackle tough questions from a variety of points of view. Petersen, Nibley's son-in-law, is willing to discuss uncomfortable subjects like the difficulties with Nibley's daughter Martha, and the painful circumstances surrounding Nibley's parents. He can also challenge Nibley's opinions when it seems appropriate. Nibley's greatest value to ordinary members of the church was in his profound explorations of latter-day scripture. One cannot come away from Nibley's work without confessing that there is more to the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price than just 19th century frontier fiction. I did not know that some of the essays in "Temple and Cosmos", his most mind-blowing book, were lectures given in the Salt Lake Temple at the request of general authorities. (The book versions have some sensitive material redacted.) Nibley has also been a prolific and forceful social critic, and on these writings Petersen is invaluable. He lets us know that Nibley as a soldier visited the Nazi concentration camp Dachau shortly after its liberation in 1945. We can only imagine what horrors Nibley witnessed there because he has refused to write or even speak about it. Petersen speculates that Nibley is unable to fit this experience into his overwhelmingly pacifist attitude towards war. "Let the wicked punish the wicked" has been Nibley's motto, but perhaps he has been unable to admit that genocide is worse than war and sometimes self-defense is necessary. Nibley's strained relationship with his parents sheds light on his later attitudes towards capitalism and commutarianism. (His parents were financially ruined during the Great Depression with devastating consequences for their personalities.) Nibley remains stalwartly devoted to the commutarian doctrines of early church history. In my own reading I have been impressed by the Catholic writer Michael Novak's book "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism." It became a text for Eastern European nations near the end of the Cold War. Novak argues that capitalism is no longer the cutthroat thing it was during the 19th century, the years of the restoration of the gospel. The combination of capitalism and democracy, he argues, has produced a system much more humane and progressive for the greatest number of people than socialism. Nibley has obviously thought deeply about this, but I wish more LDS scholars would take up the subject. Instead, we get lip service to the law of consecration while too many Mormons rush to participate in the most predatory, Enron-like ways of making money. Surely there is a golden mean to be had in our political economy. Nibley himself has lived an exemplary life of consecration. Nibley's funny prose reminds us that he grew up in the day of H.L. Mencken, that great horse-laugher. Some of Nibley's best work has been satiric in style and intent. A lot of LDS prose has been correlated into blandness. Sometimes it seems the greatest Mormon sin is to make your neighbor uncomfortable with questions and wit. That was never Nibley's problem, as this very cool biography demonstrates. I wonder if we will ever again see teachers of the larger-than-life qualities of Lyon and Nibley, or whether that kind of individuality is gone forever. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:03:04 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: [AML] EVENSON, _Father of Lies_ (Review) Review Evenson, Brian Father of Lies Four Walls, Eight Windows, New York/London Hardback, 197 Pages, $22.00 The terrible truth of Brian Evenson's Father of Lies comes close to = being a visceral assault. I have to admit I shied away from it---and = from some of the scenes and imagined gore---as though I had been stabbed = in the stomach with a philips screw driver. Brian, who proved in Altman's Tongue that he could strike with words of = unprecedented blood letting, has drawn a psychological portrait of how a = bishop of the church (or any church---witness our friendly Catholic = priests) falls into sexual addiction. It is precisely the kind of thing = I just finished dealing with in Brigham City with Richard Dutcher's = astonishing story. I felt only one thing might be missing here in = Brian's work---a mention of society's last twenty years of rampant = visual exhibitions of untethered fornication (out of wedlock) and = adultery. As an artist, Brian reminds us of Salvador Dali. Strange, bloody, = protrusive, this is the story of a "provost" who gets away with "murder" = because he is "supported" by a church. The people who know about it = (priesthood holders, etc.) have already "invested so much" money (and = social props) in paying a lawyer to protect him in his lies, they cannot = "give up" now. Brian is a writer with amazing depth. His use of the "bloody head" was = particularly profound. At one point, the "provost" believes the man with = the bloody head is Jesus, suggesting suffering under the crown of = thorns. But the man with the bloody head is the Devil, who tries to = represent himself as Jesus, telling the same lie of the story, that he pretends to be a man of God = while he commits such force against a sexual partner. Though Brian's = book is EXTREME, there is truth in the varying levels of "priesthood = power" that dominate sexual relationships, including dominion exercised = in temple marriages. There is no question that the wieght of Brian's artistry is powerful. = Too bad most people---especially LDS---will not touch it with a ten foot = pole. Or if they do touch it, would they understand it? Because of the = "book ban" this could not be popular on the LDS market---at least not = now. However, Brian's astounding motion to stop this scourge upon the world = is well put here, and should be seconded by the attempts of other = artists to wake us up to an intolerable reality. Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:45:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Dallas Robbins Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance > I have another slant. . . if men would just be more > romantic. . . woman > wouldn't have to search for it in books. > > Marsha Steed Having worked at a paperback trading store for five years, Marsha's slant does ring true. I would say that our business was about 75% romance readers, and of those I would guess more than half were LDS. Sometimes our reader's would come into the store with their husbands, and their husbands would make very derogatory remarks about his wife's "habit." This was not the majority of the case, but happened plenty of times. Also, many women would complain about their husbands or boyfriends, and how they needed to read romance books so they could learn something. (At our store, there was only one man that I remember who bought romances.) On the flip side, I think men consume pornography for similar reasons. They are given a fantasy that they know their wife doesn't fulfill: a sexy body, ready for sex at a moment's notice. And I have heard stories from women, who talk about how their husband or boyfriend showed them porn in order to illustrate to them what they want. Now, I don't mean to say that romance novels and men's pornography is the same thing. They are not. But I do believe they are meeting similar needs: they fulfill a fantasy. I know that is a generalization, and I don't believe that is the case in all of romance reader's choices. I would be curious what other's think of the comparison. Dallas Robbins cloudhill@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:23:19 EDT From: Terashan@aol.com Subject: [AML] Publishing in the Ensign I've been trying to get personal experience stories published in the Ensign. So far, I haven't had any luck. Has anyone onlist been published in the Ensign and have some suggestions? Tequitia Andrews - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:47:42 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] The Critic's Obligation >===== Original Message From "Jongiorgi Enos" ===== You cannot teach an artist how to improve his work via a >review. There is another forum for that, but only the artist can create that >forum or avail him/herself of it. This is an interesting idea. I'm working on my MFA right now and we've just started another semester-long writer's workshop, seemingly a place where a writer can get some constructive feedback. It's an interesting experience, in some ways very painful. But it's brought some insight, namely that the only way to become a good writer is to finally understand that writing is a craft as well as an art, and that you'd dang well better learn the craft before you make claims to art. I've been realizing this while reading some really awful stuff. There are people who don't know the forms of poetry and therefore can't play with them, so they put the line breaks - oh, here and maybe here. They have no sense of structure. And then the prose writers just go on and on convinced that you want to hear a semi-stream of consciousness retelling of how sad they felt when they moved away from their hometown and left their dog behind. But the bizarre thing is, when the pieces actually come up for critique it's like we're tiptoeing past sleeping bears. We couch our criticisms so deeply that the writer can't find them. Why? Because, we know in our gut that the writer has put his or her SOUL on this page, and it really means a lot to them. They can't see it as a piece of carpentry that needs to fulfill its function. It bugs me to death. But at the same time, I wonder if I'm missing a point. If I'm straining at gnats while swallowing camels. And then I think about the piece I'm going to turn in for general consumption and wonder how I would react to the kind of critique I wish I could give other people. I admit, it would probably hurt. But the reason it would hurt would be because it's my SOUL on that piece of paper, and I haven't learned the structure well enough to look at it as a piece of carpentry that must fulfill a function before it can harbor a soul. But you know what? I don't think I'll become a good writer without some tough lovin'. Not that I won't be homicidal for a few days after the critique. But I'm pretty sure that I'll get a tiptoe critique when I get to the workshop, and I'll feel just fine afterwards. I'm still trying to figure out how to tell my colleagues that I actually want to learn how to write, so would they please be honest. I think writers don't avail themselves of closed-door critiques because they want to keep their own little world intact. They think they're writing for other people. But they're not. They just want to be praised. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:57:23 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: [AML] Candor in Discussions I don't know if any others of you have just had this same experience, but I just received a rather stinging e-mail from a Mormon artist regarding comments I made on the AML-List over a year ago. An article in the Deseret News generated discussion on the list not only about this artist but also about balancing the arts and family life etc. A few steps into the discussion I joined in with my 2 cents, replying to other people's reactions to the issue as presented in the article. I also commented briefly on what the article had presented about this artist. Am I getting too obtuse here? I'm not mentioning the artist specifically because I'd like to discuss the issue in general and not get into a "And then I said....and then HE said....and then I said..." Anyhow, I spoke with candor but not with extreme harshness. I made some "If/then" type assessments (ie "if that's how this is, then this is how I feel about it") but I don't think I said anything out of line for the list. His response was, in my opinion, completely disproportionate to the rather tame comments that I made. One thing that seemed to upset him tremendously was that these comments were made in a public forum. Now, I know that this is a public forum. But, you know what, so is talking to the person next to you when you ride the bus. Somehow because you can (after tediously searching the archives) pull up any throwaway comment posted to this list posting here is now akin to publishing an article on the topic? Being a somewhat timid person this type of backlash makes me almost not want to comment again (ok, that's a bit of hyperbole there but you know what I mean). As I told this person, though, if you can't have candor in a discussion then why waste your time discussing anything. Thoughts? Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:46:27 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Amazon Reviews Fascinating -- thanks! You just never know what's going on behind the scenes... If you could get someone to respond, then yes . . . Amazon has had a huge >staffing shakedown in the past couple of years, drastically reducing their >editorial staff and farming more of their reviews and interviews out to other >sources. That has been great news for Publishers Weekly; we struck a >licensing >arrangement with them for our entire review database. Under the terms of >the deal >(and I think all of Amazon's licensing arrangements work the same way), they >have the right to remove a review entirely if it is so negative that they >feel >it will hurt sales. They cannot change a word, however. It's an >all-or-nothing deal. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:04:28 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Interesting Thing I imagine that's an excerpt from "The Whole Language Textbook". People can determine what it says, but why make someone work that hard and irritate them in the process? People want to be able to read things that have the basic spelling and grammar correct. Don't take them for granted, proofreaders are more necessary than one might think. Bad spellers of the world, Untie! Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Bigelow" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: [AML] Interesting Thing > Following is a little literary curiosity: > > you can raed tihs wtihuot a plrobem > Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, > it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, > the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer > be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you > can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn > mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:15:15 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Introduction: Tequitia Andrews Paris, You are more clear and profound than you might imagine. Of course, no one can figure me out either, so I'm not sure an endorsement from me makes a difference. ;-) We need to be happy in our weirdness, er-differentness. Truth is truth. Some of the things I've learned studying other philosophies and religions have only added and illuminated things of beauty I hadn't noticed in my mine. And, suddenly, even some of the same 'ol same stuff was easier to take. (Doesn't mean I won't still make fun of it, though). :) And Tequita, your different background and experiences sound like they will bring richness and variety that is very much needed to the realm of Mormon Lit. In fact, I think your work could appeal to both the Saints and the General reading audience. Good luck to you! Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:52:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Deseret News: "Bash" Looks at Lives Dramatically Askew Deseret News, Wednesday, September 17, 2003 'Bash' looks at lives dramatically askew By Ivan M. Lincoln Deseret Morning News BASH: LATTER-DAY PLAYS, through Sept. 28, Studio Theatre, Rose Wagner Center= =20 (355-2787). Running time: one hour, 40 minutes. With "bash" in the title (followed by "latter-day plays"), you might assume= =20 these three brief, one-act plays would be in the "Mormon-bashing" category.= But=20 you'd be wrong. True, they're quirky and edgy (and the characters aren't what most people= would=20 consider "mainstream" members of the LDS Church), but the issues being dealt= =20 with have very little to do with the church itself. In fact, when "bash"= played=20 in London, playwright Neil LaBute, a BYU graduate , removed all religious=20 references in the script. (LaBute may be most familiar as a filmmaker,= having=20 directed, among others, "Nurse Betty" and "The Shape of Things."= Cable-channel=20 Showtime filmed "bash" three years ago from LaBute's script.) Each of the three plays revolves around rather pathetic characters who= relate=20 their involvement in some shocking, horrific incidents. And they take lots= of=20 twists and turns getting there. The four characters are well-drawn and superbly performed. One is a=20 chain-smoking Midwest woman who reflects on being sexually abused by her= junior=20 high school science teacher. (She then moved out West "to live with some= Mormon=20 relatives" and give birth to her son.) Another is an Orem businessman= confessing=20 his sins to a guy he meets in a Las Vegas bar. The third play features a= yuppie=20 couple from Boston College joining friends from their LDS ward for a reunion= in=20 New York. Stephanie Howell portrays two widely diverse characters. In "Medea Redux"= she=20 reflects on her son, fathered 14 years earlier by her science teacher (who= =20 sneaked out of town and moved to Phoenix), and the diabolical way she= wreaked=20 her vengeance. In "A Gaggle of Saints," Howell is paired with Robert Scott Smith. She plays= =20 Sue, a gushingly nauseating coed with a Valley Girl attitude. Smith plays= her=20 boyfriend, John, a homophobic returned missionary. While their dates are= napping=20 at the Plaza Hotel, John and his two friends take a walk through Central= Park,=20 where they entrap and then bludgeon a gay man. (John later claims the blood= on=20 his shirt came from falling while climbing on a fountain.) The middle of the three play is "Iphagenia in Orem," in which Carl Nelson=20 delivers a heart-wrenching performance as a guilt-plagued businessman on a= trip=20 to Las Vegas. The 35-minute play takes place in his hotel room, where he= spills=20 his horrible secret to a drunk from the hotel bar =97 a few years earlier,= driven=20 by the fear of losing his job, he committed a frightening atrocity. Jeffery H. Ingman, based in San Diego, guest-directed the three Plan-B= Theatre=20 Company one-act dramas with a sure hand, complemented by Randy Rasmussen's= =20 slightly off-kilter set design, Corey Thorell's effective lighting and= Cheryl=20 Ann Cluff's sound design =97 all fitting for characters whose lives are=20 dramatically askew. Sensitivity rating: Some offensive situations and language. E-MAIL: ivan@desnews.com =A9 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company=20 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: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:02:30 -0700 From: "Clay Whipkey" Subject: Re: [AML] Definitions of Knowledge >In a message dated 9/16/03 2:57:52 PM, >owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: > > >NPR's Weekend Edition has been running occasional interviews with one >A.J. > >Jacobs, who is reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. He is >introduced > >as questing to become the world's "smartest man." This is nonsense. He > >could > >perhaps become the world's "most informed man," and a champion Jeopardy! > >contestant, but this is only peripherally related to wisdom or even >general > >intelligence. The pursuit of such an external validation doesn't seem that smart to me. I mean, what good is knowledge if you are only acquiring it to distinguish yourself from other people? What will he _DO_ with it? That's all I care about. Clay Whipkey _________________________________________________________________ Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:23:34 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Quoting from Movies A one line quote, especially when it is something that has penetrated the social fiber and become iconographic, if it is in the form a dialogue, and the character is referencing something that he is a fan of or that is a part of his social world, you have pretty good argument for falling under fair use. Especially if there is textual reference to source. A quote at the beginning of a chapter, however, to "set atmosphere," that is not actually relevant to his material, it is "value added," it is a "quote" to add color, and I think you'd better get permission to use the reference in every case. Probably not too hard to get, but I would get clearances. Even Stephen King, who is king of social references, especially movies and song lyrics, always gets clearance. It's the right thing to do. And if they say no, or ask for money which you don't have, quite frankly, if the chapter is suddenly going to genuinely lose something because it doesn't have that one line from FLASHDANCE in front of it... what kind of a chapter is it? Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #161 ******************************