From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #164 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, September 22 2003 Volume 02 : Number 164 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:04:21 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Form and Content in Theatre Walters, Isaac C wrote: > The principle way of thinking about acting in America, > and consequently in the Mormon world, is based on the > work of the Russian director Stanislavski. He says > that it is the job of the actor to "become" another > person or character, to transform themselves both > inside and out until they are no longer themselves > but some one else. All of his training techniques > are to help actors accomplish that goal. However, he > recognizes that inherent in this desire is an element > of deception. The actor is not someone else, they > are themselves. > I have heard many justifications for Stanislavski's > premise by Mormon actors-- > My concern is that I do not find any discussion or > concern about the inherent deception that is the > basis for this way of working. As someone who is > attempting to be "truthful in all my dealings with my > fellow man" I question if this is the best form for > gospel content. > Lying automatically drives the spirit away > Therefore, acting based on deceit will drive the > spirit away. Everything that happens on stage must > be real. I don't get this at all. Where's the deceit? A con-man pretending he's someone else so he can bilk people out of their money--that's deceit. An amoral man pretending he's single so he can marry a second wife without either wife or the state knowing it--that's deceit. But to pretend you're someone else in a play or film? Everyone knows you're not really that person. Everyone knows you're just pretending. Everyone knows it's all a game. We all pretend under such circumstances. It's one of the fun things in life. No one is being deceived. No one is being hurt. On the contrary, the audience are forking out good money specifically to see you present them with an illusion for their entertainment and/or edification. The actor has a moral obligation--a contract--to make that illusion as real as possible. If "the method" is the best way for that actor to do it, then "the method" is not deceitful, but honorable. To not be "deceitful" by making the illusion as real as possible would be dishonest: you're not delivering on the goods the audience paid for. That's when the true lie takes place: you promised a top-notch illusion, and you're not delivering. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:19:56 -0400 From: "Tony Markham" Subject: RE: [AML] Form and Content in Theatre Isaac write: A few years ago I got together a group of people to try to create different forms, different ways of thinking about acting and theatre, based on our understanding of the gospel. As we began, we created a series of working assumptions for ourselves. They are: 5. Lying automatically drives the spirit away. Therefore, acting based on deceit will drive the spirit away. Everything that happens on stage must be real. Tony asks: Does nobody ever die onstage? I don't get what you mean by real. No make-up, because that is not the person's real face? No costumes, props, or scenery? How can there even be a script since these are not the real words spoken by real people? Art of any "Form" implies artifice. Artificiality. It's our stock and trade. On the other hand--Christ might be said to have employed "method" during the atonement. He didn't do all the sins that he took onto himself, but he surely experienced them. He descended below them and came through. In this respect, nothing could then be more Christ-like than a thorough grounding in the Stanislavski Method. Tony Markham Delhi, NY - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:59:55 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Book Burning Justified? Oh, why not just take an extreme and probably indefensible position on = this one. It does seem to me one of the rare moral absolutes. No, it's not okay to burn books, unless a) you're dying of cold in a = cabin and that's the only way to start the fire that will save your = life, or b) it's really old and bedraggled and you've got another copy = anyway. But no, there cannot possible exist a book evil enough that you = gotta burn it. The scriptural examples cited in this regard are = examples of people behaving immorally. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:04:56 -0600 From: Marny Parkin Subject: Re: [AML] Quoting from Movies/Chicago Manual of Style Barbara Hume wrote: >I have a client whose book I am editing. This guy is very much into >movies, and he quotes extensively from movies in his book. These >quotes are quite relevant to his material; for example, at the top >of a chapter on achieving your dreams, he has these lines: > >"Don't you get it? When you give up your dream--you die!" >--From the movie Flashdance > >Does anyone know what the current rules are for quoting a brief >remark from a movie? Does it require an extensive reference? I have >not yet purchased the 15th edition of Chicago, which I understand >deals quite a bit with the electronic world. If they are just epigraphs, you don't need much in the way of citations. (There is a good example for epigraph citations at the Chicago Manual of Style web site, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/cmosfaq.Documentation.html) If, however, they are in the text, you probably ought to have more extensive documentation. The CMS web site has a list of changes between the old and new editions, as well as a great Q&A section. If you register (for free), you can also search their online edition. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ Marny Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:15:18 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Sports Oh, piffle. >Sports will always be more interesting to the majority of men >in the world, not because of any religious or moral agenda, but because >their brains are hardwired to enjoy grunting, sweating, vicious anger >and any form of socially acceptable aggressive behavior.=20 And so on I'm not going to respond point by point to any of this, because, you = know, what's the point? Some of us don't like romance novels because we = just don't get 'em and others of us like 'em a lot and some of us don't = like sci-fi (of SF) much, and others of us like it a lot, and some of us = like sports a lot. I don't grunt, and I sweat only moderately, and I = enjoy kind, new-agey kinds of anger but deplore the really vicious kind. = We've had a real nice little thread going on here about romance novels. = I don't read romance novels. I'm planning to use my next library trip to = check out a couple of the better ones that have been recommended here. = As a teen, I hated Johnny Cash because he was 'country' and I was a = sophisticated music lover who liked Stravinsky and Mahler and The Who. = And my son just got me a Johnny Cash CD, and I listened to The Man Comes = Around with tears rolling down my cheeks, it's so astounding. Kim = Madsen is a friend and I like reading her stuff here, but please, let's = get along. Let's open up. Let's recognize that there are many many = alleys and cul-de-sacs and streets in the City of Truth, and heading = down a scary one won't actually get you mugged, not most of the time it = won't.=20 So I like theatre more than anything on earth, and I love art galleries, = and I eat quiche, and I also think there's little on this planet as = beautiful and inspiring and communion-like as sitting in a box off the = third base side of Pac Bell or Wrigley or Camden Yards and watch a great = baseball game. If you don't dig it, fine, I don't ask you to. But = don't give me this silly stuff about 'guys are hard wired to grunt = violently.' Balderdash. =20 Sports are full of beauty and grace and inspiration. And, yes, = aggressiveness and anger. I do wish our ward took basketball a little = more seriously. But with my bad foot and bad back, I just don't get = back on defense anymore. If I could play, I would, brute that I am. = Because, man, a high arching jump shot, lots of backspin, rippling the = cords, that's something else, something rich and beautiful.=20 And now, perhaps, back to our regularly scheduled discussion of = literature. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:05:11 -0500 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: [AML] Veloz Adapting King's "Bag of Bones" David Veloz, the screenwriter of "Natural Born Killers and "Behind Enemy Lines," and the writer/director of the little-seen Ben Stiller feature "Permanent Midnight," is adapting megapopular non-LDS writer Stephen King's novel "Bag of Bones" for the big screen. This has nothing to do with the fact that Veloz is writing the screenplay, but King's novel "Bag of Bones" has just one reference to Latter-day Saints: Bag of Bones. (New York: Scribner,1998) Pg. 422: "She turned to Rommie and George, who were standing side-by-side and looking like fellows who might want to explain all about the Mormon Church." King's most LDS-intensive novel is largely considered to be "The Stand," which takes place largely in Utah and features many LDS characters and settings. The miniseries adaptation of "The Stand" was filmed in Utah. (David Veloz, who joined the Church during high school and attended BYU, is not known to be an active churchgoer at the present time.) The non-LDS director of "Bag of Bones" is best known for his recent feature film "The Secret Lives of Altar Boys," which starred Jodie Foster. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0372778/plotsummary Plot Summary for Bag of Bones (2004) Novelist Mike Noonan's wife dies unexpectedly and he suddenly becomes overwhelmed with a serious and extreme case of Writer's Block. He decides to go to his holiday home in Castle Rock, Sara Laughs, named after early 20th century country singer Sara Tidwell which has been recently haunting his dreams. Soon, Mike rescues a little girl, Kyra, from being run over, and is soon acqainted with her mother, Mattie. Mattie asks Mike for help, it seems that Mattie's husband died a few years ago, and her father-in-law is a psychopathic millionaire owner of a computer company and will do anything to gain custody of Kyra. Mike soon finds himself determined to help Mattie win the custody case, and finds himself falling in love with her. And strange things are happening in Sara Laughs.... words shaping on the fridge magnets.... strange dreams, and Kyra can feel them too.... - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:12:11 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] LYON, PETERSEN (Reviews) I agree on the Nibley book. The Lyon book is clearly my next acquisition - -- sounds fabulous. Thanks for the reviews. At 10:05 AM 9/17/2003, you wrote: >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 - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:42:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Chirs O Subject: Re: [AML] Interesting Thing >From someone who's been trained as an engineer, this was an interesting piece to read. My wife sent me a similar note and I wrote back my reply using the same jumbled spelling the orignal used. Then I noticed--I'm a bit slow on the uptake--that any word three letters or less is unaffected by the scrambling. So are words like 'look' or 'keep'. In the note, 33 out of the 76 words (43%) are correct. Oddly, the word "total" is one of the correct ones. Perhaps the author kept it to maintain the readability? Also, the short words might give clues to what part of speech the longer words are. We don't expect "the" to stand in front of a verb. That idea goes with Kathy's note. The reasons the text is readable at all is because almost half of it is correct anyway. Our brains can fill in the rest given the first and last letters as prompts. It's an intellectual curiosity, but it isn't an excuse for bad spelling. But I think most of us on the list know that, anyway. It also reminds me of the nearly vowel free shorthand programmers use: if u cn rd ths u cn wrt cmptr prgrms! Chris Oglethorpe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:30:28 -0400 From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: Re: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies Jongiorgi got it right. I have a brother-in-law who has for years expressed= some interest in the BOM and the Church but self proclamed "hates to read"= and has asked if they don't have a BOM movie. I'm certain that at some= time he will see this movie and then dismiss the BOM, all the while= wondering what so many Mormons see in it.=20 "Jongiorgi Enos" wrote: >> >> =A0I can even twist this entry... into a relevant comment on >> the "Beloved" movie experience. =A0I didn't like the film version of the >> book because I felt like it glided over the real issues and made too >> much of lesser points. =A0If I had seen the movie first I probably would >> not have read the book and I would have missed out. =A0Twisting that >> experience until it hurts.... > >Excuse me, but twisting that example until it hurts: think of all of the >people who will see the BOMM first before reading the BOOK and will= probably >miss out on the real experience because they were so mind-numbingly bored >out of their skulls by the movie. > >Jongiorgi Enos: uber-cynic. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:35:47 -0700 From: "Clay Whipkey" Subject: Re: [AML] Candor in Discussions >From: "Marianne Hales Harding" >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 I would personally feel the line would be drawn at discussing things that are very personal, that the public would not be privvy to in the first place. One's opinion as a reaction to publicly displayed art should not be expected to be kept private. If you say things that are rude or unreasonable in that public forum, well... it might make you appear rude and unreasonable, but the fact that you expressed your opinion in public is not a sin in itself. I think artists have to realize that as much as they hope that their art will inspire a strong emotional reaction for the positive (kind of the point, in my opinion), they must be able to accept that it will inspire some strong negative emotions, also. As LDS we especially should understand that. You know, everything has its opposite... and all that. Clay Whipkey _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:47:36 -0600 From: Margaret Blair Young Subject: [AML] Adapting the Scriptures (was: Supporting Mormon Movies) [MOD: This is a very big issue that Margaret raises. Shall we discuss it?] What's even scarier than what Jon suggests about people being so bored by the BOM movie that they don't delve into the actual Book is the very real possibility that they WON'T be bored by the movie and will be looking for Nephi's love interest all through I Nephi. Then before long, they'll hit Isaiah. Major wall there. As I've said, I resisted the cartoon versions of the BOM characters ("Living Scriptures")and found Laman and Lemuel insufferably villainous, complete with melodramatic pauses for us to focus on their scheming faces. I may be exaggerating the possible effect of such demonization, but I suggest it actually prepares our children to label others as "good" and "bad" (something which will be encouraged as they progress into YW and YM). Empathy then gets trampled underfoot and the whole concept of the infinite atonement becomes appended by "if you're worthy." Many will decide that they're hopelessly unworthy, and will label others convincingly as "not's" also. Very dangerous territory. Arthur Henry King was very insistent that parents need to read the actual scriptures to their children and not presume that age determines the capacity to "get it." I'm afraid we're in a cycle of pablumizing our faith, making checklists and plot-based movies ABOUT the scriptures (whether cartoon or other), and setting up our children to be judges of themselves and others. I believe that one's actual relationship with the Savior can, in just this way, become elusive and sentimental. I see the pattern as a huge danger. [Margaret Blair Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:13:34 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance At 11:45 AM 9/17/03 -0700, you wrote: >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. In terms of fulfilling a fantasy, I think you're right. When people say to me that the heroes in romance novels are not realistic and that the books are fantasy, I say, "Of course they're fantasy. They're wish fulfillment. The readers know the difference between fantasy and reality--the books offer them a chance to experience fantastic romance vicariously." And I've also said that it's just like men reading (or looking at) Playboy--surely they know that most real women don't look like that, but they enjoy the (airbrushed) fantasy. In real life, the man who swears he will love you forever winds up spending the evening with a TV remote in his hand and a glazed look on his face while you do the dishes and the laundry. Rather than wondering bitterly why this is what all the flowers and dinners and declarations led to, women read about handsome, powerful, gorgeous, dangerous men brought to their knees by love. Then, after the pleasure of that temporary escape, readers go back to real life and enjoy what it has to offer. For single women like me, who do not have the warmth and shelter of a man's love, romance novels let us feel courted and wanted by incredible men. Vicarious is better than nothing. And it's certainly better than getting involved in desperate, pathetic affairs, which is the sad choice some lonely women make. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:16:09 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance Dallas Robbins wrote: > 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. Why aren't they the same thing? Especially if they're fulfilling similar functions? From your description of observations in the bookstore, it sounds like a portion of romance readers (please note: I said A PORTION, not all) are replacing the effort to develop an intimate relationship with their husband with the easier solution of fantasizing romantic relationships through novels. Tney are developing unrealistic expectations of what real-life romance is all about. They are comparing the idealized fantasy found in the book to their husband, and finding the husband wanting. They are criticizing him for not being the fantasy rather than doing something proactive to resolve the situation. Aren't these the same dangers associated with pornography? If so, what's the difference? Why is one more destructive than the other? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:22:56 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] SF versus SciFi At 09:53 AM 9/17/03 -0600, you wrote: >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. I've noticed, in reading about the sailing ships of Horatio Hornblower's day, that they speak of a ship of the line or a frigate "warping" out of the harbor. I don't know what it means in their case, either! And the captains of those days did say "Make it so." Actually, I think that Warp 1 is the speed of light, and that the warp factors increase geometrically. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:25:13 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Candor in Discussions Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > 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. > 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. Just as the writer or filmmaker who ventures into the public arena must be prepared for the barbs that come naturally when you lay the claim to being a professional, so must the critic expect the same thing. As has been observed on this list with this topic, there will be those who throw barbs at the critics for skewering their sacred cows. It goes with the territory as much as being a creator. You either decide you're prepared to take it, or don't venture in. Creators will continue to produce their product, critics will continue to review/critique them, creators and their fans will continue to complain about negative feedback, and critics will continue to complain about thin-skinned creators and fans who don't get the purpose of a critic. This will never change. This is one of those things we need the serenity to accept. But none of this changes the fact that the critic is the watchdog that keeps the fire to creators' feet so they are motivated to do better. We need honest critics. The LDS artistic community needs the wisdom to recognize this and the serenity to accept it. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:48:57 EDT From: PWRelRevs@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re: Honesty in Reviewing Hi all, As we've been debating the whole issue of honesty in reviewing, I've of=20 course been very interested, since I make my living as a professional review= er and=20 confront these issues every day. I was intrigued by several people's=20 admissions that they are far more likely to be sympathetic to books where th= ey have=20 some kind of personal connection with the author. At Publishers Weekly, we=20 don't typically review books where we have any kind of personal relationship= with=20 the author, for precisely this reason. It changes a reviewer's perspective.= =20 If there is such a thing as reviewer objectivity, a personal relationship=20 surely compromises it. We're also pretty strict about reading the *whole* book -- absolutely if it'= s=20 a work of fiction, because the craft of the entire storyline is paramount. =20 How does the book resolve the narrative tension? Do the characters stay tru= e=20 to form until the very end? =20 So I'm pretty horrified when I hear stories about reviewers who write a=20 review (especially a scathing one) based on a cursory glance through the boo= k. =20 This attitude seems particularly rife in academia. At U Chicago, there's a=20 running joke where a famous professor is asked if he's read a new book in hi= s=20 field. "READ it?" he cries. "I haven't even REVIEWED it yet!" Sadly, this= seems=20 to describe a few professors' attitudes toward reviewing. At PW, many of our reviewers are published writers themselves, which I think= =20 lends a unique perspective. They understand how hard it is to craft a book,= =20 how much work and time and heartache and blood goes into it. They also=20 understand how painful it can be to receive a negative review. Authors neve= r forget=20 bad reviews, or even the one critical line in a good review. My own first=20 experience of this came when I was 19 and played Nellie Forbush in South Pac= ific=20 at MIT. The reviewer from the Tech, the student newspaper, said that my voi= ce=20 and the way I sang reminded him of little Ronnie Howard in the Music Man. =20 Ouch! Of course, I'm older now and have a thicker skin (or, as RH would say= , a=20 thicker thkin), but I hope I always remember what that felt like. It makes=20= me=20 very, very careful now about the power of words. I've been cleaning out my email archives & came across an article that was i= n=20 the UK EVENING STANDARD earlier this year. [snip] It's a really inte= resting=20 look at the art of reviewing, and at some egregious lapses in honesty on the= =20 part of reviewers. The story about Paul Johnson (a historian whose work I h= ad=20 admired) made me cringe. =20 Jana Riess Find this story at=20 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/entertainment/books/articles/3530579?version= =3D1 =A92003 Associated New Media=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #164 ******************************