From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #175 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 Wednesday, October 1 2003 Volume 02 : Number 175 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:58:56 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormons in _The Stand_ Did Mormon congregations flock to their chapels on 9/11? Did they for the National Day of Prayer afterwards? Did they even flock to the temples? Sure there was a broadcast from SLC, but most local congregations did not have any sort of service to bring people to the chapel and an LDS chapel (unlike, say, a Catholic Cathedral) isn't exactly the kind of place where you go and hang when you are in a crisis. The closest parallel we have is the temple (where one would go to seek inspiration during a crisis) but I have to tell you that the temple halls were pretty empty during the National Day of Prayer here in Seattle. I didn't hear of any sort of LDS service for the National Day of Prayer after 9/11 and so I assumed that the appropriate place to be for that hour devoted to prayer would be in the temple. I remember my husband and I got a late start and we thought for sure that the temple would be full to capacity and that we would probably not be able to get into a session. Imagine my shock when it was just a regular slow weekday at the temple. All around the country churches were packed but LDS folks weren't anywhere near a church or temple. It was not our finest hour. Anyhow, I can see where a non-LDS writer would assume that a highly committed religious congregation's behavior would mimic that of other christian congregations he/she was familiar with. Marianne Hales Harding - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:03:53 -0500 From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: [AML] Re: Disapproval of Fiction Tequitia wrote: > That's an interesting question. I know that I have come across several > members in my ward who say they just won't read fiction. They feel if its not > doctrinal than what's the point. I had someone tell me once that reading fiction > was discouraged by the leaders in the church. Reminds me of the time I was a high school English teacher and I had the Seminary President in my class. He came to me after class because he wanted permission to read the Book of Mormon ONLY, since he felt that his reading time would be better spent with the scriptures than with _My Name is Asher Lev_. After taking a moment to moan with my head in my hands, we had a nice talk about the value of books like _My Name is Asher Lev_, what the scriptural injunction to "seek out of the best books knowledge" means, and decided that, maybe, he could use some of his TELEVISION watching time to read, and still keep his Book of Mormon reading time intact. (Maybe the poor kid was just hypersensitive to the message of _Asher Lev_ and what it says about religiosity and creating art . . . . ??? Nah. More probably he just wanted to get out of doing homework.) The whole "fiction" thing is a problem, too, because I think that Mormons feel more comfortable when things are "true." The first story I ever had published was in _The New Era_ in 2000 (I wrote it when I was still a youngin'--they took it in 1994 or 95, and luckily I made it in under the publication wire before _The New Era_ gave up on fiction entirely), but I can't tell you how many people in my ward asked me who the girl in the story was. "I made her up," I kept saying. "She's imaginary!" Maybe this is why the _New Era_ and the _Friend_ don't publish fiction anymore? Too many Mormons expect their church sanctioned publications to contain only true stories? (I'm sure the list has discussed this before, but I've only been a part of the list for about a year now, so I'm not sure.) But it's not just a Mormon problem. Out here in my Minnesota neighborhood I've been talking to some women about creating a book group. Although most are quite interested, a few women have made comments that they "feel guilty" reading fiction, that it's frivolous and they can't justify the time. Of course, they don't feel guilty going to the gym . . . or scrap booking (yes, it has made its way East) . . . or reading parenting books or _Dr. Phil's Weight Loss Challenge_ . . . or even (one of them) playing fantasy football, but fiction reading seems somehow *lazy*. Is it because, when you read a book, sometimes it makes you want to lie down on the couch while you do it? Is it because, while reading, you cut yourself off from the people around you and enter a solitary, made-up world? Movie viewing and television watching, though also dealing with fictional worlds, can be and often are communal experiences, so is that why they seem less selfish to people? Interesting. Anyway, very few Mormons I know would think it was somehow *sinful* to read fiction. But to people who are extremely concerned about putting their shoulder to the wheel and pushing along, I've seen how they can interpret it as a frivolous way to spend one's time. That's why book groups are good for some people. Then they can see novel reading as an "assignment" of sorts, and not get all wound up and guilty over it. Sigh. Angela Hallstrom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:21:06 -0700 From: thelairdjim Subject: Re: [AML] Book Burning Justified? On Saturday, Sep 27, 2003, at 14:26 America/Phoenix, Jacob Proffitt wrote: > ---Original Message From: Eric Samuelsen >> >> The Laird Jim offered this provocative thought: >> >>> What happens when online publishing >>> takes over completely? When hardcopy is a luxury? Some vile little >>> wanker of a hacker will write himself a virus to destroy or corrupt >>> every copy of _The Deerslayer_ and the only remaining >> hardcopy versions >> >>> will be somewhere in a vault collecting dust. What a tragedy that >>> would be. > > Won't happen any time soon. Not until computer reading can match book > and magazine ease, comfort, and portability. Computers will need > *huge* > advances in screen technology for one. Try reading a hand-held in the > sun, for instance. And try reading anywhere near the density of text > on > a hand-held. Not possible. Not possible any time soon. It's closer than you think. Organic LEDs are already on the market. There's also a new rewriting paper display that several companies are working on. While there is a certain aesthetic appeal to books, "good enough" will replace them. I do most of my reading on a computer screen, so as far as I'm concerned it's good enough already. The latest OLEDs are flexible and visible even in sunlight, and the quality is beyond anything in a current laptop or PDA. Those huge advances are already years old, the only thing holding it up right now is price. Within a couple of years there will be a book reader on the market that will hold hundreds of books and be only slightly less aesthetically pleasing than a hardcopy book. Just think of being able to carry a whole library in a 5x8" pad. Computer advances have been slow of late, I know. We've practically been in stasis for the last 3-4 years. Minor advances have been heralded as quantum leaps, etc. The pressure has been building as hundreds of advances are being held back by price and the universal timidity of corporations. It wouldn't surprise me if the sort of reader I'm talking about will be available within a couple of years. In five the computer industry won't be recognizable from what we have today. Where I work we have a number of multi-terabyte arrays, and over the last three years they've gotten smaller and smaller. The latest one we got in to play with is the size of a normal server cabinet and is 14 terabytes. The old EMC arrays were 3 similar sized cabinets for 2 terabytes. Storage is just one dimension of the changes coming, and though it's been slow, that just makes the pressure build faster. It's smart in a way. Right now everybody is beginning to think that there's no point in further increase in speed for home computers. I've read about it in a number of places. When the dam bursts it'll make those companies that are positioned right a ton of money. Some of the stuff that hasn't been popular since the mid eighties will suddenly come back with new and improved abilities. One of those things will be entire libraries stored in a home server. Why buy paper encyclopedias when you can have all of them at once? DVDs have been obsolete since before they came out, and when the storage is available the pipes will become available too. I've been annoyed at how slow things have been changing for the last ten years. It's beginning to look like we'll be taking the jump forward soon. Thank Heaven! Canute knew he couldn't hold back the tide but Neo-Luddites haven't learned that lesson. But the tide is a-building behind the dikes, and the best advice is to get the heck out of the lowlands. Jim Wilson aka The Laird Jim - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:43:09 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Press Release "Day of Defense" Oct. 10, 2003 Saw this one in rough-cut. Even making allowances for that, I wouldn't get excited about it. I classify it as a film that could have been good under more competent hands, but didn't quite make it. The acting started out stilted, but improved as the film went. (Why do LDS audiences have to be endlessly subjected to people's apprenticeship periods? Can't these people learn their crafts BEFORE they make us pay admission?) The dialog often missed that enviable goal of sounding natural. The junior companion was simnply obnoxious, and not in a way that contributed to the story. All I wanted to do throughout the film was smack him upside the head. It wasn't all bad. Like I said, _almost_ good. This is a film that evokes a classic "something's missing" response. The biggest failing of the movie is the story makes no sense. How an entire feature film can discuss the right to preach one's religion in America without once evoking the First Amendment is beyond me. The entire trial, which admittedly has its moments, should never have happened. The incompetent (by my assessment) defense lawyer should have made it a first amendment issue from moment one. I could see a story like this happening in some small town in America in the fifties, but today? Not a chance. Which makes me think the book it was based on, which I'd never heard of let alone read, _is_ a story set back in the fifties. But if so, the filmmakers decided to modernize the story. You can tell because there were up-to-date cultural trappings, like car models, and the President of the Church was called "Hinckley." But you don't have to be much of an artistic elitist to understand it takes more than window dressing to modernize a story. - -- 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: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:52:40 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Re: Disapproval of Fiction >That's an interesting question. I know that I have come across several >members in my ward who say they just won't read fiction. They feel if its not >doctrinal than what's the point. > Classic response in such a case: "So you don't read the parables of Jesus?" Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Thom PS. Brigham once decried the evils of dime novels, iirc. But this the same man who said many of the stories in the Bible were "baby stories." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:06:01 -0400 From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Children of Eden If they're going to overdo a Shwartz play, let it be "Godspell"! Speaking of Shwartz, and with Chigago winning all those gold statues, I think it's about time to adapt "Pippin" to film. It's really too bad I will never direct films because I've got some brilliant ideas to that end. *sigh* ~Jamie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:06:36 -0700 From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Alan Rex Mitchell writes: >...Movies have reinforced the >false myth that the beauty of the flesh is the same as goodness. Most >good literature and experience teaches us the opposite-that you cannot >judge a book by its cover. Well I beg to differ. Brigham City's horrible box cover proves that movies CAN teach that lesson! - --lauramaery, grinning, ducking, and running. (Seriously, I agree with the gist of your post.) - -------- A message from LauraMaery (Gold) Post Visit our library at: E-mail reply: - --------- . - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:37:04 EDT From: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: [AML] re: Movie Moratorium >From Jana Riess Thanks, Alan, for your genuine concern for my salvation. :-) However, I totally disagree with your idea of declaring a moratorium -- even a temporary one -- on discussions of films on this list. One of the reasons I enjoy this list is that reading other people's informed evaluations of various movies has helped me to think about these movies more deeply. I've also really enjoyed first-person accounts of acting and filmmaking, and I think these stories provide an excellent window into larger questions about art and art-in-process -- questions that are equally applicable to literature. I say bring it on! Jana Riess - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:55:10 -0600 From: Tom Matkin Subject: RE: [AML] Movie Moratorium I know it has already been said, but I want to echo the notion, whether it is for good or ill, that videos and movies are the genre of choice at the present time. I taught seminary the last couple of years and the kids come alive when the screen flickers on. They pick up the details and focus on the broader themes. They are in tune with that medium, more so than those of us who came to it later in life. They have a comfort level with it that is astounding. Some of them read books as well, but moving pictures is where it's at for the rising generation. If you've had your fill of talk about movies, I'm sorry, but I'm here to say that it's only going to get worse. Tom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:32:01 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Literary Property Rights Protection Dorothy, I think at this point, your well-meaning cousin had absolutely no idea she was violating a copyright law. At any time, when any person reads an unpublished manuscript, esp. an electronic one, it becomes possible to copy and transfer it to others. The risk lies in that many people don't understand that doing so violates your rights to the intellectual property. Since it's a cousin and she's been very helpful in developing the work, I would very gently talk to her about please would you not do that again without asking me, and could you ask this other cousin not to send it anywhere else? That may be all you need at this point to stop further circulation. It's not too likely they'll post the whole thing on a family website for download. OTOH a few copies circulating aren't going to damage your chances for publication. You can call these few others "first readers," and a few of these could give helpful feedback. But do be careful. Make sure you tell your readers this is *their* copy and if others want one, they need to talk to you. If it was a total stranger printing and selling copies for money, you could have a court case. But most likey, you just need to talk to her, nicely, about what the rules actually are on these things. Linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:02:14 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Form and Content in Theatre ___ Randall ___ | Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet is my idea of | the pinnacle of the motion picture art. ___ Ah! No. I *hate* that version. (Well its one of my least favorite plays also, but that's an other matter) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:31:17 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] The Value of Writing? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jongiorgi Enos" To: Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 3:21 PM Subject: [AML] re: The Value of Writing? > > Several months ago, I torqued several people off by writing an obnoxious > in-your-face battle cry that writing is a professional exercise and you do > it to get read, nothing else -- or something to that effect. Bill Willson > called it "my own weltanschauung," and proceeded to beat me over the head > with it. Which is a cool. > Sorry Enos It was not my intention to beat you or anyone else over the head. I merely wanted to present an alternative POV. I found your post very interesting and I now realize that you have a multifaceted POV when it comes to writing. This is good, because life itself is a multifaceted excursion. I myself am an eclectic writer both in genre and in purpose. I'm fortunate in that I no longer need to work for my daily bread and life's needs. So I can now pursue my own inner desires and pleasures, which include writing, both therapeutic and with a hope for publication. I still have a grip on the fantasy that one day I will write something that will be read by a wide audience, which will be enlightened and changed for the better. This is my dream and I'm sticking to it. I agree with you that writing can be and in fact is an exercise that "writers" engage in for many different reasons. Thankfully there is room for us all to write and put our very souls out on the alters of literature or into cyberspace, and furthermore there is also a chance for us to be read and appreciated and yes, even make a difference in some readers life. Whether or not we realize an obscene amount of money for our writing depends upon the fickle whims of the publishing world. This is no reason for us not to recognize the fact of our genetic makeup. We who need to write, are writers. It may only boil down to the event of our posterity reading what we wrote and gaining some great insights into the meaning of life. If those insights lead them and those they come in contact with to a better life then our writing will have served a worthy purpose. All worthy purposes have an intrinsic value to humanity. Bill Willson, writer http://www.iwillwriteit.com http://www.latterdaybard.com Here's a great place for LDS artists to show and sell their work. http://www.minutemall.com CHECK IT OUT! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:08:22 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium - ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Michael Martindale" To: Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 12:51 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium > Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: > > > Which bring me back to movies-why are we worried about them? > > Because movies _are_ the literature of the 21st century. Millions more > people will see a movie than will read a book. The literate among us may > decry this unfortunate reality, but reality it is. If you want to > communicate with more than a tiny percentage of the population, you'd > better do it through film or video. > Many people in this new generation of media consumers, read the book then see the movie. I see this happening more and more. And the reverse is true, they see the movie and then read the book. Sometimes the movie comes out before the book, but usually the book is first. Some writers have said, when you write, write so that what you write can be translated easily to a film adaptation. or something to that effect. I have even experienced a slightly different twist on this phenomena. A few years ago I saw "Conspiracy Theory" and the next day I went out an bought "Catcher in the Rye" So I could revisit this book that I read as a highschool reading assignment. My point is, I can see no reason to limit my intellectual input or feedback to any single media form. A variety of media has its function and purpose for good in our life. We need to keep our agency in what forms of media we consume. No one should try to dictate this to us. Thanks be to God that we have a wide variety of media to choose from. Bill Willson, writer http://www.iwillwriteit.com http://www.latterdaybard.com Here's a great place for LDS artists to show and sell their work. http://www.minutemall.com CHECK IT OUT! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:18:07 -0700 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: [AML] Re: Disapproval of Fiction > That's an interesting question. I know that I have come across several > members in my ward who say they just won't read fiction. They feel if its not > doctrinal than what's the point. I had someone tell me once that reading fiction > was discouraged by the leaders in the church. > > Tequitia Andrews I get to the church bookstore maybe once every 3 years, if that. I can't afford to spend a whole lot when I do go. So while I'm there, I may glance at the fiction shelves, but I always feel like I should be buying something that will help me with scripture study or gospel study. Although last time I went, I picked up the first Standing on the Promises book. (I even made my non-member parents come with me. They stayed in front of the shelf that had non-LDS authors. :) Susan Malmrose - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:36:47 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:56:13 -0600 "Alan Rex Mitchell" writes: > Face it-we all know that movies are a very poor medium for stories > of character development, character description, as well as indicating > how and what a character thinks. That's not something that I know. In fact here's a short list of films that I think prove you wrong: 1. "A Walk On the Moon" Starring Diane Lane, Liev Schreiber Tova Feldshu & Vigo Mortensen. Skip "Unfaithful" if you want to see Diane Lane in an Oscar worthy performance. This is the non-cynical version of the same story. Sorta. And in this one she has a partner who can match her in intensity and power. Liev Schreiber can act. I mean really act, not just emote. This is great storytelling with outstanding acting. 2. "Wrestling Ernest Hemingway" Starring Richard Harris and Robert Duvall with Sandra Bullock and Shirley McLain and Piper Laurie. You will not recognize Robert Duvall in any way shape or form. I have rarely seen love, desperation, need, adoration, sorrow and a hundred other feelings so powerfully displayed. 3. "Tender Mercies" 4. "Gallipoli" 5. "The Man Without a Face" 6. "Return To Me" 7. "Frequency" 8. "Toy Story 2" (You heard me. And they do it with their VOICES!) 9. "Finding Nemo" Ellen Degeneres has logged in with my favorite performance of the year. Actually a tie with Johnny Depp. And I loved Chris Cooper in Seabisquit. and 10. "Anne of Green Gables" Improves on the book. True, the film doesn't have all those ponderous descriptions of the lush countryside but that don't matter 'cause in this fil I ge to see them and hear them and almost smell them. The story gains focus and specific purpose in this version. The book is sweet and delightful, but it rambles. Other films that improve on the source material: 1. "The Firm" (Actually, just about any Grisham book was improved by the films ... except "The Pelican Brief." Even Denzel Washington couldn't save that one.) 2. "The Sound of Music" 3. Just about any version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. and 4. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" And here's a great film that neither improves on nor detracts from the book: 1. "The Right Stuff" A perfect example of how one medium accomplishes one thing and the other accomplishes another. In other words, you can't compare the media against each other. They stand alone. > Because the visual medium relies so heavily on the superfluous, the > Mormon movie genre will not work. The prophets know this-the Whitney > and Kimball prophecies about Mormon Arts do not mention film At this point I see that you are delving into satire and don't really mean what you're saying, so I can now stop trying to make my point. J. Scott Bronson "People do not love better by reaching for perfection, they approach perfection by loving better." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:36:07 -0400 From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] Revisiting Knowledge [MOD: I think this is a good way to do it--post the link, with an explanation of how it ties into one's own writing. Philosophical/theological reply comments should probably be sent directly to Sam, rather than sent as replies to the list; however, as always, if someone has a more directly literary tie-in to make, that should be able to find a place here.] Hello, We had a thread about knowledge that dwindled quietly. Almost simultaneously I was asked by my bishop to speak in church about knowledge and testimony. At the hospital in the middle of the night, I wrote a sermon (I guess we're supposed to call them talks; at least I didn't say "homily") that touches on notions of knowing and ways that truth in literature can be relevant to our spiritual walk. It's meant more to be a suggestion of areas that would be interesting to pursue rather than a definitive statement. Because it has some theological implications, I don't post it here, but I'm interested to hear what people think (assuming it's judged to be appropriate to the list; I defer to moderators here) because this conception of knowledge in literature opens the way for novels that move beyond having the spirit testify that the Word of Wisdom will make an athlete more successful, etc. The link below works as of right now, and I don't anticipate its failure. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~smbrown/lit/knowing.pdf And let me know if this post doesn't conform to list standards. I'm happy to avoid similar posts in the future if that were the case. - -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:35:28 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: [AML] Fiction in the Ensign - ---Original Message From: Terashan@aol.com > In a message dated 9/26/03 6:28:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 > alan@trilobyte.net writes: >=20 > > How =3D > > can we market Mormon Fiction to Mormons? >=20 > That's an interesting question. I know that I have come=20 > across several=20 > members in my ward who say they just won't read fiction. =20 > They feel if its not=20 > doctrinal than what's the point. I had someone tell me once=20 > that reading fiction=20 > was discouraged by the leaders in the church. This just in: "In conclusion may I leave you a story. It is fiction, but in principle it is true." - Gordon B. Hinckley First Presidency Message July 2003 Ensign Ah, the joys of actually doing your Home Teaching... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:06:38 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: [AML] Re: Disapproval of Fiction Tequitia, Fiction may have been discouraged at one time by leaders, one or several. After being on this list for a while, you'll realize that some leaders statements are not exactly in harmony with the truth as we see it our day. I hope that didn't sound too apostate, but don't get us (collectively) started on caffeine, R-rated movies, blacks and priesthood, etc. I think if we had fiction with strong characters and stories that it will build the genre and better explain the Mormon dilemna. Great art comes from upheaval and this is the latter days, I've been told. Of course I don't know how to market fiction to members either. How about a book club? Monthly books that arrive in the mail whether you want them to or not. Alan Mitchell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:13:57 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Before I reply to my detractors, I would like to thank you all for supporting the moratorium for at least one day. Some of you wrote comments on the Supporting Movie thread for which I will forgive you. Bottom line--only support lousy movies if you can afford it. All in all, wasn't this a much better list day! Alan > ___ Alan ___ > | Face it-we all know that movies are a very poor medium > | for stories of character development, character > | description, as well as indicating how and what a > | character thinks. > And books are much weaker at showing the ambiguity that the environment > of a character faces. We get but one perspective: the perspective of > the author. A film uses more of reality to express a character. And I > remember my creative writing teachers often telling me to not tell what > a character feels but *show* it. Interesting they kept using visual > imagery. . . Of couse authors should show it--otherwise we end up with that boring Hawthorne drivel. I think books are excellent at showing ambiguity simply because they can do what ever the author wants. Hamlet certainly was ambiguous. > To say that one is ultimately a "poor medium" is, I think, to overlook > just what they are capable of. They are capable of reaching large audiences that won't think to pick up a book. > ___ Alan ___ > | Films are just too short. They are "little classics" of > | Moby Dick in 16 pages. They are shallow. > > One wonders if, to be consistent, you are equally condemning of short > stories or short works of poetry. Short stories are only about one thing. Only a collection really does justice to understanding the author and his environ. Then we can talk literature. Short poetry can define a mood wonderfully but most of the time readers are glad they are short. > > ___ Alan ___ > | And they are made up of shallow actors-by this I mean > | that the main character has to look good or the audience > | won't accept him. > ___ > > Humphrey Bogart. Charles Bronson. Dennis Hopper. Gene Hackman. > Gerard Depardieu. Ernest Borgnine. I could go on. No one doubts > that people in general prefer attractive leading actors. But the > majority of readers prefer the literary equivalent of sympathetic and > accessable characters as well. And if one points out that not all > literature is Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Dan Brown, Robin Cook or so > forth, one need also only point out that all film is hardly Michael Bay > and Jerry Bruckheimer. And with every one of these movie actors, we find a screen persona that we are used to. Hence, shallow. > > ___ Alan ___ > | Because the visual medium relies so heavily on the superfluous, > | the Mormon movie genre will not work. > ___ > > Have you ever read Plato on writing? Writing is but the copy of > speech. Thus it is inferior to speech and much more superfluous. > Presumably one could construct a fair argument that writing is inferior > to listening to speeches. In theory this might well mean that staged > drama is superior to written works. Didn't Plato write a book? I don't remember seeing the movie. > I'm not opposed to discussing literature, mind you. (Although I > personally would note that a lot of LDS literature is on par with what > you criticize in film: unless you truly feel _Charley_ the movie is > that much worse than _Charley_ the book) My point was that Charley the movie couldn't be produced without the book. We need to work on improving the books first. > Of course the *best* way to start a discussion is to say something > controversial on a topic. By picking to lambast film you probably kept > the discussion on film going... > Clark Scoreboard, man, scoreboard. Face it, you know this stuff already. Martindale: If you want to communicate with more than a tiny percentage of the population, you'd better do it through film or video. To which I respond: "In the beginning was the word." >Chris Oglethorpe President Benson said this (emphasis added): "I have a vision of artists putting into *film*, drama, literature, music, and paintings great themes and great characters from the Book of Mormon." I have never heard of this Benson quote--please provide reference for Jacob Profit. Are you sure it wasn't his son Reed? If he did say it, he should have organized it thus: 1. music or literature, 2. drama, then 47. film. >Clay Whipley, As for the "literature AND STORIES that are the kernel of future Art", the truth is that there are more young people today that are interested in what they can do with visual arts than the written word. Make of that what you will, but its a reality you'll have to face nonetheless. I'm not motivated by consumerism. And I'm not responsible for the decline of civilization that you refer to. I'll stand by my statement that lit/stories are the kernal. Don't most visual artists use stories like Greek Mythology, Bible stories, etc., to inspire them. Did anyone paint Odyseus without first hearing the story? >Clay: You keep talking about "good" literature, and comparing it to "bad" movies. You are ignoring the "good" movies and "bad" literature. Then let's talk good movies. Um, I'm trying to think of one that was better than the book. Not Seabiscuit. Not Harry Potter although Harry is better looking and Ron is does an amazing job because he get close to the Ron character. Not even Lord of the Rings, although the set and actors are wonderful. Perhaps Brigham City was better but I haven't read the book yet. Perhaps BCity would have been better if the novel had come out first. Spiderman was better. So was the Hulk, which proves that movies do well with a script that is based on a comic book plot or cheezy TV show. >So are you basically saying, "I love that we share our personal feelings and thoughts, and demonstrate the differences in our personalities. That we are all individuals with our own unique contributions, but.... please stop sharing your thoughts, feelings, and contributions if they are going to be about stuff I don't like." If not, please clarify, because that's what I'm picking up. That's not what I meant, but the world would be a nicer place if those who don't think just like me would all shut up (just kidding!) To clarify, I mean to say, 1. Great literature will come from novels and plays, not movies. 2. Great movies will come from novels and plays, not movies. 3. Don't be distracted by whether a recent Mormon movie is "good" or "bad." That's not really the question of literature. 4. No, Clay, you won't lose your salvation by watching movies any more than you will by playing golf. But if we think golf is going to save us, then lookout. Or in the words of the grand poohba Eric Samuelsen: "Having said that, hey, I did a big ol' review type thang on a terrific new piece of LDS theatre, Erik Orton's Berlin, which was very good, and there was no response around these here parts. And we're obsessing over the Book of Mormon movie, which is frankly sort of a cultural sideshow. P.S. My Irreantum just arrived! Question: which Mormon romance novels are good enough to make a movie? Alan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:06:23 -0700 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: re: [AML] Sports Eric Samuelson wrote: 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. ******************************** Indeed. Sports, the physical acts of bodies moving through time and space in coordination with other bodies, often in conjunction with a ball, on a playing surface of some kind, is Art of its own panache. Poetry in motion, is the old adage. I get just as tingly watching Willy Loman destroy his life on the stage as I do rooting for the Seattle Mariners to come from behind to win a game with a grand "salamy" in the bottom of the ninth, or tenth, or thirteenth inning; or, pondering the meaning of love and life while listening to a string-instrumentalized version of U2's "Without or Without"; or, standing at the foot of El Capitain in Yosemite National Park with my wife Ann and watching rock climbers at sunset, through binoculars, a thousand feet up; or, listening to President Hinckley bear his witness of Christ, on my internet connection at home, while snuggling with my kitty, Licky, during conference; or, mountain biking down a single track trail at thirty miles an hour, the wind wrapping the water out the sides of my eyes, squinting, maintaining control, barely, with a cliff on one side, wildflowers on the other; or .... There is much that is wonderful and beautiful in our world that is inspiring, that is Art, be it literature, or some other artistic medium, including the artistic handiwork of our natural surroundings, or music, or sport. Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #175 ******************************