From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #206 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, October 27 2003 Volume 02 : Number 206 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:46:02 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Tom Osmond SPAM Hi, This is off-topic, but who among you are getting SPAM from to a Webshots account? He's claiming to be the real Tom Osmond (he wrote me back) but others on another LDS writers list are all getting these, and other statements he's making would indicate he's an impersonator and is playing off Tom's known deafness. (using weird grammar, saying he has nothing else to do) Tom lived across the street from my grandparents for a long time and they were friends; if he can't provide me concrete detail about them (which I doubt this person can) I would very much like to inform the real Osmonds that this is going on. Does anyone have contact information for any of the siblings? It could be important. I don't need it personally -- if someone could just forward this and let someone in the family this is going on so the man can be stopped. It's just -- so *wrong.* Linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:21:00 -0700 From: Paula Goodfellow Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 03:42 PM, Bill Willson wrote: > I have heard some members of the church say Harry Potter is the story > of > evil wizardry and witchcraft or something to that effect. A friend sent me the second Harry Potter book from England, just a few months after the first book came out here. I loaned it out to quite a few people, till a boy from our ward borrowed it, and then didn't return it for several months. I finally asked him about it, and his mother said, "The Holy Ghost told us to quit reading it." I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying, "Funny how he didn't mention that it would be nice to return my book at the same time, isn't it." They did finally return it then. Paula Goodfellow (who shall now return to lurkdom) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:59:37 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes =09charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2003 04:59:39.0408 (UTC)= FILETIME=3D[A1013100:01C399EB] Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I like stylized art, especially the Impressionists. I love Bouguereau too. My niece is a fine artist living in Spring City. She has copied some Bouguereau paintings for a couple of clients and they are stunning. She= has shown them in several exhibits at the Provo City Hall. She copied a less known Sargent painting for me and it is my pride and joy. I have collected 3 paintings from Russian artists and I like their bold color and style. If anyone is interested, you can sometimes acquire art that is not chosen for the museum in Springville. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:47:20 -0600 From: Marvin Payne Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes >> Not that I expect there to be highly abstract LDS art.<< Your wife won't like it, but have another look at Bruce Smith, design deparment at BYU, last I heard. Gary Smith (no relation) is as painterly a guy as I know, and somehow achieves the magic of abstraction with clearly recognizable forms. Marvin Payne ____________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:57 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes I have seen that picture of Paris, and it is incredible. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:13:48 +0200 From: Tom Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Recent Good Movies & Books um, have to pipe up and remind you also of "out of africa" in which she= also plays an adulterous wife. but of course, it's for (a young!) robert= redford, so who could blame her? shannon - ----- Original Message ----- From: "LauraMaery (Gold) Post" To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Recent Good Movies & Books > Annette L wrote: > >I hated the movie [Bridges], especially more so because I like > >Merryl Streep, and it ticked me off that she would play such a > character. > > Perhaps you meant "play such a character again"?=3D20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:19:46 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The envious critic (was Harry Potter) Bill Willson wrote: > In previous posts on this Harry Potter thread I have been surprised at > such open and notorious trashing of the books and the author. > IMHO it seems as though there might be a bit of envy here. Am I getting tired of this assertion! First of all, nobody "trashed" the Harry Potter books. They honestly reported their reactions and why they didn't like them. Second of all, accusing people of envy just because they don't like a book you love is walking on thin ice, to say the least. I'm amazed how many times people do that. Once again, I never want a book or film or play or television show to be bad. Even if I get envious of their success, I still don't want to deny them their success. I just want some too. I would even have loved to have the Book of Mormon film be good--why would I want to waste $4.50 (matinee price) and a couple hours of my life? Heck, I'd even like to see Halestorm make a GOOD film. The book "Mormonville" beat me out in Marilyn Brown's unpublished novel contest. I was disappointed, but I purchased the book eager to read an LDS novel that was supposed to be good. I was outraged that the book was so poor. It wasn't envy; it wasn't sour grapes. I wanted it to be good. I'd spent money on it and time trying to read it. I didn't mind that my novel didn't win the contest--I knew that was a likely scenario--but I was outraged that my novel lost to THAT BOOK. It sucked! But I sure wasn't envious of the author. I would never have wanted that book on my conscience, sullying my reputation. The book was just no good, end of story. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:50:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Rich Hammett Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes [Mod: This is a resend. I've been experimenting with a new email program,= trying to alleviate some of the weird characters I've been sending out. My= apologies for the turmoil. --Jacob] > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Alan Rex Mitchell sed: > > For some reason I feel picked on. I wasn't picking on you. I _was_ attacking that website. > I'm not advocating central control of art. Well, that was an exaggeration on my part, about the website. They _do_ present themselves (in several essays there and in their policies, etc) as arbiters of what is "good art", even having a program to approve certain artists and training studios. [snip] > What I mean is that if you want good (Mormon) art that > tells a story then there are several places on the net to > find it. I think we as Mormons should claim all good, so > why limit our home on the wall art to *gospel* themes? I think you and I had a very different experience on that website, as I'll explain below. Although I must note that the first thing I thought of when I looked at the paintings on the website was the prints that used to be included in the missionary Books of Mormon, and the other of that type used in Primary lessons. > Isn't every piece of human experience a gospel theme? I > think so. I would certainly not argue against that. > The art renewal website is wonderful for art that tells a > story and is very well done. This is where, I think, we differed. Of the _text_ on that website, of which I read a couple of dozen pages out of many, many more, probably 90% of it is not _for_ representational art, but _against_ any non-representational art. The pages are one attack after another against Things Which Are Bad. > Of course I don't relate to all the art, but Bougereau, > Leighton, Waterhouse, Alma-Tadema are very good. Don't > take my word for it--visit the Andrew Lloyd Webber private > collection and see what he has been investing in for 30 years. I saw a few there that caught my eye. Most of it was completely not my taste. I don't think that tying it to Andrew Lloyd Webber is going to _lessen_ the kitsch value! :) > My second tie is that what Frank Ross is doing with this > website is calling attention to the great 19th century > art that has been discounted during the last century. We > could make comparison with the restoration of the gospel > after centuries of groping in the dark. I'm afraid that's exactly the same error Ross makes. He's not presenting another point of view. He's not restoring something that was lost. He's restoring the Truth. All else is worthless. The "special feature" headline on the page is "ARC Chairman speaks at Met to 700 people: Blasts Modernism to standing ovation". He also undermines his message by praising Twain, Lewis Carroll, Chopin, and of all people Beethoven, in his attack under that headline. That's at the end of a paper criticizing the artists who made a goal of individuality at the expense of formal structure. Beethoven created and DEFINED that movement in music. > P.S. my friend calsl me unitarian/universal in my taste > in visual art, so if you want to pick a fight then try > Jeff Needle--he's the one with the ca-ho-nes. ARM. I don't wanna fight with you. I'd probably enjoy at least a good argument with Frank Ross, though. He's obviously interested in saving things that are worth saving--especially the drawing technique he lauds. I, personally, find most of the paintings trite, which is probably reinforced by many of the tropes they used--how many winged cherubs do you need, really? (none) But that's my personal opinion. Ross takes his opinions, sometimes backed up by technical considerations, and makes them GOSPEL. Makes it a moral crime to think or act differently. As in this description of a Picasso portrait of a woman: "Everything about the finished product is utterly awful and would be beneath the capabilities of a talented 12 year old." He can really recognize _nothing_ worthwhile in any art other than his own chosen period. I certainly have various arts that I have similar feelings about, but I don't think I'd expect to be taken seriously as an advocate in those cases. His is the painting equivalent of rejecting everything after Mozart. Which, I know, some people do, but I'm a Mahler fan. If you're going to sell mormon art to me, the pre-raphaelite, purely representational stuff just won't get it. Well, not completely. As I said, there were several paintings on those pages that caught my eye. But thanks for an interesting site! I really never would have imagined that such anger could still exist about things that happened in the art world over 100 years ago! I think there is room for LDS art that doesn't meet his guidelines. As you say, there's room for us to claim _all_ good. I think Guernica and Das Lied von der Erde and even occasionally Pollock and Warhol are "good." - -- rich hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:35:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Rich Hammett Subject: RE: [AML] glorifying violence On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Eric Samuelsen sed: > The Gladiator, I consider one of the great religious films of all=20 > time. I can make a strong case for it being, like Private Ryan, one of > the great anti-violence violent films. =3D3D20 I'm not quite sure what to snip, here, since your entire=20 post is important for my response. The film affected me in=20 almost exactly the same way it affected you, but that effect=20 was destroyed by the audience reaction in my theater in=20 Alabama, which was very much a bloodthirsty=20 "KILLKILLKILLKILL!" It was very disturbing. And if the majority of the film's=20 audience reacts that way (which it did, from most people=20 I've talked to, and reviews I've read), then I worry whether=20 the film really did make its point that I saw. I saw a story recently about soldiers' favorite films.=20 Several famous supposedly anti-war films were listed, but=20 the soldiers read them entirely differently. The films=20 were, to them, MEANT to glorify violence, anything that=20 appeared to undermine that was added for squeamish=20 civilians. These two observations over the last couple of years have=20 led me to question whether these films are consciously=20 exploiting both audiences, which to me makes a mockery of=20 any anti-war or anti-violence message they might pretend to=20 include. rich - --=20 \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 22:03:23 -0700 From: "Price Family" Subject: RE: [AML] glorifying violence =A0 Huh? That reminds me of the incredulous Curt Cobain. He couldn't understand why people were offended by his song "Rape Me" since as he said, it was an anti-rape song. As Garrison Keillor put it, intelligence is like 4-wheel drive - it allows you to get stuck in remote places. Better to just say what you mean instead of presenting the opposite message, especially when dealing with a mass audience. =A0 Joseph [Price] =A0 =A0 >The film affected me in >almost exactly the same way it affected you, but that effect >was destroyed by the audience reaction in my theater in >Alabama, which was very much a bloodthirsty >"KILLKILLKILLKILL!" > >It was very disturbing. And if the majority of the film's >audience reacts that way (which it did, from most people >I've talked to, and reviews I've read), then I worry whether >the film really did make its point that I saw. > >I saw a story recently about soldiers' favorite films. >Several famous supposedly anti-war films were listed, but >the soldiers read them entirely differently. The films >were, to them, MEANT to glorify violence, anything that >appeared to undermine that was added for squeamish >civilians. > >These two observations over the last couple of years have >led me to question whether these films are consciously >exploiting both audiences, which to me makes a mockery of >any anti-war or anti-violence message they might pretend to >include. > >rich > >-- >\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett > =A0 =A0 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:10:13 -0600 From: "Jared Walters" Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter It's a natural thing for a lot of people to resist to the point of= downplaying cultural fads and media events that are all the rage in our= society. I'll admit, I resisted reading Harry Potter for years because I= didn't want to get caught up in growing bandwagon cult. I finally broke= down and read a couple of books and I admit they are intriguing although= not quite the life-changing experience everyone makes it out to be. Good= books, but not great novels. I think there is a lot of frustration with hard-core fans and writers of the= sci-fi/fantasy genre who for years have been writing similar stories for= years before Rowling came on the scene. All of a sudden some young English= woman writes a book and it sells like hot cakes. If it wasn't for Lord of= the Rings, people still wouldn't be reading other books in that genre. I= dare say that there are a lot of books out there that fall by the wayside= and never get read that are more creative and original that anything in the= Harry Potter series. Rowling has certainly earned her spot as a household= name, but owes a lot to her predecessors like J.R.R Tolkien and C.S Lewis. = I don't mind people reading Harry Potter, but I wish they'd read some of= the classics of that genre and some of the other contemporary stuff that is= just as good. Otherwise, I always feel like they're just reading it= because it's a fad and it's the thing to do. It will be interesting to see how people view the Harry Potter boosk 100= years from now. Will they be regarded as classics or some just flavor of= the month piece of popcorn entertainment in the form of a book? I guess it= will depend on who you ask. [Jared Walters] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:30:58 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Laman's dilemma. . . . Sorry if others have already commented on this thread and made these= points. I'm just now catching up after spending the last week trying to recover my computer from an unfortunate interaction between Windows Update and iTunes that left me with a hopelessly corrupted registry that caused my machine to hang part way through the startup process. I couldn't recover and had to reformat and completely reinstall. Sigh... Barbara Hume wrote: > I always felt a bit of sympathy for Laman for being pushed out of his > proper place. As the eldest brother, he was expected, in that culture, to > assume family leadership after the father's death. But Lehi--or so it= must > have seemed to him--elevated the baby of the family over him. Wouldn't > you be irritated by having your pesty little brother held up to you as your > example to follow? That's why Joseph's brothers got so ticked off at > him--Dad always bragged on the baby brother and gave him all the > privileges. While I think the series has some flaws, Orson Scott Card's _Homecoming_ series is quite interesting in this. It still makes Nephi (Nafai) out to be good and right in pretty much every case, but it makes a legitimate attempt to give Laman and Lemuel some reasonable--or at least understandable--motivations for their anger, resistance and sloth. I think Card also did something absolutely wonderful in making it clear= that while Laman and Lemuel may have had understandable reasons, they were still wrong. Their focus was not on doing good or even doing right; they were caught up in "enlightened self-interest" and as a result failed to give respect to the accepted order that had been established with Lehi as the head of the family--and it's fortune. It was not uncommon for the patriarch to skip the firstborn and bestow wealth or other favor on younger children, especially for religious reasons. It *was* part of their society and= custom, and was something they had been taught since childhood. Birthrights could= be bought and sold--or taken away. So while I can appreciate their struggles and many of their (possible) reasons, I can't ignore that they repeatedly chose not to do what they knew was right. They found justifications. It *was* irritating to have their younger brother held up as a good example. But rather than look inward at the reasons Lehi had for pointing out Nephi's superiority, they chose to become angry and sullen and resist the established authority and order of their society--that the patriarch can make any decision he wants, for any reasons that he finds good. It's a line I often struggle with in reading the scriptures. As a sinner I want to believe that I still have value and that my sins haven't completely destroyed my hope of salvation. I see a lot of myself in Laman and Lemuel and I want to believe that there is some nobility in them despite their flaws, that they're just as worthy of love and respect as Nephi and Lehi= and Samuel--because then maybe there's still hope for me. But the fact is that whatever goodness may also have been a part of their minds and hearts, they chose poorly. Their error may have been understandable, but it was still error--and they never corrected the error despite many, many opportunities. Understandable, yes. Admirable, no. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:31:09 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] The envious critic (was Harry Potter) Hmm, I thought I had tackled something of this subject, but it seems I have been misread, if read at all. Pushing somewhat to the side the questionable assertion that what is popular is axiomatically worthy of our veneration, I readily concede that the question of WHY Rowling=92s book are popular is an important one, and I DID offer some theories in my 10/16 posting. I again refer to Philip Pullman=92s speech, posted at the Random House web site, which I think explains it much better than I can. http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/philippullman/speech.html For a more sociological treatment of the subject, I recommend Killing Monsters, by Gerard Jones, subtitled =93Why children need fantasy, super heroes, and make-believe violence.=94 (In a chapter titled =93The Magic Wand,=94 Jones refers specifically to Rowling.) A theme Jones returns to again and again in Killing Monsters is the difference between criticizing the choices children make in their entertainment, and understanding why they are so drawn to what they are drawn to. The same thing applies to the books adults read, the romance= genre being a case in point, as it dominates the trade paperback publishing industry, yet is almost universally held in contempt. Some of it is worthy literature, most of it isn=92t, but we miss something very important by not asking why it is so popular, why it is so hungrily consumed. So Rowling is important, even if I don=92t care for every sentence she's ever written. I quite liked the first three books. The fourth, I still maintain, was so badly plotted that by the end I could not maintain a "willing suspension of disbelief." I don=92t think I was making complicated allusions when I quoted Bob Metcalfe saying of Steve Jobs, "[He] is on my eternal heroes list, [and] there's nothing he can ever do to get off it," and then commenting that Jobs still had his failings. Thus, when I compare Rowling=92s books to interstates, I would have thought from the context of the remark that it would be similarly taken as a backhanded compliment. I wrote, =93[her books] can hardly be called dense, or long.=94 I don=92t, as a rule, enjoy books that are =93dense=94 and =93long.=94 She writes page-turners, I noted, and =93that I don=92t hold against her.=94 Would that more =93serious=94 authors wrote =93page turners.=94 She has, in fact, =93proven herself capable of great storytelling.=94 But the best reading/viewing experience is one where you don=92t see the wheels turning behind the scenes. Where the medium becomes transparent to the story. Reading Rowling is indeed a great ride, but too often I feel I=92m having to turn on the windshield wipers to clean the bugs off the glass. This is not the reaction of the =93critic,=94 it=92s the reaction of a reader who kept wanting to whip out a black magic marker and cross stuff out. Stephen King's comment simply confirms this very basic rule: a good story beats everything, including logical plotting and the entire contents of Strunk & White. (Though King is still right about adverbs.) As Metcalfe observed about Jobs, I observe about Rowling=92s writing: it=92s often brilliant, but it=92s not perfect. Sometimes, far from it. Well, this is true about everything. I happen to believe that there is a surprisingly lot of pretty good--even great--art to be found these days. There is more good television than we give credit for. But =93perfect=94 art--art above criticism--hardly any of. Sticking to popular entertainment, I quite like the latest iteration of= Star Trek, for example--I consider it the best in the series so far--but I can think of many ways it could be improved, and it bothers me when they make dramatic and technical mistakes that could have been avoided. I have long been a devoted Buffy fan, and a huge admirer of Joss Whedon (who, along with Chris Carter, also goes on my heroes list), but I think= the last two seasons really lost something of the wit and originality of the first two seasons, and a number of episodes totally pancaked. On the other hand, in my favorite-books-of-all-time category is Pullman=92s Golden Compass series. In the YA/fantasy genre, I consider it as close to perfect as fiction can get. But nobody else in my family can get very enthusiastic about it, despite my breathless recommendations, and my= brother downright dislikes it. Now, that stings, but it would hardly be= constructive to answer his critical response to the book with ad hominems against his person. There=92s no accounting for taste. But the point of being a critic--armchair or otherwise--is to attempt to work out WHY you don=92t like something. Or= why you DO like something. Granted, the temptation of the critic is to, well, criticize. But what it ultimately comes down to is, stuff I don=92t care= about I don=92t care about. I=92ll criticize Star Trek because I care about it enough to watch it and become frustrated with its failings. I won=92t criticize Dawson=92s Creek because I have never watched more than ten minutes of it. I couldn=92t care less about it. This process has the fascinating byproduct of revealing something of the gray matter of the critic. In this forum, to cite another example, I have seen American Beauty panned and praised (I belong to the pan crowd). The question this raises, of course, is how and why people from apparently similar backgrounds (say, mostly white/middle class/educated/American/Mormon) could come to such different conclusions. At any rate, sitting around and politely agreeing with each other is no way to come to an answer. Nor is it useful to cast disagreement with one's own opinions as evidence of some moral failing. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:52:50 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes C.S. Bezas wrote: > And I know there was a flurry after one individual declared recently he > was leaving this list because he felt it was not supportive of the > church. People expressed shock he would feel such a thing. I'm frankly amused at how loudly we on the list tend to demand that our unique perspectives be understood, appreciated and accepted while at the same time declaring entire classes of literature and people as being hopeless, stunted or banal. We seem mystified that people can honestly appreciate--and even love--works that we can demonstrate to be= artistically inferior, yet we can't understand why others are mystified when we find value in works they find to be overstated, impolite or unnecessarily explicit or brutal. It's the way people are; we all believe that others would be better off to think and feel and believe as we do. We all know that if people just understood how and why we have our opinions that they would cease to judge us and would see the true goodness and value of our souls. And I think we're right. Too bad more of us don't seek to understand others as aggressively as we demand that they seek to understand us. Then Zion could truly be built and all would find community within it. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:35:20 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes Are some humans born with a gene that requires diversity, change, variation in their lives. Some of the art that has become over-used and sometimes kitsch, appealed to me the first time I saw it. That is why I feel that if I have the same thing hanging on my walls as everyone else, it becomes common and in some cases is cheapened. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:12:56 -0700 From: Julie Kirk Subject: [AML] CARD _Ender's Shadow_ So, I bought a copy of Card's "Ender's Shadow" through one of those school book order forms. My 13 year old daughter LOVED it...and I mean LOVED it. She loved it enough that she read Ender's Game, then she reread Ender's Shadow - and she has now read Ender's Shadow maybe 6 or 7 times now. She said it is her favorite of the two books and we have talked a bit about some of the themes in the books and what she likes about them. My question is this - I want to capitilize on this momentum, and maybe find another book or two she might like as much as these books. I know, it might not happen, but I think she would be very open to reading more of Card's books - the problem is that I am just not very familiar with his work or what to buy her. so, any suggestions? We already have the dreaded Harry Potter books. We also already have read the Narnia books, and the Dark is Rising series. She enjoyed them, but was not as enamoured with these books as she has been with the first couple I mentioned. That woud be why I'm specifically looking into other books he might have written for youth or books that might be part of this same storyline, etc. thanks! Julie [Kirk] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] SL Tribune--Kirby: Fear Not Thy Faith In Humor The Salt Lake Tribune -- Kirby: Fear not thy faith in humor SATURDAY October 25, 2003 Kirby: Fear not thy faith in humor Robert Kirby Tribune Columnist Robert Kirby Salt Lake Tribune Columnist Noted philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once observed: "The total= absence of humor in the Bible is one of the most singular things in= all literature." Good point. Much of the Bible is crushingly sober. What isn't grim= is sometimes confusing, scary or downright boring. But that's only if= you're a complete literalist. Personally, I find plenty of stuff to laugh about in the Bible, particularly the parts where the people in it behave like slack wits straight out of a Monty Python skit. But the Bible does seem rather humorless if you read it straight= and leave it at that. Take, for example, Matthew 7:3. "And why beholdest thou the mote= that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine= own eye?" Really, nobody says, "beholdest" anymore. "Considerest" isn't even= in my spell checker. And what in the hell is a "mote"? The entire passage -- and the later stuff about pearls before= swine and evil fruit -- conveys the image that Christ spat this stuff out= with no more emotion than a dot matrix printer. Whether or not you believe Christ was divine, there is still the= fact that he was talking to simple creatures with extremely short attention= spans. What he said to them had to be delivered in such a way that= large crowds would hang around to hear it. You have to put it in a more human context before you can see that= Matthew 7:3 is a great lesson in the irony of absurd comparisons. A= mote is a speck of wood or dust. A beam is, well, a considerably larger= piece of wood. So, picture Christ talking conversationally with some people. He= has an expression that is two parts patience and one part amused= exasperation. The Lord is explaining to a crowd of village feebs what should be= obvious even to donkeys. "Get a grip, people. What are you worried about your brother's eye= for when you can't even see out of your own? And seriously, if someone= asks for a fish, what kind of jerk gives him a snake?" As always with good satire, some of the people got it and some of= them didn't. The main thing to remember is that we shouldn't read more into the= way the Bible was written than necessary. We shouldn't confuse the dry and= literal writing of scribes with the human side of Jesus. I doubt very much that Christ attracted all these followers by= making them feel miserable about themselves. What's more, people haven't= changed. When was the last time someone got you to follow by being cold and= aloof and utterly serious? For people like me, it isn't a question of if Jesus laughed. We already have that part figured out. We're more interested in how much= and at what. Given the past behavior of humans in religion, not taking= ourselves seriously enough seems far more acceptable than the long-proven= dangers of taking ourselves far too seriously. G.K. Chesterton said, "It's the test of a good religion whether= you can joke about it." Old G.K. only got it partly right. Joking about ourselves is also= a test of how good we are at our religion. ----- Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Kirby welcomes mail at 143 S.= Main St., Salt Lake City, UT 84111, or e-mail at rkirby@sltrib.com. =A9 Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune. All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune= and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused= without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:20:38 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Pictures in homes On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:52:50 -0600, Scott Parkin wrote: >It's the way people are; we all believe that others would be better off to >think and feel and believe as we do. We all know that if people just >understood how and why we have our opinions that they would cease to judge >us and would see the true goodness and value of our souls. > >And I think we're right. Too bad more of us don't seek to understand others >as aggressively as we demand that they seek to understand us. Then Zion >could truly be built and all would find community within it. But what happens when we understand perfectly well, but that doesn't actually lead us to agree? I have that happen all the time--someone= thinks that if they explain something more or better, I'll be "educated" and that we'll naturally agree and we'll all be happy. It seldom works that way. You see, even if I understand, that doesn't make me the same. I'll value some things more than you will, I'll care about some things less. I give different weight to certain aspects that someone else might. And that means that even if we understand each other perfectly, that doesn't really mean we'll cease to judge and we'll be able to live happily ever more. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:15:56 -0800 From: AML Subject: [AML] Reminder: LDS Writers Conference Don't forget the 5th annual LDS writers conference this Saturday, Nov. 1, at= the Provo City Library! This is the world's only writers conference= dedicated to LDS writing and publishing, including writing for the LDS= market or telling LDS stories for a national audience. For complete, updated details about all aspects of the conference, visit= http://aml.c.tep1.com/maabBdRaa1Duebeg3l6b/ At-the-door registration begins at 8:30. Plan to be in your seat by 9:00 for= the special advance screening of "The Best Two Years"! Preregistration is not required, but if you want to ensure yourself a= luncheon ticket, you can preregister online by this Friday, Oct. 31 at= http://aml.c.tep1.com/maabBdRaa1Dv3beg3l6b/ (It's too late to mail your= preregistration through the U.S. Postal Service.) If luncheon tickets= happen to sell out, the admission price will be reduced accordingly. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #206 ******************************