From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #218 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 Friday, November 7 2003 Volume 02 : Number 218 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 06:47:46 -0700 From: "Rex Goode" Subject: [AML] _BRADY_, Shelly: Ten Things I Learned From Bill Porter (Review) Author: BRADY, Shelly Title: _Ten Things I Learned From Bill Porter_ Publisher: New World Library, Novato, California First Printing: April, 2002 Adults, Essay, Hardcover, 174 pages ISBN: I-57731-203-I Price (US): $20.00 In the late fall of 1998, millions of television viewers turned on ABC's= _20/20_ to be touched by the story of Bill Porter. Bill was a man afflicted with cerebral palsy who spent his days selling household products door to door.= The segment received the greatest response in the television program's long= history. Part of the story was about Bill's delivery person, who began working for= him at first in high school and then later, while attending college. This began a lifelong friendship that resulted in her writing this book about his life= story. Ten Things I Learned from Bill Porter was Shelly Brady's memoirs about the= life of her friend and employer. Not long after the book was first published, William H. Macy, the actor, purchased the rights to Brady's book to write and produce the television= movie, _Door To Door_. The film won six Emmy awards in 2003. What is not entirely= clear to Latter-day Saint readers and viewers is that the perky sidekick to Bill Porter, whom William H. Macy says is a "babe," is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and wife of a stake president. Though the book is a biography of sorts, it does not follow a chronological order in the telling. As the title suggests, it delineates ten lessons the author learned by observing and interacting with her friend. Inspirational topics, such as "Persistence Pays Off," and "If It Isn't Broken, Don't Fix= It," are the chapter headings which Brady uses to leverage her telling of Bill's story. One such chapter is the chapter is, "Live Your Values." In it, she= enumerates the Church's Young Women's values of "Faith, Divine Nature, Individual= Worth, Knowledge, Choice and Accountability, Good Works, and Integrity," while describing how Bill Porter exemplifies each one. Other than these= references, one would not necessarily identify Sister Brady as a Mormon, unless it is= the fact she has six children. The narrative is prosaic, down to earth, and easy to read. It is also= filled with emotion and innumerable tearful moments for the reader. Organizing the= book along the lines of lessons learned was a good choice. At then end of the= book are many pages of letters Bill received after the _20/20_ segment or other speaking engagements. The letters are followed by a short message from Bill himself. Though Bill Porter himself is not Mormon, he displays many attributes that= most Mormons will find appealing. For example, his ethics regarding his work are= that he does his job despite anything that might tempt him to do otherwise.= While most Mormons would not, in fact, behave with so much determination they= would think it highly respectable to do so. Bishops would especially like to see recipients of Fast Offering assistance adopt Bill Porter's devotion to his= work. Shelly Brady speaks extensively to sales organizations and does an= occasional fireside. Bill used to accompany her on her trips, but failing health has prevented him from travel. One thing she often speaks to is the differences between Bill's story and= the made-for-TV movie that garnered so much recognition. The movie is of good quality, but it takes many liberties with the story, to be expected from= the different medium. Still, the movie is well worth watching and captures a= good picture of the man's character, even if it gives a slightly distorted= picture of the man's history. The man that will be remembered by both the book and the movie will include an accurate memory of someone who never let serious challenges keep him from fulfilling his dreams. Rex Goode - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:04:38 -0500 From: Mary Jane Jones Subject: Re: [AML] Retell With Pride For those of you interested in forming an opinion on this modern retelling of Pride and Prejudice, I have screening passes (each pass admits 2 people) to various screenings up and down the Wasatch Front (from Logan to St. George). I will send a screening pass to each of the first 20 AML-listers to email me (personally) and request one in your area. And, if you would like to see the trailer, you can view it online at www.PridePrejudice.com. Enjoy, Mary Jane Ungrangsee mjjones@xelent.com > From: Barbara Hume > Reply-To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:40:24 -0700 > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [AML] Retell With Pride > > At 05:38 PM 11/3/03 -0800, you wrote: >> It's a sort of cultural baptism for the dead. The >> filmmakers convert Austen's characters into young >> Mormons, thus reassuring the audience that a cultural >> icon like Austen would have been a latter-day saint, >> if only she had had the chance:-) > > H'mm. She had a rather cynical and satirical turn of mind, and she was > quite aware of the hypocrisy of her own society. She might have written > some interesting columns for The Sugar Beet. > > Barbara R. Hume > Provo, Utah > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:28:54 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Harry Potter [moderator's note: I am a bit concerned at the sarcastic tone being generated in this dialogue, and ask those who might respond to resist = any temptations to stray from the affable literary exchanges we hope to = promote on AML-List :)] =20 On Thu, 30 Oct 03 11:19:37 -0700, Eugene Woodbury wrote: > >Jacob Proffitt >[Most of the criticism of Rowling makes an absolute judgment that >her sentences are poor.] > >Dang right it does. Of what possible use would any other kind of >criticism be? "Absolute judgement" is, of course, in this respect, >an oxymoron. Any "judgement" is essentially a subjective opinion. >It can only be as absolute as the person offering it. That is why >"appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. (One would have thought >that was implicitly understood.) > >When authority is cited in debate (as when a judge cites >precedent), the point is to qualify the reasons for making the >argument, not to posit the argument as ipso facto settled by >"authority" (unless we're talking about physical law, such as the >speed of light). I'm not so sure that's true. People appeal to authority all the time in = order to make the issue ipso facto settled by "authority". And even = when=20 authority is used merely to qualify reasons, I don't consider it to=20 *actually* do so. For the matter at hand, adverbs can be evaluated as=20 helpful or harmful without the need to qualify the reason with = statements=20 by Steven King. King's "adverbs are not your friends" is pithy and=20 certainly is a point worth bringing up, but referencing his = qualifications=20 as a writer isn't going to make that a more applicable statement. His=20 statements would be as valid (or not valid) if they were expressed by a = bum on the street or politician in city hall. >Though I am yet unconvinced. (If brilliant argument were always >convincing, then Plato would have a happy ending.) The counter- >argument then evolved into whether or not one has the "right" to >criticize Rowling's use of adverbials, or anything about her >writing at all, and whether such criticism might existentially >damage the spirits of young minds enamored of her prose. > >This is a complete non sequitur. I don't remember anybody questioning anybody's right to criticize = Rowling. =20 I remember distinctly most of the people who have responded to you = stating=20 multiple times that you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and not = only free but welcome to express it. The only qualms expressed were = done=20 so only insofar as your statements were taken to be an establishment of = rules of *all* good writing that should be endorsed by all who wish to=20 write well. >Jacob Proffitt >[That's fine, but again, you clearly described the "failings" of JK >Rowling.] > >And, again, you make it sound like I think she writes poorly (at times) > because she has a drinking problem or something. What I >wrote was, "Her way with WORDS is too often lacking. Or her editors >are too forgiving, too cautious, or just plain lazy. I haven't >decided who's to blame. By the forth installment, Rowling's skills >[as a writer--isn't the antecedent clear?] had fallen sufficiently >short to make obvious these and other failings [as a writer]." > >Hardly a "universal" characterization. For all I know, she makes a >great chocolate cake and she brakes for animals. Since this is a literary list and since our discussion has never had=20 *anything* to do with Rowling's personal habits (good or bad), I think = the=20 context is plenty clear that "universal" applies here to the rule=20 underlying your statements and not the author--that you have in effect=20 presented a rule that is universal and that all writers, in order to = not=20 fail as writers, must adopt this standard. >My biggest beefs with Rowling are obviously with her use of >adverbials and with the plotting of book IV (which MAKES NO SENSE). >Writing poorly (at times; I have insisted again and again that >Rowling does not write poorly ALL of the time; so far she seems to >be writing well about 75 percent of the time, a passing grade) is a >problem easily remedied. Um. Assuming it *is* a problem. I don't think it is which is why we're = having this conversation. I think your proposed remedy might be worse, = for her core audience, than this supposed "problem". >Jacob Proffitt >[What rules? Who made these rules?] > > >Good question! Like ending sentences with periods. Like spelling >"right" with that unnecessary "gh" in the middle. Why not make >periods little round circles like in Japanese? Why not "rite"? You >know, like the drug store? (Think of all the paper and ink >cumulatively saved!) Who makes up these rules? Who enforces them? >Who goes to jail when they are broken? Wasn't James Joyce once >banned because of his sentence construction? (Well . . . no.) I'm not sure why you responded in this way. The context makes it = abundantly clear that the rules referred to by me are your implied rules regarding = adverbials and saidisms (among others). Did I *ever* mention periods,=20 spelling or going to jail? And I was particularly careful not to = question=20 the concept of rules or standards as such. >In the meantime, I do have to wonder what those poor professors of >English are supposed to do with their careers, as there are no >rules, no objective standards according to which they may fairly >judge the work of their students. Run-on sentences? Who knows, >maybe it scans better that way. A's for everybody! Good point. Did you really want to discuss objective standards in = writing? I'm not sure because this seems rather sarcastic and not presented as a = serious concern. >(If you were to do a meta study on all the books ever written about >writing, including King's, you could, in fact, easily distill down >a dozen or so "rules" that talented writers across the board >believed made writing better. Read enough bad student fiction, and >you'll be pasting those rules to their foreheads.) A) Just because a lot of good writers agree on a set of rules doesn't = mean=20 that those rules are necessarily valid. Even a general consensus can = be=20 wrong. B) Writers almost never agree fully with one another, even the=20 really good ones. C) You assume that all writing is the same--that the = rules of a set of favored literary writers would actually apply to = someone=20 writing for, say, young readers. Frankly, I don't think "easily" is a=20 valid modifier for distilling down all the books ever written about=20 writing. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 05:43:08 -0700 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] GUNN, "Smart Single GUys" (DN) I went to SSG last night and had a good time. The band was good, the acting good. I took my 12 year old son and he thought the skater dude was the funniest. That and the rap song and dance about the Mario Brothers game (I think you need to sit in the middle to get the best effect on that one.) I liked the short, "film within a play" call Guys in Suits, but the film documenting the skater dude was not as funny as the "real" dude with his voice over telling his scattered thought process while his surrounding was muted, "Dude, the only thing that would make this better is nachos. Sweet!" To me, the play had a Samuelsen feel to it (comparing it to his play about a singles ward that played in Orem last year). I don't know if that was because he directed it, or if Tony GUNN is a protege. But it is funny. The hometeacher steals the girlfriend. The scientist student does beat poetry. The only love interest that works out is the hiccup girl. The climax to the play, (a water fight) was either the comic pinnacle or a beginning playwrights way out of the mess--I haven't decided which. (Memo to GUNN: You left Sarah hanging--probably because it was too predictable, but what if you paired Casey with Lindsey in consoling, then had her splash her love interest--he needed to wake up anyway.) All in All, a lot of fun. I had to laugh at Chris telling how film was a more valid medium than plays (!) Alan - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Samuelsen" To: Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: RE: [AML] GUNN, "Smart Single GUys" (DN) > This is a very nice preview for a very very fun show. Any of y'all > interested in Mormon drama, this is a funny one. Whether it's actually > also, you know, good, you will, of course, judge for yourselves. Tony > Gunn is a very savvy young writer. > > Couple things to add: first of all, I did not call the show a > 'multi-media smorgasbord,' but now that I see it on the page, I rather > wish I had. Second, if you come see it, arrive early. We have a live > band, Robot Ghost, who are, in my opinion, terrific. Basically a jazz > combo, with some funk and R&B elements. Cast members will also sing > with the band from time to time. > > Eric Samuelsen > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Hall > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:22 AM > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: [AML] GUNN, "Smart Single GUys" (DN) > > Sunday, November 2, 2003 > 2 original works open this week > By Ivan M. Lincoln > Deseret Morning News > > "SMART SINGLE GUYS," an original comedy by Tony Gunn, will have its > world premiere this week at Brigham Young University. According to director > Eric Samuelsen, the play is a "multimedia smorgasbord," interweaving comedy > sketches, rap and a couple of songs to relate the story of three male > BYU students and their involvement in the complicated world of dating. The > playwright and director have worked together before. Last year Gunn > directed one of Samuelson's scripts for the Villa Playhouse in > Springville. > Discounted previews are Wednesday and Thursday, after which it will > continue through Nov. 15 on Wednesdays-Saturdays at 7:30 p.m. in the > Margetts Theatre. There will also be one matinee, Nov. 15 at 2 p.m. > The cast includes Hillary Akin, Hollie Beard, Matthew R. > Carlin, Forrest Foster, Tomm Hiatt, Tim Lewis, Eugene McEntire, Michael > Padekin, Shelby Pinney, Renny Richmond, Aaron Watts, Steve Watts and Jed > Hirschel Wells. > Tickets are $12 for general admission seating and $9 for students or > BYU faculty/staff. For reservations call 801-378-4322. > > "SAINTS AND STRANGERS," a new musical drama about the Pilgrims' voyage > on the Mayflower, is co-produced by the Bountiful Performing Arts > Center, Dale White Productions, the National Mayflower Society and the > Bountiful Utah Central Stake of the LDS Church. White, a former Hollywood > actor-director-producer and now living in Bountiful, has written and > directed the production, inspired by the book by George F. Willison > (published in 1945 by Time-Life Books) and Crispin Gill's "Mayflower > Remembered." The cast includes Phill Wright in the central role of Squanto, > a humor loving storyteller who claims to be "the last Patuxet" and who > weaves the production's various elements together. > There will be three free performances, at 8 p.m. Thursday-Saturday in > the Bountiful Regional Center, North Salt Lake. Tickets are not required; > patrons are encouraged to arrive early for better seats. > > Copyright 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #218 ******************************