From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #239 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, January 5 2004 Volume 02 : Number 239 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:25:49 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] _Latter Days_ (was: Angels in America) ___ John ___ | Hmmm...I hadn't realized that the "hardened practitioner of the | gay lifestyle" dress-code was so similar to that of missionaries. | Was there a memo sent out about this? ___ There was in my mission. In New Orleans which had a large homosexual community there were things we weren't supposed to say, like "I've been out for six months" since that implied "out of the closet." There are some ironic parallels. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:40:41 -0800 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ As someone who grew up in the '60s and loved the idealism, but despises the self-indulgence that mushroomed in that decade, I'm going to wag a finger at a guy I'll still insist on hugging the next time I see him. Thom, whether you intended to or not, you used one of the oldest debating techiniques in the world-Use postive, flattering descriptives to describe your side of things, and broadbrush your opposition with narrow, unflattering terms in describing one person and by insinuation, all that may share some of those same views. One of the hallmarks children of the sixties love to indentify themselves with is the trait of of tolerance. Yet it would seem so many who think of themselves as having those values, seem, well, intolerant of differing opinions and tend not to address the issues those opinions may bring up, but choose to try and silence the opposition by belittling those who express them, calling them bigots or calling what they say "hate speech", and generally changing the subject. I'm not saying that's what you are doing Thom, but it did seem to express the very Mormonesque view of being the one who's right and everyone else is wrong I know plenty of conservatives, moderates, and liberals who are intelligent, compassionate, and articulate. I found Andrew Sullivan's discussion of "Angels in America" to be well done, sparing no one in the matter for harsh criticism or praise. The production may be a well done cinematic piece, but to accept it as portraying certain facts would be unfair. It is a talented artist's conception, but flawed in some of the stereotypes and handling of the subject matter. Sullivan pointed some of these out rather well, I thought. In the recent discussions of critques and criticism being necessary to further good writing and to help individual writers grow, I found it interesting that for the most part the reviews of this production, especially the one in TV Guide, were almost sychophantic in their praise of it with nary a word of constuctive criticism or mention of stereotypes such as the pill-popping Mormon housewife. It made me a tad suspicious of certain critics falling all over themselves to be politically correct of a view they may already share rather than do their jobs. But, that's just my opinion, FWIW. ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Duncan" > As a person who thinks that we already have way too many > pro-conservative voices in the land, I am glad that Angels in America > has proven so popular as a play and now as a film. It makes me happy to > realize, despite the ofttime strident voices of Rush Limbaugh and > others, that America also has plenty of intelligent, compassionate, and > articulate voices on the left. We need more such voices. > > Thom Duncan (the aging Hippie, still rooting for the 60's ideals) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:13:55 -0700 From: "Jared Walters" Subject: Re: [AML] Acting and Movie Directing I think all aspiring directors can benefit from a little exposure to= shakespearean theater. But on the other hand, aspiring helmers who have= taken the dramatic theater route could use a few lessons in the wonders of= Avid and Final Cut Pro. Both directors have their shortcomings and few= directors possess the ability to combine the best of both worlds. A lot of= filmmakers relize that they have one thing they do well and try not to be= something they're not. I mean I don't think we'll ever see Richard= Attenborough shooting a Matrix movie or Michael Bay doing a Jane Austin= adaptation. =20 Experience with actors is definitely important in the development of a= successful film director, but I don't necessarily see it as a panacea for= the inadequacies facing young filmmakers today. As the saying goes, if you= want to swim you gotta jump into the water. A director who is= acting-challenged can overcome that in time with experience. As for the= techno side of things. It's true a director can learn that stuff as he= goes, but it's just like acting. In order to be able to fully utilize the= cinematic tools he has available to him, he has to have a good= understanding of how everything works and what he can or can't do with a= scene or story. Otherwise, he risks having his vision comprimised because= he was too dependent on his DP or editor who can sometimes take their own= liberties that affect the final print. This is one aspect of what makes= Steven Spielberg the director he is, he knows his way around every phase of= the filmmaking process to the point where he even gives suggestions to his= score composer. This could probably inspire or annoy crew members. My= point is, in todays film industry I don't think either side should take= precendence over the other. With movie storytelling, the lighting, the= camera movement, the score, the cutting, the visual effects are essentially= all characters that affect the success of a film just as much as how the= lead actor emotes or delivers his lines. Jared Walters. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:27:57 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] BLACK, _Pride and Prejudice_ (Movie Review) Annette Lyon wrote: > First, Darcy and Elizabeth have to be judgmental and so on in the beginning. > That's how the story works. Anyone who has read Austen's original book has > gone through hating Darcy at the beginning and really loving him in the end. > That's part of the story arc--not really what we're used to in today's > movies, granted. But I don't see how they could have changed that part of > the story and kept the title. It's been quite a few years since I last read the book, but it seemed to me that while Book-Darcy was dismissive of those outside his class he didn't go to special effort to be cruel to them--they were irrelevant, not the objects of particular malice. Those of the lower classes were somewhere between invisible and pitiable. He was cold to them, but not aggressively mean. They didn't matter to him. For me, Film-Darcy *did* go to extra effort to be not only judgmental and stand-offish, but actively mean. He goes to an extra effort to get Elizabeth fired from her job at the beginning. He finds the pitiful singer at his party to be not just silly, but goes on to make a fairly vicious personal attack. He's actively mean, not just judgmental or aloof. That level of animus seemed an embellishment of the character added by the filmmakers that made the character very hard to forgive in my opinion. Because the fact remained--he was only nice to people he considered his friends (or the friends of his friends), which leaves the film-raised question about his total moral character unchallenged. For me, at least. There's nothing wrong with that. It just meant that I went beyond not liking Darcy and into disliking him, which made it harder for me root for him in the end. The best suggestion I can make is that people see the film for themselves and decide whether I'm just being harsh on poor, rich, pretty Darcy. > It's slightly rough in spots, but I think it's also the best non-Dutcher LDS > film to date. I'm not sure it's the best, but I think it shows the best promise. Same effect, in the end. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:42:52 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] BLACK, _Pride and Prejudice_ (Movie Review) Jacob Proffitt wrote: > I still don't get this as a death-wish scene. *Jane* goes to pieces because= > she lot her boyfriend. *Elizabeth* goes to pieces because her work, her= > book, was so thoroughly harshed and it will *never* be published. *AND*= > she is forced, due to Darcy's email, to re-evaluate things she thought she= > knew. She's realizing how wrong she has been about his actions and *that*= > forces her to think that he might also be right in the things he said about= > her book. But I don't think the book rejection is what sends Elizabeth over the edge. She's been rejected before and offered little more than a sigh, a frown and a shrug. It's the fact that the book was rejected by *him* that causes the tailspin. She's just admitted to herself that she likes this guy despite his often ugly judgmentalism. She's struggling with the dissonance in her own mind and trying to reconcile mean-Darcy with charming-Darcy (women will forgive anything of a guy with a nice British accent). It's because of her fairly intense personal feelings toward Darcy that his provisional acceptance (he did, in fact, accept the book with the caveat that it be rehandled a bit; and his harsh criticisms turned out to be completely valid) looked so much like yet another manipulation of people and events. To my perspective it was the fact that *she* couldn't separate her personal struggle from her professional approach that led to the spiral--and thus to the death wish scene. She felt personally savaged by someone whose opinion mattered to her, so it was the relationship that caused the spiral, not the perceived rejection of her book. Thus my original statement that each goes to pieces over the loss of a love interest--Jane because he walked away from her; Elizabeth because she walked away from him. > I mean, it might still be a death-wish scene because it *is* rather over the= > top. But I didn't think it was quite so over the top as Scott here because= > I thought there was so much more behind it than simple jilting by= > boyfriends. And I'm not convinced that the other stuff is what caused her spiral; it would have been just another rejection if it hadn't come from Darcy, thus it's the jilting that causes the over-attenuated reaction. My suggestion--everyone should see the film and decide for themselves whether I'm being too harsh on poor, talented, Barbie-beautiful Elizabeth. It's worth the price of a ticket to know for sure. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:35:35 -0700 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] The BoM Code and Hypnopomposity! On Dec 28, 2003, at 1:31 AM, Harlow S Clark wrote: > He said he thinks JS was in a > hypnopompic state during the interviews with Moroni--a state of extreme > suggestability which allowed him to learn and remember what Moroni was > teaching. I suspect he was in the same kind of hypnopompic state during > the first vision. Harlow-- Thank you, thank you. "Hypnopompic" is the best word I have heard all year! I'm going to spend the rest of the day being "Hypnopompic" or even in a "Hypnopompic State" if Utah qualifies. Thank you! Steve Perry - -- skperry@mac.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:52:57 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] AVERY, _From Mission to Madness_ (Review) Hypoglycemic??!!! Dear Brother Youngreen must not have read much about David Smith to give such an answer. Avery is not the first to write = about poor David Smith's illness and disillusions, but she is undoubtedly the = most thorough. Sam sent me a well-reasoned response to my questions. Sam, I think you should post on the list what you sent me. One of Sam's = excellent observations suggested that we humans tend to want to explain someone = else's illness by a circumstance which would exempt us, i.e. "he's that way = because his mother was stressed during her pregnancy." Sam's absolutely right = that we do that (though I still believe a mother's stress can affect her = fetus in subtle ways). Years ago I was caught in an embarrassing attempt at self-exemption when I asked a rape victim if she lived in a bad = neighborhood when she was raped. She justifiably came unglued and told me that rape happens everywhere. My attempt to feel safe in my own house had led me = to basically accuse a rape victim of complicity in the rape because she had chosen to live in an unsafe environment. How terribly insensitive and stupid of me! I've heard Mormons explain away homosexuality with rather archaic clich=E9s too. Depression, divorce, you name it. We manage to = exempt ourselves from the invitation to compassion in the same moment we seek safety in easy answers to painful and difficult circumstances. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:04:13 -0700 From: Cathy Wilson Subject: [AML] re: Young/Gray Writing/Working Together Margaret writes: . . .and even now, when I've learned to hear subtle racism in comments I would not have even noticed before, I find there are areas where Darius and I still clash because our upbringings were so completely different. I find this whole post so interesting, because the way we are is SO integrated (no pun intended) (or maybe yes, pun intended) with our acculturation, enculturation, however you might put it, and so few of us ever dip our heads up out of the water of our culture, I almost wrote clutture, which may be really what it is, to see from another's point of view. I teach in a very multicultural classroom because kids in trouble come in all colors. Pretty soon we teachers really stop seeing the colors because we get close to the kids. But THEY keep bringing it up: Mexicans this and ghetto that. Of course there's always an undercurrent of gangbanger stuff and we have to nip that in the bud. It causes huge conflict and it is so cultural, too. Still, sometimes I say, "Guys, is EVERYTHING racial with you?" For me the worst thing, where I think Darius might be coming from, is the subculture of having been excluded, having been abused, having been dissed and neglected, and that too comes in all colors. That is the heartbreaker. Sometimes these kids in trouble say, "Why do you teach us? We're just juvenile offenders," and I say, truthfully, "To me you're just kids. I like you just the way you are." They have a hard time believing that at first. It's true that sometimes a kid will come into custody full of attitude, just hating us, or full of the sense of entitlement that drives me nuts sometimes. Our facility staff calls this stuff "thinking errors" which of course is a very positive, helpful way of terming it: IOW, you've got a couple of glitches in the program, but you're a sweetie just the same. It doesn't take long for them to soften and become the sweethearts they really are. We have a lot of placements from what we call "upstate," in Salt Lake and so on. The placement agency revealed, "We've sent you our worst kids, and look; you've got them going to school; you've got them producing." Why is that? It is because we love them and pretty soon they love us back. For some reason, they can get past the fact that I'm a white woman and I can get past the fact that they're--all the variations that they are; you hardly notice anymore. I remember a recent conversation with an English professor. "We don't give grades in our program," I said. "REALLY?" he said. "Then how do you motivate them?" "Pure love," I said. He thought I was nuts. New Year's Eve meanderings--too bad we don't drink. . . . Love Cathy Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:00:57 -0500 From: Sam Brown Subject: Re: [AML] AVERY, _From Mission to Madness_ (Review) Hello, re: hypoglycemia. Historians are notorious for creative medical interpretations that run counter to science. Usually it is something along the lines of American Indians catching their death of pneumonia from fishing in a cold river or trudging miles in the rain, but they range far and wide. "Hypoglycemia" is a wildly over-used term that almost always refers to insulin overdoses in diabetics. (there are other causes, but they're rare enough that I think people should not think of "hypoglycemia" as a real condition; what most people mean by the term is that they feel grouchy/headachy/woozy when they are hungry; that's just plain hungry, not hypoglycemia). And as far as hypoglycemia as a cause for David's illness, I have to go on record as saying absolutely not. There is no reasonable way that could be construed to be medically correct. If anything, as a probable diabetic, he would have suffered from hyperglycemia, which makes you lethargic and ultimately comatose: it rarely if ever makes you psychotic, and if it did so, it would not remit the way his did. Sorry to shout you down, but I tend to speak up when something is clearly counterfactual, and (probably more to the point) I have a pet peeve about this folk diagnosis of "hypoglycemia," preferring that people would admit that being hungry just really sucks. May we all have as much good mental health and normal blood sugar as God (or fate, or eternal law, or random chance, or whatever) sees fit to bestow. ******* If I recall correctly, historian Buddy Youngreen once told me that David probably wasn't mentally ill--just hypoglycemic, which could have looked like insanity back then. Very sad. - -- Yours, Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital sam@vecna.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:19:07 -0700 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret News: "South Park" Mormons I think the *South Park* Mormon piece is brilliant from start to finish. I am not crazy about the bad language, but I think that is part of what makes it work. To pick apart the logic of the thing is futile. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 09:14:58 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] My Web Page > >> Who else has a webpage? Can we get a compilation > post of everyone's > >> URL's if they want to share them? > > > I have one for my work, and another one I put > together for general > information on street painting: > > www.juliekirk.com > www.streetpainting.net > Great idea! http://markhansenmusic.com MRKH ===== Mark Hansen +++++ Inspirational Rock Music http://markhansenmusic.com Listen to me and others at http://kzion.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:25:54 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] re: BLACK, _Pride and Prejudice_ I saw this film as a sneak preview, but never wrote a review for it. I didn't write a review because I didn't care enough. And in a bizarre, twisted sort of way, that's a good thing. You see, if this film had been made by Hollywood, it would be utterly forgettable. A few moments of flickering entertainment, then gone. If Hollywood had made this film, no one would talk about it. The acting, the writing, the filmmaking, are all very average. This type of story has been done over and over. But it wasn't made by Hollywood. It's an LDS film. It's very mediocrity in a Hollywood sense makes it stand out among LDS films. It's because this film lives up to Hollywood standards, and most other LDS films do not. No swelling music to evoke emotions rather than honest storytelling. No browbeating message. No filmmaker claim to inspiration. No conversions or baptisms expected. No level of quality that relies on the Christian forgiveness of its audience to be accepted. Just the competent telling of a story in cinematic terms. Even though the film itself didn't do much for me, the fact that LDS cinema has taken this step delights me. I'm thrilled that a thoroughly Hollywood-like LDS film has been made. Not Hollywood in content or message, but Hollywood in quality. Mediocre in Hollywood quality, to be sure, but at least the film showed up for the game in the Hollywood stadium and scored a point or two. _Pride and Prejudice_ is one small step for filmmaking, but one giant leap for LDS cinema. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:52:15 -0700 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] LTU&E Call for Papers Call for Papers Life, the Universe, and Everything XXII: The Marion K. "Doc" Smith Symposium on Science Fiction and Fantasy will be held March 11-13, 2004, on the Provo campus of Brigham Young University. We are especially interested in the following areas: * Literary criticism/analysis of sf&f and related literature (medieval, renaissance, mythology, magic realism, etc.) * Science and technology (especially new or unusual) * Analysis of sf&f relating to poetry and/or theatre * Mormon culture, literature and society in relation to sf&f * Serious analysis of sf&f in cinema, television, radio and other media. Submit full papers for consideration to LTUE-Academics, 3120 JKHB, Provo, UT 84602. Papers must be submitted by January 20, 2004. Accepted papers will be published in the Proceedings volume at a later date. For questions, contact either me or Steve Setzer, ssetzer@backfence.net. The symposium's web site is http://humanities.byu.edu/ltue/ Marny Parkin www.MormonSF.org - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:57:44 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] re: KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ (HBO) What the hell was that?!? I admit that "Angels in America" was fascinating to watch--the first half more than the second. And I certainly would never complain about Mary-Louise Parker's total nude scene. But what was the point of it all? Some of the critical acclaim HBO ran ad nauseum in its promos claimed that this was the best film of the year. I don't think so. Sure, there was some good things in it. Just the image of Emma Thompson as a brilliant descending angel was breathtaking. Her movements as an angel, bizarre as they were, somehow worked. Meryl Streep as a rabbi was choice. The multiple-part casting of actors generally was fun. Jeffrey Wright played his gay character masterfully. There was something about the guy that I adored--his calm steadiness, his cynical eye and blunt cutting-to-the-core of everything everyone did and said appealed to me. The fact that he did all this through horribly cliche gay speech and mannerisms and made it all work, including the cliche mannerisms, ought to earn him a nominiation for some award somewhere. But Al Pacino sucked. I don't think he remembers how to act anymore. His performance was a total rehash of his Satan in "Devil's Advocate," and if I never see him with the open-mouth cynical smirk that seems to be the sum total of his acting repertoir these days, it'll be too soon for me. All this from the man who gave us Frank Serpico, Michael Corleone, and insomniac Will Dormer. How sad. Everyone keeps talking about the Mormons in the film. I didn't see any Mormons that I could recognize. I saw some people playing at a liberal agnostic's shallow notions of what a Mormon was, but wearing an authentic pair of garments, right down to the marks, does not make an authentic Mormon. Especially the zippered-front style--who wears those anymore? And where were Mary-Louise Parker's garments? Do they think only latent-homosexual Mormon males wear garments? I don't recall ever having conversations with my wife on what "Mormons" think or do. I might have said "we" do this or that on rare occasions, but never "Mormons" do this or that. This is just bad handling of exposition by the writer. I'm not offended that Kushner used Mormons in his story, that he made them gay or pill-poppers (some are), or even that one of them decided to "shed his skin" and renounce his Mormonness (it happens). But I am offended that he didn't get the Mormons right, like a tiresome and endless parade of lazy artists before him. Then there's Kushner's vision of the spiritual realm. Tedious, tiresome, been-there-done-that. These are the words that come to mind. God has deserted the angels and humankind. Like the entire German civilization didn't think that one up over a half century ago? All this artistic effort to say something as pedestrian as that? Only spiritually bankrupt people like Time-Warner, HBO, and many mainstream movie critics could think this film was the greatest film of the year with something important to say. My money is on "The Lord of the Rings," whose sophistication, spirituality, morality, inspiration, and sheer emotion and grandeur make Kushner and HBO look like a bunch of preschoolers dabbling in a sandbox. Hell, **I** could make a more powerful and moving film about Mormon homosexuals, and I don't relate to them at all. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:59:30 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The BoM Code Harlow S Clark wrote: > He said he thinks JS was in a > hypnopompic state during the interviews with Moroni--a state of extreme > suggestability which allowed him to learn and remember what Moroni was > teaching. I suspect he was in the same kind of hypnopompic state during > the first vision. I think anyone that uses the word "hypnopompic" is hypnopompous. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:01:57 -0500 From: "S. Malmrose" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormons on South Park I haven't seen the episode, and probably never will. It did lead to a non-LDS friend asking me about it, however--as did the book John Krakauer released a few months ago. I find it kind of exciting to be witnessing the point in time when our religion is getting more and more public attention. My husband thinks it's horrible and evil, South Park making fun of us. I think it's part of the progression that's destined to take place. :) Happy new year, everyone. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 00:24:08 -0700 From: "Eric SWEDIN" Subject: [AML] Cedar Fort Offer on My Manuscript Hi, everyong, I am new to this list and this is my first posting. I recently submitted to Cedar Fort a historical mystery manuscript set in 1865 Manti. They responded positively, but want $2,900 to co-publish. I am already a published historian (one book published last October and two more under contract) and my instincts are confused. Has anyone else had experiences with Cedar Fort and this arrangement? Is it common? Any feedback would be useful to me. BTW, my book is _Healing Souls: Psychotherapy in the Latter-day Saint Community_ (University of Illinois Press, 2003). Thanks, Eric G. Swedin Weber State University http://www.swedin.org/ eswedin@weber.edu - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #239 ******************************