From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #258 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 Saturday, February 7 2004 Volume 02 : Number 258 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:36:48 +0000 From: "Dennis Warr" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Near-Death Literature --why the question? Thom Duncan wrote: If NDEs were subjective experiences (as they are purported to be by those who have them and who write about them) then why do Christians always see Christ, Jews see Moses, and Athiests see their Great Aunt Hattie? In the spirit of Occam's Razor, I think NDEs can be more easily explained by mis-firing neurons as the brain shuts down due to trauma or supposed eminent death. That seems to be the only way to explain where everyone has different experiences. ******************** Hmmmmm. Or perhaps NDEs are given experiences in which they can relate. Giving an atheist a view of God, or a Jew a view of Christ with His wounds might just be too much for him to handle and he might just block it when he= returns to his body. Hmmmmm. Maybe that is what happens. Mis-fired neurons???? Is this our way of explaining something we don't want to contemplate? Dennis Warr - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:41:50 -0800 (PST) From: William Morris Subject: RE: [AML] Mormonism and _Angels in America_ I wrote: > In all, I found it a powerful experience, but not wholly > satisfying. For one, the Mormon elements worked exactly as Jonathan > described them -- interesting, perhaps, in the context of the play, >but bearing no resemblance to the Mormonism I knew. And then Thom wrote: >You've never met smoking Mormons, or drug-taking Mormons or closeted >gay Mormons? >What part of Mormonism as portrayed wasn't accurate in your view? I think, Thom, that you are trying to bottom line this in a way that fits one of your main ideological battles [that of providing greater recognition in our art and culture of backsliding Mormons, or even just Mormons with real-life, modern-day problems Mormons, instead of the happy-sappy, pollyanic, white-bread monolithic presentation of Mormons], but that doesn't really follow exactly from what I describe in my post. Nor do I think my body of posts to this list lump me in with the camp opposite you -- although my interests and concerns aren't quite the same as yours. Yes, there are Mormons who smoke, take drugs, are in the closet (or on their way out of it). There are depressed Mormon housewives who take anti-depressants and sit alone in the dark all day. There are closeted gay Mormon Republicans. It's not the nature of the 'sins' of the characters that bugged me about Angels in America, the idea of showing Mormons who weren't 'good' Mormons, it was my overall impression that there wasn't much Mormon about the way they spoke and reacted as well as the fact that they didn't seem to be located even on the margins of any sort of Mormon community -- ward, friends, etc. This is based on viewing the play -- not on reading the text -- so perhaps if I dug deeper I'd find that my impressions aren't justified. But after seeing the play, I didn't feel as if there was a well of Mormonism there that the characters were drawing upon and struggling with -- they weren't really in dialogue with Mormon thought, community, symbols (except for the garment bit, but even that not really), etc. Again, there are, of course, shallow Mormons out there. But why make your characters Mormon if that's the case? The answer, I believe, is exactly what the article Jon Enos recently posted points out -- that once you scratch the surface, these characters appear to be nothing more than conservative Protestants. Kushner was looking for characters who would serve his need for culturally conservative but kind-of mystic characters so that he could throw down his own ideology and mysticism and show how much better it is. I think that he does this is an artful even powerful, if somewhat heavy-handed and dated, way. But the play itself isn't all that interesting to me as a treatment of Mormon elements and characters. ~~William Morris - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:00:21 GMT From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] WEBB, Betty, Desert Wives (Review) Review =3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D Title: Desert Wives Author: Betty Webb Publisher: Poisoned Pen Press Year Published: 2002 Number of Pages: 300 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 1-59058-030-3 Price: $24.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle I have previously reviewed the first volume in the Lena Jones mystery series. Titled "Desert Noir," it introduced us to an interesting cast of characters, especially Lena Jones herself, an ex-policewoman, now private detective. The first volume hinted at Mormon content to come. The current volume delivers. "Purity" is a colony of polygamist Mormon expatriates. Located on property that spans the Arizona/Utah border, it is the home of a small contingent of fundamentalists, led by the Prophet Solomon Royal. Abel and Esther Corbett, along with their daughter Rebecca, live at Purity. When Prophet Royal announces he wishes to wed Rebecca, still an early-teen, Esther panics and flees the compound, with the Prophet in pursuit. Lena Jones is called upon to rescue mother and daughter, and get them to a safe place. But there's a wrinkle: while escorting the daughter to Scottsdale (Jones' home base), they stumble across a body -- the body of the Prophet Solomon Royal. Esther Corbett is arrested for the murder. Lena sets about to clear Esther's name, and find the real killer. What follows is a twisted, anguishing tale of life inside Purity. Lena finds a way to infiltrate the group, posing as the plural wife of one of the residents who himself wants out. As an assertive and thoroughly-modern woman, Lena has a hard time playing the role of submissive wife. The community is ruled by the Prophet and by the Circle of Elders. With the death of the Prophet, Royal's son takes control, causing a great deal of consternation among those who had been expecting elevation upon the death of the Prophet. At first glimpse, the son seems to be more humane, more progressive than the father. But looks can be deceiving. Most of the book is dedicated to describing the horrors of life inside Purity. It is clear that the author had access to individuals who had experienced life inside a polygamist camp. The details are excruciating; the depiction of the life of a plural wife as tantamount to slavery. The subjugation of women is nearly total; the men are oversexed and, to coin a phrase, under-brained. Jones can't work out why anyone would want to stay in that kind of situation. But she soon learns that the psychological, and financial, hold that the male leaders maintain is just too much to fight against. Each of the two volumes in this series addresses an issue that is of concern to the author. In the first, it is the on-going loss of land and heritage among the Native Americans. In this volume, it is the horrors of incest, polygamy, spousal abuse and power run amok. Webb writes with an agenda, but the reader is not sidetracked from the mystery. She is never preachy, but always informed and concerned. This second volume seems more focused, more fully fleshed-out, than the first. The writing is brisk and clear, and the characters are amazingly well-drawn. Webb tugs at the heart, and wrenches the stomach, as she opens to the reader what life is like in a polygamous colony. I should say here that I have no knowledge that her depiction of such life is accurate. I can only hope that she took poetic license in her depictions, that she exaggerated and over-described. If even half of the book's scenes are accurate, then these colonies are very wicked places, indeed. Webb closes the book with a list of resources available to women wanting out of the polygamous lifestyle. (I will mention my discomfort with Webb's referring to the Church as the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." This clearly inaccurate, and easy enough to check.) While this book tends toward the polemic, it is nonetheless a rock-solid murder mystery, lots of twists and turns, and plenty to keep you up reading. I am glad to recommend this book to mystery lovers. - ----------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 21:42:58 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Angels in America Jongiorgi's report of Daniel Mendelsohn's review of "Angels in America" made me feel both vindicated and humbled. Vindicated because Mendelsohn in so many words said the same thing I said--Kushner didn't get the Mormons right. Humbled because Mendelsohn's "so many words" were so much more insightful than any thoughts I thought about the subject. I would never have discerned what was wrong about the program as he did--partly because I didn't care enough when it was all over to think that deeply about it. But I can't help think that what Mendelsohn noticed consciously worked on me subconsciously to make me wonder what all the fuss was about. I didn't think the play was brilliant or a masterpiece. I came away feeling no insight or fulfillment on the themes it addressed. Something about it made me react in the way I described with my my opening sentence in my reaction shared with AML-List: "What the hell was that?" The paucity of true empathy, true insight, true depth that Mendelsohn noticed can't help but have contributed to my reaction. Subconsciously I detected the excessive political correctness that sapped strength from the potential the play had for honest exploration of the human condition. I also found the first half of the play, which set up the conflicts, much more interesting than the second half, which unsatisfyingly tried to resolve them. Consciously I noticed the absence of any meaningful resolution for Joe Pitt, even though I never bothered to analyze the basis for it. For me, "Angels in America" is another overrated dramatic work that wowed the spiritually bankrupt cultural elite of this country, but offered no meaningful substance for me. - -- 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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Visit the new website of The Genesis Group at: http://ldsgenesisgroup.org Genesis is an official auxiliary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that supports Black members of the church =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=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, 05 Feb 2004 22:05:29 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The Weyland Path (was Young and Gray) Margaret Blair Young wrote: > I eventually crafted the first story I sold to a really good journal, and= it > was a PAINFUL story. (It's "Grandpa's Growth" in my first collection.) = It > wasn't Mormon, it was just ME. No agenda to get anyone to trust me, no > agenda to even sell it. It was just me finally letting my own reality > be acknowledged on paper and letting my talents give shape to the very > real dilemma I was in. Everything I had ever believed in, hoped for,= dreamed > of, had not only fallen through; I had walked out on it. That's when I > started to be a real writer. When I quit trying to follow the Weyland= path. I'm with Margaret on this one. ("The Weyland Path"--I like that.) My first book, "Brother Brigham," sure won't ingratiate me or build any trust with the typical Deseret Book customer. But it was the story I had to write. If I'd tried "The Weyland Path" or "The Lund Path," I either wouldn't have written it or would have written dreck. I just wrote a story that interested me about a Mormon family. I didn't think about who the audience was or whether it would sell. Everyone else around me did--universally one of the first criticisms out of people's mouths was, "Whose the audience?" The question was irrelevant to me. I didn't CARE who the audience was. The audience was me. I wrote what I would have liked to read. To hell with whoever doesn't like it. P.S. I just noticed the former title of this thread, "Young and Gray," is an odd juxtaposition of words. I'd sure hate to be young and gray. - -- 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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Visit the new website of The Genesis Group at: http://ldsgenesisgroup.org Genesis is an official auxiliary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that supports Black members of the church =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=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, 5 Feb 2004 23:57:49 -0800 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Near-Death Literature --why the question? On Monday, February 02, 2004 4:38 PM Thom Duncan writes: > > If NDEs were subjective experiences (as they are purported to be > those who have them and who write about them) then why do > Christians always see Christ, Jews see Moses, and Athiests > see their Great Aunt Hattie? Tom, do you mean objective experiences? If they're subjective experiences the near-dead _would_ meet the people they're expecting because the experiences _are_ subjective. Perhaps St. Peter sends those people a dead person would expect to welcome them. I wrote a short story several years ago where a man meets his wife and they walk through their favorite orchard toward the light and as they get there a whole bunch of men come up to him, and start asking what happened in a particular part of the temple ceremony (represented by the phrase "in this part and this part and this part") explaining, "You were asleep so we couldn't hear." The people who welcome him are people he would expect to meet, though not in the way he was expecting, and each of them has a story to tell (as they wend their way to the heavenly city?) Louis Owens plays around with the idea that each culture has its own place in the afterlife when the Catholic and Choctaw afterlifes meet up in _The Sharpest Sight_. "Attis McCurtain spun in the river, riding the black flood, aware of the branches that trailed over his face and touched his body, spinning in the current of the night toward something he could feel coming closer, rising up to meet him. He knew he was dead, and in death an ancient memory had awakened, a stirring in his stilled blood, moving with him and around him on the flood" (8). One of the characters, The Viejo, is a ghost who periodically pops into the back seat of his grandson's patrol car. Another is a shaman, Uncle Luther, who uses something like astral projection to try and change the narrative leading up to Attis' death, but fails. The Viejo is trying to comfort a woman Attis killed (because his soul was killed in Vietnam--and Uncle Luther is also trying to change the narrative of Cole McCurtain's life so he won't get drafted and lose his soul) and at one point Uncle Luther mentions being aware that an old Hispanic man is involved in the situation in the other world. There is a deeply moving moment in _Bone Game_, a sequel set 20 years later, when Uncle Luther, now around 100, and his nephew Hoey (Attis and Cole's father) are traveling across the country to help Cole who is having visions of a gambler wanting to dice for the soul of the world (or something like that). Another Indian comes up to Uncle Luther and tells him and Hoey to go to a certain place and wait. And because they do they are able to save a young woman who has been kidnapped by witches (men who use their spiritual powers for evil) and return her home. The world of these two novels is one where revelation and help from the other side seem perfectly normal in the rational-sceptical 20th century. I like the idea that each culture would experience the afterlife in a way consonant with their culture. If, as Alma says, the same spirit that possesses us in this life will possess us in the next why shouldn't that include the language and culture and family and friendships that possess us in this life? (Not a rhetorical question.) H. Soderborg (who is getting a lot of e-mails from Swedish dating services--which he deletes without opening because, though he can read a little Swedish, there are Swedish viruses--targeting Swedish-named e-mail addresses (ok, how many e-mail addresses does each person on AML-List have?)) Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 07:03:10 -0600 From: "Webmaster" Subject: [AML] LDS Box Office Report - Jan. 30, 2004 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of January 30, 2004 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross %B.O. Theatrs Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Chnge $/Thtr Days - --- --------------------------- ----------- ----- ------- ---- 28 Paycheck 267,567 -77% 620 40 Aaron Eckart (actor) 53,147,310 $431 (2nd-billed star) 30 The Young Black Stallion 256,352 -19% 51 40 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 4,188,018 $5,026 38 The Missing 110,353 -31% 211 68 Aaron Eckart (actor) 26,696,673 $523 Aldric La'Auli Porter (assoc. producer/1st A.D.) 36 The Cat in the Hat 101,740 -36% 163 73 Eric McLeod (exec. producer) 100,585,590 $624 Aldric La'Auli Porter (assoc. producer/1st A.D.) Danielle Chuchran (actress) 49 The Book of Mormon Movie Vol. 1 69,853 +1170% 26 136 Gary Rogers 1,219,338 $2,686 (writer/producer/director) Craig Clyde (screenplay) David Hales (co-producer, editor) Ira Baker (editor) Robert C. Bowden (composer) Actors: Bryce Chamberlain, Mark Gollaher, Jan Broberg Felt, Cragun Foulger, Jacque Gray, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Flynn 54 Latter Days (NEW) 57,242 4 3 C. Jay Cox (writer/director) 57,242 $14,310 LDS main characters 60 Timeline 39,018 -44% 99 68 Paul Walker (lead actor) 19,439,415 $394 65 Bugs! 32,588 -22% 14 325 stars Papilio, 4,659,827 $2,327 a Great Mormon butterfly 80 The Home Teachers 11,443 -45% 14 25 Kurt Hale (director, co-writer) 153,257 $817 Dave Hunter (producer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) John E. Moyer (screenwriter) Cody Hale (composer) Wynn Hougaard (editor) Actors: Michael Birkeland, Jeff Birk, etc. 83 Pride and Prejudice 9,408 -17% 9 59 Andrew Black (director) 213,795 $1,045 Jason Faller (producer) Kynan Griffin (co-producer) Anne K. Black (screenplay/produc. designer) Jason Faller; Katherine Swigert (screenplay) Travis Cline (cinematographer) Ben Carson (composer) Alexander Vance (editor) Actors: Ben Gourley, Hubbel Palmer, Amber Hamilton, Carmen Rasmusen 87 Galapagos 7,913 -6% 3 1557 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,296,038 $2,637 111 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 580 -80% 2 1360 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,619,651 $290 120 China: The Panda Adventure 103 1 920 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,682,282 $103 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:06:27 -0700 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: [AML] Marketing you work (was: Young and Gray) On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:48:45 -0700, Margaret Blair Young wrote: > as I think about the most successful (i.e. popular) LDS > writers, I can't say that I want to do what they do. If you don't want to imitate those who have gone before, that's fine. But it's probably a good idea to understand that those people are popular for a reason. If you want to expand your market to that audience (and since you began this thread with a request for input on how to expand your market), then it's a good idea to strive to understand the reasons that people love them. > I have to > make an exception for Dean Hughes, who I think a fine writer, but I > don't want to be a > Jack Weyland or even a Gerald Lund--even though I think both have > their place in > LDS culture, and it's a good place. But there has to be a place > for those of us > who are drawn to more difficult subjects. Maybe it'll only be a > small place, > but maybe that's all right. If that's all right, then why ask for help marketing your books? There's a disconnect here. And I have to ask this: do you *have* to do difficult topics *all* the time? Are difficult topics the only thing you can write about? I can take criticism most times from pretty much anybody as long as I sense that it is sincere. Most people on this list are able to do so as well. Most authors strive for this ability because it is an important one for their craft. But most people, even Mormons, do *not*. Most people won't take criticism or explore difficult topics unless they feel safe, unless they have a relationship to bolster them for the inevitable pain of the message. That doesn't mean that your writing has to be safe or that you have to give safe messages. It just means that the audience has to trust you and you would do well to do whatever you can to build and harbor that trust. I'm not at all suggesting that you change your stories. My comments aren't about the stories, really. I'm talking about our relationship with our audience. There are a lot of things we can do to build trust. We can reach out to them with love and a smile. Anything that will let them know that we're on their side, that we support them. And that we can laugh and sing and be happy sometimes too. I think that one reason that God's Army was such a break out and awakened a languishing market was that even though it dealt with serious subjects, even though parts of it were difficult, it was funny too. It could laugh even as it was honest about our failings and short-comings. And it was thoroughly from the perspective of an insider who loved us. > I ached for EVERYONE depicted > or described in that play. If a work can help me feel compassion, > it is a deeply Christian work, I believe. I'd qualify that. I'd say that it was a deeply Christian work *for* *you*.= It'd be wise to remember that not everyone will react the same way to any given work. And that's where we need to be careful--humble. We need to be offering our best fruits, our best efforts, and doing so with the intent to share a good thing. And we need to understand and accept that others might not react the same way and to let them know that we think that's okay and that we don't consider them inferior for their different reaction. > I love the phrase Gene England used often to describe > the role of Mormon artists: to comfort the afflicted and afflict > the comforted. Okay, I'm going to step out on a limb here and cheerfully saw away--likely on the unstable side of the branch. I'm going to have the temerity to disagree with a dearly beloved and respected icon of LDS literature. I don't think that it's our duty or role to afflict the comfortable. I think we make a serious mistake if we have the *intent* to afflict the comfortable. Yes, "the wicked take the truth to be hard" (or words to that effect), but our efforts should be to tell the truth, not to afflict anyone. If the truth is an affliction, well, I hope at least that it was delivered with love and compassion. Do we wonder why our audiences don't trust us if we're actually *seeking* to afflict the comfortable? That we're deliberately choosing only the most discouraging, shameful stories to tell? It's all well and good for Gene England, who didn't have to live off of his artistic endeavors (at least directly), to talk about afflicting the comfortable. But if we want to reach a broad audience, then it'd be wise to choose our battles carefully. Frankly, there are a lot of comfortable people out there and if we take it as our mission to afflict them, well, we shouldn't be surprised when they don't buy our books, or see our movies and plays. > It was just me finally letting my own reality be > acknowledged on paper > and letting my talents give shape to the very real dilemma I was > in. Everything > I had ever believed in, hoped for, dreamed of, had not only fallen > through; I > had walked out on it. That's when I started to be a real writer. > When I quit trying to follow the Weyland path. That's a great thing and I'm glad it worked out. Frankly, that's an excellent way to gain trust--being honest and frank in our stories. If your story is harsh, let it be harsh. But that doesn't mean that we can't be open and loving and accepting in our attitudes and marketing efforts. That doesn't mean that we can't go to our prospective audience and talk about successes we've had, progress we've made, good things that have happened to us and the love of God that we share. Let them know that we're on the *inside*--with them. That we have a= culture in common and that we love our culture, even when we disagree or dislike some aspects of it. There is a lot of good in the LDS community. It is a fine and upstanding group of people. Why are we afraid to point that out? Or do we not agree (and if we don't like them, why do we care what they think and why are we writing works we hope they'll purchase)? Since you're interested in race issues, here's an interesting question: can you name me a community that went from officially discriminating based on race to where we are today in so short a time? I find no discernible racism in my generation of Mormons and feel that while the older generations may struggle, they do so honestly and with willing heart. Culturally speaking, we turned on a dime. 25 years after the initial announcement of a change in policy, there is official encouragement and engagement to wipe out what vestiges of racism still remain. That was impressive. Could we maybe explore those aspects of our character that allowed that to happen? Can we point out the underlying cultural influences that set the stage for that unprecedented about-face? Can we maybe tell stories about the resounding cheer *I* heard, as a young boy deep in white Mormon country, when the announcement was made that *every* worthy man was to be given the opportunity to receive the priesthood? Melissa tells me that your books do in fact show some of our successes. = She tells me that it's a wonderful book and not at all condemnatory--that it is balanced and well written, a laudable work and that I should read it. And by that phrasing, you can deduce that I haven't read them yet. It's true. I've had no desire to do so. I might be the very person you want to talk to--an avid reader, interested in LDS literature, not a fan of Lund (for all I lived in his ward as a boy--the same ward where I heard that historical announcement, BTW), not shy of difficult stories, who nonetheless gave your books a pass. And yes, it has to do with the presentation and marketing of _One More River to Cross_. I mean, it's a gloomy cover. It's a gloomy title. It has a quote on the back that tells us that it's about "black Saints who deserve to be known about and appreciated by our generation"--which tells me that I'm in for a scold for not appreciating black Saints enough yet. I always resist guilt trips laid on me for what I perceive to be pecuniary reasons (i.e. feel guilty so you'll buy this book to gain absolution--so that you can appreciate black Saints "enough"). And it doesn't stop there. I hear quotes from the authors that reinforce that message. Margaret, I'm going to be candid and hope you'll know that I do so in an effort to communicate when you have been courageous enough to ask for feedback. I get a sense of condemnation for me and my culture whenever I hear you talk about your books. It seems that every other message on the topic is telling me that I need to be "educated" so that I can overcome my racist attitudes and that the culture I love and cherish, for which I am deeply grateful and to which I owe so much, is fundamentally racist and that we aren't trying at all to overcome some latent, deep-rooted racism we secretly harbor. Well, that message isn't going to wash with me. I examine my heart and what little I can observe of the hearts of the brothers and sisters around me and I have to answer that implication with a resounding, well, denial. Now, Melissa *has* read your books and she liked them very much. She tells me that I should definitely read them. She says that it isn't a scold and that it is not really negative about our culture, nor does it condemn with so broad a brush as to tar my heritage. She says that they're well written, and that I'll like them. She has great taste, so frankly, I expect that eventually I'll read them. I'm mostly waiting to be in the right mood (and I've been deeply engrossed in Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander series). So *I* know that the above two paragraphs aren't likely to be an accurate depiction of the books themselves. But knowing that doesn't change the impression I get when I see them, and what I, in my hubris, assume to be the impression of others who may be similar to me and make their purchasing decisions in similar ways. And here's a marketing suggestion, for what it is worth. Once, or over and over again, prominently mention that you are celebrating our black pioneer heritage. If that had registered just once, it would have gone far to counter my impression of the books. It would have been a surprise, a discord in my assumptions. And I cannot tell you what it would have meant to have heard an interview or quote, maybe on the radio, with you talking cheerfully (as opposed to the gloom that otherwise surrounds the books marketing-wise) about how great it was to get to know these black Saints, to feel their faith, and to experience their trials and triumphs. I believe that a single laugh during a radio spot would have done more for your book than all the other marketing efforts combined. Not that you should imply that the books are cheerful; they're about pioneers, for heaven's sake. But to assure that what gloom might exist comes naturally from the story and not because the authors are inveterately gloomy or incurable scolds. Anyway, I hope I expressed all that well enough to be helpful. I tried to make it honest. I know it'll hurt some and I apologize for any pain I've given. I *do* want you to succeed and I want our literature to improve and continue to mature. I just think that it'll do so much faster if we can gain the trust of our culture and to let them know that we love them. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:44:22 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] > From: Christopher Bigelow To: "'aml-list@lists.xmission.com'" Subject: [AML] (DesNews) R rating stuns 'Saints' makers Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:35:27 -0700 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list R rating stuns 'Saints' makers They promise to pursue a PG-13 for WWII drama By Carma Wadley Deseret Morning News War is violent. Still, the moviemakers and distributor behind the Utah-made independent film "Saints and Soldiers" were shocked this week= when the Motion Picture Association of America gave the World War II drama an R rating. The film tells the fictional story of several men - one of whom is= LDS - - who escape the Malmedy Massacre during the Battle of the Bulge. "This ruling concerns us immensely," said Jeff Simpson, president of the Excel Entertainment Group (distributors of "God's Army," "Brigham City" and "Charly," among others), which will release "Saints and Soldiers" into theaters later this year. "We are very sensitive to the different audiences for this film and know full well that an R rating is unacceptable to= certain segments of the audience. This is a movie about war, and so there will be a certain level of violence. But we believe this film has handled that tastefully and with integrity." Simpson said he and the filmmakers will continue to work with the= MPAA during an appeals process that allows ratings to be contested. A 13-member board hears an initial appeal, with a two-thirds majority required to= change the rating. "A majority agreed that the rating should be changed, but we didn't get the two-thirds," said Adam Abel, one of the producers of "Saints and Soldiers," adding that the film will now go back to the full board for review. "We will look at their suggested changes, but we will not harm the integrity of the film." The movie contains no foul language and has no sexual content, he said, and the violence is far less frequent and graphic than is found in many PG-13 films. "In test screenings around the country, 95 percent of the parents said they thought the movie should be rated PG-13." Before filming started, Abel and director Ryan Little researched= PG-13 movies, particularly war movies. "And then we pulled back even from that level of violence. So this rating is hard to understand." The intent, said Abel, was to make a movie that parents and grandparents could watch with their teens, which would help teens see the consequences of war and appreciate the sacrifices their grandparents made. "I'm so optimistic about this movie," said Simpson. "I so stand= behind the morality and integrity of the film. The MPAA doesn't give ratings based on morality. But this is a very, very moral film. It is less violent than 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Pearl Harbor,' both of which got a PG-13 rating. We told the board not to confuse their emotional attachment to the characters with the intensity of violence." There are tremendous stories associated with war; stories that can uplift and inspire, said Abel. "This puts us in an interesting position because a lot of judgments will be made on our behalf, not knowing our intentions or how we live in accordance with our standards. We are proud of this film. Its message is a message for everyone." "Saints and Soldiers" has won best feature and/or audience-choice awards at 12 film festivals across the country during the past few months. It received the Grand Prize at the Heartland Film Festival, which specifically recognizes "filmmakers whose work explores the human journey= by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." The film also received acclaim from members of the armed forces at Pearl Harbor during the Hawaii International Film Festival. "I'm confident," said Simpson, "that in the end, the film will get= the rating it deserves." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:20:27 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Mormonism and _Angels in America_ At 01:50 AM 1/30/04, you wrote: > From a writer's perspective (as perversely unfeeling as that might be), > these kinds of people make for great characters in story. They defy > stereotype. They are complex, and theirs is an honest moral struggle. > It's proof that Kushner deserves at least some of the praise he's > received for crating a story peopled with such characters. >[Matthew Durkee] Thank you, Matthew, for this insight. Maybe I will have the courage to see it after all. I appreciate your comaprison to Native American burial grounds and names; that sounds like a very good analogy. Thanks to Thom also and others who have written in. Linda Adams - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:31:55 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] 2003 Mormon Literature Year in Review: Novels/Short= Fiction I am always amazed by the breadth of Andrew Hall's knowledge of LDS= fiction. His contribution to the LDS literary bibliography is vitally important. I really have no idea how he does it all, but hope that he can trade in the various "years in review" for a PhD at some point. I have only one correction: The title of the third book in _Standing on the Promises_ is _The Last Mile of the Way_. _One More River to Cross_ is the title of the first installment. And I have one suggestion: Let's all buy Doug Thayer's novel. He blazed the trail. Let's support his work now. If the list= could give "extra credit", every person who buys two or more copies of _The Conversion of Jeff Williams_ should get 10 points. I plan on making my purchase ASAP. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:28:00 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] Marketing our work (was: YOUNG & GRAY, _Standing on the= Promises_) J. Scott Bronson wrote: > It'll be awhile, I think, before we can do some of the shows that I'm > dieing to do, like "Dear Stone" and "Winding Sheets" and "Survival of the > Fittest" I hope you're wrong (though I fear you aren't) because I don't want to be 65 before I see "Survival" performed. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:14:21 +0000 From: ThomasDuncan01@comcast.net Subject: Re: [AML] Angels in America Sam Brown says: > the texture of their performances isn't Mormon (contra Thom, I think > they are inauthentic, even if their mildly deviant actions aren't > outside the realm of the possible in Mormon life; it's their > carriage that's palpably not Mormon, not their actions). Their carriage? Please explain. The reason I ask is because I know= Mormons with "carriages" that all over the map. I'd like to know what you mean by "carriage" and what about that carrage is universal among Mormons? Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #258 ******************************