From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #265 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, February 18 2004 Volume 02 : Number 265 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:48:03 -0700 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] CARD, Alvin Maker Series (review) > Furthermore, I did not like the large gap between Crystal City and > Heartfire, especially since Card kept referring back to things that > had happened in the meantime, things that seemed important but were > only alluded to (all the backstory with Jim Bowie, for example, and > Abe Lincoln and then there was something about freeing a group of slaves?). > It's like there's a whole book missing. > Lisa Tait Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Well, you are half right in that case. There were two short Alvin Maker tales in the hardcover collections Legends and Legends II (both edited by Robert Silverburg) that took place between Heartfire and Crystal City. Put them together and their length was about half a book. So there was something missing between the two books if you did not read those tales. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:00:57 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Angels in America > -----Original Message----- > From: ThomasDuncan01@comcast.net > > I contend that he did get them right. In what way? Because the > people he creates in the play are all human. And, last I checked, > Mormons are human. No two Mormons speak the same way, use the same > lingo, talk about the Church the same way. > New York Mormons think differently about the church than do Utah > Mormons. I knew a Mormon lady once who absolutely loved the temple > but had never heard of Joseph Smith having had a vision. Had she been > in a play, a lot of Mormons would have said, "How can she be Mormon > and not know about Jospeh Smith?" We are not as homogenized a people > as we think we are. That's kind of a useless standard, don't you think? I mean, by that reasoning--by letting anything pass as Mormon that claims to be Mormon, anything at all--you've made the distinction meaningless. Where do you draw the line, then? If Larry Flint began referring to himself as Mormon, do you welcome him with open arms to our society? Saddam Hussein? (that'd be an interesting twist--Muslims get Michael Jackson, we get Saddam?) And even if *you* consider them valid representations of Mormon characters, I guarantee that the majority of LDS audiences won't, and they won't identify with them. So I guess my real question is, what's the value of having a term of distinction like "Mormon" if it puts off all but a small percentage of your audience? It's a barrier to communication and an unnecessary one. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:34:59 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] disenfranchised Mormons [was Marketing you work] > From: Bill Willson > I have given it a lot of thought over the years, and have come to the > conclusion that in the broadest sense possible, all of the above > disenfranchised Mormons which you have listed and identified as a > viable audience for Mormon Letters, are a part of God's Church. > Doesn't the Prophet stand at the head of the church? > and isn't he the mouthpiece of God for the entire world? I'm unconvinced. I mean, you might as well delete the term from our vocabulary because it has no more meaning if you accept that definition. Why would the scriptures mention the Church of God if there's no way to distinguish members thereof? It'd make no sense. Particularly those passages that contrast it with the Church of Satan. Why bother joining the Church of God (by affiliation or baptism) if it already includes every soul on the planet. It'd be hard to invite others to come join the Church of God if they were already members... Which points out something that I've found interesting since bumping up against Leslie Silko's work and her implied definitions of good (bridge-building) and evil (wall building). It's a convincing and enlightening distinction, frankly, and an excellent measure when considering our actions or the actions of others. But it can't be absolute because when you come right down to it, the gospel does both. For the most part, the gospel builds bridges--asking us to consider all to be our brothers, asking us to have compassion and to expand our sense of community. But in the end, the gospel also separates the sinners from the saints, the saved from the damned, the sheep from the goats, the right hand from the left. And it starts with our first official interaction with the church--baptism. That's a wall--a separation from our sins and entrance into the Church of Christ--taking on the name of Christ means that we are distinct, separate, different from the others in our surrounding community. We are taught not to let this go to our head, and indeed, the rest of the gospel seems built to ensure that we remember our fellow man and strive always to reach out to them--to build other bridges that can cross that initial barrier or wall. But that doesn't mean the wall isn't there and important that it remain. Silko's is still a useful guideline, but it's good to remember that it is basically flawed. And to bring this back to literary topics, I wonder if this doesn't apply somewhat to our self-identification as authors or artists. That's a separation, a distinction, one we cannot really escape, but one that we should never allow to separate us from our surrounding community. It ties back to the issue of trust that I brought up earlier. Building those bridges is important and vital to a healthy artistic community. Shakespeare is an interesting example. He had some difficult bridgework to maintain. He had to reach out to the nobles who tolerated, barely, his plays. He had some huge egos to stroke even as his characters remained human, understandable, and flawed. AND he chose as well to build bridges to his more numerous audience--the groundlings who came to see his plays, the commoners. Both audience were entertained and I think that no small part of his continuing appeal is the artistry he shows in building those bridges. There's something important there, even if I'm uncertain what it might be or how to apply it to our own situation. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:58:09 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Near-Death Literature --why the question? > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Thom Duncan" > > > > Gae Lyn Henderson wrote: > > For near-death info the best website I've found is > > http://www.near-death.com/ > > > > I've read most of the books on the subject but there are more and more > appearing all the time. The book that upset me the most was written in > response to Betty Eadie's _Embraced by the Light_. The title the > response was _Embarrassed by the Light_. > > I thought _Embarrassed_ was funny and detailed some thoughts I had on > the subject. I think the book needed to be mocked to some degree > because I think the science behind NDEs is akin to that of UFOs, and > shouldn't be taken that seriously. > > I think that if you have never seen a UFO it doesn't mean that they don't exist; Right? I mean UFO's have been reported by many different people. I don't think all of these people are crackpots. The US government has a whole division of the space agency set up to investigate these reports. If there wasn't any truth to them, wouldn't we know it by now? What about God? I've never seen Him but I believe He exists. Is it remotely possible that some of the folks in the other worlds, that God created, have advanced to the point that they might be exploring the cosmos? > > 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? > Perhaps it is because they are subjective. I think that there are so many different dimensions to the next plane of immortality that until each of our spirits has had the opportunity for a proper education, we each go to the plane, which best fits our own reality. Who knows? Anyway I personally would like to keep an open mind for now. > > 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 to explain where everyone has > different experiences. > I have heard this explanation, and it might be so, but I also think mocking a person who shares such a personal experience with us by writing it off as a cerebral infarction is a little harsh. After all sharing ones very personal spiritual experiences is scary at best. It takes a lot of courage. But people who have these experiences believe sincerely that they have a moral obligation to share them. If everyone were to mock them openly they might not feel willing to share. If what they are trying to share is factual, then who are the losers? What if Joseph was reluctant to share his vision with the world? What about other visions that were received by the prophets throughout the dispensations of time? I believe we still adhere to the doctrines on foreordination, so maybe some of these people that seem a little off to us might have been foreordained to reveal some beyond the veil realities to us. I don't know, but it is interesting to contemplate. Bill Willson, writer http://www.iwillwriteit.com http://www.latterdaybard.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:38:03 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] CARD, Alvin Maker Series At 12:30 PM 2/12/04 -0600, you wrote: >So I'm sorry to say that I have not enjoyed the last two books as much >as the first four, each one less that the previous. In short, the >later books seem to have less depth, feel more contrived, have lost >their "magic." And I can't quite put my finger on why. I find that to be the case in every one of Card's series. For example, I loved the first two books in the Homecoming series, liked the third book, and found the last books two uninteresting and disappointing. All of his series seem to fizzle out before they're done. It just feels as though he loses interest. The overwhelming mission the characters were given in the first Homecoming book seemed to disappear from the characters' minds--they never bothered to fulfill it, but instead wound up doing a bunch of dumb stuff that had nothing to do with their purpose. I also lost interest in the Alvin Maker series and in the Ender Wiggins series as they went along. So you're not the only one to have that reaction. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 23:01:35 -0600 From: Per Malm Subject: [AML] New to the list and I'd like to share this. Hello Everybody! I just joined this list a few weeks ago. I've been lurking and reading with interest. This doesn't really have anything to do with mormons other than the fact that I, a mormon filmmaker, produced this and it seems to be getting a lot of praise in some circles. I have just completed a music video for the pro-space song "Hope Eyrie" which was just released in December on the CD "To Touch The Stars." This is a fan edit that uses a lot of NASA footage mixed with some footage I've shot. You can view it at: http://www.prometheus-music.com/thestars.html The link to the video is about 2/3 way down the page and is about 4 meg to download. I hope you enjoy it. The producer at Prometheus Music has mentioned that various people, including folks associated with NASA, are interested in using it in their programming. That is still pending though. On a more personal note, this is the first time that so many "important" people have been so touched by something I've produced and it still hasn't all sunk in. I am still in the stage of "this can't really be happening to me." Per Malm - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:16:37 -0500 From: Irreantum2@cs.com Subject: [AML] Writing Conference at BYU From: Melva l Gifford Here is info on a free writing symposium. Some of the topics are science fiction and fantasy in nature. But as this is a writing symposium and there are a quite a number of panels on the principles of writing and its a FREE event. This symposium is this coming week at BYU. I've read a number of manuscripts from many of the guests and I feel they have valuable information to share. I thought fellow writers might be interested. http://humanities.byu.edu/ltue/events.html Melva Gifford - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:49:41 -0400 From: "gregk" Subject: Re: [AML] New LDS Publisher Tammy, I am looking to expand Kofford Books. If you and Chad aren't determined to march down the entrepreneur path maybe we should talk. Greg Kofford koffordbooks.com would like to have a discussion in that dxOn Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:17:22 - -0700, Tammy Daybell wrote > I just wanted to let you all know that Chad and I no longer work for > Cedar Fort. We are going to start our own LDS publishing business. > We have chosen the name Spring Creek Book Company, and will be "officially" > starting business on March 1st. If there is anyone out there who > wants to submit a manuscript to us, please e-mail me off list and I > will send you the mailing address and submission guidelines. > Thanks! > Tammy Daybell > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:01:10 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] 15 Feb 2004 07:55:08 PST Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 07:55:08 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Hansen Subject: Re: [AML] Reviews of _Latter Days_ To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list > But when will there be one that smashes through an audience's ribcage > and plunges straight into its heart, making them say, "Wow, that's how > *I* feel about the gospel!"? > > Answer: I dunno. Not today. It's pretty late, and no one's even > started yet. > "Pretty late"? Come on. The entire body of work of what we call "mormon" cinema is not even close to twenty films. Hollywood puts out that many films in a couple of weeks. Let's get some perspective, here. This genre, this market, this style is still very new, and the audience is still figuring itself out, and the filmmakers are still figuring it out... MRKH ===== Mark Hansen +++++ Inspirational Rock Music http://markhansenmusic.com Listen to me and others at http://kzion.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 14:14:54 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Angels in America ThomasDuncan01@comcast.net wrote: > I contend that he did get them right. In what way? Because the > people he creates in the play are all human. And, last I checked, > Mormons are human. No two Mormons speak the same way, use the same > lingo, talk about the Church the same way. New York Mormons think > differently about the church than do Utah Mormons. I knew a Mormon > lady once who absolutely loved the temple but had never heard of > Joseph Smith having had a vision. Had she been in a play, a lot of > Mormons would have said, "How can she be Mormon and not know about > Jospeh Smith?" We are not as homogenized a people as we think we are. Come on, Thom, you're a fiction writer and you should know better. "Truth is stranger than fiction" because fiction, being untrue, has to be plausible, whereas reality, being true, has no such obligation--it merely is. Mormons most certainly _would_ cry foul if a fiction writer used your vision-ignorant woman as a character, because it's not plausible. The worst justification a fiction writer can give for something unbelievable happening in his story is, "But it really happened." The fiction writer is obligated to make his implausible events plausible. He must set the stage and justify it--in the book, not in some gratuitous assertion external to the book that it "really happened." Kushner didn't establish his Mormon characters properly. He just threw some characters in that acted the way he wanted them to act and called them Mormon, pasting on some Mormon idiosyncrasies that he'd learned about. Bad fiction writing. His characters had better either act like Mormons, or he needs to set the stage to explain why they don't. As I explained before, in the way he used them, he should have used stereotypical Mormons. It was enough to have them address issues that Mormons, at least perceptually, are not used to dealing with. To have them deal with those uncharacteristic issues AND act as non-standard Mormons both was just too much for one work of fiction. He didn't get the Mormons right in the way he needed to for his work. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com =============================================== Visit the new website of The Genesis Group at: http://ldsgenesisgroup.org The Genesis Group is an official group supported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. =============================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:02:28 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] <741DA0DAC5E3A54187B4B6F3592141CC900E3F@utexch.utah.unicity.corp.numico. com> From: Christopher Bigelow To: "'aml-list@lists.xmission.com'" Subject: [AML] Authors Incognito Writers Conference Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:55:52 -0700 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list - -----Original Message----- From: Anne Bradshaw [mailto:annebradshaw@ldstorymakers.com] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:33 AM To: Christopher Bigelow Subject: PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT AUTHORS INCOGNITO: A writer's conference for you: the author the world doesn't know about--yet! Visit our web site at http://www.ldstorymakers.com for more information. Come listen to Dean Hughes speak, meet your favorite authors and learn tools of the trade to becoming a published author yourself. Date: May 1, 2004 Time: 8:30-5:00 Place: Little Brown Theater, 262 S. Main Street, Springville, Utah Charge: $40 preregistration, includes syllabus $48 preregistration, includes syllabus and lunch $60 preregistration, includes syllabus, lunch, and copy of "LDStorymakers: Publishing Secrets" $45 at the door, includes syllabus $57 at the door, includes syllabus and "Publishing Secrets" ************************************************ Anne Bradshaw www.annebradshaw.com **** A member of LDStorymakers http://ldstorymakers.com/ ***** AUTHOR EXTRAVAGANZA, sponsored by LDStorymakers, to be held in Springville Library, Utah, April 17 2004 ! ***** Look for new book to be released April 2004, titled: LDStorymakers : Publishing Secrets A comprehensive guide to getting your book published in the LDS Market. Authors : LDStorymakers ***** - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:03:14 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] <741DA0DAC5E3A54187B4B6F3592141CC900E43@utexch.utah.unicity.corp.numico. com> From: Christopher Bigelow To: "'aml-list@lists.xmission.com'" Subject: [AML] (Meridian) Kieth Merrill on _Passion_ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:46:49 -0700 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Very thought-provoking article by LDS filmmaker Kieth Merrill on Mel Gibson's new movie, _The Passion of The Christ_." http://www.ldsmag.com/arts/040216Passionate.html For me, trying to gear myself up to see this movie makes gearing up for _Schindler's List_ or that one WWII movie look like a cakewalk. In fact, I may very well not get over the hump, unless my wife wants to go see it, and my guess is that she won't. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:03:39 -0600 From: "Webmaster" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report, Feb. 6, 2004 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of February 6, 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 - --- --------------------------- ----------- ----- ------- ---- 31 The Young Black Stallion 201,320 -22% 51 47 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 4,455,411 $3,947 51 Paycheck 67,317 -75% 188 47 Aaron Eckart (actor) 53,314,141 $358 (2nd-billed star) 52 The Missing 66,504 -40% 139 75 Aaron Eckart (actor) 26,811,707 $478 Aldric La'Auli Porter (assoc. producer/1st A.D.) 59 The Book of Mormon Movie Vol. 1 46,576 -33% 22 143 Gary Rogers 1,352,182 $2,117 (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 61 Bugs! 37,048 +14% 15 332 stars Papilio, 4,723,894 $2,469 a Great Mormon butterfly 62 Latter Days 33,956 -41% 4 10 C. Jay Cox (writer/director) 110,499 $8,489 LDS main characters 69 Timeline 16,627 -57% 54 75 Paul Walker (lead actor) 19,469,613 $307 84 Galapagos 7,356 -7% 3 1564 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 14,305,521 $2,452 94 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 3,375 +500% 2 1367 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 15,624,001 $1,687 94 Pride and Prejudice 3,332 -65% 4 66 Andrew Black (director) 220,105 $833 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 98 The Home Teachers 2,568 -78% 4 32 Kurt Hale (director, co-writer) 160,629 $642 Dave Hunter (producer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) John E. Moyer (screenwriter) Cody Hale (composer) Wynn Hougaard (editor) Actors: Michael Birkeland, Jeff Birk, etc. 120 China: The Panda Adventure 17 -84% 2 927 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 3,682,866 $8 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:20:55 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] THAYER, The Conversion of Jeff Williams (review) On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:38:25 GMT "Jeffrey Needle" writes: > And I suppose there's some irony in a Jeff from San Diego (me) > reviewing a book about a Jeff from San Diego. I promise we are not > the same person. Hmm. I was born and raised in San Diego. J(effrey) Scott Bronson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:18:51 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] CARD, Alvin Maker Series (review) On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:30:19 -0600 "Lisa Olsen Tait" writes: > This was supposed to be a review of Crystal City, the sixth book in > Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series The penultimate volume ... to be followed by the conclusion, _Master Alvin_. Of course, the vagaries of publishing could turn that into _Alvin at Rest_ or something. > I'm sorry to say that I have not enjoyed the last two books as > much as the first four, each one less that the previous. For me that would be the last three books as much as the first three. > In short, the later books seem to have less depth, feel more > contrived, have lost their "magic." And I can't quite put my > finger on why. And yet, you put your finger on all things that have been disappointments to me as well. > Even Alvin himself has lost some depth. It seems like all > he ever does is smart off and crack jokes (Card writes some > very clever dialogue, but in places it gets tedious) and then > brood over his supposed failures. In general, I think this is > the major problem I have. The characters get less nuanced, > the conflicts and issues more routine. The thing that really drew me to Card in the beginning was that his science fiction (of all things) was character based. For me that was a major departure from most of what I had been reading in the SF genre. And I liked it. ALOT. In _Crystal City_, the closest Card comes to real character work is with Arthur Stuart. And there is so much potential for character work in this book. Look at all the new characters introduced: Nueva Barcelona (yes, the city itself -- cities have souls -- ostensibly that's the whole point of this book), Squirrel and Moose, Abe and Bowie, Dead Mary and her mom, La Tia, the Red enclave (another "city" as it were) and Arthur Stuart. Sure, Arthur Stuart has been with us from fairly early on, but he is a new character here because he is progressing and we like it when we get to share in the joys and sorrows of growth in people we have learned to love. I know almost nothing about Miss Larner's private turmoils as her husband trapses around the country trying to find and make makers. _Crystal City_ concludes with such a remarkable insight, that being that the City gets it soul more from the people of the city than the walls of the city, that would have settled deeper into my own soul if it had not been just an intellectual observation. If I felt that I actually knew some of those people who made that Zion's Camp march, I might have closed the covers on that book feeling like I knew the soul of the city in the title. That would have been a rich and rewarding sensation. I think this book could have been at least fifty pages longer. > Furthermore, I did not like the large gap between Crystal City and > Heartfire, especially since Card kept referring back to things that > had happened in the meantime, things that seemed important but > were only alluded to (all the backstory with Jim Bowie, for example, > and Abe Lincoln and then there was something about freeing a group of > slaves?). I think this refers to a shorter work that was part of Robert Silverberg's Legend series. Silverberg asked several luminaries in the SF/F realm to contribute short works that could take place in an established milieu but were not part of the main story. That's all fine and well for the readers of Silverberg's anthologies. But when one of those authors decides to sequelize (bad form, I know, but also one of the delights of the English language) that short work in the main story, as Card seems to have done, I think it's a bad idea for one thing, and kind of rude for another. > It's like there's a whole book missing. Would this feel different to > me if I had participated in all the discussions on the Hatrack River > website? But should I have to? No, you shouldn't. But it feels like that's who Card is writing to these days. > All that having been said, I'm not giving up on the series yet. I > would like to believe that Card has something more up his > sleeve that he is building towards and that will eventually put > a different perspective on these last two books. I would like to believe that too but I fear he is simply trying to finish the thing. > Bottom line: I still want to know what happens, > but I'm less sure that I will be satisfied with it. Yep. J. Scott Bronson "People do not love better by reaching for perfection, they approach perfection by loving better." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:06:08 -0800 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] The Why of It: Criticism Generally Criticism, in its truest sense-far from being an exercise in name-calling, an operation of public mud-slinging, wherein enemies draw lines in the sand and former friends can't understand how someone out there they thought they liked could possibly SAY such a thing-is, in actuality, an extremely important process. When conducted with the intensity of a hard-rock miner searching for the vein of gold, when observed as carefully as a leadsman on a great sailing ship, dropping his lead-line down and staring at the depth gauges so see where the shoals are, to keep the whole from running aground, criticism can perform an essential function. The act of plumbing our OWN depths, of even excruciating self-exploration, is not just indulgent psychobabble. Engaging in personal inventory is a religious act, an act of expiation, and a process whereby change-one hopes for the better-is affected. The act of trying to change SOMEBODY ELSE, however, is more troubling. We confront the whole what-about-the-mote-in-your-own-dang-eye?! kind of thing. And unfortunately, a lot of literary criticism is considered just that. The "recipients" of such criticism think that the critic is "trying to fix" or "change" THEM. There are two inherent fallacies in this attitude. One is that general literary criticism (and I'm talking about seriously-intended criticism; obviously there really IS mudslinging happening out there, so I mean that which isn't just mudslinging, but which is really trying to be "literary criticism"), is rarely talking to a specific author at all. If it is, it is talking to the critic himself. (I'll use the male pronoun because I'm expressing my own, male, opinions, and the pronoun helps me remember that while I'm pretending to be making general statements, I'm really talking about myself-rules of conduct, if you will.) What I mean is that the attitude that a certain critique which may be read by the author of the book being dissected is actually directed at THAT AUTHOR, is incorrect. The critique is not directed at the author, it is directed at the book. Authors, of course, think that is the same thing, but in the heart of the "purest" critic, it never is. The second fallacy is that the "true" or "pure" critic is trying to change the book, or wishing it would have been written differently or better. This is a difficult one, especially because book critics often really do say such things as "it would have been better if they'd done thus-and-such or not done thus-and-such." But is the critic actually engaging in the fantasy that the author will pull his book from circulation, take it out of print, re-write it, and then re-publish it in a second, very different, edition? Of course not. Even if the critic would honestly like that to happen, nobody genuinely thinks it ever will! So why write critiques at all?! That rhetorical question obviously forces the consideration of the point I'm trying to make. "True" critical exercises can never be actually directed at a specific book (even though they are, in fact, talking about a specific book). The EXERCISE of the critical observations is not to change the specific author or the specific book (which cannot be done). The EXERCISE of critical observation is no more or less than the grandiose goal of: CHANGING THE VERY LITERATURE ITSELF. By "the very literature" I mean, of course, the attempt to influence the entire trend in a given school of writing, or genre, or culture or time-frame. But more than an attempt to "influence" (which is not the correct word, for that is not really possible either), to OBSERVE. And by such observations to attempt to do at a much more broad cultural level exactly that which an individual might religiously do upon self-inspection: ASK "THE WHY OF IT". And why ask the why? By asking WHY a culture, a genre, a trend, a LITERATURE (however the critic defines that in the context), does, or does not do, any given thing, and attempting to truly FIND THE ANSWER, the critic is asking not how could this author have been better or why is this author great; not how could this book have been better or why is this specific book great; but what is it in this work of art that may or may not reflect or comment upon THE BIGGER PICTURE. And if it is possible to make such observations, suddenly, critical exercises become vastly productive. Far more than providing fodder for hot debates, good criticism provides fodder for deep introspective and philosophical thought which may contextualize and, indeed, even influence, an entire movement of art (for better or worse). This, if achieved, makes the study of the Humanities what that phrase has to imply: human, real, living, important (even essential). This is not an argument to defend academia (which is often ridiculously self-fulfilling and pointless), but to suggest that the intellectual exercise of critical observation of literary (and other) arts is one aspect of the constant human urge towards perpetual self-improvement, culturally and individually (an urge which many will argue does not inherently exist, but which, from a religious standpoint, at any rate, is imposed on us by our belief structure). This urge towards self-understanding, self-improvement, self-knowledge, etcetera, is one of the aspectual goals of ART itself. It is then, I believe, by extension, one of the goals of art criticism. Literary criticism seeks to ask "the why of it" not so that the author can be better, but so that the entire culture can be more self-aware. This is why I read reviews and commentary essays all of the time. Not so that I can be entertained by seeing how some witty reviewer slams somebody. Those kinds of reviews are out there, and they are the very cheapest of entertainments. I read and enjoy excellent reviews and commentary (even if I do not agree with all of it) in order to broaden my perspective of life, my views of history, my sense of culture, and to constantly force a re-examining of self which I hope, if practiced long enough over time, will affect improvement both at the individual and at the cultural level. Why I WRITE reviews and commentary essays fulfills the same, but more refining, purpose. The sometimes-desperate struggle to first discover a reason for a nagging "why?"; and then to find a way to express that suspected reason; and then to contextualize that suspicion within the broader construct; all of this is an excruciating but genuinely rewarding struggle. Far from attempting to talk to a given author or attempting to force alterations in a given book (or even in the literature at large), my attempts at criticism force alterations in MYSELF: in my ways of looking, seeing, experiencing, writing, living. May I comment on the general state of LDS-themed commentary itself? I've been critical of our powers of criticism in the past. Other than the occasional, wonderful and glowing exceptions which stand out, we are rather vacuous and superficial critics, as a whole. Our missiles often only peck at the magnetically-sealed surface of our targets, a la Luke Skywalker before he started using the Force. We've had long discussions about why this is true. Some of it is that we are such a small community, that it is almost impossible to talk about anything without the author knowing about it, and that author is almost always someone you know or only a few degrees of separation from you or someone you know. Being a small community, it is much, much harder to see "commentary" in a more general context, and not to feel it quite personally. Feelings get hurt, and critical exercises descend into personalized patch-up jobs rather than being allowed to foster new threads of awareness at a broader social level. This may come as a shock, but I'm something of a bull terrier when it comes to introspection, grabbing an idea by the teeth and shaking it back and forth to exhaustion. The more concise way of saying this is that I'm long-winded. I can't leave well enough alone. I never just shut the heck up. My passion and the sheer volume of words often create a tone which offends, a fact I constantly struggle with. So I have to apologize all of the time, but then, as if denying that apology, I must press forward. The reason I must press forward is that my nature simply does not allow me to be satisfied with the vague impression: "Something's missing, but I don't know what"; or "I don't know why I loved it, but it struck a chord"; or "How can people have liked this so much when it's so bad?" If somebody says, even in passing, "How can anybody like that?" I immediately desire to find an answer. Sometimes that answer is embarrassing or socially indicting. But for a critic to simply say "Hmmm, something is missing" is not a critique, but an admission of ignorance. I am constantly amazed by how many critiques I read that contain statements such as those above. How can a self-respecting critic so lazily conclude "This is good, but I don't know why" or "This is bad, but I don't know why"?! WE MUST KNOW THE WHY OF IT! Getting to the heart of the "why" is essential for a thriving critical tradition, which is in turn essential to affecting broader social self-understanding, and yes (o the hubris) even social change. We cannot allow ourselves as critics to say (EVER!), "Something didn't work for me". We have to know WHAT did or did not work, WHY it did or did not work-and what might have made it work better. I'm not saying this is easy. And even when we think we have succeeded, someone comes along and says what we know we were thinking, but in such a concise, precise, incisive way that it jolts us with a new understanding, even though we already agree. That was the reaction of several people recently on reading the excerpts from Daniel Mendelsohn's review of Angels in America. A couple of people shared with me, "Hey, that was exactly what I was thinking, but he said it so much better"; or "I wasn't sure how to put it, but he hit the nail on the head." I'm constantly having that reaction myself. I read an essay and I say, "Wow, that guy said exactly what I think but couldn't quite put in to words." I recently have been struggling with a very daunting task, that of trying to analyze Margaret Young and Darius Gray's "Standing on the Promises" series, both within the context of marketing (as per Margaret's request that we share with her ideas regarding her marketing struggles, and her generous sharing with us her own feelings and experiences on the subject, started a few months ago and ongoing), as well as within a much more broad social context. I have written an extremely long article attempting to build a context for LDS historical fiction, and this has lead me to pursue a rather lengthy commentary about Margaret's book "One More River to Cross" both in its position as LDS historical fiction, and as a work of literature, as well as a marketing dilemma. Those three contexts each have differences and all overlap somewhat as well. I will be presenting a highly condensed version of my cultural theory regarding LDS historical fiction at the upcoming AML Annual Conference, and am exploring ways of publishing the longer study. But I have also been struggling with how to approach my literary criticism of a work by people I hugely respect and have the honor knowing, even if just in passing. Eric Samuelsen's recent comments on the Young and Gray book had the same impact on me that some said Mendelsohn's Angels review had on them. I basically said to myself, "Eric, you've hit the nail on the head." Not being blessed with a succinct soul, I will still have to struggle more fully within myself to get at "the why of it" some more, but I agree pretty completely with Eric's assessment. Interestingly, I also agree with Margaret's response regarding what she calls "nuanced" writing, although I think her context does not address what Eric was talking about. I agree that any writer should be able to write in any form, genre, style, they want, and that they should certainly never be stuck in one over the course of a career. I myself love genre fiction (and thank you, by the way, whoever it was-was it Eugene?-who gave us the link to Stephen King's speech at the National Book Awards ceremony), and I write in many different genres. In fact, I've been plagued with a marketing dilemma: in preparing manuscripts of so many different genres, do I need to work under different pseudonyms to avoid confusion, or just hang it, and let audiences sort it out? Furthermore, because most of my work is stuck in development hell in screenplay forms that have not (and may never) see the light of day, it is likely I could easily be pigeon-holed when I o start to publish works in novel form. If I publish one work, people can easily think that represents the "ME," or identify me and "and author of x or y," when in fact my stack of unpublished or unfinished works revels a broader range of diversity. On one hand, so what? But on the other hand, how does this tie into Jacob's "audience trust" issue, if your next work is radically different, because as an artist you want to explore different voices? Someone who sees one of my church plays or reads one of my LDS novels (if I ever publish one), might be shocked when I use very un-LDS conventions in a different kind of screenplay or a thriller or science fiction novel. How do you overcome that, from a marketing standpoint? Hide the fact that you wrote it, or hope you get away with it like OSC(sort-of) has? On the one hand I have a play that is as "orthodox" and heroic and mainstream LDS as it gets (its in Correlation right at this moment, as a matter of fact). On the other hand I have a play, "Fox and Cloud" which explores an erotic fairy tale where a young man sleeps with two different supernatural women. I have novels-in-progress that contain rape ("The Fog Sippers"); kidnap and torture ("Private Little Hells"); adultery ("A Japanese Novel"); screenplays which contain violence, sexuality and language ("Longshot", "Nightstick", "Up Above", "Makin' Benjamins", "Broken Things", etc.). But I have at least eight LDS historical fiction novels fully outlined, a series of Book of Mormon novels and plays in the works, several "clean" LDS romances, all of which I feel strongly about and want to complete and/or have see the light of day. I'm not in trouble yet, because so much of it has not see the light of day. But in planning out a career, do I suppress my work with "objectionable themes" just because I also want to do work which is more "green Jello" (to use Margaret's great term)? I don't think I should have to, but that vote is still out. It is an honest concern which deserves discussion, and Margaret is right, even WITHIN the LDS genre as a whole, you should be allowed to explore both what she calls "prickly pear" and "green Jello" from book to book, if that is what you are so inclined to do. But we have to face the fact that to do so will necessarily make audiences wary-part of what Jacob Proffitt pointed out. I don't want to be limited to one way of writing or to one audience, either, but I have to admit that some real-world limits do exist. Ultimately, however, Margaret's response to Eric under the caption of "nuance" was not at all, I don't think, what Eric was talking about, nor does it discuss the critical problems I also share with Eric about Margaret's work in "One More River". Far be it from me to put words in Eric's mouth, but I don't think Eric was talking about genre distinctions at all, or prickly pear vs gelatinous themes. Eric was talking about the quality of writing. Why are characters in some books written with depth, nuance, subtly, richness, and in other works remain superficial? To quote him directly, Eric said: "At the same time, looking at the books as works of Mormon literature, apart from their impact on Mormon culture, I do not think that [they] represent the best writing in our culture, nor are they, in my opinion, as well-written as the rest of Margaret's work. I think they share the same flaws as Gerald Lund's work, without sharing the principle reasons for the success of the Lund books." I agree entirely. But getting at "the why of it" is essential to me, and the question should not be tossed off with the argument that different genres require different things. "Transcending the genre" is an oft-touted term which is used by critics to say that a work of genre fiction (usually maligned by critics to begin with) has well-written characters and good prose in what is otherwise considered a superficial genre. Improving our work is always a goal, and writing a great thriller or romance or science fiction or mystery or historical novel at the level of structure, prose and characterization, is always laudable. The key point I want to explore is in encapsulated in Margaret's admission, as follows: "I love the way Andrew Hall describes the trilogy: "Really interesting history books." They are a hybrid of history and fiction, but the heavier weight goes to the history, which dictated where our characters would go and did indeed restrain my literary license -- as I felt it needed to." Margaret's comment above is, in a nutshell, at the very heart of why I wrote a 40-page treatise entitled: "And it came to pass... or did it?, Historicity versus Poetic License: Fact & Fiction in the Pursuit of Mormon Letters"-a condensed version of which I'll present in a couple of weeks at the annual conference, and the entirety of which I may make available through my own little imprint or through some other publishing venue. I have struggled very hard to try and get at the WHY of this impulse to create a hybridization in historical fiction, and to comment on what it is that has seduced us as writers and consumers into thinking that this hybrid is creating a valid tradition in LDS fiction, when in fact it is leaving many of us unsatisfied and confused. I may, of course, be wrong in my conclusions. I also hope that when this landslide of opinion starts leaking out, that it is clearly understood that my often over-the-top efforts are in no way personal attacks or self-vaunting indulgences. I guess I'm apologizing in advance. I am just trying to get at the why's of our literary culture: its trends, patterns, impacts and evolutions, because I think it is terribly important. Margaret and Darius have created a work which CANNOT be ignored. But it IS sort of getting ignored, and I want to know WHY. I think I do know why: it is partly the fault of historic cultural conditions (which are extremely interesting to explore); it is partly the fault of perceptions about market conditions; it is partly the fault of the market (read: audience) itself; and it is partly (perhaps even largely) the fault of the authors who have been lead to believe (and even delight in) a paradigm which is structurally incapable of creating great literature. That's my opinion anyway, and I'll talk more about it later. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #265 ******************************