From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #128 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 Thursday, August 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 128 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 11:30:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Hamilton Fred Subject: [AML] _Contact_ The movie, CONTACT, raises an interesting concept about religion, and thus, the literary depiction of it. As Eric Snider indicates, there is an "anti-religion" sentiment in the movie, but "anti" sentiment is focused more on the organized communitarian type of faith which leads to fanatical beliefs. The Gary Bussy character was advocating an evangelical style of faith thus separating it directly from the Mormonism of Utah. However, by indicating that his Church was based in Panguitch, the movie's creators allowed one to give credence to his fanatical adherence because, even in Utah folklore, Southern Utah is where the stereotypical Mormon fanatics and sects are frequently placed by literary and dramatic artists. I, perhaps unfortunately, accepted that character's reality because it fit a national and regional literary cultural stereotype which I had already accepted. (Even Levi Peterson uses that stereotype of Place in his works, particularly in The Backslider.) I find "Contact" to be quite a study of Fanaticism versus Personal "Faith" commitment. Jody Foster's character's dedication at the first of the movie is quite different from that exhibited at the end of the movie. At the first there is the almost religious "fanaticism" in which she is pursuing her search, while at the end there is a peaceful personal commitment, almost monkish, in which she now pursues her quest. The faith - - religion - she has come to accept is the depiction of a faith which Hollywood and many other literary people wish to privilege. It is a faith which is deeply personal, a faith that goes to the extremes to not judge the beliefs or actions of others - particularly in moral areas, a faith that though founded in an organization the character's practice has chosen to separate itself from the organizational dictates, and that faith is expressed in terms of absolute humility but velveted steel commitment to only personal principles. This Hollywood or literary religion is a religion that will always reject the evils, be they doctrinal or structural, of the organization. It is a religion which elevates the "loving of one's neighbor as one's self" as the great commandment. And, in the end, Jody Foster's character has come to love herself and so has come to accept/love her opponents, her world, the objects of her search within the context of her own, now known, personal acceptance. So, in this manner, I also disagree with Eric's typification that the movie is an "anti-religious" movie. I find it intriguing that we also struggle with this organizational vs personal conflict in our literature and discussions. The depiction of the strictly accepting or rejecting doctrinaire Church member is one literary or dramatic character, which almost everyone who writes on this list is attempting to deny in their work. In fact, this is almost always the one dominant factor of Mormon Literature - to show that these are individuals who have come to their commitments through "personal" means whether the results be for literary good or evil. And, it also seems, that the critical judgements on such literary works are generally based on how successfully the writer has made that "personal" real. Yet there is always a tension that will be present. Our faith is strongly "organizational" and "community based." In one way we struggle with a local concept of a religious icon in opposition to national cultural religious icon which we have accepted through much of the literature - in all its forms - to which we have been exposed. With which icon do we feel more comfortable as individual, or group, Mormon Readers? Which religious icon do Mormon Writer's find it easier, or perhaps more artistically acceptable, to depict? I am sorry I cannot provide definitive answers to either question. I just wished to point out, in my own fallible way, that such a tension exists in our reading - in all of its forms, in our criticism, in our writing. Thank you for allowing me to share these observations with you. Skip Hamilton - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:29:26 -0600 From: Richard R Hopkins Subject: [AML] Cornerstone Purchases Horizon It's official! Cornerstone Publishing has purchased Horizon Publishers. Look for a complete press release in Mormon News as soon as I can get it to Kent. We're so busy making the transition, I'll be pretty much lurking for a little while, but we believe this will prove to be a pretty significant development in the LDS publishing community. Richard Hopkins [MOD: Ha! Kent, did we manage to beat you to the punch (for once) with this one?] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 18:02:33 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity >Maybe I'm on the perverted end of the bell curve, but all the frank >discussions on earth wouldn't have satisfied my curiosity about the >human body. Nor do I see how frankly discussing something, but >continually acting ashamed of letting anyone see it, is going to change >prevailing attitudes much. When I said "open discussions" I was assuming that "open" meant not only frank, but comfortable--in other words, meaning without shame. I agree with you that the shame that is fostered in many by the American and Mormon cultures is something we should try to counter and overcome. >By the way, I don't think deliberately incorporating nudity is the >answer, although I may have sounded like I did. Rather, I think the >answer is not to fear nudity, and be willing to use it at appropriate >times. I also was not advocating the fear of nudity--and I am in favor of using it appropriately. I just happen to believe that situations in which nudity is appropriate are relatively few (relative, that is, to situations in which it is inappropriate). I wrote: > > I don't believe that nudity is inherently evil, but I do believe the >body is a > > sacred thing and ought to be treated as such. If the body is, indeed, a > > "temple", then I think any "casual" exposure of it--even if it isn't > > explicitly sexual or "evil" in nature--is going to run the risk of > > inappropriateness. D. Michael Martindale responded: >My feelings are that the above statement is not an argument, but an >expression of the prevailing cultural attitude. Just how seriously are >we supposed to take the metaphor that our body is a temple? How seriously, then, should we take ANY of the metaphors/similes/allegories used in the scriptures? Why not toss them all out the window, rationalize them all away? >What does it >mean to say a body is sacred? Maybe we shouldn't scratch our itches, >because that's an awfully casual thing to do with a sacred instrument. >Sorry to sound flippant here--I really don't intend to be. I'm serious >about the question. I can think of a lot of things I do with my body >that I wouldn't do to something I consider sacred. Furthermore I can't >think of any scripture that says our bodies are sacred. Christ used the >metaphor of the body as a temple once, but that's about it as far as I >can recall. (I'm sure if I'm wrong, I'll be quickly corrected in this >forum.) All the rest seems to be interpretation placed on that isolated >literary conceit. The doctrine that one of the primary reasons for our coming to earth is to receive a body seems to me to elevate the body to a level of regard that approaches, if not achieves, reverence for something sacred. Those actual scriptures and statements made by prophets and apostles seem to substantiate this belief, IMHO. You're dismissing an awful lot here--not just one metaphor. But even if it was only the one use of the one metaphor, I would respect it. After all, look who used it. Because our bodies are mortal, though, they are subject(ed) to many things that may be undesirable for something we consider sacred--that's precisely why we should strive to protect against such things. > >Not that I think we should profane our bodies. They are patterned after >God's body; they are an important tool for us to further our eternal >progression. How can you reduce the worth of the body to mere literary conceit and dismiss its sacredness in one sentence, then admit to its being patterned after God's in the next? This fact alone--that our bodies are patterned after God's body--ought to be enough to cause us to hold the body in the highest esteem, and to avoid at all costs its vulgarization. >But don't you think we sometimes take this concept of >"sacred bodies" to an extreme? Perhaps slapstick comedy is a terrible >sin, because it uses this sacred instrument for cheap laughs. Maybe Jim >Carrey is going to hell, because look how he contorts his sacred temple >in the service of something as trivial as comedy. What is immoral or "evil" about slapstick comedy? Most often, slapstick takes as its source the basic ineptitudes of humanity, and amplifies them. It is an attempt to laugh at our own human, and thus imperfect and failing, condition. Your attempt, here, to dismiss serious reasons for revering the human body, by carrying that reasoning out ad absurdum, is too easily recognized as absurd. No one is advocating what you're suggesting. On the other hand, if slapstick becomes (as it often will in contemporary 'gross-out' comedies) obscene and/or irreverent toward the body (I'm referring primarily here to the sacred powers of procreation, not to gags aimed at bodily functions like flatulation), then perhaps it SHOULD be condemned. >We need to call animators and cartoonists to repentance: their >representations of the sacred human body are grossly distorted. Cartoons are artistic representations. Do you really think anyone is advocating the "calling to repentence" of any and all artists who do not represent reality with the strictest efforts at replication? No one's calling SF writers to repentence just because their worlds aren't exact duplicates of this one. >Everyone >who is not in peak physical condition is desecrating something >sacred--why aren't we all following Arnold Schwarzeneggar's example and >building our bodies up to as much perfection as we are capable? Again, you carry things way too far. Who's to say what "peak physical condition" is? Our bodies are mortal, imperfect by nature. Not taking care of my body to the best of my ability IS, I believe, a sin; that's what the WofW is all about; my body is a part of my stewardship. But that doesn't mean "be like Arnold." In fact, I'm tempted to think Arnold's condition is further from perfection than other's--after all, there should be moderation in all things, right? :) > >I consider the scriptures sacred. But I don't hide the book under a >piece of cloth. I don't preserve it in a state of museum-piece >preservation. I read it and mark it up and wear it out using it as a >tool. I wouldn't paint a swastika on the cover--that would certainly be >desecrating it. I also wouldn't pose nude for pornographic >magazines--that would certainly be desecrating my body. But I'll use the >scriptures and drop them on the floor and on occasion get a drop or two >of food on them. Considering the scriptures to be sacred, and treating the actual paper they're printed on and the fake leather binding that contains them as sacred, are two different things. But perhaps this isn't a bad time to define, exactly, what is meant by sacred. The root of the word means "dedicated to God." So, when we say the temple is sacred, that doesn't mean you can't go in it, or that you can't cough or fart or be in any other way less than perfect while you're in it; it simply means that the temple and all that is done there is dedicated to God, and we should act appropriately. The scriptures are sacred, yes; obviously that doesn't mean you can't use them--use the living tar out of them, by all means! But use them appropriately, as something that is dedicated to God. When we talk about our bodies being sacred, again, that doesn't mean there can't be imperfections--that we can't scratch an itch, to use your example. It simply means our bodies are (or OUGHT to be) dedicated to God. And we should use them appropriately. I, personally, interpret this to EXCLUDE 'casual,' 'gratuitous,' 'unnecessary,' as well as graphically sexual, manifestations of nudity. Unless nudity is being used in such a way as to adhere to or promote, or underscore, some Truth (which, by nature, would be adhering to or promoting God and His will), then IMO it isn't appropriate use of something (the body) that is dedicated to God. >If someone happens to see me nude, I won't freak out >and scramble to hide myself like there's something shameful about my >body. There's a big difference between shame and modesty. If someone walks in on me when I'm naked, I won't "freak out" with shame, either. But I will, with some haste, make an effort to preserve my modesty. Again, I agree with you that shame is a bad thing. But so is immodesty. >If my story requires nudity, as with those plays Eric Samuelsen >mentioned, each one of which was an excellent example, I'll put it in. >If it doesn't, I won't. Very good. I feel the same way. I just think there is some discrepency in what constitutes a "requirement." All I'm advocating is a strict, high standard for what can be considered "required" nudity (and therefore, presumably, "appropriate" nudity). Many might argue that nudity is "required" for a sex scene, even when the sex scene is not "required" for moving the plot forward, or developing character, or most importantly, for underscoring that/those truth/truths that are at the heart of the work... >Why is keeping the body permanently covered "appropriate"? Why is that >the form in which we should respect the sacredness of the body? Where >did that rule come from? As far as I can tell from Victorian England, >when they used to dress piano legs for reasons of modesty. Is such >cultural baggage truly of any value? Are you suggesting that clothing originated with Victorian England? That was only a hundred years ago. People have considered a clothed body "appropriate" for much longer than 100 years...Even those supposedly "sexually liberated" Greeks wore clothing. And Biblically, as mentioned previously, there was the Garden of Eden, where God presented Adam and Eve with clothing. And, in fact, it is arguable that Puritan America was more prudish than Victorian England--and predated it by a couple hundred years. I wrote: > > It's a difficult situation, dealing with cultural baggage (both Mormon >and > > American in general), but we need to have some respect for the fact that >the > > baggage exists, not just make attempts to cut ourselves loose from it. D. Michael Martindale responds: >Why? I have little respect for baggage, which to me by definition means >beliefs that have lost touch with their original purpose, but are >preserved whether the result is positive or destructive. I think a large >part of personal growth is cutting ourselves away from baggage and >adopting more truth. I think I do a great disservice to let people >nurture their baggage, although I recognize that great wisdom needs to >be followed in helping people come to recognize baggage as such. Not >everyone is ready to receive all truth. That's why we learn line upon >line. > >But I don't think the answer is to succumb to the status quo. Status quo???? I look around me at what's "out there" in the world, and I have to say that advocating higher standards in the use of nudity, etc., is FAR from advocating the status quo--about as far as you can get, in fact!!! What "status quo," exactly, is being succumbed to? Perhaps you are referring to the status quo of being ashamed of our bodies. If so, I have already acknowledged that we should strive to overcome shame. But in no way, no how, do I think the stance I've taken regarding immorality in art is a stance in favor of the status quo. For that matter, the stance taken by the Church toward these things, though it may be "status quo" for the Church itself, is far from the status quo of the world. It's quite revolutionary, in fact. As for baggage: perhaps the word itself is problematic. I simply meant to suggest that we can't simply cut ourselves off from history and culture. Concerning shame, there is A LOT of history underlying the American (and Mormon) culture that may be guilty of producing feelings of shame about the human body in an individual. I don't think that history can simply be ignored and abandoned. In trying to overcome those aspects of our culture that are undesirable, we need to be respectful of the history that has formed them. By respect, I didn't mean we should "preserve" cultural attitudes, just because they're part of our culture; I just meant, well, _respect_ them, for what they are. We can't get rid of things like shame (or racism, or sexism, etc.) with a wave of some magic wand that detaches us from all that used to be. Instead, we have to acknowledge and accept our past (respect it), while struggling to change the present and future. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:14:19 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > Through the whole movie, religion is criticized. Every religious > character is shown to be either old-fashioned and naive (the guy who > says, "We don't even know if these aliens are moral" is clearly not > well-respected by the movie's other characters), or out-and-out > insane (the religious zealot who blows stuff up, who of course is > from Utah, stereotypical home of religious nuts). You must have been sitting in the cheap seats. Religion per se is not criticized in this film, religious nut cases are. All nut cases, for that matter. Let's not forget the fringe folks who show up in their vans, etc. The substance of religion -- faith -- is ultimately shown to be the only real reality. > When people raise concerns about sending an atheist like Arroway as a > representative of Earth, when an overwhelming majority of Earthlings > believe in God, we are supposed to be on Arroway's side. But I agreed > with everyone else! Arroway SHOULDN'T have been sent! But that's not > how the movie wants us to feel. And Arroway is forever changed in a scene that amounts to a science fictional version of being born again -- when she meets her "father" again. We are shown what real religion is, in the view of the filmmakers: not a particular organization, a proscribed creed, but man's communion with the ineffable. Scott Card does the same thing in his Alvin Maker books. Seemingly making fun of structured religion and lionizing witchcraft, he is actually doing exactly the opposite by showing the man of god as a hypocrite and the people who believe in withcraft as simple, believing people. The message in both the film and Card's book is clear: religion is more than just a set of rules that we blindly follow, but, as it says in the New Testament, we should have the commandments written on "the fleshly tablets of our heart." - -- Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 15:23:32 -0600 From: Mike South Subject: Re: [AML] Good Writing D. Michael Martindale wrote: > Lots of immoral things happen in Shakespeare plays, yet when is the last time > you heard in any LDS venue that we shouldn't be reading or viewing > Shakespeare plays because they're immoral? About 10 years ago I went to see Kenneth Branagh's version of _Henry V_ in the BYU Varsity Theater. At several points throughout the film, the sound dipped whenever an expletive was used. My understanding is that the film used only Shakespeare's text, so someone in charge felt that Shakespeare's language was a bit strong for those of us in attendance. In my opinion, lowering the sound only served to highlight the "offending" words rather than having what I assume was the desired affect: to simply make them vanish. - --Mike South - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:25:05 -0500 From: "Darvell" Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ I'm going to respond to three messages with this one post to save bandwidth. [MOD: Always a good idea!] Eric D. Snider wrote: >But I agreed with everyone else! Arroway SHOULDN'T have been >sent! Ah, but in the book she wasn't the only one who went. There were three or four picked to represent all of earth, and Arroway was sent to represent "her" kind. This difference between the book and the movie also really bothered me. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses..." Ellie was only one witness in the movie. Debbie Brown wrote: >Not having read the book, I don't know one ending from the other. But, >having seen the movie four times now (we own it) I have to say that I >didn't get the sense that it changed ellie's view on God. I could be >wrong, and it could be time to watch it again. I would highly recommend the book, but the first third is difficult to read. I don't really think that Ellie changed much either -- that's the source of much of the conflict and what makes the story so compelling. Ellie is forced to admit that she doesn't have any evidence of her experience and must rely on "faith" when she tells the people back home "what happened." This is VERY difficult for her because she doesn't have faith. Ivan Wolfe wrote: >Plus, the last half of the book deals with the main character finding a >hidden message from God in the numeral Pi. That sounds a bit >religous to me. Yes, and that's a very cool way of Sagan expressing this thought. I expand on this point in my LDS novella "The Fingerprints of God," and even imply that "the fingerprints of God" may also be found in the Mandelbrot set, which is a two dimensional imaginary number equation that produces fractal art. >But while the director may have a added a few things, >he original movie script was written by Carl Sagan (and it included >the "faith" ending in the movie) I did not know that. That really surprises me. I think that Carl Sagan wanted so badly to believe in God, but being a scientist, he couldn't find any evidence to do so. (Hence his theorizing about messages left in the irrational number pi.) If the script was first, I really wonder why he didn't put the "faith twist" at the end of the novel. Very strange. As a little addition to another thread going about Mormon references, in the book, Carl Sagan says that the Mormon Church announced that the alien message from outer space was a second revelation of the Angel Moroni! That was GREAT! It shows he really didn't understand Mormonism, but the humor still works (I THINK he meant it as humor!). Darvell _____________________________________________ Free email with personality! Over 200 domains! http://www.MyOwnEmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:30:08 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Singles in Mormon Lit. On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 12:45:35 -0700 (PDT), Darlene Young wrote: >One of the characters in the book [Eric Samuelsen's _Singled Out_], = April, is an >extremely attractive single woman who chooses an >amazing career opportunity over marriage. I must say >here that the marriage opportunity was definitely not >the best for her and she wasn't even really in love >with the guy, and so her decision was easy and >inevitable. But it started me thinking back to our >conversation about the barriers gifted Mormon women >encounter--barriers that keep them from great artistic >(or other) achievements. Here was a woman who was >absolutely perfect for the job she took, and it was an >important job. She will do great good in that job.=20 >So I ask, was it a GOOD thing that she wasn't truly in >love with the guy and tempted to choose marriage over >the career? I don't know what differences there are between the book and the play = ("The Way We're Wired") but I'm going to assume for the moment that they're essentially the same. I loved April in the play. And I really admired = the conclusion to her story: the job she was offered sounded so great that = for a moment I wished I were taking it! Unfortunately I'd have to go back to school for as long as she did.... But Darlene's question is a good one. = It was easy to accept the choice of career over marriage when it was clear, = as it was in the play, that there was only deep friendship between April and Andy and that Andy's proposal was, if not completely mercenary, its near kin. I wonder how my reaction might have been different if she and Andy = had been deeply in love and she'd chosen this career instead of marriage. (Don't change the play, Eric--it was perfect the way it was.) I'm currently reading F. Carolyn Graglia's book _Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism_, and I'm astonished at how much of what she says might have come straight from my own mouth. The part that's relevant to this post is what she writes about the choice to be a housewife. = Graglia, who practiced law before becoming a full-time mother and housewife (she = uses this despised word frequently), says at one point that women who see = "market work" as peripheral to the reality of home and family life won't think a career is an adequate substitution for that. Since I am admittedly one = of those women, if April had really loved Andy I might have felt = disappointed at her choosing the career--BUT ONLY insofar as I was identifying with = April myself. If I can see elements of myself in a character, I react to her choices as if I were making them. Objectively, however, the way April was portrayed indicated that she = would never be happy with anything other than a great career--or at least would not have been content to settle down to marriage until she'd exhausted = the possibilities of her career first. She might have a few regrets about = not marrying, but she valued the work she was doing more. Contrast April with Sandra, the bossy Type A organizer. She was also a career woman, but she always seemed discontent with her role; she was the one who argued most loudly about how Mormon culture thinks a single woman= is some kind of failure, but her behavior showed that she bought into that = idea herself. She was the only one I felt sorry for at the end of the = play--the only one of the five women whose fate was unsatisfactory to her. She had= a great career, but clearly would have preferred marriage if she could have= it on her own terms; as things stood, she felt safer and more in control = with market work than with the slippery fractal nature of human relationships. >But what I want to know >is: is it logical to conclude that it may be RIGHT for >some women to choose not to marry or not to have >children? Is it possible that greater good can be >done in some circumstances if women choose something >other than the role prescribed for them? > >"Oh," you say, "But there are many women who raise >families AND make a great difference. Look at . . ."=20 >and then we have the list. OK, I'll grant you that.=20 >But I'm just wondering about the possibility of a >woman being told by God not to marry or bear children >because she has another work to do. Can you think of >any instances in LDS literature in which a woman makes >such a choice (besides "Singled Out")? I can't think of any others, but I do think Eric has explored the possibility beautifully in his play (and book). I think God makes all = sorts of things possible that we would like to dismiss as impossible. So yes, = I think I would believe in a female character who had essentially received revelation that she should not marry (with the usual caveat that the character should be REALISTIC in general). If I could write mysteries, I would like to write a series in which the protagonist is a Mormon woman in her late twenties or early thirties who = has never married because she's never felt that any of the proposals she's received were right for her. I would like her to have an older sister, Mycroft to her Holmes, to whom she goes when she needs inspiration or = advice or just comfort. (This is why I think it should be a mystery--and a = series, because when I find characters I like I want to read many of their adventures.) The older sister would be long-married, with several = children (i.e. more than two) and extraordinarily intelligent and widely read, but have never had a career. In short, a housewife. (This is going to be my word for the week. I think it needs to be redeemed from the slag pit = where "Puritan" and "virgin" were consigned years ago.) I like this = combination not just because each character type interests me, but also because the possibility for interaction seems tremendous--each sister has a lot of = room to envy the other. Since I'm a very slow writer and completely = unselfish, I'm offering this idea to anyone who wants it and can make it work. Melissa Proffitt, Experienced Housewife - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:39:07 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Depictions in Movies In Space Jam when all the NBA players lose their basketball abilities, they joke a bit about Shawn Bradley and his mission. (You know they guy--the freakishly tall player who attended BYU for one season before his mission, then went straight to pros?) There's a pretty funny scene with him in therapy, wondering if he should go back on his mission. Annette Lyon ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:32:58 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Nudity D. Michael Martindale wrote: The medium does seem to matter to people, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. What difference does it make if a sculpture, a photograph, or written words place an image of nudity in my mind? The only thing that matters is my reaction to the nudity. I disagree, for one reason: with a sculpture, a painting, or a novel, there are no "real" individuals involved: it's bronze, or oils, or words on a page. But in a movie or a play, there really are naked people touching each other, actors who may well be married to other people, and even if they're not should probably not be doing those things with another person, even "pretend." For me, that fact alone makes the medium of nudity significant. I'm reminded of Michael Douglas's kid's concern about "Basic Instinct" and all the graphic sex scenes in it. (If I remember the story correctly). Apparently Michael Douglas assured his kid that it was just a movie, that he was just acting, but the kid came back with, "Yea, but you were really naked with her." Not that I'm against all nudity in film, but I'm far more sensitive to it, and in a sense, more picky about what I find acceptable than I would than, in say, a sculpture. Annette Lyon ' ________________________________________________________ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:48:15 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: [AML] Blank _BYU Studies_ Well, I made another trip to buy books at DI today. Lots of interesting, arcane stuff. Also the Autumn 1974 issue of BYU Studies. When I got it home, I looked inside. The pages were all blank! I've never seen anything like it before. Anyone know the history of this obvious printer's error? [MOD: Aha! The famous blank edition! No, I just made that up. But it sounds like a great item for one of Ed Snow's columns...] - --------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 22:58:39 EDT From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] MN Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night: Deseret Book Press Release From: Deseret Book Press Release To: Mormon News Subject: MN Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night: Deseret Book Press Release 7Aug00 A3 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:30:00 -0400 [From Mormon-News] Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Utahns will have the unprecedented opportunity to enjoy three favorite performers in residence during one concert event when MICHAEL MCLEAN, LEX DE AZEVEDO and KURT BESTOR share the Kingsbury Hall stage during the Shadow Mountain Showcase 2000 concert scheduled for August 22. Also scheduled to perform is violinist JENNY OAKS BAKER. Earlier this summer, 25-year-old Baker, a Salt Lake City native, won a coveted chair in the violin section of the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington, DC. Her most recent Utah performance was at "An Evening of Celebration" in honor of LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley's ninetieth birthday. The concert is an activity of the LDS Booksellers Association Convention, held annually in Salt Lake City, but a generous number of tickets are being made available to the general public. Says Laurel Christensen of Shadow Mountain, "Our customers are the reason we and our booksellers remain in business. We would never consider producing such a great show without providing them the chance to enjoy it with us." Guests will also be treated to performances from Pearl Award winners Hilary Weeks and Brett Raymond, tenor George Dyer, classical guitarists The Small/Torres Guitar Duo and newcomers soprano Christina England and singer-songwriter Doug Walker. MICHAEL McLEAN is perhaps best known for his Christmas story, The Forgotten Carols, and its accompanying soundtrack, so much so that attending a McLean performance of The Forgotten Carols has become a Christmas tradition for thousands of McLean's fans. He has released 19 other musical albums, while his commercial work has been honored with the advertising industry's prestigious Cleo Award and the Cannes Film Festival's Bronze Lion. While KURT BESTOR is also best known for a series of popular Christmas concerts and for his innovative interpretation of seasonal carols on the albums Kurt Bestor Christmas, Volumes One and Two, his credits include more than 30 film scores and over 40 themes for national TV programs and commercials. Bestor's music has introduced Good Morning America, NFL Monday Night Football, and ABC's Sunday Night Movie. Contemporary classical composer LEX DE AZEVEDO made history in 1999 with the world debut performance of his epic oratorio The Life of Christ: Gloria at the Citadel, Tower of David Museum, within the Old City of Jerusalem. The concert was later televised on Hallmark's cable station, the Odyssey Channel, and Utah's KSL-TV. The soundtrack recordings he has composed for the popular Saturday's Warrior and My Turn on Earth have both been certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America, indicating sales in excess of 500,000 copies each. All three headliners will release albums through Shadow Mountain within the next 12 months: Michael Sings McLean, by Michael McLean; The Life of Christ: Hosanna, by Lex de Azevedo; and Lamb of God, Motion Picture Soundtrack, by Kurt Bestor. Shadow Mountain Showcase 2000 begins at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 22 at Kingsbury Hall on the University of Utah campus. Tickets are $15 and $12, and may be purchased at the Kingsbury Hall box office and at all Art Tix outlets (801-355-ARTS). For more information, please call 801-517-3300. ### Source: Utah's Stars Shine Bright, Only for One Night Deseret Book Press Release 7Aug00 A3 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:46:51 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Contact_ "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > So the movie goes along in this vein for two hours -- belittling > religion, showing religious people to be pitiable, misguided souls -- > and then suddenly changes. In the final 10 minutes, we get this > twist: That believing in science requires the same sort of blind > faith that has been mocked by everyone for 120 minutes! Ho-ho, > imagine the wackiness! I see it differently. Ellie is our point of view character, so the movie presents religion to us filtered through her. _She_ sees religious people as whacky. _She_ sees only two possibilities for the universe: a God who is invisible, or no God. _She_ thinks the question of belief in God is irrelevant in choosing Earth's representative. Then she experiences an epiphany that makes her understand what religious people have been talking about all along when they talk about faith. Whether she ever becomes converted to a belief in God or not, she at least now understands the religious mindset and respects it more. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #128 ******************************