From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #155 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 Tuesday, September 19 2000 Volume 01 : Number 155 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:22:30 -0500 From: "Todd Robert Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art [MOD: I'd like to insert a request that in going forward with this thread, we all turn away from the "what-I-said/what-you-said" dimension of the discussion, and instead focus on presenting our own thoughts as clearly as we can. There are some good things being said here, but I sense that we're running the risk of having the discussion's value disrupted by animosity.] D. Michael Martindale wrote: > You say I accused you of one extreme. Then you accuse me of > the other extreme. I was just looking at your words, which said: a. "Last time I checked, life was for being happy, not denying ourselves everything that could possibly be enjoyable." I was and am a little concerned that you said "everything," which is why I included my aside about drugs and pornography. You did make some correcctions in your last post on this topic, saying that we ought to choos= e wisely, and so forth, which are important provisions to make. Going for all possible enjoyment really is hedonism, and we know what the church position on that is. Going for some enjoyment, doing one's work and one's duty is also important. Some good things, in fact, many good things, are not immediately "enjoyable." I think it's important to draw some distinctions. b) You indicated that my position, as you characterized it, was an "old apostate notion." You decided the extremity of my position even before I articulated it. The reason that this happens is, I think, because of knee-jerk reactions simila= r to the pro- and anti-NEA arguments. It's the old slippery slope: if one puts forth the position that artists ought to be responsible and ethical, then we're just a few steps away from dictating what they ought to be doing= . At no point have I suggested that the best course is to deny everything, only that LDS artists, like everyone else--for we aren't exempted by virtue of our pursuits--must keep the gospel in the picture, which might mean, at certain times, not writing, painting, composing, etc, in order to home/visi= t teach, care for the sick, bear one another's burdens, do temple work, and s= o forth. LDS artists will, of course, be different kinds of artists by virtue of the demands of our faith. We can't hole up and write for forty days and forty nights, because we have duties to our spritiual communities that we must fulfill. It is the fact that I can't have it both ways all the time that gives me pause as a writer. At times I feel like the young man of the parables who came to Christ asking, "What one thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" When Christ outlines the commandments to him, he says he's done them his whole life. Christ then tells him--and you know the rest--to sell everything giv= e it to the poor and follow him. What gets me all the time is what follows: the fact that the young man left in sorrow. Imagine that an artist had the same conversation with Christ: if you want t= o seek perfection, give up your art and follow me. We tend to value art over material wealth, which we should do if it really is more than this "self-amusement" I've been talking about. But the question I am constantly in battle with is "what if I should have to give u= p writing at God's request." God trumped President Hinkley's desires to go t= o Columbia Journalism School, why not my writing career? But back to my own defense: Me: >> Self-amusement is merely killing some time, like most television watchin= g, >> like most video game playing, like most of the attention paid to sportin= g >> events, like most of the pulp writing that passes for art (or tries to >> assert itself as such). Martindale: > Again, to suggest we can never do these things, as it seems like you're > doing, strikes me as an extreme. It would be foolish to kill a lot of > time, but humans need moments of relaxation that serve no other purpose > than to "kill time" in an eternal sense. If you'll notice, I used the qualifier, "most" here in each case. The repetition of which I thought might curb potential responses that I was suggesting that we should never seek to amuse ourselves. Perhaps that did not work. > You seem to be stoically denying any pleasure that doesn't have a direct > connection to the Gospel, including art. > Why isn't art as noble as any other profession? Art can be noble, but it is not automatically such. An artist has to make it that way. And surely there is not one way to do it, but there are a couple of easy ways to keep art from being noble: 1) Become solipsistic and self-indulgent. This does happen (i.e. Pound, To= m Robbins, and others) This happens when artists lock themselves up inside themselves and give no care for their social world. 2) Say that you're making art for the sake of making art. Walter Benjamin is much more eloquent on this subject than I, so I refer interested parties to his essay "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Just as lawyering can be, but is not necessarily, a virtuous profession, artists can be, but aren't always, decadent. Just because the Conservative Right sometimes uses the word, "decadent" doesn't mean it's not a sometimes useful or accurate term. I shall perorate with a lengthy quotation from John Ruskin. It's connectio= n to the above is dubious, but humor me: "And you must remember always that your business, as manufacturers, is to form the market, as much as to supply it. If, in short-sighted and reckles= s eagerness for wealth, you catch at every humour of the populace as it shape= s itself into momentary demand=8B-if, in jealous rivalry with neighbouring States, or with other producers, you try to attract attention by singularities, novelties, and gaudinesses-=8Bto make every design an advertisement, and pilfer every idea of a successful neighbour's, that you may insidiously imitate it, or pompously eclipse-=8Bno good design will ever be possible to you, or perceived by you. You may, by accident, snatch the market; or, by energy, command it; you may obtain the confidence of the public, and cause the ruin of opponent houses; or you may, with equal justice of fortune, be ruined by them. But whatever happens to you, this, at least, is certain, that the whole of your life will have been spent in corrupting public taste and encouraging public extravagance. Every preference you have won by gaudiness must have been based on the purchaser'= s vanity; every demand you have created by novelty has fostered in the consumer a habit of discontent; and when you retire into inactive life, you may, as a subject of consolation for your declining years, reflect that precisely according to the extent of your past operations, your life has been successful in retarding the arts, tarnishing the virtues, and confusin= g the manners of your country." =8BJohn Ruskin, from a speech delivered at the Mechanics' Institute in March ,1859, and later published in The Two Paths I think the same is true of artists, particularly LDS ones. [Todd Robert Petersen] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:33:30 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Review Archive Update Richard Johnson wrote: > > At 10:57 AM 9/12/2000 -0600, you wrote: > >New reviews added to the archive: > > > Checking the archives I found two that I could remember writing which were > not listed. The first:_ "something" re The Blood Tribunal_ I have not yet > found in my own archives. The second was a review of _The Gathering_. I > have found it in my zip drive, and am sending it for archival purposes. If > I have received a "free" book, I feel that the publisher deserves his (or > her) money's worth. > > Review, _The Gathering: Mormon Pioneers on the Trail to Zion_ by Maurine > Jensen Proctor and Scot Facer Proctor. 1996 Deseret Book Company. 226 > paged, $ 49.95. Your review of _The Gathering_ appears in the archive as review 93. You can read the review at http://www.xmission.com/~aml/reviews/b/B199652.html. So far, I have not been able to locate a review of _Before the Blood Tribunal,_ and I have searched though the entire archive of the AML-List (60MB of files). If you can find an archived copy of the review, please post it here. - -- Terry Jeffress AML-List Review Archivist - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:57:59 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art > > Does He wants us to be healthy only for the sake of being healthy or is >so > > that we can participate in the gospel plan at a higher level? > >Why wouldn't he want us to be healthy for the sake of being healthy? >Does he wish those who are not participating in the Gospel to be sick? You make a leap here that doesn't follow logically: just because God may want us to be healthy for gospel-related reasons and not just for health's sake does not mean (or even imply) that he wants those "not participating in the gospel" to be sick. The fact is, everyone is participating in the gospel--some more than others, some participating in it if only to work against it, etc. The reasons for being healthy are none if they are not gospel related: 1) we should strive for good health because our bodies are gifts from God that ought to be treated as such; 2) our bodies are temples to house our spirits and the Spirit of God; and 3) by being healthy, as Todd points out, we are more capable of participating, physically (and spiritually), more fully in the gospel. And I'm sure there are other reasons, too. Bottom line: to God, "ALL things are spiritual" (i.e. ALL things are gospel related). > > > The best things in this life have some kind of virtuous goal > > behind them, or rather at their end. > >This is sounding like the extreme to me again. I do believe there are >things worth doing simply for their own innate goodness or pleasure, and >that we are not going against any Gospel directive if we indulge in them >wisely. Why resist an extreme commitment to the gospel? I think a great deal of good is left undone by most Mormons (including myself) because of a fear of appearing "too extreme." And I'd like to hear what there is out there that has this "innate goodness" Michael is talking about. The way I see it, there are VERY few things out there that are innately good; just about everything can be used either for good or for evil. > > Self-amusement is merely killing some time, like most television >watching, > > like most video game playing, like most of the attention paid to >sporting > > events, like most of the pulp writing that passes for art (or tries to > > assert itself as such). > >Again, to suggest we can never do these things, as it seems like you're >doing, strikes me as an extreme. It would be foolish to kill a lot of >time, but humans need moments of relaxation that serve no other purpose >than to "kill time" in an eternal sense. Says who? Where, exactly, is it written that humans *need* to kill time? I can point to a good number of places where precisely the opposite is written: "do not procrastinate the day of repentence," and so on. And I don't think Todd is suggesting "we can never do these things"--I think he's trying to suggest that we ought to reexamine how we spend our time, and whether our pursuits are rightly guided and worthy of the time spent. Show me a television show (on regular TV) that brings us closer to God, or involves us more fully in the gospel. Wouldn't that time be better spent reading the scriptures, or serving someone else? This doesn't mean the act of watching TV *can't* be used for good--I will watch TV with my kids and hold them and talk with them about what we're watching, and I believe we're using the act for good, as time spent building familial relationships, learning, etc. But I will also "kill" three hours watching a football game once in a while, when my wife could use more help around the house, or I could be doing something much more productive... >I haven't been picking up on that description. You seem to be stoically >denying any pleasure that doesn't have a direct connection to the >Gospel, including art. I think this is the main problem. Michael is resisting Todd's assertions because he interprets them as suggesting that the pursuit of art is merely self-amusement, and that perhaps the pursuit of art is time poorly spent because it is not related directly to the gospel. But I think, again, that most things can be used either for good or for evil, including art. I think the spirit of Todd's comments (that I agree with) is that we need to reexamine our pursuits. WHY "do" art? Personally, I believe the only real God-like trait that we have as humans is the ability to create. (All the other God-like traits are there, but they require constant maintenance and improvement, whereas we can create at the drop of a hat, with hardly any effort. Think about it: how hard is it for two teens to make a baby?) This God-like trait is a sacred thing (hence, the law of chastity, etc.), and ought to be treasured, revered, guarded...and pursued. In addition to "making babies", the ability to create includes the gift of language, which is itself an act of creation. Every word we utter is the creation of meaning, the creation of relationships, the creation of the Self and the Other, the creation of worlds. God himself created the world through language (he spoke and it was so), and we have that same ability (our language is our world, our reality). I see the pursuit of art as the pursuit of this creative ability--the endeavor to improve it, to explore it, to master it--and I believe that if the pursuit of art is undertaken in this way, with this sort of regard/reverence for it, and if the act of pursuit is used for good and not for evil, then it is in fact a pursuit worthy of our time. If, however, we abuse this gift--if we use it for evil, or without regard for its God-like nature, or if our pursuit of one kind of creation detracts from our creative efforts in other areas (family, friends, etc.)--then it can become a mere distraction, a digression, and it loses its gospel-relatedness. And this is not a good thing. >Some on the list have expressed guilt over using >time to develop their artistic talents, because it's such a waste of >time? self-indulgent?--I don't know what to put there, because the >concept is foreign to me. Why isn't art as noble as any other >profession? It IS as noble as any other profession. But I think Todd would probably agree that no other profession is exempt from the challenges he poses to the profession of art. IOW, every profession can prove itself worthy or not worthy of our time and pursuit. And WE are the ones who do the proving. Being a doctor is a noble profession that might be more readily seen as gospel related than art--you're helping others, right? You're healing, serving, etc. But don't suppose for a minute that it isn't possible to turn the medical profession into an unworthy pursuit. Many doctors get so wrapped up in their professions that they neglect family, church, etc.; and others go so far as to turn the profession itself into that which fights directly against the gospel (abortion clinics come to mind). I think Todd is simply saying (and I apologize for continually interpreting--Todd, if you disagree with what I'm attributing to you, please speak up) that we need to be extra careful that we don't become THAT doctor. If art becomes little more than self-amusement, it ceases to be the worthy pursuit or noble profession that Michael (and most of us) believes it to be. God didn't create the world for self-amusement. Jason (from the soap-box, now stepping down) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:13:16 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: RE: [AML] Moral Issues in Art > > Do we eat only because things taste good? Do we make love only because >it > > feels good? Do we have children only to ensure the survival of > > the species? > > No, we do not. The best things in this life have some kind of > > virtuous goal > > behind them, or rather at their end. > >Why do we make love? Only because it feels good? I think that is reason >enough! Yes, it feels good, it allows us to understand the joy that God >wishes for us, the joy that we were sent here to learn about. "The best >things in life have some kind of virtuous goal . . . at their end." I >would >describe the virtuous goal at the end as allowing us to experience the >Universal Yes! I guess we could tack onto it the virtuous goal of giving >our mate happiness. I guess we could tack on the virtuous goal of keeping >the family together. But these are the tacked-on goals. Why do we have >such a hard time believing that God may want us to enjoy things--smell, >taste, physical sensation? When I got married I was advised by various >well-meaning church members that sex should be restricted to producing >children. Early church leaders made comments along those lines--we seem to >carry a lingering distrust of our bodies. Now the church says sex in >marriage is for expressing love, finding mutual joy and satisfaction. Personally, I half-agree, half-disagree with you. I think sex IS for expressing love and finding mutual joy and satisfaction. More to the point, I believe its purpose is for the husband and the wife to become *one*. IOW, I don't agree that the purpose of sex is *merely* expressing love and enjoying physical sensation. I agree that God wants us to find joy in physical sensations--I do NOT agree that the joy we may find in them is the end he has in mind. IOW, the joy we feel has a higher purpose, beyond itself. "Men are that they might have joy," but the only true joy will come from realizing our potential, and our potential is to become gods ourselves; thus, we are that we might become gods. The joy we feel along the way ought to propel us toward that goal. So, I disagree with the implication that sex ought to be enjoyed *simply* because it feels good. True joy comes from the realization that there is more to it than that. It is the literal union of two people. We cannot become gods without that union ("neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man"). Thus, it is the momentary experience of something like godhood. I agree that sex is not just for having babies. But I disagree that "because it feels good" is "reason enough". Having sex just because it feels good is what the world does. We shouldn't reduce it to that. Jason (again, from the soap-box, now stepping down) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:26:13 -0600 From: Jacob Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Moral Issues in Art On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:29:37 -0500, Todd Robert Petersen wrote: >Self-amusement is merely killing some time, like most television = watching, >like most video game playing, like most of the attention paid to = sporting >events, like most of the pulp writing that passes for art (or tries to >assert itself as such). I'm sorry, but I'm going to object strongly to this one. I do all of the above. I watch television. I play video games. I watch very little sports, actually (and after watching BYU play MSU, I'll probably watch less...). And I indulge in many books that are most accurately referred = to as pulp (Anyone here ever heard of the Destroyer series?). In fact, not = a day goes by when I don't spend at least three hours indulging in at least one of the above. I'm probably a little sensitive to such comments because similar = sentiments have been used before in condemnation of my activities, and by inference,= in condemnation of me. Many members consider any activity that is not = directly self-improving or gospel-related as a sin. They put a terrible pressure = on our time that is unnatural and serves only to increase the guilt we will feel when we find that we cannot achieve this supposed ideal. I was once engaged to such a person. We thought we had a lot in common. She said, for example, that she loved to read. Well, so do I. Only, I = came to learn that when she said she loved to read, she meant only those books that are directly gospel related or dedicated to improving yourself. In fact, she deeply resented any time I spent reading 'recreational' literature. Life requires play. It is not the point in life to be driven to always perform at optimal levels. Our life is a stewardship. We have to = regulate our activities in order to best follow God's plan. A part of that plan = is to be happy. Not feel pleasure, that's not the point, and you know I'm = not saying that. But being happy can and should include times when we are = not productionally optimized. Additionally, there is some indication that = time spent in play helps us to achieve better results once we *do* turn our efforts towards more serious endeavors. I really like Brigham Young's advice on the matter. Unfortunately, I = cannot locate the original source. But the two secondary sources I found both emphasize that Brigham Young felt that eight hours of each day should = have stress-relief as it's aim. in Brigham Young: A Personal Portrait/Chapter Sixteen: Brigham Young at Home: "Brigham enjoyed entertainment and believed in the pattern of = eight hours to work, eight hours to rest, eight hours to relax from the = stresses and strains of the day." in Gospel Library/The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation/Chapter 17: "Prudence and Thanksgiving" Brigham Young's division of the twenty-four hours is fair and moderate: Eight hours for work; eight hours for recreation, including eating, light home duties, Church activities and actual play; and eight hours for = sleep. These things sound suspiciously like self-amusement to me. I'll go even further and say that not everyone is amused in the same way.= I like playing video games. I keep waiting to outgrow my gaming = tendencies, but I'm 31 now and it doesn't seem to be on the agenda. I spend some = time most days dedicated to play and/or stress relief in the form of video = games. And I'm going to go ahead and be presumptuous and tell you that my relationship to God and the gospel is doing fine. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:14:55 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] 90s Mormon plays > Bronson, Scott. "Quietus & Other Stories". BYU, 1996. Orson Scott > Card stories. > "Confessions", Wasatch Review International, 1994. > "Alters". Sunstone, Sept. 1997. Abraham and Isaac. One act. These were short plays -- so-called "ten minute plays" -- but since you included Marianne's ("Hold Me". One-act performed at the 1999 Mormon Arts Festival), I thought you might like to include these as well: Bronson, J. Scott. "Fata Morgana". A one-act play produced at BYU in association with the Mormon Arts Festival, 1998 - -----, "On the Romance of a Dying Child", A one-act play produced at Utah Valley State College as part of the first annual 10 Minute Play Festival, 2000 There were other plays produced at both festivals but -- stupid me -- I don't have programs for either one. I do know that the playwrights on the program for the Mormon Arts Festival were folks like Eric Samuelsen, Tim Slover, Robert Paxton, Char Nelson, Marianne, me and I can't remember who else, and I don't remember the titles of any of those plays. Sorry. > LaBute, Neil. > "Men of God". 199?, BYU. Directed by Scot Bronson. It was actually 1987. It was a play work shopped at BYU (PDA) about a group of businessmen who decided that there was good money to be had in religion so they started a church. Just as profits began to dip one of the men (the one that had been chosen to be the figurehead of the church) started to develop a conscience and wanted to come clean with the public about their fraudulent religion. The others had done a market study and determined that profits would rise again if they martyred their figurehead. So, they killed him and the church flourished. It was a dark little fable. J. Scott Bronson--The Scotted Line "World peace begins in my home" - -------------------------------------------------------- We are not the acolytes of an abstruse god. We are here to entertain--Keith Lockhart - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:33:00 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] 90s Mormon plays Andrew Hall wrote: > I was planning on limiting it to plays that have been produced > and/or published, but I have let a few slip through that have just had > public readings, say at a Sunstone symposium or Mormon Arts Festival. You'll want to include this, then: Duncan, Thom. "Survival of the Fittest." Sunstone Symposium (reading). 1997. Mormon Arts Festival (reading) 1997. > MUSICALS > And for this, I offer the following emendations: (No "the" in front of "Prophet" and the exact date it was performed at BYU.) > > Duncan, Thom. "Prophet", 1999, SCERA. Music by Mark Steven Gelter. > Update of a version done at BYU in 1973. Thom Duncan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:40:27 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] MN LDS Church Will Keep Promised Valley Playhouse, Will Become Shops, Offices: Salt Lake Tribune Larry Jackson wrote: > From: Rosemary Pollock > To: Mormon News > Subject: MN LDS Church Will Keep Promised Valley Playhouse, Will Become > Shops, Offices: Salt Lake Tribune 13Sep00 A1 > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:20:00 -0400 > > [From Mormon-News] > > LDS Church Will Keep Promised Valley Playhouse, Will Become Shops, > Offices If I were a drinking man, this headline alone would be cause me to go get sloshed. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:38:14 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] AML Writer's Conference: Announcement Subject: Re: [AML] LABUTE, _Bash_ Tony Markham wrote: > While it is always a risky business to impute intentions to an author, I think one of the things Neil attempts, consistently, is to teach by negative example. I think so too, and I think that's a valid form of art and of teaching, but a dangerous one that can easily be misunderstood. If there was ever a time for the artist to weigh pros and cons, gains and costs, it's when this form of teaching is employed. > [_Bash_] will offend many and probably send the wrong message about Mormons to others, but there is a narrow > spectrum of audience who will blink, shiver, and say, "A Mormon wrote -that-? Holy Moley!" And my response still is, is that narrow spectrum of audience worth the price of the offense and wrong message sent to the broad audience? I think a Mormon writing a strongly anti-homophobic play like the first part of _Bash_ in and of itself will cause the blinking and shivering and amazement that a Mormon wrote it, without the reinforcement of the stereotype that Mormons generally are homophobic. If the play had been targeted toward a largely Mormon audience, I would feel completely different. But it was targeted primarily toward an audience that already thinks homophobia is bad and that religious people are the main perpetrators of it. What part of the New York or Showtime audience needs to learn that being a priesthood holder and a gay-basher are incompatible? The message fell upon ears that had no use for it. LaBute's criticisms of Mormon culture are being done in poor taste--with poor manners. I guess it's a don't-display-your-dirty-laundry-in-public thing. I don't criticize my wife in front of strangers, and I guess I think LaBute is being rude by criticizing us before strangers. If he did in in a venue that would reach more Mormons, my attitude would turn 180 degrees. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] AML Announcements That was tongue-in-cheek I hope you guessed. I think for a real answer = ask our next AML President, Cherry Silver, cbsilver@worldnet.att.net. She= is so very helpful, and we are very lucky! Thanks! Marilyn - ---------- > It is a non-profit foundation in which everyone in it is required to = have silver > hair. And you can't say anything else about it. Luv, Me. (I'm IN) > > ---------- > > Marilyn, > > > > Just curious, what is the Silver Foundation? > > > > Dallas Robbins > > > - > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:24:57 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] VAN WAGONER, _Dancing Naked_ (Review) [MOD: Please be advised that this review speaks frankly about sexual situations that arise in the book.] Van Wagoner, Robert Hodgson. _Dancing Naked._ Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999. Hardcover, 364pp. ISBN 1-56085-130-9. Suggested retail price $20.95. After reading Marion Smith's _Riptide_ and Robert Van Wagoner's _Dancing Naked_ you might think that modern Mormon fiction from Signature Books must follow a formula. In the first chapter a character dies. The subsequent chapters use the death as a pivot point, delivering in parallel the past events that led up to the death and the development of the protagonist's emotional state in the present. In the final chapter, the protagonist comes to an emotional denouement, a reconciliation with the the death. Fortunately, even with the similar plot structure, Van Wagoner provides a far more satisfying experience. _Dancing Naked_ starts with Terry Walker, a University of Utah math professor, coming home to find his fifteen-year-old son, Blake, hanging by a belt from the shower-curtain rod. The coroner lists Blake's death as an autoerotic asphyxiation -- a technical way of saying that Blake accidently hanged himself while simultaneously masturbating and choking himself. While the medical examiner explains his conclusions, Terry repeatedly insists that his son isn't queer. Often Terry's responses to situations such as these seem too extreme, but Van Wagoner, over time, builds a fairly thorough and convincing psychological profile for Terry. For example, Terry's extreme homophobic response become clearer once you read the the intertwined story about five-year-old Terry. Terry's father caught Terry examining an erection while bathing. His father toted naked Terry off to the basement workshop and started to lecture: "Only homoes play with their own dicks!" he hissed at Terry. "Fairies and sissies! Believe me, boy, there's no place for such in God's or this man's kingdom!" He gave the child's wilting penis a tug. Terry knew from the look on Father's face that whatever homoes and sissies and fairies were, to be one was as bad as it got. (32) And that just begins to explain Terry's multiple personality complexes. Even before losing his son, Terry dealt with a slew of problems. Terry's father served in the navy during World War II, and Terry turned five before he met his father. As a child, Terry desperately tried to please his father, but Terry alway failed: Terry refused to go on a Mormon mission, couldn't serve in the military because of abnormal bowel physiology, and married a non-member. Terry also worries constantly, usually in spite of evidence to the contrary. For example, Terry worries about spending money even though he has a huge savings account. Ultimately, Terry wants to live in a stable an controlled environment of his own making, but he must come to accept that he cannot control others or even certain aspects of himself. The title "Dancing Naked" refers to several aspects of the story line. Explicitly, it refers to the peak of Terry's happiness. At one point just after Terry delivered his Master's thesis, he felt unburdened from worry and he took his wife, Rayne, on a spontaneous vacation to the coast of Maine. There in a private bungalow, Rayne dances naked on the deck: Rayne's wild motions tempered, became smooth and constant like the ocean behind her. She seemed not Terry's wife, but a ghost, a specter of fundamental form and energy. Watching her placed Terry on the edge, almost within reach of an equation universally profound, a new Law of Relativity. A seduction was in progress. She offered him serenity and security -- things more alluring than her body. Like her clothing, she had stripped away the superfluities, the conveniences she might at other times offer. What remained was a denser substance, like dark marble. Rayne was outside and Terry was inside and she was inviting him into her world. (212) "Dancing naked" also describes the pivotal event that starts Terry's descent to his lowest emotional point, when Terry finds Blake. He knows now what has happened -- and he's determined to save his boy before it's too late. He . . . begins pulling on his son. He lifts Blake to relieve the pressure from his neck, to allow him to breathe. Terry wonders, with strange clarity, why he insisted on installing the finest of shower curtain rods, the strongest, the one that wouldn't break or tear free if, say, a mischievous teenager were to swing on it. (18) Blake's death causes such a shock to Terry and the other characters that they can no longer maintain their typical emotional distance from each other. Thus, "dancing naked" implicitly refers to the dance between the characters as they deal with each other's naked emotions. Van Wagoner so successfully portrays both the history of Terry's emotional state and his interaction with the other characters in the present, that he has created a psychological novel that resonates as deeply as Dostoyevsky's _Crime and Punishment_ yet deals with modern issues such as the effects of generational prejudice. - -- Terry Jeffress - - 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 #155 ******************************