From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #291 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, April 2 2001 Volume 01 : Number 291 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:58:11 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors I appreciate the difficulties that have been raised about labeling and the problems thereof. But I think the situation is more complex than that. It affects at least three different Irreantum contexts (and more departments): * Interviews * Published poetry, fiction, drama, and personal essays (in the biographical blurbs) * Book reviews, selected recent releases, and Mormon literary scene announcements Generally speaking, Irreantum interviews either directly address the question of the interviewee's relationship to the Church or it comes out pretty clearly in context, and I think that's appropriate. After all, isn't one of the big Irreantum questions how Mormonism affects a creative artist's work? I can't really imagine an Irreantum interview that's really complete for inclusion in the magazine that doesn't make that clear. (And in the event that an Irreantum interview were to be with a completely non-Mormon literary figure--say, Tony Kushner--I would expect the intro blurb to make it clear that this was a non-Mormon who was being interviewed for _Irreantum_ because he/she had written important work that touches on Mormonism.) I don't know if Irreantum has published creative works by non-Mormons, but again, I can imagine it happening in some circumstances. In those cases, I think it might be appropriate to mention the person's non-Mormonness in the biographical blurb at the end of the poem/story/etc. Overall, I think the line I would take here--both with Mormons and with non-Mormons--would be to ask them if they want to include anything about their self-identification as a Mormon in their blurb, and then follow whatever lead they wanted to take. In some cases, I presume that would mean there was some mention of their Church membership and activity; in other cases, not. I'd say that's the prerogative of the author, and a courtesy that Irreantum owes to the authors they are publishing to defer to their wishes in that regard. The last category is probably the trickiest. In the case of Mormon literary scene, since Irreantum publishes both news about Mormons and news about non-Mormons who are doing things that affect the Mormon literary scene, membership information--and sometimes status--is part of the news, part of the story that's being told. For example (to cite cases in the latest Irreantum): without that label of "LDS animator," I know of no reason why I should care about Don Bluth's recent Dublin profile. Similarly, I think it would enhance the coverage of Marion Smith's novel _Riptide_ to know whether she is Mormon or not, and how she identifies herself in that regard. Similarly, in the case of books that are being reviewed or their release being announced, it's part of the news--part of the story--to know whether an author is Mormon, non-Mormon, anti-Mormon, was raised Mormon (e.g., Zenna Henderson) but doesn't claim that identification anymore, etc.--particularly if the subject matter is Mormon. We can't expect that every Irreantum reader will already know all the "familiar names"--unless we're content to publish only for a fairly narrow group and not reach out and try to educate outside the Mormon literary community's existing inner circle--and will know (for example) that Gerald and Sandra Tanner are prominent anti-Mormons. A label is part of the story. (I also recognize that there's a difference between labeling someone simply as "Mormon" or "non-Mormon" and going further, into gradations of Mormonness. But that binary classification system doesn't work, in many instances. Doesn't mesh with how the person describes himself or herself, or with the stance that the person takes within a community. And so, in some cases at least, it's necessary to go simply beyond Mormon and non-Mormon in order to tell the story.) I think it's important to defer whenever possible to a person's self-identification. That is, if someone calls himself/herself a "former Mormon" or a "cultural Mormon" or a "believing Mormon" or simply a "Mormon," that's a label we should respect, unless there's strong reason for doing otherwise. There's also the matter of public identification: how someone is viewed within the community is part of the news, and in this department, at least, Irreantum is a news magazine. If George P. Lee were to write a book and the news were to be included in _Irreantum_, his public background in the LDS Church would be part of the story--and, I think, it would have to be included, if that's a story the magazine wants to tell at all. That said, I recognize that the practice is fraught with peril. There's the danger--almost the certainty--of inconsistency; there's the horrible--and perhaps eventually inevitable--possibility of attaching a label that is incorrect and with which the person in question would choose not to identify himself/herself. Unfortunately, I think that comes with the territory of choosing to publish a news magazine--which, in part, is what Irreantum is. The only real solution--and it's only a partial one--that I can think of is to exercise care, and try to be consistent, and make every effort to defer to the artist's own self-identification unless there is very strong cause not to do so. And if Irreantum makes a mistake or offends someone, give the author the opportunity to point it out in a letter to the editor section, with apologies from the editorial staff as needed. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:58:24 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] B.J. ROWLEY, _My Body Fell Off!_ (Review) Not having read the book...still I think I have to stick up for Jeff Needle's basic concern. First, though, a few caveats: Yes, I'm a science fiction and fantasy buff--have been for years. And there are lots of things I find perfectly acceptable as premises in science fiction and fantasy that I don't think happen in real life, or that if they did happen I would find deeply frightening. As for myself, I think the jury is still out on telepathy and such--whether they exist at all, or if so as natural abilities that only a few people can imperfectly tap, or only as gifts of the Spirit, etc. I think there's sometimes too much concern about satanism and the occult in some segments of both Mormon and conservative Christian communities. I recall hearing a television interview with someone (in Utah, if I recall correctly) who claimed that anyone who dressed in black was a satan-worshipper. Oh, yes, and that the rainbow is an infallible sign of satanism and the occult. It made me wonder what he thought about God putting the rainbow in the sky in the story of Noah... I think that sometimes we give the dark side (to use Star Wars terminology) both too much credit and too much power by paying too much attention to its extravagant claims. Note that this is not because I don't believe the dark side exists. Rather, I think that we give it power by the amount and type of attention we pay to it. At the same time... There has been a significant upswing in the occult in the United States in recent years, I think. There is something deeply entrancing about the idea of personal powers, beyond the reach of most ordinary humans, which increase the range and scope of our abilities. Much of the best science fiction and fantasy is about the exploration of that kind of power--its effects and the morality of its use. (I cite as examples the psychic powers in Card's _The Worthing Chronicle_ and the Ring in Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_.) Adolescents, in particular--partly because they are in the middle of exploring issues of personal power--are often enthralled by the vicarious exercise of extraordinary abilities that fantasy affords. Fantasy literature is a great place to explore the implications of such power. When it comes to following such abilities out of the realm of literature and into the realm of real life, however, I think there is great cause for caution. I don't have any concern about Thom Duncan going out and trying out-of-body experiments. I don't have any real concern about bona fide Buddhist monks doing so. I do have concern about teenage kids getting together and trying out things that I think can be remarkably dangerous--because they don't know what they're doing, and because I think a great deal of adult skepticism is needed here--something many kids don't possess. There's a reason, I think, why Church leaders have counseled against the occult--and I think it has to do with opening oneself up to certain types of influences, *whether or not* telepathy and such really exist, and whether or not they are inherently evil (which, if they do exist, I very much doubt that they are--inherently evil, that is). If you honestly believe that you're getting inside someone else's head, and someone else is getting inside yours--or that you're projecting your mind outside your body--doesn't it follow that you ought to exercise great care in what influences you open yourself up to, what minds you enter, and what realms? I think there's a great deal of potential for deception--both self-deception and deception on the part of others--when one starts trying to practice such things in real life. If those abilities do exist, I'd say they're a pretty potent thing--and we ought not to be blithe about how and whether our kids are going to go experimenting in those realms. At least one respondent to Jeff said something about kids being able to tell the difference between fiction and real life. On the whole, I agree with that. But this is one area where there's great difference of opinion about what is real life. Apparently, Brent Rowley argues that what he's talking about isn't just confined to the realms of fiction. And lots of other people feel that way as well. As a reader of fantasy literature, something that saddened me in the late 1980s and into the 1990s was what I saw as the burgeoning number of fantasy fans who took magic seriously, and attempted to practice it in life, and saw (coopted?) fantasy literature as a literature that celebrated their interest in the occult. To some degree, I think this was connected to the rise of new age beliefs and neo-paganism as a significant cultural influence in the United States--which they are. Indeed, I think that for many youth, neo-paganism, Wiccan, and the like are serious competitors for their religious allegiance, just as Mormonism, Catholicism, and more traditional religions are. I don't find this particularly shocking and horrible (I have relatives who are Baptists and relatives who are Wiccans, and I have amiable relations and mostly avoid discussing religion with both)--but seeing telepathy and such as part of a belief system changes the way I think about them. It was about the time I realized this (not coincidentally, about the time I moved from Utah to southern California) that I sadly put my "Born-Again Druid" button--which I had worn with great enjoyment at BYU--into a drawer and stopped wearing it: because I realized that rather than simply expressing an esthetic appreciation of trees, I was wearing something that could be taken as a declaration of belief. I know that the effects of literature on real life is an area where Thom and I, for example, are simply never going to agree. And I think that for many fantasy fans, there's an assumption of unreality we bring to what we read that makes it highly unlikely that having read about a magic spell in a story, we'll say, "Wow, I want to go try that out and see if it works." But that boundary isn't there for everyone, even in the fantasy community. And so I think it's legitimate to ask the question--what the real-life effects of a particular approach to psychic abilities, out-of-body experiences, etc., in fiction will be on its readers--particularly when the fiction is written for a "young adult" (teenage) audience; particularly when coupled, as it apparently is in this book, by a declaration that what is being described is *not* simply fantasy but part of reality as well. I'm not saying that I know what the answer to the question is. But I vote with Jeff that the question is worth asking. Long-windedly yours, Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:03:47 -0700 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Tom WOLFE, "My Three Stooges" (Essay) I just finished reading what I found to be a tremendously interesting and = provocative essay on the nature of writing, which I'd like to recommend to = everyone. I'm a big Tom Wolfe fan. I think The Right Stuff is one of the most = brilliant dissections of a particular time and place I've ever read, and = I'm on record as absolutely loving A Man in Full. He has a new collection = of esoterica out, a collection called Hooking Up, and it's a pretty uneven = mess. Some of the essays are very interesting, others are not up to = Wolfe's usual standard. There's a novella, which isn't bad, and then = there's his 'profile' of William Shawn, which I'd heard of but hadn't = read. But in this collection was the one essay I most dreaded and the one = I put off reading til last; his famous response to attacks made on A Man = In Full by John Updike, John Irving and Norman Mailer. This essay, called = My Three Stooges, would be, I thought, defensive and unnecessarily = personal, and I didn't want to read something like that from an author who = I admire. I thought it might be whiny. And I've got small kids at home. What I did not anticipate was a fullblown call to arms, an attempt to = chart a whole new (or actually not so new) direction for the American = novel. =20 Wolfe's argument is that the literary establishment--basically Updike, = Mailer, Irving, Saul Bellow, others of their ilk (what's an ilk?)--have = become highly sophisticated, verbally masterful navel gazers. Wolfe = suggests that the greatness of the novelistic form is its ability to look = very closely and deeply at a particular time and place, and therefore what = he calls for is a return to the journalistic novel. And the giants he = suggests should become our favored novelist models would include Dickens, = Zola and Steinbeck. He argues that attacks on A Man in Full are based more = on fear than on jealousy--that is to say, the fact that the book was a = huge bestseller scares a John Updike or a Norman Mailer, not because their = most recent novels have tanked, though that's part of it, but more because = they recognize in Wolfe's sales figures the popularity of a kind of novel = they detest and reject, and they're worried. That's his argument in a = nutshell. =20 It's not very nice to call Norman Mailer a 'stooge' and Wolfe can be = pretty wickedly funny. But he's also making a serious argument, and it's = one that we should consider as LDS authors, I think. Part of what animates Wolfe's entire book is a sense of wonder and joy and = amazement at this astonishing time and place we live in. That's a lot of = what he's saying. What a wild, wacky, crazed, sick, hopeful, brilliant = world we live in! What a carnival, what a circus, what a funhouse! I sit = in my office, writing this on my computer, and it turned out I'd forgotten = the name of the essay collection Wolfe's essay appeared in. So I went to = Netscape, then to Amazon, found it in 20 seconds flat. That's amazing, = isn't it? I'm listening to '70's prog rock, downloaded off Napster, = moving my mouse across a Dilbert mouse pad. I love all this stuff. This = is an amazing time. It seems to me that, as LDS artists, that at least some of us have the = same kind of engagement with the world that Wolfe is calling for. I = wonder if that's not why so much of Mormon fiction deals with missions, = for example. It's the first chance most of us have to really see = something we've never seen before. And mostly we love it. =20 And Mormon culture is as wacky and amazing as any other culture. We have = a chance to be as journalistic as Zola. Anyway, I thought it was very interesting. Give it a read. I think = you'll be as invigorated as I was. =20 Eric Samuelsen =20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:51:15 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] _Anne Frank_ Performance There was one more thing I wanted to say about the Villa's production of _The Diary of Anne Frank_. In most professional productions of this show (including the original Broadway run), the part of 13-year-old Anne is played by an older actress. I can understand why since it is such a demanding role. I think it was very brave of Bill Brown to cast two 14-year-old girls to play the part, especially when a number of very competent older girls showed up at the auditions--including, as I understand it, several young-looking BYU theater students. As a result of Bill's decision, I think the play will have a component of believability that is lacking in some of the other productions I have seen. The downside is that while these young girls will certainly be convincing as 13-year-olds, whether or not they have the emotional depth to be convincing altogether remains to be seen. My guess is that they do. As I said ealier, I haven't even seen any of the rehearsals yet. But I do know that Erica has been profoundly moved by this whole experience. I found her going over her lines the other day with tears literally streaming down her face. "Mom," she said to me. "I almost can't bear it when Anne talks about her dreams for the future--of being a journalist or a movie star or of having children. I can't stand it that because of one horrible human being and the fear and hatred that he stirred up, Anne and millions of others like her were never even able to grow up." I hope that many, many young people come to see this show and that they leave forever changed. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:00:59 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] Re: _Anne Frank_ (Performance) Marilyn Brown wrote: > also at 7:30 Friday night there is the opening night of Anne Frank. There > are two Anne Franks, and Sharlee Glenn's daughter Erica will be playing it > Monday night, April 2 at the Little Brown Theatre, 239 S. Main in > Springville. And she is wonderful! (Both young actresses are > outstanding--you won't find any better! It's a great show!) Erica will also be doing the show tomorrow evening (Saturday, March 31). Her other dates are April 2, April 7, April 14, April 20, April 21, April 27, April 30, and (closing night) May 7th. But the other Anne Frank (Jessica Woahn) is, as Marilyn says, wonderful too--so go whenever you can! List-members Scott Tarbet and Marie Knowleton are in the show as well and, though I haven't seen the production yet, by all accounts they are both outstanding. > Bill will be receiving a regional award for his service to community > theatre, etc. (It's going to be a surprise to him--I'm so grateful for the > people in Denver who really do appreciate what he has done, though it's a Marilyn, this is great! What, exactly, is the award? Will it be presented at the show tonight? Bill certainly does deserve some recognition for what he has accomplished with VIP Arts. As do you--his partner, helpmate, and laundress. :-) Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:52:36 -0700 From: "mcnandon" Subject: [AML] _The Unsinkable Molly Brown_ (Performance) I wasn't planning on making this post, but since others have preceded me, I can't resist. _Molly_ opened this week at the Draper City Hall. It is sponsored by the _Draper Arts Council._ It is a dynamite show with some of the best scenery I have seen in the valley. The director, Soni Barrus has worked at the _Hale_ and owned her own theatre near Logan. Richard Lossee is playing J.J. Brown. Some of you may remember when he played the role at SCERA. He is marvelous and Natalie Empey, who plays Molly was born for the role. I am playing the role of Mrs. McGlone on Thursday and Friday, April 5th and April 6th. You can get tickets by calling Albertson's in Draper. The show starts at 7:30. Nan Parkinson McCulloch - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:08:10 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors (Compilation) [MOD: Here's a compilation of several posts I've received on this. I don't want to lose the momentum of the discussion, but we're nearly at the 30-post limit for the day, with tomorrow starting as a Saturday when little--sometimes nothing--is posted, depending on my work schedule. Feel free to keep sending in messages--but they're likely not to come out until Monday. I'm sending a couple of messages from Chris Bigelow in a separate compilation post.] From: Thom Duncan Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:27:50 -0700, Thom Duncan wrote: > > >I would suggest a policy of using labels that refer only to a person's > >profession or avocation (such as "Film Maker Richard Dutcher") and > >remove all references to even their church membership. At the very list, > >if you want to refer to a person's religious standing, do so if they are > >acative and believing, but dont mention their LDS status if they are > >inactive. > > I, for one, am grateful for the information on a person's relationship to > the church. Particularly when they claim LDS ties. I want to know if a > person left the church or not. That information plays a role in my > perception of the artist. So where do you draw the line? Should a review of a play by Eric Samuelsen say, "Inactive home teacher but current Temple Recommend Holder Eric Samuelsen..." or a book by Scott Card "Democrat but Clinton-hater Orson Scott Card..." You say it plays a role in your perception of the artist. That is precisely why I'm agin the idea. A friend refused to watch what I consider the best version of the life of Christ ever made (Jesus of Nazareth) because she had heard that the actor portraying Christ used drugs in real life. "I'll never watch another movie starring Julie Andrews," said another friend, "Not since she appeared naked in that movie." At the same time, I'm not at all against an author's attitude about the Church coming up in an interview where (hopefully) there is room to mitigate any blanket statements ("Yes, I haven't been to Church in ten years but I still support the Church in other ways...) A two-word encapsulation of one's attitude about the Church ought be avoided, however. - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Margaret Young Actually, if the writers would agree, we could invent an orthodoxy ranking which could follow each of the author's contributions, rather than the traditional bio. It would be much more interesting than knowing how many children said author has, or whether or not their pets are spayed. I think the issues Eric raised comprise a good list. Author swears: a) Never b) occasionally c) whenever the occasion justifies a good expletive d) gratuitously and proudly. Author attends church a) never b) on Easter c) when parents are in town d) wouldn't miss even during a bout with tuberculosis, etc... - ----------------------------------------------------------- From: Thom Duncan Jonathan Langford wrote: > > Similarly, I think it would enhance the coverage of Marion Smith's novel > _Riptide_ to know whether she is Mormon or not, and how she identifies > herself in that regard. I would have appreciated something saying that Marion Smith was a woman because I know a man of the same spelling. Why shouldn't Irreantum also mention that? Shouldn't people also want to know the sex of a person? > A label is part of the story. Isn't it assumed that, since someone is mentioned in Irreantum, that they have some connection with Mormonism? That should be enough, as far as I'm concerned. > (I also recognize that there's a difference between labeling someone simply > as "Mormon" or "non-Mormon" and going further, into gradations of > Mormonness. But that binary classification system doesn't work, in many > instances. Doesn't mesh with how the person describes himself or herself, > or with the stance that the person takes within a community. And so, in > some cases at least, it's necessary to go simply beyond Mormon and > non-Mormon in order to tell the story.) In interviews, you have this luxury. In blurbs, you don't. Therefore, you should drop the use of labels in blurbs. > > I think it's important to defer whenever possible to a person's > self-identification. That is, if someone calls himself/herself a "former > Mormon" or a "cultural Mormon" or a "believing Mormon" or simply a > "Mormon," that's a label we should respect, unless there's strong reason > for doing otherwise. I would still not use it, unless it was absolutely important to the story. For example: "Former-Mormon Deborah Lakke tells about her life as a Mormon in _Secret Ceremonies_. She's writing an expose of sorts, and it makes sense to refer to her that way. But what if she wrote a book of poetry. Do we refer to Carol Lynn Pearson as "Former wife of a gay man who still hasn't married and she's 55 Carol Lynn Pearson ..." I would support Irreantum's stance to include such phrases if the interviewee has given his/her permission but would avoid it in the absence of clear approval. As one who has battled labels his whole life ("You know, for a Mormon man, you're remarkably evolved," a young feminist once told me), I tend to react to such phrases as "inactive," "less active," stronger than those who've lived a more mainstream life. But that's only because I know who labels can sometimes wrongly color the minds of others." There was a man in the ward I grew up who was married to a Mormon. He'd never joined. When asked wouldn't he like to have the lessons, his own wife said he'd never join. My father, then a stake missionary, knew about that label, but didn't let it bother him. He goes over to the guy's house. "Chet, why haven't you ever taken the lessons?" "No one's ever asked me." My dad gave him the lessons and baptized him. How long had this man been out of the Church because his own wife and neighbors thought of him first as a "non Member" and only secondarily (if at all) as someone who might make a good member. That is just one example of the damage labels can cause in our attempts to deepen interpersonal relations. > That said, I recognize that the practice is fraught with peril. There's > the danger--almost the certainty--of inconsistency; there's the > horrible--and perhaps eventually inevitable--possibility of attaching a > label that is incorrect and with which the person in question would choose > not to identify himself/herself. Unfortunately, I think that comes with > the territory of choosing to publish a news magazine--which, in part, is > what Irreantum is. A news magazine about what? Literature? Or people? - -- Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - ----------------------------------------------------------- From: James Picht Why not have the Irreantum writers write their own self-description? If they think their religious status is relevant, they'll be better able to describe it accurately than someone else can. "I'm a faithful and active member of the LDS church who nevertheless believes that the Provo temple is an eyesore that will eventually bring down the Lord's wrath on the Church. I'm an accomplished playwrite, and in my spare time I warn people of contrail poisoning and black helicopter incursions into Northern Utah." Yes, that tells me much more than "Jim Picht is an active member of the LDS church. He received the Mildred Hart Bailey Award for writing incomprehensible academic dreck." (Well, I'd like to think Irreantum would leave out the unnecessary editorializing about the award, which I haven't actually received, by the way; this year's winner is, literally, a witch.) Jim Picht - ----------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" - ----Original Message----- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Jonathan Langford I appreciate the difficulties that have been raised about labeling and the problems thereof. But I think the situation is more complex than that. That said, I recognize that the practice is fraught with peril. There's the danger--almost the certainty--of inconsistency; there's the horrible--and perhaps eventually inevitable--possibility of attaching a label that is incorrect and with which the person in question would choose not to identify himself/herself Maybe we should ask ourselves: Why do we want to label people? Does it make us feel more secure of our position-whatever that may be? Maybe it is a tradition that we've inherited from childhood that we should reexamine. Didn't many of us grow up knowing who was active and who was inactive in our neighborhood? What does it mean to be a rule breaker? What does it mean to be "worthy"? Levi Peterson makes me laugh about the "Jack Mormon" label, but the laugh is tinged with the pain of realizing how much judgment (unrighteous?) takes place in our culture----of outward signs of conformity or of apparent righteousness. I remember years ago when Terry Tempest Williams spoke at BYU. She said she would always be Mormon, but she announced that she didn't have a temple recommend--and a tear ran down her cheek. These issues are many times deeply emotional and very sensitive. Gae Lyn Henderson - ----------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jim Cobabe" After reviewing a recent issue of Consumer Reports, I'd like to offer a proposal toward a convenient standardized method for representing Church status. In Consumer Reports, products are rated by indicating relative performance in a particular category with a small circle. For good performers, the circle is colored in. For less-than-satisfactory, the circle is less filled in, in increments corresponding to the degree of dissatisfaction or defect. A similar approach could be easily adapted to the task of informing readers about an author's standing in the Church. - --- Jim Cobabe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:29:05 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Question for Irreantum's Editors [MOD: And here's my compilation of Chris's posts--a rather dangerous compilation, since several of these are in multipart MIME format and I can only hope that I'm trimming the right bits to send this out correctly...] And plus, Irreantum covers non-Mormons using Mormon characters and themes in stuff aimed at non-Mormons (Walter Kirn, Tony Kushner, Judith Freeman), and Mormons using Mormon characters and themes in stuff aimed at non-Mormons (Orson Scott Card), and Mormons leaving out any explicit Mormon characters and themes in stuff aimed at non-Mormons (Orson Scott Card, Neil LaBute), and Jack Mormons using Mormon material in stuff aimed at Mormons and/or non-Mormons (often with the ulterior motives Levi Peterson pointed out), etc., etc. To analyze and categorize this amorphous Mormon literary sphere, I think it's essential to somehow identify these different elements. Normally I haven't reported status unless I picked it up from previously published interviews and articles. And when we label someone a "Mormon playwright" without saying whether they're active or not, it's because we don't know or they haven't discussed it in a public forum we're aware of. But I can't see calling Walter Kirn a "Mormon fiction writer"--he's got to be identified as a writer who practiced Mormonism for a short time in his teens. I admit Irreantum isn't handling this particularly gracefully or consistently yet, but I'm not inclined to stop reporting these interrelationships in some fashion. However, I am interested in figuring out a better way to do it on a case-by-case basis. Oh, and you can assume anyone mentioned in Irreantum's news section is NOT gay unless we report otherwise. Chris Bigelow - ---------------------------------------- Eric, unless you say in another public setting (or confirm it directly to an Irreantum editor if we ask you), as far as Irreantum is concerned you are Eric Samuelsen, Mormon playwright, without further confirmation one way or the other of your status. We only include the "nonpracticing" label if it's already public knowledge or if the person confirms for publication that that is their status. "Former" doesn't work because it might imply excommunication, and "inactive" or "less-active" are not terms non-Mormons are familiar with--and we do have several non-Mormon readers. "Nonpracticing" seems to be the national term for someone who is not active in their nominal religion. If I had known and confirmed that Martha Beck (is that her name?) had removed her name from the church records, then I would have put "former Mormon." For a literary magazine that identifies itself with a religious culture, we simply can't ignore the 800-pound elephants in our living room of what a person's religious status is. This next issue, we have a little news item on Mikal Gilmore, who wrote about his executed brother Gary in a national memoir and is involved in the Hollywood screenwriting scene. He's an AML member, but I don't have any idea if he's a Mormon or not. Unless I get around to tracking him down and asking him, I will probably label him "AML member Mikal Gilmore"--although on second thought, maybe the AML membership roll is confidential. One could guess an AML member is Mormon, but it's not guaranteed. If I just identified him as Mikal Gilmore, who would know why we're including him in our specifically focused news section, which is titled Mormon Literary Scene? I guess we could also say "former Utahn Mikal Gilmore," but we're not a Utah-centric magazine and it's not a sound assumption to connect Utah with Mormonism. This is a fascinating and important discussion, and I'm open to suggestions (but NOT sold on the suggestion to discontinue the practice). Chris Bigelow - -------------------------------------------------- Another thought occurred to me: Would it help to, instead of just a label, say something like, "Julie Jensen, who has identified herself in published interviews as a nonpracticing Mormon, . . ." Does that help maintain the aura of objective news summary we're trying to have in Irreantum's Mormon Literary Scene section? In cases where we don't have published info on exact membership status, we would still need to say at least "Mormon author" if it's not otherwise clear in the context. Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:52:37 -0700 From: "mcnandon" Subject: RE: [AML] Writing Groups If you are in this game for the lucre, you are in the wrong game. I don't know many writers who are THAT prosperous (as a result of their writing only). Nan McCulloch - - 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 #291 ******************************