From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #352 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, June 11 2001 Volume 01 : Number 352 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:06:14 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Facial Hair Jacob Proffitt wrote: > > Speaking as a person who has worn a short goatee for a couple of years > now (three?), I'll answer on my behalf. I think that a carefully > cropped goatee has recently overcome the typical American stereotype > left over from the 70s that facial hair equals hippy slacker. I think > we are approaching the cultural cues in vogue in Germany while I was > there -- i.e. that a careful goatee is a hairstyle choice appropriate > for professionals when kept well trimmed and neat. Frankly, I'm glad. > I look much younger than I am I've trimmed my beard to a goatee and my hair to a buzz for precisely the opposite reason. I'm 52 and I didn't like the way most of my hair was coming in gray (especially the beard). So I cut it back. People tell me I look ten years younger. FWIW, I grew my beard for precisely the reason you did. I was 35, looked 27, and wanted people to take me seriously. The little bit of gray I had then helped that illusion immensely. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 15:26:21 -0600 From: "Barbara R. Hume" Subject: [AML] RE: Mormon Visual Trappings (was: Facial Hair) >Where I would like to push the cultural envelope more is never wearing ties. Sometimes I have gone to church without a tie, but it feels weird and I couldn't bring myself to teach Gospel Doctrine tieless, so it's been several months since I abstained. I see that as cowardice on my part. I really, really want to wear a pantsuit to church. All of my outfits that are both comfortable and attractive have pants rather than skirts. But so far I haven't had the courage. I did one time wear a split skirt, which looks like a skirt but is actually wide trousers, and several sisters said wistfully that they wanted to do that, too. I asked my bishop about it once, and he said, "If you wear a pantsuit to church, I won't throw you out." Ball's in my court--but I diddled around and now I have another bishop! It seems like such a small thing--I know! I'll write a story in which my character does it! Then I'll see what happens! Barbara R. Hume Editorial Empress barbara@techvoice.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 16:18:50 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Critique of Writing On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:06:46 -0600, Scott and Marny Parkin wrote: >Melissa Proffitt wrote: >>I got the >>feeling that she wanted it to all fall into place without any extra = effort >>on her part. Sad, but true. I don't know if she'd convinced herself = that >>she didn't care all that much, or if it really didn't matter to her, = but it >>was almost depressing that she was so close to publication and had let = it >>go. I wanted to shake her--but it wasn't my book, and it wasn't my >>decision...still, it's hard to see potential flushed down the drain = like >>that. > >I can't quite decide whether to thank your MIL for reducing the=20 >competition for a limited number of novel slots by walking away, or=20 >get cranky with her for being arrogant enough to believe that=20 >successful writing comes without extended effort. I got cranky. Go right ahead and join me. (I mean, REALLY. Here I am pouring all my energy into child-rearing and -education, I still haven't figured out how to successfully combine this with writing despite the = many suggestions other list members have made, and she has the NERVE to just = toss her success out the window like this?!?) Of course, I was polite about it...in-laws and all that, you know.... >Seriously, though, I do want to point out that editors don't ask to=20 >see more work unless they mean it. Few editors relish reading the=20 >slush pile; they do it because they hope to find something that can=20 >be worked into publishable form. They don't really expect to find an=20 >undiscovered gem in the slush--though hope does spring eternal; but=20 >they do hope to find promising talent. > >If an editor asks to see more of your work, they mean it. They=20 >believe that you have the talent to write successfully, and they want=20 >to try to help you turn the corner. They read enough bad fiction that=20 >they don't need to ask for more of it; when they ask to see other=20 >work, it's because they're looking for an excuse to buy something of=20 >yours--just not the current piece. They're not paid enough to be nice=20 >for its own sake when a form letter is so much easier to send. I think every aspiring writer needs to print this out and tape it up on = the wall where it's easily visible from the computer/typewriter/quill and ink bottle. This is one of the secrets that you just don't know about when you're starting out. It's all or nothing: anything that isn't glowing acceptance seems like a crushing rejection. But it's not. >You can't force your MIL to do anything, but I think she needs to=20 >reconsider her belief in her own failure. It's okay to feel bad about=20 >being rejected, but when an editor asks to see more, you darned well=20 >ought to send more. Now. Right now. What she needs to do is kill her ego and learn to accept constructive criticism. From anyone. Or forget about professional writing and stick = to writing for friends and family. Because it *is* work; not just the = writing, but the selling. My mother-in-law didn't want to invest the energy it = would take to become a published writer, and she's lost her chance. For a novelist, it is daunting to get the rejection that says "send us your = *next* novel"--that's a lot of work. But that doesn't mean throw the manuscript away! Revise it and send it to another publisher while you start on that second novel. But don't just give up. And please, all of you who are just beginning to work on a writing = career, DON'T try to work in a vacuum. My mother-in-law's single greatest = problem was that she had no input from anyone that wasn't glowing, noncritical praise. Find people whose opinions you trust and then TAKE THEIR ADVICE SERIOUSLY. You don't have to make every single change they suggest, but = you should think about why they suggest the things they do. The writing group I am just quitting :) has a couple of people in it who respond to criticism in a frustrating way. Every time someone makes a negative comment on their writing, they will either explain the problem away, or say "yes, I meant to do it that way, even though it sounds = stupid." (In one instance, they had a villain (they're collaborating on a novel) = who was a terrible cliche of a Sophisticated Evil Genius. When we pointed = this out, they airily assured us that they knew that, and they wanted him to = be cliched so they could make him *less* cliched later and it would be more interesting. My response to this would be censored by the moderator, so I'll leave it out.) They only accept corrections of glaring physical inaccuracies, and don't even consider any other kinds of critique. Don't do this. =46or one thing, what's the point of asking other people to read your = story if you're not interested in what they have to say about it? This reaction implies that they believe the other readers in the group aren't capable enough readers and critiquers to accurately assess their writing. But if *we* all think the villain is an awful cliche, what makes them think that other readers won't have the same reaction, especially since we're a representative sample of their target audience? If you ask for advice, = you have to be willing to take it. Discard it later, after you've considered it, if it would take your story in a bad direction. But listen first. =20 I think it's too late for my mother-in-law. She enjoys writing, but = she's a hobbyist at heart. But maybe I (and maybe some of you) can learn from = her mistakes. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:19:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] LaBute in the Papers Here is a good article about Neil LaBute and "Nurse Betty" from the "LA Weekly" (don't know if you've seen this already--last fall was when I got so ill and I missed a lot) http://www.laweekly.com/ink/00/42/cover-dargis.shtml The Moralist by Manohla Dargis Neil LaBute, Latter-Day Filmmaker Here also is an older article by Mary Dickson that appeared in the Salt Lake "City Weekly": http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/09-21-98/slc_story.html Both stories play up LaBute's LDS affiliation. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:18:57 -0700 From: Terri Reid Subject: RE: [AML] Critique of Writing I had read somewhere that Stephen King received multiple rejection letters (I'm thinking it was somewhere near 100) before he was accepted. (I bet those folks are kicking themselves now.) Rejection is just part of the job. Talent and perseverance make a writer. There are a great number of wonderful writers that we will never hear from because they don't persevere. If it was easy to be a writer - everyone would be doing it. Terri Reid - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:35:58 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] FW: BRIGHAM CITY - Last Chance! [MOD: Apologies that this did not, in fact, go out yesterday...] - -----Original Message----- From: Zion Films [mailto:ZionFilms@xelent.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 4:30 PM To: chris.bigelow@unicitynetwork.com Subject: BRIGHAM CITY - Last Chance! BRIGHAM CITY is closing in Utah! After playing to packed houses and garnering critical acclaim across the nation, BRIGHAM CITY will finish its successful run tonight at the following Utah locations: Sandy - Megaplex at Jordan Commons (9400 S. State) - 7:45 p.m. West Jordan - Carmike 12 (9200 S. Redwood Rd) - 7:10, 9:45 p.m. Brigham City - Capitol Theater (53 S Main) - (435) 723-3113 Cedar City - Fiddler's Three Theaters (170 E. Fiddlers Canyon Road) - (435) 586-5924 North Ogden - North Pointe (1610 North Washington Blvd) - (801)782-9822 Payson - Huish (98 W Utah Ave) - (801)465-2451 St. George - Cinema 6 (905 South Main) - (435)673-1994 This is your final chance at these locations to see the film Michael Medved calls "fiercely fascinating...more vivid performances and richer, deeper emotional content than the noisy nonsense provided by most of today's big studio offerings." The New York Times calls BRIGHAM CITY "Engrossing. . . concise, skillful filmmaking. . .the performances are impeccable." BRIGHAM CITY will play, at least through the weekend, at these other locations in Utah. These are the final weeks, however, so hurry and see the hit film at these great theaters before it's too late: Bountiful - Gateway 8 (206 S. 625 West) - (801)292-7979 Cedar City - The Twin Theaters (33 N Main) - (435)586-2501 Layton - Cinemark Tinseltown USA (Layton Hills Mall - 800 West 1500 North) - - (801)546-3582 Logan - Carmike Cache Valley 3 (1221 North 200 East - Cache Valley Mall) - (435)752-7762 Orem - Scera (745 South State Street) - (801)225-2560 Provo - Cinemark at Provo (1200 Towne Centre Boulevard - Provo Towne Centre) - (801)852-2872 St. George - The Movies (214 N 1000 East) - (801)673-1994 Taylorsville - CO Midvalley Cinemas (5766 South 1900 West) - (801)964-2921 West Jordan - Cinemark 24 Jordan Landing (7301 South Jordan Landing) - (801)282-9772 West Valley City - Carmike Ritz 15 - Hollywood Connection (3217 South Decker Lake Drive) - (801)973-4FUN Thanks to all those who have made BRIGHAM CITY a success! If you have yet to see it, go with a friend this weekend! If you've already seen it, see it again! Long Live LDS Cinema! Scott Champion Excel Entertainment Group/ Zion Films - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:39:03 -0700 From: Jerry Tyner Subject: RE: [AML] Facial Hair Reading all of the responses about facial hair is interesting. My father would not grow a beard because every time he came down the mountain from hunting in the Fall my mother would not kiss him until he shaved. I didn't grow a beard (if you can call it that) until 1995 during summer camp with the scouts. I would always go without shaving during summer camp for 1993 and 1994 but would shave when I came home (I've been a Scoutmaster or Scout Leader of some kind since 1990). That year (1995) the Scoutmaster in our Ward (my third Ward and fourth Scouting calling) talked me into not shaving since it was cool for the scouting leaders not to shave. I told him I would keep the goatee and shave the rest since it was too thin else where. My wife and daughter loved it. My son thought it was pretty cool too. I would usually shave in the spring. I have now had one for two years straight as of this summer. I get occasional remarks but two other members of the Young Men's Presidency in the Stake have a goatee as well. Most people aren't too hung up on facial hair here. As to why some feel strongly there was a statement in the late 70s or early 80's when one of the General Authorities was asked why the Brethren didn't grow beards any more and he pointed to the current Prophet as the example of how we should be. No statements have been made since then as I can recollect. Would I shave if asked to? Tough question. I know my daughter would be opposed to it. My wife may mourn a little too. My guess is depending on who asked and what the calling was they were issuing to me I probably would. I know several people who have gone inactive over this kind of thing. To me it is a very trivial matter. Having a beard (goatee) or not is not important to me. It does make me look older so I am more respected but from my experiences the Lord has a way of compensating for appearances. I have a feeling there may be some trials of obedience yet to come. To me the approval of the Lord is much more important than the approval of some members. Jerry Tyner - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:33:23 -0700 From: "Katrina Duvalois" Subject: [AML] RE: Mormon Visual Trappings (was: Facial Hair) It seems to me, and you even admit, that one of the reasons for Mormon men to grow facial hair is _to signal nonconformity _. Up until the last general conference, I wore 5 earrings. 2 in one ear and 3 in the other. I liked the imbalance and nonconformity it represented. But after hearing Brother Ballard's (?) talk about obeying the prophet, I got up and took the extra earrings out and haven't put them back. Why is it necessary, as an artist, to have to be a non-conformist? What's wrong with being obedient and non-rebellious? I have found that those with facial hair or multiple earrings, etc. are the ones who seem to _kick against the pricks_. Why is that? It's like rationalizing seeing R rated movies. (I am included in this group) As for not wearing a tie, why do you say _I see that as cowardice on my part_? Are those that stand up for what's right cowards? Maybe _right_ is the incorrect word, but I don't see the appeal in total non-conformity. I believe my life would be a lot simpler and less traumatic if I had just been a little less rebellious. I strive for a bit of conformity now, although, my personality forbids it. Does being an artist, LDS or otherwise, signal that we have to be _non-conformists_? Why do artists think they are being different when they end up looking like all the other Bohemian Artists they presume to be different from? Actors, musicians, writers, painters, etc. There seems to be an attitude of striving to be _different_. Katrina Duvalois - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:24:33 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] Re: SF X 5 (Review) and Symbolism On Date header was inserted by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU Ivan Angus Wolfe writes: > Well, I saw SF X 5 last weekend and took liberal notes - so I feel > that as this is the last weekend to see it, I'll give a quick review to > (hopefully) entice all of you to go see it. > Fata Morgana by Scott Bronson. > > Q: Are you God? > A: I don't remember. > > This ties for the best play in the bunch. It starts off with an > obviously Hindu deity doing Yoga on the stage, a very > American farmer walking across in the background and a > vaguely European peasant girl wandering around. Quite > intriguing set up, especially when the peasant girl begins > pestering the Hindu deity about "what it's all for." The girl > seems unaware of the American farmer setting up a table > with food on it in the background until the very end, when > the farmer tries to dissuade her from following the deity's > advice through some technobabble. > > At first I thought it was a science vs. religion theme, but I've > come to decide that this play was more about physical vs. > spiritual. The Hindu deity is about as Eastern and spiritual > as possible (especially if you understand the Hindu > philosophy of rejecting the spiritual) - and the American > farmer was about as physical and Western as you can get. > He was taking care of his bodily needs by eating, while the > deity was overcoming the body through Yoga and meditation. > Very thought provoking - of all the plays, the most likely to > create discussion in the car on the way home at the very least. I have never, ever, ever, ever responded publicly to a critique or review of any of my work, whether acting work, directing work or writing work. But I'm going to respond to Ivan's review. I am not going to take issue with anything he has said. I just think some of you who are interested in the symbolism thread might be intrigued with some background information in connection with this production of my play. First: Here are all the notes I give to the director about the setting and the characters in the play: SETTING Stage: Bare Time: Doesn't Matter Place: Tundra CHARACTERS First: The First to Speak Second: The Second to Speak Third: The Third to Speak Second: In the script there are no stage directions whatsoever. Not even (He enters.) or (She exits.) Here is all you will see in parentheses: (Pause.) All I wrote were the words spoken. Everything else in that play was decided on by the director and the actors and the designers. The gender of each role was decided on by a group of directors trying to figure out who got whom for their various plays. One of the variables contributing to that decision was who auditioned. If you don't get strong male actors, well then, use the women. I think Ivan's take on things is very interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not what the play is about. But that's OKAY. It's a valid interpretation based on what he saw, heard and brought to the performance. I wouldn't think of taking that away from him. Afew days ago Terry Jeffress had this to say: And frankly, what the author meant doesn't matter. Only what the reader has experienced while reading the text matters. Works for plays too. Centuries ago, when I was studying theatre at BYU, I did a director's book on "Agnes of God." I had read an interview with the author of the play wherein he deals with the issue of the nature of Agnes's pregnancy. Either she was raped by the gardner, or it was an immaculate conception. The playwright's assertion was that it was an immaculate conception. His point was, why would God allow that to happen to an innocent girl for no apparent reason. An immaculate conception on the other hand served to imbue, or simply validate the faith oif the believers. Well, I don't buy it. But I loved the script. So, I looked around in it for something else. I knew there had to be something else because the script resonnated with me, whereas the author's statements did not. There was something there that even he didn't know about. (If I could find the blasted book in this house I'd give you direct quotes, but ... ) In the beginning of the play the Psychiatrist tells us, for some reason, that she has innexplicably stopped menstrating. At the end of the play, almost as an aside, she tells us that she has begun menstrating again. Now, I don't necessarily believe that all bad things that happen must have a good effect on the world, but if that's what the author wants, it was there. I don't think it's beyond the scope of God's intention to allow bad things to happen to people so that others can serve and improve their own lives and hence the the lives of others beyond them. Something happened to that psychiatrist that changed her from a barren woman to a woman capable of giving life. Symbolically, that works on many levels. So, Ivan gets to keep his thoughts and feelings about my play. Because he liked my play. J. Scott Bronson Member of Playwrights Circle "An Organization of Professionals" www.playwrightscircle.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:59:28 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Literature as Distinct? - --- Tom Johnson wrote > Maybe what he's [[Evenson]] getting at here is an appeal for > Bhaktin's heteroglossia. > If LDS writers close themselves off from non-LDS > voices, and draw only from > LDS sources, then perhaps there will be a kind of > inbreeding of LDS voice, > and Zion will become more and more insular and > impenetrable and narrow and > cleft-footed. Put in this context, the quote makes a lot more sense to me. I agree with the merits of heteroglossia. And I think that the very best Mormon literature will indeed reflect a hybrid of influences (and I've expressed on this list before my hope for an international Mormon literature----how cool would it be to read a novel that combines Mormon influences with say, Filipino folk mythology, or explores a Roma (Gypsy) convert trying to make a life in Germany?). At the same time, I don't want to discount inbreeding. I'm not talking about inbreeding of what we read (and with the Mormon authors I'm familiar with I don't think that's issue) or the people we associate with--because there's certainly room for all influences--but I think that a little inbreeding in the sense of Mormon authors responding to other Mormon authors and artists is desirable. And I especially think that there needs to be a vein of Mormon literature and criticism that takes orthodox Mormon thought, culture, and literature (home literature) seriously and doesn't just dismiss it as foolish provincialism. And I think there should be room for some impenetrable, highly coded Mormon works. I sincerely believe that not only do (and will) these works stand on their own merit, they also will provide a certain magnetic pull on Mormon artists whose work is more on the margins. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to Mormon literature (especially literary fiction) to end up being the gloss, the occassion for a kind of writing that only plays to the 'literary establishment' (which is not entirely monolithic, but for arguments sake, we'll say its best reflected by the eastern publications that still publish and review li-fi). > When, to this list, I inadvertently resurrected the > question, 'Should Mormon > Literature be a distinct genre?', I was not > suggesting that Mormon Lit could > not fit into a category like African-American lit, > Jewish lit, Postcolonial > lit, Victorian lit, and so on, but that Mormon Lit. > should not be so > distinct that it can't find appeal to a general > audience who isn't familiar > with the insider culture. We've discussed on this list before how a writer goes about reaching this broader audience, how to demystify or represent the Mormon culture, including a great exchange about the merits of providing a glossary of Mormon terms for a novel. We've also discussed if Mormons are in danger of losing their distinctness. And we've also discussed whether or not Mormonism has a large enough body of fiction to elicit a true Mormon criticism. When I take my memories of those discussions and add it to a consideration of Mormon lit. as a genre, and more importantly, as one that could appeal to a general audience, I get quite confused. That's why I continue to suspect that as a category it has more to connect it to marginal national literatures than to 'ethnic' or 'period' literatures. But I don't know. I'll work on that. Finally, an aside for Tom: Kafka, Borges, Auster, Bhaktin? Looks like we speak a similar language. Have you ever read (I hate questions like this because invariably I haven't ever read...but...) _The Seven Madmen_ by Roberto Arlt. Unfortunately, I don't know Spanish so have only read it in translation, but it's a hilarious, haunting work that I highly recommend. I have no idea if Arlt is well known to American readers---he should be. ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:54:56 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Critique of Writing Scott Parkin wrote about positive rejections: These may be the worst kind, because they suggest success but not enough of it for the editor to buy anyway. The near misses often hurt far more than the flat rejections. While it's nice to know that you're close, sometimes those are the most brutal kinds of rejections to get. You're allowed to stand in the vestibule, but not actually enter the house. Amen! That is the story of my life! (And that of many other listers, I'm sure.) Annette Lyon - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:17:15 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Secular Prophets > > If he's not the most important person in the world -- while he's writing > -- then why waste time writing? I write because I happen to think I have > some opinions on things that other people are better off knowing about. > Time and again, that's proven to be the case. If I didn't think I had > ideas that no one else could express as dramatically as I could, I > wouldn't be wasting my time. Well, I guess that's where we disagree. I write because I like to. I have a story or an opinion I want to share. I realize people won't necessarily agree with me. I know someone out there can do it better. I just think it would be nice to entertain someone for awhile, or make them laugh or cry. I also write in hopes that one day I can make money at it. Some may find this offensive, but there will be at time in the future when I will have to support my husband and seven children, and I would rather do it writing than working in McDonalds. At this point with two preschoolers, writing is what I can do at home. Like I said there are more important things than writing - like my children. But writing is never a waste of time. How is working on a talent a waste of time? Anna Wight - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:25:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Joel and Ethan COEN, _O Brother, Where Art Thou?_ (Film) Finally saw the Coen brothers' latest movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", with George Clooney. Amazing how it gets what are called "mixed reviews" when what you percieve is a masterpiece (I'll confess; I'm a Coen cultist.) In many of their films the brothers create a mythic universe where angels, prophets and devils exist ("O Brother" is "The Odyssey" transposed to depression-era Mississippi.) In the penultimate scene Ulysses Everett McGill (Clooney) sinks to his knees, confesses his sins to God, and prays for a miracle. You could dismiss this as a post-modern joke (the Coen's practically beg you to) if it weren't for the profound atmosphere of reverence the Coen's create for geniune religious feeling (check out the baptism sequence) as opposed to the evil, Bible-selling Cyclops (John Goodman.) It's actually a pre-modern ethos that should seem familiar to latter-day saints. But the brothers know that irony is the only way to get such a message across in this day and age. Who can forget the last scene (and last line) of "Raising Arizona"? ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 #352 ******************************