From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #368 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Thursday, June 21 2001 Volume 01 : Number 368 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:21:09 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings (was: Play the New Game) MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MOVIE! I TALK EXPLICITLY ABOUT THE FINAL SCENES IN THIS POST. CONSIDER SKIPPING THIS IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MOVIE UNAWARES (which I highly recommend)... Darvell Hunt wrote: >The ending that I'd like to understand is last scene of _Crouching Tiger, >Hidden Dragon." I did like the film and thought it was worthy of four >academy awards, but I didn't understand the denouement. The real ending >just before that was okay, but going back to the training facility really >confused me, and the flying off the bridge was just lost on me. (hee, hee, hee...) I drove my wife nuts with this one. As soon as the credits finished, I started analyzing and asking her how she thought the film ended (I generated about six different interpretations in about ten minutes). She remained silent as we drove to pick up the kids. Ten minutes later I was getting a little frustrated with her complete lack of input and I pushed her on it. At which point she said in a wavering voice, "I've been trying not to cry. Leave me alone." To me the ending revolves around one question: Did she jump in hope or in despair? If she jumped in hope, then one of two things happened-- 1) The legend of the young man was true, and her wish was granted that the monk and his love (sorry, the names have completely fled my mind) were reunited either in this world or the next, and she would be reunited with her own love either in this world or the next. Or, 2) The legend was just a legend but she still found joy and power in redeeming her foolish sins with her own life. If she jumped in despair, then one of several things happened-- 3) The legend was true and though her heart was broken when she jumped, it was still pure in its desire for peace, implying the result of #1 above. Or, 4) Having decided to atone for her sin with her own blood, she discovered that she had in fact found true peace, selflessness, and enlightenment, thus she flew to her end by her own power and choice. Her boyfriend followed her down, and the monk's girlfriend had preceded them both down the night before. Or, 5) She pretty much lost it on the way down and went into a deluded dream. - ---- Or at least those are all endings that I can come up with in a few moments and that I think are justified by the remainder of the film. >I'm curious if a cultural gap caused this confusion, but to me, it just >seemed weird. I think there is a cultural gap there, and that points toward an intended ending on the part of the film makers. In talking with a Chinese friend about the film he commented that all Chinese stories end that way, that the only way those characters can end is with death. He thus interprets that everyone dies (all four main characters) so that their stories are clearly capped. Whether they're "saved" in the afterlife is more or less irrelevant to the Chinese culture. Therefore, option 4 would be the most likely Chinese cultural interpretation (if you accept one 22-year old Chinese man's interpretation of his own culture). I tend to prefer option 1, and choose to believe that as the ending I find most desirable, whether that's the author's intended interpretation or not. In any case, I thought the ambiguous ending made the film better, not worse. I like the fact that we have little or no specific guidance and are forced to determine our own ending to the story. I think it tells us more about ourselves and serves better as art for the effort. FWIW. Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:32:32 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd Well let's not stop with film makers! Writers, artists, composers ALL need to reach a higher level. We can't insist on satisfying the lowest common denominator in our audience or we will never create great art--and we certainly have the talent in the Church to make great art. However, that talent is too often turned over to a committee or strained through a very strict filter. Our best stories are our most personal ones. If our audiences feel they really get to know our characters and relate to them deeply, they will respond. But when we insist on telling the huge stories, we often doom ourselves to cliches and sentimentality. We cover a desert in a sentence, and resolve a universal conflict in a paragraph. I think if the Church asked me to wrote a story about the Savior, I'd say no. I remember one speaker in a Sacrament meeting who said, "Well, I've been asked to speak about the Savior. I find that the words of Jesus are more powerful than anything I could say, so I'll just read those." He read from the Book of Matthew for the next fifteen minutes. Interesting experience, and exemplary in many ways. So often, when we write ABOUT the great and big stories, we try in our rather inept ways to improve upon them. I found this all the time when I taught critical writing. A student would write ABOUT "A Rose for Emily," for example, and try to out-do Faulkner with a flowery plot summary. I'd comment in the margins, "I prefer Faulkner, actually. Stick to your thesis." (Of course, I said it kindly and gently.) But how often do we try to out-do the scriptures by adding glitz and sentimental romances? Not a good idea. One final word, then I'll finish: I just returned from Las Vegas, where Darius [Gray] and I did a fireside. I took my kids with me to do some "fun" things. We went to Circus Circus and all the "kid" stuff--but you can't go ANYWHERE without passing through or seeing a casino with grim-faced people popping quarters into the slots. My kids felt the spirit of the places, and described it as "bad." I promised them we'd go to the temple the next day, and my nine-year-old said, "I wish we could go there tonight." When we did finally go to the temple, the contrast was profound. No fancy facades pretending to be Paris or New York--but only housing the same old thing. The words "Holiness to the Lord--The House of the Lord" were beautifully placed. The building was serene, elegant, dignified and REAL. The Spirit was powerful. And I understood in a new way the fury of the Savior when He drove away the money changers from the temple. I can imagine whipping away someone who decided to put a few gambling machines in front of the temple. I've thought about it a lot. We artists are very capable of taking beautiful material and filling it with fluff or even vulgarizing it with stereotype and romance which belies the real lives and real feelings we can be showing our audiences--and the marvelous reality that they are PART of the experience (as in the temple). They become part of it because they live it, not through manipulation, but through the realities that verisimilitude brings. My time's up now. Off to the library. RichardDutcher@aol.com wrote: > Thanks to all of you for your response to my comments on "Testaments." I > already regret having voiced my opinion in such a public way. My comments > would be more appropriate in a private conversation with the director and > producers. > > There is such power in the story of Christ, in his words and teachings. They > shine through and, for many viewers, compensate for any failings in the > storytelling. I am grateful for this. But how much more effective would our > major church films be if the central theme was supported by expert > storytelling? > > I pray that we LDS filmmakers are someday artistically worthy of the great > stories we've been given to tell. > > Richard - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:32:13 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Manipulative Endings [MOD: This is a compilation of Thom's posts on this and related threads.] REWIGHT wrote: > > So Thom as a playwrite, are you telling me that when you write about good > people nothing bad ever happens to them. Or do you just write about bad > people and try and make your audience feel sorry for them? I write about bad people and try to help the audience *understand* them. When you understand bad people, you can better tolerate them. When you can tolerate them, and understand them, you can better help them. - --------------------------------- Ivan Angus Wolfe wrote: > > > > > >Have someone kick Hitler. If tears well up for the pain Hitler feels, > > that's not > > >manipulative. > > > > >Thom > > I would argue that would be manipulation also - since our cultural bias is to > consider Hitler worthy of a kick (and much more) - in order for us to > sympathize, we would have to be manipulated in some way in order to reverse our > prejudices. The book Hannibal is an amazing piece of literature. It comes very close to convincing you that Hannibal is the good guy, that's how well it is written. I consider it an excellent example of how to make people feel something without using manipulation to do so. - ---------------------------------------- REWIGHT wrote: > > If I see someone bearing testimony and they're > crying, is it my place to judge whether the spirit is touching them? If > they say it is, shouldn't I accept that? Accept that they believe it is, certainly. But, to bring this back to a literary angle. It is so stultifyingly easy to make a Mormon audience cry that the display of tears during a play or book is hardly a sign that the Spirit is also present. Thom Duncan Playwrights Circle an organization of professionals - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:53:34 -0700 From: "Stephen Goode" Subject: [AML] Re: Manipulative Endings Thom, I'm having a difficult time understanding your point about manipulation. I go to movies, read books, listen to music, etc. specifically to be manipulated in some way. I wouldn't patronize any form of art if it didn't evoke emotions. What would be the point? Like your point, which I also don't entirely get, about happy endings, it seems to me that all forms or art are manipulative. All stories are manipulative. I particularly like horror because I like being scared, or at least nervous. I don't like being grossed out, so I have a hard time with modern horror which seems to have lost the ability to scare without gore. I enjoyed the new version of "The Haunting" but preferred the older version. Neither were gory. Both were manipulative. The "jump" scenes in "Jaws" were great. I saw it over ten times in the theater because it was great to get startled, and when I got too used to when the gory head came out from under the boat, I started sitting in the back of the theater so I could see the wave of people jump out of their seats. I'm very sick. The timing of those scenes seems to me to have been specifically orchestrated to cause a group reaction. It's manipulative, but why does it make for bad filmmaking? "Wait Until Dark" was one of my favorites as a kid. I saw it several times also. Many elements were intended to set me up for the coming startles. It all seems manipulative. So, help me out here if you can. What is bad about something being manipulative and when are things not manipulative? Anyone? Rex Goode _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:40:03 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] _The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd_ > Anna Wight wrote: > > > But if other people got the point, then how is it the films fault that you > > missed it? Understanding is two way. No one film is going to hit every > > person the same way. That does not make the film a failure. > > Speaking specifically of _Testaments_, I would say the "point" that > someone said they got and I didn't was more their Rorschach-style > imposition of a point from their own psyche than anything that was > really in the film. When usurping a powerful story like the acts of the > Savior, you're going to benefit from all the associations people already > have with that story, and shouldn't claim recognition for evoking them. > You should only claim recognition for that which you brought new to the > story. What did _Testaments_ bring new to the story of Jesus except a > baby-faced actor? But that's what writing is about. Is there anything new in the world? It's about taking stories and presenting them in a way that people understand. Going into a film you bring with it your understanding, your emotions, your self. A writer, actor, director, taps into that. He doesn't present things in a vacuum. He presents things to people who already have opinions. If you watch a movie about a Nazi camp, most people will walk away horrified about what happened. Others will cheer the Nazi's for getting rid of the Jews, and some people just wouldn't care. No matter how powerful the story is, people will still walk away with different things. It doesn't mean the film was bad because it didn't touch everyone's heart. > > Speaking of points in a film generally, according to practitioners of > the branch of psychology called Neuro-Linguistic Programming, if > communication doesn't occur or mis-occurs, the instigator of the > communication must take responsibility, because he is the one who wants > communication to take place. I agree with this. If I don't get the point > of a film, it's not my responsibility. It's the responsibility of the > author to make sure he gets the point across, and to decide if he cares > enough to reach the part of the audience who reacts like me. The author > has no moral right to go around saying, "You should have gotten this and > this out of my movie, and it's your fault if you didn't." If it ain't in > the movie, it ain't in the movie. I don't buy this. You're asking for a movie to be all things to all people. Not only that, but you're suggesting that if you missed something, then it means that it wasn't there. People accept communication according to the place they are in. For instance, lets say you're at a party. Someone introduces you to a young woman. You smile politely and say Hello and nod while she speaks at length on a subject you have no interest in. In the meantime, your mind is far away thinking about something else. This young woman could take your smile and your greeting several different ways. She could simply recognize it for what it was, as polite party conversation. She could think that you're interested in what she has to say. She could think that you can't wait to take her to a motel. She might be thinking that your dull and you have an idiotic grin. If she's thinking that you can't wait to get her to a motel, who's fault is that? Is it yours? You've sent a different message which she missed. Here's another example. Let's say you have a daughter who is dating someone you don't like. One day she comes home in tears and says "John and I broke up." Your reaction is "Finally. I never did like that guy." She then gets mad at you and storms out of the room. You're left wondering what her problem is. So who's fault is it that you didn't see that she was upset about the breakup and she came to you to be consoled? Is it hers, even though she came to you in tears and told you what was wrong? How much better could she have communicated her needs? The scriptures themselves are full of messages that people don't understand, don't care about, don't see, or misinterpret. No one fully understands them or sees everything in them. That's why we are supposed to study them. It's not the fault of the scriptures if we don't see something. Jesus appearing to the Nephites, is a powerful message of love that most people are not aware of. Most don't know that the Nephites existed. Most are under the impression that the only people Jesus cared about lived in Isreal. The story of Jesus's resurrection in the bible doesn't even come close to the story in the BOM. For all the failings of the movie, it did show that Jesus loves us. To suggest that because you didn't see something because it wasn't there, suggests that anyone who did see something was fooled. Why? Do you know something that those who were touched by the movie don't? Anna Wight - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:01:02 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Amelia Parkin Subject: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings Thom wrote in response to: > > So... > > > > What constitutes a happy ending? [posed by Scott and Marny Parkin] > > If, after I've seen a film, or reading a story, I'm wondering, "No > matter what happens to me, I'll never sink as low as that guy did," I > consider it a happy ending. > > For instance, Porn, by nature, can never have happy endings, because > those films wallow in their degeneracy. Even if they happen to tack on > some socially redeemable ending, the fact that you have been subjected > to graphic representations of sex acts for an hour or more -- and thus > manipulated -- forever invalidates those kinds of films as legitimate > film art. > Sorry Thom but your logic doesn't hold here. If a happy ending is one after which you breathe a sigh of relief because you'll never sink as low (be as degenerate?) as the character in the movie, then every porn flick out there has a happy ending. Unless some porn movies make the viewer feel badly that they are more degenerate than the porn stars, which, according to your definition of happy ending as formulated above, would be an unhappy ending. Is it, rather, that pornography involves the viewer in the degeracy that the actors/characters create? therefore negating the option of the viewer leaving the movie and being relieved that they will never be that degenerate? amelia parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:33:43 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] re: Mountain Meadows Massacre > Yes, read Juanita Brooks' _Mountain Meadows Massacre_ and also her biography > _John Doyle Lee: Zealot--Pioneer Builder--Scapegoat. > > Levi Peterson > althlevip@msn.com And while you're at it, Beth, be sure to read Levi Peterson's marvelous biography of Juanita Brooks (_Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian_). I read this book in one sitting (my mother had given it to me as a birthday gift and my indulgent husband took control of the house and kids for the day, freeing me to do whatever I wanted). I don't know when I've ever enjoyed a book so much. It is a jewel. I was entertained, enlightened, motivated, and deeply moved by Peterson's telling of the life and work of this remarkable woman. 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: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:39:04 -0600 From: Steve Subject: [AML] Benefit Performances of "Polly" at UVSC Hi Listers, As long as I'm bending your ear with self promotion, etc., here is something I hope will be of interest to those in the Utah area, or anyone passing through. _ _ _ _ _ Benefit Performances of POLLY at UVSC in Orem, UT Johanne Frechette Perry stars in the musical POLLY in UVSC's Black Box Theater June 15, 16, 18, 28, 29, and 30, at 7:30 pm. For tickets and info call: 801-222-8797. Tickets are $6.00 / $3.00 for UVSC students. Proceeds will benefit "Reach the Children," a non-profit organization providing food, education, and vocational training to children and families in Kenya, East Africa. (See more about Reach the Children at http://www.reachthechildren.org) Newspaper article with picture can be found at: http://www.ucjournal.com/PageSpeed.php?m=2&id=350023&s=12990&k=&a _ _ _ _ _ Thanks, :-) Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:55:10 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings >---------------------------------------- >>From skperry@mac.com Wed Jun 20 09:05:20 2001 > >on 6/18/01 11:22 PM, Eric D. Snider at eric@ericdsnider.com wrote: > >> In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it >> _is_ ending. >> >> Eric D. Snider > >And who would know better than you? Eric, do you have a rough estimate of >how many films you see a year? How many plays? You have a pretty >interesting job, you know. > >Steve On average, I review about 275 movies and 100 plays per year. (Of course, 2000 was my first full year doing movies, but 2001 is shaping up to be the same. And the play count has been steady for a few years now.) That's not counting shows I see in my "spare time" but don't review. It amounts to a lot of sitting on my rear end, watching other people do stuff. >----------------------------------------- >>From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Wed Jun 20 09:16:18 2001 > >"Eric D. Snider" wrote: >> >> Steve Perry: >> > >> >Just last night Johanne and I watched "Amadeus" and I'd LOVE to hear about >> >that happy ending. >> > >> >> In many cases, what gives a film a happy ending is the fact that it >> _is_ ending. > >Implying that for some reason, you didn't like this film? Please, I >would LOVE to hear your justification for that. I didn't necessarily mean that I didn't care much for "Amadeus," just that some movies make one glad when they're over. My only experience with seeing "Amadeus" was when I watched it late at night and didn't even start it until 2 a.m., so in this case I was a little glad when it was over. But I liked the movie well enough. Although now, I kind of wish I HAD hated it, so you could shoot down whatever "justification" I had for that opinion. :-) Eric D. Snider - -- *************************************************** Eric D. Snider www.ericdsnider.com "Filling all your Eric D. Snider needs since 1974." - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:36:21 -0600 From: Steve Subject: [AML] LDS and World Religions Hi, Want to know how the Latter-day Saints fit in to the current religious scheme of things world-wide? http://www.adherents.com I found it interesting that the Church of JC of LDS is listed in the "most ubiquitous" category; meaning most likely to have a place of worship in a location near you. Also that only 1 in 7 LDS live in the United States. Interesting. Is anyone aware if there is "LDS literature" other than offical church publications in any country other than the US? Just wondering, Steve - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:33:19 -0600 From: Steve Subject: [AML] PERRY, _Another Testament_ New CD Release Hi listers, I'm happy to announce the release of a new CD called "Another Testament." You can see the cover, read the lyrics and, yes, even preorder it (release in July) with no shipping charges at: http://StevenKappPerry.com/another.html "Another Testament--the Book of Mormon Witnesses of Christ" features live orchestra, contemporary choir, and soloists. A cassette version and songbook (with script by Brad Wilcox) will also be available soon. Thanks, :-) Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steven Kapp Perry, songwriter and playwright http://www.stevenkappperry.com http://www.playwrightscircle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:57:47 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] LDSBA convention The AML is now a dues-paying member of the LDS Booksellers Association, meaning that members of our organization can attend the annual LDSBA convention for free. If you are a current member of the AML and want to attend the convention trade show, please send your name (as you want it to appear on the namebadge) and your mailing address to Chris Bigelow at irreantum2@cs.com. For more info about the convention, which includes about 200 booths of LDS publishers and kitsch companies, see http://www.ldsba.com/convention.html. I have walked the aisles before with morbid fascination at all the junk and crassness, but I've also run into a lot of interesting editors and authors. (If you want to attend the $30 banquet, contact me for info on where to mail your check ASAP.) If we get too many responses and/or the LDSBA balks for any reason (such as allowing only AML board members to attend or something), I will let you know. Otherwise you should receive your attendance badge by mail. Thanks, Chris Bigelow - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:19:35 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Re: Movie Happy Endings While I think D. Michael Martindale overstates his point in his previous comment on this thread, I think he does make a good general point--happy is in the mind of reader/viewer, not an absolutely definable quantity. That's why I switched from "happy" to "hopeful" in the previous response. But I also believe that there is value in discussing what constitutes valid assumptions or directions in literature--especially in terms of a specific cultural mindset or communal doctrine. A lot of time is spent on this list telling us that entire subsets of Mormon story are inherently devoid of real artistic or social value, and this whole question of happy ending plays into my disagreement with that premise. So Michael--I'm sorry for being annoying, but I see value in the broader discussion, and believe that it never hurts people to ask themselves questions like this. The answers people come to determine how they formulate their own powerful opinions on such matters. ===== Thom Duncan wrote: > > Does that not > > suggest that Mormons are almost required to tell stories of hope, or > > at least leave hope open as a real possible resolution beyond the > > bounds of the story? > >If those Mormons are more interested in following the cultural >impositions of their religion rather than the actual religion itself, >then yes. Just to make myself clear on the point--I said nothing about positive events or smiley faces or general frolicking. I said that hope for redemption is a point of Mormon doctrine in all but a very few cases. I don't think there's anything cultural about that; I think it's darned close to Mormon orthodox doctrine. If we believe in hope of redemption, that suggests to me that some aspect of hope is part of a Mormon mindset. If we tell stories true to our own mindset, then (with few exceptions) we will tend to tell stories that contain some hint or element of hope--or an acknowledgement that hope doesn't apply here; same effect. That doesn't mean positive resolution. And it certainly doesn't either require or preclude stories about any particular subject matter or with any particular emotional content--be it happy or sad. >Can someone please tell me what is happy ending in the story recounted >in Judges 19? Is this a rhetorical question? Your own claim is that any story can be read as having an uplifting component, so I assume that you believe this one to also contain such a component despite the disturbing violence inherent in the story. (A broad premise that I agree with, btw. Per some of Tom Johnson's comments in the Missionary Stories thread, I think meaning is found in the mind of the reader, thus nearly any interpretation is possible, including the idea that all stories can be read as uplifting. That's my point in suggesting that since Mormons believe in hope of redemption, that nearly any story informed by our religion will tend to acknowledge that hope. My primary purpose in responding to this thread is not to define what "happy ending" means, but to spur discussion about different ways that one can interpret hope or positive value out of even dark stories. And how one can intentionally include that hope.) I'd like to hear your positive reading of this story. I tend to believe that a positive reading isn't all that hard to make--especially if you go on to read Judges 20, which is the conclusion to the story. By your own definition, this story has a happy ending. 'If, after I've seen a film, or reading a story, I'm wondering, "No matter what happens to me, I'll never sink as low as that guy did," I consider it a happy ending.' Hopefully few of us will never sink low enough to rape a woman to death after first trying to rape her master. But I think there's a more directly positive reading of this story. In Judges 20 we see where the councils of the Isrealites got together and determined that they could not condone the sin of the people of Gibeah, so they went to war and destroyed both the city of Gibeah and the Benjamites who defended them in their sin. They did this despite the hardships of war, and they sought the counsel of the Lord before each attack (and received His counsel). Obeying the word of the Lord. Rooting sin out of your community even when it's hard. Showing compassion on those whose lives were devastated by the effects of sin. That's a lot of positive stuff, even in the midst of extreme violence and pain. Which is a point you've made before--violent scenes (physically or emotionally violent ones) do not necessarily embrace the violence itself as good or right or worthy of emulation, and are often useful in exposing powerful responses. I have nothing to argue about in that regard. Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:53:22 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Missionary Stories (pt 1 of 2) > If his fingers typed words against his will then I think he needs the > help of a trained professional and a long-term lease of a room with > very, very soft walls and a lock on the outside. > > More to point, if Mitchell had stated that his intent was to > illustrate the importance of wooly mountain goats in the economy of > ancient Rome, I would say that he failed in his intent. > Scott Parkin Okay Scott I'll bite. THE INTENT OF ANGEL OF THE DANUBE WAS.... (this reminds me of my years as a scientist when we would start writing up the experiment after being very excited about the results and what they mean and suggest, only to find out that the grandiose object you had was actually quite nebulous and when some pinhead editor forced you to put it in specific terms in a sentence or two, you realized that you haven't found the universal truth behind all the science in your field because your objective was just a specific question limited to experimentation in time and space, which will utimately limit your results to like conditions, and that you really can't say that you've found the science to explain all nature, like you had hoped to in the earlier drafts, but merely a couple or three years of experimentation that will sooner or later be questioned because you didn't take enough factors into account and/or it doesn't square with the generally accepted theories and with the specific theories about nature that one or two reviewers have in mind, and which theories they are certain hold the truth if you had just measured a few more things so you could have proved their theory right; until, ultimately, you end up throwing up your hands in the air and wish the pinhead editors would have done their own experiment instead of sit on their rears and pass judgement on those with enough gumption to actually do some experimentation, and end up deciding, hey, time is disposable so there is not much use worrying about water under the bridge or your past or present state in the higharchy of science, money, friends, etc., because you have to go on living and trust God will take care of your babies and hope that you grow old with half your health and all your brain (because you can't ask God for everything!) and in a few years you will probably decide thay you are just as biased as the editors and hopefully a little nearer the truth but possibly not, but did they have to be so mean about it, but we can all forgive them because what we were fighting over was temporal and temporary after all and if they decide they weren't mean just searching for truth then you can overlook that, but if they were on some powertrip then you will probably never have a discussion with them anyway, but this List has a lot of free discussion which I love very much, so at the risk of inspiring another week of post, I'll respond) THE OBJECTIVE WAS to put the life of an Austrian Missionary down on paper. Nobody would understand them otherwise. All the other things in the plot were secondary to that objective. Of course, fellow writers on the List have provided wonderfull theories of Barry's motivation, etc. and my poor attempts at getting it all right. Everybody's got a opinion and some of them contain wonderfull insights that may not have been evident to me at the time (I'm forgetful after all--"maybe, that was my intent after all.") I especially liked Cracroft's speech at the AML meeting because it convinced me that he knows Barry much better than I do and Barry is more likeable because of it. FOR THE RECORD. Scott Parkin did not inspire the Captain Scotty character, although the former confessed in one of his posts to doing the Scotty-esque behavior of staying in his Wohnung (apartment) when he didn't have the love. FOR THE RECORD II. Parkin's posts started saying that he was tired of reading missionary fiction and ended up saying he was going to have to write his own book to tell the way it really was from his POV. I have received many posts from RMs saying they were going to do the same thing. I love it. I see a great wealth of stories out there--too many for a dozen Dutchers. FOR THE RECORD III. How real were Barry's adventures? This from a post from an Austrian missionary that I received just yesterday. "everything you put in there is so true to life. I even know elders that pulled the same death bed stunt at the end of the mission just to see if anything would really happen if they went out a really preached for a day. But alas we know that even if you did get all those referrals baptisms in Austria were really by chance and not necessarily who you were or what you did. I knew elders like the ones who broke all the rules who had ten baptisms before they went home. It was a really cool mission. I go back [] from time to time. Much has changed in twenty years yet in talking to the missionaries not one thing is different in the work. I don't have any friends who had even close to the strange experiences that we had in Austria. You should write another one just like it and contact some of us who went before for some even more bazaar stories. I could tell you tales of one missionary that would make Barry and the boys look like saints." QED. Alan Mitchell, Angel of the Danube - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:59:08 -0400 From: "Tom Johnson" Subject: Re: [AML] Authorial Intent vs Narrative Control Scott said: > In other words, I had put in a lot of both active and passive thought > time on it. So when I say it popped out fully formed, I'm only > telling part of the story. It popped out after many hours of both > structured and unstructured consideration. You seem to imply here that we are always writing our stories in the unconscious hours of our mind, and when a story just "pops" out it is because it had been churning and turning deep inside us for a while, and finally emerged. I think that's tenable, sure. But what about a little different idea--what about writing by faith, and receiving as revelation the stories to tell, down to the sentences? Like Joseph Smith's translating. Surely we all sometimes feel a sentence formulate itself in our heads. For example, just tonight I was thinking and thinking about how to write a part of this narrative I'm working on, and then in the kitchen while cutting a piece of sweet potato pie, the sentence unfurled itself. Now, you could say yes, the unconscious parts of your mind finally unravelled it for you, like suddenly remembering a friend's name you'd forgotten, but could you see such experiences as revelation? You pray for writing help, and little by little the words and sentences are given to you. When things begin to naturally fit together a little too neatly, I sometimes wonder if I'm not being aided. Anyway, just a thought. We seemed to have reached an agreement on many things. > > I think the same thing is true of Udall's experience. He'd been > working on that story for a very long time--half of his life, > apparently. Exactly. >He'd learned an awful lot in the time since he first > conceptualized the story and the time he sat down to write. Yes, he > was driven by that original intent from his high school days. But > once you began to write, a different process takes over. You write > scenes as you feel they need to be written, and your original intent > is challenged as you actually begin to realize the scenes and > settings and situations. If you're even a competent craftsman you'll > probably do a lot of things differently than you originally intended, > because the words you've now written create a new context for your > story and force you to rethink how and what your own scenes mean to > you, and how that changes the story you want to tell. You create a > feedback loop with your own text and have a sort of active creative > dialog with yourself. That's all I really meant by unintentions. > > This is not the same thing as hearing voices or disconnecting your > brain. It's not mystical, though it can be deeply spiritual. Have you ever felt the burning spirit upon you as you peck and punch at the keyboard? I'm just curious how much revelation factors into the latter-day saint writing experience. either putative revelation or not. Re the mystical element, let's go back to Kubla Khan. Are you familiar with Coleridge's writing of it? Apparently he was sort of dreaming, and it all came to him, line for line, and he wrote it down (or he was on opium and it happened). How he wrote it is perhaps more important to the romantic poets than the actual poem itself. Harold Bloom seems to be a big critic of mystical poets. Wordsworth, Blake, even Joseph Smith--for him these are all inspired poets. Some people clearly have a muse while others do not. Why? If it's not so easy to explain, then why be antagonistic to mysticism? > So for me, original intent and final intent are almost always > different. I don't think that means a failure of art, but rather a > success of craft. If there's art to be found in the story, I trust > that it will either survive my tinkering, or else be enhanced by it. This difference--between the original intent and the final intent--is, for me, the most intriguing part of writing. How does language do that to me? It resists me. Resistentialist words. They won't bend--they bend me. What a fascinating dialogue with the self. >But being pulled in different directions during the writing process is not the same as losing control over > your text. Being pulled in different directions means your text is alive. It is breathing, like a new babe, sometimes screaming. > My little cat story is unlikely to ever be confused with art. It's a > small, genre short story that Thom Duncan would probably decry as > manipulative since I kill a furry creature (the POV cat) and expect > the reader to feel sad at that loss. I think the cat story sounds great. If ever one could truly penetrate the feline mind, I would love to see what is in there. (though i realize your story is perhaps more metaphoric.) > But it did change quite a bit from initial concept to final draft. A > friend recently read it and commented, "Wow, you really > sledge-hammered that Christ metaphor, didn't you?" Do you buy into Freud's take on creative writing? Basically, if you're unfamiliar with his essay on creative writers (I just read one essay years ago), creative writing is a kind of disease--the writer acts out his fantasies and gives play to those forces troubling him on the inside, the subconscious demons inside him. He writes to let these troubling subtexts out. I need to reread him to remember more accurately, but the gist of it, in reference to your sledge-hammering, suggests that when Udall brutalizes that boy, he very well *means* to do it--the text isn't pulling him in that direction, the subconscious forces of his pained inward mind are raising the sledge-hammer at the boy (is that a comma splice, by the way?). I think one could make an interesting psychoanalytical reading of that text in light of Udall's bus experience--Udall feels guilty for his white-society effect on the apaches; as he's riding away on that bus he sees the sadness in the boy's eyes, and udall desires to eradicate his own guilt. the guilt manifests itself as hate--he must brutalize the boy to get rid of him, kill the boy, actually. when the boy is eliminated, so is the guilt. I'm very convinced of this little theory of mine. Perhaps I'll develop it and send it to Udall. I think he would resist it--who wants to be told something like this? Or perhaps with your cat story, if I were to ever read it, I might find some twisted psychological force at play, and then how would you react to the idea that you very well *meant* to pound every sledge-hammer you did? My point is that perhaps the text doesn't pull us in unintended directions; the subconscious forces of our minds do, and because those directions are so different from our initial intentions, we think they are foreign, maybe mystical, or revelatory, but they really are not. Is this along the same lines as what you were saying? > Now I thought I'd been reasonably subtle with it (except for the > cat's final living words which were pretty obvious, even to me). But > after hearing that comment I reread my own story and discovered that > the text had, in fact, at least a half-dozen clear references. I > guess I did sledgehammer it. I'd claim that it was unintentional > except that I had intended a Christ metaphor all along. I'm dying to know here. Sorry, excuse my conjectulation. is the mouse christ, and the cat pontious pilate? > If I understand your definition of art correctly, hold on, this wasn't really *my* definition. I was only intrigued by the idea. I wouldn't ever be pretentious enough to tell the world what the definition of art is. >that suggests that the elements I discovered after the fact represent art more fully > that the ones that served the same purpose but were intentionally > placed. Is that correct? I don't know. I think that's what I've been saying, yes. But after straightening out what we meant by original and final intents, I think this difference somewhat complicates things. > > How much in control is the author? A lot more than most people think, > in my opinion. I won't claim that every element is intentional, but I > do think the author intends some broad concepts that are sometimes > reinforced or contrasted in unintended ways. And the successful > artist is the author who trusts his own creative process and > instincts, thus facilitating the hidden elements. Again, when we speak of unintentions, I would include the dynamic feedback loop that you hinted to earlier. The idea, I suppose (though someday I'll have to ask Plante to straighten it out for me), is that one begins thinking one thing and ends up thinking another, and that is the magic of art. Tom Johnson - - 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 #368 ******************************