From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #496 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 Saturday, October 27 2001 Volume 01 : Number 496 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:19:12 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Piano-drummer opens for Julie de Azevedo Oct. 26: Excel Entertainment Press Release 13Oct01 US UT Prov A2 Piano-drummer opens for Julie de Azevedo Oct. 26 PROVO, UTAH -- New artist Jared Johnson will open for award-winning pop songstress Julie de Azevedo at BYU's de Jong Concert Hall on October 26 in a fundraising concert for the Y Cycling Club. The concert will feature new tunes from de Azevedo's latest pop album HELLO SKY, as well as Johnson's own unique brand of piano music. Johnson couldn't find the right genre for his music, so he created his own. His debut album, Piano Pop blends ingredients of jazz, new age, classical and straightforward pop in a mixture of upbeat and reflective solos. "This is music you can listen to over and over and never get tired of," said Russ Dixon of the group Colors. Johnson opened for Colors earlier this year at another benefit concert. "Piano Pop is a high-energy piano album that takes you places. Jared's compositions are moving and fun to listen to," said pianist Michael R. Hicks, who received three Pearl Award nominations this summer for his album Creations. On stage, Johnson adds a new dimension to his music by actually drumming on the piano with his hands to produce a background beat. Raised in Houston, Texas, Johnson began his classical training at age five. In high school, he stuck with the piano and began studying percussion in addition. Johnson has seen hands-on success opening for popular acts including Colors and Peter Breinholt. His music is played regularly on KOSY's "Sounds of the Sabbath" program Sunday mornings. Online, Piano Pop is featured on KZION radio, and four songs from the album reached Top 40 positions on MP3.com within a month. Other artists seem to recognize Johnson's ability to share uplifting piano music in a new light. "Jared uses his unique brand of solo piano to relax and refesh an audience that is growing larger and larger," said local piano favorite Jon Schmidt. The October 26 concert will raise money for the Y Cycling Club. Both de Azevedo and Johnson are no strangers to benefit concerts. De Azevedo has performed in a string of them recently, including a benefit for victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Johnson recently performed in a concert to raise funds for the Provo High School track team. Tickets for the 7:30 concert are $7 in advance, $8 at the door, and are available at the Harris Fine Arts Center Box Office. ##### >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:37:28 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV Series) Good review. I'd have to agree with the vast majority of it. You have to watch it to catch the true poignancy of the first show this season, though--to see the joy of her friends to have her back and the effect of Gellar's performance in portraying her bitter agony at reuniting with friends she loves. I ignored Buffy for the first three seasons because I'm such a fan of the campy film of the same name and I didn't take Sarah Michelle Gellar seriously. That was a serious error on my part. Fortunately, good friends tied me down and made me watch some season four episodes and I've been hooked ever since. And now FX has begun showing reruns from the beginning--I'm impressed how good it was right from the beginning. One caveat on the show, though. You have to understand that the morality is very worldly and that the bigger battles between good and evil are against a back-drop of typical Hollywood morality where you sleep with others because you're in luuuuuv. My sister thinks that Buffy is just evil because of the demons and things. In my opinion, Buffy is about five times better than any other show in American Prime Time and more moral than shows like Friends, Jerry Seinfeld, or News Radio (most of those are shows I like so don't think those are random slams). What I am saying is that despite the fact that two main characters are in a lesbian relationship, it is still more moral than any other show I can think of. Despite the name, Buffy deals with issues of great emotional significance as the characters try to understand right and wrong and delineations between good and evil can blur as flaws are explored and exploited and even evil characters sometimes do good things. I love the show for its humor and its gravity and its struggle with what is important and what isn't in the face of adversities great and small. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:39:49 -0700 From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Writer's Block? I've also had this happen, Thom. With journal entries as well as actual poems, stories and essays. One essay I wrote in college I distinctly remember writing. I remember the exact evening, what was happening, who was in the room with me, the intense feelings I had about what I was writing. But when I read it, I find it impossible to believe I actually wrote it. There were ideas in there that are so lost to my present thinking after wife and motherhood and the events of 18 years, I can't even remember thinking them, let alone articulating them. If I didn't have the other memories surrounding the writing process, I wouldn't believe it was even mine. Kathy Fowkes Mesa, Arizona - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:18:40 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: [AML] Re: aml-list-digest V1 #495 You probably did and I missed it, skimming through the digest at lightning speed. :) That's great! Thanks, btw, for the catalog. Which lines of books are the ones not paid for by the author? Sue From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Cedar Fort Publishing ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:35:58 -0700 From: "Susan Kroupa" Subject: [AML] Re: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV Series) I'm a _big_ BUFFY fan--so big that when the show switched from WB to UPN and our cable company didn't get UPN, we decided to get satellite instead. :) I'd highly recommend that anyone interested in the show try to see the first 3-4 seasons--which, I fear--the show is never going to top. The first season, as well as the Angel arc (one of the most powerful endings to a storyline I've ever seen) and the Faith arc (about evil and redemption) are both available in DVD and video. Those looking for a distinctly Christian take are going to be disappointed--although Christian symbols are used--the cross and holy water against the vampires--there's a definite emphasis on the occult, as mentioned, and a sometimes pagan feel to the show. It also has a definite "teen" point of view, especially the early episodes, but then Whedon specifically set out to make BUFFY about the "horrors of being a teenager" which he does quite literally. (For instance, in one ep, Buffy's friends are telling her that she can't bury her feelings or they will rise up out of the grave to haunt her. The very next shot is of zombies who have risen up from the grave and are coming to attack her.) There's great use of myth and the layers of meaning in each episode are wonderful. I'm on a list-serve with some highly intelligent and well-read people who disect each show for all the layers or meaning. And it's often laugh-out-loud funny, though not, probably, until you've watched the show enough to know the characters. I never thought of the comparison to Joseph Smith--the trying to live an ordinary life when one has an important spiritual calling, but I think it fits. Sue - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:45:30 -0600 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff (was: Mormonism as Distinctive) >If Fluff were a person he would not want Abinidai to be thrown into >the >fire after bearing his testimony because the righteous are always > >rewarded. Fluff would not want Moroni to be so lonely at the end of >the >Book of Mormon. Fluff would want his hometeachers to bring him a >plate of >brownies. You know, you can want someone not to be thrown into the fire and, at the same time, realize that it happens and is sometimes necessary to happen. You can also want someone not to be lonely and still appreciate what came out of that loneliness. And you can ponder the deeper truths of the gospel while munching on brownies that your home (or, more likely, visiting) teacher brought. I stand up for all those who sing "If you could hie to Kolob" while harboring a not-secret desire for brownies that somebody else baked! :-) Marianne Hales Harding President, Society for the Study of Deep Fluff "Dude, that fluff is deeeeep." _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:51:38 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff (was: Mormonism as Distinctive) Dear Todd, As the one who, several weeks ago, began using the word "fluff," I have to say AMEN!!!! to your definition of it! You hit the nail on the head, Brother! What more can I say? Nothing. You've said it all--beautifully! ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:05:27 -0400 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Mountain Meadows Ardis, I am one writer of LDS historical fiction who is not at all offended by what you wrote. I agree whole-heartedly with every point you make. I cringe every time good people I know in the Church tell me how much they've learned about our history by reading "The Work and the Glory" series. At such times I think of what Jan Shipp wrote in her book on Mormonism as a new religious tradition: that if modern Saints were suddenly transported back to a Sacrament meeting in pioneer-era Utah, while they would find much that seemed familiar, they would probably be very disturbed by those very important elements that would be new, unexpected and strange. And yet, as a convert and as an artist, those historical events and doctrines that some many Saints try to ignore, hide or avoid (or of which they are completely ignorant) are the very things that drew me (and keep me) in the Church. These are also the very same things from which a distinctive American genre of art can be created. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:31:05 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff (was: Mormonism as Distinctive) I'd like to respond to Todd's definition of fluff, which, while it included some things with which I tend to agree, also included many things that raised my hackles, though I doubt that was Todd's intent. I see a basic problem in Todd's description, in that it conflates several things that don't, it seems to me, necessarily go together. These fall into two main categories: a. Fluff as the "lighter" artistic/cultural stuff of the gospel (in which I would include items like Noah's ark on diaper bags). Things that don't of themselves dwell on either the darker or the more challenging side of Mormon doctrine/earthly experience, and that also are not stylistically or artistically challenging. This definition seems consistent to me with the notion that "fluff isn't bad, but it's important to have non-fluff as well." Fluff, by this definition, could be art and artefacts that are intended to make us feel good and/or confirm our belief in things already believed and understood, as opposed to challenging us. b. Fluff as the desire to exclude the darker/more challenging items: rewrite the scriptures, equate darkness in spiritual works with personal unrighteousness, etc. In other words, fluff as a mode of censorship. I guess the thing that bothers me is that Todd seems so easily to slide back and forth between (a) and (b), assuming that a taste for (a) automatically leads to (b). That, and the fact that despite his comment that "The issue here is not about tastes," his descriptions of fluff are repeatedly sprinkled with pejoratives. If I like the sort of thing Todd describes as fluff, I'm adolescent, holding onto the things of childhood when I should be putting them aside, spiritually censorious of others, rewriting the scriptures--basically, a cultural nazi. In associating types of behavior and levels of maturity with certain types of artistic preferences, Todd has written something that strikes me as actually pretty deeply insulting. I think there's far more to fluff--as broadly defined by (a)--than Todd seems to acknowledge. I'm reminded of the quote (from Harold B. Lee? anyway, I've heard it attributed to him) that the purpose of the gospel of Christ is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Modern and postmodern academic/literary studies, and the brand of literature associated with them, tend heavily to privilege the latter as a goal of literature. But the first is a worthy goal as well, with as great a history of literary achievement to recommend it as the second. Indeed, the two are not truly incompatible, but can sometimes (often?) be accommodated both in the same work of literature. Nor is it impossible for the same person to enjoy art that is directed toward both aims, at different times and in different ways. Contrary to Todd's statement that "The effects of fluff are that people lose the ability to withstand the difficult realities of the gospel or the faith," I think that in many cases those who go to literature for comfort rather than challenge are all too aware of the difficult realities of life. What they want from literature is hope--or a pleasant relaxation, a distraction from the challenges of life. It could be argued that fluff per se is too light a thing to offer hope; that what it really offers is a whitewashing over difficulties--not the same thing at all. If that's the case, though, we need a very careful definition of fluff that does not have the appearance of eliminating everything which is both positive and unsophisticated in style. People who are going to literature to be comforted do not, generally, want to have to spend a great deal of energy decoding the message. But this is very different from saying that anyone who doesn't want to spend energy decoding messages or looking at things he/she finds depressing is in a state of arrested childhood or adolescence. (I'm puzzled, anyway, by the description of LDS artistic taste as adolescent. Obsessed with sex? Well, perhaps, in the negative--although on logical grounds I tend to dislike arguments that the absence of something attests to its importance. More to the point, is LDS art saturated with the theme of leaving family to establish independent individual identity--the key theme of adolescent literature? I don't find this to be the case except for LDS art that is explicitly labeled as adolescent.) It seems to me that part of what is happening here is that the bulk of the Mormon audience is being criticized for not being part of the artistic elite. Well--why should they be? I'm not a student of 20th century mainstream art, but it seems to me that in music, painting, sculture, and literature, the type of art Todd is talking about has made little attempt to connect with the "common man" of the 20th century. Instead, this particular artistic world (or set of worlds) seems to be largely talking to itself. This is no bad thing--Chaucer, too, had a pretty small audience, and his work is filled with digs and in-jokes that help to prove it. In order to explore artistic boundaries and try new things, you generally *need* a small, experimental group, speaking in code to one another. Indeed, if art is (as I am inclined to view it) an expression of group identity, it's inevitable that it will be created with an eye to excluding as well as including. But it's important, in that case, to make sure we don't condemn those not a part of that group for a lack of interest in something that doesn't speak to them and was never intended to match their needs and interests. Let me clarify that I (unlike some others on this List) agree that it is possible for art to be damaging, and that I too would like to see a greater breadth of artistic appreciation and expression within the Church. In particular, I think it's possible for one-sided artistic expressions to reinforce one-sided interpretations of life and the gospel--and that it is the job of the artistic critic to point that out, to act (in that sense) as a cultural critic. That's one of the types of literary criticism that most interests me, and part of what engages me about Mormon letters as a subject matter. But if we're going to serve that purpose, I think we need to avoid painting with too broad and negative a brush those whose artistic tastes differ from ours. In this case, I think that if we're going to attach a pejorative meaning to "fluff," we need to be much more careful in what we imply is--and isn't--included under that label. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:55:24 EDT From: Higbeejm@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Audience for Journals Ardis Parshall wrote: >My all-time favorite diary was written simply because >the diarist had to talk to somebody, and because of >temperament, language barriers, and deafness he was >pretty well cut off from discussing anything with his >neighbors. This man had no descendants and felt >himself so insignificant in the church and community >that I'm sure he never dreamed anyone would read his >journal and because he wasn't writing to anybody in >particular, his views of everything are utterly >unselfconscious, candid, and plum wonderful. "I built >a chicken house, 8 x 10, with shingle roof and >window. The neighbors laugh at the window. I don't >care. I believe in chickens having a having a clean, >lighted, comfortable place in which to live." Ardis, Can you tell us more about this man? His name, where he lived, when he lived? For the chicken coop story alone, he deserves to be immortalized! Thanks, Janelle Higbee - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:36:24 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Dark Muse in Literature At 07:59 PM 10/24/01, William Morris wrote: >I'm disappointed that no one has picked up this thread, as I am also >disappointed that no one picked up on Scott Parkin's thread about "Growing >Up," so I'm going to try and express some thoughts. I don't know much >about the concept of 'duende,' Perhaps you're not the only one, which may explain the lack of response . .= . ;-) - -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam=85 God bless America! My home, sweet home. - -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:32:34 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV Series) More mad props (as the kids say) to "Buffy." My family began watching the show from the beginning, and I enjoyed what I saw. But I didn't want to commit to watching it regularly because I knew it had a mythology and could not be watched haphazardly, and I didn't have time to commit to another show in my viewing schedule. (Same thing keeps from away from "West Wing," among others.) Then FX started showing the reruns, and I'm hooked -- and taping every episode, in order, like the obsessive-compulsive I am. The description of the show as "religious" is interesting to me. The Good vs. Evil thing is obvious, of course, but it is worth mentioning that overall, the show has no religion. God and Satan are not mentioned. Buffy herself described organized religion as "wacky" (or some such word) in a Season 2 episode; she seems to be agnostic, from what I can tell (though I haven't seen every episode yet). So it might be safe to say the show is literally non-religious (even agnostic), but in terms of metaphors and values, it definitely has religious connotations. And how do we deal with things like the lesbians? The Willow character, in the new episodes (which I am also watching -- which means there's a three-season gap in my knowledge of the show) -- is a practicing lesbian AND a practicing witch. I disagree with both lifestyles. Can I disapprove of a character's lifestyle, yet still like and admire her as a character? Can I love the clever, witty dialogue in a show that portrays things I consider sinful to be OK? Yes and yes are my answers, for the most part. But it is interesting to contemplate. And to clarify a point brought up earlier: Selected episodes of the show are on video. The entire first season will be released on DVD in mid-January; it is already available outside of North America. Subsequent seasons on DVD will presumably follow. But the first season entire is not currently available on this continent. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:10:59 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: [AML] Good v. Evil Stories (was: Buffy the Vampire Slayer) At 07:21 PM 10/24/01, you wrote: >As the series unfolds, it >becomes more and more clear the God has chosen Buffy as His instrument; >and, offhand, I can't think of another show where the characters each have >a spiritual struggle that has eternal consequences. And it's a lot of >fun, too. Have you read Terry Brooks' three-book fantasy series about the Knight of the Word? The protagonist is battling The Void on behalf of The Light (I think). Anyway, it's a good-vs.-evil story. The hero is a really good man who sacrifices a lot to help other people escape from the forces of darkness. It did have a lot of nastiness in it that I had to fast-forward past, but the overall feel of it, even though dark, I found powerful. I missed God, though. Those stories that completely leave out the personality of God feel very empty to me, even if there is a "figure" who supposedly represents him or his purpose. I've been listening to quite a few Christian historical fiction novels. I enjoy them for the most part, depending on how heavy-handed the writer is. I've been able to enjoy some good stories and deft characterizations. I do become a bit annoyed by the underlying unquestioned, unexplained "woman's place is in the home, subservient to her man" theme, but then I find that in some LDS fiction, too. Barbara R. Hume Provo, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:32:20 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] RE: Fluff (was: Mormonism as Distinctive) Okay, here's a question for Fluff-Meister Todd. Is comedy fluff? Or does = it have to be satire to not be fluffy. Okay, first off, I read your entire post laughing out loud, not because of = anything you said or how you said it, but because in my wife's family, = 'fluff' is the generally accepted euphemism for flatulence. So after = years of hearing my in-laws talk about 'doing a fluffy,' your post became, = in my vulgar mind, quite remarkably funny. I enjoyed your definition of fluff, but then I found myself wondering what = sorts of humor would fit, or not, into your definition. Essentially, you = were describing various forms of sentimentality; bathos. I think bathos = is funny. My reaction to Touch of the Master's Hand is to giggle. And = I'm an incurable hymn re-writer; and my father's an opera singer, and I = have a loud, if unmelodious voice. So when I sing "we all have work, you = lazy jerk, put your shoulder to the wheel," they all hear it. So whaddya = say: sophomoric silliness (and therefore fluffy), or sardonic wit (loopy)? = Anyone? Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:19:55 EDT From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Audience for Journals Janelle wants to know more about the diarist who cared about the comfort of chickens. He was Edouard Desaules, a French-speaking Swiss who migrated to Utah in the late 1850s, one of a very small group of French-speaking converts. Most of them stayed in northern Utah, but "Ned" gradually migrated to southern Utah. He was a carpenter and skilled cabinetmaker; he helped build the St. George Temple; he never gave up on the United Order, although every time one collapsed he ended up poorer than before. He was a highly educated man, something of a know-it-all, a single man who never gave up hope for marriage but never took steps to find a wife, an intensely lonely man. He loved to raise fruit and flowers, but felt he had to justify the time spent producing beauty: "If Zion is to blossom as the rose, there must need be roses." The survival of his writings is something of a miracle: He had no relatives within hundreds of miles to save his papers when he died in 1904, yet somehow one volume of his diary ended up at LDS Archives. Letters he had written to an aunt in Salt Lake (a woman with no children, so who saved her papers?) ended up in a storeroom of the Salt Lake Temple, which was not completed until 12 years after the aunt died. The bundle of papers was transferred to the Genealogical Society in 1936, and eventually to the Family History Library. The bundle had never been opened, but provided nesting material for mice over the years. Last year the FHL was cleaning out boxes and the Desaules papers ended up on the trash heap. Someone at the library did call the archives, thank heavens, to ask if the archives wanted them, and the archivist asked whether they had anything to do with church history (the archives doesn't save family papers, only those with significance to the church). "I don't know, they're in French and I can't read them. Oh, wait, a minute, here's Brigham Young's name." "Well, okay, send them over." When they landed on his desk, an archivist noticed the Desaules signature on the outside of the still-unopened bundle. Somehow that triggered a memory that a former church archivist, now Utah state archivist, Jeff Johnson, had once been interested in somebody named Desaules. The church archivist eventually had lunch with Jeff and mentioned the papers to him. That was a Thursday; the previous Saturday Jeff and I had made a field trip to southern Utah to look at gingerbread on a house "Ned" had built more than a hundred years ago. They are no longer in danger of being lost, believe me! I've transcribed and translated the papers, and Jeff and I are editing them for publication in the next year or two. Ned Desaules is one of thousands of unknown figures in our history whose story is full of faith and drama and loss and beauty and strength and struggle. You know, we could throw out every story in our manuals and talks that has become threadbare with the telling and replace them with fresh ones from these unknown Saints. I'm living a dream by being able to go through the papers of our past and discover them. Ardis Parshall - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:05:00 -0700 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re: [AML] Buffy the Vampire Slayer I have to add my kudos to the Buffy review. It has been a family favorite for years-which does raise some eyebrows. It is one of the best written shows out there which unfortunately it does not get credit for even among it's own crowd of writers in Hollywood. To my knowledge, the only Emmy nominations that "Buffy" has received to date are for the make-up/special effects awards. In many of the early episodes of the first few seasons I did like the fact that the show would portray some nasty consequences of teenagers fooling around with love spells, casual sex and what parental indifference, cluelessness and neglect can contribute to. Even this year's season premire Spike warned that magic, (or the occult if you prefer), often has unforseen and ugly consequences. Although I am uncomfortable with the natural assumption by all the characters that unmarried sex is acceptable at least the relationships of the regulars in the cast, (the good guys), is at least monagamous. Even Willow's lesbian relationship isn't shouted into one's face the way Ellen DeGeneres handled hers on her old show and in her personal life. Perhaps one of the shows best aspects is the constant vein of humor that runs through it even when the characters are in serious trouble as in Buffy in the season finale pushing Joel Gray's character off the scaffolding as he's talking about what a great challenge fighting with her is going to be. Basically the same thing Harrison Ford did in the first "Indiana Jones" movie in shooting the big guy brandishing the scimtar in front of the crowd. It is ironic, sarcastic, satire at it's biting best. Makes you laugh and think. While some might question my judgement at letting my preteen watch the show she already knows first-hand:Caution shamless plug in progress- She has been on the Buffy spin-off: Angel. She was a part of a family group of demons, but they were GOOD demons, I swear! They were trying to find sanctuary on an obscure island trying to get away from purist BAD demons trying to destroy them. (Sounds famiiar, doesn't it?) They just wanted to live in peace and Angel tries to help them. The professional atmosphere on the set was great and the patience and time required by most of the actors to undergo the make-up process of either mask, prosthesis or face make-up is incredible. My daughter had hers put on both by hand and a small sprayer like a paint comprssor was fascinating to watch. The actors, especially Charisma Carpenter and David Boreanz were very generous with taking pictures with the kids and moms on set and signing autographs, I've heard the same about Sarah Michelle Gellar. To sum it up, although I'm not always happy with the sexual mores of the characters I do like the fact you have a strong female lead with a kick-butt attitude and very loyal friends who face up to scary situations despite their own fears and always offer advice and comfort to each other. The show deals with a lot of teenage and young adult dilemmas woven into the fantasy/horror genre. It also does call things good and evil. Kathy Tyner - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:40:00 -0600 From: "Paris ANDERSON" Subject: Re: [AML] Dark Muse in Literature William Morris wrote: Part of what I liked about Paris's essay (and > unfortunately I have leant my copy to my brother so can't refer to it > directly) was that built into its narrative and sentence structure, in its > grammar you could say, is a certain lurching rhythm. I'm not sure how to > describe it, but I felt it. It was as if the essay kept threatening to > spin out of control but then restrained itself, caught itself before > falling. That is exactly how I walk! And you thought the Lord moves in mysterious ways . . . Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:33:22 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Marianne Hales Harding wrote: > You know, you can want someone not to be thrown into the fire and, at the > same time, realize that it happens and is sometimes necessary to happen. > You can also want someone not to be lonely and still appreciate what came > out of that loneliness. Everybody would want those things to not happen. The question is, does somebody insist they not happen, because the Gospel requires a happy ending to everything? That's when it becomes fluff. People who want fluff are people who insist that literature where people are thrown into fires and entire societies are slaughtered is evil literature, because we don't feel warm and fuzzy and "uplifted" when we're done reading it. If it doesn't make you "laugh one minute and cry the next," if it makes you actually face the dark realities of life and think, it's wicked, worldly art and must be avoided. That's fluff. And I think it's very revealing that the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon fall under the category of evil literature by the definition of fluff lovers. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:50:31 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Dark Muse in Literature Ronn Blankenship wrote: >>At 07:59 PM 10/24/01, William Morris wrote: >>I'm disappointed that no one has picked up this thread, as I am also >>disappointed that no one picked up on Scott Parkin's thread about "Growing >>Up," so I'm going to try and express some thoughts. I don't know much >>about the concept of 'duende,' > >Perhaps you're not the only one, which may explain the lack of response . . . Yeah. This is an area where I have no understanding of the critical theory that's been offered, and thus can make no comment to it. Coming up with a nice word like "duende" is interesting, but seems to separate and limit its realness as a concept for me as an unstudied reader. I understand the need to give it some label, and a foreign word is always nice because it adds both mystery and legitimacy to the term--I mean if it's in another language it must be really important, right? It also makes it hard for anyone to argue what the term really means because it's already been appropriated, taking a new gestalt in light of the modern zeitgeist and begging any pigeon-holing into a particular genre. Or is it hubris to defy the wisdom of the Academy on the matter? In light of the current "fluff" discussion, I admit to being a little wary of entering this particular fray. As Jonathan pointed out in another post, the word fluff is usually intended as a pejorative, and I don't really like it used that way. But since I know I'm going to chip in at some point, it might as well be now. I'll try to stuff it all in at once. I've been a vocal supporter of the value of stories to sometimes portray life as we wish it was, not as we're afraid it is. I suppose that puts me fully into the Fluffification League because I think a retelling of the Abinadi story with him escaping death by fire is both a valid story and a story that should be told. As is the story where Abinadi *is* burned by fire. As is the story where he burns by fire and no one is touched by it; no Alma has his heart softened by the terrible injustice of it; the wicked society continues to prosper and grow in influence and power and wealth. As is the story where he burns but does not die, where he lives and suffers terrible pain as the only earthly reward for his righteousness. All of these are valid stories. All are explorations of the results of personal righteousness. All revolve around one key truth--that Abinadi thought Truth to be worth dying for. Arguably, the remainder of the story is little more than an attempt to moralize about that key element, the author's effort to tell you what that event means. Interpretation. In this case, I think the core event supports a vast number of interpretive stances and follow-on events, and I believe most (or maybe all) such interpretations would be revealing of some aspect of who and what we are, how and why we are moved to our decisions. And while I vehemently support both the right and the legitimate literary value of the fluff version of a story (the warm and fuzzy version as opposed to the cold and prickly one), I think we in Mormondom have been vastly unfair to the less warm, less fuzzy (or perhaps even hairless; completely defuzzulated [disenfuzzified?]) versions of stories. We are so afraid of failure or sin or the appearance of evil or the recognition of unearned rewards that we fear any story that portrays such things as real and powerful and often quite enjoyable. Because regardless of the interpretations placed around it, the core event is the same--by remaining true to his own faith, Abinadi found grace and peace and honor and acceptance in defending his faith. Whatever comes of that defense is essentially irrelevant and only serves to illustrate the author's own social or religious or political bias and agenda. Which agenda is just fine, btw; it's how publishers and choose marketing categories and booksellers pick sections and shelves. I don't think anyone should be forced to read a particular kind of story once they get out of college, but I think it's in reading and seriously considering stories outside our own comfort zone that we grow as people--be that reading fluffy ones or dense ones. Part of the reason I suggested that people read and talk about Paris Anderson's essay in the latest Irreantum is that I didn't like it very much the first time I read it. I ended up talking with Paris offline about the piece and told him that I didn't think I could have written it because parts of it were too brutal, too self-aware for my comfort. I told him that I wasn't sure certain essays should be offered to a general audience, and that maybe I thought his was one of them. This was several weeks ago. Paris took my criticism with grace and poise and the discussion ended. But I kept thinking about his essay and my criticism of it. I read other essays that were equally dark, but contained a great deal less in common with my own experience and assumptions, that contained less hope. I'm now two-thirds of the way through a book-length fictionalized memoir detailing painful experiences and the author's responses to them over time (A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius) that I am quite enjoying, though I would hesitate to recommend it to a general Mormon audience--more on that in a forthcoming review of the book (whether I would recommend the book to a Mormon audience or not is irrelevant; I would really like to discuss it with a Mormon audience--one of my hopes for forums like this list--so I'll review it here). And in my mind I keep coming back to Paris's dark, troubling essay. While elements of Paris's essay repulsed me (maybe repulsed is too strong a word, but not by much), there was an element of acceptance, of poise, of grace. It was clear that the author had found some sort of peace even though he chose to harrow up both his and my soul with his story of violence in a context where he should reasonably have expected warm rewards of the Spirit. That peace, that core acceptance that there would be resolution in the eternities if not in the now or the near future, is what makes the dark and uncomfortable images not only palatable for me over time, but that have served to fuel my own introspection on the issue and my own slowly developing peace about the smaller pains of my own life. If Mormons don't tell stories of light and dark and the heavens and the earth and all things that in them are--if we don't include our core assumptions of grace and hope and the fact of eternal context in stories of every type and genre and relative luminosity--then we cede entire worlds of readership to the doctrines of the world. We hide our light from many of those who most desperately need to see it. I think we have need of repentance on that issue. We need to follow whatever muse it is that drives us--be it a light or a dark one--to tell our core stories of truth and/or hope and/or redemption to all kinds of readers and in all kinds of contexts. Not every writer is comfortable writing every story, and not every reader will find value or truth in a package that violates their personal esthetic agenda. But we need to tell all of those stories in all of those levels of detail and all of those kinds of interpretation if we are to be both individually and collectively true to ourselves. The argument will rage on forever about whether dark stories tend to be better written or crafted that lighter ones; I tend to believe that the same personality types that are drawn to dark stories are also drawn to the kind of pseudo-narcissistic analysis of their own thoughts that leads to more densely written, literarily complex stories. Which is not to say that happy people write badly, but rather that the same introspective bent that leads people to darker thoughts also tends to cause them to care a great deal more about how well their words are put together. A tendency. In general. It's just an opinion. So while I absolutely believe that it's not only good but right to follow (and even cultivate) the dark muse, I think there's equal moral foundation for choosing not to. While the choice often represents a fundamentally different worldview, I'm not sure it needs to and I'm certain that it actually shouldn't. The core doctrine does remain the same regardless of the story it's couched in. In our favorite scripture about the need for opposites in all things we tend to emphasize the part that supports our own personal wishes--that it's the DARK that enables the (light) or the (bitter) that defines the SWEET. To me, both side of the spectrum have equivalent value both in terms of our internal understanding and our public discourse, be it in the form of essay, art, music, or story. Neither is the whole truth in itself, and neither is without truth. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #496 ******************************