From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #514 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, November 13 2001 Volume 01 : Number 514 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 01:39:20 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > Anyway, I think there's something to this. I think that there's an element of, what, mysticism to writing. I think that some characters have an existence outside the page. I think that a character is not just a construct of language, but . . . a person? A spiritual creation? Something more real than not, at least. Or am I just being weird? You're just being weird. Your subconscious mind, knowing that you wanted to write a TYA play, was working on the plot and characters without your awareness. Finally one day it said, "I'm done! Here's what I've come up with!" and it popped into your conscious mind as a flash of inspiration. Sorry I couldn't be more mystical for you. On the other hand, I think the workings of the subconscious mind are pretty mystical anyway. - -- 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: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 12:33:44 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? Concerning the characters in his latest play, ERIC SAMUELSEN wrote: the original impulse is still there, in the script. And what I want to know is, where did it come from? > >Part of me doesn't want to know. Superstitiously, I think that if I know >where ideas come from, they'll stop coming. But part of me very much wants >to know. I'd say disregard the superstition. I DIDN'T for decades. I felt I could only write when "the spirit moved me," when there was a "sudden burst of inspiration," and that any rational understanding of the process would be death. Consequently, my output was limited and its quality not the highest. In the past eight years I've found just the opposite to be true. I have my own rational theories about the experience of "artistic inspiration," and I find I have more confidence, feel more in control of my writing and have better ideas. This girl, Hannah, is so unbelievably real to me. I know her. And the whole thing is unreal to me, how vivid her character became to me, instantaneously. > Here's part of my theory: I've always been told that I have a strong sense of character in my writing. My experience has always been that suddenly these characters are there--sprung full-grown as from the head of Zeus (not that I'm a Greek god). When I'm deep into writing a scene, the experience is like that of watching a movie, and I'm struggling to type fast enough to get the description of what I'm "seeing" down before I get left too far behind in the action. I think this "movie" and "full-formed character" experience flows naturally from the sub-conscious mind. (Did anyone on the list ever take screenwriting classes under Max Golighty at BYU? He was really into "writing from your subconscious.") The determining factors in what exactly flows from the subconscious is, first of all, what we take into our mind (our perceptions) and, second of all, our interpretation of these perception--the conceptions and abstractions that we develop from the information our physical senses feed us. I know that I really watch other people. Secretly, I'm very judgmental of them-- not in the "you're going to hell/your damned" way--by in an attempt to rationally understand "Why does he do that?" and "why does she feel that way?" or "why do they think like that?" I interpret body-language, voice inflection; I look for contradictions in a person's thinking and actions. Of course, EVERYONE does this. But for me, there is some sort of emotional attachment to the process. (This emotional attachment has a completely natural and logical reason, and I'm sure that if I wanted to go into therapy I could discover what it is.) This constant evaluating and judging of others--and the resulting conclusions--go into my subconscious. When needed for a story, they spring forth. The process is so instantaneous (Dear God, what a marvel is the human mind!)that it is experienced more as a revelation. And one could almost believe that one's creation isn't actually that at all, that through some mystical process one is discovering someone or something that has an actual, metaphysical existence outside of one's self. But I absolutely reject this idea as nothing more than a "fond-fruitless-fancy." I don't think that a "Hannah" (to use your character as an example)actually exists. What you have created is an illusion. It is artificial--a.k.a., "art." That she seems to real to you, that she will seem real to your audience is a testimony to YOUR POWERS AS AN ARTIST--one who creates the illusion of a reality using artifice. >Have you had that experience? I keep thinking of how, when the world was >created, it was 'created spiritually' first. I feel like I haven't so much >written Hannah as discovered her. I feel like she already existed, wholly >formed, and that I've just been describing her to people. Okay, this is >weird, but I think she exists, in some kind of reality with Hamlet and Nora >Helmer and Holden Caulfield. (Not, of course, that I can even approach >Shakespeare, Ibsen or Salinger as writers). I think that there's something >sort of Platonically real about characters. I understand the feeling. I have it, also. But since I reject in total Plato's metaphysics, I simply enjoy those feelings without taking them to be indicative of an actual reality. (Sort of how I handle the myth of Santa Claus now that I'm an adult.) So characters are something real, but you also can change them, and learn stuff about them. >I think that some characters have an existence outside the page. I think >that a character is not just a construct of language, but . . . a person? >A spiritual creation? Something more real than not, at least. Or am I >just being weird? Religiously speaking, one of the things I've learned to appreciate as a writer is the love God has for His children (traditionally called "His creations.") I love all my characters--good and evil--because they have sprung from MY mind. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:09:41 -0700 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? Eric writes: A spiritual creation? Something more real than not, at least. Or am I just being weird? I think not weird at ALL. Almost everything I've written (that's any good) seems to gestate and then be born. It breathes and lives and pounds on the door. And yes, for me, it evolves and takes shape and demands skill to come forth. What's this about? I don't know. My husband says that music often comes to him the same way, when he's composing. Can we understand this? I don't! Nonetheless it's a very real thing. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 10:27:55 -0700 From: "bob/bernice hughes" Subject: RE: [AML] Fw: MN Pacific Island Films Announces the Launch of a New Film Divisi >LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA -- Pacific Island Films (PIF), a fledgling > >mini-studio founded by Australian actor-turned-entrepreneur, Steve > >Stubbs(Class Of '74), was recently joined by Mormon >actor-writer->director, Jongiorgi Enos (last seen by Mormon audiences as >"John The >Baptist" in Testaments Of One Fold And One Shepherd and as Peg's > >boyfriend "Ed" in Richard Dutcher's Brigham City). Since joining >forces >the two partners have announced their intention to launch >Sweetwater Films >(SWF), a division of the parent company, Pacific >Island. I forwarded the above announcement to a friend of mine who has worked in film, and his response is below. He said I could pass this along to the list. Bob Hughes Bob, The fascinating thing about all these new "Mormon-themed" film projects is that they ignore movie economics. I would bet big bucks that God's Army, despite grossing over $2.5 million actually produced very little profit for the film maker. Brigham City, I understand, was a financial failure. As a producer of a film that grossed over $3 million but resulted in my losing 90% of my investment, I know something about the business side of the film business--something all these rose-colored glasses wearing wannabes don't seem to appreciate. In the prevailing distribution arrangements, it is difficult for producer/director-types to make any money without an exceptional box office. God's Army's box office numbers are probably as good as can be expected for Mormon-themed films--and it's just not good enough. - --Cole Capener _________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:53:25 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Writers Conference Dear Hollow Cluck, the Merciless Heckler, Remember that I said sitting next to you was a delight. Heckling, in my opinion, is almost always appropriate at forums such as the AML writers conference--and, of course, city meetings. :-) And your particular brand of heckling is unfailingly good-natured. So, heckle on, Mr. Cluck! Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:09:39 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] Utah Book Award (Deseret News) (Andrew, forwarding, says that the winner and all the finalists of this Utah= =20 Book Award can be considered Mormon Literature. I'm pretty sure the=20 Oberhansleys aren't Mormon, but the book was reviewed in a recent Sunstone,= =20 and if I remember correctly it said most of the charachters are Mormon. =20 Finalists Bennion, Grimmet, and Bell have been discussed here on the list=20 before. I didn't know Bell had a book out. I can toss out all those copies= =20 of his stories I make at various libraries.!) Sunday, November 11, 2001 'Downwinders' wins book award for fiction Couple switched off writing every other chapter By Susan Whitney Deseret News staff writer A suspense novel set in southern Utah is the winner of the Utah Book Award for fiction this year. The authors of "Downwinders" are a husband-and-wife team, Curtis Oberhansley and Diane Nelson-Oberhansley. The couple met in 1989 in the master's writing program at Arizona State University. They've been in love for 11 years and married for five, and had never written anything together before. Now they say they're planning their second collaboration. This first duet came about by accident. Nelson-Oberhansley, who previously won a Flannery O'Connor award for a short-story collection, decided she needed to write a novel. A novel would be a challenge, a way to flex her writing muscles, she figured. It would be a logical step after short stories. And there's a better market for novels, she rationalized. She thought she'd set her book in Kansas. Her husband had a better idea. He told her he'd always been intrigued by "that hardscrabble little place" where her family lived when she was tiny. Her grandparents' homestead is not far from the Nevada Test Site. So if she set a story there, it ought to be about downwinders, Oberhansley said. She liked his idea for the setting. Next, he began to help her envision a plot. They soon decided to write together. When asked to describe the process, Oberhansley said, "Dull knives, short blades." But then he laughs. Before they started writing, he said, "We felt it was absolutely critical to do a very intensive treatment, putting the story down on one page, then five pages, then 25 pages." Chapters started to emerge. They took turns working on each chapter. As they traded chapters back and forth, they often were surprised to read what the other had written. These were pleasant surprises, Nelson-Oberhansley adds. For example, Oberhansley never took over a chapter set in St. George and turned it back to her having changed the setting to Bolivia, said Oberhansley. Nelson-Oberhansley worried about melding their two voices into one. As they wrote and rewrote, their voices eventually did merge. The book took them three years. They figure it would have taken twice as long if they hadn't "treated" it so laboriously in the first place. Looking over the finished book, Nelson-Oberhansley said,=20 "We realize it was a novel neither of us could have written alone." A year ago, "Downwinders" was set to be published by a small California house, but the publisher went broke. The Oberhansleys ended up publishing it themselves. In its final form, "Downwinders" has realistic dialogue, a scary villain and vivid scenes. When asked if anyone ever told them it could translate into film, Oberhansley said readers have said so, but no one from the movie industry has said it yet. Many of the details in the book are historically accurate. Sheep ranchers in Iron County did watch their herds sicken and die. Atomic Energy employees did wonder aloud if they'd killed John Wayne because fallout from a 1954 test did blow over southern Utah as Wayne filmed "The Conqueror." For all its historic details, however, the main premise of the book is fiction. The premise is this: There's only one copy of certain top-secret documents, and the downwinders' court case depends on those documents. The action follows the premise =97 bad guys want to kill good guys to get the documents. As they read the novel, Utahns may be distracted by their knowledge of what actually happened during the 1970s and '80s: Utah journalists linked the fallout to cancer rates. By the time the downwinder trials started in real life, the federal government's deceit had been pretty well revealed, and nearly everyone =97 including elected officials from both parties =97 was outraged. But if the plot gives pause to local readers, local readers also have an advantage. There are lots of little inside jokes in this book, including one mention of a great recipe from Ruth's Diner. How many readers outside of Utah will know Oberhansley owns Ruth's? The other finalists for this year's fiction award were: John Bennion for "Falling Toward Heaven," Signature Books, a novel about an LDS missionary, a love affair and a struggle of conscience; Gerald Grimmett for "The Ferry Woman," Limberlost Press, a novel about John D. Lee, which begins with one of Lee's wives angrily blaming Brigham Young for their exile after the Mountain Meadows Massacre; and M. Shayne Bell, for "How We Play the Game in Salt Lake and Other Stories," Time Warner, a collection of science- fiction and fantasy stories, including an especially intriguing tale about extraterrestrials in Salt Lake City. Choosing Utah Book Award winners wasn't easy By Susan Whitney Deseret News staff writer Which is the better book =97 a coffee table tome with luscious photos or a winsome volume of essays? A collection of fantasy stories or a novel about the Mountain Meadows Massacre? This year, for the third-annual Utah Book Awards, the judges had an unusually hard time choosing the winners, says Chip Ward. Ward directs the Utah Center for the Book, which sponsors the contest. He said the judges' dilemma proves there are a lot of good writers in Utah. But what made the choice especially difficult was that Utahns are producing in such a wide variety of genres. This is Ward's first year as the director for the state's Center for the Book. He can already tell the categories are going to have to be expanded. Utah has more than its share of top-notch young adult authors and more than its share of excellent sci-fi/ fantasy authors. In addition to the current prizes for fiction, poetry and nonfiction, Ward plans to add a fourth category which will rotate between fantasy, young adult and large format books. As it is now, finalists get $250 each and award winners get $500. The National Center for the Book was established in 1977, through an act of Congress, to encourage reading, writing and the use of libraries. Most states have their own Center for the Book. (You can visit Utah's Center for the Book online at www.slcpl.lib.ut.us, and= =20 later, when Salt Lake's new downtown library is finished, there will be an actual place you can visit in person.) The book contest is just one way the Utah Center for the Book goes about encouraging writing. And contests are important in the writing community, says David Lee, Utah's poet laureate. Lee offers this analogy about two well-known Utah writing contests: The Utah Arts Council's Original Writing Competition (Creative=20 Writing Competition) is a local version of a National Endowment for the Arts award. The prize encourages people who are working on an original manuscript. The Utah Book Award could be compared to the Pulitzer Prize, Lee says. It gives recognition to a book that has already been published. "It says, 'You are in there with the big guys now.' " E-mail: susan@desnews.com _________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:16:06 -0800 From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing Rant Annette Lyon said: > I firmly believe it was because I NEED to write. It keeps me balanced, > centered--and sane. For the sake of my family, I'd better not even THINK > about putting it off until all the kids are in school or whatever. I've > learned my lesson. No more two month breaks. I can't take it, and neither > can my family. This was always true for me . . . at least in the beginning. But a strange thing happens after years of deadlines to meet. Writing becomes the job, not the release and soon you find yourself making Halloween costumes or anything else to evoke your creativity. Soon, you don't long for time at the computer, but must force yourself to go there. Luckily for me, the writing itself is still a joy, but I am seriously examining my reasons for writing, my writing deadlines, and what I'm writing. I can't let writing become solely a job, because then I've lost the drive and the dream, and everything else in my life still goes crazy. Rachel _______________________ Rachel Ann Nunes (noon-esh) Best-selling author of the Ariana series and the new picture book Daughter of a King. Web page: http://www.rachelannnunes.com E-mail: Rachel@RachelAnnNunes.com WANT A WEBSITE? Check out the host for my site: http://www.launch-web.net. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:22:02 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Writing Rant (Jonathan, I'm resending this since it came up blank in my e-mail.) [MOD: I'm sending it out again for the same reason. A caution to all: Please use plain text format! When there are embedded HTML codes, I have to try to trim out the extra bits. Sometimes I get it wrong, at least for some readers. Also: as simple as possible, formatting wise, is the safest way to go with AML-List posts--no long dashes, italics, curly quotes or apostrophes, etc....] Wow. I guess you do have to suffer to write. BTW, such a memorable quote-"Yes I have a navel. Thanks for indulging--it was quite cathartic to write... I showed you mine; now you show me yours." Thanks for the visual on that Chris...Seriously, so there are others out there who have these same feelings and thoughts. Kind of comforting and frightening at the same time. One of my friends once told me the inside of my head was a scary place. I have had so many stories in my mind for so long and it is one thing to hear them mentally and quite another to get them down on paper or on the computer. I had the talk for my son's missionary farewell for seventeen years! It could have been so much better. (Although I'll bet a lot of people on this list think all missionary farewell talks are poorly done fluff). The pregnancy analogy really hit home too. My last child was a six week premature labor, wrong presentation, oxygen mask, forceps, all natural, no pain killer delivery. Is writing that hard? I'd have to say my daughter was worth it. I guess if we want our stories told it will also be worth the effort. I know we need to grow but oh I wish it were easier sometimes! "All these things shall give thee experience..." I personally have a list to ask God someday. One of the things I want to know is what purpose do we obsessive-compulsive-psycho depressive creative types have? Why are we here? President Kimball once said we should be the happiest people on earth. I thought he must be kidding. I always thought Mormons rivaled Jews and Catholics on the ability to inflict and feel guilt and worry about EVERYTHING. Anyway, that feels better. I can see I've met some fellow travelers. Maybe that's why we have a sense of humor, otherwise we'd go insane. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:39:23 -0500 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] Dealing with Criticism (was: Fluff) Barbara Hume wrote: > > Tony Markham has a special place in my heart because he's the first one who > told me, a couple of decades ago, that it would be a really good thing for > me to go through my manuscript and take out the -ly adverbs. > > Barbara R. Hume > Provo, Utah > Or I may have said it would be a really, really, extremely good thing. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:44:12 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Moral/Ethical Criticism Eric Samuelsen and others have made arguments against judging artistic works on moral/ethical grounds. While I respect Eric's reasons for arguing this way, I disagree with his conclusions. It's been several years since I've tried spelling out my thoughts on AML-List, so maybe now is a good time to have another go at it. I'll start with an attempt at summarizing the reasons given by those who argue against moral/ethical criticism of art (with a request that people jump in and add/clarify as appropriate): * When we attempt to judge the morality of a work of art, are we basing our judgment on the intent of the artist, the content of the artwork, or the effects of the work of art on the individual reader or society as a whole? These can very easily become confused, and often do, in ways that render it impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to have a valid discussion of morality in artwork. * If we're judging art based on the *intent* of the artist, then scriptural injunctions about judging the motives of others require us to assume good intent on the part of the author. Eric, again, has argued that he doesn't know of any artwork created in the deliberate service of evil--that every artist, so far as he can tell, intends his or her art to do something he or she thinks of as positive in the world. In any event, attempts to judge the motives of artists based on their artwork can have heavy negative consequences in the real world. * If we are judging based on the *content* of the artwork, we assume that meaning in a work of art exists independent of its audience--which is simply not the case. We also get into all kinds of problems with trying to determine the "correct" interpretation of a given work of art. For example, where do we draw the line between depiction of evil and promotion of evil? Practically speaking, the line can be hard to draw--and different readers will differ on where they make that judgment for a specific work. Is there any meaning to a discussion of what's "in" a work of art, when different readers find such different things when they go looking? * If we are judging based on the *effects* of the artwork, we have to realize that we're largely outside things the artist can predict--and, in many cases, which the literary critic can accurately analyze: social context, personality and circumstances of the reader, etc. Judgments of morality imply accountability--but why hold the artist accountable for things the artist can't reasonably control? And such interactions are so complex that we're likely to get it wrong. So should we attempt it at all? * Judgments of morality in literature are the most common justification for censorship. Do we really want to provide additional impetus for people to deny access to artistic works with whose worldview they disagree? * Talking about "the effects of art" makes it sound like art is something that operates on people, regardless of their intent. But in the real world, art actually *does* nothing, at least not in the way that, say, shooting a gun does something. Art provides an experience that is purely imaginative. Applying judgments of morality to art blurs this important fact. It also can have the effect of letting readers off the hook with regard to taking responsibility for how they let works of literature affect their actions. * Finally, there's the argument--hinted at, I believe, by Eric--that as a work of creation, an imitation of God, each artwork is inherently moral, in a way that trumps all moral/ethical analysis (or at least must first be accounted for in conducting such analyses). All these arguments, I think, have some weight (or I wouldn't have bothered to list them here). In particular, I agree that (a) moral/ethical analysis is complex, and impossible to get completely "right"; (b) responses to literary works vary greatly from individual to individual, in ways that often neither the artist nor the critic can reasonably predict; and (c) moral judgments of a work of art should not be used as a basis for making personal judgments of an artist. But I still think we need to analyze literature from artistic and ethical frameworks. Indeed, I believe we can't get away from it. Eric talked about judging literature based on esthetics, not morals. Where--and how--do you draw the line? Practically, yes, I agree that some critiques are more clearly technical than others, and some are more clearly moral/ethical (or political/ideological). But once you start digging deeper, I don't think the distinction holds up. I tend to believe that esthetics generally reflect particular worldviews, including a moral and ethical sense. In critiquing a work of art from an "esthetic" perspective, we inevitably engage that underlying set of beliefs. I've seen this very clearly, for example, in researching critical responses to Tolkien: critics would talk about the realism or otherwise of Tolkien's world as if it were an esthetic question, but it very quickly became apparent that this "esthetic" judgment depended in large part on how the critic thought the universe "really" worked. Same thing for whether or not Tolkien's characters were "ethically complex" or "simplistic"--labels that sound esthetic, but they aren't; or at least, their esthetics is based in an ethics. This, it can be argued, is simply bad criticism: morals masquerading as esthetics. But I disagree. I don't think you *can* separate the two--in part because literature, in the real world, is *designed* to have a moral/ethical effect. A critical esthetic that did not engage that moral/ethical dimension would be inherently incomplete. Worse, it would be untrue: by treating literature as a purely esthetic phenomenon, it would distort what literature is. Yes, it's true that artists can be injured both personally and professionally by moral and ethical judgments of their work, particularly when these are translated into judgments of character, personal righteousness, etc. But I do not think this exempts art from such critiques, any more than the goodwill of the engineer should prevent investigation of a dam failure. If we concede (which most of us are prepared to do) that a work of art *can* have moral/ethical effects, it becomes important to analyze what those effects are and how they are produced--not least so that such knowledge can serve as a guide to the artist in future works, and to future artists. I think it's important for writing teachers to train their students to ask what the moral/ethical effects of their work are likely to be; indeed, I hold it a dereliction of duty not to do so. There's one huge flaw in the paragraph I just wrote, which is that it makes it sound like it's relatively simple to arrive at an analysis of the moral/ethical effects of a work of literature. In fact, I think it's enormously complex--complex beyond the scope of purely human analysis. And response is tremendously varied: no piece of published art is so simple but that it will provoke a number of wildly diverse reactions. But this does not prevent us from making approximations, and charting the two or three (or five or six) most likely responses to any given work of literature, on the moral/ethical plane. Indeed, the same complexity exists in what Eric calls the esthetic sphere; but this doesn't prevent us from attempting to describe audience reactions to the esthetics of an artistic piece. Which is why we need, not a single moral/ethical criticism, but multiple criticisms, each taking a slightly different perspective. Truth, as I see it, in such cases comes not by one "correct" moral/ethical interpretation winning out over the others, but by looking at a diverse range of responses. Which is not to say that all interpretations are equally valid: some may be logical and insightful, others poorly constructed or unjustified, still others wildly idiosyncratic and therefore inapplicable to a wide audience. But what we need in that case is more moral/ethical criticism, not less--particularly because, as human beings, we all *do* (as I have attempted to argue above) interpret and judge artistic works on moral and ethical grounds, regardless of whether or not we recognize our judgments as moral and ethical. Better to get those judgments out into the open, where they can be discussed on their own terms and considered in the light of other, differing interpretations. Case in point: Eric has from time to time made passionate arguments, on almost purely moral grounds, about the positive value of the TV program _The Simpsons_ and the negative effects of mid-20th-century musicals. I'm not sure I agree with him on either count. But I feel that in both cases, I have a much more complete awareness both of my own reactions and of how other people react to those works. And I have a broader range of choices about how I may choose to respond to them. Being exposed to moral/ethical criticism has broadened my outlook, not narrowed it. There's another point I want to make, with regard to the proper role of literary criticism. Authors (and many readers) tend to view criticism as essentially a parasitic, secondary discipline, existing primarily to allot praise or blame, to promote good art, assist in training young artists, and develop the tastes of audiences onto a higher plane. But in my view, these are at best only secondary by-products of the work of the literary critic. Rather, criticism in my view exists to analyze, explore, and explain this human phenomenon of literary expression. If literature is a garden, the critic is not gardener but botanist. Which may sound like a contradiction of what I said earlier--after all, a gardener has to "judge" the plants, plant and prune and evict, but a botanist only describes what's there. Part of "what's there," however, is the moral/ethical impact of a work of literature. If describing that impact takes the critic out of the realm of "pure" literary analysis, into areas of cultural, historical, psychological, and political criticism, so be it. That's all part of the larger context of literature, and necessary to explore in order to understand where literature comes from and what it does. I raise this last point in part to make it clear that I think the critic has a relationship to literature that is fundamentally *independent* of the writer. The writing process, including the writer, is part of the critic's object of investigation, but does not stand between the critic and the work of art. This means, among other things, that a critic's analysis of the morality of a particular piece of literature has no necessary connection to the artist's motives in creating the work. The critic's judgment of the artwork is not a judgment of the artist. Conversely, the writer's motives and intentions cannot be used to disprove the critic's analysis--unless the critic is making explicit statements about the writer or the process of composition. I admit that this is a rule sometimes violated by critics themselves--but I think it's important to keep in mind, as we talk about what literary criticism is and ought to be. This is one reason why I sometimes speak out on this list about the importance of the critic's (and in this sense, every reader is a critic) freedom to speak negatively about a particular work of art without having that comment taken as a personal reflection on the artist. It's hard to take that attitude; as a writer, I dislike criticism, and find it impossible at times *not* to take it personally. But in order to talk about literature in a profitable and productive way, we simply must grit our teeth and do our best. One final comment, related to the notion of criticism as its own field of endeavor, not a mere stepchild of literary production. If we allow writers to critique society and its morals, individuals and their ethics--and this is undoubtedly part of the freedom of the artist--what justification can we offer for not allowing critics the same freedom, in their own sphere? If, as a critic, I train my magnifying glass on that arena of human behavior known as literary activity, why may I not praise and denounce what I find therein, in much the same way that the novelist praises and denounces those elements of human behavior that come under his or her authorial eye? Yes, I should attempt to do so with goodwill and understanding--but the same may fairly be asked of artists, too. (And ignored, when they choose to satirize or excoriate their objects.) None of us, I think, would say that since some writers abuse this freedom, none ought to try it. Rather, we would say that what is needed is more good practice to drive out bad. Don't avoid the risks, but take them and show how such writing ought to be done. Which, I think, is ultimately what we ought to urge for moral and ethical criticism: not to avoid the undertaking, nor minimize its difficulties and risks, but to do it and do it right. Which is why I hope that Eric--notwithstanding his resolves to eschew moral and ethical criticism--will continue to do it, despite himself; why I hope all of us will continue to write about what we like and dislike, and why, including what we think about the moral and ethical universes such works invite us to inhabit. Not less moral and ethical criticism, but more. Jonathan Langford Mouthing off, not Moderating jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:32:53 -0600 From: "Travis Manning" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] re: Brady Udall Interview on KUER Gideon, In response to the recent Brady Udall interview on SLC's 90.1 FM KUER, public radio's Radiowest show, it was a rebroadcast from early this summer. Doug Fabrizio was gone last week so the show Monday thru Thursday (11 a.m. and a replayed again at 7 p.m. MST) were, again, rebroadcasts. You can either stream the show off KUER's archives, www.kuer.org (and yes, they are a bit slow posting it, their web person switched jobs several weeks ago so they've been behind) or you can order a CD copy of it for about 5 bucks by calling the station, 801-581-5015. I just finished interning with KUER last week. Also, Brady Udall is now teaching at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. Travis K. Manning - ---------- Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <'http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 18:37:26 -0800 (PST) From: Colin Douglas Subject: RE: [AML] Aliens in Mormon Lit Consider Moses 1:29-30: [29]And he [Moses] beheld many lands, and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. [30]And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?" I take "lands" in that context to mean "worlds" or "planets," and I take it that Moses saw some high strangeness out there. I say, put that with D&C 124:99: "...mount up in the imagination...as upon eagles' wings," and take me on a ride I haven't been on before. By the way, in this connection, there is a book on the UFO phenomenon written by an LDS lawyer living in SLC. I can't remember the title and can't find it in my reading log, but you might find it by asking around. I found it to be a very sane treatment of the topic from and LDS point of view. The author recounts in it a story he heard from a seminary teacher who heard it from an old high priest in his ward. (That's a lot of links, but as described in the book they seem reasonably solid.) The elderly brother said that when he was a young man he did some gold prospecting on a river in Idaho. (I'm recalling these details as best I can; it was in 1991 that I read the book.) Early one morning, he walked over a little hill that overlooked his claim and saw two young men standing near what appeared to be a large metal egg resting on three legs on the stream bank. They were dressed in some kind of white or metalic-colored coveralls. There was a hose extending from the object into the stream. He proceeded down the hill and greeted them. He said they seemed "like real nice fellows." He asked them where they were from and what they were doing, and they explained that they were from distant star system and were just visiting, and they needed to replenish their water supply. The brother suggested to them that it might be easier to draw from a deeper pool downstream, but they said no, the water was cleaner where they were. In the conversation, he asked them if, where they were from, they had heard of Enoch or Melchizedek. They said oh, yes, they knew about those persons, but they, the visitors, were part of a different program. When the visitors finished filling their water tank, they invited the brother to join them, but he said no, he was getting married in two weeks and needed to stay where he was. They said goodbye, he made a point of shaking hands with both of them before, they stepped up the ladder into their craft and closed the door, and the legs retracted and the craft disappeared into the sky. The brother said that, about that time, two other young prospectors who had been working the stream vanished without a trace, and he supposed they had accepted the invitation. The author of the book wrote that that story, told by a faithful old high priest who had had the presence of mind to shake hands with the visitors was probably the most solid evidence that exists of extraterrestrial visitors. I think you have ample room to maneuver.---Colin Douglas ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #514 ******************************