From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #516 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 Wednesday, November 14 2001 Volume 01 : Number 516 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:05:32 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: [AML] Mormon Mysticism (was: Created Spiritually?) Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: > 1. I'm dealing with a couple of these characters now. They won't go away > and even though I probably shouldn't be writing about them, because they > were born elsewhere, they and their stories won't leave me alone. Every > time I put the pen to paper and I find more things about them. There is > something extra there-and like Eric, I'm a little hesitant to analyze it due > to my superstitions and fear of offending some muse somewhere. and > 5. If this "identity crowding" is a common acting experience. Does it > require a certain type of faith? Or Dementia? What does it say about us > mortals? Are we seer-stones? Channelers? Creators? See-ers? Demons? gods? > Your thoughts? My first, somewhat flippant, response is to say "Is Mormon Lit supposed to be superstitious? I'll answer that--NO! Let's not have any talismans in our thinking. More Kolob please." A somewhat more considered response is to wonder exactly how much Mormon thought (or at least the thoughts of Mormons) is informed by--if not functionally controlled by--a uniquely Mormon sort of superstition. I think we indulge in quite a bit more of that kind of thought than we readily admit. Our culture is fairly liberally peppered with tales and lore and even superstition about how and why and when things work. We have the nearly infinite collection of Three Nephites stories; the miraculous injury-stops-at-the-garment-line stories; the dusting-off-of-the-feet tales, etc; not to mention the lore surrounding the Lost Tribes and the Signs of the Times. All of these stories are founded on the idea that miraculous things can and do happen, but that we don't really have a good handle on how and why and when. So we create these faith-promoting (or is that faith demoting?) tales like hedges to caution ourselves about proper behavior regarding things holy--the basis of superstition. We certainly have a brand of Mormon mysticism or spiritualism that shows itself fairly regularly in Mormon literature. Terry Tempest Williams featured a nearly animistic spiritualism in her earlier works (I can't speak for anything in the last five years) and Martha Beck's recent AML Award-winning memoir _Expecting Adam_ was founded on a stylized thinning-of-the-veil kind of mystic communication. Even the apocryphal "birdies" story seems as much mystical as religious. We may not have stigmata and weeping Mary statues, but we have our own somewhat less spectacular lore of the minor miracle. In fiction we have sign-seeking and stylized vision sequences from the Cowboy Jesus to multigenerational matriarchal confabs to desert mystics who seem to see directly into our souls. These are intended as expressions of the spiritual, but they often roll quite close to the mystical line. Even our discussion here of where ideas come from borders on the mystical. Do we really believe in the Muse? Then why do we invoke the name of the muse and refuse to analyze our own creative processes? Is it a fear that if we mess with a process that works (but that we don't really understand) that it will somehow break merely because we looked at it? There's a nugget of mysticism there that informs our thoughts as storytellers. If that mysticism informs our choices and actions, it becomes a superstition. It's only half a step from the mystical to the supersitious. So how do we draw the line? When is one person's mystical/spiritual another's mystical/superstitious? Does it matter? At last year's writing conference I sat on a panel and suggested that mixing magic and priesthood would never work in Mormon fiction because it combines real power with imaginary power in a religious context. And yet Mormons liberally mix these things in other contexts all the time. On the specific question of where ideas come from and whether there is some sort of spiritual link, some sort of divine intervention to help storytellers come to certain ideas--I don't know. I hope that we can receive divine inspiration on how or when to tell a story, or even what story to tell. I certainly believe we can receive revelation on other issues, so why not on our stories? And yet, because I try to be a rationalist I also have a tendency to mistrust that spiritual/mystical hope or explanation and look for one that relies solely on the subconscious and the brain's marvellous ability to work on low-priority tasks in the background while the higher mind deals with the issues of the day. As Mormons we believe in the spiritual. So where is the line between a belief in the spiritual and they mystical? Is there really anything wrong with telling stories that indulge in a little mysticism, or is this one of those components of the mind-destroying fluff syndrome? Is one of the requirements of Mormon literature a strong sense of realism? Then how do we deal with spiritual events without being dismissed as either mystical or superstitious? Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:22:45 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Created Spiritually? Kristin Randall says that writers must be insane, because we hear voices in our heads. I know a lot of people who don't understand when I talk about "discovering" things like Eric wrote about. "Yes, but you're the writer. You really made it up," I'm sure we've all heard many times. I've discovered things about my characters that actually irritated me because they required me to do more research. One has a mental illness, and in another book one character has an eating disorder (which was particularly frustrating to discover, because not only did it require more research, but the issue can be so cliche). I haven't experienced an entire story coming in a flash. Quite often I have had basic story concepts pop into my mind, a basic scenario or some very specific characters in a situation. And then as I drive or do other mundane things, I discover more things about the story and characters. I discovered a couple of days ago that two of my characters for the book I am planning now are sisters. Didn't realize that at first. I also learned that their mother died of cancer when they were in their teens, and they both responded in very different ways. And that is crucial to the story I already had in mind. Glad I found it out. When I was a kid and someone taught me about how all things were created spiritually first, I assumed right away that it meant art, too. (But then, that's probably because I've been writing since second or third grade and took "created" further than the teacher intended.) I remember wondering where all the songs' and stories' spirits were kept. I couldn't have been more than seven or eight at the time. The idea made sense to me, and I found it exciting. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:35:12 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Repenting of Stories Wasn't it on this list that someone told a real-life story about an author repenting of something he'd written? (If not here, it was on _some_ list I'm on). Stephen King wrote a novel about school violence. (Not being an avid Stephen King reader, I don't recall the name.) When some students committed a copycat act of school violence after reading the book, King removed the title from bookstores and has refused to let it be carried anymore. - -- 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: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:42:04 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? I love this post, Barbara! YES! By all means, before you get on the Thanksgiving table, get those books done. That goes for EVERYBODY! I think our culture is just geared to doing our "work" when we're older. Salt Press is excited to do Marilyn Arnold now, and she's got some more great books left--and her best yet to come! (Rally round the senior citizen banner!?) The point is, don't get frustrated because you're not YOUNG getting started, like Dylan Thomas, Scott Fitzgerald, etc. WE have the WORD OF WISDOM, so we can all write until we're a hundred! I plan on it! Marilyn Brown - ----- Original Message ----- From: Barbara Hume > A friend of mine whom I characterize as a Mormon mystic tells me that he is > aware of my future books existing in the spirit and that I'd better get > busy and write them because I'm not exactly a spring chicken any more. (I > guess I'm more of an autumn turkey.) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:49:56 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? on 12/12/01 6:04 PM, Cathy Wilson at cgileadi@emerytelcom.net wrote: > With _Homeschool Genesis_, I used to go for a walk, where the chapters would > arrive "whole." Then I would just go and write them down. Much of my > poetry comes the same way. > > Out of Mormondum this is called channelling :). Of course we don't call it > that, but we don't know HOW to call it. Don't we call that Artistic Inspiration? Or "a great idea," or "it just hit me," or "wow, Cathy, you are so creative!" :-) S. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:12:58 -0700 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Fluff Barbara R. Hume said: "I enjoyed your post, Kathy, especially its message that writing is about=20 communication, not solely about meeting arbitrary standards of "artistic merit." Just as it isn't right for only beautiful people to find marriage=20 partners, it isn't right for only ultra-talented people to be able to=20 express themselves in writing. After all, a woman can find more happiness=20 with a plain but kind-hearted man than with a self-centered Adonis." I took the implication of this statement to be that fluff is the plain but kind-hearted man and that the works with "artistic merit" are the self-centered Adonis. That in turn implies that works with "artistic merit" are beautiful on the outside but lacking in depth, shallow; and that fluff, while plain on the outside, runs deep. Perhaps I misinterpreted the comparison and perhaps I'm shooting at gnats but that seems exactly backwards to me. The whole gist of the fluff thread has been, IMHO, that fluff, while bright and shiny, warm and fuzzy at first glance lacks true substance; and that works with "artistic merit" or rather non-fluff, while perhaps not so bright and shiny at first glance and perhaps even a trifle disturbing upon closer inspection, contain true substance. - -Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:30:59 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Repenting of Stories Todd Petersen wrote: >The issue is this: if I write a book that destroys testimonies, but I think >that those people were just weak and should have stayed away from it. Am I >responsible? > In my estimation the answer would be, "No." If the principle is true that one person is responsible for destroying another's testimony (their personal, inner conviction--their KNOWLEDGE of the Truth), then it seems completely rational to say that one person can be responsible for another GAINING a testimony. What type of universe would these principle give us? One in which PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for one's own self is ultimately undermined. >Let's take it up a notch. > >We all believe that God speaks to people, right? What if God told you that >your book was not righteous, that it has done damage, or what if the >Prophet told me that? We might ignore a local leader, or we might not, but >at what point would we accept the condemnation and try to mend our ways? I would accept the condemnation the very moment that I became convinced that GOD HIMSELF had condemned the work. If the Prophet gave me such a message, I would still have to ponder, prayer and get a testimony of it for myself--the same as anyone must do when the Prophet testifies that the Gospel is true. >Surely those who have said that this isn't really a concern of theirs don't >think that this kind of thing is never a concern at all? I qualified my thoughts on the matter when I said that if one is NOT writing to destroy testimonies (and I might add, anything else that is good, pure, noble and true) and if one is writing according to the greatest Light one has received (writing according to one's HIGHEST VALUES), THEN (that is, WHEN THESE TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET) I am convinced that one need not repent for what one has written. NATURAL BORN KILLERS does not meet either if the two above conditions, in my opinion. I think that it IS an attack on what is good--and not in the cause of some "higher good" either. I detest the film because it is philosophically grounded in nihilism (the negation of all values). For that, I believe the writer (director, etc.) MAY have to answer. But as for the acts of violence that individuals committed after seeing the film--those individuals are solely responsible for these;not those people who created the film. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:39:48 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Created Spiritually? William Morris wrote: >While certainly Shakespeare and many of the >Greeks wrote complex characters, I wonder if we create them >'psychologically.' Harold Bloom contends (in his books THE WESTERN CANNON and SHAKESPEARE: INVENTION OF THE HUMAN) that Shakespeare's great contribution was the invention of psychology in characters. I paraphrase here, but Bloom says something to the effect, "If there had been no Shakespeare, there would have been no Freud." He is deed set against a Freudian interpretation of Shakespeare because Freud is a Shakespearian interpretation/approach to life. I find this very interesting. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:36:29 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Created Spiritually? Are characters created spiritually? Seems we may have a subconscious vs. mysticism thing going. I think some characters do indeed come from our subconscious based on our own life experiences and the people we know. Santa Claus has some basis in a real person. Saint Nicholas was a Bishop of the early Christian church and patron saint of children and sailors. (Why sailors I don't know). So when we say I KNOW this character, we may indeed, based on parts of ourselves and others that have been lurking around in the corners of our fertile brains and imaginations hoping to show themselves when we are ready for them. Does that mean there is not inspiration for certain ideas and characters? Of course there is! Just the fact that we use even a tenth of the complex brain the Lord created is inspiring. But I also believe some ideas spring into our heads unbidden by us. What we do with them is up to us, maybe some kind of learning experience or test it might seem. Some authors have even written about having had a dream or vision about a book or play they wrote. The one that comes to mind is Henry Van Dykes's "The Story of the Other Wiseman". Van Dyke was very ill one year and spent most of it in bed. The doctors weren't sure he was going to live. One night as he lay awake he saw the whole story-beginning to end in full richness and color. Although he had it all in his head he said putting it down in print was much more difficult. He said he was often asked why he had Artaban lie, he said he didn't make him lie, that's what he saw him do. The account of this is in the older copies of the book, (we have an edition from the 1920's), but I don't know if it's included along with an original poem in the book in recent editions. Is there a certain mysticism to all this? I hope so. Practicality? I hope so too. Weirdness? I thought all writers are a little weird and nutty to begin with so why ask? Someone also asked if actors feel this way, yes they do. Sometimes a character jumps off a script and they say I KNOW this person! But that's another discussion or thread coming. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:28:12 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: [AML] FREEMAN, _Red Water_ (Another MMM Novel) Posted to ELWC, a Mormon Feminist list, by Dave Combes, who gave permission to forward it. Red Water: A Novel, by Judith Freeman She is of course, a Mormon of sorts, and two of her previous books deal with Mormon issues or characters. She is well regarded by critics, and the book is likely to do well. It is being published in January 2002, right before the Olymics begin. The back states: BEGIN QUOTE A revelatory novel that takes us into the darkest moment of Mormon history and illuminates a culture at once completely unique and uniquely American. At the center of RED WATER is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, in which 120 pioneers were murdered by a group of Mormons and their Indian allies. Only one man would ever be held responsible - tried, convicted and executed by Mormon authorities - John D. Lee. His story is told by three of his nineten wives, and as each speaks, a fascinating portrait of a complex and charismatic, generous and tortured man slowly emerges. We see how each wife understood her love to be unique, and how love in all its aspects - physical, emotional and spiritual - is inextricable from faith. No other book has given us as immediate and dramatic an understanding of the Mormon experience as RED WATER. END QUOTE This is published by Pantheon, which is a division of Random House.The material with the pre-pub copy says that there will be a national advertising including print and radio. Among the papers listed for the national advertising is the Desert News, which I assume is the Deseret News, which strikes me a a tad unlikely. Reading grioups guides are available. [Dave Combes] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:58:18 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: [AML] Market for Complex Fiction (was: Fluff) Scott Parkin wrote: >Which I suppose is the real question for me: does such a market exist--one >that seeks more literarily complex fiction written at a more stylistic >level >that touches on Mormon thought from a critical (analytical, not condemning) >but faithful standpoint? I think it does. I think there are both readers >and >writers looking to buy in. Does anyone else agree, or am I up in the night >on this one? I hope so. I'm certainly staking most of my time and creative efforts on the premise that it does exist. However, I see a real obstacle in our culture: it seems to me that the majority of Church members see critical (meaning ANALYTICAL) as condemning. I see this as a big road block, one that I'm certain will be overcome, but not any time soon. I think the Church unfortunately reaches out to people who are comfortable with non-critical thinking, and there has certainly been a huge strain of "blind-faith-ism" in our culture despite the works of our Pratt brothers, BH Roberts, etc. Look at the way many Church members (I'd say, MOST Church members that I know personally) reacted to NEWSWEEK'S recent POSITIVE article on the Church. If such a well-written, well-thought-out and analytical piece could be denounced by so many as "condemning" and "anti-Mormon", then I wonder when the types of works to which you allude will find a large even audience to make their existence profitable. (Publishing is, after all, a business.) For now, I write in the belief that it will be in my life time. But sometimes (such as when people reacted negatively to the NEWSWEEK feature) I think it may be after I'm dead and gone. Our greatest weakness as Church members (at ALL levels of the Church) seems to be an inability to see ourselves as others see us; to put our selves in the shoes of the non-member who knows nothing about the Gospel. Doesn't this stop us from writing realistically about such things as conversion? (And that subjects's a staple of Mormon literature, isn't it?) ROB LAUER > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > _________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Dec 2001 10:57:44 -0700 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff I admit that sometimes I burst into tears and cry freely when I hear/see fluff, even while knowing in that moment it's fluff. I don't ever assume that's a witness of the spirit. It just tugged my heartstrings. Yet at this point in my life, I don't mind shedding a few tears--good therapy--while still cursing at the author for jerking me around :). Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:48:24 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] AML-Mag Content Folks, One of the three "flavors" of AML-List is AML-Mag (AML-List Magazine), which is limited to 10 posts a day. The official description of AML-Mag says that it "features columns, reviews, newspaper items, and AML-List highlights." In light of the recently expressed interest on the part of some people in having a version of the List with less volume, I'd like to see what we can do to make AML-Mag a more attractive option for those who don't have the time for the full list. I'm particularly interested in feedback from those who are currently subscribed to AML-Mag, who have subscribed to it in the past, or who might be interested in suscribing to it in the future. Typically, AML-Mag runs the following types of items: * News events and announcements related to Mormon arts and letters, including forwarded items from Mormon-News. * Book reviews and columns (not so many of the latter at present). * Queries--e.g., "Can anyone tell me a good source to check on..." * Posts that begin a new thread. * Substantive posts that advance the conversation on AML-List in a particularly useful and interesting way (in the judgement of the moderator). In thinking about what might make AML-Mag more attractive to people, I'm wondering if we might want fewer of the first item (particularly forwarded news items) and more of the last. Make this more of a "best of AML-List" rather than a digest of news- and magazine-type items. And perhaps work a little harder to get the total number of posts to AML-Mag closer to 10 a day, so as to give a better flavor of what's happening on the list as a whole. But this is only a set of thoughts. Really, my prime purpose is to make sure that AML-Mag is as useful as it can be for those who are making use of it. So what are your thoughts? Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:36:19 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] Market for Complex Fiction (was: Fluff) On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 09:46:05PM -0700, Scott Parkin wrote: > Which I suppose is the real question for me: does such a market > exist--one that seeks more literarily complex fiction written at a > more stylistic level that touches on Mormon thought from a critical > (analytical, not condemning) but faithful standpoint? I think it > does. I think there are both readers and writers looking to buy > in. Does anyone else agree, or am I up in the night on this one? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: But can you reach them. The current LDS publishing industry has developed excellent skills for delivering a particular variety of product. The marketing executives know how to reach a market segment willing to buy LDS books. They know how to get buyers, usually women, into the stores and which products they will buy, usually as gifts. The industry has perfected a machine for connecting an audience with a product. Scott Bronson's book does not fit in that model. Mormon moms don't want to buy Scott's book, because they can't see the benefit their seminary-aged son or daughter might get from reading _The Whipping Boy_. As many of us have bemoaned, we want more from our fiction than we can get from the current LDS publishing industry, unfortunately that industry does not have a success model for a new genre of LDS fiction. I doubt that you can use the existing LDS distribution model to successfully market Bronson's book. I think a market exists for _The Whipping Boy_, but you will not find that market segment in the aisles of Deseret or Seagull bookstores. Sure you will always have some overlap. Some small portion of the current market's customers will also buy _The Whipping Boy_, but that small number will not buy enough copies to justify publication. So the question becomes, how do you reach the people that would like to read _The Whipping Boy._ I think you can start with University bookstores, where you will have a better chance at reaching the types of individuals that like more challenging fiction. Perhaps you could buy the Sunstone, Dialogue, and Irreantum mailing lists and send direct mail advertising. Of course, you can get your books listed with Amazon and B&N, but how do you get the 5,000 people willing to buy the book to know that they need to look for it? I think that the interest on AML-List for _The Whipping Boy_ proves that individuals exist who would purchase such fiction if it existed, but you have a lot of work finding those individuals. - -- Terry Jeffress | Suspect all your favorite sentences. | -- Kenneth Atchity AML Webmaster and | AML-List Review Archivist | - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:44:47 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Writing Groups D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I hate to put a cloud on everyone's enthusiasm, but I predict that this > ad hoc, voluntary "writers group" idea will not work. Not enough people > will respond with offers to read and critique to provide well-rounded > feedback that isn't heavily biased toward specific people's personal > tastes, and eventually the idea will fizzle out. Michael is absolutely right--an ad hoc writing group will probably fizzle in the end--it even happened right here on the AML-List with the LDSVA email groups set up three or four years ago. Then again, pretty much every writing group will fizzle in the end, be it an ad hoc email group, an email group with a more strict participation requirement, a face-to-face group with or without participation requirements, or a formal pay-for-play workshop staffed by pros and requiring a substantial cash contribution by the authors (like Clarion). All groups fail eventually, regardless of format. If they don't, the authors in them aren't developing. So the question for me is whether you can get a useful set of critiques out of whatever group you participate in--however long it lasts. I've done four different online writing groups and gotten both useful and worthless feedback from each of them. But a feature of each of them was members who were both successful writers and good critiquers. Often they're not the same people. This continues to be a chicken-or-egg scenario for many writers, especially those just beginning to get serious about their craft. The group you want to get into is probably already full, or is populated by authors sufficiently advanced in their careers that they're not especially interested in having you participate. The groups that will take you are probably filled with critiquers no more talented in identifying story problems than you are. Which seems like an insurmountable problem. It isn't. Understanding Michael's clearly stated motive to bolster his own online writing group, I see nothing wrong with starting your own group (ad hoc, email, live, or otherwise) or trying to find any of the many other writing groups that are available. And there's certainly nothing wrong with participating in several groups--I once belonged to six critique groups at the same time (three online and three live meeting groups). Getting feedback from real readers is incredibly useful, but so is learning when to take a comment and when to let it pass. You need to learn enough about the formal craft of writing to gain both a conceptual foundation and the vocabulary to talk about it. I would recommend starting with a trip to the writing section of the local library or bookstore. Get five books on writing and read them all. Note the points of agreement and disagreement. Get comfortable articulating (and parsing) thoughts on how and why a piece works or doesn't. The most common killer of any writing group is an over-negative approach based only on pointing out flaws. A good friend (Russ Asplund) once commented that if the focus is on exposing flaws you eventually create a story that maybe devoid of flaws, but that may also be devoid of heart or value as well. Learn to point out both what works and what doesn't. Some reviewers like to "make points" by delivering particularly brutal (but very cute and pithy) critiques that shred a work without offering remedies or suggestions. Consider avoiding these kinds of folks in your writing group; their interest is in showing their own wit, not improving your story. Other reviewers are there as much to curry favor as for any other reason. They either want to be seen associating with "real" writers and to gain prestige by that association, or they're trying to soften you up so you'll be more gentle on your critiques of their work. Either motive is going to lead to weak critiques that consist mostly of "Gee, this is good; no suggestions." (Sometimes your work really *is* good and there are no major critiques, but if one reviewer constantly says the same thing regardless of the quality of the piece, you need to weight the source when deciding which comments to accept and which to pass on.) I've tended to mistrust email critique groups because I like the rapid interaction and brainstorming of a live group, and because I like the commenter to face the accused during a particularly brutal critique--it forces the commenter to search for constructive ways to present criticism. Then again, I've received some of my best critiques by email. Sometimes a live group ends up being a liability when members are more interested in socializing than critiquing (I once had a critique of my story interrupted mid-sentence when Max Headroom came on the television and everyone turned to watch it instead of completing the critique of my story). If a reader hasn't read the story, their presence at the live meeting is a waste. And sometimes too much comment in too short a time can make an author feel besieged or attacked; I've seen good stories get trashed when a negative feedback loop gets started in a live setting. In these cases, email can be a vastly superior environment. Not to mention the travel time required in a live group. So... Join WorLDSmiths. Or don't. Start your own group. Or join an existing one. Meet live or by email--whatever format meets your need. And if a group folds, find or start a new one. Try to get the best readers you can and recognize that writers are often not the best critiquers; they have their own vision of how things should be done and often try to remake your story in their own image rather than making your story the best version of your story that it can be. And if you're the best writer in your group, you can still learn how to improve your own work by critiquing others' work. Still, if you're continuously giving more than you get, think about finding another group either to supplement or replace your current one. In any case, participating in a critique group can substantially improve your writing--both from receiving reader feedback and from learning to articulate your own suggestions for other writers' works, thus teaching yourself to analyze your own work more effectively. I highly recommend writing groups so long as you keep your own artistic integrity and don't let it get hijacked by the group. There's nothing wrong with soliciting individual comment from specific people, either. The important thing is that you do the groundwork necessary to make any critique useful. whatever the source. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:06:57 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Credit/Blame in Drama, Movies Terry L Jeffress wrote: > So when you watch a movie (or a play), how do determine to whom you > should give the credit? Short answer--the director and editor have as much to do with the totality of the finished product as anyone else within it. The editor can completely change the effect of an actor's delivery, and many people have an effect on the way the original text is realized. I just finished watching a spectacular set of DVDs that powerfully illustrate this concept--the Criterion Collection boxed set of _Brazil_ from Terry Gilliam. The set includes three DVDs, one with Gilliam's original edit of the film (142 minutes), one with the Hollywood edit of the film that completely reinterprets the film into a "Love Conquers All" version (94 minutes), and a disc with documentary material on the battles between Gilliam and the folks at Universal on how the film should have been edited to meet the tastes of American audiences. What I found absolutely fascinating was how a new editor could take a finished film and completely change not only the core shape of the story, but could actually change how characters were portrayed and realized through edits that included some material and removed other. For example, the main character is changed from a somewhat helpless (but also willing) cog of a vast and faceless goverment/corporate machine into a heroic crusader against tyrany--a nearly complete inversion of the character using the same exact bits of film, but edited differently. In the original the question of whether the terrorists were real was ambiguous; in the re-edit they were absolutely intended to be real. They were two functionally different stories that developed differently and led to diffent conclusions regardless of what the writer or actors or director intended. A stunning transformation (in both the sense of exceptional and of disorienting). In this case, the film was well acted and well written, so there was certainly more room to change it and still have a successful finished product. A poorly acted film can't be saved by editing, though often a poorly written one can be saved by good acting and direction. So... It may not be possible to assign blame, but the director/editor has the most power to either enhance or destroy the base material from which a film is made. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:20:59 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Writing Groups D. Michael, I agree that making manuscript offers on AML-List can't replace a real writing group like Worldsmiths. However, for the many people who can't or won't commit to a full-blown writing group, it's a way of getting and/or offering at least SOME feedback if and when the interest level happens to be high, with no strings attached. Even if you only get one person to look at your manuscript, that's one person more than you otherwise would have, and that person might turn out to be quite qualified or insightful because of their special interest in your manuscript. And if you are a person who doesn't normally offer to review people's manuscripts and who isn't plugged into any writing circles, you can still hear about and request the occasional must-read manuscript on AML-List. Anyway, I think it's fascinating to hear what other people on AML-List are working on, even if I don't request their manuscript. My expectations are zero, so any good experiences I have through AML-List contacts as either writer or critiquer are just gravy (I've already requested one story and added three critiquers on my own manuscript). If making manuscript offers on AML-List seems completely forgotten in a few weeks or months, maybe I'll take it on myself to send periodic reminders for writers to offer their manuscripts for critique, as I hope you'll continue to remind people about Worldsmiths. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:17:33 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff I'm going to ask a dumb question, which is, what is _Free the Birdies_? Debbie Brown p.s. The title of the song with the line "I take some paper in my hand" is _Paper Dream_ - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff > Then how does one explain the one aspect that is frequently left out of > this discussion? That of the witness of the Spirit about eternal truths > to the readers of particular stories such as "The Touch of the Master's > Hand" and "Free the Birdies" (which, btw, was written and given as a > sacrament talk, not a publishable story)? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #516 ******************************