From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #520 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 Friday, November 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 520 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:29:28 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Sharlee Glenn wrote: > The problem here, as Kathy has pointed out so articulately, is that we > cannot judge anyone else's response to a work of art. A couple of years ago > I sat through a Relief Society presentation (slide show set to music) that > made my spirit cringe. I felt that the choice of music and images > trivialized the Atonement in a way that was unconscionable. But as I looked > around the room, I saw tears streaming down the faces of many of the sisters > in the ward, and I realized that they were genuinely touched by what they > were seeing and hearing. Whether it was the Spirit, emotional manipulation, > or post Taster-Table gas is not for me to say. I don't get to make that > judgement. Let me don the fool's hat and rush in where angels dare not tread. I'm wondering if there is a way, at least in principle (even if it may be difficult in practice to make the assessment), to identify fluff by judging the response people have towards a work of art, Sharlee's claim that I cannot notwithstanding. These Relief Society women who were "genuinely touched" by the slide show of the atonement; exactly what did they experience? I won't suggest there is something suspect about what they felt--no, sir, I'm not _that_ big a fool to tread there. But other than some warm fuzzies, a little moisture in their eyes, some contentless affirmation of their faith in the atonement, did they actually _get_ anything out of the show? Did something in their lives change? Were they motivated to make the atonement more active in their own lives? Did they take the sacrament the following week with greater atunement to its significance? Did they receive any insights into the atonement that they didn't have before? Or did they just get to feel warm and fuzzy about it? May I suggest that the real sin of fluff is a sin of omission. Art has the power to teach, to make changes in people's lives, to inspire to action, to enlighten. If a work of art does nothing more than evoke warm fuzzies--especially a work of art which is supposed to affect people's lives--hasn't it lost out on a valuable opportunity through negligence? And if a culture's artistic diet seems to consist mainly of such empty calories, isn't that a condition to be deplored? - -- 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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 06:47:06 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Writers' Chat I like the idea of a chat. I don't know how it would work on AOL Instant Messenger. Don't you have to join something to do that? I'm wondering if doing it off the web site might be the best idea. On my children's writer's list they post notices to the list whenever a special chat is coming up--usually an interview with the author type of things. Perhaps we could do something like that. Have the chat room available, people could go there whenever, but post to the list a specific time for gathering when more people might aim for the same time. Perhaps if someone really feels the need for some discussion they could post to the list "I really need to talk. I'll be in the chatroom at such and such....." Tracie Laulusa - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:52:04 EST From: OmahaMom@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff While writing is skill at manipulating words, grammar, meaning, etc., reactions to that writing often are also related to the reader's past experiences even more than their reaction to whatever skill (or lack of) went into the writing. I have seen things that touched my spirit even though they were very poorly written and I could recognize that when I reread them later. They were, however, what I needed to have touch my life at the time I originally read them. One case in point is the book that sent me scurrying to investigate the Church. We can flog "fluff" to death, and probably have somewhat different definitions on what constitutes "fluff". I think there is a time and season for fluffiness, although if that is all one is reading or writing--it probably isn't good for mind or spirit--just as visiting only the dessert area of the buffet table isn't the best of ideas. By the same token, it is important to remember that laughter and and light-hearted thoughts have a place. Some of us can tell jokes and make people smile. Some of us can not. Some might call things that make folks smile "fluff", but an unsmiling world would be a grim place indeed. Is there a different subject we can run into the ground now? Karen Tippets - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:12:54 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Sharlee Glenn wrote: > > I absolutely agree that fluff is in the eye of the beholder. I was reminded > of that fact very recently at a family gathering when I dared suggest that > perhaps Greg Olsen was really *not* the greatest artist of all time. :-) How do you know that wasn't proof that their artistic taste is not as enlightened as yours? > The problem here, as Kathy has pointed out so articulately, is that we > cannot judge anyone else's response to a work of art. Though useless and likely to lose you friends, I think you can and should. Wouldn't you do so in other fields of endeavor? For instance, you're at a family gahtering and Uncle Lew starts talking about how aliens from outer space have taken over the government. He's not just talking to himself: your kids and husband are there. Now you may not jump all over Uncle Lew there on the spot, but certainly, on the way home in the car, you're going to say to your family, "You all realize, don't you that Uncle Lew is as batty as a vampire movie?" and then go on explain the reality of things. I think we can do the same thing in the arts -- in fact, I think we should. Especially, if, through training and experience, we've come to realize our superior knowledge. This doesn't mean we have to stuff our knowledge down everyone's throat--we can adapt to the message to the hearer--but just as it is our obligation to share the gospel to all the world, it ought also to be our obligation to share the good news of good art to our fellow Saints. > A couple of years ago > I sat through a Relief Society presentation (slide show set to music) that > made my spirit cringe. I felt that the choice of music and images > trivialized the Atonement in a way that was unconscionable. But as I looked > around the room, I saw tears streaming down the faces of many of the sisters > in the ward, and I realized that they were genuinely touched by what they > were seeing and hearing. Whether it was the Spirit, emotional manipulation, > or post Taster-Table gas is not for me to say. I don't get to make that > judgement. Obviously, these Sisters had lower standards for art than you did. Does it make them bad? No. But it might mean they are artiscally immature, whatever the level of maturity of their spirits. But I don't think we should settle for that. You could change that, you know. Like me wife did, once, after having sat through someting in RS that she found vapid. She volunteered to do a presentation that involved a reader's theatre presentation on women at the various stages of their life (single, married, divorced, etc.) She increased the artistic appreciation of the sisters by a factor or two. > But what about judging the work of art itself? Can we never do that? And > I'm talking here about judging it according to standards of > literary/musical/artistic excellence. Of course we can. And should. If you have superior knowledge, it is your obligation to enlighten the mases. > > A brief anecdote: I used to teach a unit on didacticism and sentimentality > in the Honors writing class I taught at BYU. [snip] Did you then explain the difference between genuine emotion and manipulative emotion? > > Now, here is a case where I can say, unequivocally, that the work of art in > question was bad art. It was meant to be bad. I employed every low-down > trick that I could think of to deliberately manipulate my reader's emotions > through overblown rhetoric and unrestrained pathos. I misused words, > inverted syntax to serve my rhyme scheme, and ignored meter. And yet > someone was always moved (to tears!) by it. Is the poem then somehow > justified? Should we all refrain from saying that it is a dreadful poem > simply because someone was obviously touched by it? No, it is dreadful. The students need to be taught to differentiate between maudlin emotion and true emotion. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:26:35 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Aliens in Mormon Lit Scott Parkin wrote: > Of course the question is what form God takes in relation to those people. > Does God appear as a Ferret to the Ferret-people, or a Dolphin to the > dolphin-people? Or is God always the blinding white, human, robed personage > we are familiar with? A little speculation, properly handled, could take of that, in my opinion. First of all, God has appeared a few times in the history of our world. When he appeared to Joseph Smith, he spoke English. He looked like the traditional understanding of God at the time. Next we need to ask ourselves: Is there something eternal about wearing robes and having beards? Probably not anymore eternal than speaking English? If God could change his home language to adapt to Joseph Smith, than couldn't he have adapted his physical appearance? Maybe man in the image of God means more than just physical appearance (you make that argument in the post to which this is responding). Elijah sees god as quite the different being than does Joseph, or Moses for that matter, who sees god in a burning bush. I think that's a thornier issue for most Mormons than > how the aliens are constructed. Either approach would be fine with me, > though I suspect even my heresy detector would be activated by making God > appear as a non-human--unless the story clearly left the question of God's > actual form completely ambiguous. That would be the least offensive way to go, to be sure. Just like all Mormons think they understand the nature of prophets perfectly and some get offended if your literary interpretation of Joseph doesn't jibe with yours, they also think they perfectly understand what God is like, inside and out. >> (I wonder if even Mormons who are regular SF readers >> will be made uncomfortable when I include the gospel as >> the gospel in an SF world (Earth being the only planet with >> human looking humans on it)) I wouldn't. Of course, I could also conceive of a world in which magic AND the priesthood could co-exist :). > > I think Mormons will tend to be uncomfortable by any explicit dealing with > LDS theological concepts in an sf context, but that has as much to do with a > desire to see those concepts done right (aka in an "orthodox" manner) Whatever "orthodox" means. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:29:17 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Success in Movie Making The Prophet, a film about Joseph Smith, still in production. Thom Duncan OmahaMom@aol.com wrote: > Is there a follow up project to Brigham City now? (It still hasn't hit > Omaha, and we're waiting.) > > Karen Tippets > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:40:14 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Bus Musician Dead at 84: LDSCaNews 10Nov01 CA ON Ham P2 Bus Musician Dead at 84 By Kim Siever HAMILTON, ON -- Many people looked forward to George Heath's harmonica playing on Hamilton's Locke and Aberdeen bus routes. Now they will miss it. Ever since his wife Anna passed away in 1978 and he retired, Heath, a member of the Hamilton Ontario Stake, has embraced his love for music and has shared it with others. Most notably of his music sharing was his prized Hohner Special 20, the one he used to play such tunes as "Oh! Susanna" and create smiles on otherwise dull passenger faces. Heath had moved to Hamilton in the 1950s from his native Chatham to work an electrical department inspector at Westinghouse Canada. While in Hamilton, he joined the Church and married Anna, gaining her four children as well, all off whom adored him from the start. After the Heaths were married in the Cardston Alberta Temple, the decided to settle in Hamilton. It wasn't just playing that would keep him busy on the bus and help other passengers fill the time. Heath was also an avid philosopher, always having wise and unique advice fro anyone who had a listening ear. And there was always a listening ear for Heath, whether it was debating religion or sharing the gospel, he was sure to get someone thinking. "He was as happy-go-lucky a gentleman," said Don Babb, a caregiver from Olivet United Church. "And as good a Christian as you'd ever want to meet." FYI: The Hamilton Spectator 04 October 2001 ============================================================ >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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:50:08 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Writing Rant - ---Original Message From: Linda Adams > And this... is my BIGGEST fear. Nearly all my favorite > authors have slacked > off in their later works. I've read several titles by > established names > that feel like poorly worked rough draft (including Anne > McCaffrey and > Orson Scott Card), with edits that copy editors honestly could have, > *should* have caught, but didn't--I expect--because the > publisher knew the > book would sell regardless. May this never, ever happen to > me, I pray. (But > I also pray I'll get big enough someday that it could > actually become a > possibility. :-) Sure. I want the money too. Doesn't everybody?) I've noticed that as well with McCaffrey. I hate even worse when authors rent their name to talentless upstarts. Robert Asprin has recently been "co-writing" with a different author and it is *horrible*. Amateur mistakes that Asprin has *never* made are suddenly de rigueur. Bah. On the other side of the spectrum, though, is Terry Pratchet. This guy is nothing less than a miracle. I have no idea how he does it. He manages to release a book every *six* *months* and each is better than the last. How does he keep up this grueling pace? With each new book, I keep expecting to find that he's slacked off, or even plateaued. Hasn't happened yet. One key for him might be that he has such a wide variety of interesting, related characters and can tell a story from a number of different view-points with a number of different emphases without changing his core world or style. I'll bet that keeps it interesting for him. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:00:35 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Repenting of Stories Concerning the responsibility of the creators of NATURAL BORN KILLERS for the violent acts committed by those who saw the film, Todd Petersen wrote: ...the scriptures teach a person is responsible for the sins of people who were taught to do evil. This is commonly connected to the Lamanites or the corrupted Nephites, but has been extended to those saints, for example, who were in the German Army during WWII. > >Rob, how does that work within your answer? The peoples of the Book of Mormon cultures actively taught for and against specific practices and beliefs. So did those individual Bishops and High Council members in Nazi Germany. But is the primary purpose of a work of art (even one I detest as much as NATURAL BORN KILLERS) to teach. The creators of that film have decried the violence committed by certain individuals in their audience. As much as I hate their film, I believe them when they saw they didn't mean to encourage and promote violence. I think Oliver Stone's a complete nut-case, but I don't think he was teaching people that it was glamorous and fun to commit murder. As for the Book of Mormon examples you cited, I'd say that those who teach others to disobey God's commands are held accountable for the sin of teaching others to disobey God's commands. Based on the degree to which these people might be involved in promoting sin, they might share some blame. (The Jodie Foster film in 1988 about the rape victim comes to mind. Men in a backroom at bar encouraging others to commit rape certainly share in some of the guilt.) But until by virtue of reason I can be shown differently, I maintain that the one committing the sin bears a degree of guilt no shared by others who may entice or promote. That said, let's return to the subject of art. While all art presents the worldview of its creator, is the primary purpose of art to teach? Is there a difference between art and propaganda? I would say that there is. Propaganda's primary purpose is to instruct and convince. Arts primary purpose is to inspire emotion by presenting broad abstractions as if they were perceptions. ROB LAUER - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:24:03 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Repenting of Stories I'm not sure I understand, Todd, what you are saying in this statement from your original post. "but has been extended to those saints, for example, who were in the German Army during WWII." Will you please clarify. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Petersen" I would like to think that this is true, but the scriptures teach a person is responsible for the sins of people who were taught to do evil. This is commonly connected to the Lamanites or the corrupted Nephites, but has been extended to those saints, for example, who were in the German Army during WWII. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:32:42 -0700 From: "Bob Brenton" Subject: Re: [AML] Clair POULSON, _I'll Find You_ (Review) Terry L Jeffress wrote: > >Clair Poulson's most recent novel, _I'll Find You_ presents readers with >an exercise in tedious exposition. > I don't respond to these reviews very often, but this one just grabbed me by the throat and sat me right down at the keyboard and screamed, "TYPE!" After SO much promotion and advertising about _I'll Find You_, I went out and bought a copy for myself a few months ago, eager to enjoying a story "brimming with intrigue, suspense, and an unlikely love," as it says on the backliner. I couldn't read past chapter two ... and never did. The prologue, that had all the potential of evoking no end of emotions, was SO stiff and cardboard that it completely turn me off. It was almost like reading a newspaper clipping. But I tried chapter one anyway, determined to "enjoy" this book. I couldn't do it. By the end of chapter two, I'd had my fill. In addition to all that Terry describes in his review (to which I add my hearty "amen"), the one thing that REALLY turned me off was the constant, unexpected changes in Point of View. It was extremely annoying--BEYOND annoying. At the end of the first chapter, I went back with a pencil, reread the whole thing again very carefully, and wrote in the margin whose POV applied -- just to be sure I hadn't missed something. There were a few times when I really didn't know. Some of the changes went from "obviously Jeri" to "who knows?" to "obviously Kate" and back again. And there's never any advance notice. It's usually not until halfway through any given paragraph that you realize whose head you're in -- which most likely was not the one you thought you were in. Like I said -- VERY annoying. All total, I counted 17 POV changes, between three different characters (Warren Somebody managed to poke his head in for two whole paragraphs), in seven short pages; occasionally switching every other paragraph. It made my head swim. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. -BJ Rowley Orem, Utah - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:52:40 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff Sharlee Glenn thought that some makers of Cool Whip mousse think they're = making an elegant dessert. Not so, I say. I think they generally thinking = that they're making an easy dessert, or one that lots of people will like. = Sharlee also mentioned this, and it's an important point. I do think that fluff and stem from and foster spiritual laziness, which = might be why D. Michael calls it evil. An anecdote, once I made a very neat Mediterranean casserole for a ward = function, and ended up eating nearly all of it myself during the next = week, which was fine since it had procuitto and kalamata olives in it. The = next event I took a can of chili and a box of potatoes au gratin and mixed = them in the oven and the dish emptied out in five minutes. I think that, speaking metaphorically, this is what LDS audiences want. I also think that it's not right to conflate crying with the spirit. Lots = of non-Mormons (i.e. people without the gift of the Holy Spirit) cry. Some = people, cry at long distance commercials, does that mean the Spirit of the = Lord is working through ATT? - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:53:02 -0700 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Mysticism I do not think that realism is necessary in Mormon literature, and think = that it might get a little more interesting and valuable if it did depart = a little. I don't argue with Rob's discussion of our theology, but I don't see that = such an understanding demands realism as an outcome. I think there is the = possibility of an LDS surrealism or absurdism or allegory or even what = might be called postmodern LDS narratives, like Ulysses or the works of = Virginia Woolf, that are not realistic in the least. Perhaps the problem is with the definition of literary realism. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:17:05 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] FRANZEN, _The Corrections_ (Was: Fluff) Our conversation about fluff has resonances in the larger world, of course. Jonathan Franzen's hugely best-selling "The Corrections" has just won the National Book Award for fiction. His novel was selected by Oprah Winfrey's Book Club, and Franzen voiced reservations about that because he was, you see, in the "Modernist High Art" tradition and so many of the books Oprah had chosen were sentimental, easy and fake--in other words, fluff. (Whereupon Oprah disinvited him to her show.) In my opinion "The Corrections" is a terrific book. Franzen has taken the concerns of somewhat inaccessible avant-garde writers like Don Delillo and the David Foster Wallace of "Infinite Jest" and placed them in a mainstream novel about family. And how your family prepares you to function (or not) in the world. It's laugh-out-loud funny, and its message of reconciliation and forgiveness is a natural fit for LDS readers (although some may have diificulties with the language and some aspects of the story.) [R.W. Rasband] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:04:35 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Cantabile Chorale at Temple Square If any AML-Lister's are going to be on Temple Square in Salt Lake on Thursday, Nov. 29, the singing group Cantabile Chorale will be performing in the North Visitors Center at 6:00 p.m. and in the Assembly Hall at 7:00 p.m. Come up and say hello (I'm the big guy with the beard in the bass section.) ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:34:03 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] A man convinced... (was: Fluff) On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 06:36:45PM -0700, Barbara Hume wrote: > > I think our discussion has been a prime example of what Ben Franklin > > meant when he said, "A man convinced against his will/Is of the same > > opinion still." [MOD: Actually, it was Alexander Pope...] > > Are you sure? It isn't iambic pentameter . > > [MOD: I thought I was. But now I'm not! Help, someone?] > > Anyhow, there were no international copyright laws in those days, so it > might have showed up in Poor Richard! Well, I love this kind of challenge. So I went to www.google.com and found the quote attributed to the following: -- Anonymous -- An old adage -- A wise man once said -- Folk proverb -- Dale Carnegie -- Laurence J. Peter -- Samuel Butler -- Benjamin Franklin -- Alexander Pope -- Robert Burns Oddly enough, almost every page that included a form of Barbara's adage, included at least one quote from each of the above named authors. One site lists both Benjamin Franklin and Dale Carnegie as possible sources. Several sites specifically claim the quote comes from _How to Win Friends and Influence People_, but none ever provides page numbers to a specific edition. As we will learn, both Ben Franklin and Dale Carnegie just repeated the quote from another source. I also found many interesting variations on the opening line of the adage: A man . . . A person . . . A child . . . A fool . . . A Scot . . . He (who's|who is) . . . Convinced against their will [are] of the same . . . (Attr: Ben) Convince a woman against her will . . . And the true origin =================== Samuel Butler (1612-1680) He that complies against his will Is of his own opinion still. -- Hudibras. Part iii. Canto iii. Line 547 in Bartlett, John, comp. _Familiar Quotations_, 10th ed, rev. and enl. by Nathan Haskell Dole. Boston: Little, Brown, 1919; Bartleby.com, 2000. www.bartleby.com/100/. - -- Terry L. Jeffress | However great a man's natural talent may be, South Jordan, Utah | the art of writing cannot be learned all at | once. -- Jean Jacques Rousseau - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:25:45 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] Writing Exercise In his session at the AML Writer's conference, Paul Bishop recommended that you spend three minutes writing base on a single sentence. Well, I found this interesting web site that provides a description of two crime-fighting characters and just might provide an inspiration or two. http://www.rain-street.org/fightcrime.htm - -- Terry L. Jeffress | Never trust the artist. Trust the tale. South Jordan, Utah | -- D. H. Lawrence - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:10:10 -0800 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Fluff On 05 Nov 2001 16:20:54 Hollow Cluck (Re: [AML] Credit/Blame in Drama, Movies) wrote: >>>>> If it sounds a like I'm saying all art has intrinsic value, I'm saying that all things done for others have intrinsic value. When God asks Adam and Eve what they have just done, they reply by blaming each other. God responds by placing them in a world where they have to serve each other to survive. And it's not casual service, it's difficult, dangerous service, whether bringing forth life from the earths of their bodies, or bringing forth life from the body of their mother earth. In creating things physical or mental to share with others we are fulfilling the instruction given to our parents, and to us, by our Parents. So yes, I think our art does have value to God. <<<<< On 07 Nov 2001 10:14:55 James Picht replied: >>>>> I don't believe that art is intrinsically good or bad. Rather, it's a form of conversation, and as in all conversation, context is crucial. So is the skill of the conversants. What comes of it can be good or bad, but that isn't decided unilaterally. Art has no intrinsic value, Harlow's cogent view to the contrary, but a contextual one. If one assumes as Harlow does that one of the conversants is God, one simply sets a special context that has to be applied to every act of every sentient being. <<<<<< Two comments. First, if God is one of the conversants the context becomes Endless, "for Endless is my name" (D&C 19:10) and anything or one Endless has value in itself. Second, I didn't use the image of conversation, I used the image of labor, things done for someone else--that's what the reference to Adam & Eve was for. However, the word we use for conversation with God is _prayer_ so is Jim saying that some forms of prayer do not have intrinsic value? >>>>> If art has intrinsic value, so does every word that I utter to every person I meet, every glance and sigh that escapes me during faculty meeting. <<<<< That's a pretty fair paraphrase of Matthew 12:36, "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Harlow S. Clark (who speaks a lot of idle words, and indeed even told the mechanic that the car was perhaps idling too fast) Renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek to turn the hearts - --Joseph Smith, Aug. 6 ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:21:45 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Mysticism robert lauer wrote: > I think a strong sense of realism IS a requirement of Mormon literature. I think you'll be proven wrong. Of course, it all depends on your definition of realism. Case in point: BJ Rowley's _My Body Fell Off_. The premise of this book is that astral projection really occurs. Pretty mystical, pretty non-realistic, at least by many people's standards. Yet the book also falls completely within the theological purvue of LDS teachings. Rowley does this by assuming that astral projection is in fact a gift of the Spirit. Now some (many?) Mormons might be miffed that a traditionally occult thing would be considered a gift of the Spirit, but technically, there's nothing in LDS theology to contradict the possibility. Once we achieve omniscience, we may be obliged to write nothing but realism. But until then, our knowledge is sufficiently incomplete (the understatement of the eternities) to allow plenty of leeway in speculation, in crossing the boundaries of realism into mysticism, without straying from the basic doctrines of the Gospel. A number of good fantasy stories do this with magic: speculate that the laws of their magic systems are realistic laws that have simply been undiscovered by or lost to modern man. No one really beleives this, but it's all in fun. Rowley really believes astral projection may be a gift of the Spirit, but that doesn't stop anyone who disagrees with him from enjoying his series, simply by considering it some fun speculation. What's wrong with a little pretending for fun? Tennis shoes among Nephites certainly would qualify for that. So when we take traditionally spiritual, or mystical, or even occult things, and use our speculative imagination to justify them as systems of realism that humans simply don't understand yet, are we writing realism? Or does it still remain spiritual or mystical or occult? - -- 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: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:40:42 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN LDS Soprano Jamie Baer Peterson to Perform in Salt Lake City: Jamie Baer Peterson 10Nov01 US NY NYC A2 LDS Soprano Jamie Baer Peterson to Perform in Salt Lake City NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- Critically-acclaimed New York based LDS performing artists Jamie Baer Peterson, soprano, along with violinist Winona Vogelmann Fifield and composer/pianist David Fletcher will present a concert of their originial and traditional Holiday Chamber Music on Saturday November 24 at 7 p.m. at the Wasatch Presbyterian Church, 1626 South 1700 East, Salt Lake City. The concert will highlight selections from their new Christmas CD "Rejoice Greatly" which is available on Amazon.com. Peterson says the idea for a Christmas album and concert came while singing a performace of the "Messiah" at Lincoln Center in New York City, "Following the concert, an old friend of mine suggested that I do a Christmas album. He told me 'you need to do this for your children.' And so I did it!" The result of Peterson's efforts with Fifield and Fletcher is "Rejoicer Greatly," a compilation of fresh new arrangements of Christmas classics by Fletcher, including "Gesu Bambino", "Bring a Torch, Jeanette Isabella" and "Ave Maria". They are joined by a string quartet for moving arrangements of "Silent Night", "O holy Night" and Handel's original arrangements of "Rejoice Greatly" and "Come unto Him". This joyful collection is a heartwarming addition to the musical feast of Christmas. Critically acclaimed for her clear and expressive soprano voice, Jamie Baer Peterson has appeared with opera companies and orchestras throughout the United States and abroad. She has been a soloist with the Dallas Symphony, Atlanta Symphony, New York City Symphony (at Carnegie Hall) and in two national broadcasts with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Highlights of her operatic career include leading roles with New York City Opera, L'Opera de Nice, Santa Fe Opera, Central City Opera and Utah Festival Opera. No stranger to music theater, Ms.Peterson has appeared with the critically acclaimed ENCORES! productions, and in the PBS Great Performances "Ira Gershwin at 100". Jamie Baer Peterson is a graduate of the University of Minnesota and the Eastman School of Music. A native Minnesotan, she now lives in New Jersey with her husband and three children. Source: LDS Soprano Jamie Baer Peterson to Perform in Salt Lake City Jamie Baer Peterson 10Nov01 A2 >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, 16 Nov 2001 01:34:30 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Kitsch (was: Fluff) Nan McCulloch wrote: > > DOES EVERY PIECE OF ART THAT APPEALS TO THE MASSES BECOME KITSCH? Is the William Tell Overture kitsch, because no one can hear it anymore without thinking of the Lone Ranger? Is that one piece of music from the Romeo and Juliet opera (Tchaikovsky?) kitsch now that it's been played over love scenes so often that it's got to be the ultimate cliche, and only usable in that context as a joke. Heck, even using it as a joke has become a monumental cliche. Is the most famous theme from Swan Lake kitsch because it's always what you hear when someone wants to evoke thoughts of a ballet? Or the second movement from Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik because it's the cliche piece to play when you want to show someone listening to classical music? Is the prolog from Richard Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra kitsch because it can never be heard without thinking of the Star Child approaching Earth? Or Johann Strauss' Blue Danube Waltz because, among our generation, it will forever evoke thoughts of space vessels floating around the Earth? Can we ever truly enjoy the 1812 Overture as a work of art anymore without thinking of Puffed Rice shooting out of cannons? Or Vivaldi's Concerto for Mandolin without thinking of Kramer divorcing Kramer? Or Pachelbel's Canon in D without thinking of Mary Tyler Moore playing a nasty mom to Timothy Hutton? Are all these fine works of art now kitsch? Are you mystified at most of my allusions? Don't mind us--we old folk are just reminiscing over the good old days. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #520 ******************************