From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #548 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 Monday, December 17 2001 Volume 01 : Number 548 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:26:14 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Contacting Authors Yes, I do think it's unprofessional, though I suspect (based in part on Richard's reassurances) that it's completely well-intentioned in this case. Here's why: As I see it, the author of an unpublished manuscript has the sole right to determine who gets to see that manuscript. By sending a manuscript to a publisher, the author gives that publisher the right to consider the manuscript for publication, as part of the regular publication process. But that's all that the publisher is authorized to do. Someone else going through the publisher's office--even an employee going through the office without authorization--is in much the same position as a guest in someone's house picking up a letter on the desk, addressed to the owner of the house, and reading it. It's unauthorized access. Note, by the way, that my attitude toward this changes if it is an editor at the publishing house who is doing this, and is doing this as an official part of his/her responsibilities. E.g., if the editor writes a letter to an author which says, "We are not willing to publish this story at this time. However, we believe that your writing has promise. You might want to check out some reputable editing service, such as __." In that case, I would suspect a money-making relationship, and would not necessarily trust the advice--but it would not raise the same issues for me as if this were something being done without the publisher's knowledge. Basically, I consider such an independent contact, unauthorized by the publisher, at least a breach of confidentiality. As an author, it would scare me to think that the manuscript I entrusted to a publishing house, in part because of my knowledge of the publisher, had started making the rounds in some sense independently of that publisher. I would wonder who else had access to it. I could also reasonably view it as, in a sense, an act of theft--both in relation to the publishing house (confidential information being made us of for unauthorized purposes) and, potentially at least, in relation to myself as an author, since it is evidence that my manuscript has already been read by people and/or for purposes that are not those I had authorized in submitting it to the publisher. Authors of unpublished manuscripts have to be extremely leery of anything that will dilute their rights; unauthorized distribution is one of those. I suppose that less experienced authors might simply feel grateful that someone had looked at their manuscript and cared about it; but once you start looking at this from a professional perspective, one's view of such actions changes radically. I think that's why this has received such a violent reaction on AML-List: because it threatens the author's control of his/her work. As a publisher, I would feel just as strongly about it, because once word gets out that this is the sort of experience people will have once they send a manuscript to me, reputable authors might not be as willing to submit their work. But that, of course, is only my own set of opinions. What does everyone else think? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:00:27 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Today's Posts Folks, For some mysterious reason, most of the posts I've sent out today (pretty much a full compliment) seem to have gotten lost in my email server. I'm going to send them out again; however, the easiest way to do this will make them all look like they're from me. So please read the posts carefully to see who they're really from. (And if this doesn't work, we'll try something else...) Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:56:34 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? Eric D. Snider wrote: > I am working on a bit of narrative fiction, which I have not done in a > long, long time. The question I put before the panel is this: > > Is it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the > protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for whom > the author clearly has nothing but contempt? Andre Gide does it in his _Symphonie Pastorale_. The story of the rape of a young girl by a priest, told from the viewpoint of the priest. Masterful work in that you think at first you are seeing the story of an old man falling in love with a young girl and it is entirely from the priest's POV. All his actions are, therefore, noble. His "love" is pure. The girl is a willing angel. Not too far into the book, however, and you become aware of what has actually happened, despite the main POVs best efforts to hide his crime. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:57:17 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Authors in Nat. Market On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 11:40:49AM -0700, Brown wrote: > Mainstream stuff doesn't. Name me one. Brady Udall. W. W. Norton, a national publisher, has published both his short story collection, _Letting Loose the Hounds_, and his novel, _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_. - -- Terry L Jeffress | Man does not live by words alone, despite the South Jordan, UT | fact that he sometimes has to eat them. | -- Adlai Stevenson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:01:28 -0700 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? AIs it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for whom the author clearly has nothing but contempt? The first thing that pops into my mind is a poem: Robert Browning's "Soliloquiy in a Spanish Cloister." The first-person narrator is excoriating another person whom he detests, but is unaware that with every word he gives away his own moral corruption. Browning was good at that. Normally, though, I don't read long works whose protagonist is disgusting. I want to read about people with whom I can sympathize. I want the central character to be someone I can root for. I don't why people want to go to movies about criminals. (So you probably give Ocean's 11 a high rating.) barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:35:37 -0700 From: rwilliams Subject: RE: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? Eric writes: >Is it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the >protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for whom the >author clearly has nothing but contempt? >Can anyone think of any other examples, or give any other suggestions on >this sort of thing? A few suggestions: You might try a strange little book by Steve Brewer called "Lonely Street." It's one in a series of books about a rather clumsy detective named Bubba Mabry. In this episode, Bubba is hired to be a bodyguard for a local "celebrity." (Turns out the celebrity is Elvis himself. It's pretty funny). I think Brewer is constantly making fun of his "hero" Bubba, but I'm not sure he harbors any real "contempt" for him. It strikes me as the same type of satirical mockery done in "Waiting for Guffman," where, as ridiculous as these people are, you still end up somewhat enamored by them. And in the same genre, another interesting narrator/author conflict shows up in Agatha Christie's _Murder of Roger Ackroyd_, where....well, I won't spoil it for you, but trust me, it's brilliant. Just email me personally if you want a real synopsis without reading the book. (I'd feel like I was giving away the plot to "The Sixth Sense" if I explained exactly how the book is relevant to your question, and I don't want to spoil it for anyone). You also might be interested in an essay by Peter Rabinowitz, "Truth in Fiction: A Critical Examination of Audiences," published in _Critical Inquiry_ 4 (1977) pp. 121-141. It's not as fun to read as the aforementioned suggestions, but it does investigate the theoretical implications of the kind of narrative voice you are crafting. Best of luck. I look forward to reading it. - --John Williams - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:58:05 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:56:02 , Eric D. Snider wrote: >I am working on a bit of narrative fiction, which I have not done in a = long,=20 >long time. The question I put before the panel is this: > >Is it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the=20 >protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for whom = the=20 >author clearly has nothing but contempt? >I don't want to go into details, because I'm insanely secretive and=20 >paranoid, but my story is a series of journal entries -- first-person = very=20 >limited POV -- written by someone whom I find to be a laughable person. = Her=20 >being laughable is integral to the story: I want readers to laugh at = this=20 >person, and the fact that she never realizes how clueless she is just = part=20 >of the joke. I don't know how successful this is. If it's a naive character--someone whose perceptions are obviously wrong--that's one thing, but the word "contempt" really makes me think twice about the author. What would be = the point of doing it? Vicarious laughter at a laughable person? I think it straddles the line between humor and derision. I think anything is = possible in stories, but I wonder how comfortable readers would feel about this = kind of character. Especially if the reader had some of the laughable character's flaws and foibles; by extension, the author is then laughing = at the reader as well. >Can this work? What examples can we think of where the main character is= =20 >nothing but an object of derision? I think of "Waiting for Guffman," = where=20 >the characters never learn, grow, or realize how wrong they are. That = one=20 >seems to work because it's satire -- which my story is, too, sort of -- = and=20 >because it's not very long. We don't need any emotional investment in = the=20 >characters, because the movie is so darned funny and isn't epic-length. I was thinking of "Seinfeld" myself, though I didn't get the sense that = the writers and actors and producers disliked the characters on that show. I agree about the length. I think a long work in which the characters = never change or grow might seem pointless. >Can anyone think of any other examples, or give any other suggestions on= =20 >this sort of thing? There are two YA novels by the British writer Louise Rennison called = _Angus, Thongs, and Full-Frontal Snogging_ and _On the Bright Side, I'm Now the Girlfriend of a Sex God_ that come close. These are told in diary format and are often compared to _Bridget Jones' Diary_ for all sorts of reasons (diary, British, etc). The main character is a fourteen-year-old girl = named Georgia who writes about her horrible but humorous life. The big secret = is that to discerning readers, Georgia isn't really the hero she believes herself to be. She does stupid things, complains about her best friend's lack of compassion (though she herself is profoundly self-obsessed) and isn't really a nice person. I think the key, though, is that Rennison's presentation makes Georgia laughable without making her the object of derision. I'm also reminded of "May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You," = one of my favorite stories, painful and funny at the same time. Again, the = risk really seems to me that if your reader identifies in any way with the much-derided protagonist, that will be an instant turn off. We don't = mind laughing at others, but we detest being laughed at. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:15:45 -0700 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? Eric D. Snider:=20 "Is it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the=20 protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for whom the=20 author clearly has nothing but contempt?" I would be leery of a story where the author's contempt for the protagonist causes the readers to have contempt for the protagonist as well. I'm fine with reading about villains I have contempt for but not about such protagonists. I can't get interested in them. Now, satire on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. A truly vicious and bitingly insightful satire is something in which contempt for the protagonist is a good thing. I would buy a work like that by Eric on spec. "Can anyone think of any other examples, or give any other suggestions on=20 this sort of thing?" Dumb and Dumber's humor worked for me but then, I had sympathy for the characters. (and more empathy than I generally like to admit) =20 - -Ethan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:11:51 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] Dyer's Talk What is the date of this particular talk by Dyer? Jerry Tyner=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:35:30 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: Re: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? - --- "Eric D. Snider" wrote: > I am working on a bit of narrative fiction, which I have not done in a > long, > long time. The question I put before the panel is this: > > Is it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the > protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for whom > the > author clearly has nothing but contempt? > Evelyn Waugh, of course, who wrote the great misanthropic satires "The Loved One", "A Handful of Dust", and "Vile Bodies." The perspectives in these novels shift between omniscient narrators and hateful first-person narrators. A woman once asked Waugh "How can you write such monstrous things about people and call yourself a Christian?" He replied, "Madam, if it was not for my faith I would scarcely be human at all." Also Tom Wolfe. His books are full of healthy, life-affirming contempt, especially "The Bonfire of the Vanities" and the non-fiction masterpiece "Radical Chic." He is gifted at hilariously entering the minds of thoroughly obnoxious people. ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:58:54 -0700 From: kathy_f@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:56:02 "Eric D. Snider" writes: > Is it possible to have a successful work of fiction in which the > protagonist, through whose eyes the story is told, is someone for > whom the author clearly has nothing but contempt? As a reader, if I start a book and the character is someone I feel nothing but contempt for, I would throw the book across the room or into the circular file. I've done it before and I'll continue doing it. I don't have time to waste on fiction that leaves my heart out of the story, or leads me to feel anger, contempt or disgust toward the main character. I strive to remove these kinds of emotions from my heart on a daily basis--I cannot imagine a piece of fiction so well written as to be worth indulging in feelings I am constantly seeking to repent of in real life. The only book I can think of with a character even the author had to have contempt for would be Albert Camus' book, _The Stranger_. I don't know if Camus *had* contempt for his character. I know I sure did. If there was a single work of fiction in the entire world I truly, venomously despised, this would be it. A story not worth the paper it was printed on. And _Waiting for Godot_ runs a close second, IMO. Kathy Fowkes Mesa, AZ ________________________________________________________________ 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, 14 Dec 2001 16:23:30 -0800 From: "Jerry Tyner" Subject: RE: [AML] A Curious Letter from Horizon? (comp 2) >>Richard wrote: "Again, please do NOT contact Horizon. It will only get >>Brent in trouble and he's a well-meaning, if clumsy, individual. Thanks." >>speaking of Brent Hendrickson. >Perhaps, Richard, if you really expect her not to contact Horizon, you >ought to offer to speak to Brent and let him know that his behavior is >unprofessional and could get easily get him fired. Something needs to >be done to correct the situation and speaking to Horizon is the obvious >course of action. If you don't want that to happen because of some >personal liking for Mr. Hendrickson, then take responsibility for it and >offer to speak to him yourself. >-Ethan Skarstedt I think Ethan and a couple of others have the right course here. Richard - You need to speak to your friend and tell him to not do this. Personally I probably would have pulled out the hammer first thing and called Horizon but this post from Ethan stilled my heat and made me think. If your friend wants to do this extra curricular reading he needs to clear it with the proper authorities and not do this on his own (I would guess for some kind of referral fee?). Unprofessional behavior no matter how well meaning should never be allowed to continue. Richard - Just as a side light...I would print some of this string and show him how close he has come to getting fired or at the very least reprimanded and put on probation. Jerry Tyner=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 11:13:59 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Re: Story Beginnings This entire thread is something I've been struggling with recently. After reading one of my manuscripts, I had several people tell me that I started the action too quickly, before they got to care for the main character. They each advised me to basically back up and let them get to know her first. At first I tried that, but I ended up adding what amounted to three chapters of padding. I think I solved the problem with that particular story by some serious cutting and them juggling of other story elements and such. But now I'm stuck trying to figure out how to start my next novel, where a character must undergo a lot of turmoil and change because of a major turning point in her life. But can I start with the turning point itself? Don't I have to establish the status quo and the character before the change can occur? (Otherwise, how can the full trauma of the turning point be known to the reader?) How much time do I get to do to establish the background? A paragraph? A page? A couple of pages? A chapter? Or do I rely on clunky backflashes to show what life was like before the event? Jumping into the middle of a dramatic moment is always the pat advice, but somehow I think that works better for thrillers and other action-driven stories, rather than character-driven ones. Any ideas? Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 13:25:33 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] A Curious Letter from Horizon? Richard, I don't understand this view at all. Of course contacting Horizon would get him in trouble. And it seems to me that he should be in trouble. I think it's very bad business for someone to hijack professional communication to promote a personal agenda. And to do it in such a manner--with scriptural references or what have you--in any other business scheme it would mark it as a scam in my book. If someone was trying to sell you something else using the same tactics would you view their efforts with the same leniancy? You say he's clumsy but well meaning. Where do his good intentions lie? With the author? I don't think so. At least not from what Jana related. He is preying on the emotions of a would-be author. If this friend of his wants business he should go about it in a more legitimate matter. If Horizon thought it was ok to refer authors to this editor they could say so themselves. Since the employee feels the need to do it in such a shady manner he must know that it is not something he should really be doing. If I was 'the powers that be" as Horizon I would fire this person without a qualm. [Tracie Laulusa] - ----- Original Message ----- Again, please do NOT contact Horizon. It will only get Brent in trouble and he's a well-meaning, if clumsy, individual. Thanks. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 16:18:32 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Acceptance of Mormon Lit (was: Critiques and Writer's Dreams) Harlow S. Clark wrote: >But, do we really want to think of our potential audience as having been >deceived by Satan? Sadly enough, I think that many Church members (artists among them) DO this. But I wonder if the truth of the matter is that many LDS artists either are indeed NOT as good as the artists "of the world," or if perhaps, they ARE as good, but they're simply ignorant about such things as agents, networking, distribution--the BUSINESS of producing, publishing, etc. Perhaps we (like all artists) FEEL very passionately about what we're doing. But whereas the "worldly" artist, when her/his work is rejected, feels that SHE/HE personally is being rejected personally, the Mormon artist, when rejected, deals with those same feeling but imagining that the GOSPEL is being rejected. The "worldly" artist pegs cultural Philistines as the culprits; the LDS artist pegs Satan and his cohorts. >I have often found non-Mormon audiences more receptive to my stories, and >the spirituality in them, than Mormon audiences. This has always been my experience. My first LDS play DIGGER was handled with kid gloves by the LDS/BYU artistic community. It was praised on one hand and given the 1982 Mayhew Award. As the Mayhew Award winner, it was to be produced on BYU's main stage the following year. (Up until that time, this had been the case.)But at the last moment, the play was dropped from the season because it was felt it might offend some Church members. This didn't surprise me. In fact, what DID surprise me was that BYU gave it an award and that individual faculty members praised my work--privately. One good professor even called me to his office and suggested that I transfer to another university because I had talent and (this makes my point)NON-MORMONS would probably be more supportive of my writing......ON MORMON TOPICS!!! DIGGER was produced that year as a Graduate Student production. And while this was going on, a secular theatre--The Generic Theatre in Norfolk, Virginia--was reading the play and considering it for production the following season as their annual new play selection. (They ended up not producing it, but not because it dealt with Mormonism.) Back in the early 1990's, a Utah-based publisher of LDS plays and musicals contacted me while I was living in New York City, requesting a copy of DIGGER; he had heard about it and had an eye towards handling the property. After reading it, he wrote me back saying that the play could never be produced by a Ward or Stake. "Who could possibly produce it?" he asked me. I wrote the play (which deals with Joseph Smith's courtship with Emma and his evolution from a frontier village seer/peep stone gazer into a prophet) as a piece of Americana. (Some people are Anglo-philes; I'm an early Americana-phile.) It never occurred to this particular LDS plat publisher that since Mormonism is America's most successful "homegrown" religion (if not it's ONLY homegrown religion), Americans in general might find the play somewhat interesting. (The Church is never mentioned in the script--since it hadn't been founded yet. The word "Mormon" doesn't appear in it, since Joseph had yet to be given the plates.In short, if one didn't know that Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church, you'd never know you were seeing a play dealing with the social roots of Mormonism.) In 1987, I finished my second LDS play THE BEEHIVE STATE. The reaction by all of my LDS friends at the time who read the script were negative. In 1988, it was produced by the Olde Theatre Company (Portsmouth, Virginia). The audience reactions were overwhelmingly positive. So were the reactions of the area critics. The play was a comedy/drama centered around post-Manifesto polygamy in a Provo, Utah family--the central character being the husband's first wife--a woman in late middle age. One critic said that this character's evolution in dealing with her faith was "one of the most moving and important issues to be dealt with in any area theatrical production this year." SUNSTONE published the play in 1989, and to this day, I have not had a single member of the Church mention the play to me. I'm not saying that either of my plays are "great theatre." They were early efforts and I think they are lacking in many respects. But when I see my--for lack of a better word--competition in the area of LDS playwriting during the 1980's, I'm a more than a little confused. My two LDS plays are in my writer's portfolio; I've submit them to theatres and production companies whenever I've applied for jobs or gone out for writing commissions. And most of the time, I've gotten the jobs. In the case of EVERY one of these writing jobs, the artistic director or producer doing the hiring has commented first and foremost on either DIGGER or BEEHIVE STATE--comment positively, that is. And so it is that I, a self-described Mormon writer, have written two Mormon plays that non-Mormons have tended to appreciate and find interesting and entertaining, but which Mormons have completely rejected--or even worse--ignored. One more thing: Remember that awful (or so I thought) TV movie from 1995 AVENGING ANGEL about Brigham Young's fictional Danite body-guard? The New York Times began their negative review of the film by stating how much dramatic potential the "little know story of the Mormons" has. The review ended lamenting--and I paraphrase--"some day some one is going to discover the story of the Mormons and make a great film. Unfortunately AVENGING ANGELS is not that film." I'll end beating the same dead horse that I always end up smacking around: the "world" is a lot more open-minded and ready for Mormon art than many of us even imagine. And I'm not talking of art that tries to pass itself off as "Christian" or "Evangelical" in nature--that is propaganda in which the artist is trying to convince the world to bestow upon the Church the coveted (Why?!)label of "Christian." Perhaps too often we LDS artists are tempted to walk out into the ring waving our hands over our heads and shouting, "Please like me! Please! You see, Mormons are people just like you! Mormons are Christians, too!" Apologia can never be the foundation of high art. Apologia comes from a place of self-perceived weakness and inferiority. Art comes from a place of values being celebrated--not values being merely explained or defended. How much better off we might be if we just threw out the Church vs. the world paradigm and immersed ourselves in creating works that embrace our unique beliefs, customs and cultures; works built on the foundational concept that we ARE a peculiar people--DIFFERENT from others--and that we're perfectly okay--even happy--about it. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:25:24 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Acceptance of Mormon Lit There is a big difference between the Church of Jesus Christ and ethnicity or race or culture. There is a Mormon culture, which only vaguely resembles the actual teachings of the Church, and in that context it would be easier to overcome cultural boundaries. If one actually wishes to include Church teachings specifically and have characters that are converted rather than cultural Mormons then the difficulty is much, much greater. In Ocean's Eleven there are two characters called the "Mormon Twins" and they're con-men and thieves. The fact is, Utah is well known for confidence schemes. It is one of the testing ground con men use for new schemes. Obviously the characters in the movie aren't really LDS, but it's a sign that things are changing. Instead of literature that is intelligible only to cultural Mormons or preaching disguised as literature (which is perfectly legitimate in my opinion) the best way to gain acceptance is to simply have a "mainstream" style of story with a Mormon character as a contrast. Pick a genre, avoid the nasty stuff, and add a Mormon character that can fit the story. That way it might get published if it's merely good instead of great. If you look back there aren't very many "preachy" books that have been wildly successful; there aren't even very many classics of that kind. Most of the time great writers have to disguise their preachings to get the message out at all. Look at Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe. Everything is sterotyped except Rebecca. She's the modern eye view of the Medieval world. It's the first anti-anti-Semitic literature that was popular. Without being aware one can't help but sympathize with Rebecca more than any other character because she's more like the modern reader than any of the other characters. She's the liberal (old sense) ideal--compassionate, gentle, kind, generous, virtuous and noble. She's even tolerant, unlike every other character in the book. If Sir Walter had just written "it is wrong to despise or hate the Jews," in his time and climate he would not be remembered as he is; instead he planted a seed that eventually bore fruit. How much fruit is difficult to know, but literature does have an effect on people. Whether or not millions of people stopped hating the Jews because of him, he made the attempt and it was a noble one. I think that is a good enough ideal, and that it is more important to influence for good than to try and explain all the cultural vagaries of Mormons. It is just as likely to lose the moral of the story while trying to figure out why so many teenagers in Utah think drinking beer is more sinful than adultery--unless that is the moral of the story. James Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 19:31:39 -0700 From: James Wilson Subject: Re: [AML] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? It has been done but not always well. Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos is a good example. It's epistolary and the characters are all pretty contemptible, though it's questionable whether Laclos despised them as much as he pretended. He certainly does claim to hold them all in contempt but that might have been politics talking. The book is a 'classic,' though I can't stand it myself. On the other hand I'm a big Jane Austen fan and I don't like her epistolary stuff either. James Wilson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 22:04:15 -0700 From: Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury Subject: [AML] Re: [AML-Mag] Do We Have to Like Our Characters? Aren't you describing one form of what is called an "unreliable narrator," Eric? There is a character that I see this way, though others may not: Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody is certainly someone who "never realizes how clueless she is" as she goes about trying to solve the mysteries on which each novel is based. The fact that I see her this way has contributed to my unwillingness to continue reading her adventures, so I don't really know if others (who must continue to buy and read the books, since they continue to do well in the market) perceive her in this way or not. Anyway, that may help answer your question. This reader, at least, is not willing to spend time with such a character. I need to care about the characters I spend time with, and I can't seem to care very much about "one who knows not and knows not that [she] knows not." She's a fool that I am unable to suffer gladly. If you feel contempt for your character, how do you think you can get your readers to want to keep reading about her? (Of course, there is also the example of the woman in the BBC television series, KEEPING UP APPEARANCES, Harriet Bucket, I think her name is, who insists on pronouncing her last name as "Bouquet" and has all kinds of other pretensions. She's quite popular, because people like to laugh at her, I guess. Maybe I'm just not part of the audience for what you're trying to do.) Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury workshop@burgoyne.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 23:01:33 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: [AML] Novels and History I just went to a wedding at the Orlando temple and while there had one of my relatively infrequent visits to an LDS book store. It is quite a nice store, divided, like most stores into categories- - Inspiration --Self Help-- etc. I looked at the section of novels and fiction where I picked up the latest Dean Hughes book, then wandered over to the History section which was topped with one entire shelf of hard cover copies of all of the _Work and the Glory_ series, with a second shelf of soft cover versions and "book on tape" versions. Beneath that were three copies of Margaret Young"s historical novel _One More River to Cross_, then came Hugh Nibley, Truman Madsen, a couple of _FARMS_ things, etc. I questioned the young lady at the counter, expressing some doubt that these books should be placed in church history. I believe a made some comment about people trying to find the Steed home in Nauvoo. Her reply was "Of course they would not find it there". I pressed her on the reason they were shelved in the History section and her reply was "Well, It's not like they were novels." I assured here that, even with the research he did, that Lund would consider them novels. Her reply was "Well, the aren't, and I have a customer to take care of." I walked away somewhat saddened. Margaret, I considered your book a novel (well researched and important but ultimately a novel. Certainly I thing TWATG as novels. I am not sure what more to say, but I think its a little scary. [MOD: Note from subsequent post, added in by moderator]: Actually, right after I pressed the send key, I thought that _One More River to Cross_ is probably more biography than novel. But Lund's characters aren't even real people. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:01:30 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Skeleton Story Beginnings Unfortunately, there is an image in Gravity's Rainbow that continues to stay with me and disgust me as much as a porno tv program I once flicked through quickly, and a scene from Rosemary's Baby. I don't think about these horrible things always, but I just wish I had never cluttered my brain with them. Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 02:08:52 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] DAVIS, _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Desert News review) Friday, December 14, 2001 'Heaven' lacks depth of real story By Jeff Vice Deseret News movie critic THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN =97** 1/2 =97 Christopher Gorham, Anne Hathaway, Joe Folau, Miriama Smith, Nathaniel Lees, Whetu Fala, Al Fitisemanu; rated PG (violence, brief vulgarity, brief gore); Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons. "In the Eye of the Storm," the real-life account of the experiences of LDS General Authority John H. Groberg when he was a teenager serving a church mission to the Kingdom of Tonga, would make a great film. "The Other Side of Heaven," a good-looking but rather superficial adaptation of Elder Groberg's novel, is not that film. Not that it's terrible, mind you. In fact, the film's pleas for racial tolerance, compassion and service without expectation of reward are messages we need in these trying times. And during this weak cinematic year, a live-action movie you can actually take the whole family to is a welcome sight. But compared to what "The Other Side of Heaven" could have been =97 should have been =97 this drama is definitely something of a disappointment. We have probably come to expect little depth in most films, but considering the promising source material here, this one should do more than simply skim the surface. Television actor Christopher Gorham ("Popular") stars as the teenage Groberg, who is attending Brigham Young University in 1953 when he receives his mission call. Obviously, he's excited, although it means he must leave behind his true love, Jean Sabin (Anne Hathaway, from "The Princess Diaries"). His exuberance will soon serve him well, however, as the naive missionary-to-be has no idea what's really waiting for him in Tonga =97 starting with the journey there, which takes him nearly three very trying months. And when he finally does arrive, there's nobody waiting there to aid him, except for Feki (Joe Folau), a local who becomes his mission companion. Despite Feki's help, Elder Groberg has a lot of obstacles in his path, not the least of which is a language barrier =97 few of the Tongans speak English. And, of course, they're extremely skeptical about the odd newcomer in their midst. However, the elder quickly proves his worth. First, he does some intensive study to learn the language. Then when a tropical storm threatens to destroy the island, he's there to offer aid and comfort. He must also stay true to Jean, who's busy fighting off suitors of her own. And their long-distance commitment could be in real trouble when it appears that his mission could be extended. Admittedly, this is a handsomely mounted production that belies its $8 million budget =97 which may be large by independent- film standards, but which is extremely low for the industry as a whole. Especially impressive are the storm effects (nearly rivaling those in the much-pricier major-studio film "The Perfect Storm"). And to his credit, filmmaker Mitch Davis has filled out his cast with appealing fresh faces. As Groberg, Gorham has charm, though his too-good-to-be-true portrayal makes the character a bit bland. He's well-matched with Hathaway, who has to make their relationship= =20 seem believable without much screen time together. The biggest surprise is Folau, a charismatic newcomer whose presence would be welcome again. "The Other Side of Heaven" is rated PG for violence (forces of nature), brief mild vulgarity (a flatulence gag) and brief gore. Running time: 114 minutes. =A9 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company _________________________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #548 ******************************