From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #638 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, March 8 2002 Volume 01 : Number 638 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:17:27 -0500 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Said and Cultural Imperialism John Williams wrote: Ah, so what to do? Do we get rid of Said's work entirely? I was tempted to, just because I left the auditorium so disenchanted....In fact, I thought, it would probably be just as bad for me to say that since Said has become something of an intellectual hypocrite that his earlier work is now invalid. I would be, in effect, stereotyping Said, portraying him as one monolithic entity, making everything he has EVER said worthless. Of course, humans are complex creatures, right some of the time, and wrong some of the time, and this has become my new outlook on Said. He's sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and I'll always respect the brilliance of his earlier work. But lately his work has taken on a kind of ideological fervor that doesn't characterize his earlier, more theoretically informed work. My question is, what happens when we move beyond theory? I agree that there is brilliance in Said's earlier, theoretical work. I don't know his later work so I won't comment on it. I do wonder, though, where is the place of ideological fervor? Does it belong nowhere? How far are we willing to allow people to go in order to achieve an end? Do the means always matter? I do believe that the always matter, but to what extent do they matter? Is evidence that we understand the villainy of our means enough to allow us permission to use them? i.e., does the fact that Said has said what he has said in the past, the fact that he understands orientalism and the importance of not casting peoples and nations as monoliths therefore allow him to do that in order to get to a desirable point where he will stop doing it? I don't know if this makes sense but one thing makes sense to me and that is what is at the bottom of this: it is all well and good to have theories and ideals but it means next to nothing if we can't implement them in the world. I believe in the power of ideas (I am afterall entering the academy and plan to teach in it). However, I also believe that we have to be able to do something to implement them. How do we reconcile our ideals with our actions? How do we reconcile the harsh realities we encounter daily with the sublimity of our beliefs and our ideals? I think this is what it means to be in the world, but not of it. And I think that this is what is necessary in order to be anything more than an ivory tower elitist who sees so much and does much through teaching and discussion but also perpetuates a cycle of non-concrete action. [Amelia Parkin] _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:25:50 -0700 From: "gae lyn henderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Sugar Beet in SL City Weekly When Chris sent out the titles of the Sugar Beet articles I thought they were hysterical. I must admit though that when I read the article about a certain authority figure in the actual paper I had a moment of pause. I had a vision of someone being offended and upset and then the possible hurt that might come to people I value and care about (i.e., Chris and Todd). Is our culture ready for satire? Robert Kirby has done some amazing things in his columns and I wrote him once to say he had preserved my sanity and made it possible for me to keep going to meetings. So I value satire--I think it helps me deal with things better. But I wonder--when a strongly authoritative culture with a public-relations mandate is challenged or even mocked? --what happens next? Gae Lyn - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:36:37 -0800 From: jltyner@postoffice.pacbell.net Subject: Re:[AML] Desensitizing Nudity I guess I will throw my strange opinions in on all this. Back in the good old days when I still had a nice figure, I was a model for the Art department at BYU. And no, they don't have nude models at the 'Y'. I suppose that was to avoid getting grief about a Church college that emphasized modesty having naked people hanging around in Art classes, go figure. We wore body stockings that were opaque, the kind a ballet dancer would wear. They were form fitting with thin straps that exposed our bare shoulders, arms, legs and most of our back. You could also make out some of what we looked like under the stocking. Sometimes the students would draw in all the details of our bodies and when I would look at their efforts, I wasn't offended, I was flattered. I was really surprised and flattered when I saw some of the drawings featuring me being displayed on the walls surrounding the main lobby of the Harris Fine Arts Center that students pass all the time, not hidden away down some side corridor. My boyfriend at the time told me they looked great. As I said, very flattering for the ego. That being said, and my appreciation of the human body in art is indeed tremendous, both for the skill of the artist and the wonderment of how long the model may have had to hold a particular pose. I don't have a problem with there being a certain decorum of modesty in society. One of my mom's nephews and his wife liked taking vacations at clothing optional resorts both in the U.S. and abroad and I can tell you I had no desire to see either one of those people naked, yuck! I also wonder why with the soaring amounts of skin cancer we're seeing these days that outdoor nudity, especially at beaches doesn't concern most people as they happily peel off or wear what amounts to floss up their butts. I asked a dermatologist about this a few years ago and she told me she's starting to see more and more sun worshippers, we ought to know better, she said rolling her eyes. On the other hand, I loved part of an essay that Cherry Silver? read at the AML Conference luncheon about how while young woman show their bodies off around the pool and we mother types tend to cover up, we ought to the ones showing off because we know what breasts, hips, and uteri are really for. I thought, "Amen Sister!" I guess one could say stretch marks are a badge of honor in a culture obsessed with the perfect body. The whole conference was great anyway and I'll write more about that later. Nudity doesn't have to equal sexual, but being modestly clothed doesn't have to equal sexually repressed either. That is what the whole problem with Western society's view of sexuality amounted to IMHO. I.E.-The flesh is weak and corruptible and sex nothing more than a necessary evil, therefore cover the body and have sex for nothing more than procreation. It was this attitude, in my opinion that fostered the hypocritical undercurrent of prostitution and pornography that has existed in western society for centuries. Rather of course the attitude should have been admiration for what an incredible creation the human body is and what a tremendous gift sexual union is also. Might've saved a lot grief. I do an energy and pressure point technique called Reiki that is done with the recipient fully clothed and I like it that way. Not so much because of the modesty issue, but because if someone is not draped with sheets or covers you have to keep the room as hot as a sauna to make sure they're comfortable, even if you're not. And although it would be interesting to sauna with my sisters at church and get to know them better or have my husband hang with the brethren, I've never been crazy about sweating in that manner, I'd rather soak in a spa anytime. Do I think that sometimes Church members get their knickers in a knot over the modesty issue, heck yes. They do need to calm down some? Oh definitely. But on the other hand, I've don't really want to know what Brittany Spears uses to keep that bikini line looking so good, because I don't want to see it and thanks for sharing, not! I would rather get to know the person inside that marvelous creation that's immortal clay in the making. Kathy Tyner, Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:13:00 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Educating an Audience Good discussion, BJ. I think VALIDATION will come. That's what my novel contest is about. But you're right. The general church is still wary of fiction or art of any kind unless they commission it or do it in the big auditorium up there. Sometimes ART takes people away from FAITH. And need not do so. Look at the success of GOD'S ARMY and BRIGHAM CITY. We have had successful marketed writers. Look at Hughes and Young and Gray. May I just interject a statement here? A good case in point is that last night I saw the first dress rehearsal of DEATH OF A SALESMAN. Actually, it was magnificent. It never plays in this area because our audiences like fluff too much. (They also don't like the language, so we cut it out.) What a risk to do the show, though! We probably won't be able to pay for it. But really, I was riveted. The acting (EVERYONE) is superb. So are we helping to "educate" our audiences by giving them something meaty? Guess what! We're trying. Do any of you people out there want to seek something praiseworthy "and of good report?" My guess is that even the educated people won't come. They'll snub it because they dismiss it as community theatre. Can we ever win? Yes. I think it will just take more and more and more time. We all love Tim Slover who is validated in many ways. (Tim was Bill Brown's teacher.) Yes, he is unusually talented. But there are alot of political things going on, too. I was interested in Harlow's mention of Tillie Olsen's SILENCES. You CAN'T stay silent because nobody listens. You must press forward. Someday you will be heard. (Hopefully) Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:16:05 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] AML Conference Thanks everybody for writing about Brigham City. I'm using every single word you write to help me. I heard John-Charles' paper and appreciated his take. Now I appreciate yours, Jacob. (And by the way, thank you for taping our sessions!) Sincerely, Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:59:42 -0700 From: "Cherry Silver" Subject: [AML] Lost Glasses at AML Conference Last Saturday at the AML Annual Meeting someone dropped a pair of = prescription glasses in about the third row of Gore Auditorium. They = are a woman's glasses in a FosterGrant metal frame with a slight = reddish-brown tint around the lens and on the ear pieces. If the owner = will notify me, I will mail the glasses to her.=20 Cherry Silver - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:18:55 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes - ---Original Message From: Harlow Clark > > I'm not entirely certain I understand what you are saying with the > > points above, Harlow. Do you mean that you can put together a > > representative literature class for a period and still have it > > concentrate on a specific sub-grouping of authors? > > Yes. And thank you for asking. One of my favorite readings > from Hazard Adams' _Critical Theory Since Plato_ is Wm. > Blake's _Annotations to Reynolds' _Discourses__, where Blake > conducts a debate in the margins with Sir Joshua Reynolds, > and repeatedly states his belief that the general can be best > known through the particular, as opposed to Reynolds' > argument that the particular can be best known through the > general. It's an old debate. I don't so much mind the general being shown through the particular as much as I mind that by choosing a particular sub-set with a grouping bias, the class has no idea what is general and what is particular. Since you have introduced an arbitrary criteria for inclusion, students must rely on the professor for an idea of what are general aspects of a period of literature and what are merely aspects of the chosen grouping. This gives the professor a great deal of power and takes away an important part of the student's experience--the chance to gauge for themselves the attitudes and norms for the literature genre the class is ostensibly teaching. You seem to be assuming a strictly altruistic professor who would never bend a class to a political/social agenda of their own. I'm afraid that enough professors of modern academia have shown a willingness (and in some cases an eagerness) to agendize their courses that I am uncomfortable with an assumption of benign professorial altruism (or even honest professorial detachment). > > Or do you mean that there is value in exploring sub-cultures of > > a period for the increased perspective it might give you? > > Yes, but not only that. The people counted as the major > writers of the period are not the only people in the period > who write as well as they do. Eugene England is every bit the > prose stylist Reynolds Price is. I would happily set "Easter > Morning" or "Enduring" beside Price's Gospel (in _Three > Gospels_) or some of his other essay; I would happily set > some of Gene's scholarly essays (or Bruce Jorgensen's) beside > Price's "A Single Meaning: Notes on the Origin and Life of > Narrative" (in _A Palpable God_), or his commentaries on Mark > and John (in _Three Gospels_) and it would be fascinating to > explore how each man's disease manifested itself in his > writings. It might also help introduce Gene's work to an > audience that could well appreciate it. Okay, set beside is one thing. Replacing is something else entirely. I think comparison of a sub-genre work with the best of a wider genre is useful and interesting. My problem is when survey classes chose a sub-classification to *replace* a more representative look at the specified focus of the class. Comparisons are useful and engaging. Replacement gives the professor too much control over class perception of the survey's supposed focus area. > > Further, survey courses should include the very best there > > is to offer in English literature for the topic of that > survey course > > and should not be skewed to emphasize a particular sub-grouping. > > Problem is, who decides what the very best is? Ah. That's the real question, and one worth exploring. Building a canon is an endeavor fraught with peril. That said, I don't want to emphasize the difficulties too much because, as difficult as it might be and as flawed as the end result would be, it is doable and reasonable to expect. I think that any period more than twenty years ago has accumulated enough debate and demonstrated enough longevity of its works that a gathering of scholars can come up with a list that would be representative. You can choose who to include in such a gathering, and your choice will determine something of the outcome, (and the more you include, the more representative your canon will be). The English faculty of BYU would be enough of a gathering to determine a BYU canon and, by extension, the reputation of the BYU English degree. My concern is simply that students (and future evaluators of student competence, and faculty expected to teach those students in later course work) know what to expect from a survey course and that professorial agenda be ameliorated to the extent possible. Just because it is hard to do, doesn't mean it isn't important to get it done. You have a further difficulty that *lack* of an official canon has become something of a mark of prestige at some Universities. I think this is a shame and should instead indicate a faculty too cowardly to make a choice and stand by it. Such cowardice should not be rewarded, it should be scorned. Sure any canon will have flaws. That's to be expected and should be an underlying assumption when discussing canon. But even with those flaws, having a canon is valuable enough to make the effort worth while (IMO). > > In the cases you brought up, it may be possible to teach a > > course on 20th Century American Lit. with all LDS authors (or > > American-Indian or African-American) by generalizing the > > specifics to encompass the particulars of the period. But doing > > so means that the students must rely entirely upon the experience > > conveyed by the professor to know what is general to the time > > and what is specific to the sub-culture. > > Excellent point. Because it applies to any survey course, or > any period course. Unless they do their own research, > students are exercising trust just by attending class. If the students read the works themselves, then they have an automatic metric by which to judge the efficacy and worth of the professor. Yes, the academic climate means that students and professors are in an unequal relationship. That is unavoidable. But a part of the value of that relationship is to help students develop their own judgement and give them the tools to form their own opinions. That goal is enhanced by giving students a true exposure to the best of their survey focus. That goal is undermined when professorial control is made absolute. The best research that students can do is to read the works themselves. Co-opting a survey course with a potentially agendized selection robs the students of the ability to form an adequate opinion of that survey topic. It removes actual experience with a broadened curriculum and hampers their ability to offer informed opinions. A student who is confronted with an agendized professor can counter that professor with their reading *unless* the professor has stacked the reading before hand. *That* is what I want to ameliorate. Unfortunately, too many agendized professors have shown a willingness to abuse their relationship of trust with students for their own ends. > > Such an emphasis puts even more power than usual in the > > professor and his/her "objective" pronouncements of the > > covered topic. > > I'm not sure I understand how. If a survey course is > well-designed it gives students the tools to research and > understand the tensions, influences, ideas and writers of a > period. But no matter how well designed the course will leave > out significant writers. There are just too many good > writers, and too much good writing, in any period to > represent them all in one course. Right. So who determines if the course is well-designed? Should canon essentially be determined by each individual professor? I certainly hope not. And one way to insure that significant writers are neglected is to begin introducing external non-survey criteria to author selection. If there are too many good writers, then excluding them based on some secondary criteria seems all the more irresponsible. Particularly when the point of a survey is to get a broad perspective of a particular topic. Save your sub-genre focus for later courses with appropriate course descriptions. I don't object to a course on Victorian Women's Lit. I just object when a survey class on Victorian Lit becomes warped to become Victorian Women's Lit. > > How interesting would it be to read *an* LDS (or American-Indian or > > African-American) novel in the context of 20th Century American > > Lit.? Very! But I think that only belongs in a survey course as a > > single intrusion and not as a pervasive emphasis. > > But what if the sub-groups are the very best the century has > to offer? Suppose the most significant American novels of the > 20th century turned out to be _Moses, Man of the Mountains_ > by Zorah Neale Hurston, _Home to Harlem_ by Claude McKay, > _Garden in the Dunes_ by Leslie Marmon Silko, > _Bone Game_ (and _The Sharpest Sight_) by Louis Owens, > _Sideways to the Sun_ by Linda Sillitoe, _Dancing Naked_ by > Robert Hodgson Van Wagoner, and _Standing on the Promises_ by > Margaret Young and Darius Gray (close enough to the 20th > century). (I'm not trying to pick the most significant--I > haven't even read them all--but they are fine novels and have > been on my mind.) If these were the most American significant > novels of the 20th century would it serve a survey course > well to constipate on them and ignore a whole slew of other > American writers? > > If the answer is no, invert the question. Suppose these are > exceptionally good novels. Is it right to ignore them simply > because they're from minority cultures--or not recognized as > being among the first rank? If it happens that a group of professors get together and determine that the best literature of a survey topic comes from a sub-genre, then I have no objection. My objection is to professors who teach supposed survey courses who warp that course to their own agenda. If a group of scholars look for the top 10 works from a survey topic and determine the line-up you describe, then they should publish the list and let their collective reputation stand or fall based on their choice. What I see now is a form of academic cowardice where agendized professors hide behind the complexity of the task and the ignorance of the general audience and refuse to create an explicit canon. I would *love* to see an academic climate where we had "The Harvard Canon" and "The BYU Canon" and we could compare the two to help decide where we would encourage our young people to go and learn. Further, people who are trying to determine the ability of our graduates could look at "The BYU Canon" to know what they can expect those graduates to know. What I am saying is that Academia should take a stand, make a choice, and let us know what they intend to teach. There is plenty of room in the curriculum for later courses to introduce topics of more esoteric/specialized interest. > > That isn't to say that the courses you describe aren't valuable. I > > *loved* my class on Victorian Women's Lit. It was one of the best > > classes I had. But it wasn't a survey course. And frankly, > that class > > had a lot more meaning to me because I had already taken a > survey that > > included Victorian literature in general. > > But how many of those Victorian women were in the Victorian > Lit. survey? If all or most of the writers you read in that > class were new to you how do you escape the implication that > Victorian women writers were inferior, not worth being in a > survey of the real literature of the period? That kind of > implication is difficult to escape, even for people trying to > introduce new writers into the canon. Certainly, women should no more be excluded for their gender any more than they should be included for their gender. Just as black writers shouldn't be included/excluded based on their race. So how do you avoid implications of inferiority? Several ways. First, you teach people that there are fundamental problems with choosing Canon and that nobody has a single, universal metric in doing so--with the addendum that despite the problems, the benefits are worth the trade-offs. Second, you discuss attributes of the time that affected women (or whatever) writers of that period--their numbers and their training that would contribute to them having fewer works to include and/or works genuinely inferior. Stop trying to make everyone equal all the time for fear that people will draw conclusions you disagree with. *Are* Victorian women writers inferior on the whole to their male counterparts? Why do you shrink instinctually from that question? Do you really fear that women are inferior writers, or would you like to explore what aspects of that period had such an impact on writers who happened to be women? I hate that certain questions can't even be *asked* (like: are female Victorian writers generally inferior to their male counterparts?). Questions of canon selection and attributes of the times could certainly be addressed in a survey class, but should *not* be made the emphasis (IMO). > > Similarly, I *loved* Richard Cracroft's LDS Lit. class. > But again, > > my experience with American Lit. was an important backdrop for my > > participation in that class and added substantially to my > ability to > > relate the LDS works with what was going on around those works. > > Grammatically these three sentences say that LDS lit is not > part of American lit. Grammatically, those three sentences say that my LDS lit participation was enhanced by my having an understanding of American Lit and that I was able to relate LDS works with their surroundings. Grammatically, inclusion or exclusion from American Lit is ambiguous and left to be inferred by the reader's expectations. Personally, I'm unsure if LDS Lit can/ought to be included as American Lit because so much of it seems to be uninformed/cut-off-from "American Lit." This is particularly true in the early part of the twentieth century when we had a great deal of animosity towards the U.S. and more affinity to England and European influences. It isn't until the Lost Generation that our literature attempted to directly take on (in opposition to *or* alignment with) typical American themes (again, IMO). You still see that with our practical deification of C.S. Lewis, and our impatience with Faulkner, Hemmingway, and even Mark Twain. > Surely Margaret Young and Darius Gray, > Dean Hughes, Linda Sillitoe, Dennis Clark, Emma Lou Thayne, > Eugene England and many others are every bit as American as > Ray Carver, Tess Gallagher, Gina Berriault, Reynolds Price, > Walker Percy, Toni Morrison and Ntozake Shange. Why shouldn't > they be represented in a survey? They may be as American, but are they the best there is of American Literature? Sure, they should be considered, but we should have the courage to stand up and say that *here* is the best of American Literature. You'll have a tough time convincing me that Faulkner should be given the boot in preference for Dean Hughes or that Leslie Silko should be replaced by Emma Lou Thayne. They shouldn't be represented in a survey of American Lit for the simple reason that they do not represent the best that American Lit has to offer. You can maybe argue that the canon should include Dean Hughes, but you'll have to justify why he deserves preference over whoever you are booting to make room for him. (Sorry to pick on Dean Hughes and Emma Lou Thayne. I certainly mean no disrespect and don't want to disparage their work. If they feel they deserve to be in the top ten of American Lit, I'd be interested to hear the reasons, though admittedly unlikely to change my opinion.) Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:26:15 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Educating an Audience - ---Original Message From: BJ Rowley > By and large, the Mormon market is still very much in the > "scriptures only" mode, when it comes to LDS material. I don't think > it's an Education or Marketing issue that publishers alone are ever > going to conquer. Question: why is it assumed that "scriptures only" mode needs to be conquered (such a martial word choice)? What are we going to bring that benefits someone enough that they should expand their interests and re-allocate their precious time? There are very good reasons that some people chose to be "scriptures only" and until we learn what those reasons are, we will have no idea how to change that (let alone if a change would be for the better). How can we ask for validation for our work when we are unwilling to validate a perfectly reasonable choice made by people who are aware of their responsibility to make good choices? We are treating "scriptures only" as a disease that must be cured--consequently denying the validity of a choice made by people who are actively engaged in good works. We are not doctors trying to bring personal hygiene to the misguided heathen. We are more like wandering merchants offering curious works to enlighten and amuse. And how do we know it is due to a lack of education that we don't see many LDS novels in the hands of our companions? We are assuming that if they only *knew* what LDS literature has to offer, they'd *obviously* choose more of it. While this may be true for a small sub-set of the LDS population, I really doubt it is true for the majority. Personally, I believe that people will benefit from education and that good literature is an important part of expanding my experience and knowledge. Further, I believe that everybody *can* benefit from learning to appreciate good art (I use the term art here to broaden my discussion from simply book fiction to include theater and film, fiction and non-fiction). But I'm not so certain that everybody *will* benefit from just any old exposure to art, nor am I confident in my ability to determine what others need--to help them reach the best that art has to offer. For all I know, my recommendation that my Second Councilor read _Lord of the Rings_ will push him away from books forever and drive a wedge between him and me--particularly if I have the hubris to claim that everybody will find value in those books (and thereby implying that I think he must be a moron if he didn't like it as much as I do). Too often, the message of our art and artists is that "here is art and if I am to consider you educated and worth talking to, you must value it as I do." With such a message, is it any wonder that people are reluctant to learn our lessons however valuable we think them to be? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for GA endorsement, either. The General Authorities won't even directly endorse the productions that are paid-for by the church. You can't expect General Authorities to make a blanket endorsement of *all* our artists. Particularly when so many of our artists are directly or indirectly antagonistic to other members. That's like picking a favorite child. The church doesn't endorse software programmers, or air-line pilots, or construction workers. Why do we deserve more? The church doesn't tell us to buy our homes from LDS construction companies, to buy our food from LDS grocers or even to buy our education from BYU. And really, how could we develop a literature the equal of the best the world has to offer if we aren't bothering to compete with the rest of the world? It comes down to the marketplace and providing a service that people want. If you want to sell books, then you have to produce books that people want to buy. If you want people to read your literature, then appeals to authority are *not* the way to go about it. The beauty and tragedy of capitalism is the freedom to choose. If people are free to choose, then you had better be offering something they actually want. While it is true that one weakness of capitalism can be incomplete or inaccurate information (aka market inefficiencies :), that is only a very small part of what is at work in the LDS book market. I don't think that supplying more information is going to increase our acceptance. Further, LDS people in particular are *very* aware of their responsibilities and just don't make a lot of frivolous choices. Having a GA privilege LDS theater and literature would only mask the fact that LDS art does not provide what many members want. Artificially inflating demand will only lead to travesties like "Feature Films for Families" when people purchase out of loyalty and not a desire to fulfill an actual need or desire. If we want an audience, then we had better build one and stop treating people as inferior for the choices they make. We value some things different than others do. That doesn't make our choices right and the choices of others wrong. A pair of ice skates were way more useful to Tom Hanks' character in Castaway than a library full of books would have been (it doesn't help to be kept sane if you can't chop wood for a fire or crack open your coconuts) and a pair of ice skates (no matter how beautiful) isn't going to do a lick of good for a graduate student producing his doctoral thesis. A "scriptures only" attitude might legitimately be more important to a fellow member of the church than a love for _The Backslider_ will be--even if the reverse is true for us personally. Learning to identify and supply the needs of church members is a much more important/useful endeavor (IMO) than setting forth to educate them will be. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:24:27 -0500 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: [AML] Fw: MN News Briefs: Kent Larsen 4Mar02 US NY NYC X1 "Japanese Kenneth Cope" performs at BYU PROVO, UTAH -- The "Japanese Kenneth Cope" performed in a concert sponsored by BYU's Japan Club on March 1st. Nobuaki Irie of Osaka, Japan has recorded six contemporary LDS music albums in the past 10 years, and is a frequent performer at firesides and concerts for investigators. Irie says that before his albums were released, Japanese church members didn't have access to LDS music. Now two other LDS artists in Japan have released their first albums. Source: Japanese singer shares music through gospel BYU NewsNet 3Mar02 A2 http://newsnet.byu.edu/story/37272 \ By Barbara Edwards: NewsNet Staff Writer Bonneville Sponsors "Service to America Celebration" in June WASHINGTON, DC -- Bonneville International, the broadcasting and video producer owned by the LDS Church, will co-sponsor the "Service to America Celebration" on June 10th along with the National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation. The celebration, part of the Service to America Summit which recognizes outstanding community service by local broadcasters, culminates in an evening awards banquet June 10 that will feature former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Source: Rudy Giuliani to Highlight Service to America Celebration Business Wire 26Feb02 B4 >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, 07 Mar 2002 02:45:06 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Finnish Saunas Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Michael, you are setting up a straw-man in order to debunk it. I > haven't heard anyone say that nudity is always titillating or > lascivious. I have--many times. > Anyone who has visited the parks or beaches of Europe knows > that not all nudity is sexual. In one apartment in Berlin, I had to > bike through Tiergarten to get to church on Sunday. This was in the > summer. The alternative was to bike *around* Tiergarten--not an option. > Many of the sun bathers I saw there were definitely *not* going to evoke > thoughts of sex. Many were just thoughts of ick. You illustrate the other side of the coin of nudity = sexual. Either bodies are attractive and therefore sexually stimulating, or bodies are unattractive and are icky (I would presume because the idea of having sex with them is unpleasant). Either attitude seems demeaning to the wonderful creation of God that our bodies represent. What's wrong with the attitude that bodies just are? > But your conclusion that nudity is inherently nonsexual just makes no > sense. I'm not saying that nude = sexual, but you need to remember some > very important things when you discuss nudity. First off, sexual *does* > equal nudity. You just can't have sex unless certain key parts of you > are bare. As a result, there will be *some* sexuality associated with > nudity no matter how much you try to build some mythic ideal where this > is not so. People believe this only because they've rarely experienced nonsexual nudity. If most of our associations with nudity were nonsexual, the sexual associations would not dominate our reaction to it. My "mythic ideal" is practical experience for thousands of people. But even if I concede your point, what on earth is wrong with "some" sexuality associated with something? Are we so weak-willed that the slightest amount of sexual association fires off a spree of immorality? Sex is not dirty--sex is a gift of God. I know we give this tenet lip service, but our behavior belies our true acceptance of this concept. We certainly treat sex and our bodies as dirty and shameful. > Second, there are *very* *few* situations where nudity > simplifies activity. Do you know this from experience, or assume it's true because you've never had a chance to put it to the test? > I don't think it is due to some naturally prude feminine > instinct that I hear most about the desirability of nudity from men. I do. The body shame our society teaches women is astounding and tragic. Women DIE from body shame (just ask Richard Carpenter about sister Karen). If we could learn to accept bodies as something more than sexy or icky, would such tragedies occur? > Clothing allows each individual to > determine their own climate control in relation to an accepted norm (I > can wear less if I find I am often too warm, or more if I find I am > often too cold). Do you know this from experience? Could it be that our clothing, except in extreme cases, interferes with our body's normal climate control mechanisms, so we become dependent on clothing to be comfortable? Example: physical exertion that results in perspiration. With clothes on, the sweat soaks into the fabric and just sits there, instead of evaporating away and cooling us as it was designed to do. What if I'm too warm even with the minimum legal amount of clothing on? Then by your logic, I should be able to be nude, right? Oops, sorry! That'll land you in jail. Don't tell me practicality is behind the virulent anti-nude attitudes of our society. > Clothing allows us to control our appearance and to > exhibit important social registers. Clothing helps us determine when > nudity *is* sexual so that we avoid mistakes and can judge when behavior > *is* inappropriately lascivious. Because nude *can* equal sex, it is > important that we establish effective cultural queues that regulate our > nudity. Unless nudist environments are nonstop sex orgies, your logic doesn't wash. There are myriad ways to communicate things. Clothing is one crude, superficial way that as often as not is used to deliberately deceive as to communicate. Example: both LDS missionaries and mafia personnel wear suit and tie to appear respectable. Sexually oriented example: the girl who dresses provocatively, but won't "put out." She used clothing to express all sorts of sexual cues she didn't intend. Hello date rape. > It is important that we wear modest clothes so that we send the > right messages. You can argue that those messages are cultural > constructs, but while that may very well be true, they are important > constructs that should be learned and followed. Degrading those > constructs will lead to increased sexual permissiveness and dangerous > mis-communications. This whole argument hinges on the choice of "degrading" as a description of what I'm talking about, which choice clearly assumes what you're trying to prove. "Cultural constructs" change over time, so why should we call one more proposed change "degrading" the constructs? Our constructs about nudity have already changed within one generation. Skinnydipping is now generally considered perverted, when not long ago Norman Rockwell painted wholesome, nostalgic paintings of it. YMCAs use to insist on nude swimming in their pools. Skinnydipping among Boy Scouts was a time-honored tradition--now it's banned. Group showering in locker rooms is almost unheard of these days, but it's how I grew up. Is our society today more moral than the society of my youth? I don't think so. In the 60s, a sexual revolution occurred, which decent people recognize as nothing more than making immorality socially acceptable. A backlash occurred over time, which included becoming excessively prudish about nudity. But in the process of doing that, we have lost ground. We have forfeited virtually all images of nudity to the enemy, so that we cannot even comtemplate the glorious bodies God gave us without thinking sordid sexual thoughts--or thoughts of loathing if the body isn't to our liking. Many children grow up without any wholesome instruction about the human body, and are forced to get their education from Hugh Hefner or Larry Flint, or from playing doctor with the neighborhood kids. Sorry, but I don't see the improvement. As one last thought, let me remind everyone of something that always seems to get lost in discussions about nudity. Just because I think nudity is okay--even desirable--in some situations, does not mean that I'm trying to pressure everyone to be nude all the time. I'm just talking about choice and reasonable attitudes. I'm more than happy to concede that there are times when clothing is practicle, if you're willing to concede that there are times when nudity is practical and allow people the choice to be so without getting arrested or reported to their bishop. If you never want to be nude, more power to you--don't be! But why is the reverse option not available to anyone? Why is your philosophy about nudity so superior to mine that it should be encoded in the laws of the land? - -- 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 #638 ******************************