From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #679 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, April 15 2002 Volume 01 : Number 679 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:59:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Hamilton Fred Subject: [AML] Re: Joseph Smith Chronology [MOD: Two items here.] To The AML List: Libraries with Item: UT -BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV LIBR UBY - Database: WorldCat Title: Joseph Smith, a comprehensive chronology and guide to references (1805-1844). Publication: Encino, Calif. : BEI Productions, Year: 1978 Description: xxv [i.e. xxxiv], 403 leaves ; p., 28 cm. Language: English SUBJECT(S) Descriptor: Mormon church -- History -- 1820-1844. Mormon church -- History -- Sources.. Named Person: Smith, Joseph, 1805-1844. Note(s): Bibliography: leaves 389-403. Document Type: Book Entry: 19860724 Update: 19940603 Accession No: OCLC: 13927262 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FirstSearch(r) Copyright (c) 1992-2002 OCLC as to electronic presentation and platform. All Rights Reserved. To The AML List: Libraries with Item: CO -DENVER SEMINARY LIBR CBS - UT -BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV LIBR UBY - UT -DAVIS CNTY LIBR UTD - UT -SALT LAKE CITY PUB LIBR UUP - UT -SALT LAKE CNTY LIBR SYST UUC - UT -UNIV OF UTAH UUM - UT -UTAH STATE LIBR PROC CTR UUZ - UT -UTAH STATE UNIV UUS - UT -UTAH VAL STATE COL LIBR UV$ - UT -WEBER CNTY LIBR UTW - Record for Item: "A Joseph Smith chronology..." A Joseph Smith chronology / Database: WorldCat Title: A Joseph Smith chronology / Author(s): Conkling, J. Christopher, 1949- Publication: Salt Lake City : Deseret Book Company, Year: 1979 Description: ix, 276 p. : p., map ;, 25 cm. Language: English Standard No: ISBN: 0877477345 :; LCCN: 79-896 SUBJECT(S) Descriptor: Mormons -- United States -- Biography. Named Person: Smith, Joseph, 1805-1844 -- Chronology. Note(s): Includes index./ Bibliography: p. 253-266. Class Descrpt: LC: BX8695.S6; Dewey: 289.3/092/4; B Responsibility: J. Christopher Conkling ; prepared for BEI Productions, inc. More Corp Auth: BEI Productions. Document Type: Book Entry: 19790129 Update: 20010319 Accession No: OCLC: 4664607 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FirstSearch(r) Copyright (c) 1992-2002 OCLC as to electronic presentation and platform. All Rights Reserved. Respectfully, Skip Hamilton - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:26:25 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: [AML] Re: Money and Art Swift was a minister, Gerard Manley Hopkins a Jesuit, Wallace Stevens an insurance executive, Dana Gioia an ad man, Walt Whitman a nurse and printer. So lots of good writing gets done by people with other jobs. Lots of artists were part of courtly life, but they had to bow to their masters. They were fired or worse: they got blacklisted for not agreeing. Money was the root of the power dynamic. It is interesting that two people mentioned the Sistine Chapel as something not ruined by patronage. Let me remind folks that the church painted over significant portions of the fresco; moreover, Michelangelo and Julius II fought over the project. Michelangalo didn't want to do it (he didn't consider himself a painter), and the Pope probably suggested the overall design. He was, after all, originally commissioned to paint the 12 apostles. Mozart, who was also mentioned as someone not ruined by patronage, hated courtly life. It was only reluctantly that he took his post at Salzburg. He was given a pink slip from the Archbishop after he ledt that job, and, in fact, he became one of the first "free lance musicians" if you will, though he eventually found a place in Joseph IIs court. Still he found it stifling, and he was rebellious, and was buried in an unmarked grave. During his last year (he was writing the requiem then) he was working for free as an assitant cathedral kapellmeister at St. Stephen's. I like the Reuiem best, so maybe this points to the source of the disagreement. Beethoven, also brought us, spent so much time abroad studying with Hadyn and Salieri that his patron, the Elector of Bonn, cut him off, and he made his money on lessons and occasional tours. Not really a stellar patronage situation there. I guess my point is that, yeah, there was patronage, but the artists hated it and good work seems to have been done without patronage (van Gogh). If they had been allowed to do what they wanted, the art might arguably have been even better. I never said that money kept there from being art, just that money curdles it. This happens because the patrons want the art changed to suit their fancy, just as Nelson Rockefeller wanted Diego Rivera to change the mural in Rockefeller Center by getting rid of the image of Lenin. Rivera protested, but since he'd taken the $14,000 payment he had no recourse and the work was removed. That's what I think money does. In my utopian Millenial, United Order-based dream world, artists will be able to work without worrying about money. In this telestial one, it works the other way, but just because it happens here doesn't mean it's right. Commerce and capitalism are human constructions, not divine. And shouldn't we be striving for the divine, or at least looking in that direction? - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:01:41 -0500 From: "Travis Manning" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Lund I chuckled too when I heard Lund's new assignment; I vaguely remember his speech from the AML conference back in '95 or '96. I wasn't too impressed was my recollection. I started his first book in the famous series, but had troubles digesting his writing style (likely my pride). I also thought it interesting during the Sunday afternoon session that Wallace Stegner was quoted--by the new Relief Society General President, Bonnie D. Parkin. I don't know of any other contemporary "Jack Mormons" that have been quoted in General Conference. Parkin said: "As Wallace Stegner wrote for the Mormons, 'Their women were incredible.'"It wasn't much of a quote, but it was Stegner . . . by the new R.S. General Prez. I wonder when General Conference speakers will begin to quote more contemporary Mormon authors, playwrights, screenwriters, and poets, more . . . . Travis Manning Salt Lake City - ---------- MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <'http://g.msn.com/1HM505401/15'>Click Here - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:48:42 EDT From: AEParshall@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Sanitized LDS History? But when was the last time any of us read a modern biography of a latter-day prophet that included chapters on his sins or weaknesses? =20 When I research someone from the past, I'm delighted with whatever I can= find=20 of a personal nature -- the record is often so arbitrary that anything at= all=20 seems like a treasure. When I write the report, though, I have to put those= =20 random bits into some kind of perspective -- just because Grampa was listed= =20 in the rolls of a Methodist class or on the list of bail bonds doesn't mean= =20 that he spent ALL his time in church or in jail or that the time he spent=20 there was representative of his life. Biographers of latter-day prophets don't have that restraint -- they have so= =20 many records available that they HAVE to choose what to include. So do you= =20 put in sins and weaknesses just because it's true, or to appear balanced, or= =20 to show that your subject is human? Those are common reasons for calling= for=20 "unsanitized" LDS history. They're all shallow and shabby excuses. =20 Playwrights do not waste their limited space in depicting episodes that= show=20 their characters as human without advancing the story, and novelists usually= =20 assign traits to their characters because they *need* a character of a=20 certain type, not merely because they met someone once who had that trait. = =20 Biographers and historians ought to have literary standards at least as high= =20 as fiction writers. Sins and weaknesses can fairly be shown. but they ought= =20 to woven into the pattern of the subject's life and not stuck on the surface= =20 just because they're handy. Last year I blasted a "biography lite" of Bruce R. McConkie because it was= so=20 shallow. I was blasted in return (not on this list) of advocating a=20 recitation of "sins and weaknesses" in order to smear a good man and bring= =20 him down to my level. Not so. That biography presented a man who sprang= =20 full-grown from the brow of the Lord, a man who had never had wet feet=20 because from his earliest years he had walked across mud puddles rather than= =20 through them. I thought that false picture did as much a disservice to= Elder=20 McConkie as it did to the book's readers for the boring, flat, stale=20 character it attempted to lionize. I didn't want to read of sins and=20 weaknesses in order to know that Elder McConkie was human, or to glorify the= =20 research skills of the author, or even because Elder McConkie must have had= =20 weaknesses. No, I wanted the author to show character development and=20 movement Did he ever struggle with anything? How did he win that struggle? = =20 Why was it so important to him? Quite possibly there were many principles= =20 that Elder McConkie learned at his mother's knee, accepted without a=20 struggle, and practiced perfectly throughout his life. Just as certainly=20 there were principles that he had to learn through pain and punishment, the= =20 same as all the rest of us have to. The biography would have been richer= had=20 some of those struggles been shown -- sins and weaknesses overcome. Anway, to wind up a too-long ramble, I agree that sins and weaknesses can= and=20 ought to be a part of biography and history -- but they ought to be= presented=20 in context, with a valid purpose, and not merely displayed because they=20 existed. Ardis Parshall AEParshall@aol.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:55:22 -0600 From: Bruce Young Subject: Re: [AML] Arthur Henry King A discussion of Arthur Henry King inevitably invites reminiscence and retelling of anecdotes. But since those take a good deal of time both to write and to read, I'm going to refrain right now (but I could tell you my version of many entertaining stories). I'll just say this much right now: Brother King was a great and good man, idiosyncratic certainly, bold, generous, and, as Fred Pinnegar has noted, immensely influential. There are at least two videos about him (or in part about him): "The Education of Zion" and "Speak That I May See Thee." Another video--my favorite--has, as far as I know, never been finished or broadcast, though it is certainly of PBS quality (produced by Dennis Packard and David Warner): "Experiencing Shakespeare with Arthur Henry King." A preview version of it was shown at a couple of scholarly conferences in 1996, where the audiences were moved and inspired. As for his writing, I know only a little of his poetry, but the poetry I know is first-rate. He's written quite a number of fine essays, on literary and other subjects, published mostly in LDS or BYU venues. On the one hand, it may be unfortunate that his influence has been limited mostly to an LDS audience. But on the other--as Gene England used to say--the current LDS audience is roughly the same size as the audience Shakespeare originally wrote for, the implication being that there's no reason work aimed at an audience of that size has to lack value, significance, or even, ultimately, widespread influence. I know of at least one scholarly book, written by Brother King before he joined the Church, on Ben Jonson. I discussed it once with Frank Kermode (a well known literary critic), who either was familiar with it already or had looked it up so that I would think he was familiar with it. King did massive and detailed (and very illuminating) work on Shakespeare, which has influenced many students, but which as far as I know has not been published. However, Camille Williams and others have been working for years on the best way to preserve and disseminate this work--for instance, possibly in computer-accessible format. If the discussion continues long enough and I find the time, I may throw in some of those anecdotes. Best wishes, Bruce Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:11:38 -0600 From: "Wes Rook" Subject: Re: [AML] Clock-Stopping (was: Box Office Report April 5) : : But I simply MUST say something about the plot. It : > features a rather unique scientific device in the form of a watch that : > apparently freezes time around the person wearing it. In actuality, it : > speeds up time immediately around the person wielding the device that : > everything around him or her seems to be frozen in time. It's an unusual : > science fictional plot device, and, as far as I know, it is an idea that : has : > never been featured in any movie. But it is EXACTLY the same plot device : > that was used by Latter-day Saint author Diana Lofgran Hoffman in her 1993 : > story "Other Time." There was a movie back in 1980 called "The Girl, The Gold watch, and Everything" which had EXACTLY the same plot device. In fact, it had exactly the same plot! It stared Robert Hays and Pam Dauber. There was a sequel also, but I don't remember the exact name of it. B. Weston Rook Sacramento, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:28:19 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] New Sugar Beet Click on www.thesugarbeet.com for the latest Mormon news: Thousands Attend Nordstrom Open House and Dedication Report Confirms BYU Official Suppressed Hot Chocolate Research Findings Relief Society Sister Makes Declarative Statement Arnold Friberg Body-Building Program Adopted by Church California Man Doesn't Like Science Fiction RS Counselor Asks Sisters to Cultivate "More Appealing Problems" Priest Repeats Sacrament Prayer Seven Times, Breaks Ward Record Miracle Expedites Home Teaching Views from the Street Ask a Beehive - ----- Read about us in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/04102002/utah/727076.htm. If you have a Sugar Beet news tip, send it to chris@thesugarbeet.com. Not all submissions will be acknowledged. If you were forwarded this message and want to join the Sugar Beet update list, send your request with ADD in the subject header to chris@thesugarbeet.com. OPT OUT: To stop receiving Sugar Beet updates, reply to this message with REMOVE in the subject header. (We're certain you opted in to begin with, right?) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:32:49 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] SSA in Mormon Lit Jim Wilson wrote: > I don't understand why this is such an engrossing subject. And I don't understand why blogging is so engrossing, or why the Arthur Henry King thread on this list is so engrossing for those participating in it. Neither is an issue that touches directly on my own life and experience--or at least not at such a level that I'm particularly interested in the discussion. Different issues engage different people at different levels. To at least some degree, I think that very diversity of interests is precisely what intrigues me about the discussion. In a very real way, SSA represents an alien mindset for me, yet I find that some people I love and respect--and share a great deal of common belief, hope, and experience with--think and feel in a way that utterly outside my own experience. I find that fascinating. Given equivalent inputs, how have so many of us come to different conclusions on basic questions? What is the relationship between physical impulse and intellectual or spiritual desire? Can one separate the two? Is there any value in trying? How does that relate to our purpose in coming to this earth and getting a body? How does that relate to the idea of gaining experiences, and what eternal metric is used to validate one set of experiences over another--if any? > The desire to > declare "SSA" different from all other forms of temptation must be > overpowering, but I don't believe this is the one area of human existence > where freedom is non-existant. I'm not sure I've heard an argument on this list suggesting that SSA represents an irresistable urge. What I think I have heard is that some people don't understand the nature of the thing as well as they wish they did. Some wonder how the basic urge to love another can be defined as wrong--which begs the question of whether there is a fundamental difference in kind or quality of the love that gay people feel versus how straight people feel. If there is, what is that difference and what aspect of that difference is so damaging from an eternal perspective? If there isn't, then is the sin only in the physical fact of gay sex, not the fact of gay love? Certainly a question I have is whether it's possible to separate the issues of physical intimacy from some sort of intellectual or spiritual love. If one could evaluate the quality of one person's commitment and concern for another without being aware of gender, would there be a qualitative difference between gay and straight love? It seems like I recall Rex Goode saying that he experiences attraction, not irresistable desire. In fact, it would appear that he's managed to resist desire for many, many years. But resisting desire is not the same thing as eliminating it. I dislike the "I couldn't help myself" argument as being self-indulgent and self-justifying of performing acts that one knows to be wrong. I haven't heard that argument in this context. In any case, SSA seems as legitimate an excuse to talk about basic desires and the nature of impulse and the connection between impulse and emotion and intellect and action as any other. At its root, there are some pretty basic existential questions there. > I certainly believe that some people have an > ingrown desire for members of the same sex--perhaps chemical, perhaps > hormonal, perhaps psychological, and (the least likely) perhaps even > genetic. So what? Good question. So what? Why should we discuss any issue? Why should we spend thought time trying to understand how or why we do anything? Especially if it touches on a basic desire that has been declared a sin in our religion, but that many people still feel--and act on--despite being told it's wrong? Of course I'm talking about the insatiable human urge to drive at a speed other than the posted speed limit. Here in Utah the highway seems to be populated by a really odd mix of people who want to drive 15-20 miles over the limit and those who want to drive 10 miles under it. What I find most interesting is the sheer defiance each of these groups offer when confronted, the incredible (active or passive) aggressiveness they show as they defend their lane space against all others and protect their personal right despite all attempts at reason, and repeated statements by leaders of the Church that we should obey all the laws, including the traffic laws. Reduce speed disorientation and SSA to their basic levels, and the question is not all that different--a desire exists among a group of people that seems to defy conscious effort to alter or control it. I'm not talking about acts here, just desires. A ludicrous metaphor... I'm red/green color blind, and try as I might, I can't cause myself to see certain colors despite my best effort and my understanding that while there is certainly a physical component to color vision, the majority portion is interpretation of stimulus. So given the same stimulus as others, shouldn't I be able to will myself to see those colors, to perceive the world the way others do by an act of forced interpretation? Perhaps, but I haven't figured out how--not yet, at least. I'm very fortunate, because almost no one makes moral judgments against me on the basis of my color blindness, and no Church leaders have declared the behaviors associated with color blindness to be sins. No one dismisses me as weak-willed or unworthy of compassion because red and yellow often look like the same color to me. In fact, if I don't tell anyone, they won't even know that I'm color blind (or that I'm going to change my voter registration to become a democrat sometime next week). Still, in my own head, I wonder about the different ways that I know that others perceive the world. I'm told that color blindness is a sort of handicap, that as a result of the way I perceive the world there are certain things that I can't understand, certain beauties that I will never see. I know that there are certain experiences that I can't have and certain vocations that I can't follow. At times I get a little tired of hearing about how broken I am, because inside my own head I don't feel broken. Inside my head, I just see the world the way I see it, and I have to take other peoples' word for it that I am apparently defective. Maybe the colors I see are just as good and valid and beautiful as those that others see. Maybe if they could see the way I do they would find it actually superior to their own perception. There are certainly physical reasons for it, and there may be psychological and/or environmental factors as well to go along with the chemical and possibly dietary factors. To a very great degree those discussions are irrelevant (though understanding the foundations for my perception is interesting to me in any case), because knowing the basis for my color blindness doesn't change the fact of it. I perceive color differently than most other people. It's a fact. Some people (including, but not limited to, other color blind people) love to talk about the issue, because they hope to understand their own perceptions by comparing them against the perceptions of others. Those people hope to gain some insight on their own conditions by understanding the conditions of others. Since we color blind people already know our perceptions to be non-standard, we tend to see the non-standard perceptions of others less as broken or damaged, as merely different. Of course any metaphor breaks down after a while, and can be abused with relative ease. But my point is that for me at least there is a value to understanding others--especially when they perceive in ways that are fundamentally different in kind or scope than my own. Weak as the connection to Mormon letters may seem, I think it is by telling our stories in all their diversity, by sharing our perceptions and hopes and beliefs even with those who believe us to be broken, that we can most effectively add upon our own knowledge and expand our own limited experience. It is by trying to understand the other that we gain the tools to look more honestly at ourselves. How can we become perfect--how can we become complete--until we learn to see ourselves honestly? Only by honest perception can we truly change who we are, can we hope to repent and change and grow. To me telling our stories in whatever forum suits us, and by whatever medium enables us, is not only a good and valid thing to do, but is actually a moral imperative and a basic step to exaltation. Of course there's a vast social and political and religious muddle around the issue of SSA. The rhetoric has been flying for years, but like most party-based discussions of politics I find that those discussions don't represent an attempt to understand the issue so much as they justify a particular set of institutional policies--not self analysis so much as self-justification. The loud public dialog has become more about brokering power or privilege than understanding individual human beings and the things that move them to think and hope and do. But that often shrill public dialog doesn't have to be the extent of the discussion. Until individual people step forward and share the ways that they perceive the world, no one else can possibly understand that perspective. Richard Dutcher commented to that effect at the AML-sponsored writer's conference in November--that many stories can be told by anyone, but some stories (and perspectives) can only be told by you. I think there's wisdom in that, and whether I'm personally interested in stories that deal with a particular topic, I think the stories should be told--and discussed--anyway. > God never said anything about cursing the guy who thinks > he's Napoleon. He was a little more explicit about SSA in action. Didn't Christ suggest that he who called his brother fool (perhaps for thinking that he's Napoleon) stood in danger of hell fire? Wasn't the injunction to love unconditionally--even if the other guy is gay? God was pretty explicit in the ten commandments, too, yet it's become a topic of broad public humor to laugh about how many of those commandments we break in a given day (or specifically, at a given party). The same-sex attracted certainly hold no monopoly on articulating justifications for doing things they've been told are wrong. From where I sit, this is one of the most common human behaviors on the planet, and the same-sex attracted seem to deserve no more special condemnation than anyone else. Yet many Mormons seem particularly willing to offer that special condemnation and to view the sins identified with SSA as more damaging and corrupting and eternally significant than the more ordinary ones that have been abused by so many for so long. I guess I have a hard time seeing gay promiscuity or fornication as being all that different from the hetero version, and I see neither of those as being as serious as covenant-breaking in the form of adultery. Or rape. Or murder. Or pedophilia. Or any other victimization of the weak by the strong. If the act is wrong, I don't see how the orientation of the offendor makes the sin more or less worthy of condemnation. One thing I do know is that arguments move me less than experience, and story provides a means of both sharing and receiving new experience. Stories that focus on the nature of individual struggle to be right and do right aren't limited to any one perspective, though we as Mormons seem to be largely unwilling to accept the stories of ordinary existential struggle when told from the point of view of the same-sex attracted. Is the desire to master one's own mind and soul less poignant if you're gay? I'm not sure it is, and I'm not sure I understand why literature that deals with SSA should be any less valid or worthy of discussion than literature that deals with any other mindset or philosophy or viewpoint--at least when it's well crafted. I think there's much to be gained by perceiving the world through other eyes and using that perspective to help us triangulate our own hopes and beliefs. That variety of perspectives is what makes story so powerful. But only if we first write it, then share it, then read (or view) it. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:00:39 -0600 From: David Hansen Subject: [AML] POTOK, _Old Men at Midnight_ (Review) I'm not sure whether this book meets the strict definition of "Mormon Letters," ("by Mormon Letters We Mean . . . literature by, for, and about Mormons and criticism of same") although I certainly could make an argument, ala Eric Samuelsen, that this book is certainly "for" Mormons. Potok has been held up by some as what Mormon letters "ought" to be like, and I hope you'll indulge this review. Author: Chaim Potok Title: Old Men at Midnight Hardcover - 273 pages October 23, 2001 Knopf; ISBN: 0375410716 $23.00 Reviewed by Dave Hansen A few years ago a friend of mine (on this list, no less!) recommended I read _The Chosen_ by Chaim Potok. That story followed two young boys in their struggle to determine and understand how they fit in with the strict Hasidic Jewish culture and modern society. It was an eye opening experience, and changed the way I looked at literature. Shortly after finishing _The Chosen_ I devoured the Asher Lev books, and became an avid fan of Potok's work, even though these works were personally troublesome to me. After reading these books, it became easy to see how his types of stories, i.e. the culture clash, could be applied to LDS situations, and I longed to see good LDS literature follow his same pattern. In _Old Men at Midnight_, Potok uses an interesting device in combining essentially three novellas into one "story" by having the novellas told to the same individual, Ilana Davita Chandal Dinn, at different points throughout her life. Potok has already written a story called "Davita's Harp," which I assume (I haven't read it yet) deals more in depth with Davita's life. In this book, we learn just the periphery about Davita's life, but it is enough to make you feel you know, or can deduce her character so that she comes alive. It is almost more what Potok does not say about her that tells us volumes. Yet, she's the backdrop to the three stories about Jews in three difficult situations. "The Ark Builder" First, there is a story about Noah, a young Polish survivor of the holocaust who comes to 18 year old Davita in Brooklyn for English lessons. During these lessons, Davita learns that Noah was the only survivor of his village, and was preserved by the Germans because he could draw. Prior to the destruction, he assisted Reb Binyomin in creating a great wooden sculpture of Noah's ark for the local synogague. They work very hard on the ark and from this experience he learns to draw well. The ending comes quickly and is almost cryptic, but in using this style, Potok allows us to draw our own moral conclusions from the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in life. These problems certainly overwhelmed Noah when he first arrived in America, and are impressive to the reader when the full story is told. "The War Doctor" Next is the story of Leon Shertov/Kalman Sharfstein told to a graduate student Davita who encourages her guest lecturer to tell his full Russia story. Shertov then tells his story of when as a Russian soldier his family/town wass destroyed by the Russion revolution. He then is injures his arm in battle at a time when the prudent thing to do for such an injury was to amputate the limb. A doctor determines to save his arm, and in exchange asks that Kalman teach him how to properly pronounce the prayers in a Hebrew prayer book he has received as a gift. Eventually, Kalman recovers and is sent to work for Stalin in the NKVD, in what will become the KGB. He must change his name from a Jewish name to a Russian one in order to survive in the training camp. There he is trained in "investigation, arrest, interrogation, persuasion, confession, inducing helplessness, bewilderment, and laying terror." Eventually he rises in position and can extract confessions from individuals whether guilty or not, given enough time. When Stalin, suffering from acute paranoia, begins his crusade against all Russian physicians for "conspiracy" it causes little anguish for the now "Leon Shertov" until the doctor appears in prison who saved his hand so many years before. At that point, Shertov begins only pretending to beat and interrogate the doctors, but learns that the doctor who saved his arm is suffering and will likely die quickly in prison. Potok again allows the reader the space to feel his anguish and contradictions without spelling them out explicitly. The religious overtones here are not specific, but symbolically are very powerful. "The Trope Teacher" In the last novella, I.D. Chandal ("Davita") moves next door to Benjamin Walter, a professor of military history. Benjamin is attempting to write him memoirs which are eagerly anticipated in the academic community, but he can't seem to get them started with a severely ill wife at home and a fading memory of his younger years. Ms. Chandal coaxes the story out of him that Benjamin has learned to forget. When he was a young man in the American 1930's he studied, at his father's request, with an eccentric private "Trope" teacher, Mr. Zapiski. Trope is (as I understand it) the traditional Jewish chanting/singing of the Torah and the prophets. As he studies Trope, he also comes to know more about the relationship between Mr. Zapiski and his father, and their involvement with World War I. Mr. Zapiski, which teaching Trope, also teaches young Benjamin what it really means to be a Jew. As Benjamin comes to have a new and deep respect and almost friendship with Mr. Zapiski, Mr. Zapiski determines that he must move to Europe to return "to the inside of myself that the war forced me to leave behind." After Mr. Zapiski leaves, Benjamin then takes steps to find "Mr. Zapiski" both consciously and subconsciously. Beliving war is glorious, he learns what war is really all about by enlisting in the army once war breaks out in Europe, and ends up fighting the Germans in the Ardennes forest in December 1944. This was a horrible battle in which 32 of 36 men in his platoon are killed. When he finally finds Mr. Zapiski, he realizes that he has truly understood what it means to be a Jew too late. In addition to this flashback story, there are also the symbolic side stories going on of lightning striking a century old tree in the older Benjamin's back yard, Benjamin's wife being deathly ill, and a friend providing a deliciouis interpretation of the Abraham/Isaac story. These additions create a symbolic framework in which Potok can subtlely tell his story without being explicit. The story ends fairly violently, but effectively and emotionally. Each of these stories tell what it means to be a Jew in a way that can universally communicate to the reader. For example, I didn't feel like I had to know what Trope was to understand any part of the story. Yet, each of these stories offered a slightly different take on how their religious beliefs affected their behavior. Perhaps that is what I find fascinating about religious literature, and where I think Mormon literature can succeed in a similar vein, is when Mormon lit tells stories about how personal beliefs affected who they were and what they did for their beliefs in everyday life. For example, stories which deal with being honest in your business dealings, or forgiving your neighbor for a wrong, carry much more universal appeal than coversion stories. Potok has an amazing ability to give each of the Jews he writies about an identity with their religion. There religion was "who they were" in a powerful way. My heart ached for each of his characters and their experiences, and made me realize how much suffering this life contains. Yet, these stories were all uplifting - and ended hopeful for a better day, since all were released from their troubles and were able to tell their stories. Granted, I'm a Potok fan, but this is a book - along with the other Potok greats - that in my opinion should be read by those interested in Mormon (religious?) letters. Dave Hansen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:37:14 -0700 From: harlowclark@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Good Young Adult Lit On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:09:16 -0600 Angela Hallstrom writes: > Actually, I have two requests. First, I would love some > recommendations on YA books that have been published in the last > five years or so (not just LDS books, by the way), and second, I > need some help with the whole appropriateness issue. There are > some YA books I've read and loved that I just can't stand up in > front of the Relief Society and recommend I can rattle off a good list, but before I do, I'm struck by this comment. Why can't you recommend books that you love? Would you stand up and recommend, say, a book about a serial murderer who dismembers the bodies of his victims, college girls, who ties them down and paints their naked bodies in two colors right down the center before killing them? Would you stand up in testimony meeting and say that the Lord guided you to read such a book? Me neither. I approached it differently when I told my ward members I was grateful the Lord had led me to Louis Owens' _Bone Game_ (also to _The Sharpest Sight_). I told them I was moved by the scene in the sweat lodge ceremony where the Shaman says, "Like Jesus, we got to forgive everybody. That's real important." I told them that was particularly moving because the spirit of evil in the novel is a corrupt Catholic priest of two centuries earlier who would whip the Indians with wire whips, and defile their women. The priest's lusts and confusions are mirrored in the killer's. For the whole novel we're anticipating this sweat lodge ceremony, so the shaman's message is very important thematically--and not at all what I thought he would say. Of course, I can say something like that confident that no one in the ward is going to seek out Louis Owens' novels--and if someone comes and asks me what books I was talking about, I can prepare them for the read. Unless you've had some bad experience where someone read a book you recommended and, say, you suddenly found yourself released from your calling, it might be possible to teach a bit about literary theory, particularly the theory that the reader is responsible for her interpretation. The author cannot force us to interpret a work in a particular way, and if we choose to interpret something as uplifting we might gain experience from it. You chose to interpret certain novels that way, why can't you teach the RS sisters the same? At least I think that's an implication of the disclaimer you want to give, "that each parent needs to decide for herself what's best for her kids, and none of my choices are 'church endorsed' in any way." > For me, this whole thing is particularly sensitive because > these are books I'm recommending for people's *kids*. Why does that make the issue sensitive? This is not a rhetorical question. I think about Eric Samuelsen's comment ([AML] Stephen KING, _On Writing_ 05 Feb 2002) >>>>> I've said it before, but it bears repeating; Stephen King is a wonderful YA writer. He understands childhood like no one else, and his best work deals with children trying to make sense of a dangerous, frightening world. And he communicates childhood friendship superbly. Yes, he uses bad language. Kids love bad language; they love shocking adults with it, and they love the liberated feeling of using profanity creatively. Yes, his books are very scary. Kids love a good thrilling chill down their spine. Yes, his books are full of product placement; consumer labels and the like. Kids respond to references to cultural products. <<<<< Eric ends with this comment, "Would I let my kids read him? Of course." So, would he have to refrain from recommending them to someone else's kids? I was in an LDS bookstore in Mountlake Terrace Warshington 10 or 12 years ago and, joy, there was a copy of Levi Peterson's _The Backslider_ there, at a time when Beehive Books over in Bellevue (Now Deserts of Vast Eternity Book--Leslie Norris said you have to draw out the vowels to get Marvell's true effect, Dezaahrts of vaahst eetaahrnitie), just down the hill from that spired building with the picture of the ferocious dog on the gates) wouldn't carry Signature Press books because they considered them an anti-Mormon press. Anyway, this woman asked me if it was a good book. I said it was very good, but rather raw in places. She was looking for a book for her son. He would probably enjoy it, I said, but it is a little raw. I wasn't trying to warn her away from it, I just didn't want her to come back and yell at the store owner for stocking dirty books. (Reminds me of Brinton Turkle's comment to a BYU audience, "I want to be known as a writer of dirty books," dirty from the hands of many children reading them.) I probably sound argumentative. I woke up the other morning thinking about this post, and realized I ought to ask for examples of what you couldn't recommend, and why. A year or two or so back someone, Melissa Proffitt? gave us a fascinating look at Leaf-A-Ciety politics and protocols when she was asked to do a homemaking presentation (I couldn't find it in the archives using _relief_ and _homemaking_ as search terms in WPs Quickfinder) on some novel she didn't like (The Xmas Boxer?), and was afraid that whatever she did, it would be twisted somehow to be a positive or sunnily uplifting. We got another glimpse of Leaf-A-Ciety politics from Lisa Downing in the Life in Mormon Culture thread, 17 and 25 Jan 2002, when she talked about trying to teach Helynne Hansen's "The Chastening" for housemaking knight. I'd love another glimpse. > However, I don't want to fall back on some of the more preachy, > sentimental Mormon fare that is often offered up (and often not > very well written). Let me be just a little cranky here. We often assume that sentimental preachy novels are safe to recommend because they're . . . , what, inoffensive? What about the people who are offended by them? What about people who feel that if that's all Mormon audiences want and church sources promote there's no room for them? Aren't our souls precious, too? I remember the day Clayne Robison had our class read Boyd K. Packer's "The Arts and the Spirit of the Lord" (August 1976 Ensign, 60-65). Elder Packer asked Clayne to review it before he gave it as a fireside address, just to get a sense of how an artistic person might react to it. His examples of great literature and music were pretty lowbrow, not what trained writers and musicians would consider great at all, and I think Clayne told him that and Elder Packer thanked him, and for a lot of people the examples of poor art overshadowed the message. That talk was the endorsement of art someone asked for recently, but people would look at the examples and say, "If that's the kind of art he's calling for, what place is there for me." Clayne said that even 6 years later there were people in the music department that couldn't bear to talk about that talk. Clayne's solution was to look at the precepts and disregard the examples. I think it's excellent advice, whether you're talking literature or politics. If you give the class only examples and not some precepts for how to choose literature, you're sure to offend someone, even if only yourself because you have to leave out stuff you find perfectly acceptable. Anyway, enough of the rant, here's a few I've read recently: _Say You Are My Sister_, by Laurel Stowe Brady. Well told look at complex race relations in the south in the 1940's and how Northerners misapprehend those complexities, and if that sounds boring, just think of it as an adventure about a family of orphans (not Pirates of Penzance) trying to stay together. _Claire: A Mormon Girl_ series of 5 by Paris Anderson, though this is more children than YA. Claire is 12 at the beginning, and around 16 in book 5, but the book design, illustrations and sentence structure point to a younger audience. _Cal Cameron by Day, Spiderman by Night_, _The Shadow Brothers_, and _Amazing Gracie_ by A. E. Cannon. The first two are boys' novels, the third a girls' story. All three are fine and show empathy for teenagers and their desire to be recognized by adults. They're set in Utah and are implicitly Mormon stories, but there are only scant references to Mormon culture. It's a little like reading a story about Seattle without reference to Ivar Haglund, the Smith tower, the Space Needle, the Aurora Bridge, Gasworks Park, Lake Union, Lake ("There is no R in") Washington, Snoose Junction, Wallingford, the U-District, the Denny Regrade, Capitol Hill, the (now replaced) Kingdome, or anything else in town, but Ann captures landscapes marvelously. If you've been in American Fork, or run along Provo Canyon Road you'll recognize how well she evokes the places she's writing about. _House on the Sound_ and _Goodbye, Hello_ by Marilyn Brown. Both interesting. The first sentence or two of _Goodbye, Hello_ haunted me for years, reminding me I had to read the rest of it. Some might be upset about the homosexuality and incest going on in the background of the _House on the Sound_, though it's all seen through the eyes of a young girl who's not sure what's happening. Marilyn's forthcoming _Ghosts of the Oquirrhs_ has an engaging teen (I think, I've just started it) main character as well. _Switching Tracks_ and _Children of the Promise_ by Dean Hughes. Dean told our writing class that he wrote _Switching Tracks_ after he was riding with some teenagers and one shouted out the window, "Hey, grandpa!" at an old man. He wanted to better understand how teenagers perceive and relate to old people. _Hooper Haller_ is good, too. I haven't read _Jenny Haller_ yet, or the novels about Eldon Haller's great great grandfather, except the beginning of _Under the Same Stars_, and I found the scene where Joseph Smith shows that he also can't throw a rock across the Mississippi very moving. _Circle Dance_ by Sharlee Glenn. Fine novel marred by some editorial need for brevity. Needs a companion piece to fill out and give added depth to the story. _Family Pose_ (Picture? Portrait? has two titles) by Dean Hughes, _Briar Rose_ by Jane Yolen, and _The Only Alien on the Planet_ by Kristen Randle, for three versions of the Sleeping Beauty story. _I Am the Cheese_ by Robert Cormier. Cormier writes a lot and has a good reputation, but parents may find him edgy. I've only read two, but am interested in _After the First Death_, which is about terrorists hijacking a school bus. They're going to kill the driver, but the first chink in their plans is that the driver turns out not to be a man, and it's ungentlemanly to kill women (that's the impression I got from glancing at a couple of passages). A lot of Cormier's novels are thrillers aimed at boys, so I was fascinated to come across a story for girls, _Other Bells for Us to Ring_. Set in Canada during WWII it's about a girl whose father is off to war, and a nun. The girl prays for a miracle and gets it. _Park's Quest_ by Katherine Paterson. Interesting look at how the Vietnam war affected families. Park's quest is to find out something about his father, killed in the war, and never mentioned by his mother. The scene riding down the hill on the back of grandpa's wheelchair, with grandpa in the chair, is wonderful. _House Without Walls_ by Margaret Young, and _One Wide River to Cross_ and _Bound for Canaan_ by Margaret Young and Darius Gray for older teens. Adventuresome teens might enjoy Margaret's other novel, _Salvador_ (not about that fellow who painted the strange clocks drooping over tree branches). Harlow Clark, who could go on, and on, and on, but everyone's eyelids are probably drooping long about now. ________________________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #679 ******************************