From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #766 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, July 10 2002 Volume 01 : Number 766 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 15:03:18 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] S.L. Newspaper Wars At 02:54 PM 7/8/02 -0600, you wrote: > From a literary point of view, it seems to me we do this all the > time. We create characters, and those characters have opinions, which > surface from time to time in conversations we write for them. But can a > character have an opinion which differs from our own, and if so, how do > we handle that? Easy. We write that character as an obvious blithering idiot. barbara hume - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:10:02 -0600 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: [AML] Mongoose Writers (was: S.L. Newspaper Wars) >--- "Eric R. Samuelsen" > > There is one LDS author whose work regularly appears >> in the Deseret News who I absolutely cannot stand. >> I won't say much about her here, but her name is >> Marianne Jennings, she's LDS, she's an editorial >> columnist, and she's the most awful writer in >> creation. So of course, I read her every week; >> she's my personal mongoose writer: someone who you >> loathe, and can't not read. And it's really bad for >> me to read her, because my blood pressure goes up >> and I'm sure she's going to give me a stroke some > > day. Do y'all have mongoose writers of your own? I'm unjustifiably proud to say that I am some people's mongoose writer. (Thanks for providing a name for it, by the way. I'd never heard the term before.) We have several people who read my column faithfully, twice a week -- and each time post nasty, negative comments about it on the Herald's free-for-all Web site. They post anonymously, but I recognize the IP addresses and writing styles. They always read me, they always hate me, and they always post negative feedback. I don't get it. I guess I can see consistently reading someone who upsets you, if that's your thing. But to consistently read them AND consistently send angry feedback ... what's the point? Why work yourself into such a lather on a regular basis? More to the point, why expend so much effort on someone you hate? Surely they don't think all the negative feedback is going to get me fired, or if they do, they have no idea how newspapers operate. Basking in the glory of being despised by people with too much free time, Eric D. Snider - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:27:27 -0500 From: "Preston" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report, Pt 2, July 5 Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days - --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 4 Minority Report 12,556,624 2,729 17 Gerald Molen (producer) 97,119,723 10 The Divine Secrets of the 2,814,943 1,792 31 Ya-Ya Sisterhood 61,144,497 36 ESPN's Ultimate X 91,455 37 59 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,962,403 54 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 20,712 6 794 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,481,305 55 China: The Panda Adventure 20,151 8 346 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,547,550 62 Galapagos 11,331 4 983 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,487,145 72 The Other Side of Heaven 7,583 10 206 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,620,546 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 73 The Believer 7,137 4 52 Ryan Gosling (lead male actor) 219,403 78 The Singles Ward 4,901 4 157 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 813,019 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Wally Joyner, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 93 Mark Twain's America 3D 1,014 1 1466 Alan Williams (composer) 2,237,093 THE R.M. LEADS ANNOUNCED: HaleStorm Entertainment has released the names of the leads in their upcoming feature comedy "The R.M.", which began filming on July 8, is scheduled to finish filming August 3, and will be released early in 2003. It was previously announced that the lead actor in "The R.M." will be Kirby Heyborne, as "Jared" (the R.M., i.e., Returned Missionary). Kirby is best known for playing "Dalen" the Idaho-bound missionary in who was the lead character's friend in HaleStorm's first movie "The Singles Ward." Joining Kirby is Will Swenson, as "Kory", Kirby's best friend -- a suave young man who did NOT serve a mission, but seems to have everything in life that Jared the R.M. doesn't have. (Will Swenson played the lead role in "The Singles Ward," but neither he nor Kirby are reprising characters from that movie.) Other cast members in "The R.M.": The part of "Kelly", the female lead role, will be played by newcomer Britani Bateman. Newcomer Merrill Dodge will play "Brigham", Jared's father. Newcomer Tracy Ann Evans has landed what many insiders consider the film's funniest supporting role: the part of Emma, Jared's uber-Relief Society mother. Michael Birkeland, who played "Hyrum" in "The Singles Ward" has a supporting role as "Duey." Finally, music fans will be excited to hear that none other than MAREN ORD, the Canadian pop sensation, has a supporting role in "The R.M." as "Sariah." Maren's songs can be heard on the soundtrack for the movies "crazy/beautiful" and "The Singles Ward," and on the TV shows "Alias" and "Felicity." Maren sings the title song in the movie "Thomas and the Magic Railroad" (starring Alec Baldwin). She also has a track on the "Welcome to Brigham" CD inspired by Richard Dutcher's "Brigham City." But this will be Maren's film debut as an actress. ANXIOUSLY ENGAGED: Cary Derbidge has announced that the title of his upcoming feature film about a temple wedding is "Anxiously Engaged." (We think this is the best title of any Latter-day Saint-themed film announced yet!) Also, a second executive producer has been added to the project: Shane Kester, a graduate of the University of Utah film school. KELS GOODMAN, DIRECTOR OF "HANDCART" HAS AN OFFICE NEXT DOOR TO RICHARD DUTCHER: Center Street, Provo is now the new office home for Kels. "Zion Films" (Richard Dutcher) is also sharing the center street location. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:34:00 -0600 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: [AML] Juanita Brooks When I saw that a new book on the Mountain Meadows massacre was = forthcoming I knew that I needed to read Juanita Brooks as a background = for any further study. My husband said that he wanted to wait for the = new book, but I assured him that he absolutely HAD to read Brooks first = to be able to put many things in proper perspective. How glad we are = that we read Juanita's highly interesting well researched account of the = massacre. Then we found ourselves wanting to know more about Juanita = Brooks. How fortuitous that on my birthday I received a copy of Levi = Peterson's excellent biography of Juanita Brooks. What a marvelous = woman and what a labor of love it must have been for Peterson to write = this comprehensive study of a life very well lived. I love biography = and this is one of the best I have read by a Mormon author. But then, = what's not to like about this woman? She was near the age of my mother = and I knew her daughter Willa Brooks, as we both worked at Zion National = Park the same summer. My mother, also from pioneer stock, came from = Cache Valley, while Brooks spent most of her fruitful life in Utah's = Dixie. The similarities were there, but I enjoyed the cultural = contrasts, as well. Juanita was an intelligent, courageous truth = seeker, while remaining a faithful member of the Mormon church. She = lived her life, fraught with challenges, to the fullest. Though her = passion was pioneer history, her family, church and community came = first. As I read her biography I wondered what this remarkable woman = might have accomplished had it not been for the distractions of her = life. But, the reason I love Juanita is not just her talent as a gifted = historian and respected author, but the depth of character she developed = from loving and serving others and meeting the significant challenges of = her eventful life. My question then for aml-list is: Does an artist = succeed in spite of or because of the challenges that threaten to keep = him/her from fully using their God-given talent? =20 Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 16:53:25 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] Unbiased Presentation Scott wondered if there is such a thing as unbiased reporting. I say yes, "If God's doing it." Otherwise, no sir. There is only more or less bias, never none. - -- Todd - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:59:23 -0700 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Warning re: Elijah Able Society Re: Margaret Young's concern about the Elijah Able Society. I know the young man involved. He has a lot of excellent material, some of it very inspiring, really, but as Margaret says, there are some problems too. He is attempting right now to rejoin the Church. I don't know how that will go, but he has published at least one very good LDS book, and he is definitely well meaning, if misguided. So what does one do about misinformation regarding the Church? I belong to an internet group that focuses on that issue intensely, and I can say it is a major, on-going battle. The misinformation on this site is nothing compared to the kind of lies and rumors we see daily from actual enemies of the Church. Given the ubiquious nature of the Internet, my personal opinion on this issue is that we cannot keep people from obtaining misinformation about the Church. The answer lies in more information, not less. We have to fight error with truth and hope the Spirit helps people to discern the difference. There was a time, when I was a kid in the Church, that the tendency was to ignore misinformation. I don't believe that's a viable alternative, and never have. So Margaret, it might be helpful to hear just what information on this site is erroneous. Don't know if this fits AML-list though. Maybe our moderator can clarify. [MOD: I'm tentatively willing, asusming this doesn't lead us down a track into debating details of Church history and/or doctrine. List volume is down a bit at present.] Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:55:10 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: Warning -- Internet Lies Ahead Margaret Young: As I've been doing some internet searches looking for particular quotes, I keep coming upon the same document ... It goes by a variety of names, but is still full of misinformation. A lot of truth and a few, very damaging lies. A CAREFUL path to Hell. I hadn't fully been aware of what risks internet availability can pose until recently. ... HOW can we teach our children, members, everybody to recognize truth and to recognize lies? This ... document is SO crafty and sly. It appears to be even official. And sadly, I'm afraid most Mormons are so ill-informed of the issue that they buy into the arguments presented. _______________ Welcome to the internet. I put ellipses in because almost any document will do. The story is the same. The internet provides quick and easy access to information. The only true filter of truth, lies, and deceit is between the ears. As parents, we teach our children that everything on the internet is suspect until verified. The internet itself has wonderful examples of plagerism, deception, and sloppiness. With a supervised e-mail account, one of the first things our children learn is that most messages with more than one Fwd: in the subject line can be (and should be) deleted without reading. We show them how to detect and check out hoaxes. We have taken time in our Family Home Evenings and other family discussions to show them how to detect them. We have also taught some basic skills on how the internet works, and tricks that webmasters use to snag browsers into sites that should be avoided. We have shown our children how to find and determine reputable sites, how to parse search results in a meaningful way, and that there is, in fact, much good on the net. We have taught them through examples and practice. It takes time and effort. The reason so much junk flows so successfully from the internet is, IMO, because of either a laziness or lack of desire to know the truth. The same principles we used to teach our children how to obtain testimonies of the gospel works in teaching them about the internet. One of the most successful and fun lessons on the internet came from a high school English teacher who assigned her students to write a paper using information from the internet. She gave them four specific sites to visit and use, and told them they should also search for other sites and information. Because our children do not have the internet access password, I watched as they (three of them, now) completed the assignment. Of the four sites the teacher gave her students, two were completely different from the other two, and both sides could not be correct. She had intentionally given them a direct conflict that could not be resolved without thinking, further research, and additional information. It was a great assignment, and a real eye-opener for our children who have had that teacher. And, heresy of heresies, we have shown our children that there are many books that are not worth the paper they are printed on, either. (But rather than delete them, we do require that they return them to the library.) And, of course, talk show hosts would be off topic. Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 22:18:49 -0500 From: lajackson@juno.com Subject: [AML] Re: S.L. Newspaper Wars Richard Russell: There is already morning competition between the papers two days a week. I don't think that the Trib is worried about competition nearly as much as the loss of its independent editorial voice. Chris Bigelow: ... However, in the case of the Salt Lake Tribune, I honestly do feel that "independent" means they have the freedom to play the whole spectrum of news coverage related to the LDS Church, and play the full spectrum they do, with overall worthwhile results, I would argue. ... the Deseret News and its backers would like to muzzle the Tribune's Church coverage ... To that end, it's clear they are playing some legal and other kinds of games with ownership issues. But they should not be allowed to, I feel, or we will lose an important counter-balance in our society and be left without a real statewide newspaper. While there are some things I admire about the Deseret News, I think there should be separation between church and press. Eric Samuelsen: It's deteriorated to a genuine ... name calling spat. ... both sides say the other side is all wet. I have no idea who's right. Hope it all gets resolved in such a way that both papers survive. _______________ This has been an entertaining read, and I have followed it for quite some time from a distance. I do not live in Utah, but most of my family is there and I have many fond memories and ties, including the Church. I guess, since the DesNews has purchaser veto power, some feel they are using it to muzzle the SLTrib's Church coverage. I don't buy it. I just think they are being business savvy. If the buyer is competent and capable, (and since this has gone to the courts,) any judge worth his salt will rule against the DesNews if there aren't substantial deficiencies, from a business and management standpoint and according to the law. I also think it important to remember that, in any court case, the worst of the worst of each side of the issue will be blasted in the press. This is why attorneys hate it when legal issues wind up in the papers. Rarely do the facts reported even come close to any legal basis in fact. Facts and findings in law are different from facts and findings in journalism. As for the "letters" aspect of telling the story, there are more than two ways of writing any story. As a journalist, I was taught to accurately determine the facts, present both sides of the story, and, in those rare instances where an editor would allow it, flag any opinion in neon lights with equal measures of the opposing view. For whatever the reason (a whole 'nother thread), I don't believe that happens today. I agree with Eric S. I hope both papers survive. I believe there is a need and a place for both, even though I believe many favoring each paper think the other paper is either hiding the truth or just trying to stir up trouble. The feelings work both ways, and I don't believe the reality is true. I do believe that there is a great risk that the SLTrib will lose readership to the DesNews if the News goes to mornings. And I believe the News needs to go to mornings to survive. I also believe that folks in the area feel that both papers are so biased that losing either one will tip over the table of balance, which in my opinion is really a teeter-totter. For a while, I didn't think either paper knew what balance really was, nor could they find it. It sounds as if that hasn't changed. When I have very strong feelings on a subject, I am always sensitive to the chipping at those feelings by others. I have had to learn over the years the difference between someone who is trying to attack my beliefs and one who is actually interested in learning about them, even though they may have no intention of ever agreeing with them. Being able to deal with this, I suppose, has to do with having a large measure of security within myself and a peace in what I believe. In matters of religion, these sensitivities and feelings are magnified, and if there is any insecurity, any comment becomes perceived as an attack on my beliefs, when in fact, it often is not at all. I believe that these sensitivities are what is driving popular opinion of the so-called Newspaper Wars. I also believe that either paper could take a more balanced position and editorial stance that would draw in readers from the other side and leave the opposing paper wondering what happened. This is also big business. I am reminded of the radio station in Salt Lake that ran an editorial many years ago that ended, "This has been a (call letters) editorial. Responsible persons with differing viewpoints should buy their own radio station." Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:30:59 EDT From: KGrant100@aol.com Subject: [AML] Re:[AML List] Satan Figures It was interesting to read these posts in light of some thoughts I'd been=20 having recently. All around me I see Satan's attacks on marriages, families= ,=20 and individuals. And it occurred to me that at this point (now that the Fal= l=20 has taken place), his motivation seems to be simply to do everything he can=20 to prove the Father's plan won't work, seeing that his own plan got rejected= .=20 For that reason, he wants to see us fail. In a tape called "Winning our Battles with Satan," Stephen Cramer shares thi= s=20 rather chilling quote: "There is no crime he would not commit, no debaucher= y=20 he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not=20 break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as=20= a=20 thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep=E2=80=99s clothing=E2=80=9D (Messa= ges of the First=20 Presidency, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,=20 1965-75, 6:179). The hopeful part about this is that a) we have a Savior, and 2) if we are no= t=20 ignorant of Satan's devices, we are less likely to be ensnared. Kathy [Grant] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:21:31 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Satan Figures ___ Dorothy ___ | The implication that we as humans should be more than "simply | obedient" is an interesting one. It embraces the notion | that we need to be thoughtful/introspective with regard to our | stewardships in this life and is a significant part of the | gospel. ___ This gets written about *all* the time. Look at discussions about purported "housewife burnout" and you'll see basically a discussion akin to Paul's discussion of the Law in Romans. The metaphors of "liahona" vs. "iron rod" are often made to fit this distinction as well. (Somewhat distastefully in my opinion since I think it distorts the symbols rather drastically) I think that Spielberg's underrated and much maligned film _AI_ deals with this as well. (Indeed I think this is key to its ending) The idea is that two people can do exactly the same thing but not be doing the same thing. That apparent paradox comes down to our intuition that intents count. If you intent is to obey it is different from an intent that matches God's intent. ___ Kari ___ | I have never really bought the argument that Elder Oaks has | put forward, namely that the partaking of the fruit was | something less than a sin, a "transgression" ___ I know we aren't supposed to delve to doctrine. But just a note on this. It was Joseph Fielding Smith who originally made a big deal of this distinction. There are problems with the distinction but it ends up going back to the Book of Mormon. Sins are those acts we have to repent of. Transgressions are automatically taken care of by the Savior and include mistakes done by children or presumably those mentally incapable of proper intention. This goes to Dorothy's point about intentionality. Consider that according to the story Adam and Eve in the garden were innocent and as little children. This is, I think, key for understanding certain elements of Book of Mormon soteriety. As for why God gave contradictory commandments, I think that a closer literary reading of Genesis 2 is rather interesting. I'd written for AML a few years back a kind of decontructive reading of it that I think explains why this was necessary. ___ Jim ___ | I think the Gnostic view of Satan is Satan's own (wishful) view | of himself. ___ Perhaps. However more likely they picked it up from Plato who had a demiurge. Plato for various reasons saw the universal as more real than the particular. Each abstract idea is itself made up of more abstract ideas until we get back to one abstraction: unity. This is equivalent to absolute goodness, the number 1, and so forth. This was what was most real and was pure being. The Gnostics were taking a more platonic view and trying to explain the OT. So they had to make some evil creature create the world to explain it. (Otherwise how can you explain creation?) While I'm sure Satan made use of gnosticism to attack the early church, there also are historical reasons for what happen. It's important to keep in mind if you read Gnostic writings that many of the things discussed are meant more allegorical. Many Mormons tend to read them more literally than they were intended. This becomes important since in many ways the notion of Virtual Reality raises all these issues again. We can have a "reality" which isn't "real" in our normal sense of materialism. How do we distinguish it? _The Matrix_ played with this a bit, albeit in a somewhat superficial way. It mixed gnosticism and Platonism with a bit of postmodern musings on VR. Other shows have sometimes done the same thing. Star Trek had its holodeck. Even in film we have the ever popular "it was all a dream" which places a "reality" as really ideas. (David Lynch plays with this a great deal where the dream-world imposes on "reality") How these works portray Satan is always interesting. In the Matrix we have a kind of inverted gnosticism. (Postmodernists, largely following Nietzsche, often consider their views a kind of inverted Platonism and gnosticism came from Platonism) The structure of the film requires a real God out in the real world. The "fake" God is the God of ideas who exists in the Matrix and controls it. Even in our own religion we sometimes call Satan the "God" of this world. (Although we don't grant him the power the Matrix gives him) An other great (and rather chilling) Satan figure is in David Lynch's _Lost Highway_. It is a kind of "fugue" or mobius strip. The whole film turns out to be the dream of a convict on death row trying to "remember things the way he wants to remember them." The Satan figure, who honestly scares the heck out me in it, is both the character's evil desires but also his conscience trying to wake him up from his delusion. I always found this interesting since in the OT the notion of Satan isn't so much the devil but adversary. AS an adversary he can be both good and bad. Good, in that he accuses us of our guilt (which Christ must answer for if we've repented) He's a figure like the Grim Reaper. We fear him, but his "evilness" is more complex than it first appears. Even our notion of the devil proper is interesting since he does have such an important role in the plan of salvation. As the Book of Mormon tells us, we couldn't have freedom unless we were enticed by both the good and bad. Further he's the one that started things rolling in the garden. It is interesting how good requires evil. - -- Clark Goble --- clark@lextek.com ----------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:42:54 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Killing Your Darlings (comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From gtaggart@fiber.net Tue Jul 09 11:24:08 2002 Eric, "The Church ain't true" is a darling that should be allowed to sleep peacefully in his crib. Sharpen your knife for some other darling word or phrase. Surely there must me something left in your novel more deserving of your blood lust. Greg Taggart - -------------------------------------------- >From cornerstonepublishing@attbi.com Tue Jul 09 12:21:23 2002 Eric R. Samuelsen asks: > What's a darling? Here's a thought: If you can reword it a number of different ways and they all work about the same, it's not a darling. If you have to say just so, and no other wording will work, it's probably a darling. Richard Hopkins - ----------------------------------------------- >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Tue Jul 09 13:19:40 2002 Eric, It doesn't sound like a "darling" to me, but rather a good hook, given the fact that it's a novel, and it's a line of dialogue. Particularly intriguing when you quickly (emphasize QUICKLY) find out it's spoken by some kind of backwoods type who's just been called as bishop. Makes me want to know if there are any others in his congregation who, deep inside, agree with Backwoods Bishop's self-effacement and what kind of conflict arises when they (passively-aggressively?) try to prove he "ain't" fit to be bishop. So from one reader's POV, you've got a hook, not a darling. Now I've supposed a lot there from one line of dialogue, but I can hear a world of inflection in that poor English. Kim Madsen - --------------------------------------------- >From rareyellow@yahoo.com Tue Jul 09 13:55:36 2002 - --- "Eric R. Samuelsen" wrote: > > Well, I agree with this . . . in principle. I think he's absolutely > right. But what I want to know is, how do you tell something that's a > darling from something that genuinely does work and is particularly > effective? > I have no idea. I guess you could have more readers you trust give you feedback. But on the more general subject of darlings... I understand the need for transparent prose, but some of the best lines in literature are these 'darlings.' So if a line is a little on the precocious (maybe even precious) side, don't automatically reject it, I say. I mean what would _Pride & Prejudice_ be without the opening line: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." That's a total darling. But it works. Or even Dicken's 'best of times/worst of times' thing that get's way over-quoted. Or what about one of last lines in James Joyce's best work (imo), the novelette "The Dead": "Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland." Or the beginning of Kafka's "Matamorphosis": "One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin." These lines are effective because they encapsulate much of the theme and tone of the work (and most of them are pretty funny). They work because the story supports them--the story is powerful enough, the prose good enough to allow the conceit of using a 'darling.' "The Church ain't true." Sounds like a great line to me. So I'd say the onus isn't on the darling, but on you, Eric, to make the novel itself be able to support the line. How's that for pressure? ~~William Morris, who was pleased to open this message and discover that it wasn't about a new, po-mo, post-colonial version of _Peter Pan_. - ---------------------------------------------- >From Melissa@proffitt.com Tue Jul 09 15:27:37 2002 As another big fan of Goldman's, I'm working on this principle myself, because I think he's right. My gut feeling about the kind of lines he considers "darlings" is that they are the ones that, in *isolation* from = the rest of the story or play or song, make you believe you are the greatest writer in the world. The ones that you notice, as you're reading along, because they stand out like little jewels on the page. Such a clever = turn of phrase, such wit, such intelligence! I think that's why you have to kill them. It's the book/story/song/play that you want to be sparkling with wit, not its individual pieces. So, yeah, sometimes you get lines that just work perfectly and are also beautiful by themselves, and I don't think you cut those. But I'm also = not entirely sure how to tell the difference. If a lot of pre-readers = comment on the same line (good or bad), that's a warning sign for me. If every = time I read the passage I notice the same beautiful line, that's another. My = one hard-and-fast rule for myself is, if I wrote a line because it's just so darn impressive, it comes out. Period. (This rule is easy for me to follow, no matter how beautiful the phrase, because the second time I = read it, I realize what I was doing, and I'm so embarrassed that the pain of excising it is nothing by comparison.) I guess what it comes down to is, are you using that line in that place because it's genuinely integral to the story, or because it makes a good opening line? Is it there to startle the reader, to set the tone for the novel, or because it's so pretty? You probably already know the answer, either way. Melissa Proffitt - -------------------------------------------- >From petersent@suu.edu Tue Jul 09 16:52:04 2002 Leave that line until you finish a draft. That said, I think that if you have an elaborately drawn set of reasons for wanting to keep something, you should axe it. In most cases a person is sold on the reasons and not the passage itself. If the novel is going to bear out and explain the statement, then how necessary is the statement in the first place? Goldman pinched that saying from Faulkner, by the way. A darling is anything writers become overly attached to, something that they instantly rebel against changing. A darling is something a writer has worked and overworked and, like a pot that has been thrown for too long, slumps and wings off the wheel. A darling is something that the writer completely understands, but others don't. Also when you axe things out use a big fat black marker. Computers have turned us all into ninnies -- we can now delicately traipse around our writing and peck here and peck there. It makes for all kinds of problems. When in doubt, cross it out. People who won't kill darlings, are, I think, scared they'll never write something wonderful again. On the other hand, William Kittredge once told me that if writers aren't "risking" sentimentality, they aren't really writing. And when you're LDS, sentimentality is around every stinking corner. It's also good to remember that if your characters cry, your reader won't. Todd Petersen - ------------------------------------------ >From debbro@voyager.net Wed Jul 10 10:27:07 2002 Now I have the name for what I do when I read and skip over entire paragraphs and dialogue! I am killing other writer's darlings. Wow. Seriously, I do this. I will get to a paragraph, read the first few words, and its like "been there, read that" and I will keep skipping till I find something new. Maybe this is why I can't read the Book of Mormon? I wonder if each one of us experimented with killing the darlings in the next book we read, and XXX them out, I wonder how much of the book would actually be left. As a writer, I am sparse, and I probably don't have a whole lot of little darlings I use, which may be why I don't have patience for them as a reader. Debbie Brown - --------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 15:15:39 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] _The Other Side of Heaven_ (Review) [MOD: This isn't a formal review, and in fact Michael talks about how this isn't really a review at all. I've added "Review" to the thread title, though, because it seems to me that in addition to focusing on a few specific points, it makes the kind of summary evaluation of the film that--for me--makes this a review, rather than not. (If Michael strenuously disagrees he can have Terry Jeffress not include this in the review archives on the AML-List Web site, I guess...)] Having now finally seen _Other Side of Heaven_, I can react to Eric Samuelsen's earlier comments about the film. Eric said the main character, John Groberg, was weak and nonvolitional--weak _because_ he was nonvolitional. Groberg had one (made up) scene where he showed great heroicism trying to learn the language. But a later (also made up) scene ruined that perception and the whole film: the one where the minister and the branch president stand up to some girl-trolling heavies and get beat up. Groberg just stands by and does nothing. Eric said this was a missed opportunity, a great deal of talent agtehred together to tell a fascinating story, but with a script that blew it big time--with the usual results. The easily "inspired" Mormon audience loved it, and the rest of the world's audience saw the film for what it was: a failure of mediocrity. This, in summary, is what Eric said. Everyone take note: this doesn't happen often. I agree with Eric 100 percent. I had planned on writing a review of the film, but Eric said it much better, so I won't bother. After hearing others' reactions to the film and before I'd seen it, I had already picked out a title for my pending review, assuming I agreed with the prevailing opinion: "Seminary Film, Hollywood Style." Were I to write that review today, I wouldn't use that title. _Other Side_ doesn't even make a good seminary film. Where are the conversions? We hear about them, but never see them. Barely any teaching happens on screen at all--in a missionary movie no less. Where are the blessings for the sick? There were ample opportunities to anoint afflicted people--did Groberg keep forgetting his consecrated oil or what? Instead he massages a boy as he chants the ridiculous: "in with the good air; out with the bad," and this saves his life. Maybe I should name the review "Loony Tunes, Mormon Style." At least we had a baptism. The film was very episodic. This is okay, unless each episode is shortchanged. Every episode in _Other Side_ was. Well, except for the rat-chewed feet. That tribulation seemed to go on forever. But for months I'd been hearing about and seeing clips of this big hurricane Groberg had lived through. How many minutes of play did that exciting climax get? Precious few. A couple big waves thrashing Groberg about, then voila! He's lying prone on the beach like every other castaway film ever made. As so many others have said, the characterization was pretty much nonexistent. Groberg just did stuff as the script needed. As Eric pointed out, everyone cried when he left and said what a great guy he was. I didn't cry. I didn't care. He was a weenie missionary who never seemed to do anything useful except let rats chew his feet (useful for a good laugh for the audience and the natives) At one point he handed his mission president a stack of documents to prove all the things he had been hard at work doing. Maybe he forged them overnight, because we sure never see any of those alleged good deeds in action. How does someone sleep through rats chewing one's feet anyway? And how does lying in the Western natal delivery position with one's feet pointed at the sky heal them? And why is that such an inspiring scene when he finally walks for the preacher, proving he's the messenger of Jesus or whatever? Why did the filmmakers seem to think sun-healing was more inspiring than a blessing? This is a missionary film, isn't it? No one among all the Saints of the island thought to administer to Groberg and his bloody feet? _Other Side_ can be summed up in one word: bland. Nothing especially enjoyable about it. Nothing so terrible as to hate it. It's just there taking up space where a good LDS film should have been, sapping energy that should have gone to something that could have advanced LDS cinema. Perhaps that's more than ample reason to hate it after all. - -- 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 #766 ******************************