From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #877 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 Thursday, October 31 2002 Volume 01 : Number 877 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 07:42:59 -0700 From: AML Subject: [AML] New Issue of IRREANTUM IRREANTUM Magazine: Exploring Mormon Literature ==================================================================== Special Environmental-Themed Issue Supported by a grant from the Utah Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts, IRREANTUM is Mormonism's only magazine devoted to the literary arts. Our new 108-page issue (summer '02) features the following: Interview with Terry Tempest Williams (pictured above, if you receive e-mail in HTML format) and an excerpt from her memoir LEAP Essays by Gideon O. Burton, Harlow Soderborg Clark, Patricia Gunter Karamesines, Todd Robert Petersen, Levi S. Peterson, Neila C. Seshachari, and Dan Wotherspoon Poetry by Paris Anderson, Leon Chidester, Dennis Clark, Danielle Beazer Dubrasky, Stanton H. Hall, George Handley, Susan Elizabeth Howe, Bruce Jorgensen, Patricia Gunter Karamesines, and Darlene Young Fiction by M. Shayne Bell, David M. Clark, Darin Cozzens, and Julie West Staheli Reviews of books by LaVon B. Carroll, Colleen Down, Gerald N. Lund, B.J. Rowley, Emily Watts, Terry Tempest Williams, and Julie Wright Plus Mormon literary news and more Click here to order a copy of this issue. https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&item_number=&no_note=0&cancel_return=&item_name=Copy%20of%20Irreantum%20(summer%20'02%20issue)&amount=5.00&bn=topica&undefined_quantity=1&return=&business=irreantum2@cs.com&no_shipping=0 Click here for a 4-issue subscription to IRREANTUM. https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&item_number=&no_note=0&cancel_return=&item_name=Irreantum%20subscription&amount=16.00&bn=topica&undefined_quantity=1&return=&business=irreantum2@cs.com&no_shipping=0 To order by snail-mail, click here for a printable order form. http://www.aml-online.org/irreantum/order-form.html Click here for more information about IRREANTUM magazine. http://www.aml-online.org/irreantum/index.html ==================================================================== Update your profile here: http://topica.email-publisher.com/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp Unsubscribe here: http://topica.email-publisher.com/survey/?a84D2W.batlYA.YW1sLWxp.u Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://topica.email-publisher.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:42:44 -0700 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Johnny Lingo >All that aside, I really don't know how it's possible to miss the primary >message of Johnny Lingo: the worth of a >woman is determined by men, based >on a man's appraisal of her physical attractiveness. Mahana is 'ugly.' >But no! >Johnny Lingo paid eight cows for her! Turns out she's beautiful! > And so Johnny Lingo's assessment of her wins out. > >But Johnny Lingo (the character and also the movie) isn't asking us to >reevaluate our notions of what >constitutes 'worth' or 'value' or what >weight we put on other human qualities, or anything of the sort. Johnny >just >thinks she's hot, and that her family and friends are dopes for not >having seen it. But he's using precisely the same >assessment criteria >everyone else is using. Oh I read it completely differently from that. I think that the fam and everyone but Johnny evaluates her based on her looks. Johnny, on the other hand, has known and loved her since they were children and because he knows her and her wonderful qualities she is beautiful to him. He thinks everybody else is a dope for not seeing those qualities besides physical attractiveness (or unattractiveness, as the case may be). When Mahana feels loved and valued (ie assessed) for things other than physical beauty (or lack thereof) she becomes more confident and that turns out to be quite attractive. The village folks are amazed because they perceive her to have suddenly transformed into someone who is considerably physically beautiful. Johnny knows, though, that she was always this wonderful...they just couldn't see past the physical to see it. They can only think in terms of physical beauty and so that's how they see it...Johnny knows that the physical beauty they see is just a reflection of her inner beauty...the inner beauty he always saw. And that's why I like Johnny Lingo! :-) Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 20:50:15 -0600 From: "Kumiko" Subject: [AML] Press Release: Gary Rogers' Book of Mormon Movie PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Gary Rogers (801) 557-3515 sregor@aros.net http://www.bookofmormonmovie.com THE BOOK OF MORMON IS COMING TO THE SILVER SCREEN! Salt Lake City, Utah - October 29, 2002 -- The Salt Lake Hilton Hotel will be the site of a press conference announcing the production of an epic, multi-million dollar motion picture, "The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume One!" To members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon is a sacred record of an ancient people who migrated from Jerusalem to the America's some 600 years before the birth of Christ. The book covers approximately one thousand years of their history, including a visit by Jesus Christ, after his crucifixion and resurrection in the old world. "This is a very unique motion picture," stated Gary Rogers, the film's producer, writer and director. "Virtually every member of the Church I've talked to has told me they have waited all their lives to see a movie about the Book of Mormon! It really is a filmmaker's dream. However, the biggest challenge will be to produce a film that satisfies the audience. Most of the nearly 12 million members of the Church have already "seen" the movie many times in their minds! The prospect of meeting the expectations of millions of people is a very frightening but exciting challenge," say's Rogers. "The Book of Mormon Movie will have special appeal to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, the movie is designed to appeal to all viewers," stated Rogers. "The movie has all the same elements that make up any good motion picture: mystery, drama, action, intrigue, murder and romance. This will be an epic motion picture in every sense of the word." Rogers said the Book of Mormon Movie would actually be a "series" of movies. The Book will be filmed in eight or nine installments or volumes, approximately two hours each in length, over the next seven years. Volume One covers Lehi's treacherous journey through the Arabian desert, crossing the great ocean to the "Promised Land" and the early years in the New World. Shooting will take place in Salt Lake City, for interior shots of sets, the California desert and Central America. In addition, "pick-up" shots without actors, will be filmed in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Robert C. Bowden, former "Emmy" award winning Musical Director of the Mormon Youth Symphony and Chorus and former Conductor of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, will compose the musical score. Mr. Bowden will conduct the London Symphony Orchestra, the same orchestra that performed all the music for "Star Wars." "No celebrity actors will be used in filming the movie," stated Rogers. "I think a celebrity would actually detract. Tom Cruise playing Nephi or Jack Nicholson playing Lehi just wouldn't work! They bring too much 'baggage' with them, not to mention their enormous price tag! The Book of Mormon is the draw here, not the actors," say's Rogers. However, Rogers was quick to emphasize that the actors must be able to act as well as any actor in the world. Rogers hopes to use as many local actors as possible. "We have an incredible talent pool right here in Utah." An open casting call will be held Saturday, November 2nd at the Salt Lake Hilton Hotel. Casting information can be found on the Company's website at http://www.bookofmormonmovie.com, or by calling (801) 557-3515. The movie's anticipated release date is spring of 2003. The movie will open first in the Utah market and then be released nationally. After the theatrical release, the movie will be available on DVD and Video. The DVD version will allow the viewer to see and hear the movie in Spanish with the simple click of the remote! Also, at any point during the movie, the viewer can click the remote and text will appear on the screen showing the exact chapter and verse in the book that relates to what the viewer is watching on screen! The DVD version will also show how the movie was made, including outtakes, special effects and interviews with cast members. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:05:59 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Johnny Lingo Thom Duncan wrote: > I don't know why such an excuse finds resonance among Mormons. We don't > settle for this wrt our preaching to the world. Instead, our message > is, "Yes, you may have some good things you believe in, but at the very > best, they are not complete. Here's our message." As missionaries, we > don't settle for the idea that because your religion speaks to you, > makes you happy, or whatever, that it is therefore, okay. Why should we > not be similarly malcontent with those who "believe" in an inferior art? My only argument is that "incomplete" is not the same thing as "of no worth" or "morally dishonest" or "spiritually corrupt" as is so often argued when discussing sentimental or inartistic works. I don't accept these works as successful art, but I do accept them as attempts to express some kind of hope or desire or truth. I wish more people would express those same ideas with more artistic compentence because I want real truth clad in the best possible robes offered with the clearest possible vision. And as a missionary I know that my best success came with extending what people already had and bringing them to more complete understanding rather than shouting "No! No! No! You've got it all wrong!" then trying to break through the hostility that inevitably followed (and yes, I used both methods with varying degrees of success; Germans actually have a fair tolerance for direct, beligerent confrontation--though that tolerance is neither infinite nor guaranteed). Each of us has to do what we think is right in order to create the world we want to live in. As it turns out, you and I have amazingly similar artistic goals but nearly perfectly opposed methods for realizing those goals. May we both go forth with vigor to create the future as best we can. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:37:34 -0700 From: "Kathy Fowkes" Subject: Re: [AML] Single Bishops > Can a Bishop who's never been divorced give good advice on divorce? > > Thom Only by the Spirit. Thom, I'm so sorry you've been through that. Watching my parents go through it was hellish (even though in their case absolutely necessary) - and I don't mean just the divorce, but all the aftermath that goes on for years and years within the family. It's been more than 30 years and there are still lingering effects, serious and otherwise. Kathy Fowkes - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:45:35 -0700 From: "Nan McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Starship Mormons - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ivan Angus Wolfe" To: Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [AML] Starship Mormons I hope Richard Dutcher will forgive me for quoting him without permission, but his comment on the *sky-clad monastics* was that when you go around naked it is important to sweep because one doesn't want to sit on any bugs. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:12:02 -0800 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] LDS Horror Folklore? Hi Folks: Does anyone out there know if there is any truth to the rumor that Boris = Karloff (nee William Henry Pratt) is a Mormon and/or a relative of = Parley P. Pratt?? Thanks! Jana - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:02:43 GMT From: dhunt_aml@juno.com Subject: Re: [AML] Getting Started with LDS Screenwriting >I think that in the posting below, Richard Dutcher has said all that >needs to be said about writing Mormon literature or creating Mormon >art. >Amen, Richard, and Amen!!!! >ROB.LAUER Richard Dutcher: >>First of all, stay away from thinking about writing something in the "LDS >>genre." If you go about it with that mindset, you're going to find yourself >>writing down to your audience. You're not some guy behind the counter at >>Burger King filling somebody's order. And now me (Darvell Hunt): I agree with both what Rob Lauer and Richard Dutcher said about writing for the "LDS Genre," but I also have a bit of a concern with it as well. A few years ago, I wrote what I consider to be a great novel with a great story. I still think so. I wrote the story for myself and possibly close relatives, but I believed it would have great appeal to the general LDS audience, as it indirectly dealt with early church history in Utah. But I couldn't get anybody to publish it. At least editor from one of the "big LDS publishers" said that they liked it and the writing style was very good, but that they had already published a story somewhat similar to it and it hadn't sold very well. Hence they rejected my story. My point is, that to get something published, it HAS to be marketable. Sure, it can be written for myself and be the most powerful piece of literature TO ME, but if it doesn't sell and isn't marketable, it won't be published. That doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't good writing, just maybe not marketable. And that may be okay, unless I feel the need to get something publishable. So I think that you HAVE to do both. You can just have a powerful piece with a small audience or you can have a boring work with a general audience. But to really succeed with it in the paying world, you must have both. I can also see where some people who may have considerable natural talent (I would say, like Richard Dutcher or Orson Scott Card, because I've heard both artists say similiar things) don't need to try as hard as those of us who struggle to learn. Some people have their first work praised and published right away. Then there are others who work and work and work and finally achieve greatness. Advice from those who instanly achieve greatness may not work for those who work very hard at it, or vice versa. I hope this makes sense. I just wanted to say that there are as many ways to tell a story as there are tellers. I've worked at my craft for over 15 years now and I've developed my own style. But I haven't sold anything yet. (Actually, I've written for a local newspaper for almost two years now and get paid almost weekly for writing that I do. But that's not what I'm talking about here.) So I've concluded that either I'm doing something wrong, haven't been doing the right thing long enough, or just need to learn something new. I hope I found out which one of these very soon. ;) Darvell Hunt ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:19:25 -0500 From: Justin Halverson Subject: RE: [AML] _Finnegan's Wake_ and _Ulysses_ I've been interested in the ways this debate has shaped up and wanted to weigh in. I have a problem with Rob Lauer's polemic that language is only valid when it is instrumental; that is, when it is used to "communicate" something. He writes, "If the language of a given literary work is so perverted that it can no longer be used to communicate (if it is inscrutable), then I have no choice BUT to discard it." There are many (myself included) who would argue that a very significant--even essential--part of literature's being literature is precisely its refusal to be purely communicative. Most of the literature I *enjoy* reading has a high degree of referentiality to the world I live in (or can imagine living in), and operates instrumentally to convey clear pictures, images, even "messages" in much the same way as the instructions for assembling my daughter's tricycle do. But literature also possesses a higher degree of mystery, of indeterminacy, of a refusal to allow its words (common as they may sound) to be fixed in place and "understood" than bicycle instructions. That is one reason that I can read something like Levi Peterson's story "The Gift" or Karl Sandberg's poem "Scripture Lesson" more than once and find new and renewed meaning in them reading after reading without completely and wholly--and exhaustively--understanding them. Joyce's fiction falls on the spectrum between the opposing poles of the completely instrumental and the completely non-referential so close to the latter that I don't personally enjoy reading him. Or, I should say, that I don't enjoy reading him for the same reasons I usually read. There is something exciting for me about his refusal to let his words "mean," and the questions that refusal raises about my own identity and experience in the world: for example, to what degree do fixity (required of meaning, of promise, of committment) on the one hand and change (necessary for growth, progression, etc.) interact in me? What do I give up or gain as I move closer or further from these poles of my personality? Is such movement even possible, and in what ways.... I digress. I would also suggest that Joyce is usually viewed as writing within a very specific historical and philosophical moment, one in which he and many others felt that art was being taken over (and ultimately destroyed) by an ever-growing, ever-consuming bourgeois culture that only allowed production of "art" that would sell. Joyce (and Eliot and Pound and Wolff, and a bunch of others, none of whom really do it for me) reacted against what they saw as the complete instrumentalization of language and literature--a new economy of language, that is, a linguistic economy where words had to do what things or tools did: make money. (This is of course a gross oversimplification, but, I think, to the point.) Joyce's language is extremely non-referential at least in part to combat this, to assert a value for language and literature and art outside and apart from its instrumental value, its use value. We could even call it random, but it is self-consciously random, random on purpose. One thing it is not (and as made up of sentences, of words in relation to each other and to the reader's own repertoire of meaning, can NEVER be) is wholly "inscrutable," precisely because no sentence "stands on its own" and IS, in a very real sense, dependent on the reader's experience with everything from "see spot run" to quantum physics--even if she or he has no experience at all, which is why TS Eliot said we read in the first place, to gain experience we don't have time or opportunity to have ourselves. I don't like to read Joyce in the same way I like to read other things (in fact, I really dislike Joyce on that level), but I do like that it tries to save language from being converted into simply a tool for me to use to transmit a specific idea. I don't want my language to be *just* a tool, I don't want to be able to use it *exactly* as I might use a pen, or a knife, or a hammer. I want it to have that ability, but not solely that ability. And no, I'm not being wishy-washy. I just want to be able to read my favorite books and poems again and have it be, in a sense, new. I don't want you or anyone else--including myself--to EVER be able to say: "This is exactly what Lear means, and that's all." There's even a little of this (or maybe more than a little) indeterminacy going on in the scriptures, which is one reason *I* think we're asked to read them every day... Justin "Sorry, I just get excited" Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:48:20 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Get-together Friday Night? [MOD: Given the immense backlog, and the fact that I am currently unreliable (deep apologies), I recommend that anyone interested in this reply directly to Linda, as well as AML-List. I will try to keep my eyes open for possible notices on this topic.] Hi, I'm sorry to ask about this last-minute, but I wasn't sure I'd be available for anything until now. Turns out I *will* have a little free time Friday evening after I fly into SLC for the Writer's Conference. Does anyone want to get together with me then? It's probably too late to find an open ward building in the area , which would have been my first choice, but I've had a few other suggestions for a location: Sizzler on 9000 S State in Sandy Hometown Buffet on State Street in Sandy a couple blocks north of 10600 S, near the Southtowne Mall Or The Sandy Library on 1300 E and about 10000 S (guessing on that one). Salt Lake Community College in the College Center, which has some lounging area. Redwood Road at about 4500 S in West Valley. Any preferences, of the above, or is there any interest in getting together? Probably around 6-ish, up to 8 or 9, will be best for me, Friday November 2nd. You can post me privately at if you like. Thanks! Sorry for the short notice! It couldn't be helped. It's a very in-and-out trip for me and I'll be traveling with my 8-mo. old son. Lots of variables! Linda Adams ============================ Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo/linda - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #877 ******************************