From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #22 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 14 2003 Volume 02 : Number 022 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:51:52 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction In a message dated 4/10/03 10:13:34 PM Mountain Daylight Time, dmichael@wwno.com writes: Re: D. Michael Martindale's Brother Brigham > Sheila dealt with frustrated sexual arousal by > masturbating. They claimed that women do not masturbate very much, > contrary to popular belief, and found it hard to believe that Sheila > would. > > I won't go into what I think of their belief on masturbating women. For > the moment I'll accept it at face value. I didn't tell them, but I was > undetered in my conviction that Sheila most certainly would masturbate > under those circumstances. Michael, Interest in your novel just rose about eight thousand percent. Happy publishing! Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 12:38:14 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: [AML] Deseret Book Announces New Division DESERET BOOK FORMS NEW DIVISION See http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,480034523,00.html Link Deseret Book Company has created a new division that is designed to help it distribute products from a greater number of authors, artists, and independent publishers. The new division, called Deseret Book Distributors, will pursue published books, music, and gift products to distribute to its wholesale retail network, largely catering to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:55:17 -0600 From: "th. jepson" Subject: Re: [AML] AML List as Epistolary Novel . First, I would like to thank the exteemed H S Clark for the opportunity to reevaluate my own existence and reestablish my belief in myself as a living, breathing entity. I am Theric. I exist. (Or so I say.) But *Harlow*??? Come on--what kind of name is that? At least mine rhymes with a "real" name. Whoever made this character up isn't tring very hard to maintain the illusion of reality. I kid of course. He must be real--who else then would be editing poetry for Irreantum? (Although, may I point out, there is no picture by the byline?) But if he isn't real, I just hope it was not I who created him, because I don't remember doing it and he seems like a nice guy. But this conversation raises an obvious question--if so many people have CONSIDERED creating false personas, how many actually actually have? If you're following this string, write me and let me know. I'll write up a report on how many have done this, but I'll keep who a secret. We don't want you getting in trouble with Mr Langford. I have a suggestion: Mr Enos and I have talked about the difficulties and merits of writing epistolary fiction, but it occurs to me that it might be much more interesting for multiple authors to be involved in writing such a work. Each author takes one character and we create a list like this to play our roles--a nice mix of acting and literarying, improv theater and the novel. What a shimmering genious I have! (Note: I say I have a "shimmering genious" because this will be the final evidence required that I am not Harlow Clark. He, as an editor of poetry, would never be able to allow a trite and hackneyed phrase like "shimmering genious" out, no matter how strong the ring of truth.) So I guess this email may be summed up as follows: 1) I, at least, am real. 2) If you have ever been not real, let me know. 3) If you are interested in moving this discussion from the hypothetical and fun to the practical and hopefully still fun process of creating a multiauthor epistolary work, let me know. 4) Every decent list worthy of the name must be at least four items long. Really, - ---------------theric jepson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:35:27 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Blood into Literature (was: Changing Our Minds) [MOD: You should know that I was the one who came up with this thread title, which I think is wholly inadequate. I honestly couldn't think of any thread title that would adequately reflect the breadth of JG Enos's post. But I also thought that it deserved a new thread title to reflect the new thoughts he's put into it. "And so, dear reader, we embark upon a new adventure..."] >From Sharlee Glenn: "One recent example: when I was a little kid I had = a pretty traumatic experience that profoundly influenced my opinion of = rock music. To me, rock was the music of the dark side. This attitude = was starting to create some real tension between me and my 13-year-old = Styx/Boston/Chicago-loving son. The "Choose the Rock" thread opened my = mind to the idea that maybe, just maybe, rock wasn't inherently "evil" = and that perhaps I could loosen up a bit on what I allowed my son to = listen to. Did wonders for our relationship!" On a completely side note to Ivan's original question, Sharlee's comment = made me think of a something that hit me this past week. I'm finally = getting a chance to sit down and watch Ken Burn's epic documentary, = "JAZZ". I've already been struck by a number of things in the film which = have nothing to do with that genre of music, per se, finding nuggets of = wisdom on subjects such as American history, race relations, music = theory, and a sheer delight in the intelligent articulation of ideas = from a host of wonderful interviewees.=20 But with respect to Rock, or rather, with respect to the "generation = gaps" that sometime divide us from the cultural movements of younger = peers or our children, I was astonished to hear quotations from = turn-of-the-last-century newspapers talking about Ragtime that could = have been transposed, word-for-word, into the 60's or 70's as talking = about rock. I mean, if the quotation had not been read in context, I = would have had no idea that Ragtime was the subject, and not some more = modern "subversive" form.=20 It seems to me, then, that every generation, every decade, every = movement of change, has been plagued by a division between the creators = and enjoyers of the new movement -- who revel in a freshly-discovered = sense of freedom and expression -- and the observes and disdainers of = the new movement -- who scorn and deride what they see as, at best, a = distortion of better more classic forms and, at worst, a genuine vehicle = for evil.=20 Ragtime, which seems to us now as such a jaunty, fun, classic, and even = innocent music, was truly thought to be music to loose children's souls = by in the 1900's! Perhaps rock will seem as quaint some day.=20 Jazz, which is now seen as a music of the sophisticate, was once seen as = a sensation of debauchery. =20 Fifty years after the fact, as Led Zeplin is becoming, in hindsight, = perceived as that much closer to it's historical Blues roots, and is = thereby becoming equally benign: a music to study as an historic form = rather than a blast of emotion to get high by.=20 And what has changed except time and perception?=20 We are so young, all of us humans, really. What about God, for whom all = of this is just a big been-there-done-that? And yet, He loves us so = much, not even he can completely dismiss our frivolous whims. This thought, in a grand engagement of lateral digression, leads me to = another unrelated topic. Just this morning, as I was popping in to pick = up another title in the series of Avi's "Tales from the Dimwood Forest" = series that my daughter has recently fallen in love with, I saw a book = cover which caught my attention, particularly in context with recent = discussions on the List.=20 The book was called _Speak What We Feel (Not What We Ought To Say): = Reflections on Literature and Faith_, written by novelist, memoirist, = poet and Presbyterian minister Frederick Buechner. I've never read any = Buechner, but I did some research, found some reviews of him, and was = fascinated by the cover copy about his book, an exploration of how = literature, when it dares to plumb the deepest levels of human despair = and questing for truth, can often lead to a well-spring of spiritual = enlightenment. I guess the only tie-in to the music thread is the = concept of changing perceptions, which is the question Ivan stared this = whole thing out with. Let me quote from a few reviews of the book, a book which I have not = read, but the topic of which stimulates me to think about some of our = own literature-and-faith-related issues. Gail Hudson of Amazon.com says: "Great literature is like a spiritual = informant, helping readers derive meaning out of the best of times and = the worst of times. In [the book]... Buechner pays homage to the worst = of times, examining the life and writings of four esteemed writers and = how they each came to terms with despair on the page. The title, Speak = What We Feel, alludes to the bravery of William Shakespeare, Gerald = Manley Hopkins, Mark Twain, and G.K. Chesterton--all of whom opened the = veins to their hearts and let their emotions bleed upon the page. = "Vein-opening writers are putting not just themselves into their books, = but themselves at their nakedest and most vulnerable," writes Buechner. = Not all writers do it all the time, he notes, and many writers never do = it at all. "But for the four writers these pages are about, each did it = at least once, and that is the most important single thing they have in = common." Writers who are fascinated with the process of creativity will = find these essays particularly satisfying..." The Publishers Weekly reviewer didn't like the book much, wishing = Buechner would have even better explored: "...The powerful ways in which = literature reveals the depths of human vulnerability as well as = humankind's constant search to give meaning to the ambiguities of life. = He uses a simplistic and rather vague formula to show that our greatest = literature has come from writers who poured their life's blood into = their work and unveiled their own shortcomings to us. Buechner...selects = particular works...as examples of the artist's attempt to articulate = forthrightly his own deep struggles with sadness, lonesomeness, guilt or = the absence of God. Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for = example, succeeds in staving off the novelist's loneliness and in = "piloting a course around both the darkness of the past and the darkness = that he knew awaited him not much further downstream." Similarly, the = struggle between good and evil central to Chesterton's The Man Who Was = Thursday simply reflects his own struggle with the "black despair" of = depression.=20 Augustine J. Curley, writing for Library Journal says that Buechner: = "...brings a Christian perspective to these works, suggesting, for = example, that Shakespeare's Fool becomes a Fool for Christ's sake, = sacrificing himself for his friend. Buechner's work is not one of = literary criticism. Instead, he uses these works as sources for a = meditation on suffering and the literary process, and he shows how the = four writers wrestle, either directly or obliquely, with the meaning of = Christianity. In an afterword, he reflects on the role of personal = sadness in his own writing and suggests that these works might offer a = lesson in how each of us could deal with sadness in our lives. This book = will appeal to readers interested in either the purgative value of the = literary process or the spiritual side of literature.=20 And finally the Booklist reviewer (I love Booklist; I used to subscribe, = but who can afford it?; however, I've never found myself led astray by = this magazines astute reviewers), points out: "In the personal creed of = ...Buechner, faith requires a harrowing encounter with darkness. = Buechner has probed the meaning of tragedy and evil in his own fiction, = but here he writes as an appreciative critic of four other writers who = have confronted death and malignity, hopelessness and grief, with = unflinching integrity...That Chesterton is included in this group comes = as a surprise, but Buechner has recovered a neglected gem, a haunting = narrative that exposes mysterious connections between the darkest = elements in life and the most radiant. An honest and disturbing = meditation on the deepest questions in literature.=20 I guess why I bring all of this up are all of the interesting allusions = to literature's power to expiate, but also the suggestion that it is = often times, ironically, the exploration of the dark depths of our souls = that is, ultimately, the most expiating. We love Shakespeare, Twain, the = others Buechner talks about, and even someone we know asked = dramatically: "Where are the Mormon Shakespeare's?" I would propose that = one of the reasons we don't see too many Mormon Twains or Bards, is that = we hesitate (is it self-imposed hesitation, or is it such things as the = Deseret Book buying policies?) to truly, honestly, frankly, plumb our = own human depths very much. As a side-effect of our culture, this may be = the single most limiting tendency to all of us as artists. But I propose = that we can "Speak what we feel (not necessarily what we ought to say)" = and still be good Christians. I guess it is a point of perspective. Just as Ragtime and Jazz were once = controversial but now have come into their own, and rock was once = derided but is now seen with less of a dangerous bite, perhaps, too, LDS = writing which "opens its veins and bleeds upon the page" will find a = place, even if it is just a small place, in the pantheon of our growing = literature. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:50:35 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] Conservative Literary Theory? Okay, here's an (I hope) interesting question relating to this thread. When we read a dramatic text, like Shakespeare's Henry V, and then read = criticism of it, well, there's a sort of dialogue there. It's a play I = know fairly well, and so I'm interested in criticism of it from any or all = perspectives. I've read, for example, Harold Bloom's Shakespeare: The = Invention of the Human, and his chapter on the play. Well, that's = interesting. Bloom detests new historicism, so okay, I'll find a good = Stephen Greenblatt essay on the play, and I get a totally different new = historicist reading of the text. Then I find a feminist reading of the = text--particularly fascinating when looking at the French princess = scene--and that provides some insight, and then I read some Marxist = criticism and that clues me in to class issues in the play which are = interesting, and sooner or later, I've read a dozen essays and I have = learned quite a bit about an interesting text. And maybe I've got some = insights of my own, and so I maybe write an essay of my own. To what end? = Better understanding, I suppose. =20 But see, then I'm asked to direct a production of the play. That's the = world I live in; I'm a theatre guy who pretends to be a critic. And = suddenly, I can't just say 'see, Bloom understands this line this way and = Greenblatt understands it that way. Interesting.' I have to make a = choice. I have to decide which way I'll urge the actor to read it. I = have to put that actor in a costume, and place him in a setting. I have = to cast the actor in the first place. I have to make decisions, and each = of those decisions precludes other decisions and choices. Each feels = definitive. And all those decisions presumably add up to something, a = single reading of the text which I hope to communicate to an audience. =20 Now, by preference and inclination, I'd rather not choose between the = various possible readings a text might support. This is essentially = because, deep down inside, I don't believe in anything. I'm not a = Marxist; I just think it's interesting to read criticism that explores = class and power issues in a text. I'm not a deconstructionist, though I = find deconstruction a tremendously useful tool. I'm not a new historicist,= but I have bought most of their albums,and I'm not really a feminist, = though I regularly sing in their choir. I call myself a 'liberal' = because, to me, 'liberal' means someone who doesn't believe in anything. = It means someone who listens to all the different viewpoints available, = and thinks they all have value, or looks for value in each. And sure, = picks and chooses between them, for sure. But someone who tries to keep = his mind open. (I'm talking ideals here. Y'all know me too well for me = to get away with claiming too much open-mindedness!) =20 Now politically, that doesn't work so well, because there's an end; I have = to go to the polls and vote for someone. I can't ultimately say 'well, = that candidate has some good ideas and that candidate has some other good = ideas; they're both pretty good (or awful). I can say that for awhile, = but ultimately, I have to vote for guy Q and against guy Z. Either we = raise taxes to pay for that new town sewer, or we live with the old one = and agree to hold our noses when we drive past it. The fact that = arguments pro and con have validity is nice to contemplate, but a decision = needs to be made. =20 Criticism is valuable, I think, almost precisely because it's open-ended. = It's an arena where we get to play with ideas, almost purely. As a = theatre guy, I want to play with criticism a lot, because it's close to = the necessarily chaotic approximation of pure thought from which all = structures and paradigms are formed. This is good, because I have to = become pragmatic in theatre. I have to create a paradigm I call a = 'director's concept.' And I have an absolute moral obligation to not be = boring. Which means, the theatrical text I create needs to be as rich and = multi-textured as the combined talents of me and my artistic accomplices = can make it. =20 So my point is this; 'Mormonism' is a paradigm to which we're wedded. But = the Gospel is and must be broad enough to encompass all truth. It IS the = playground. It IS the Chaos. And as readers and critics, we find that = the Gospel does and must support all critical theory, all of it. All = literature contains truth, and all criticism of literature too. Especially= the stuff that contradicts all the other stuff. Now, we may have to make = certain decisions based on it. Those decisions will always be based on = incomplete information, and an incomplete understanding of truth. Which = is why I read. And watch movies. And pray. =20 Or something like that. Any thoughts? Eric Samuelsen =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:41:27 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives, In a message dated 4/9/03 10:37:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time,=20 ddgraham@netutah.net writes: > Does Roman Polanski have the monopoly > on providing spiritual experiences in film making/viewing?=20 >=20 Of course not. But he is also not prohibited from providing a spiritual=20 experience. If he offers one, I'll take it. From anyone. There are so few cinema/spiritual experiences out there. Dianna to Richard: "So, here I am on my soapbox, and I ask you. Is the=20 World's Film Library really so small that nothing else out there could teach= =20 us, move us, change us just as much without assaulting us at the same time?" Richard to Dianna: I enjoyed your post, and I think we probably have very similar taste in=20 films. The good R-rated films you mentioned (Glory, Dead Man Walking, etc.)=20= I=20 also enjoyed very much. My answer to your question is that I simply don't feel assaulted by most=20 R-rated films, even those that seem to horrify others. I understand that=20 other people do feel assaulted by the same films. (Personally, I feel much=20 more assaulted, insulted, and offended by the average television commercial.= ) I don't act out violence that I see in films. I consider myself a fairly=20 self-aware human being, and I don't notice any increase in aggression after=20 seeing violence in films. I seldom dream about the films I see, even the mos= t=20 recent version of "The Exorcist," which had some of the most disturbing=20 imagery I have ever seen (Thumbs up!).=20 As for sexual content, I don't dream (or daydream) about it. It doesn't flas= h=20 in my mind during inappropriate times such as in the temple or during the=20 sacrament or while making love to my wife. It doesn't lure me into seeking=20 out pornography or to committing sexual sins. As for language: when an actor and screenwriter let fly with one of the thre= e=20 or four words that I find particularly ugly and violent, I cringe and wish=20 they hadn't "shared," but I don't find myself using the words either in life= =20 or in my mind. I understand that what I have just said seems to fly in the face of=20 everything we hear in Sunday School, but =E2=80=A6that's my experience. Mayb= e I'm=20 some sort of mutant, but I don't see any distinguishable negative effect tha= t=20 my movie viewing has on my life. I'm sure some would say that I have seared=20 my conscience beyond repair or that I have wallowed in the sewer for so long= =20 that it takes a particularly stinky piece of soil to have any effect on my=20 senses. But I don't think so. I still love and I am still affected by innocence in=20 film. I am still repelled by evil. I'm still not attracted to stupidity and=20 violence and pornography in films. No one has been able to drag me to Vin=20 Diesel's "XXX" or "Showgirls" or any early John Water's movies. Perhaps I just don't meditate on the unattractive images and sounds that I=20 hear in movie theaters. I wonder if I see films differently than most. For one thing, I consider fil= m=20 a powerful and beautiful art form. Most people I know consider it a toy. I=20 wonder if, because I have made movies and I understand in a first-hand way=20 their artificiality and their actual physical construction, I enjoy a=20 distance with films that most viewers don't.=20 I mean, when I see a character decapitated in a film, there is no part of me= =20 that believes that I am watching a real murder taking place. ("Sleepy Hollow= "=20 has some wonderful decapitations, by the way). It is so clearly a fictional=20 occurrence created by a team of movie magicians. I am delighted by the=20 filmmakers' wizardry. The more powerfully effective the fiction is, the more= =20 impressed I am by the filmmaking, but at no point do I forget that it is=20 fiction.=20 (Interesting story: when I was 10 years old I was watching Eastwood's "Magnu= m=20 Force" on television. My step-father passed through the room just as the=20 movie's sniper shot a woman swimming in her pool. You could see the entry=20 wound explode on her shoulder. I said, "Cool." Not because I thought it was=20 cool that somebody got shot. I thought the special effect was cool. But my=20 stepfather freaked. He sent me to my room and called me "sick." He thought h= e=20 was raising a serial killer. It turned out he was raising a movie director.)= =20 However, having said everything that I've said, I must admit that I am not=20 immune to feeling abused by the occasional film. For instance, there are a=20 few films which, because of their content, I wish I had never seen: Kevin=20 Smith's "Clerks," "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer," one scene in "Requie= m=20 for a Dream"=E2=80=A6I'm sure there's more. I just can't recall them. My point is: I'm not willing to throw out all R-rated movies because a very=20 small percentage of them offend me. I'll take the bitter with the sweet. Here's a thought: taking into account prevailing theories of addiction, mayb= e=20 violent and/or sexual images are kind of like alcohol or drugs or reality=20 television. Maybe some of us are genetically pre-disposed to sensitivity and= =20 addiction. Maybe some of us are far more affected than others by the images=20 we see. Or maybe I'm totally talking out of my bum. I don't know. How on earth did we get back on this thread? Did I do it? I apologize.=20 Really, I do.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:11:06 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Author's Omniscience Margaret or maybe Marilyn Brown/Young wrote: The other part of us, Thom Duncan, only comes out every now and again, but he's doing pretty well. We try to keep him subdued. How are we doing? But you're not Thom Duncan, we am. Actually, I wrote a very cool story like this in my twenties--very cool. Way cool. It's about a disembodied spirit that possesses the body of a young woman. The spirit is male. Soon a variety of other spirits possess her. They all take turns being the dominant spirit until the first male falls in love with their "hostess." He expels the other spirits/personalities, then embark on a serious romantic relationship with him/her/whatself. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:58:22 -1000 From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Is suffering only the side of the spectrum that can create "art"? Can great joy, happiness etc be the spawn of great art? Is it less suffering in specific or intense emotion that causes people to create? Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 17:02:54 -1000 From: "Peter Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Another thought, why would suffering be the experience focused on as what enables artists to create art? Is suffering more a condition brought on because someone is trying to be an artist and hasn't been successful yet? I would think that an artist that hasn't produced anything that is considered great suffers from the rejection of his audience, the worry of providing for him/herself and dependants, the questioning of their ability etc. These could all be suffering caused by the attempt to be an artist. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling (801) 785-3401 pchamberlain@westcon.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:56:08 -0600 From: "Ben and Jessie Christensen" Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit I guess I'll respond again, since I'm the one who ended up starting this thread. First, to respond to Kathy Tyner: "But, there is often a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle expectation that one should be able to forgive and get past all this in a relatively short time. And if you don't, then you need to straighten up, work harder, pray, read the scpitures and forgive, right now!" I think that you are right that, culturally, we sometimes forget that real trauma takes time to heal, and often professional help. I had a companion for a short time who ended up going home early from her mission because of a mental breakdown. She had been baptized only a few years before, and had suffered several instances of abuse/rape while she was younger. The gospel really had helped her heal and forgive, but she never saw a therapist to resolve some of her underlying issues. These didn't surface until she ended up realizing as a missionary that, psychologically, she could not handle having men in a position of authority over her. That wasn't something prayer could resolve; she had to go home for more therapy. Second, I actually did remember a book I read recently that, while not obviously Mormon, nor necessarily about rape, is a very good depiction of the sexual issues that kids face while growing up. (OK, I'm only 25, so I'm practically talking about myself here) Anyways, it's Louise Plummer's "A Dance for Three". None of the characters are obviously Mormon, probably because that's not really the point of the book anyway. It is set in Salt Lake, and the fact that the main characters are Mormon is implied, but not explicit. While Hannah isn't really raped in the traditional sense, she's the classic example of a lonely, confused girl who stumbles into a sexual relationship with a manipulative guy and ends up pregnant. He turns into a real jerk, and even his family ends up shunning her rather than accepting what he did. Here are the things I liked best about the book: Louise is funny even when she writes about serious stuff; the characters are generally round--none are all good, and none are all bad, even Milo (the guy); it actually presents adoption as a realistic option, but still a difficult choice to make (this is rare in the national YA market). (There's a short story based on a character that didn't make it into the book in the current Irreantum if you want a taste) Anyways, I feel like this book is edging a little closer to the kind of fiction I hope we can have in the future. We need more books for young adults that don't present the "all junior high kids have sex" standards of many people out there, but without the standard Mormon cliches of innocent, church-going youth who know nothing about what everyone else does. Like in "A Dance for Three", sex is a confusing issue when you're a teenager and we need more things that can honestly confront the issue without patronizing. Jessie Christensen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:10:03 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Re: Attitudes toward Mormons (was: Wanting to Be Jews) "Travis K. Manning" wrote: > The frustrating thing: I don't know exactly why this Presbyterian friend of > mine won't let me read. I know that their church is sponsoring this group, > Genesis, and that for whatever reason, they don't want me to read, that > they're afraid that those congregation members that are attending will think > the Presbyterian church is endorsing, in some way not understood by me, > Mormons.... I'm this close to going and visiting with their pastor and > laying some things out. For about five years our local branch was cramped into miserable quarters, renting a secular office space for a meeting house. Last year, the Stake/SLC finally got on the ball (finally completed their great and spacious building in Salt Lake and were able to free up $ for some local projects) and approved a room of our own. The steeple on our beautiful chapel went up this week! But for the past interim year, we moved from the abysmal quarters and have been renting, for a nominal fee, a lovely Presbyterian church. They meet Sunday morning, we meet in the afternoon. I thought this was a truly magnanimous gesture, but sadly the regional Presb. synod threw out this one congregation because of it. This is apparently some touchy subject with them. Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:31:09 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Temple in Literature Can I say this about the temple? Bruce and I went to a session last night. I didn't immediately recognize the man who checked my recommend, but he pointed to his name tag--Ivan Crosland--and I immediately embraced him. I love that man. He was my director and friend years ago back in my theater days. And what a joy to move from that embrace to the session room and hear Ivan's voice portraying a particular role. What a joy to hear Cory Sprague, with whom I've also acted (back when he didn't know how to act and was a mere kid) portraying another role. And then to hear Bob Nelson, also another of my directors/friends. I commented to Bruce about the various roles we play, the various assignments we're given in this life, and the direction we receive from our friends--who are also filling their roles and assignments. Bruce said, "I don't think you can take three steps without finding a metaphor." He meant it as a mere observation, not a critique, btw. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:04:21 -0400 From: Sam Brown Subject: [AML] _Brigham City_ Comments Hello, I'm new to the list. I read in the latest Irr. that Michael Minnich had a criticism of Brigham City's morality. I'm curious to read the details of his position. Does anyone have a copy? Much thanks. - -- Yours, Samuel Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 10:43:58 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives The question, as I cut and pasted it (and for which, being new to the list, I cannot provide original attribution), was: > Is it necessary to suffer greatly, whether from our own sins or > from the sins of others (usually both), to be a great artist? Though I think was responding less to the above and more to an attitude observed in college writing classes, that before becoming an "author" of any literary merit one must first "experience" the world (i.e., go fight in the Spanish Civil War, or head to Paris and generally debauch oneself). Now, the life of Emily Dickinson pretty much answers that contention. Nor can I call to mind (maybe somebody else can) any evidence that Shakespeare, say, suffered more than his less-talented contemporaries. While suffering can wake us out of complacency, or prompt us to wrestle with angels, I think the more appropriate/realistic model is Agatha Christie's Miss Marple, whose insights into the darker aspects of human nature come from keen observation of the ordinary goings-on in her sleepy English village. Perhaps, post-Freud, we too willingly prize empathy over observation. To answer the specific question, I would say that, no, it is not "necessary to suffer (or sin) greatly" to become a "great artist." Among other things, this notion leads artists, who, in a desire to become "great" (and not wishing to go fight in the Spanish Civil War and can't afford Paris) to invent personal "suffering" where there is only stupidity and boredom and studied alienation and chickens coming home to roost. At least that's my explanation for the accolades heaped upon a movie like "American Beauty": "great artists," slogging through their pampered, upper middle-class, mid-life crises, have a vested interest in believing that the rest of us are as unhappy and screwed up as they are. And wish to assure themselves (and us) that it is really not their fault at all, but the fault of Dreadful America and the Dreadful suburbs, and the Dreadful consumer culture, and the Dreadful mean-spirited Republicans (or the Dreadful God-hating Liberals). But I don't think you can classify sinning and suffering like felonies and misdemeanors. True, "great" suffering, like "great" sinning, serves dramatic ends by providing a recognizable degree of illustrative contrast--art always being about conflict, and the greater the conflict the easier it is to make the dramatic point. But this doesn't mean that our suffering (or sinning) is so different than anybody else's, or has been reduced to unartistically useful levels. I'm reminded of a quip by Isaac Asimov, responding to the contention that modern man doesn't suffer enough to produce great art. What, he asked, should we then loose Plague & Deprivation upon the world and wait for the next Shakespeare to arise? True, the comforts of modern society make it to harder to rail against heaven without seeming petty or vindictive, or like a guest on Jerry Springer. Consider that when the conflict/sinning/suffering somehow involves the church--and I'm not thinking in kicking-against-the-pricks terms--we tend to become so cautious about our Jobian complaints as to wallpaper over the useful lessons the conflict/sinning/suffering could teach us. This is perhaps why I am drawn more to mystery, fantasy and SF (rather than "literary" fiction), genres that build in the metaphorical buffers, that allow our existential pains to be explored in concrete terms, without inventing the willing-suspension-of-disbelief-killing fictions that the high school cheerleader really does want to sleep with us, or that our next-door neighbor really is a homicidal, gay-bashing misogynist, or that our daughter really is dating a wise-beyond-his-years, peeping-tom drug-dealer. I seriously find it far easier to believe in a teenaged girl who spends her nights stalking about cemeteries and staking vampires. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:05:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Hamilton Fred Subject: Re: [AML] Rape in Mormon Lit S. Michael Wilcox wrote two works of fiction, before he turned to his extended works of gospel explication. One, "One Winged Dove", deals with an institute teacher's struggle to help a young lady, not a Church member, who has been a victim of rape. There is even a description of how the young lady was assaulted, though the word rape was never used in that description. I worked with Dr. Wilcox when he was writing that work. In one way, the work was cathartic for him because it was based on a real experience. The resolution in the story did not represent the resolution in real life. Both resolution's, however, portray the sadness that touches the lives of not only the victims, but also those who so sincerely try to help in a gospel way. And still, the horrors of the world will not allow even them any simple answers. But, somehow, those who have found their sense of membership as fellow saints with Christ also find a way to move on, still trying to do the Lord's work. They are sadder, they are wiser, but they are also the small heroes in that they do not stop in their humble desire to be merciful. Please do not mistake my words here, the large very real heroes are the victims. In spite of having their ability to choose their own identities and their own selfhoods brutally and forcefully robbed from them, they choose to go on, trying to reestablish what they know they will never have again. But those who counsel, even in official capacities, do so with a sincerity that speaks of real desire to comfort those who need comfort. Those who humbly comfort do not cease striving, with one or numerous failures. One Winged Dove speaks about such an effort. In this world of great indifference, and even greater cynicism or criticism about failed, less-than-perfect efforts, can't we see a ray of light in such a novel? As always, only my very fallible thoughts. Skip Hamilton, lurker. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #22 *****************************