From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #135 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, August 28 2003 Volume 02 : Number 135 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:12:37 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Reference in SWAT - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Duncan" > > --- Original Message --- > From: "Bill Willson" > > >Here is to good writing designed to strengthen and > uplift. > > IMO, writing designed to do this will ultimately do > neither. The ONLY goal a writer of fiction (including > Mormon fiction) should have is to tell a story about > real people. If any other purpose conciously enters > in, that original purpose will be damaged. What will > happen to the LDS writer who writes first to tell the > truth? Their writing will strengthen and uplift. > > Uplifting is a by-product of good writing, not a goal > in and of itself. > So, who said that writing designed to strengthen and uplift would not include telling the truth about real people? I'm assuming that these elements should be inherent in our writing. What I object to is writers who, in an effort to show human fallibility, make their characters seem like unthinking Cretan-like Neanderthals or a cross between Homer Simpson and Archie Bunker. Bill Willson, writer http://www.iwillwriteit.com http://www.latterdaybard.com Here's a great place for LDS artists to show and sell their work. http://www.minutemall.com CHECK IT OUT! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:35:42 -0500 From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: Re: [AML] Great and Noble Ones Jim Wilson wrote: =3D=3D I've been sick of the unending use of anti-heroes for about twenty=20 years now, and in my own writing the heroes (and heroines) are just=20 about always noble and great ones. I don't really care to read=20 constantly about how useless and immoral everybody is--like that's news=20 or something. There are good and great things that take place every=20 day, and noble things done that are unknown and unsung. There are more=20 than enough examples of how not to live in literature, but (at least=20 recently) a dearth of examples of how we should live. Whether or not I=20 myself was noble and great, and whether or not I will ever be so during=20 this life, I am not prevented from appreciating the great and noble=20 things done by others, and of enshrining them as much as I can in=20 literature. =3D=3D Although I understand the point that Jim is making here, for me the = problem isn't necessarily the lack of "noble and great" heroes in = literature. Very few "heroes" of the literature that has marked my life = are enshrinable, in the sense that they are overwhelmingly good or noble = or would be held in high esteem by society. The very nature of = fiction--the necessity of conflict in order to move the story forward = and create tension--makes characters who are "too good" very difficult = to write without distancing the character from the reader, in my = experience. To me, what often makes a fictional character fail, is a character who = is acted upon instead of acting. Now if Jim intended his definition of = heroic to mean "one who acts," then I am all for it. I would agree that = too often in modern fiction, we find protagonists as victims, wallowers, = or simply as exemplifiers of bad traits. For instance, I just got back = from vacation and bought "Le Divorce" to read on the beach. Merchant = Ivory had done a movie (which I haven't seen), and I noticed that the = book itself had been nominated for a National Book Award, so I figured = it would at least be a pretty good read. I don't have the time to go = into everything that I felt was wrong with the book, but = characterization was one of its biggest problems. The characters didn't = DO anything. They didn't CHANGE. (Well, unless you count learning about = French cheese and changing the way you dress). They started the book = whiny and boring and pretentious, and ended it that way, in my opinion, = all while events and circumstances swirled around them to which they = *re*acted. I didn't care about these people. It's not that I needed to = be inspired by them, or morally guided by them, or taught by them. But = I--actually, all readers--need three things, I think: To be = interested/invested in a character, to be moved by their plight or the = "conflict" into which the fictional world has plunged us, and to track = how that character is changed by the conflict. =20 Although the characters in "Le Divorce" were pretentious and shallow, I = was willing to embrace them and follow them through the story initially = because of the hope for change. This doesn't mean I needed them to see = the light and become saintly, only that I wanted them to be different, = somehow, by the end of the book. Sometimes, in great fiction, the = protagonist is devastated by the end of the book instead of enlightened, = and this can be just as powerful as books about great triumph. =20 The problem as I see it for fiction writers, and for Mormon writers in = particular, is when a person chooses a main character who is "heroic" or = "inspirational" to begin with, where can the story go? Are readers = really interested in seeing this person get *better* than great? Or, on = the other hand, if we set our hero up to fall, doesn't the character = become more pitiable than inspirational? (Which is a problem, mainly, = if you set out to write an "inspirational" book.) If you write a book = about a great person beset by challenges, the challenges can be = interesting, of course, but unless you allow the character him or = herself some failings or faults or questions or turmoil, I still don't = find the story nearly as interesting. Like I've heard writers and readers say over and over again: put = people, real people, in real situations; get them going; watch them = change. That, to me, is the recipe for good characters and good = fiction. Angela Hallstrom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:04:44 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) Bill Willson wrote: > >If humans are not perfect, and GA's are humans, then it stands to reason >that Ga's are not perfect, but they are more perfect than any of the rest of >us, > "More" perfect? Is that like "almost" pregnant. Someone is either perfect, or they are not. GAs are no more or less perfect than any other mortal who walks the earth. I do agree with you, though, in that there are problems if we hold them to the extreme of either spectrum. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:39:21 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] (SL Trib) Snider firing Is it my imagination, or are the ones who should be the real focus of ethics violations-The owners/managers of The Pleasant Grove Theater being glossed over in all of this? I thought they had some chutzpah expressing such rightieous indignation at being ratted out on what seems a clear breach of theater etiquette and integrity in not inquiring about whether or not they could drop lines and words of profantiy from the script without clearance from the holder of rights to the play in the first place. Looks like they felt justified in what they did. This episode sums up certain problems in Mormon culture that make us look like flakes to the general public-That is: avoid using profanity at all costs so as not to offend the community or The Lord. But in the process do something that lacks integrity and looks dishonest. And then get ticked off at being found out and reported on about it. Sheesh. Haven't they heard anything about "weightier matters"? Hopefully there won't be any negative repurcussions for other theaters in Utah. And if Eric Snider wasn't the original tipster, but the one who was, also worked for The Herald, why wasn't he canned too? Seems they were looking for an excuse to get rid of Eric Snider and unfortunately, he gave them an opportunity to do so. Happy Valley's loss, imho. To be fair, ours is not the only community who has ethics contradictions like this. For a time, at least one federal prison had so many Orthodox Jews incarcerated for white collar crimes that they had their own kosher kitchen at the prison. Rip the government and taxpayers off for millions of dollars in bogus scholarship money, but I'll be damned if I eat a ham sandwich. Ah, the irony. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:36:16 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Heavenly Mothers Linda, could this be the source you are thinking of? In _Our Latter-Day Hymns_ by Karen Lynn Davidson she quotes Bruce R. McConkie, "Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. This glorious truth of celestial parentage, including specifically both a Father and a Mother, is heralded forth by song in one of the greatest of Latter-day Saint hymns, O My Father by Eliza R. Snow." (This McConkie quote is from _Mormon Doctrine_, 2d ed. pp. 516-17.) Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:07:19 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) Why should we feel that the GAs are more perfect than any of the rest of us? Somewhere in Paul, that I don't have time to look up anytime in the near future, he talks about leaders, or members for that matter, being called from among the weak and foolish lest the people (and we) be lead to idolize the leaders rather than God. Why should we not think that the GAs are basically like us. They have received an assignment to testify of Christ through out the world, and I assume they have been given experiences that allow them to do so. And they have been given keys and authority. But I know a quite a few people who have incredible experiences--private experiences, and who are quietly living remarkably righteous lives, just in a less public arena. We just don't hear their stories. [Tracie Laulusa] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 07:24:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Mary Aagard Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside This sounds an awful lot like the BYU Devotional that was held for "The Other Side of Heaven" before the film was released. I was a film major at the time and I couldn't believe that BYU organized one of it's precious Tuesday devotional times for an hour long promo of the film. Sure, they did have John Groberg there talking about his mission but all of his experiences were illustrated by clips from the film. The director also spoke and he didn't talk exclusively about the film but the general feeling I got from the devotional was that if we were going to see a movie made by Mormons, we better go and see this one. I know that BYU isn't the same as a church house, but the devotional seemed like such a shameless way to sell a product. At the beginning of that school year, Pres. Bateman asked all students and staff to try to attend the devotional each week, how much it would influence our education, and then to spend one of those devotionals on a tralier for a film. It was really bizarre. If it had been a movie made by BYU or by BYU students or related to BYU events or campus in any way, that would be different. But you don't see the BYU admin giving the red carpet treatment to every LDS film that's made and so it seemed biased. Yes, a GA was involved, but the movie was clearly a commercial film. Mary Aagard __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:28:19 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside Scott Parkin's post on the BOM movie fireside draws attention to a really serious issue. Darius and I do firesides quite often and have a personal policy of NEVER mentioning out books during a fireside. Sometimes the introduction will mention them, but we separate our book signings from our firesides with as much integrity as possible. We talk about black pioneers and present ourselves more as guardians/sharers of their stories than as authors making the publicity rounds. Of course, if a question comes up about where the fireside attendees can get more information on black pioneers, we briefly refer to our books, but otherwise, we are insistent on never bringing the marketplace into the Church. We have even had to request that some stake presidents modify their plans when we realize that our books are being advertised. Darius says simply, "My tokens are not for sale." Now, I wouldn't mind hearing Bryce Chamberlain talk about Lehi--but I would go to the fireside not as a movie fan but as someone interested in what his insights into Lehi might be. I predict that if these firesides continue, people will be bringing their little posters of the BOM movie for the "stars" to autograph. Bad, bad idea. In fact, it's not far from priestcraft. Reminds me of something a friend told me recently--that when he last attended the Provo Temple, he was given a temple schedule. On the back of the schedule (given INSIDE the temple) were the words "Compliments of Deseret Book Company." Well, if what matters to me matters to Deseret Book, may I suggest that such subtle advertising is entirely inappropriate beyond the temple doors? My response to what my friend told me was, "That sounds like something the Savior would take out a whip for." ________________ 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:52:12 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] re: Perceptions of Errors among Leaders Melanie says: However, it is important to keep in mind the "social times" of the statements. Many years ago, blacks (and other races) were slaves and it was an acceptable social practice. Thus, when the church was first organized, racial inequality was a social belief that many people, including some general authorities, still held. God could not expect the embryo church members and leaders to suddenly live the adult law all at once. They needed to go through a gradual, growing, process. My response: Though Darius's and my books use this particular reasoning as our vehicle for helping our readers deal with the atrocious things said by past Church leaders regarding race, I personally have a problem with it. I see in Joseph Smith's writings a huge leap from the early years of the Church to the last years of his life. Michael Quinn labeled Joseph as "radical" in his anti-racist leanings. The things Joseph said were-especially given the social context-remarkable. He suggested that there are many black men who "outshine" those they wait upon. He was an abolitionist. He said that if someone were to bring 100 slaves into Nauvoo, he'd recommend that that person "educate them and set them free". Oh, just read _One More River to Cross_--it's all in there. And how do we explain the heroism and sacrifice of the Quakers at the same time Mormons were accepting slavery? Consider that in 1850 (the year the Fugitive Slave Act passed), Utah became a slave-holding territory. At the very same time, we have the most amazing displays of heroism among the Quakers as they risked their all to help fugitive slaves find freedom. Somehow, they understood the "higher law of equality" way back then-and it wasn't just some of them but a majority. And somehow, we Mormons missed it-despite everything Joseph Smith had said. Did God give more truth to the Quakers than to Mormons? (Rhetorical question, by the way-no answer required.) Or were Quakers not in such an embryonic spiritual state as Mormons? I'm sorry, but even though I'm willing to follow Gene England's lead and say that we were living a "lesser law" back in 1850 because we weren't ready for the "higher law", I can't buy the reasoning wholesale. Not when I know about Levi Coffin or other remarkable Quakers who, with the Harriet Tubmans and Sojourner Truths and Frederick Douglasses, served as God's instruments to liberate the captives. Something is not quite right with that picture. ________________ 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:56:58 +0300 From: Tom Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Heavenly Mothers I've been looking for a reference for an anecdote about heavenly mothers that someone told me Joseph Smith had said. Here is what my friend said: Joseph Smith was once lying on the ground looking up into heaven when he said to a friend beside him: "Do you know what I see? I see a father, a mother, and a son." Apparently later church leaders edited out mother and replaced it with Holy Spirit. Does anybody have a reference for this anecdote? If so, it would be helpful to me. Thanks, Tom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:58:27 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: RE: [AML] Perceptions of Errors (clarified) I think there are several dimensions of the question Matthew raises. My goal here, by the way, isn't so much to present my own position as to try to (partly) summarize what several other people have said on this matter, and analyze where I think the perception comes from and what it means, when some people say that "we don't believe Church leaders make mistakes." First, as several people have mentioned, I think there *is* a general acknowledgment that leaders of the Church may, and often do, make mistakes in their personal lives. After all, we know that General Authorities have even been excommunicated. I think that there is a general sense among many Church members (one that I have often heard expressed in Sacrament Meeting talks and the like) that they are "further along the way" than most of us, in terms of their personal righteousness. And I had a religion professor at BYU who denied that a prophet (meaning a sitting president of the Church) could ever "fall" and be removed from office--this, despite the reference in the Doctrine and Covenants (which I pointed out in class) to Joseph Smith being told that if he fell, he would have power only to appoint a successor... But I think the issue of personal righteousness or not among Church leaders is not one that is really all that troubling to most members, and I don't think it's what people are complaining about on AML-List. There's often not a lot of comfort level in talking about the transgressions of leaders in a public sphere, but I think that has more to do with feeling that a leader's transgressions (or anyone else's) are between that person and his/her ecclesiastical leaders--and the Lord, of course. Not our business. The more troublesome area, I think, is the degree to which church leaders may make mistakes either in teaching the doctrine, or in carrying out their other duties of office. Here, I think, there is again a general, abstract acknowledgment that they may make mistakes (with mistakes seen as less likely the higher up the ecclesiastical ladder you go), but very little willingness to identify (or speculate about) any specific mistakes, except in cases like Bruce R. McConkie's statement that blacks wouldn't receive the priesthood before the Millennium (I think I'm stating that one right) where revelation has clearly and directly superseded what went before. Even then, there tends to be a general discomfort with pointing out or discussing such examples. If you mention, for example, that Joseph Fielding Smith (supposedly; I haven't seen the reference myself) said that men would never walk on the moon, people are likely to respond with an uneasy chuckle. Mostly, you tend to get the feeling that they feel it would have been better off if you hadn't mentioned the matter. Not that they deny that it happened, but the sense is that talking about times when General Authorities have been wrong could undermine what is supposed to be the basic message, which is that we are to follow the counsel of leaders. Part of the problem arises when people like Joseph Fielding Smith who had strong opinions on various issues such as evolution, and publicly stated them, are quoted as if their comments were authoritative--which from my experience happens all the time in places like gospel doctrine classes. You can always come back and cite the fact that other General Authorities have held different views, but it gets frustrating, and may even be seen as disruptive and inappropriate. It's often an unwelcome surprise to the teacher or speaker, who thought that he or she was making a noncontroversial comment--stating something that everyone present would agree with. Part of the problem is that the general rhetorical pattern of quoting General Authorities as authoritative sources is so deeply engrained within Mormon practice. We do it all the time: in lesson manuals, in Sacrament Meeting talks, even in General Conference talks. We're encouraged to do it. And so the underlying message appears to be that anything you can find to quote from a General Authority must be authoritative. The assumption is that if it wasn't safe, the General Authority wouldn't have said it, or it wouldn't be accessible. This is strengthened by the point Eric Samuelsen pointed out, which is that general Church practice (on the part of the General Authorities and the curriculum writers) appears to be never to explicitly acknowledge or identify errors that have been previously taught by General Authorities. Personally, I don't think this arises out of a desire to deny that it happens, but rather a sense that we would be better off moving forward, talking about what the doctrines are rather than what they aren't. But the effect, I think, is that many Church members don't realize that just because they find a General Authority statement on the matter, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily correct. This is particularly the case since there's no formal, widely known "index of controversial teachings." In fact, there's often a lack of clarity about what is and what isn't official Church doctrine (see, for example, the recent discussion on the list about the notion of a Mother in Heaven). It would seem to be safe to quote a General Authority in support of an established doctrine. The problem, though, is: How do you know it's an established doctrine? The answer, for many people, is: If a General Authority is willing to teach it in public. Which gets us into a kind of circular position, particularly since the Church *doesn't* generally go to the bother of refuting past teachings in any kind of formal way. (What happens instead is that General Authorities stop talking about it and it quietly stops showing up in the lesson manuals, and instead statements are included in talks and such which reflect a subtly different slant, if you know what they're talking about.) So far, I've been talking about General Authorities talking about doctrine. The situation, I think, is similar in talking about other kinds of counsel as well. The consistent message is that we're supposed to follow the counsel of our leaders. There's generally an acknowledgment that that counsel may be wrong, but little willingness to discuss when or how it may be wrong. I don't think I've ever heard a church talk, on any level, about when we *shouldn't* follow the counsel of a leader. I've even heard people say that if we follow the counsel of a leader, and it's wrong, it will be accounted to us for righteousness. Which I'm willing to accept, to a certain degree (e.g., I'll try to home teach the people on my route, whether or not I think my elder's quorum president was inspired in making the assignment)--but surely there are limits to this that most people would acknowledge: e.g., if a bishop should tell someone to help with embezzling money, or told a sister that she was to marry him in secret as a plural wife. Most members, I think, would agree that if something kooky like this happens, we should be in the Stake President's office, and if necessary on the phone to the Church Office Building. But it's not (so far as I can recall) ever *formally* discussed. Instead, we get stories like the General Authority saying "If-I-told-you-to-drive-off-this-cliff-what-would-you-do?" and Joseph Smith's test of Heber and Vilate Kimball where the message seems to be, "Do whatever a leader tells you to do," with no qualifications, together with the general principle (which I have seen explicitly taught in manuals, recently, and in General Conference talks from apostles) that it's not the business of church members to sit in judgment of their leaders. Which can be interpreted as meaning that it's not our job ever to decide whether their counsel is right or wrong, but simply to follow it. Personally, I should add, I think this is only one possible interpretation. I think there are other interpretations as well. In actual practice, I think that most members aren't really all that sheeplike in following their leaders. What I think is frustrating for many on AML-List is the kind of scenario I mentioned earlier, where a particular position or opinion or practice (e.g., evolution is wrong; blacks were denied the priesthood because of lack of valiance in the preexistence; members shouldn't drink caffeinated beverages) is presented as if it were an established position of the Church, with the support being a quote from a General Authority (past or present) or an interpretation or remembrance of what a General Authority said. Sometimes, you can argue that the quote was misunderstood or taken out of context. Sometimes, though, you may simply want to say, "I disagree. I think that Elder __ was wrong when he said that." Your reasons may be that you know that other General Authorities have disagreed on this issue, or it's inconsistent with your understanding of the scriptures, or goes against your own experience, or whatever--but whatever those reasons are, you are, in fact, arguing that the General Authority was wrong, in a specific instance. But I don't think that would go over very well. I think a statement like that *would* be taken by some other members as being on the high road to apostasy--the same members who might acknowledge, in principle, that a leader might be wrong. There's a vast difference between saying that something happens, and then taking it upon yourself to identify when it has happened. The problem is, if you're the one in that situation, it doesn't do you any good to make a general acknowledgment that sometimes leaders can be wrong. Your problem is with evolution, or blacks and the priesthood, or caffeinated beverages, or whatever. You want the class to know that you're an active, believing latter-day-saint, but that your opinion is different from the one that's been expressed. The problem is, because of the way it's been presented, you can't get to that issue without in some way calling a General Authority wrong on that particular issue. And that's where, in my view, a lot of Church members are uncomfortable, particularly if they disagree with your position to begin with. I think that the statement "Too often, Church members don't believe that our leaders can be wrong" most often is shorthand for something like this. What do the rest of you think? Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:20:34 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside - --- Original Message --- From: "Scott Parkin" >Two weeks ago I noticed the announcement for the fireside. It bugged me a bit >that the focus of the poster was the movie rather than the fireside and I began >to wonder what the policy was on advertising private commercial ventures in the >lobby of Church buildings. The policy is it shouldn't be done. [snip] > >Yesterday I finally asked the bishop about it. He didn't know what the policy >was and said he would check on it. I asked our recently released bishop if he >knew what the policy was and he said commercial ads were prohibited in the >lobbies of Church buildings. There you go. Believe me, we checked this out when we were doing plays in the Center Stree Theatre. > [snip] > >Suggestions? Or am I just being too sensitive? You are not being too sensitive. What really makes me mad, however, is that we scrupulously avoided having any appearance of offical church sanction and lasted half a first season. These BofM guys will probably rake in the dough by skirting official church policy. Who ever said life was fair? - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:36:03 -0600 From: jeffress@xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Reference in SWAT Quoting Bill Willson : > So, who said that writing designed to strengthen and uplift would not > include telling the truth about real people? I'm assuming that these > elements should be inherent in our writing. What I object to is writers > who, in an effort to show human fallibility, make their characters seem > like unthinking Cretan-like Neanderthals or a cross between Homer Simpson > and Archie Bunker. Well, I never said real characters and spiritually uplifing stories were mutually exclusive, but in practice it seems authors have an awfully hard time pulling it off. I have read a lot of LDS fiction and hundreds of unpublished manuscripts. I think that it takes a lot of really hard work to write a good novel. I think it takes a heck of a lot more hard work to work in premeditated designs "to strengthen and uplift." I think Nicholas Sparks, a non-LDS writer, does about the best current work with premeditated upliftng stories. He writes clean, unobtrusive prose with uplifting messages. He has a huge following . . . and I can't stand his novels. I feel manipulated the entire time. I don't feel like his novels progress along the natural lines of character development. I often feel that at one point or another, his characters have to make an uncharacteristic decision or action to bring about the manufactured circumstances. I find it very easy to drop into Sparks's prose, but I almost always get jolted out at several points saying, "Hey, wait! That character would never have done that." I think LDS authors have an even harder time trying to produce good novels. They have to balance good writing along with the trial of "not offending." Trying to include an uplifitng message along with that whole package creates a hurculean task that I don't think any but the most talented could accomplish. LDS authors also have another huge problem. Any solution that requires the conversion of one of the characters or a spiritual revelation ultimately relies on a deus ex machina ending. Doctrinally, this makes perfect sense. We cannot save ourselvs, but must rely on the saving power of Jesus Christ. But long experience with the novel format has led us to expect the main character to overcome the seemingly unsurmountable problem at the end on his or her own power. Having a revelation from the Holy Ghost that turns the character around, although doctrinally sound, produces unsatisfying fiction. I agree that we don't need to jump to the extreme of "unthinking Cretan-like Neanderthals" to demonstrate human fallibility. But in discussing good fiction, I think jumping to the opposite extreme does not prove the point. An extreme, either too good or too bad, will fail to feel real and doesn't create any sympathy in the reader. For me, I find the greatest satisfaction in the ordinary character thrust into extraordinary circumstances, and overcomes using his or her flawed but reasonable human abilities. I would have to say that the world contains a whole lot more Archie Bunkers than Gordon B. Hinkleys, so in creating a landscape for a novel, it makes more sense to populate the novel with a representative proportion of the population. But in either case, extremes generally don't work as well as just characters made of regular people. Sure, on occasion we can have fun watching the super-good Flash Gordon defeat the super-evil Emperor Ming, but the fiction that touches our soul involves regular people that face the same struggles that we also face. - -- Terry Jeffress - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:21:03 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside Boy, I'm replying to way more posts than usual, but since this one is a family issue and I gave the closing prayer at that devotional, I feel I'd better address it. The showing of portions of _The Other Side of Heaven_ at the BYU devotional was at the request of Merrill Bateman, who believed that the every BYU student should see it. John Groberg was very nervous about it. Nonetheless, it happened. It probably was a bad precedent to set, so I just want the blame cast in the appropriate direction. ________________ 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:26:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Midays Swiss Days 2003 Once again, it's that time to invite everybody who can to come to Midway Swiss Days this weekend. It's in Midway, Utah and there will be lots of good food, music, and fun. I'm the large guy with the beard in the bass section of this Swiss Chorus. Come up and say hello. Details are at http://www.midwayswissdays.com/index.html ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:40:51 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] (SL Trib) Snider firing Kathy (in a post I otherwise agree with pretty wholeheartedly) wrote: >And if Eric Snider wasn't the original tipster, but the one who was, also >worked for The Herald, why wasn't he canned too? Seems they were >looking for an excuse to get rid of Eric Snider and unfortunately, he gave >them an opportunity to do so. Happy Valley's loss, imho. Eric has already clarified that neither he nor the other Herald employee was the "original" tipster, so far as can be told from the information we have available. However, I'd like to address another issue here, which is the underlying journalistic ethics issue at question, which I'm not sure is well understood in this discussion. I'm by no means an expert on journalistic ethics. However, as I understand it, the basic principle at stake here is that (a) as a journalist you should *never* be part of the story you're reporting, and (b) if there's even any possibility that you could be seen as being part of the story, you disclose all the relevant facts. A matter of conflict of interest. In other words, the central point isn't that Eric or this other employee made the tip to begin with. It is, rather, that Eric, having made the tip, then went on to write about the issue--and did it without disclosing his own role in the matter, even to his own supervisors at the Herald. I remember once listening to an interview with TV journalist Daniel Schorr where he said that the most professionally embarrassing moment of his life was when he was reporting live on the discovery of the Nixon White House "enemies list" and his own name showed up on the list, as he was talking to the camera. As soon as possible, he finished his report and got off the air. Presumably, someone else then took the story from there--because he had suddenly *become part of the story*. I don't know whether the Herald's actions were appropriate for Eric's offense. I don't know what their motivations were. But I think it's important that we recognize that the underlying principle they were acting on is a real and important one. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #135 ******************************