From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #148 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, September 10 2003 Volume 02 : Number 148 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:33:14 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks If its OSC, I am usually to capitivated to bother burping, if its an Ensign article, I usually burp out of boredon every four to five words. Debbie Brown who couldn't resist - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Needle" To: Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Caffeinated Drinks > The tie-in to Mormon lit is very obvious, at least to me. > > How much of it is sugary stuff? How much leaves a bitter aftertaste? How > much of it really quenches our thirst for good reading? And, most of all, > how much Mormon literature does it take to produce a good, loud burp? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:50:42 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] Chad S. HAWKINS, _Latter-day Heroes_ A new book available in LDS bookstores everywhere features Philo T. Farnsworth, the Latter-day Saint inventor of television, as the first entry. _Latter-day Heroes_ was written and illustrated by Chad Hawkins and published by Deseret Book. Other chapters feature Brazilian singer and media superstar in that country Liriel Domiciano, opera singer Ariel Bybee, and World War II aviation hero Gail S. Halvorsen, the subject of the award-winning KBYU documentary "Wing and a Prayer: The Saga of Utah Man." Here is the complete list of chapters in _Latter-day Heroes_: Philo T. Farnsworth Kacey McCallister Dale Murphy Don Lind Liriel Domiciano Cody Hancock Gail S. Halvorsen Liz Shropshire Peter Vidmar Ariel Bybee Steve Andersen (handicapped mountain climber) Stephen R. Covey Gifford Nielsen Serving After 9/11 - - Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:00:38 -0600 From: "Paris Anderson" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing I guess I'm a little confused about this "Affermation v Exploration" thing. I thought the whole bit in writing is honesty. If you are as honest as possible everything you write will be affermation and exploration. Without honesty neither affermation or exploration will work. It's supremely arrogant to worry about the spiritual maturity of readers. They're probably reading what they can digest and what is most nurishing to them. When a certain type of book no longer suits their needs they can read something else. Paris Anderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:57:55 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing Jeff, I remember that discussion and found nothing wrong with any of your comments. I too have started books and not finished them and would never offer a review on 25 pages. Now, if someone asked me if I had read the book, I would tell them something like, "sorry, couldn't get past the first 3 lines let alone the whole book. Here's my copy, and you tell me what you think." Then I would hand them my book. Reviews are nice, but I tially don't depend on them when selecting my reading material. I have always found your reviews fair and often entertaining. And considering you aren't LDS, I think we should be grateful for the book reviews you do write, and not begrudge the one you don't. Debbie Brown who will now get off her soapbox and remove her Jeff Needle for governor of California pin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:58:11 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing Jeff Needle wrote: > So, my question: I'm sure many of you have not finished many of the books > you've started. So long as you state up front how much of the book you've > read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book > based on what you've read? Life is too short to waste time finishing an awful book just to satisfy someone's dubious sense of fair play. It's a perfectly valid thing to say that the book was so bad I didn't want to finish it. I don't care how great the second half is, if the author couldn't write the first half good enough to get me to the second half, the author wrote a poor book. I hold up Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series as an example of that. For an LDS example, I submit Jeff Call's _Mormonville_. I did not finish it, I could not finish it, I won't waste precious time trying to finish it. The several chapters I read convinced me it wasn't going to get any better. In fact, they were going downhill. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:01:22 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Ender's Game as Anime Aitken, Neil wrote: >>So all the girl characters would be these slinky hot babes that look the >>same, and all the speaking mouths would look like a two-year-old drew >> them? > These characterizations come across as rather uninformed views of the anime > genre. Anime is as a diverse a genre as modern film or even Mormon > literature. If you wish to see anime that breaks with these stereotypes, > contains no nudity, and sets a higher standard of art and acting, try the > following: Of course they came across as uninformed--I was being sarcastic. But I have sampled a fair amount of anime and have yet to find one that I felt any great urge to watch to completion. An anime adaptation of _Ender's Game_ is one, however, that I would watch. By the way, who said anything about wanting to avoid nudity? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:17:14 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Convictions of Otherness - ---Original Message From: D. Michael Martindale > Jacob Proffitt wrote: >=20 > > Interesting. For the years of his ministry, He didn't do much but=20 > > teach. It'd be easy to call him a teacher, a minister, an=20 > itinerant,=20 > > but we never see him building anything (except people :). =20 > Can you be=20 > > a carpenter if you don't build anything? Can you be a=20 > writer if you=20 > > don't write anything? Professions are tricky, particularly when=20 > > forced to assume based on surroundings and tradition. > >=20 > > Jacob Proffitt > >=20 > But we also have absolutely no record of his life between the=20 > ages of 12=20 > and 30. That's a lot of time to build a lot of wooden=20 > things--six times=20 > longer than the three years of his recorded mission. What do=20 > you think=20 > he was doing all that time? Yeah, but that's total speculation. He could as easily have been a rabbi, farmer, itinerant worker, or soldier. Frankly, the rabbi speculation would make more sense (certainly explain his lingering with the rabbis when he was 12) and be excellent training for his later life as well. Also would make sense of the sense of betrayal by the current religious leaders. > Of course he didn't act like a carpenter once his mission=20 > started. How=20 > many of our modern General Authorities continue with their occupation=20 > after being called? Very true. Which also makes my point--you can't tell by any textual hints that he was a carpenter any more than you can tell what a GA is just from his talks. Well, most anyway, sometimes their ex-profession comes strongly into a sermon. Christ drew on a variety of life experiences, but never referred directly to his own past in doing so. When thinking of, relating, retelling, or "exploring" the life of Christ, I think we're well-served if we avoid as many assumptions as we can. We can, and should, explore the way things might have been in ways that have meaning for us (including if he was a carpenter, but why not other professions?). What if he *had* been a soldier? Where'd Peter's sword come from, after all? How did he know how to wield a whip so efficiently? What if he *had* been a programme... well, probably not... It isn't so much that we'll discover great things about Christ--barring new authoritative information that just isn't possible. Still, there's interesting things we can learn about ourselves, our assumptions, and our relationship with God. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 21:11:42 -0600 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing > So, my question: I'm sure many of you have not finished many of the books > you've started. So long as you state up front how much of the book you've > read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book > based on what you've read? > No. Starting a book and making a conscious decision not to finish it, for whatever reason, is an honest reaction. Commenting on the parts that you've read is an honest reaction. Commenting on the parts you haven't read is out, though. - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:10:52 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing Jeff Needle wrote: > The private communication to me accused me of dishonesty. "Read the whole > book, and then make your comment. It's what an *honest* reviewer would do." > Or words to that effect. > > So, my question: I'm sure many of you have not finished many of the books > you've started. So long as you state up front how much of the book you've > read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book > based on what you've read? Your experience is your experience. If you related your experience accurately, I don't see how it can be dishonest. If you offered a review of the book after reading only 25 pages, but represented yourself as having read the whole thing then I think a question of honesty might arise. But saying the book was so poorly written and hard to read that you put it down after 25 pages strikes me as simple journalism. If you commented on the book's conclusions without having read them, that strikes me as dishonest. If you say you don't care what the book's conclusions are because you found the reasoning contained in the first 25 pages to be so strained and clearly unreasonable that you had no interest in continuing to read, that strikes me yet again as being simple journalism. In many ways it's the same argument that comes up in regards to things like The Book of Mormon Movie; your detractor can't separate the fact that you found the book so inartistic that you were unwilling to find out whether it had any other merit. You may have found the conclusions reasonable or even admirable; but the vehicle was so poor that you couldn't stand to finish the ride. It's yet another technique for trying to shout down someone whose opinion on a matter differs from one's own--play on your opponent's sense of honor. I wouldn't worry about it. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 22:08:01 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 17:56:42 -0700, Jeff Needle wrote: >Some are aware of Abanes' "One Nation Under Gods," an anti-Mormon book = that >came out perhaps a year ago. I obtained a copy, made it through perhaps= 25 >pages, and set it aside. That much reading alone convinced me I didn't = want >to finish the book. It was simply bad. > >Naturally, there was no review forthcoming. How could there be? But = when >the book came up in discussion, I made some comment about how many pages= I'd >read, and my opinion of those pages. > >The private communication to me accused me of dishonesty. "Read the = whole >book, and then make your comment. It's what an *honest* reviewer would = do." >Or words to that effect. > >So, my question: I'm sure many of you have not finished many of the = books >you've started. So long as you state up front how much of the book = you've >read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book >based on what you've read? If you are openly representing your opinion based on the part you = actually read, how is this dishonest? It could only be dishonesty if you implied that your opinion was based on reading the entire book when you had only read two chapters. An opinion which goes "I stopped reading after 25 = pages because it was so awful" is both factual and honest. So is "I didn't = like it, so I didn't finish it." I find such opinions useful, myself, = especially from a reviewer I'm familiar with. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:25:17 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] re: AML-List Members in Theater? I'm insanely jealous about this. You can ask me offline about it. :) It has a something to do with chutzpah. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David and Dianna Graham" To: Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 12:26 AM Subject: [AML] re: AML-List Members in Theater? > Margaret Young: >Of course, we take that as an oral contract and anticipate > that Julia Young will be featured in a starring > >role in _The Prophet_. > > As she deserves to be. She's absolutely lovely! :) > > Dianna Graham > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:32:00 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? I've done about 10 Road Shows, some as ward Road Show Specialist and others as Stake Road Show Specialist. One of my cardinal rules was that they were not to be religious in nature. They were to be a short piece with a plot (with conflict resolution) and we were to use dialogue, music and dancing. A mini Broadway Musical. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:50:49 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Red Hat Club (Was Caffeinated Drinks) Those red hat clubs are really starting to catch on. My brothers and I presented one yesterday to my mother for her eightieth birthday, the purple dress is coming later and I gave her the accompanying poem printed up with illustrations for Christmas of last year. Although she hasn't formally joined the society yet, she does hang with a bunch of "lovely ladies" who lunch together often and sometimes discuss and exchange books with each other. And I'll bet they sometimes drink caffeinated beverages too. :) I can get you a red hat Ronn. The ladies would love to have you join them. ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:00:07 -0700 From: "BJ Rowley" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing Jeff Needle wrote: So long as you state up front how much of the book you've > read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book > based on what you've read? I think it's entirely honest ... and very telling. If 25 pages is all you can stomach, then that, in and of itself, says a great deal about the book. Why would you keep eating something you hate, if there's no dessert in sight? At that point, as aspears to be clearly stated, the "review" is not about the whole meal, but a simple commentary on the appetizer ... which wasn't at all appetizing. End of story ... and a perfectly honest one. - -BJ Rowley - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 23:13:26 -0700 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing Jeff, I wonder if whoever said that to you took into account the plethora of reviews you've written for this list. Your reviews are honest and forthright. You always try and find both the good and bad in what you've read and pass it onto the rest of us with great clarity. For me, sometimes I've wanted to run right out and dig into a book you've recommended, other times I appreciated that I would probably not want to use up my time on a book that sounds like I wouldn't like. Does that mean I let you do my reading picks? Not necessarily. But your reviews give an overview and save me a lot of energy. You didn't write a formal review of the aforementioned book, but you gave a honest impression of what you had read, and I think that's just fine. I've saved myself trouble before when I couldn't get through the first two pages of certain books, let alone twenty-five of them. Chances are, if that's all you could take, I really couldn't stomach it-I trust your judgement. Is it usually better to read the whole book before saying something? Probably. But in the real world most people don't' or won't have the time to slog through a book they are not enjoying, find stimulating, etc. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 00:04:13 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Overlong Movies Laura Maery Gold said of Dances With Wolves: "It was the most clearly overlong movie I have EVER seen. (And that includes the vile _Tess_, which I walked out of when I finally ran out of popcorn to throw at the screen.)" Speaking of overlong movies, did any of you subject yourselves to the 1998 "Beloved"? I still don't know why I didn't leave early. Yes, nice acting, especially from Kim Elise, who played Denver, the normal daughter. Everything else about the film, though...sheesh! I think I was so disturbed that I couldn't moved or something. I went with two girlfriends, and whenever we describe our facial expression at the sight of the things we truly abhor, we call it our "Beloved Face." Incidentally, on the IMDB page for "Beloved," under Recommendations, it says, "If you like this title, we also recommend... Gladiator (2000)". I'm so offended for Ridley Scott. "Gladiator" may not be my favorite Ridley Scott film ("Bladerunner" is, thanks for asking!), but it is still a Ridley Film. How dare they compare the two!! Hmmmpf! Speaking of Ridley, sometime I think I would be a party to just have a conversation about all of our favorite films and directors, not really on the list, just on the side sometime. Few things are more fun than discussing movies and directors you really love. Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 02:12:41 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing Before I write anything else, I have to apologize to Michael. I ended up going off on some tangents that only barely intersected with some things that his post reminded me of--including arguments I've had with other people on other subjects. For the most part, my note was a riff on what Michael's post reminded me of more than it was an actual response to what he wrote. Having said that, here's the broad issue I was really responding to. There has been a long dialog on what the purposes of literature are, what they should be, and what the proper role of a good Latter-day Saint author *should* be relative to producing literature. Oddly enough, Michael and I are probably in near perfect agreement about what a good Mormon should write about--pretty much anything they feel like writing. Any honest exploration of an idea, setting, situation or principle is a worthy exercise. Whether that exercise should be inflicted on readers is a different matter altogether. Whether it's entertaining is yet another matter. Whether it has any literary value--despite its inherent honesty--it still another issue. Honest doesn't mean publishable, and publishable doesn't mean marketable. Like many, I've felt condemnation from members of the learned literary establishment. I write science fiction and fantasy in addition to other things, and as a result I've been publicly ridiculed and dismissed by some in the academy. But worse, I've been actively and pointedly ignored by people whose opinions matter to me; apparently my ugly little sf secret is too shameful to be acknowledged in polite company. Because I both read and write sf, apparently my other opinions are equally tainted. To make it worse, though I'm reasonably well-read, I've never completed an undergraduate degree so I have only a limited critical vocabulary and even more limited exposure to the general critical establishment. The result is that I have a pretty serious chip on my shoulder. Even people I consider friends seem embarrassed by my appreciation of sf as a means of exploring human thought, and that has led to a certain defensiveness against certain arguments from the literary establishment. You can only be told so many times that there's no real value to the stories that have helped shape your mind and viewpoint before you start to cringe when you hear certain sentence constructions. As Margaret Young pointed out while discussing racism, certain disclaiming statements have been offered too many times just prior to a condemning dismissal not to raise suspicion for some of us. "I don't care whether a person is white or black or yellow or blue..." sounds condescending pretty much every time and is often followed by a statement that suggests that the speaker very much *does* care about race. The same thing happens in discussions of sf--"I think it's a perfectly valid form and some works are quite admirable; of course I would never write it *myself* but I think it's just great that *you* see value in it..." It feels condescending pretty much every time out. So I tend to react fairly strongly when I hear entire classes of story dismissed as having no real value, with the readers thereof equally dismissed as childish or arrested in their development--whether the stories be sf, romance, western, horror, literary, or affirming. In the end I'm a nearly perfect relativist on the issue; I believe every story has value for some reader, and every author should be encouraged to write for whatever audience they choose. I believe that a population will naturally produce a wide variety of stories given time, opportunity, and encouragement. I believe people can and should advocate any book or style or literary school moves them. By the same token I don't see much point or value in condemning readers for their tastes or choices. I think people should be free to like or dislike pretty much anything they want, to find differing levels of value in different stories and types of stories and forms of stories. I believe in aggressive criticism oriented around improving literature in general and specific genres in particular--in helping to make a story succeed on its own terms. But I don't believe in condemning something for not being something else. I don't think ridiculing an audience for its tastes is an effective method of causing that audience to sample--or appreciate--a different kind of story. And that's what I was responding to in Michael's previous post. In his effort to encourage diversity in both writing and publishing (which I violently agree with), I also felt a sting of rejection and dismissal for affirming literature and I don't see the value of that rejection. So I responded to all those people over all those years who have so easily rejected the stories I found valuable, with Michael as their agent. End of disclaimer... D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > Which sounds suspiciously like an agenda to me--fight the power; doubt > > everything; don't give in to conformity. I thought agendas were bad. > > Two points. One, this sounds like an extremely liberal definition of > agenda. It sounds liek one of those "everything is..." definitions: I meant it mostly as humor and had my tongue firmly planted in cheek when I wrote it for pretty much the reasons you offer here. My sense of humor doesn't really translate well to text...or speech...or physical action. Sigh... > Second point, Being willing to examine one's unquestioned assumptions is > hardly the same thing as figthing power or doubting everything. (I will > admit it's not giving in to conformity, but that sounds like a good > thing to me.) I'd call it being humble, being teachable. Someone who is > not willing to subject what he believes to the test now and then--when > there's reason to do so, not just willy-nilly to ostentatiously look > open-minded--is someone stuck at the level of progress he's at. But isn't non-conformity for its own sake just another way of defining one's own beliefs in relationship to other peoples' beliefs? I choose not to conform, therefore I reject what the majority calls good. Being humble and teachable takes many forms, among them sometimes accepting conformity to some social or cultural institutions even when it offends our sense of individuality to do so. I resist both hidebound conformity *and* rigorous non-conformity as different faces of the same reactionary coin. My question remains--how can any of us know what tests of their beliefs anyone else has experienced, and whether they've done it recently enough for healthy spiritual progress? It seems like a beam/mote thing (or perhaps more accurately a beam/beam thing). I completely agree that we should test our beliefs constantly and be ready to change our assumptions when we discover new truth. The search for truth and understanding should be constant and ongoing, because none of us will learn all truth in our lifetime. To me it's a question of emphasis. Will I spend my time discovering all the ways those people over there are wrong, or finding out how I can be better? I generally mistrust certainty, and I especially mistrust people trying to force their ideas of good behavior on others. I think it's why most United Order experiments (and all of the Mormon reformations so far) eventually failed--true righteousness comes not from top-down enforcement, but from grass-roots discovery and acceptance reinforced by top-down education. The Saints won't truly live the United Order until they come up with the idea themselves. I think the same model holds with literature. Good literature comes not from constant withering rejection of bad literature, but from aggressive praise of good effort combined with critical examination of ways to improve. > That's why I didn't say avoid affirmation literature. Then I misread your post, because it seemed to me that you not only rejected affirmation literature as valueless, but that you continued on to reject those who read it as essentially mindless and spiritually weak. > But by the same > token, people who are vulnerable to neighbors or coworkers or radio or > television or films or their children telling them that their ideas are > silly or outdated or wrong are the kind of person who _does_ avoid > examining and trying their beliefs on occasion. Then the only recourse > to saving their beliefs in the face of challenge is the head-in-the-sand > routine. This seems like an unfair generalization to me. Are you saying that people who feel besieged by challenges of their beliefs are, by definition, not being truly challenged--or rather, have proven themselves incapable of resisting challenge because they seek affirmation in literature? I don't think we have enough information to make that kind of generalization. Yes, *some* people seek affirmation literature out of laziness--they're not willing to study and struggle and learn to gain their own foundations; they'd rather someone just told them how to believe so they can get on with the business of watching Monday Night Football (or Baywatch reruns). Some people read affirmation literature because they find it amusing. Some read it because they think it's morally superior. Some read it because they think *they're* morally superior for having done so; they see it as an act of righteousness. Some read it because it shows them a hope that they find admirable. Some read simply for entertainment. There are a lot of reasons to read any kind of literature. I'm not sure we can safely draw many generalizations about moral fitness on the basis of that literature. > Stories aren't the only source of opposing viewpoints. But they're one > of the safer ones. We've discussed this before. Stories are a safe way > to boldly experiment with our beliefs without suffering lasting > consequences in the real world, because stories are fiction. Stories > aren't the only way to examine our lives, but they're a superior way. They're a good way. So is having a vigorous discussion with a friend whose beliefs are different from yours. I personally find active discussion to be superior to literature as a means of both learning and modifying my core beliefs. The AML-List has challenged as many of my core beliefs over the last seven years as most of the books I've read--precisely because it was an active give-and-take, rather than a passive presentation. The best way to analyze our lives is to analyze our lives. Stories may illustrate truisms, but they are and will remain vicarious experience. As much as I hate to say it, one might very well be better off to put books in the closet and get out into the world and experience life directly. I think the best answer is to mix some of this with some of that. Have rich experience and supplement it with rich consideration of symbolic creations that can deepen our appreciation of literal experience. > Affirmation stories don't do that. They serve a vital need, but they > don't serve all needs. What on earth is wrong with encouraging someone > to sample a different type of literature than what they're comfortable > with? Especially if you know their perception of that type of literature > is inaccurate? But I would argue that no story does that. The story is a vector for ideas, be they utopic ideals or potentially unpleasant realities. But if our only source of input is story, then we remain limited in our experience. Stories can help us understand the complexity of life--only if we get out and face life directly. There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to sample all kinds of literature. But the discussion rarely stops with encouraging one to add to their experience. My father can't understand how I can read both Heinlein and Trollope, and enjoy them both equally--and take equivalent lessons from each. He keeps asking me when I'm going to grow up and leave that dumb science fiction stuff behind; when am I going to stop wasting my time with spaceships when it would be better served with the classics of world literature. It's a binary argument; I'm either reading sf of any kind and wasting time, or I'm moving on to "real" literature and enriching my soul to the exclusion of all distracting forms. I don't see it as either/or. But it seems to me that an awful lot of people want to make it that way--on both the affirming and the challenging side of the house. I reject both extremes while accepting both classes of literature. Of course I've stopped seeking some kinds of stories; but that was a natural process that I chose for myself because other stories interested me more, not a rejection of a class of story as insufficient or inadequate of itself. > Have you never tried to correct someone's misperception > of science fiction, then encourage them to try it and see if they like > it? Don't you do this because you see a value in science fiction that > you want to share with others because you think it will benefit them? Do > you ever demand that they quit reading Cosmopolitan before becoming a > science fiction fan? No. I can't "correct" anyone's perception. I've encouraged many people to read many kinds of stories, but I don't see it as either my job or my right to correct their thinking. Sf stories may never appeal to some people, and I don't recommend it to everyone I meet. In my sf writing class I tend to encourage students to read widely--both within the field and outside it--so that they have a broader sense of both the kinds of stories that can be told and the many ways those stories can be told. The best I can do is educate others to the value I see in a thing. Which I see as completely different from correcting their perception. > What can the person do when confronted with the facts about blood > atonement who's only ever read Jack Weyland his whole life? Stick his > head in the sand or lose his testimony. I disagree. When faced with a foreign idea, people can do all kinds of things. They can ignore the input (not the best answer, IMO, but a very common one). They can deny the idea. They can research the idea. They can ask a trusted friend for information. They can accept the idea out of context and feel betrayed by their own lack of knowledge. They can have a pre-existing foundation for understanding the idea in context. It's not necessarily a matter of prior innoculation. The fact that someone has only read affirming literature is no guarantee that a non-affirming idea is going to destroy their worldview. If one has read their Jack Weyland thoughtfully, they will probably take this new idea to their bishop and seek better understanding, because that seems to be the formula that Brother Weyland offers most often. They will know that sometimes lousy things happen, but that they can overcome many of their problems with faith and works. I don't see the fundamental lack there. A lack of exposure to something doesn't guarantee helplessness or negative response when one finally is exposed. I had never been exposed to forest fires but managed to survive it when my local one occurred. Oddly, it was after the fact that I really did some research and learned more about what happened on my mountain. I think one is generally better off to read widely, to experience different forms and structures and methods. To be exposed to both the exotic and the familiar. To learn of pain and pleasure, joy and sorrow, bitter and sweet. But no story in a book will innoculate me against the pain of my life. It *may* provide me with some tools for coping, but those tools are as likely to fail as any other when real adversity comes. Even real experience can't provide guaranteed innoculation against more real experience. So I have a hard time making generalizations about one's spiritual fitness--or their ability to withstand challenge--as a result of what kinds of stories they do or don't read. And thus I can't condemn anyone for their reading preferences. > Absolutely. But is that the religious climate we find ourselves in > today? What I see is a belief that the bishop is responsible for my > testimony and the predominant folk doctrine of the culture is what I'm > supposed to believe, and all I'm supposed to do is not rock the boat. Which strikes me as a social critique, not a literary one. The fact is that the vast majority of Mormons don't read much of anything--affirming, challenging, or otherwise. The vast majority of *people* don't read much of anything. For you, reading is a means of gaining real and powerful vicarious experience. For many, reading is only a means of filling time until the doctor is ready to see you. As a young man I was so desperate to both learn and fill time that I was known to read the backs of Lysol bottles while answering nature's call. To this day, my bathroom contains the fourth highest stack of books in my house (after my office/library, the kitchen table, and my nightstand). I love books. But they're only one way of learning how to deal with the world. I can't speak for your experience. I'm fairly renowned in my ward for always having a book in hand, and for being able to offer opinions on a wide variety of subjects. I'm actually called on specifically in order to rock the boat and to ask difficult questions in both elder's quorum and sunday school. I've been fortunate that people have usually only been defensive with me when I've been defensive with them. I feel some of the same social/cultural pressure you do, but because I don't recognize that pressure as doctrinal in origin I feel free to ignore it as irrelevant. I've been very fortunate that way. I'm sorry your experience has been less satisfying. You could do what I do and take a book to church on Sunday. > Finding the balance between serving our neighbors and being intrusive is > a difficult one, and everyone ends up drawing the line in a different > place. But I for one believe I am sufficiently wise to have a reasonable > idea of what constitutes valuable literature, and if I see someone--not > reading a Jack Weyland book--but feeding his mind with an exclusive diet > of nothing but Weylanesque literature, I think I am justified in > concluding that this person could use an infusion of more variety in his > literary diet and doing whatever UNintrusive thing I can to suggest he > expand his horizons. When school teachers do that, it's considered a > good thing. Why not when I do it? Your confidence is a great deal more powerful than mine. If asked, I will offer an opinion. When commenting in class I share all kinds of opinions. If someone asks for a literary recommendation I will supply it. But I don't see it as my job to correct the literary deficiencies of my fellow beings. I actively proselyte literacy and have just retired after a three-year term on my local library board. I lecture happily (and far too often) in my writing class. Then again, my students have paid for the privilege, so I don't feel bad. But I don't tell people they're not reading the right kinds of books, or that the books they're reading aren't challenging enough. I ask them about their own reading, then offer opinions when asked. I show up each Sunday with a different book in hand. People have learned that I'm a literary omnivore who won't make fun of them for what they read, so they feel safe in asking for my recommendations. The same thing happens at work. They know I don't like everything, but they also know I won't ridicule them for their choices. And they've all read books that I've recommended. I think people need to come to challenging books by their own path, and a quiet recommendation from someone they trust will generally be far more effective than a harangue on the poor quality of the books that they are reading. Or at least that's what my experience has taught me. > I think most of them are _unable_ to handle the challenges of life and > therefore seek relief in affirmation literature the way an ostrich seeks > relief from physical danger by sticking its head in the sand. They are > unable to handle the challenges of life because they grew up in a > religious environment that taught them never to explore, never to seek, > never to question, never to rock the boat. So when the inevitable > challenges of life come along, they're not up to the task and have to > run and hide. I don't consider this a good thing. If the technique works... Seriously. For you diverse literature has been a powerful preventative as well as restorative. Not ever > > > > There's an assumption that literature is the only way to expand one's horizons, > > and I just don't accept that. > > It's not, but it's a superior one. You can drive a nail with a wrench, > but I'd recommend a hammer. Here we just disagree. Literature is one of many tools, and to my mind it looks nothing like a hammer--or at least no more so than conversation, non-fiction, science, music, drama, direct experimentation or any of dozens of other ways that knowledge and experience can be gained or shared. I love literature because it can enlighten and delight at the same time. But so can many, many other things. So I encourage those who like to read to read more, and those who like to watch films to watch more, and those who listen to music to listen more. To each his own, and I recognize that when the only tool I have is a hammer then all problems look like nails. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #148 ******************************