From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #165 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, September 22 2003 Volume 02 : Number 165 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:44:58 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] The Value of Reading? Saying that reading is a selfish act because it's solitary and only feeds the reader and no one else is like saying that the pre-mission solitude of John the Baptist and Jesus in the wilderness was selfish for the same reasons. A mind cannot feed others which has not first been fed. I've been nourished by many "selfish" readers on this list. Try discussing anything intellectual with a nonreader (or at least one that doesn't compensate by nourishing his mind in other ways) and you'll see what I mean. Reading is ultimately beneficial to all because a nourished mind is a mind that can contribute. - -- 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: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:25:46 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] The Critic's Obligation You are in the WRONG program, Stephen, if other writers aren't really critiquing your work. A good MFA program needs to be founded in the candor and experience of its teachers and participants. My best students come to me (and usually keep coming back--sometimes for years) because they know I take them seriously enough to bash their work. I always manage to include some positive comments, but my job is to critique their writing--and to do it thoroughly. I know it and so do they. I have not yet run into something that couldn't be improved--nor have I ever produced anything that couldn't be improved (including my children). I critique my colleagues' writing too. I critique unabashedly when I do a peer review. And I absolutely insist on that kind of painful respect from those critiquing my work. I have periodically paid someone I knew to be relentless to have a go at something I'd written. I don't pay for sugarcoating, though. Find someone who will take you seriously--even if you have to pay for it. Or go to one of the profs and say you're not getting what you need. Sometimes professors are so busy publishing their own work that they don't take nearly enough time with their students' work. That was Walter Kirn's complaint about his time at Princeton and (if I'm remembering accurately) Brady Udall's complaint about his time at Iowa. ________________ 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: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:18:12 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] The Value of Reading? ___ Jonathan ___ | Second, narrative expands our peer group, giving us | additional freedom and greater ability to choose the | unpopular course. ___ This is, to me, the most important feature. You will encounter ideas and cultures that you'd never have otherwise encountered. If anything the Internet has expanded this by allowing conversations with people you'd not have encountered. Yet reading, especially fiction, can do this in a much fuller way. (In this way fiction is like a kind of virtual reality, allowing you to vicariously belong to a situation you otherwise couldn't in a way that non-fiction can't typically do that well) ___ Jonathan ___ | Third, narrative accustoms us to the shape of plot, | tempting us to believe, if only at some unconscious level, | that events follow events in a finite number of | predictable and esthetically pleasing patterns. ___ Personally I'm of the opinion that plots take the structure they do because those structures occur in life so regularly. Indeed we criticize plots when they don't take the form they do because they seem "unnatural." That's why the surreal and other more radical plot forms are appreciated by a smaller set of readers. The problem is that some people simply have exposure to a small set of plots. If one only sees adventure films then one might be sorely disappointed with life. But that doesn't mean that the structure of an adventure/action plot doesn't occur in life. Just that most people don't experience that kind of activity. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:57:46 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? > > This is a long and winding way of saying that I think theater has an > important role in the building up of the kingdom of God. Robbin Major makes a great supportive statement for "good" theater experiences, which is why the Villa Institute for the Performing Arts in Springville keeps working and sweating and pouring money in without remuneration--because we can see what it does for young people! Blessings! Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:50:54 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] BENTLEY, _Abraham's Seed and Covenant_ (Review) Yes, I reviewed Armand's book some time ago. I thought it was fascinating. As for a comparison, I will only say this: if you could see the stack of books I have waiting for a review, you'd be writing my obit already. If they fell on me, they'd crush me. (Slight exaggeration alert!) Time is the enemy right now, something I think you can identify with! I would welcome whatever you put together. Indeed, the whole subject deserves closer treatment. At 08:41 AM 9/18/2003, you wrote: >Really fascinating review, Jeff. I don't recall if you've already >reviewed your >friend Armand Mauss's _All Abraham's Children: Chanting Mormon Conceptions of >Race and Lineage_, but I would love to see you contrast what Bentley's book >suggests with what Armand's suggests. (If you don't do it, I will--or we >could >do it together.) [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:52:29 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] Interesting Thing This thing has been flying across the internet for a few days. I agree with Bill. I was jarred by it. No way I could have read past it without noticing the spelling. - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:13:49 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Introduction: Clay Whipkey . BC was the real gem. In my opinion a better movie than probably 90% of > the hollywood movies I've seen in the last 10 years. It was a great story, > it had me guessing until the end, it appeared very professionally made, and > best of all it was about my own culture(although I've never lived in Utah or > anywhere like that town). We'll look forward to your stories, Clay! I totally agree with you about BC. I am always in awe of the power in Richard's story, and after seeing the movie 6 times, I am still in awe of the technical expertise. Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:11:26 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: RE: [AML] The Critic's Obligation What a remarkable request! But how can I turn it down from someone who says, "You know I love you." I live in southern California. Folks wanting to visit are welcome to e-mail me privately for the information. I'm always glad to hear from you all. As for visits, here's the deal: my house is not your typical Mormon house. First of all, I'm not Mormon. Second, it's a one-bedroom apartment, filled to the rafters with books. Anyone who visits needs to know that they're walking into (depending on your perspective) a nightmare or a literary field of dreams. Because I'm disabled, and because I sleep a great deal and have an irregular schedule, I do turn away people who just show up at my door without calling first. This has happened, and it's just plain bad. But, if people arrange in advance, I'm glad to have visitors. Several folks on this list will attest to that. Photos will do just fine, especially if you're playing "Pin The Tail on the Donkey." At 01:51 PM 9/16/2003, you wrote: >Jeff, could you please supply all the authors on this list with your >contact information--home address, etc.? Is there a specific time when >you're open to visits? Is a photo adequate in case we can't get to your >place in person? Could we maybe organize a reviewers/authors party >where we play some really cool games like tearing off squares of toilet >paper and telling one interesting fact about ourselves per square? P.s. >You know I love you. (Not a joke.) > >________________ >Margaret Young - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:23:24 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] The Value of Reading? there's no guarantee that any of this (points made about entering narrative experience) will actually translate > into real-world virtue--just my sense that it provides us with potent tools > and some additional motivation for living more virtuous lives. Given the > principle of agency, what more could we ask for? This is a really a balanced, cogent treatise of our search to experience narrative, Jonathan. Thank you for taking the time to write it! I'm filing it! Marilyn Brown - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:18:17 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] SIDDOWAY, _Degrees of Glory_ (Review) A couple of comments on two parts of this review: > Review by Jeff Needle > Title: Degrees of Glory > Author: Richard M. Siddoway > The plot is, of course, rather transparent. The details, however, are > murky. Assuming the first place is Outer Darkness, how is it that Cain and > Judas still have physical bodies? Some Mormons teach that when the Lord tells Cain in the Book of Moses he will have powere over Satan in Perdition, it is because Cain will have a body. Since LDS teaching is that everyone born on earth will be ressurected, it is a reasonable assumption that even those in "outer darkness" will have bodies. (Satan, never having been born, will presumably not have a body). > > And, more to the point, is there really a Mormon teaching that a person, > headed for the Celestial Kingdom (as Mark obviously is), can make a > pit-stop at each of the lower kingdoms (including outer darkness!) and opt > to remain there? I'm not sure how "official" this is, but I have heard it expressed that people in the Celestial kingdom will be able to visit lower kingdoms. FWIW in understanding the book. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:29:32 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: RE: [AML] Book Burning Justified? > But no, there cannot possible exist a book evil enough that you = > gotta burn it. The scriptural examples cited in this regard are = > examples of people behaving immorally. > > Eric Samuelsen See, I tend to agree - that book burning is wrong and evil. Yet, the book of Acts, which I regard as scripture does explicitly identify burning books of sorcery as a good thing. The saints were casting off their evil pasts. The scriptures themselves don't consider that act immoral. I think I know why: I would never burn a book, but I have *once* thrown away a book I was given once that turned out to be pure pornography. Deciding that since porn is condemend by the prophet (and I don't consider it art), I figured giving it to someone would be like giving cocaine to someone just because I don't use it. So I see nothing wrong with throwing it away. I think that's why the book burning in Acts was justified. Black magic was like pornography - no redeeming value and it can only do harm to anyone it may have been passed off on. So destruction was the only option. Generally, though (in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the time) I would hesitate to make that judgement on anything other than a very clear cut example of evil (such as porn). - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:58:02 -0500 From: Ronn! Blankenship Subject: Re: [AML] Interesting Thing > >It also reminds me of the nearly vowel free shorthand >programmers use: > > if u cn rd ths u cn wrt cmptr prgrms! What does it mean that I found that sentence far easier to read than the sample paragraph under discussion: in fact, I didn't have the slight problem reading it . . . - -- Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship mailto: ronn.blankenship@att.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:50:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Dallas Robbins Subject: [AML] Romance and Pornography "D. Michael Martindale wrote: > > Why aren't they the same thing [Pornography and Romance]? Especially if > they're fulfilling similar > functions? > Why is one more destructive than the > other? This is an important question that I have been thinking about since I made the comment that porn and romance are not the same, even though they can sometimes fulfill the same purpose for the reader. I have come to several conclusions, that may only provoke more questions, which in my opinion, is all good. My view of porn, in the comments that I made, is specifically pictorial comsumption for men, such as Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc... This type of porn, no matter how "artistic," "softcore," or "hardcore," they may be, ultimately portray women as serving only one purpose: to have sex with you. That is all porn affords to women. No intellect, no emotion, no intimacy, no love, no belief, no thoughts. Only raw sex service. It regulates the male and female relationship as a one-dimesional, one-way street. Now, on to romance. Are there romances that are one-dimensional? Yes. Pornographic? Yes. (But this could be said of any genre of fiction.) And this very type of romance may be influenced by the rise of pornography over the last 50 years. But are there romances that are not? Yes Are there romances that portray sexual relationships in a non-pornographic manner? Yes. I guess that what I am saying is that romance novels are broader and have greater room for diversity, from the worst to the best. Consider the roots of the romance novel. Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen, George Eliot, Daphne du Maurier, and even Hawthorne called one of his novels "a romance." Do modern day romance authors rise to the literary equivalent of these "pioneers?" Possibly some, but quite honestly I don't know, since I have not read enough to know. But one who comes to mind is A.S. Byatt, whose novel Possession, is subtitled "A Romance." Now of course, Byatt is not a typical Harlequin/Silloutte author, but just as we might trash those type of writers, let's not forget that Austen and Bronte were probably criticized in the same manner. My personal conclusion to these questions all come down to relativity. It all depends on book to book, and from writer to writer. Besides, genre labels like "romance," "gothic," "horror," "fantasy," "SF," "Literary Fiction," etc were created by marketing departments in order to sell more books. I think genre labels are useless, and only create division among writers. Now off to read my Stephen King before bedtime, Dallas Robbins cloudhill@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: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:48:00 -0700 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Interesting Thing On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:18:27 -0600 Christopher Bigelow writes: > Following is a little literary curiosity: > > you can raed tihs wtihuot a plrobem > Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, > it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, > the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer > be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you > can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn > mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. I got this from by brother-in-law the same time Chris sent it out. I haven't read more than a few paragraphs here and there of Roland Barthes, but I understand S/Z was built around this idea of the eye looking at things as a whole rather than the page as a linear sequence. Barthes went further though, typesetting the page to approximate the way the eye moves around as it's going down the page. I d'not aerge wtih teh fsrit stneence tguohh. It is sssretlufl to hvae to argnaam eervy (hold to the) wrod in the snneetce. Cedosnir teh flwlnoig: Andrioccg to a rscheecarh at cbgarimde uvrtnisiey, it mtetars not in waht oedrr the lteetrs in a wrod are, the olny ipretmont tnihg is fsrit and lsat letetr in rgiht psclae. The ohrtes colud be all mexid and you cluod slitl raed it whuotit ploeberm bscueae the hmuan mnid rades the wrod wlohe rhtaer tahn lteter by leettr. [DOM: Wroalh yru'oe eivl] If you look at the first example it's a lot more readable than mine because it preserves a lot of the lexical relationships. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, In the first word the capital A is closely followed by the double c, and the r and d have the same relationship though in reverse. The letters in earch are all in the proper order, as are brig. Actually, the proper order would be bridg, but the d being right next to the g reinforces the sense of the word. If you examine the passage word by word you'll find lots of cases where the letters are next to each other as you would expect them to be. Which suggests the way we read is a whole lot more complicated than the passage says. I've just started a new job where I type a lot of zone improvement plan codes heard over the phone, and I notice I occasionally transpose numbers. I wonder if it's nascent lysdexia but it may just be fat fingers because they're usually adjacent numbers. Sometimes when I'm reading to Mathew I'll switch the opening sounds of two words(en whime reading moo Tatthew), just moo take it ore minteresting. "Read it right, Dad." The way people read and piece together the world around them fascinates me. I wish I could do it too. About 10 years ago I started making notes for a series of stories about a couple with an adult autistic foster child. The stories are from the couple's POV, but I need to write a story from the boy's POV about breaking into his high school and sitting in front of the furnace transfixed by flickering flames. I'm not going to read The Foundry and the Surrey with the Fringe on Top first. I have assorted other characters with various cognitive blessings. Now if I could just figure out how to write a story. Words, speech acts and puns, oh my. My oldest son spent the two or three years before his mission (anyone else with a Michigan Hairy in Bahia Blanca? we have a neighbor in Argentina, but a bit farther south) writing a fantasy novel and posting it chapter by chapter to his website. I think he may have 100,000 words in the first section. It's called Dragonbane, and has a lot to do with spells and incantations, that is with the power of words, and what it takes to utter certain kinds of words effectively. Sounds a lot like priesthood, doesn't it? H. Soderborg clakr (aka Hollow Cluck, who needs to write reviews of recent novels by Dean Hughes, Michael O. Tunnel--who writes with wondrous brevity and compactness, Chris Crowe (must be a kannily kindred klucker) and Kimberly Heuston and finish reviews of Joseph Bruchac and AECannon and a superb novel that begins, "She had another name once but couldn't a sweet name once but couldn't recall it. It was a sweet name only her mama used" and has some horrific violence you wouldn't expect from a Deseret Book book, but also has to get the pomes assembled and editorial writ for the next Eerie Ant Hums) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:02:39 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Candor in Discussions In response to Marianne Hales Harding's post on this thread (which I've snipped for length), I agree with her that while this list is technically public, it is, more actually, a private forum. Private in the sense that a conversation shared by 250 people or so is private (but, as Marianne pointed out, talking to someone next to you on the bus is technically public, even though you intend your conversation between yourselves). And the fact that we place an archive of our large (but in a sense, still private) conversations onto an internet server so that anyone who has access to the web can research and read it, does NOT make our conversations and comments here the same thing as PUBLISHING them in the press. No more than a comment I might make in a classroom setting public. It is widely disseminated, but not public. Anyone can stick their head in and audit my class, but it is still not public in that sense that CNN is public, or even the Daily Universe is public. And that's because we have parameters, like a classroom, rules, like a classroom, and a specific (if at times nebulous) goal and objectives, like a classroom. We must be free to explore, discuss, dissect, and from time to time joke around. And not be worried about what the actual author of the book we are discussing feels about what we are saying, unless that author wants to join into the classroom setting. I, too, have seen people technically "outside" the list (they could join if they wanted), react violently to something posted on the list. But instead of joining the list and responding in kind, making our world interesting and keeping discussion going, they respond on their own web sites or privately. At which point my response is: "Uhhh, excuse me, but... was I talking to you?" Keep posting, Marianne. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:12:57 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Introduction: Clay Whipkey Wow, Clay, what a story your own life is! Welcome to the list. Already your comments have been provocative and interesting. I wish you the best of luck in your writing. It was like we've all been telling Tequitia the last couple of days: it is people from a decidedly un-Utah background that are going to revitalize, energize and ultimately reinvent LDS lit. Go for it. And as for Brigham City, I have to let you in on a little secret. I really DID blow Peg's head off. But they had to cut that scene to keep the PG-13 rating, so Richard just threw in that ending with Terry just so it'd make sense. So I got away with murder. You'll find out in the sequel. Kidding. (About the last part, not the "Go for it" part.) Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:53:57 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Anticipated Thom Duncan: > I won't [go see BoM movie]. And here's my reason. I hope it makes sense. Okay, Thom. You're off the hook. DON'T GO SEE IT. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:12:39 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: [AML] Re: Rogers' BoM: Most Controversial Movie Ever Made Somehow I got a post from Kim Kimura (not sure if it was through the AML list or not) which contained the following: Which begs the question... Whereas "Finding Nemo" and Miyazaki's "Spirited Away" generated virtually no controversy, and critics were unanimous in their opinions about the movies, are those movies really art? Or are they simply entertainment? "The Book of Mormon Movie" has provoked strong responses, great controversy, and prompted much discussion. People do NOT have the same reaction to it. Many people hate it. Many love it. If these are the hallmarks of real art, then this movie is truly artistic indeed. I wonder if Kim was serious about "controversy being a hallmark of real art"? We had a thread here about definitions of art some time back, but this one takes the cake. If this is particulare definition is supposed to be true, then my goal as an artist is to create controversy. Contrary to the goal of trying to create art (very hard) creating controversy is about the easiest thing in the world. I would offer you a list of ten controversial things I could do and lable as art, just off the top of my head, but I won't, because Jonathan would bounce back the list itself as too controversial! I hope Kim was being sarcastic. The controversy surrounding the BOMM (has anyone noticed that the initials for this movie kind of sounds like "bomb" when you say it fast?), has nothing to do with its artistry, it has to do with its subject. Based on a source that is itself controversial, and so near and dear to so many hearts, it would be impossible for a BOM film to not generate a certain amount of dis-polarization, even where the film outstanding in all respectes. In some cases, I think, people are so close to the topic that they cannot see the "film" as such. It is not a "film" in thier minds, it is a religious effort, or a missionary program, and therefore laudible in all respects, beyond comment. For these people, any criticism of the film is a criticism of the book! And great for them. I have no problem with that. That's why I'm convinced that BOMM will sell a truckload of copies on DVD. And if so, they just might break even, budget wise. So, commercially, it might be a wash. Critically, it is mixed, but more negative than positive (in the formal press). But artistically, please. There is no disucssion. But Thomas Baggaly and I have been having an interesting private discussion, and I think he hit the nail on the head, when he said that there is a great deal of SINCERITY and EARNESTNESS in Roger's effort, and it IS possible to respond positively to that, regardless of the lack of other artistic merits. This was heart-felt, and I cannot disrespect the person who likes it. I just wish that we as a filmmaking community could have provided something better for this type of die-hard fan to like. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:04:05 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies The problem is, what is *bad*? I watched Single's Ward (on video. It never made it out here in theatres.) and was totally unimpressed. My college age daughter and her friends LOVE it. They've watched it about 1/2 doz. times. It seems to me that at this point the Mormon audience is willing to watch and love just about anything that has a sort-of Mormon label on it. I have a feeling that the BofM movie will make quite a bit of money, whether it merits that, in some person's opinions, or not. Tracie - ----- Original Message ----- > Open criticism doesn't fix this? Don't film makers respond to > criticism? It seems to me that if a bad film is made by an otherwise > talented film maker and no one goes to see it, the investment required > with no return would keep him from trying again. We learn from our > mistakes. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:23:44 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Veloz Adapting King's "Bag of Bones" - --- Original Message --- From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" > >King's most LDS-intensive novel is largely considered to be "The Stand," >which takes place largely in Utah Utah stands in for Colorado, iirc, in the filmed version. I don't think there are any scenes in the written version of the Stand that take place in Utah. It's been many years since I read this, his second greatest novel (the first being, imo, Misery), so I could be mistaken. - -- Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:35:59 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Sports Well, in Kim's defense, she did say the "majority" of men, and in that, I fear she may be right. At least that's how I perceived it growing up and I continue to perceive it. Seriously, I went through several years as a teenager in the Church wondering if I might be a latent homosexual. I couldn't stand basketball, which was all our YM wanted to do. Three other like-minded friends convinced the Bishop to form another YM group who would get together on Tuesday night to play guitars, talk about movies and art, and never go camping. I loved participating in the road shows but never joined the Scouts. (It all seemed so silly to me -- wear a uniform, yuck!) I think we males who appreciate the arts are in the minority of our sex. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Marie Knowlton Subject: Re: [AML] Candor in Discussions Marianne Hales Harding wrote: I don't know if any others of you have just had this same experience, but I just received a rather stinging e-mail from a Mormon artist regarding comments I made on the AML-List over a year ago. An article in the Deseret News generated discussion on the list not only about this artist but also about balancing the arts and family life etc. I don't know if any others of you have just had this same experience, but I just received a rather stinging e-mail from a Mormon artist regarding comments I made on the AML-List over a year ago. An article in the Deseret News generated discussion on the list not only about this artist but also about balancing the arts and family life etc. I made similar comments as well, and received the same type of e-mail a few days ago. I think the artist in question was upset more at comments aimed at personal life and personal decisions, rather than criticisms about the artistic works produced. While anyone who creates art and shares it with the public must realize the artistic works themselves may be criticized (and thus be prepared to handle such criticism), I'm not sure many of us would react kindly to total strangers criticizing our personal lives as well. (Of course, it happens all the time anyway, but that doesn't make it right). Do we have the right to judge the private lives of others, simply because they happen to be artists, and put their works out for public consumption? No. What if the artist chooses to discuss his/her personal life in an interview, thus opening it to the public to a limited degree? Where do we draw the line? None of us can really know another person's life, what led them to decisions and turning points, what they've suffered as a result, etc. While we can talk about balancing art and family life, and other similar questions, we ought not to judge someone else's choices unless we can walk in their shoes for a while. What may seem on the outside to be self-serving, offensive, or just plain wrong, may look a lot different when viewed from the inside. And even if it doesn't, it's no one else's business anyway. [Marie Knowlton] "To love and be loved is both the journey and the destination." - --------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:17:42 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Adapting the Scriptures On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:47:36 -0600 Margaret Blair Young writes: > I'm afraid we're in a cycle of pablumizing our faith, > making checklists and plot-based movies ABOUT the scriptures Of course, this applies to Church History as well, yes? Haven't we seen it and condemned it to death on this list? > I see the pattern as a huge danger. I agree with you straight down the line, but danger is an intrinsic element of all artistic endeavors. In response to your concern about the effect these things can have on our children, well, that's what parents are for. I'd say that at least 80% of the art my kids are exposed to is either preapproved by, or concurrently viewed with, one or both parents. If I think a particular work of art is going to corrupt my child in any way, I'll either remove the thing from the house, or explain to my children why I have specific objections to the work. For instance, I think The Wizard of Oz contains one of the biggest lies of our age: "Remember, my sentimental friend, a heart is not judged by how well it loves, but by how well it is loved by others." My kids know I hate that line. They know that that may be exactly how the world judges a heart, but that it is not the way God judges a heart. Have I banned the film from our house? Of course not. But we're all so indoctrinated with my view of the issue that whenever that scene comes on some kid or another will call out, "Lies! All lies! Stop that -- Reverse it!" Sometimes wrongheaded works provide the best opportunities to teach correct principles. Not that you're suggesting this in any way, but, if there is any attempt to limit the scope of what an artist may use as inspiration or source material, then we will have to expect those limitations to effect us ... not just them; the ones who are talentless and boring, but us too; the insightful and wise ones. ;-) J. Scott Bronson "People do not love better by reaching for perfection, they approach perfection by loving better." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:52:23 GMT From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] POTTER & WELLINGTON, _Lehi in the Wilderness_ (Review) Review Title: Lehi in the Wilderness Author: George Potter and Richard Wellington Publisher: Cedar Fort Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 187 Binding: Oversized Quality Paperback ISBN: 1-55517-641-0 Price: $39.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle "Lehi in the Wilderness" -- if the title sounds familiar, it is alarmingly close to a Hugh Nibley work, "Lehi int he Desert." Given their fondness for Dr. Nibley, I wouldn't be surprised if their choice of title was in effect a tip of the hat to the elder statesman of Book of Mormon apologetics. The current work chronicles the authors' quest for the land described in 1 Nephi. This quest required years of work and a tremendous amount of work and money. One cannot help but admire the tenacity of the researchers. However, the authors sent my critical antenna on end with the very first sentence of the Introduction: We believe we have proven that the first book of Nephi is a true history. (xi) It may be just me, but any time someone uses the word "prove" in any of its forms, my immediate reaction is that this someone has committed the cardinal sin of overstatement. Can 1 Nephi actually be "proven" to be "true history"? This is an enormous burden to meet. Whether they meet this burden is yet to be determined.. The journey that led to the discovery of Lehi's trail did not start out that way. Potter was accompanying friends who were seeking the true location of Mt. Sinai. His discoveries concerning Arabia as the land traversed by Lehi and his family were serendipitous, and, in his mind, providential. He would later call on Wellington to join him and assist in documenting the search. Chapter 1, "Discovering the Valley of Lemuel," traces the first steps of their journey. As mentioned, they didn't start out trying to find Lehi's trail. But as each new area opened to their view, and as each piece of research provided new clues, the authors grew more and more certain that the "proof" of the historicity of 1 Nephi had indeed been found. As they tell their tale, the authors display a keen and very welcome sense of humor. An example: ...our small party stopped at a Bedouin camp to pick up rifles in case these Bedouin young men spotted wolves or rabbits. The tribesmen hunted both animals for food. Here, they we joined by another Toyota Landcruiser with an older Bedouin at the wheel and a concerned looking goat staring at us through the back window. Both driver and goat had long beards. We agreed that it must be a very pious goat. (p. 2) This sense of humor would manifest throughout the story. Chapter 2, "Jerusalem and the Way of the Wilderness," recounts the history of Judah leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, and describes what the authors feel Lehi's family's flight from Jerusalem must have been like. In discussing "the wilderness," the authors state: The recent discovery of the remains of a church at Wadi el-Kharrar, marking the place where both Elijah was caught up into heaven (2 Kings 2:11-13), and also the place where John the Baptist ministered, would seem to add weight to that hypothesis that the area to the east of Jerusalem, beyond the Jericho plain, was, in fact, "the wilderness." (p. 21) This citation serves as an example of the uneven nature of this book. Although reference to this "discovery" is footnoted, the footnote offers no information on the discovery, only that excavations in the area continue. Any tourist in the Middle East will testify that there is no end to the number of historical sites for which biblical claims are made. Can anyone really say that Elijah was caught up into heaven at the very place the authors were standing? Of course not. And yet, the "discovery" of this place is afforded some weight in the development of their thesis. Chapter 3, "The River of Laman and Valley of Lemuel," describes the process by which the authors determined that an area known as wadi Tayyib al-Ism is, in fact, the location of the Valley of Lemuel, the place where Lehi and his family camped after their flight from Jerusalem. With near clinical precision, the authors recount Nephi's description of the valley, and demonstrate how this location fits Nephi's description to a tee. They go so far as to analyze Lehi's dream, thought to have been shaped by his surroundings, and identify elements of the landscape that correspond to the contents of the dream, including a rock structure that may have served as the model for the Great and Spacious Building. It may be my natural skepticism, but it seems to me that two questions arise: 1. Is it possible that true believers can look upon a physical scene and see, not what's there, but what they want to see? 2. Even if the physical surroundings are an exact match, does this mean that this scene is the *only* match? Would it not have been more fitting to describe the area as a *possible* location of the Valley of Lemuel? Occasionally, the authors show commendable caution in announcing their conclusions: While surveying a mountain in the area, they discover remnants of what may have been an ancient altar: At this point in our research, we believe that we have found an ancient monument in the wadi Tayyib al-Ism that could have been an altar. However, we cannot be certain that this or any other of the monuments we found were ancient altars. (p. 40) The words "we cannot be certain" seem the operant phrase here. And they might well have been inserted throughout the entire book, lending credibility to their findings. Chapter 4 is titled "Lehi's Trail to Southern Arabia." In this chapter, the authors make their case for identifying the "Frankincense Trail" as the best candidate for the path Lehi and his family travelled. Herein may be found an interesting study of what we know about ancient trading practices. There is much good information here, presented in a lively and readable style. The authors once again demonstrate a good sense of humor as they recount their own experiences travelling the Trail. There is a real sense of humanity in the telling of their tale. They have an eye out for the humorous side of the story. Here we find another point of discontinuity in the telling of the story. An example: on page 61, the authors begin an extensive list of evidences that the Frankincense Trail is indeed the trail followed by Lehi and his family. "Here is a list of the reasons why it appears that Lehi took the Frankincense Trail all the way to Dhofar." And yet, a few pages earlier (p 57), a full-page color map is offered, showing the Frankincense Trail, and the major towns that mark it, and yet Dhofar is nowhere to be found on this map. Chapters 5 through 7 continue the story of the journey, bringing us to the arrival at Bountiful As with previous chapters, the text is a mixture of history, current culture, and (sometimes humorous) anecdote. The mix is nice, and makes for a comfortable read. In particular, an episode regarding a broken muffler and a recalcitrant mechanic made me giggle. It pointed to the difficulties of communicating in a tongue not your own. Once again, however, we encounter that confounded certainty with which the authors write: Armed with the knowledge that Lehi's caravan traveled the seventy-five miles from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Valley of Lemuel in three days, we felt that; finding Shazer, a fertile valley with many trees, from that point should be easy. We just had to look for an oasis no more than one hundred miles south-southeast of the valley. However, it took us another two years and three more field trips before we could say with certainty that we had found Shazer. (p. 73-4) I found myself constantly wishing they had been more moderate in their statements. Can anyone really know "with certainty" the location of Shazer? With chapter 8 we arrive at Bountiful. The narrative is beautifully told, the photos are striking. I enjoyed reading this chapter. However, and I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, the authors make some logical leaps that defy the imagination. This one, I thought, was a real whopper: The text of the Book of Mormon also appears to support the idea that Bountiful was populated and that the family had interaction with the inhabitants. In 1 Nephi 18:2, Nephi states that his ship was not built "after the manner of men." He also informs us that he "did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men." The clear implication is that Nephi was working within a community that had carpenters and shipbuilders. (p. 124) Is it just me? Does anyone else find a "clear implication" here? Isn't it at least as likely that Lehi and his family knew some shipbuilders and tradesmen while living near Jerusalem? Chapter 9, "Discovering Nephi's Harbor," documents the search for the site of the launching of Nephi's ship. With clinical detail, the authors parse the Book of Mormon text and draw conclusions about the ship's size, capacity, etc. It also lists the materials needed for such a construction. The port of Khor Rori, in southern Oman, is selected for this site (p. 152). The book closes with tributes to Nephi and to Joseph Smith, Jr. Both essays are moving and heartfelt. Evaluation There is so much to admire about this book. The dedication and perseverance of the authors are to be commended. Driven by a quest for understanding and clarity, they've devoted time, talent and treasure to their quest for the holy grail of Book of Mormon studies -- the location of Lehi's trail. I don't remember Cedar Fort producing such a handsome book prior to this. Despite some editing problems ("in the site of Lord," etc.), and some typographic errors, by and large the book is well-edited and lavishly illustrated. To their credit, the authors understood the need for a balance between scholarship and anecdote. Their journeys yielded some interesting, and often amusing, interactions with the indigenous peoples of the Arabian peninsula, and we get to listen in on some of these discussions. However, all of this can be overshadowed by their passion for certainty where certainty is not warranted. As most Book of Mormon scholars will agree, the final word on any element of Book of Mormon geography has not yet been written. So much is yet to be learned, it is surely premature to close the book on the Book and dismiss other conclusions. As distracting as these "certainties" are, the book has merit as it takes the reader through a part of the world not familiar to most. I really can't make a final judgment as to whether I recommend this book or not. It depends on what you're looking for. You may find the authors' conclusions compelling. Frankly, I hope not. I hope that uncertainty continues, for it is uncertainty that drives curiosity, which yields more discoveries and more viewpoints. - ------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #165 ******************************