From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #227 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, November 26 2003 Volume 02 : Number 227 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:44:33 -0700 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] The envious critic (was Harry Potter) [moderator's comment: Let's be careful to avoid ad hominem arguments in our posts. I think Scott makes some good points here about the nature of our critical discussion, but let's keep the "brotherly" in references to our brothers (or sisters) :)] Thom Duncan wrote: > Scott Parkin wrote: > > >think both Brother Samuelson and Brother Dutcher > >went over the line with their criticism of _The Singles Ward > > > > Unless we ultimately adopt the idea that art has no inherent rules, then > I don't see how we can claim that criticism of art is unwarranted. I didn't mean to suggest that the film shouldn't have been criticized. Far from it, I think the film should be criticized with the same vigor and effort as any other film, book or work of art. But I frankly don't see how polemic about wanting to kill yourself and/or leave the Church as a result of this film really qualifies as useful or usable criticism. It's venting. It's spleen. It's interesting to read and does less to reveal the film than to reveal the assumptions of the reviewer. The statements made no effort to improve the film, they only ridiculed it. When someone called his bluff, Brother Samuelson upped the ante and said he meant every word, and that he *literally* wanted to kill himself. Where's the critical value in that? How does that aid the filmmakers to improve their art? I agree with you on the general case--I love Brother Samuelson's insight. I think people would do well to listen to his commentary, and I think storytellers should go to extreme effort to understand both the nature of his criticism and the reasons behind it. He has a powerful understanding of art and context and the impact of the words on audiences. But in this specific instance, I think he went too far. I think he was hurtful and I think he knew he was doing it. The fact that he's a working artist makes the condemnation that much more damaging; he knows that his position of authority lends his words more weight. Which is why I think Brother Dutcher shouldn't have commented at all--he's become far too big a hammer to wield against a film that made few if any pretensions to art. It doesn't matter whether his criticism was valid; as the reputed "father of Mormon cinema" Dutcher's opinions carry too much weight to be casually used against another working artist. Having said that, I think some absolutely valid points of criticism were made. I think the film could have been better than it was, which is to say that it could have succeeded better on its own terms. I think the transition from funny to serious failed--as it does in most comedies. I think characters were undermined by some scenes that could have been rehandled. There were some clear weaknesses of craft that could easily have been addressed prior to release that would have given detractors less ammo. When the discussion was about how the film could have been better (I think this discussion is where Brother Samuelson first introduced the concept of a "death wish" scene to the list) I thought there was enormous value in it. But the context set at the beginning--that Mormon artists should leave the Church or die rather than allow this film to exist--undermined the egalitarian quality of the remainder of the discussion. For me, at least. Nothing is out of bounds when the discussion is focused on improvement rather than condemnation. But for me, contexts matter--in criticism as well as in story. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:03:13 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] New Edition of the BoM (Was: "another book query") I reviewed it here a few months ago. The review should be in the=20 archive. If not, let me know and I'll re-send it. At 03:33 PM 10/31/2003, you wrote: >Richard Johnson wrote: > >| My son, Ryan (a former member of the list who got into management and >| doesn't - he says- have time to read his work Email , let alone the >| list) who is a Librarian at Washington State University told me that, >| last month, his library received a really beautiful new version of the >| Book of Mormon, published by the University of Illinois. It was, he >| says, edited from a nineteenth century edition and given a really nice >| treatment by the publisher. > >I found this book on the site for the U of Illinois Press. Here's the link: > >http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s03/hardy.html > >It does indeed look like it's been nicely done. Thanks for the tip,=3D > Richard. >Now I have another book to put on my Christmas wishlist. > >I don't remember any discussion on the list about this new edition, either. >Has anyone out there read and/or seen this? Is it as nice as the website >makes it sound? > >-Quinn Warnick > > > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com jeffneedle@tns.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:54:07 -0700 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] My Web Page ___ Jacob ___ | Cool. Any chance that you'll RSS enable it? Please? RSS | Reader is my friend... ___ That's the plan. I have half the python code for that done as well as blog-like comments. Nate was hinting that I do the site he set up once I get it working. Unfortunately my wife has been calling the computer my "mistress" which suggests she's prefer cuddling watching TV rather than my working on the computer reading physics and philosophy. (Although I did put some wedding pictures up finally) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:54:19 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: Re: [AML] Story vs words=20 [moderator's apologies - this was another message overlooked in the switching of moderators. Sorry for the delay.] Susan M[almrose] "I haven't read it, but I've heard Stephen King wrote a book about bookwriting. Anyone read it? Any good?" I'm sure I won't be the only one to respond to this, but yes, he has written an excellent book called _On Writing_, half memoir about his career, half manual. It's excellent--and the only thing he's written that I've read, but I'm convinced from it that he's an excellent author. I just don't dare open his horror stuff, because I know I'd have nightmares. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:21:12 GMT From: Darvell Hunt Subject: [AML] "The 17" LDS films [moderator's apology: this message was overlooked in the transfer of moderators earlier this month. Sorry for the delay. To begin to answer Darvell's question, go to http://www.ldsfilm.com for complete info, though you might start at his list of LDS Cinema films: http://www.ldsfilm.com/lds_cinema.html] Great writing conference over the weekend in Provo! I enjoyed it very much--probably more so than any other AML event I've attended (and this is about the fifth one so far). I enjoyed it so much probably because I found more lectures this time in which I was personally interested. Anyway, I heard it mentioned during the panel discussion (with Kurt Hale, John Moyer, and Jongiorgi Enos) that there are 17 LDS films. Can someone please list these? I didn't know there were that many. And what criteria were used in placing these films on this list? (Are films like _Orgasmo_ really included on this list, like Kurt Hale joked?) Thanks, Darvell ________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:52:44 -0500 From: Cathrynlane@cs.com Subject: RE: [AML] Options for our conferences I'd love some kind of highlights, or recordings of selected secessions. I used to get tapes of CES conference and I enjoyed hearing a recording of the class. Almost like being there. =20 Speaking of the Writers Conference, I live way too far to come for a day, but my BYU Freshman Daughter heard about it on campus from some other source than me. Knowing of my soft spot and membership in AML she hit me up for the fee (and I was a softy). Her report of the conference was that it was good, but I would have liked it better because, "Mom, everyone was your age." Her very next comment was, "but I sat at a table and talked with with 5 published authors!" She also ate lunch with a lady who had published "tons of stuff". She really liked having an experienced author review her first line. All in all it was worth my $30.=20 Melissa Proffitt wrote: >I think we had a very good turnout for our writers conference, and we're >anticipating another good meeting in a few months with our Annual >Meeting. > >However, we know there are many AML-list subscribers who live too far >away to attend our functions. =A0We would like to know if any of you would >be interested, in the future, in purchasing some kind of recording of >the conferences--either cassette, CD, or DVD. > >Right now this is just a very nebulous idea, so don't dive for your >checkbooks yet. =A0But if you're interested, please let us know what would >be most useful. =A0Writers conference or Annual Meeting (or both)? >Highlights or every session? =A0Which media format is best? > >Thanks, >Melissa Proffitt > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:52:54 -0700 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] Review: The Elizabeth Smart Story On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:43:15 -0700, Eric Samuelsen wrote: >I thought it was quite a well done film, given that it was a made for >TV movie. And there's one last thing I need to say about it. There's >been a terrific amount of criticism aimed at Ed Smart in the Salt Lake >papers, and in the national media as well. He's seen as someone who is >cynically using his daughter's kidnapping for personal gain, as a >publicity hound, and so on. I'm quite astounded at how willing good >Utah Mormons are to judge the man. This after many media outlets made comments like "they're going to make=20 The story no matter what you want, so you might as well do it your way first." The Smart family really was trapped as far as publicity went--either bow out and let someone else sensationalize the story, or take charge and be accused of greed and cynicism. I think Ed Smart made the right decision, above all because it allowed him the greatest degree of protection for his daughter. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:44:58 -0700 From: Jared Walters Subject: Re: [AML] Review: The Elizabeth Smart Story Eric, I think I agree with your overall opinion of the movie. Most of the=20 things that made me cringe in the movie were little details. I didn't=20 mind the fact that the producers chose to shoot the flick somewhere=20 outside of Utah, but they could've done a better job at making the Nova=20 Scotia location pass for Salt Lake county. I mean the town they chose=20 looks nothing like Salt Lake with its quaint buildings and continuous=20 cloudy atmosphere. It's not quite as bad "Handcart" and their poor=20 location scouting. But some of the scenery is laughable like the=20 precinct where Ed Smart reunites with Elizabeth looks like some poorly=20 converted museum with cheesy block letters on a brick wall saying "Salt=20 Lake City Police" , but alas it's just a minute detail that most people=20 who haven't been to Salt Lake will overlook. Kind of like Ed and=20 Lois Smart's east coast accents and Mary Catherine's Canadian brogue=20 when she says: "He was abowwt in the howwsse on the rohff" , but she's=20 a kid so I can't nitpick too much. It won't surprise me if we see=20 another movie about this story. Hollywood just loves to capitalize on=20 true stories with happy endings. On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Approved: cracker=3D20 > > Last night, we had the rare opportunity to watch one of two made for TV > fact-based movies, the one on Elizabeth Smart and the one on Jessica > Lynch. I watched The Elizabeth Smart Story, then switched to Jessica on > commercial breaks. I suppose it counts as Mormon lit. > > The Elizabeth Smart Story surprised me. The approach was low key, and > quiet, a good deal less sensational than most teleplays in the genre, > and it hewed fairly close to the facts, at least as far as I know them. > I did follow the Elizabeth Smart story with some interest, but I > certainly don't presume to know it well enough to know exactly when they > took artistic license. I did notice a few liberties: when Elizabeth was > found by Sandy police, she did eventually--after a twenty minute > interview--say 'thou sayist it.' I don't believe she added 'I say it.' > I think they were trying to make Elizabeth appear just that tiny bit > more volitional, just a tad less brainwashed. Understandable, and I > didn't mind it. I do know that they didn't have the Smarts escort > Elizabeth through a huge crowd of media when they took her home from the > station. > > The teleplay really downplayed the sexual aspect of Elizabeth's > kidnapping, and frankly, I was glad. Mitchell did call her his 'wife,' > and a note at the end referred to him being formally charged with > aggravated sexual assault. That's enough. Elizabeth's ordeal was > horrific enough; they didn't need to sensationalize the worst part of > it.=3D20 > > I read one review of the movie that criticized the acting. Frankly, I > thought Dylan Baker was fine as Ed Smart. I thought he met what seems > to me a tremendous challenge; playing a decent human being trapped in an > awful situation and dealing with it as best he could. It was a quietly > effective, non-histrionic performance. I also liked Lindsay Frost as > Lois Smart; again, she was quietly believable throughout. The scenes > where you see the pressure the kidnapping put on their marriage were > very well done, I thought. Again, nobody screamed at anyone; they > played it as two basically decent people, committed to each other and to > their family, but genuinely disagreeing on how to proceed.=3D20 > > The scenes with Amber Marshall as Elizabeth and Tom Everett as Mitchell > were less effective. Everett played Mitchell as a more or less generic > religious loon, instead of as a specifically Mormon loon. The writing > led him that direction, of course, but still, I didn't hear Mitchell's > former connections to Mormon culture in his speech patterns, in the > falling inflections and the word emphases peculiar to our = culture.=3D20 > > At the same time, I'm a bit relieved that that choice was made. Frankly, > I think most folks are able to see that it wasn't Mormon culture or > Mormon theology that produced Mitchell. Mental illness is what produced > him. But while our culture didn't produce him, it did provide him with > his unique vocabulary. Mormonism played a very small role in this > movie, and that was fine with me.=3D20 > > We didn't need to see much of Emmanuel's wanderings. Elizabeth may > indeed have tried as intrepidly to escape as she did in this movie, but > it's inconsistent with what else we know of the story. But really, the > story here is of Ed Smart, and his persistent unwillingness to give up. > He's the only person who initially believed Mary Catherine's > identification of Emmanuel (which still seems to me quite wonderful and > miraculous), and he's the only person who really did anything about it. > > The Salt Lake police come across as well-intentioned bozos in this > movie, and that's all to the good. There's not much question that they > blew the case five ways from Wednesday. I especially liked their > repeated assertions that 'we're doing all we can,' and 'trust us, we > know what we're doing.' And I thought Baker's gradual disillusionment > with such comments was very nicely portrayed. > > I thought it was quite a well done film, given that it was a made for TV > movie. And there's one last thing I need to say about it. There's been > a terrific amount of criticism aimed at Ed Smart in the Salt Lake > papers, and in the national media as well. He's seen as someone who is > cynically using his daughter's kidnapping for personal gain, as a > publicity hound, and so on. I'm quite astounded at how willing good > Utah Mormons are to judge the man. Let me just say a few=3D20 > things: first, we have absolutely no right to judge his decisions > anyway; second, there was going to be a movie and a book anyway, so why > not cooperate and retain some control of content?; third, the Smarts are > giving most of the money to charity, and fourth, Ed Smart has an agenda, > and has had since this event. He's been pushing for the Amber law. > He's been pushing for changes in how the FBI handles these sorts of > cases. And he wants to provide hope for other families facing similar > tragedies.=3D20 > > I'm just glad his daughter is home and safe. I'm glad Mitchell and > Wanda Barzee are in prison. I'm really happy for Angela Ricci, whose > husband's good name was dragged through the mud the way it was. (SLC > police were so tunnel vision obsessed with Richard Ricci, they ignored > far more plausible potential suspects, and that was very well > portrayed.) And I'm glad the movie was what is was, quiet, > nonsensational, reasonably non-sectarian. And over. > > The Jessica Lynch movie, on the other hand, looked awful, what I saw of > it. But that's another subject altogether. > > Eric Samuelsen > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:00:16 -0700 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Writing from another POV I haven't read the book so can't comment on the validity of the female=20 response. But I can admit to being surprised upon learning years ago=20 that many Mormon women would respond to a good looking young man in=20 ways similar to what men do upon seeing a pretty woman to whom they are not married. I had entered adult-hood and the first few years of marriage thinking that unchosen sexual thoughts were the curse of men only, that women were somehow above that. My wife and some of her friends taught me different over the years. I had also been taught only men were "turned-on" by the sight of=20 female nudity, that women don't respond viscerally. I have since=20 learned that this is also an old wives tale. A female friend of ours=20 years ago ultimately divorced her husband because he refused to do his=20 husbandly duty. In my naivete at the time, I couldn't understand how=20 any man could NOT have carnal desires. My point to all this is that maybe we men and womean aren't all that=20 different in every case. What may appear to be out of the normal range=20 of female experience for one or a group of women may be perfectly normal for another group of women. If I've learned anything in my amateur study of the human animal over=20 the years, it is this: If you can imagine it, chances are that some=20 person has done it, or thought it somewhere. If this is true, even the=20 most bizarre take on femaleness or maleness in literature can reflect a=20 certain reality among some subset of humanity, Thom Duncan Annette Lyon wrote: >"I appreciated what she shared even if I disagree with her belief that >men writing from a woman's perspective rarely get it right. There might >be a lot that get it wrong, but there are a goodly share who have >impressed me: WallyLamb was the first who sprang to my mind." > > >I've only read one of his, _She's Come Undone_, and I think he did >remarkably well with the female perspective--with one major exception >that pulled me right out of the story. Without getting graphic, let's >just say he apparently believes an old wive's tale about female >response. If his editor was a woman, shame on her for letting that one >get through. > >Annette Lyon > > > >-- >AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > > =20 > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:42:10 -0600 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] My Web Page At 05:27 PM 11/7/03, you wrote: >I know there used to be a "AML Living Room" with an index of >people's pages, but last time I looked at it I don't think it'd been >updated for a long time. The Living Room is defunct. I'm sorry guys! Last updates were well over=20 four years ago. It's still uploaded, technically, but there are no more links to the page anywhere (that I'm aware of). Some people were concerned about security. The LR page was easier to access bios than the archives. The only way to find it now is to know the location. This link might work: http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo/aml/ unless I did delete it and forgot... but I think I just took down the links and LDS Webring linkings. And for the compilation post, my website is here: http://www.alyssastory.com That's actually a "fake ID" that takes you to the sprintmail/Earthlink page above (minus the "aml" part). Easier to remember and type! Linda Adams Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:19:00 -0700 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Sugar Beet promotion Kathy, I love the Sugar Beet, but I remember there were about 3 that crossed over the line for me. I don't have time to go back and check the archives to see which ones they were, but if you want to e-mail me privately I will tell you what they referred to. Nan McCulloch - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Kathy Tyner" To: Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Sugar Beet promotion > No need to duck from the flames. ;-) > > But, if you are going to claim to "Stand for Something", then why > not state exactly what articles bothered you and why? Instead of > merely stating your opinion that the line of good taste has been > crossed and one can be funny without being dirty. Tell us where > we stumbled into the mists of darkness and how you think we > could correct that. Then we can have a conversation about what > a particular staffer had in mind when they wrote what they did. > > In other words, we can have a discussion about it and learn > something new that either party may not have thought of before. > > Kathy Tyner > Orange County, CA > > > ----- Original Message -----=3D20 > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:32 PM > Subject: [AML] Re: Sugar Beet promotion > > > > Sorry if I seem to be a prude, but as to the Sugar Beet coming out in > > print form, my vote is, "Don't bother". > >=3D20 > > I actually used to like it the few times I visited their web site in > the > > past, but several of the latest articles IMHO have crossed the line of > > good taste. > >=3D20 > > I think you can be funny without getting dirty. (Now do I duck from > the > > flames or "Stand for Something"?) > >=3D20 > > Just my opinion, > > Robert Starling > >=3D20 > >=3D20 > > -- > > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:18:18 -0800 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Options for our conferences I'd certainly be in favor of recording sessions of both. It just killed me not to be able to come out to this last conference. My main preference would be to record the classes given, probably on cassette. I would like the keynote address as well. I like the way it's handled at Sunstone Symposiums. You get a list of what presentations are taking place and can pick and choose which classes/presentations/roundtable discussions or keynote addresses you'd like to have and pay for each one separately or get some kind of discount for ordering a bulk amount. Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Melissa Proffitt" To: Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:51 AM Subject: [AML] Options for our conferences > I think we had a very good turnout for our writers conference, and we're > anticipating another good meeting in a few months with our Annual > Meeting. >=20 > However, we know there are many AML-list subscribers who live too far > away to attend our functions. We would like to know if any of you would > be interested, in the future, in purchasing some kind of recording of > the conferences--either cassette, CD, or DVD. >=20 > Right now this is just a very nebulous idea, so don't dive for your > checkbooks yet. But if you're interested, please let us know what would > be most useful. Writers conference or Annual Meeting (or both)? > Highlights or every session? Which media format is best? >=20 > Thanks, > Melissa Proffitt >=20 >=20 > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:48:15 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Speech Patterns On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:09:11 -0700 Barbara Hume writes: > There's also a specific cadence to scripture reading. The voice > goes along in a monotone until the final syllable of a passage, > when it drops down a couple of tones. Not when I read 'em. scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:57:19 -0700 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] Pride and Prejudice I was one of the lucky people to get tickets to Saturday's screening and was pleasantly surprised by how good the film was. It has a few moments (especially in the first half) where it could have been edited a bit tighter, and it felt ten or fifteen minutes too long, but overall I loved it and found myself laughing outloud several times. It knocks the socks off Singles Ward. I was also happy to see that, contrary to some reports, the cast wasn't filled with Barbie dolls. Lydia was the only one that really fit that category, but she had to be one since it was part of her character. Kam Heskin was perfectly cast as Lizzy, I think. She is pretty (but not Barbie pretty), with unique features and an intellectual look that fit the part. I liked Orlando Seale as Darcy, but part of it may have been because he so closely resembles Colin Firth. The script was adapted very well from the book, not sticking too close when it would have made things drag, but working in the high points in creative ways. It was great fun. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:42:47 -0800 From: "Levi Peterson" Subject: Re: [AML] TOPPING, _Utah Historians . . ._ (SLT) Reviewer Martin Naparsteck indicates that Utah historian Gary Topping suggests that fear "kept [Juanita Brooks] from following her materials [in her history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre] to what many would regard as their most convincing interpretation." He writes, "Brooks was reluctant whenever she felt obligated to dissent from official church points of view." It was, in effect, a fear of being disloyal, he argues, that kept her from accusing Brigham Young "even as an accessory after the fact." I have a hard time understanding how Gary could arrive at that conclusion when Juanita writes expressly in her history of the massacre that Brigham Young was informed about the facts of the massacre very early and helped conceal them for many years. Juanita never tried to conceal her dislike for Brigham Young. The only church leader whom she disliked more was David O. McKay, whom she resented for refusing her access to affidavits about the massacre. Levi Peterson Associate editor, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought althlevip@msn.com (425) 427-9642 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:33:09 -0700 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: Re: [AML] Review: The Elizabeth Smart Story A review centered around this thesis: "Female captivity narratives tend to be more gripping than male narratives because we can accept that they might fall under the control of others; men are somehow expected to escape." http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=3Donline&s=3Donion111903 Captive Audience by Rebecca Onion "Bringing Elizabeth Home: A Journey of Faith and Hope, penned by Lois and Ed Smart and featuring a frighteningly monochromatic jacket photo of the Smarts and their six blonde children; and I Am A Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story, by ex-NYTer Rick Bragg." And a funny comment on the above review: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_iraqnow_archive.html#106962263348 308272 Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:24:09 -0700 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon speech patterns Mormons use lots of repetitious redundancies Nan McCulloch - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Walters" To: Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon speech patterns > I took a Semantics class years ago where my professor actually had a=20 > special lecture on Mormon grammar and their speech habits. One typical=20 > characteristic is the need for Mormons to balance their nouns out and=20 > verbs out with dual witnesses. An example is during prayers, to pray=20 > for "no harm and danger", "love and charity" "He is kind AND generous" > > It can never be just one adjective for the average Mormon. > > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 07:29 AM, JanaRiess@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/17/03 4:12:18 PM,=3D20 > > owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: > > > >> There are specifically Mormon speech patterns? What are they? > >> > >> ~Jamie Laulusa > >> > > > > This is Utah, not just Mormon, but how about: > > > > "I fill of the Spirit"? > > > > Fillings, nothing more than fillings . . . . > > Jana Riess > > > > > > > > > > -- > > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > > > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:29:57 -0800 From: "Shelly Johnson-Choong" Subject: Re: [AML] My Web Page Susan Malmrose wrote in part: > Who else has a webpage? Can we get a compilation post of everyone's > URL's if they want to share them? I've got one. It's a lot of work, but a lot of fun. http://www.shellyjohnsonchoong.com Shelly (Johnson-Choong) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:12:19 -0500 From: Samuel Brown Subject: [AML] Mormon Speech Patterns [Moderator's comment: I think we'll all "fill" better about this linguistic clarification :)] as a former linguist i can speak to this. it's actually called "Wasatch Front vowel reduction" and has been well described in the linguistics literature. it's just a regional variation, very common, much like the minnesotan or the canadian vowels. bc the wasatch front is largely Mormon, it's associated with them, but it's not specific to them. Thus we have doctors "hill" ing their patients, eating "mills" at lunchtime, and so forth. What's most interesting is when explants (guilty) over-correct. =20 I have caught myself climbing up a "heal" in my attempt to distinguish myself from my linguistic roots. the bottom line (linguistically speaking) is that there is no relevant difference between the dialectal pronunciations, other than as tags of sociocultural differences. as for the doubling of adjectives, there's good scriptural basis for that, as the Hebrews (and the New Testament writers) frequently used doublets and triplets for emphasis. That's one of the points of OT poetry that has so fascinated commentators: rather than use methods (rhyme/rhythm) that are lost in translation, the Hebrew sacred poets used patterns that are harder to lose in translation. Bringing me back to my first point, which was... I'm not sure. ciao. - --=20 Samuel Brown, MD Massachusetts General Hospital - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:53:57 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Re: Speech Patterns -=3D20 On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:09:11 -0700, Barbara Hume wrote: >At 05:51 PM 11/14/03 -0500, you wrote: >There's also a specific cadence to scripture reading. The voice >goes along in a monotone until the final syllable of a passage, >when it drops down a couple of tones. Then it starts over. I've been experimenting with this in my ward for the last three years. When asked to read, I slow down, use structurally appropriate emphasis and even alter my tone very slightly in dialog. I began doing so mainly to engage my own interest, but I've noticed a bit of change in others now, too. It's much more interesting now that people don't seem to be racing along as fast as they can in that dreadful monotone. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:20:45 -0800 From: "Kathy Tyner" Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Three Sounds like we have enough interactions to do:=20 "The Six Degrees of Tayva Patch", (the Mormon version of "The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon"). And Thom, I'm sure a lot of us on this list would line up to do a love scene with you in one of your plays-for the sake of art, of course! ;-) Kathy Tyner Orange County, CA - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Annette Lyon" To: "aml-list" Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Women in LDS Film, Not Pretty Enough: Part Three > >>(Like how I tried to delicately > >>side-step the age issue?!) I'd do a love scene with her no problem. > > > >I have. Neener, neener, neener. >=20 > And Tayva Patch has pulled my hair. Granted, it was a wig when she was > the Baker's Wife and I was Rapunzel, but still. It's my meager claim to > fame. :) >=20 > Annette Lyon >=20 >=20 > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:07:41 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: Harry Potter - from Stepen King's POV [MOD: My apologies that this post apparently got lost in a black=20 hole--almost certainly my fault, as things were shifted around during the=20 transition between moderators. --Jonathan Langford.] ArialTime out folks: I hear Stephen King's name used authoritatively with reference to J. K. Rowling's inability to write an acceptable sentence or a book for that matter. So I am sending this post with quotes from Stephen King's review of "The Order of the Phoenix." Quoting his book on writing is one thing, but quoting it to refute the writing ability of J. K. Rowling whom he has openly praised simply does not wash. __________________________________________ =20 ArialPotter Gold A review of "The Order of the Phoenix" By Stephen King =20 King takes a shining to J.K. Rowling's delightfully dark Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix here, in the spirit of the exam motif, are some questions (and answers) of my own. The first is the most important...and may, in the end, be only one that matters in what is probably the most review-proof book to come along since a little best-seller called the Bible. 1. Is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix as good as the other Harry Potter books? No. This one is actually quite a bit better. The tone is darker, and this has the unexpected =96=96 but very pleasing =96=96 effect of making= Rowling's wit and playful black humor shine all the brighter. Where but in the world of Jo Rowling would one find deadly supernatural beings and their frightening familiars existing side by side with empty gloves that twiddle their thumbs impatiently, not to mention enchanted interdepartmental memos that fly from floor to floor in the Ministry of Magic as paper airplanes? =20 2. Are there spoilers in this review? Spoilers from a novelist who thinks the best dust-jacket flap copy ever written was "[Gore Vidal's] Duluth tears the lid off Dallas"? Perish the thought! But even if there were spoilers, would it matter? I'm betting that by the time this piece sees print, 90 percent of the world's Potter maniacs will have finished the novel and will be starting their letters to Ms. Rowling asking when volume 6 will be ready. 3. You say this one's better than The Prisoner of Azkaban, better than The Goblet of Fire, is there still room for improvement? Heavens, yes. In terms of Ms. Rowling's imagination =96=96 which should be insured by Lloyd's of London (or perhaps the Incubus Insurance Company) for the 2 or 3 billion dollars it will ultimately be worth over the span of her creative liftime, which should be long =96=96 she is now at the absolute top of her game. As a writer, however, she is often careless (characters never just put on their clothes; they always get "dressed at top speed") and oddly, almost sweetly, insecure. The part of speech that indicates insecurity ("Did you really hear me? Do you really understand me?") is the adverb, and Ms. Rowling seems to have never met one she didn't like, especially when it comes to dialogue attribution. Harry's godfather, Sirius, speaks "exasperatedly"; Mrs. Weasley (mother of Harry's best friend, Ron) speaks "sharply"; Tonks (a clumsy which with punked-up, particolor hair) speaks "earnestly." As for Harry himself, he speaks quietly, automatically, nervously, slowly, and often =96=96 given his current case of raving adolescence =96=96 ANGRILY. These minor flaws in diction are endearing rather than annoying; they are the logical side effect of a natural storyteller who is obviously bursting with crazily vivid ideas and having the time of her life. Yet Ms. Rowling could do better, and for the money, probably should. In any case, there's no need for all those adverbs (he said firmly), which pile up at the rate of 8 or 10 a page (over 870 pages, that comes to almost a novella's length of -ly words). Because, really =96=96 we hear, we understand, we enjoy. If the sales figures show nothing else, they show that. And if by the end of chapter 3 we don't know that Harry Potter is one utterly, completely, and pervasively angry young man, we haven't been paying attention. Arial*** Skip some remarks about whether or not such dark books are good for young readers, and what the best thing about the book is =20 - -- To the first King says, yes they are, unless it gives them nightmares. - --To the second, King thinks, it is the dark villan -Umbridge, with her girlish voice, toadlike face, and clutching, stubby fingers, is the greatest make-believe villain to come along since Hannibal Lecter. *** 6. Last, but not least, how good are these books? How good are they, really? One can only guess...assuming, that is, one doesn't have access to Dumbledore's wonderful Pensieve Glass. My own feeling is that they are much better than Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, which is their only contemporary competitor. Will kids (and adults as well) still be wild about Harry 100 years from now, or 200? My best guess is that he will indeed stand time's test and wind up on a shelf where only the best are kept; I think Harry will take his place with Alice, Huck, Frodo, and Dorothy, and this is one series not just for the decade, but for the ages. =20 Arial(Stephen King's remarks were cut and pasted from: <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D3a2f8b89.0307052235.67= 41af29%40posting.google.com ) =20 ArialBill Willson, writer <http://www.iwillwriteit.com <http://www.latterdaybard.com =20 ArialHere's a great place for LDS artists=20 to show and sell their work.=20 <http://www.minutemall.com CHECK IT OUT! =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #227 ******************************