From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #263 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 Saturday, February 14 2004 Volume 02 : Number 263 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:48:33 -0700 From: Eric D. Snider Subject: Re: [AML] Reviews of _Latter Days_ > Kathy Tyner: > He notes= > at > the end, because Cox focused so much on the erotica, he will drive > away a lot of potential audience who might've given the film a look. > > I haven't seen the film yet. I'm watching it this Saturday, and surely I will post a review. But from what I know, I think this comment is way, way off the mark. The potential audience for this movie is gay people, not Mormon people. Your average Mormon, I think, wants nothing to do with a film about a gay missionary, whether there's erotica involved or not. Some of your less-average Mormons might have a curiosity about the film, but they'd be approaching it warily, knowing there might be some Mormon-bashing involved. Gays, on the other hand, loooove movies with positive gay characters, even if the movies are not very good. (See also: Mormons loving movies with positive Mormon characters, even if the movies are not very good.) Most gays in America grew up with some sort of religious beliefs in the home (because most Americans, period, do), so most of them have faced at least a mild conflict between religion and homosexuality. So they can relate to the film. But the film's number one target audience? Gay Mormons, gay semi-Mormons and gay ex-Mormons. That demographic is going CRAZY for this film, doing all they can to get it shown in Utah, making trips to L.A., looking for pirated copies, and so on. They HAVE to see this movie. They think -- they hope -- it will tell their story, a story that no film has ever told, but that they've all experienced. At least in the back of their minds, there's the idea that in all likelihood, no one is ever going to try telling this story again, so this one had better be good. And so I sort of admire the film, even though I haven't seen it, and even though I suspect it's probably kinda lousy. Because while its most key market -- gay Mormon returned missionaries -- is comparatively small (though far larger than your average Mormon believes it is), it is a market that will embrace this story very personally and fervently. I would love to write something that had that kind of power, to penetrate into people's souls and make them say, "Wow, that's how *I* felt! I never thought I would see it portrayed so vividly!" So the question is, when will there be a mainstream-Mormon cinema entry that does that? A few have accurately captured missionary work ("God's Army," "The Best Two Years"), or have somewhat accurately depicted certain quirks about our culture ("Singles Ward," "Pride and Prejudice"). But when will there be one that smashes through an audience's ribcage and plunges straight into its heart, making them say, "Wow, that's how *I* feel about the gospel!"? Answer: I dunno. Not today. It's pretty late, and no one's even started yet. Eric D. Snider ******** Buy Eric's CD, "Will Make Jokes for Food"! Info at http://www.ericdsnider.com/shop.php - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:57:00 -0700 From: Eric D. Snider Subject: Re: [AML] (The Onion A.V. Club) Review of _Latter Days_ Message-Id: <09E47349-5D31-11D8-9D23-000393C2C28C@ericdsnider.com> Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Eric Samuelsen: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anywhere that Jay Cox has > cried censorship. As best I can make out, he felt he had a > distribution deal which was reneged upon, in large measure because of > pressure from the community, or at least, perceived pressure from the > community. Cox hasn't used the word "censorship," but gay activist groups in Utah certainly have. I was at the Sundance Film Festival when they had their press conference to decry Madstone's decision not to show the film, and the word "censorship" came up a few times. Cox himself issued this statement: "At a time when the LDS Church is claiming a supposed newfound tolerance for gay members, I am deeply disappointed by such an intolerant stance. For a church whose founder Joseph Smith believed in 'teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves' I find it quite sad that they would attempt to take such a choice away from the people of Salt Lake. I truly hope that we will be allowed to screen this movie and give people the opportunity to discuss the issues it raises and to judge its 'artistic merits' for themselves." If the word "censorship" isn't used, it's at least implied. It's also implied that it was the LDS Church itself that pressured Madstone, even though Madstone never said any such thing, and even though it's highly, highly doubtful the church would bother doing that. Why, "Orgazmo" has played in SLC a number of times -- just last weekend, in fact -- and to my knowledge, the church has not tried to dissuade the Tower Theatre from screening it. One amusing thing about that press conference was how they kept saying it was ABSURD to suggest the movie had no artistic merit when it was written and directed by the guy who wrote "Sweet Home Alabama," for crying out loud! Man, when the best proof of your guy's talent is that he wrote "Sweet Home Alabama," you are really grasping at straws. I'm just sayin'. Eric D. Snider ******** Buy Eric's CD, "Will Make Jokes for Food"! Info at http://www.ericdsnider.com/shop.php - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:21:08 -0700 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] 2003 Mormon Drama bibliography On Feb 10, 2004, at 10:30 PM, Andrew Hall wrote: > ----, Here's Brother Brigham. American Heritage School (SLC), Oct. > (Staring Arrington) ----, J. Golden. American Heritage School (SLC), > Oct. > (Staring Payne) Thanks for paying attention, Andrew, but although these two plays were initially scheduled, the series was concelled before they could run. Best to you, Steve P. == skperry@mac.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:08:53 -0700 From: "Angela Hallstrom" Subject: [none] Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _Standing on the Promises_ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:19:01 -0600 Message-ID: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Melissa Proffit wrote: Readers who are fans of a particular author or series will buy (or check out) every book by that author or in that series because they depend on every book being similar where it counts--particularly in the hows of discussing certain subjects. In this sense, the readers' trust *does* carry over from one book to the next. Readers who desire to be safe--to avoid graphically described violence or sex and to not read profanity--are looking for that promise, the absence of those things, and will follow an author whom they can trust to fulfil those needs. This is precisely the reason why I'm unsure about the idea that a writer can have a strategy to start out "safe," then venture out into "unsafe" areas and carry the audience along. Although I think that some readers will have learned to trust a writer and will therefore go the distance with him or her, even if the subject matter or writing style is outside their comfort zone, I also think there would be a large group of people that would feel betrayed and even angry when they turn to an author they expect will make them feel a specific way, and the author doesn't follow through with that implied contract. For example (and this is a hypothetical), if what I really want to write is a book about sexual abuse in a Mormon household, but I start out by writing books that are primarily meant to uplift and affirm members of the church in order to build an audience, it seems to me that a large portion of the audience I'd built up would feel misled and shocked by my new tone, and not only wouldn't follow me through the new book, but would be angry enough to swear off anything else I would write. Even if there's no bad language or graphic descriptions, the difficult subject matter could be enough to turn people away. Of course, the hypothetical I'm describing here has to do with an author who starts out with the strategy of building up an audience with one type of writing, then pulling something of a switcheroo and hoping the majority of her old audience stays with her. I'm not speaking about the writer who starts out writing one way, then grows and evolves and changes into another kind of writer. That writer, I would think, wouldn't be overly concerned with carrying over a large portion of the old audience. She would write what was in her and hope it would resonate with some of them, and believe that it would reach new readers who hadn't approached her work before. Actually, as I'm writing this, I'm starting to think, hey, what a blessing is it to have any kind of audience at all? For me, at least, my aforementioned scenario is *extremely* hypothetical, because even having a book published and read by a few hundred people would be so exciting I'd be able to die a happy woman : -). Having a story published in _Irreantum_ has been thrilling, even though it doesn't have a huge readership. Just yesterday I sent off a story to a few small literary magazines, and if I opened up my mailbox and found an acceptance instead of a rejection slip I'd be smiling for days, even though chances would be good that the story would be published and then silently disappear without a peep from anyone but my husband and my mom, who would have already read the story five times previously. So, yes, most writers write because they want to be read. And I'm lucky because I'm not trying to make a living by my writing (although it would be nice to supplement the family income a little), and if I were, building and sustaining a large audience would be a definite burden to drag around. I'm sure the picture alters, too, once you have become a well-known writer who has a book that is important and necessary and you want to be exposed to as many people as possible, like Margaret. Those motivations toward a large readership aren't really driven by considerations of money or fame, but instead by having the opportunity to affect the lives of as many people as possible. But I can't help thinking that no matter the situation, audience has got to be a secondary consideration, coming after the largely artistic motivation that spurs a person to write in the first place. I would hate to sit down and start a book thinking, "What can I write that would appeal to the largest audience possible?" What a strait jacket that would be. But I would be lying if I didn't admit that I want my writing to appeal to *somebody*! I'm not one of those "I write for myself and the sheer joy of banging my head against the keyboard in frustration and despair" types : -). I would venture to say that the vast majority of those who write want to be read, and read by as many people as possible. But I would hate for that to be the primary motivation behind a work. Angela Hallstrom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:11:11 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:14:04 -0600 To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG & GRAY, _Standing on the Promises_ Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list >Melissa (responding to my earlier comments) wrote: >Many readers make their >buying/reading decisions based on what they know of one author or series. >[snip] In this >sense, the readers' trust *does* carry over from one book to the next. >Readers who desire to be safe--to avoid graphically described violence >or sex and to not read profanity--are looking for that promise, the >absence of those things, and will follow an author whom they can trust >to fulfil those needs. I agree that this happens about buying patterns. I also think, though, that the decision to keep trusting the author is made on a page-by-page and paragraph-by-paragraph basis as the reader goes along. In other words, even if a reader has read and enjoyed 10 books by a particular author, if the reader encounters issues in book #11 that he/she is uncomfortable with, I think he/she will not be much more comfortable with those elements than if it were book #1. Trust is continually reestablished. So I think that (a) it is possible to build a readership, but (b) if you try to take that readership somewhere they don't want to go, you're likely to lose most of them anyway at that point, no matter how much previous territory you've journeyed through together. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:14:48 +0000 From: ThomasDuncan01@comcast.net Subject: Re: [AML] Angels in America I contend that he did get them right. In what way? Because the people he creates in the play are all human. And, last I checked, Mormons are human. No two Mormons speak the same way, use the same lingo, talk about the Church the same way. New York Mormons think differently about the church than do Utah Mormons. I knew a Mormon lady once who absolutely loved the temple but had never heard of Joseph Smith having had a vision. Had she been in a play, a lot of Mormons would have said, "How can she be Mormon and not know about Jospeh Smith?" We are not as homogenized a people as we think we are. - -- Thom Duncan NOW expounding on things nonsensical from: ThomasDuncan01@comcast.net > Sam Brown wrote: > > > It seems to me that Kushner's story is about homosexuals in America, > > not Mormons. We ought not to push too hard to make this a Mormon > > story. > > I just don't see where this excuses Kushner. So what if his intent was > to focus on homosexuals, not Mormons? Why does that excuse him from > getting his main characters right? > > -- > D. Michael Martindale > dmichael@wwno.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:23:32 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Angels in America I'm going to send on to the list parts of several emails I recently wrote to my friend about Angels in America and the characterizations therein. It's not really a new point, but expansion and possibly clarification of some other points I've made and that others have also commented on. Excerpt 1: I guess my sense is that Kushner uses the mythic elements of Mormonism poetically, and the Mormon characters iconically. Which is rather different from dealing with characters realistically. Not that his Mormon characters aren't realistic, but I don't think they're realistic *in their Mormonness*. Which is an issue quite apart from Kushner's use of the historic/mythic elements of Mormonism. (There's another dimension of Mormonism which I would call theological that he doesn't really deal with at all, but that too is a separate issue...) Excerpt 2: For what it's worth, I think I have identified two fairly basic areas where I think Kushner gets his Mormon characters wrong--or at least, atypical. First, there's the lack of any kind of social connection to other Mormons. Being Mormon is like being a member of a close extended family: you really can't rid yourself of people asking how you're doing and coming over and visiting and such unless you make an active effort to push them away (and often not even then). You get the kind of isolated-in-the-city experience that Joe and Harper and Hannah experience only if you've somehow removed yourself from the system--which people attempting to maintain the facade of normality as Joe and Harper are would *not* do. Certainly, it's possible to feel internally isolated and alienated, and to feel that one's connections to the community are largely artificial; but that's a rather different experience. I understand *why* Kushner wrote his Mormon characters as pretty much isolated individuals, for both thematic and dramatic reasons; but I don't think it's an accurate reflection of Mormon life. Second, there is missing the tremendous emphasis on family that is so central a part of being Mormon, and that is the single factor that causes greatest conflict for Mormons who are same-sex attracted (SSA). I think it would be safe to say that in the play, Joe has a great desire to be *normal*. Maybe that's true of Harper as well--at least, her failure to be normal is part of what pulls her away from the rootedness of both her marriage to Joe and her Mormonism. But in Mormon thinking, the goal of existence, really, is to have families. God is married, and creates worlds for his literal children so that they--we--have a place to live and grow up and be like him. In order to do so, we have to get married ourselves. The children we have on earth are temporary, for earth life, but the spouse we choose here is the person with whom we will create worlds and have children and live as gods ourselves. Anyone, I daresay, who grows up as a believing Mormon will have a great deal invested in that vision, and in carrying out that vision as a part of marriage. That sense of importance, that sense of Joe *giving up* the very thing that is the whole purpose of eternity in order to accept that he is gay, is entirely missing from the play. (Hm. It occurs to me that this may be one reason why I find the treatment of Joe so harsh: because, as a Mormon, I see him as already having sacrificed a great deal simply in calling himself gay and getting together with Louis. What he's doing is not just a sin, in Mormon terms; it's an act that removes from him what he has been taught is his very reason for existence.) What we have instead, in Kushner's Mormon characters, is the zionistic vision of Mormonism's founding translated entirely into political terms, in Joe's endorsement of Reaganism. I'm not going to say that there aren't Mormons who felt that way about Reagan and conservative politics. But the mistake Kushner makes, in my view (following Harold Bloom), is to see the zionistic, Millennial fervor of early Mormonism as entirely subverted into conventional middle-class, unthinking "traditional values" and focus on appearances among modern Mormons. Certainly there's some truth in that picture. What is missing, I think, is the realization that for modern believing Mormons, there's still (in my view) a fair amount of Millennial zeal. That zeal primarily focuses, for good and ill, on rearing our families, and only secondarily on things like missionary work and community involvement and (for some like Joe) politics. Kushner seems to think that for his Mormon characters, family is important only in the same ways and for the same reasons that it's important to Catholics and Protestants and Jews and everyone else in American society. And that, I think, is a misreading. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:30:19 -0600 From: "Lisa Olsen Tait" Subject: [AML] CARD, Alvin Maker Series (review) This was supposed to be a review of Crystal City, the sixth book in Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series, but it has now been over a month since I finished reading it and my memory is fading fast and I just don't have time to write much. But I want to dash off a few thoughts and see if anyone else has some comments. Overall, I have really enjoyed this series. Seventh Son blew me away. And Red Prophet. And I enjoyed Prentice Alvin very much, too. Card's blending of history (and his alternative version), folklore, theology rings true for me and provided a deeply satisfying, delightful discovery in the early books of the series. I keep wondering in amazement at how he ever thought to use the Mormon and historical elements in such original, yet organic ways. In a nutshell, I read the Alvin Maker books as an exploration of what it means to be a prophet, to have a unique and transcendent gift that points to a special destiny and yet to have to work that all out within the confines of regular human existence. They're also about building a movement, or a society--and that's where they intersect with a general audience, because there are so many parallels between Mormon history and American history that ultimately we can ask the same questions of both: how do you create a new, ideal society? I have no idea how non-Mormon readers respond to the books, but to me as a Mormon I read them as a deep and thought-provoking exploration of the world view espoused by the restored gospel. So I'm sorry to say that I have not enjoyed the last two books as much as the first four, each one less that the previous. In short, the later books seem to have less depth, feel more contrived, have lost their "magic." And I can't quite put my finger on why. I can say a few things. I don't like the relationship between Alvin and Peggy. Or maybe it's that I feel Peggy is becoming increasingly under-used, more of a device than a character. Same with Verily Cooper and Measure and Armor of God. These people who are seemingly so integral, not just to the first couple of books but to the vision of what Alvin is trying to accomplish, are reduced to plot devices, showing up when it's needed but not part of the story anymore. Even Alvin himself has lost some depth. It seems like all he ever does is smart off and crack jokes (Card writes some very clever dialogue, but in places it gets tedious) and then brood over his supposed failures. In general, I think this is the major problem I have. The characters get less nuanced, the conflicts and issues more routine. The whole exodus thing in Crystal City with the large group of slaves feels like a huge detour in the real story, and one that is handled only superficially. I didn't connect with any of the new characters in Crystal City, and I felt like Card was mostly telling, not showing, his story. What there was of it. Furthermore, I did not like the large gap between Crystal City and Heartfire, especially since Card kept referring back to things that had happened in the meantime, things that seemed important but were only alluded to (all the backstory with Jim Bowie, for example, and Abe Lincoln and then there was something about freeing a group of slaves?). It's like there's a whole book missing. Would this feel different to me if I had participated in all the discussions on the Hatrack River website? But should I have to? I think Card's narrative voice has been very uneven in the last two or three books, as well. The earlier books have a very strong narrative presence. Alvin Journeyman begins with an entire section entitled "I thought I was done" where the narrator (who claims NOT to be Taleswapper, which was a natural inference in the earlier books) draws us back into the story. But by the time we get to Crystal City there is very little of that vernacular voice and the tone in general seems uneven. All that having been said, I'm not giving up on the series yet. I would like to believe that Card has something more up his sleeve that he is building towards and that will eventually put a different perspective on these last two books. Bottom line: I still want to know what happens, but I'm less sure that I will be satisfied with it. Anyone else care to comment? I sure would be interested to hear some other opinions. Maybe someone can be more articulate than I've been. Lisa Tait - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:20:58 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] 2004 To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com From: AML Subject: [AML] Invitation to Annual Meeting Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:08:03 -0800 Message-ID: <379311156-1463792126-1076620100@aml.b.tep1.com> Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Please join us in "Wrestling With the Word" 2004 Annual Conference The Association for Mormon Letters March 5, 2004--Utah Valley State College, Orem March 6, 2004--The new Salt Lake City Public Library A two-day conference on Mormon literature and culture, featuring presentations on Mormon fiction, drama, poetry, and folklore, with special panels on Mormon cultural studies and Mormon film. Friday, March 5, 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (registration from 9:15 a.m.) Location: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah, Student Center Room 206 Sessions & Panels: Discussion of the Book of Mormon as literature Mormon persecution rhetoric LDS oratory in an early American context Mormon characters in mainstream drama, film, and TV LDS satire in The Sugar Beet Assessing Mormon cinema Film screenings, folklore, and more Saturday, March 6, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (registration from 8:15 a.m.) Location: Salt Lake Public Library, Auditorium and Conference Rooms Keynote Speaker: Bruce Jorgensen, "What if the Book of Mormon Were a Novel? Which, of Course, It Isn't" AML Luncheon (for preregistrants only; see below): Featuring annual AML literary award presentations plus plenary address by AML president Gideon Burton, "Wrestling With the Word: Literary Mormonism" Sessions & Panels: Papers on Hugh Nibley and Virginia Sorensen LDS historical fiction LDS women's folklore Domestic fiction Contemporary LDS poetry Jack Harrell's novel Vernal Promises Discussion of LDS cinema by Eric Snider, Eric Samuelsen, and LDS Film Festival founder Christian Vuissa Special panel on opportunities and obstacles for Mormon cultural studies (Hispanic studies, women's studies, rhetorical studies, LDS film criticism, etc.) ENTRY FEES The following entry fees will be charged at the door, or you can preregister (see below). If you want to attend the Saturday luncheon, you MUST preregister so we can determine an accurate meal count. General Public Friday and/or Saturday conference (no Saturday lunch): $15 Saturday conference with lunch: $30 (Must preregister for lunch; see below) AML Members Friday and/or Saturday conference (no Saturday lunch): $10 Saturday conference with lunch: $25 (Must preregister for lunch; see below) Full-time Students Friday and/or Saturday conference (no Saturday lunch): $10 Saturday conference with lunch: $25 (Must preregister for lunch; see below) PREREGISTRATION (Deadline: Feb. 26) Two options: 1) Visit http://aml.c.tep1.com/maabWjyaa4kKLbeg3l6b/ to pay for your preregistration online. 2) E-mail your preregistration request to AML treasurer John-Charles Duffy at jcduffy@hotmail.com, and then pay your fee at the door on the day of the event. For directions to venues, information about parking, and the currently updated preliminary schedule of sessions and speakers, please visit http://aml.c.tep1.com/maabWjyaa4kJEbeg3l6b/ Note: If you can't attend the annual meeting, please consider joining the AML, because members automatically receive a volume containing many of the papers presented at our annual conferences. For membership details, visit http://aml.c.tep1.com/maabWjyaa4kJEbeg3l6b/ Special Offer: If you've never seen a copy of Irreantum, the AML's 100-page literary quarterly, reply to this e-mail with your name and postal address, and we'll send you a free sample sometime during the next year (depending on availability). If you're a former subscriber or have received a free sample in the past, please don't request one. To stop receiving e-mail from the AML, please use the UNSUBSCRIBE link below. ==================================================================== Update your profile here: http://aml.u.tep1.com/survey/?a84D2W.beg3l6.YW1sLWxp Unsubscribe here: http://aml.u.tep1.com/survey/?a84D2W.beg3l6.YW1sLWxp.u Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://www.email-publisher.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:38:25 GMT From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] THAYER, The Conversion of Jeff Williams (review) Review Title: The Conversion of Jeff Williams Author: Douglas Thayer Publisher: Signature Books Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 234 Binding: Quality paperback ISBN: 1-56085-178-3 Price: $18.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Imagine a Mormon Holden Caulfield meeting an honest Jay Gatsby and you get a taste for what is in store in this fine book. And I suppose there's some irony in a Jeff from San Diego (me) reviewing a book about a Jeff from San Diego. I promise we are not the same person. Thayer, already a successful and celebrated writer of Mormon fiction, has gifted the literary community with an extraordinary, and extraordinarily ordinary, tale of youth, emergence and discovery. And along the way, he explores just what it means to be a Mormon teen in a world essentially hostile to traditional Mormon values. The Williams Family is a transplanted Mormon family, uprooted from Provo to beautiful San Diego. Their still-at-home son, Jeffrey, is a normal teenager, with all the normal desires and inclinations, held in rein by his Mormon roots and his watchful parents. Jeff is an inveterate surfer, girl-watcher and otherwise-normal young man. And while his father is sometimes distant, his mother is blunt and relevant, often to the point of embarrassing the young man. When he receives an invitation to visit his cousin Christopher Lowery in :Provo, Jeff is less than excited about the prospect of a full summer behind the "Zion Curtain." During his trip from California to Utah, he observes: We came around the Point of the Mountain and dropped down into Utah Valley, which all the kids back home called Happy Valley because everybody was so religious and perfect. They needed a big sign saying that just to warn people. (p. 13) His witty observations of the Provo Mormon scene continue, revealing a cynical side to the young man that I'm sure his mother disapproves of: I stopped at the light in front of the Missionary Training Center. A long iron and brick fence ran along the front of the squat, square buildings. All it needed was a drawbridge. (p. 20) Unlike Jeff's family, comfortably middle-class, Christopher's family is fabulously wealthy. They live in a huge home in the hills overlooking BYU, a mansion. They own several luxury cars, have their own swimming pool, and servants to take care of their everyday needs. But life has not been consistently kind to the Lowerys. Early on they lost two children, and now their son Christopher is in danger of needing a kidney transplant. Having lost one kidney, and having been in need of dialysis (and in constant mortal danger of infection), Christopher is just now regaining his strength sufficiently to rejoin his friends and their activities. An avid athlete and musician, he is once again able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Jeff's visit is a blessing to Christopher. He now has someone his age with whom to talk and pray, to go swimming and play music. As Jeff continues through the summer with his cousin, his reluctance to leave San Diego for the summer disappears, and he finds himself growing close to Christopher. Illness and near-death has drawn Christopher closer to his spiritual nature. He wants nothing more than to be well enough to serve a mission (his Patriarchal Blessing indicated he would do so). And although Jeff admires Christopher's devotion, he isn't quite sure whether this is the life for him. His hormones, and his cynicism, seem deeply embedded. In one scene where Jeff is having lunch at BYU with a friend of the Lowery family, he spots a lovely young coed: One silky blonde came by just as I was emptying the trays into the trash. She held her head up, not looking to the right or left. She was a girl who knew how much her body was worth, which must have been plenty. Watching her walk, move her sleek body like a cat, her smile just this side of a smirk, I wanted to slip up to her and whisper, "Is this the face that launched a thousand ships?" She'd probably have said yes. (p. 104) As the story continues, the reader is at something of a loss to know what to make of the two boys. Christopher is ailing and desperately needing the company, and assistance, of his cousin. Jeff, less religious, less interested in spiritual things, is the ministering spirit to his cousin. Through the summer, they grow closer to each other, learning from each other and leaning on each other as they face their daily challenges. "The Conversion of Jeff Williams" is indeed a coming-of-age story. It places two different young men, related by blood but on completely different life paths, together in an intimate relationship that would blossom into real friendship. Each boy has some growing up to do; the summer of Jeff's visitation will prove to be formative, and determinative, for both boys. I was particularly charmed by the episodes where Jeff visits older Provo residents who knew his father when he was a boy. Jeff finds in these visits, and the viewing of old photographs and other reminiscences, a fuller picture of who his father really is. And he finds himself growing closer to his parents as he spends this extended period of time away from home. I can't fully flesh out the heart of the book without revealing the ending. And there are other plot elements that are better left to the reader to discover. I can say, however, that the final chapter brings it all together, in an extraordinary mixture of narrative and symbolism. I was genuinely moved and sad to see this book come to an end. There is a subtle richness to this book that will stay with you long after to you finish reading it. You may even recognize some of the people -- they inhabit your everyday life. And you may find yourself relating to one or more of the characters. However the book affects you, it will certainly raise important questions about relationships, families, spirituality and friendship. I'm very glad to recommend this book. - ----------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:15:12 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Young and Gray To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Message-id: <000001c3f1be$112e67c0$c352bb80@1027JKHBPartTime> Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I'm actually quite flattered by Eric's comments and agree with SOME of his observations. My main point of disagreement would be that the trilogy is a different animal than any of the other literary works I've written, and that they get much of their authenticity from my co-author's sense of language. I love the way Andrew Hall describes the trilogy: "Really interesting history books." They are a hybrid of history and fiction, but the heavier weight goes to the history, which dictated where our characters would go and did indeed restrain my literary license--as I felt it needed to. But let me change the thread a little. I love the word Eric uses in his post: nuanced. I want to examine the word from a different angle--the idea of being nuanced ARTISTS. Speaking for myself, I'd have to say that most readers would be surprised to see the huge differences in the things I've written. Some who've read "God on Donahue" and assume they know what kind of writer I am would be surprised that I would also wrote _House Without Walls_. Some who've read _House Without Walls_ would be stunned that I'd write "God on Donahue." I, however, have never felt conflicted in these nuances. ALL of my work reflects an aspect of my life and my faith. It suggests that I, like any good character, am "nuanced." I struggle with many issues in Mormonism, but I celebrate my faith too. I suspect that all of us on this list could write stories for a wide spectrum of audiences. And frankly, I wouldn't want to be limited to one way of writing, or even one audience. And I certainly wouldn't want the Church or even the AML list to explain to me what I should or should not write. I hope to someday write a drop-dead funny novel. I hope that my family will not abandon me as I write about my great great grandfather and include my certainty that he suffered from depression. I hope to be able to appreciate a feast of exotic as well as common offerings at the Mormon table. Green jello AND peal-it-yourself prickly pear. Though my personal tastes lead me to the Levi Peterson and Virinia Sorenson segments of the banquet table (definitely prickly), I hope I am gracious in accepting the presence of "home" offerings--even though I won't have time to sample their wares. I hope I can even get to the point of taking some joy in Sunday School. I hope to be more patient with my students--even with the one who was upset that I included an essay in my supplement about the Church which was not written by a General Authority, and which suggested that the priesthood restriction possibly was not of God. (The student proceeded to give a "Doesn't everybody know" explanation that the priesthood has always been withheld from some people. Shucks, I just can't help but see a big difference in restricting the priesthood from all but one tribe and extending the priesthood to all but one lineage.) Obviously, I'm not where I should be yet or I wouldn't have written that last sentence. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:58:46 -0700 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] disenfranchised Mormons [was Marketing you work] - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Duncan" To: Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Marketing you work > We talk on this subject as if our culture is monolithic. I just do not > believe this is so. As I sit and type this, I can think of the > following kinds of people who self-identify as active Mormon and yet who > also live lifestyles and have philosophies and political ideas that are > as "non-Mormon" as you might think. I speak of active open and closeted > gays, a Mormon narc, intellectuals, closet doubters, Democrats, > Socialists, members of the RLDS church (yes, who are also simultaneously > LDS), blacks, Chinese, Japanese, French, Science fiction geeks, people > who read only romances, others who like MTV, some who pay for the Spice > channel. I know Mormon polygamists, again open and those yet closeted, > single mothers, adults active LDS single and active who don't consider > oral sex a sin. Though my research of sexual deviancy for a play on > which I am currently working, I have become aware of active Mormons for > whom incest is an expected sign of parental love. I know Mormon nudists > who are also Bishops and High Priests. > For, if there is anything that is uniquely Mormon that we should all > share, it is the idea that we don't compromise our beliefs for anyone. > "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." > > Thom Duncan > I think you may have hit on a very important point here Thom. I have given it a lot of thought over the years, and have come to the conclusion that in the broadest sense possible, all of the above disenfranchised Mormons which you have listed and identified as a viable audience for Mormon Letters, are a part of God's Church. Doesn't the Prophet stand at the head of the church? and isn't he the mouthpiece of God for the entire world? The following is an excerpt from a very long essay I wrote about this very subject. ______________________ Excerpt from "God's Church" an essay by Bill Willson So then, just what is God's church in heaven and on earth? I firmly believe that it is us. All of us, His children whose spirits He has begotten, and endowed with a portion of his intelligence and designed a physical tabernacle to house our spirits, and designed a way by which those tabernacles can come to earth to live with our mortal parents who also are His spiritual children. All humans in all of the worlds, in all of this universe, and perhaps other universes, are spiritual descendants of God. He is the father in heaven of us all. What about those who do not believe, or who have no knowledge or faith in the father of their spirits? Perhaps some of these individuals, don't even believe they have a spirit. They may think that they are just some sort of a disturbance in the milieu, or ambience of the cosmos with no real purpose or function relative to the entire ilk of reality. Just because a child doesn't know a stove is hot, doesn't mean it won't burn them if they touch it. Absolute, or capital "T" truth does not change just because some one doesn't know it or embrace it. Even the ignorant or the unbelievers, atheists, agnostics, godless, Satanists, heartless humans from the dregs of creation are part of God's church. ______________________ So I guess what I'm trying to say is just because someone doesn't fit the image of accepted Mormon doctrine, it doesn't mean that they are not part of the church, they just have a different reality, and are doing the best they can with what they have. Bill Willson, writer http://www.iwillwriteit.com http://www.latterdaybard.com Here's a great place for LDS artists to show and sell their work. http://www.minutemall.com CHECK IT OUT! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #263 ******************************