Semi-Official Report on AML

("Semi-official" because it will include an awful lot of not-very-official asides.)

It was an event worth reporting on in more detail, so I will.

First of all, by "event," I'm not referring just to the official meeting, which was fantastic. I'm also referring to the whole experience for ME, which included a separate dimension, since I spent four years in Berkeley about 20 years ago and still consider it--or, at least, the ward and its members there--a sort of intellectual home for me. Maybe not "home"--maybe "breeding ground." The point is that I wouldn't have begun writing again if it hadn't have been for my Berkeley experience. While living there, I was introduced to AML, for one thing (though not, ironically, by a Berkeley person). And while living there I had conversations, and CONVERSIONS, that led me to think in the ways and on the subjects that have informed my writing ever since.

So before I jump into thoughts about sessions, let me just put this here:

(Matathias Westwood and Lynsey Jepson)

This is the Berkeley ward church building. Here's what the chapel inside looks like:

It has amazingly managed to resist efforts at conformity (well, in more ways than one). In particular, there is no carpeting under the benches, which means that it continues to have good acoustics. I have enjoyed singing in many choirs there.

Another aspect of the conference weekend that I need to report on is the wonderful interaction with old and new friends. The conversations "in the halls," as an old AML friend once put it, is as important as the sessions themselves. And my great conversations took place in the halls of the conference setting, which was the Berkeley Institute (another place I used to hang out in):

(me, Karen Rosenbaum, Angela Hallstrom)

And in the restaurants we went to:

(Scott Hales, Matathias Westwood, James Goldberg)

  

(Rebekah Call, Andrew Hall, Rachel Hunt Steenblik, James Goldberg, me, Matathias Westwood)

And, not least, in the car on the way to and from Berkeley (11 hours each way--and we talked for ALL of it):

(I let James do all the driving in traffic. I'm nice that way.)

OK. So now let's talk about the actual meeting.

FRIDAY

1. Harrison Paul talked about anger. His paper was called, "'Can Ye Be Angry and Not Sin?' (Ephesians 4:26, JST): Developing a Latter-day Saint Christian Account of Anger." I haven't met Harrison before, but I found his subject fascinating. He spoke of a useful and virtuous kind of anger, "compassionate indignation," in contrast to the kind of anger that is not Christ-like. Very intersting.

2. 2 papers looking at the scriptures as literature. Kylie Turley examined the use of the phrase "as if" in Helaman 5, and what we can learn about sources and narrative because of that phrase. McKayle Turner examined the use of "in" in the phrase, "thrust your hands into my side" in 3 Nephi. I found this approach to narrative analysis intriguing. It opens up way of learning from the scriptures that is probably unfamiliar and therefore invigorating to many who might be looking for ways to invigorate their study of the same old books.

3. Jake Johnson spoke about "Mormons, Musical Theater, and Belonging in America," focusing on the musical, Promised Valley, and its affect on LDS and American culture. I can't believe I'd never heard of this musical before. It was apparently a pretty big deal in its time (and starred the actor who had originated the role of Curly in Oklahoma--which wasn't its only nod to that musical).

Then Mason Allred spoke of the how Elfie Huntington and Susa Young Gates used technologies (Elfie, the camera, and Susa, the typewriter) to "reveal their creativity."

4. Jacob Bender gave an exciting presentation about the work of the author Mark Z. Danielewski, whom I had never heard of. Danielewski isn't LDS but spent some time in "the cultural epicenter of Mormonism." I didn't find the connections to Mormonism all that convincing, but I found Jacob Bender's presentation fascinating; he's an energetic speaker!

5. My session! 3 friends (Eric Jepson, Scott Hales, James Goldberg) and I read from poetry we produced as a part of MoPoWriMo, which I wrote about here.  I thought we were fantastic.

I was very happy to get that over with on the first day so that I could relax after that. It was also nice to be able to talk about my work on subsequent days with people who enjoyed it. I love the work that James, Eric and Scott shared. I'm especially proud of Scott, who branched out of his usual historical work to write some autobiographical poems this year.

6. Scott went on to present on a poet whose work he's been interested in, Ina Coolbrith. He also got an Ina Coolbrith scholar (and author of her biography), Aleta George, to present on her. The two papers were a great combination, George's focusing on Coolbrith's life and work in general and Scott's on her Mormon connections and history. Fascinating.

7. Gabrel Gonzalez Nunez did my heart good by reading a paper on some "forgotten" poets who published LDS-themed work in a small church publication in Mexico in 1937-1955. I kept imagining those poets, pouring their souls into their poems, never knowing that a bunch of us would gather and think about their work nearly a century later.

Then Rebekah Call wowed everyone by presenting a song/poem she had written about Eve, to be sung as a lullabye. She took us through the poem line by line--no, word by word--first, which was important, because nearly every singly word was loaded with cultural context that we wouldn't have gotten without knowing things about the Hebrew language and the Mishnah. Then, as if we weren't already impressed enough, she sang the song (to which she had composed the tune). She is a highly-trained singer, and her performance was so haunting and beautiful that we asked her to sing it again, which she did. Shivers!

8. After dinner, we reconvened for a panel on the work of our Lifetime Achievement award winner, Carol Lynn Pearson. A well-deserved award, of course. Then she read to us from various books. She's a performer at heart, so we got the full experience. She has done so much work, of such variety, that I'm sure each of her fans loves her work in a particular way. For me, she was the first poet I ever read, and the first writer to show me what a Mormon-centric literature could look like (outside of the scriptures, of course). I read her even before I discovered Jack Weyland. Watching how her poetry was read, and quoted, in my church and community taught me that people are hungry for this. I'm very grateful.

(Carol Lynn Pearson)

SATURDAY

1. Because of some poor planning with breakfast, we missed the opening remarks by AML President Eric Jepson, but he has kindly posted them here, and I enjoyed reading them just now. Eric has been a contributor to AML for years, and I'm especially grateful for the work he put into this conference.

2. A session on "Reading the Book of Mormon as Literature," which consisted of papers produced in undergraduate "scriptures as literature" classes at BYU. I know that Kylie Turley teaches the course, from which most of the papers were drawn, and that she supervised the preparation and preparation of these papers. She must be an amazing teacher, because the papers were wonderful. Her son, Niels Turley, presented on the brother of Jared and is interactions, through faith, with the Lord. He pointed out how we can see the brother of Jared's growth over time, and what we can learn about what faith is and isn't through this story (my favorite in the Book of Mormon, by the way). Kaitlyn Day showed how the principles of peace psychology can be applied to King Benjamin's efforts to bring the Nephites and Mulekites together as a community. Maddi Landrith demonstrated the poetic structure of Ether 2:16-18. She had broken up the verses into lines to show repetition and a "spiritually significant architecture." All three students were poised presenters and their papers fresh, accomplished, and interesting.

3. Bob Reese brought slides showing drawings, cartoons, daguerreotypes, and written descriptions of what Joseph Smith really looked like, several of which I hadn't seen before. We keep trying to find some kind of artifact that can communicate the charisma that Joseph Smith reportedly radiated, but it's surprising what a wide variety of interpretations we can get, even when we have the death mask (which might not be all that reliable anyway, Reese pointed out, since it's possible Joseph's face was disfigured in the fall out of the window).

4. One of my very favorite sessions: Kathryn and M. J. Pritchett told of their experience as consultants to Berkeley Repertory Theater in its production of Angels in America. The Pritchetts were asked because they were LDS and also theater people, a happy combination that allowed them to function as defenders of the culture to the theater people, and defenders of the theater to their fellow Mormons. This was my first time meeting the Pritchetts, and from what I can tell, they were the perfect people to do this consulting.

5. Shannon Soper presented a compilation of animated GIFS she had created in response to a challenge issued by President Jepson just for the conference. She was to apply popular culture gifs to an LDS theme, and she did it very well--or, at least, I'm told she did by those who know. I personally didn't know the TV whose scenes appeared in the gifs, so a lot of the joy of the jokes passed me by. Looked fun, though!

6. Margaret Young spoke of the process of creating The Heart of Africa. She wrote the screenplay but then felt strongly that the Congolese people deserved their own movie, made BY them in their country, so she handed the camera off to Tshoper Kabambi, a Congolese filmmaker. There are not even any cinemas in the Congo, so Kabambi is doing pioneering work (as is Margaret). She showed us an excerpt.

7. A panel of authors read and spoke of the trend of Heavenly Mother poetry, much of which can be found in the anthology Dove Song (Rachel Hunt Steenblick, Bob Rees, Carol Lynn Pearson, Tyler Chadwick). I liked that Tyler read some older poems from the early days of the church.

8. Four historian/writers who have worked on the Saints project (Angela Hallstrom, Melissa Leilani Larson, James Goldberg, Scott Hales) spoke about the work of gathering stories and fitting them into a narrative structure for the church's history series. I am astounded at the amount of meticulous work it takes to produce even a paragraph for this book. I don't think many people realize just how big of an emphasis has been given to writing only what can be documented historically. Even just saying that something happened on a cold day requires documentation before it is allowed to be put into the story.  I know these writers personally, and it gives me great joy to see how well they are qualified for this work because of their skills at storytelling and historical research. The project is in good hands.

Scott Hales, Melissa Leilani Larson, Angela Hallstrom, James Goldberg)

9. After dinner, we had a panel about the work of Melissa Leilani Larson, the deserving recipient of the Smith-Pettit award for Outstanding Contribution to the field of Mormon Letters. The panel (Matathias Westwood, Janine Sobeck Knighton, Shelley Graham, Chantelle Squires) demonstrated well why Melissa deserves this honor, something that no one who has seen any of Melissa's work would dispute. I especially enjoyed Shelley's discussion of how well Melissa creates moments of "awkardity" between characters--moments that make the audience writhe and push characters to more vivid interactions.

10. The AML Awards for 2019 were announced. The awards continue to be probably the most valuable purpose AML serves. I have seen writers who otherwise don't seem to care at all about the field of LDS literature display the award proudly and make sure it is included in their biographies. The award still means something, and I am deeply grateful to Andrew Hall for the work he does keeping track of what is being produced and leading the awards committee.

  (Carol Lynn Pearson, James Goldberg) 

     (Eric Jepson, Melissa Leilani Larson)

11. Some of the award winners or finalists were present, so it was a sweet dessert to hear from some of the winning work. (I snuck in a reading of a poem by poetry winner, Lance Larsen, from What the Body Knows.) 3 of the panelists from the Melissa Leilani Larson panel produced a dramatized reading of one of the moments of "awkwardity" in The Pilot Program. I really enjoyed hearing a personal essay from previous award-winner Karen Rosenbaum. (Hoping she'll publish some of her essays someday soon.)

SUNDAY

And we're still not done!

After a wonderful day on our own (many of us showed up to Berkeley ward for church), we assembled again for a screening of Melissa Leilani Larson's Jane and Emma. This screening was also sponsored by the Bay Area Mormon Studies Council, and was followed by a Q&A session with Meilssa and two others who produced/directed the film. The story, screenplay, and directorial choices occupied me and my carpool-mates for the first hour or so of our ride home the next day.

Here is where I would write a paragraph summarizing the entire experience, but I think I've said it all. So this is what you get for the summary: SO GLAD I WENT. And THANK YOU, ERIC.

There. Now you feel like you've been there.

She Ain't Dead Yet

 Oh, my dear, sweet, old, AML. Maybe you've got some kick in you yet.

What a wonderful weekend I've had in Berkeley, my old haunting grounds, with AML, also my old haunting grounds. I'm grateful the stars aligned to combine so many of my favorite things in one weekend. I got to share a hotel room with my dear friend Angela Hallstrom, who has been too much missing from my life since she moved away. I got to spend many hours in the car with people whose minds and work fascinate me. And then I was nourished all day long by thoughtful talk about the intersection of art and faith.

I'd love to go session by session, as I used to do, and maybe I'll take some time to do that later. But, for now, here are the thoughts yipping at my heels.

1. I was sitting in a session of student papers. By "student papers," I mean papers that were originally written for undergraduate sections of "Scriptures as Literature" classes at BYU, and tended and coached by the amazing Kylie Turley (one of the best professors at BYU, I'm convinced). Anyway, sitting there, learning about another way to see the words "as if" or "thrust" as used in particular passages, and how that might inform doctrine, or at least an interesting light in which to interpret, I was overwhelmed by gratitude that God has given me a mind. THIS is what a mind is for, I thought. A mind can be used to sing praises to God. I, as someone whose body is limited in its capacity for exertion, was able to experience the joy of exertion in a way I imagine my husband experiences it when he is deep in competitive play with a ball or frisbee or racquet. I'm blessed in that I have the stamina to follow an essay or argument or story, written or oral, to its epiphany. I know people who do not, some of whom recognize what they're missing and mourn, and others who do not and therefore sometimes become unwise in their decisions, beliefs etc. because they assume they've gotten the gist of subtle arguments (I'm talking about people susceptible to believing that a soundbite has informed them on an issue).

Yuck—I'm thinking that might have just sounded like, "I’m grateful I'm smart! Because some people are dumb!" I just mean that I'm grateful God has given me access to this particular joy—that of reasoning.

2. WOW! Eric Jeppson, and James Goldberg, and Andrew Hall, and William Morris (and I'm so sorry if I'm forgetting someone) have managed, by sheer will power, to resurrect AML once again. Simply by making sure the awards, Irreantum, and the conference happened. Well, I guess it's not that simple. But they cared. And they pulled it off. I have at several times in my life been sure that AML was over with for good, and I'm so, so grateful that they have proven me wrong once again. Congratulations, and well done!

3. Berkeley seemed the perfect place for this. Let's just do it here every year, OK, Eric? (Which means you doing all the work, I guess.)

4. There is, of course, still a need for AML, and still a group of people who are nourished by it, exhilarated, even, to find each other and to come together and talk. And I remain convinced that there are more of us than we know but we just have to figure out how to find each other. How can we get the word out about who we are and what we do? How can we find our likeminded and thirsty fellows? This is the recurring question we have struggled with for years, and I don't mind being less responsible for finding the answer than I used to be. But I still care quite a bit. Nothing has been as nourishing to me for a long time. Surely there are ways to share it with others, but I just don't know how. And I'm too old and tired, I guess, to be a big part of solving this.

5. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it forever: there IS such a thing as rigorous, interesting, challenging art that is actually ART but which takes within it an attitude of faith. People are creating it. It's worthy. It deserves an audience, and support (and awards). Taking this more personally, I remind myself again and again: it is worthy and worthwhile to write for and about Mormons with all my heart and skill.

Some pictures:

Wonderings about Wonder Woman

So, I saw it. And now I'm wondering some things.

I wonder whether the people who loved it fall into one of two categories: 1) People who were already interested in all-things superheroes or comic book characters; 2) Women to whom the movie spoke about power, particularly female power, perhaps because they have felt less powerful in their lives, by virtue of being female, than they felt was right.

So, let me just say now that I fall into neither of these groups. I'm not that interested in superheroes and comics, and, in general, I have felt powerful in my own life and not held down by society's (Western, American, Mormon) expectations for me. I'm not criticizing you for having felt that way; I'm just saying this isn't where I'm coming from. So that's probably the biggest reason that the movie left me underwhelmed.

I'm not saying that it was a bad movie—it just didn't strike me as especially, well, anything. It was an OK movie, as far as action movies go. But nothing outstanding. FOR ME. I realize that this admission, and the further admission (which you probably already picked up on) that I don't even really care for action movies in general, means that I'm probably not qualified to even critique the movie and definitely not qualified to say anything interesting to those who loved this movie. Which, as it turns out, seems to be almost everyone who saw it! So .  . . I'm a loner, and chances are that at the very least, my comments will be boring to you, and at the most, I might offend. Sorry about that.

I'm just going to address a few of the "positive" things I've heard about the movie.

1. WW is a great example of a girl who is free—free of all the beliefs, expectations, roles, limitations about women that our crazy society (whether that means Western/European, American, or Mormon) imposes on women.

Hmmm. I can't say that I see this. I mean, yes, I see a girl being raised to believe that she is strong. No one will say this is a bad thing. But, really, "strong" in this situation seems to mean "as comfortable being physically violent, or at least aggressive, as highly trained Navy Seals," in particular. And although she does seem to want to seek nonviolent solutions, or at least hates killing for dumb reasons and using war as a problem-solver, I would have liked to see her be strong in other ways—in wisdom, for example. You could argue that she was smart (having read all those books, including the particularly-mentioned sex manuals, and knowing so many languages), but the director/story seems to bend over backwards to portray her as quite naïve, at least for most of the movie, which seemed to me to prevent her from seeming really smart.

I'm not sure why she is portrayed as naïve. Is it to show how shocking the violence of our society is? Strange that she'd be so surprised about that, considering how much of her growing-up time was spent in martial arts training, reading human history, etc. Maybe it is supposed to show true femininity or a peace-loving nature, to be so shocked at the evil in the world? Either way, that is less satisfying to me than if she had been shown to be strong in wisdom and understanding. What her naivete does, IMO, is to make her a pre-fallen Eve, childlike, when it is post-apple Eve, the one who consciously chose to progress and become more adult, who is the real superhero to me. And, in the case of WW, the "fall," or acquaintance with the fruit which brings a knowledge of good and evil, is something that happens to her (passively), not something she actively chooses. In this way she remains, to me, a symbol of the weak female to whom things happen, not the strong female that I recognize in the women around me who, having a full understanding of the evil around them, roll up their sleeves and get to work loving and serving.

2. WW decides, after seeing humanity in all of its weakness (post-"apple"), that she loves it anyway and finds it worth saving. Hmmm. Nice idea, but I'm not sure this is actually what the movie portrays. In the movie I saw, she loved one particular MAN, and did it all for him. Now this could be parsed one of two ways: either she is the typical boy-crazy female whose motivation comes from love (and seeking to be worthy) of one man, or she is showing us that a mature person can do the Christ-like thing of seeing good, and bad, in one individual, and also the Christ-like thing of loving others specifically and individually, thus finding them worth fighting for. This second option is, of course, much more worthy and interesting, but I'm not sure the movie supports this reading; the bad guys are certainly all bad, though it's true that the good guys are demonstrably flawed.

3. WW is a critique against violence: witness her fury at the concept of a machine gun. Ah, nope, I'm not with you on this one. How many hours a day was she training in violence on that island? And the first concern when she gets new clothes is whether she can kick in them? And how does she end up solving all problems—with more might and trickier violence (or cooler violent technology, her wristbands) than her enemy?

4. WW questions conventions in interesting ways: witness her question of why main-sexual-interest-guy won't sleep next to her. OK, well, I happen to believe that motherhood is an immensely important force in the universe. One of the reasons that marriage (and the honoring of marriage vows) is a good thing is that it is the best way to raise happy, healthy children. So I didn't think it was cute that she was naïve about the reasons why unmarried people should be careful about beginning a potentially sexual relationship. And that makes me wonder: where is motherhood in this movie? Look at the women on WW's home island: none of them are mothers in the actual biological sense. Why, then, do they have such obviously motherly figures? What are the breasts for, and why should we go out of our way to show them off?

I can't help feeling that at times, WW seems like a sexy Barbie doll trained to bat her innocent eyes at everyone and jump around doing cool acrobatic moves, free of the "restrictions" of motherhood and the way it ties women down. What if you took a woman and removed everything womanly about her, like motherhood, and a deep wisdom about the nature of humanity, and a desire to progress in that wisdom, and a desire to be in a deep, nurturing relationship with one man--except, of course, leave her with the womanly characteristics which are sexy—and then gave her a lot of training in violence so that she is a warrior? What would you have? I'm thinking what you'd have is a man with breasts.

5. I do share the yearning that many fans of this movie have expressed to see more (and to become myself) examples of females who are free from fear. And I do appreciate that WW showed us a woman not afraid to walk in scary places alone. I would really, really like to have that experience. In this way, I appreciated the vicarious experience of power that WW gave me. But there is one way that I feel unfree as a woman that this movie failed to address, and I feel great loss over this failure. That is, I don't feel free of society's expectations regarding my (and all females') appearance. I hate that I feel it's my duty to spend more time getting ready in the morning than my male acquaintances do, that I need to color my hair and keep my weight more particularly under control, etc. I hate that I lose time in my day to these things that I wouldn't if I were a man. You can argue that it appears that WW didn't spend much time in front of a mirror, but I think you'll agree with me that the choice of an extremely gorgeous, well-built, perfect-skinned actress didn’t make this particular "freedom" very clear. Oh, and the skimpy clothes had their own rhetoric as well. How would this movie have been different if WW had been a little heavier, a little less obviously gorgeous, and much more fully-clothed? (This, by the way, is why I think the choice for actress for Katniss in Hunger Games was so heartening. She was beautiful, but not stick-skinny, and what she said and did was always more important than how she looked. Katniss as a character had her own flaws, though; I admit that.) I, for one, would have found the character of WW in this movie a lot more freeing if she had been a little less of a sex symbol. But, I understand: sex sells. I guess the creators are betraying their own beliefs about men here, as much as their beliefs about women.

So there it is. I'm a Grinch, I know. I don't mean to stomp all over your spiritual experience, but the fact that so many women were moved by this movie says more to me about how much women yearn to hear great stories about themselves and their potential than about what good can come from this particular movie.